Loading...
PC MINS 20110322 Approved April 26, 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Tetreault at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Lewis, and Vice Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Chairman Tomblin was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, and Assistant Planner Harwell, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their March 15th meeting the City Council adopted the code amendments related to the Housing Element. He also reported that the City Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to not adopt a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or other maximum structure size limits and directed staff and the Planning Commission to implement an FAR code requirement to augment the existing neighborhood compatibility review process. Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 1, three items of correspondence and an elevation drawing for agenda item No. 2, one letter on agenda item No. 3, and three items of correspondence for agenda item No. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00331): 6530 La Garita Drive Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that the Planning Commission had previously continued this item with directions to the applicant to revise the project. He stated that the applicant has done so, however staff needs more time to do the analysis of the view. Further, staff has received quite a few comments on the item. Therefore, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to April 12th, and the applicant is in agreement. The Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to April 12, 2011 without objection. 2. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00252): 6480 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioners Lewis and Leon noted that they were not present at the last meeting when this item was heard, however both stated they had reviewed the minutes and felt they could participate in this hearing. Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and noting the revisions made by the applicant. She noted that the revised ridgeline continues to cause view impairment to the property at 3071 Deluna Drive, however staff did not feel this view impairment was significant. Therefore, staff was now able to make the fourth height variation finding. However, staff believes the remaining portion exceeding sixteen feet in height could be further reduced to reasonably minimize view impairment of the distant coastline and hills and that the portion exceeding sixteen feet would result in a significant cumulative view impairment. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the project. Commissioner Knight asked staff to clarify their concern with the view from 3071 Deluna Drive. Director Rojas explained that the applicant has lowered their proposed project, however there is still some coastline and ocean view that will be blocked. Staff's concern is with the finding that talks about impairment that is not significant and if the project is designed in such a manner that minimizes that impairment. He stated that the uniqueness of this issue is that it is a single story home and staff is questioning how it cannot be reduced to minimize the view impact, noting the interior ceilings are over fourteen feet in height. Commissioner Leon asked staff where the height of the structure is measured from. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that the height is measured from the existing grade. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how much of the new structure extends beyond the existing ridgeline. Assistant Planner Harwell stated that, according to the applicant, the area of proposed house which will extend beyond the existing ridge line is 43 square feet. Commissioner Knight noted that the applicant has proposed lowering the grade by an additional foot, and asked staff if they had any recommendations as to possibly lowering the grade even further to mitigate the view impact. Director Rojas explained that staff is not making any recommendations on how the applicant can mitigate the view impact since there are options. However, he noted that staff felt the applicant can lower the ceiling heights and/or lower the grade to mitigate the impact. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that there is currently a home on this applicant's property that is at a height above sixteen feet. The applicant is removing that structure and basically building back up to that same level. He asked staff what affect this has upon the Commission's view analysis and decision. Director Rojas stated that there is not a finding that asks the Commission to consider this. He noted that since the existing house is over sixteen feet in height, it is a non- conforming structure which means that once the existing house is demolished the applicant must ask for a discretionary approval in order to build over sixteen feet in height, even to match what was pre-existing. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if the Commission should give any weight in respect to the view analysis to the fact that the existing structure is already view impairing, and making a comparison between how much view is currently being impaired versus what will be impaired in the future. Director Rojas answered that in the determination of significant view impact is subjective and open to personal interpretation, and while the guidelines do not address this topic, it could be a factor for individual Commissioners in determining significant view impairment. Commissioner Knight noted, however, that this should be analyzed as a new home and not an addition onto an existing home. Gerald Thomas (applicant) stated that he and his architect have spend the last several weeks reviewing the video of the previous Planning Commission meeting and meeting with staff to better understand the concerns regarding this proposed project. He felt that the architect has worked for a solution that will satisfy the concerns of the neighbors and the City. He stated he has removed quite a number of trees and more will be removed, as well as a couple of power poles and the lines that go with them. He felt that the Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 3 proposed revisions meet the concerns of the city and the neighbors and hoped the project will be approved. David Martin (architect) stated that as a result of the last meeting where the Planning Commission asked him to be as aggressive as he felt he could, he has lowered the long ridge line of the main room down to 18 feet 6 inches, which is the height of the current house. He noted that the proposed house will be smaller than the existing house and there are going to be rather significant views gained, particularly towards the west. He explained that if he were to run the 16 foot ridgeline straight across it would create a continuous ridgeline of 94 feet which he feels architecturally would not be appropriate. He also explained that he looked at quite a number of alternatives, including creating a flat portion of the roof which would reduce the height by nine inches. He also felt he could take another three inches out of the plate line. Therefore, the ridgeline now shown at 18 feet 6 inches above the existing grade would be reduced to 17 feet six inches. He felt the articulation of the one portion of the roof is an important architectural aspect of the house. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Martin if, in his discussion of a flat roof, he was referring to a sloped parapet around a flat roof. Mr. Martin explained the roof would continue at the slope and where it got to three feet horizontal before the ridge beam, it would become flat so that there would be a flat portion six feet across. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Martin if he has presented staff with drawings which show the roof line nine inches lower, as he described earlier. Mr. Martin answered that he has not yet presented staff with any drawings showing the lower ridgeline. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Martin what he was asking the Planning Commission to approve, the drawings described in the staff report or a different version of the plan which shows a ridgeline nine inches lower. Mr. Martin stated that he would prefer the Commission approve the plan presented with the staff report, however the nine inch reduction is an option. He noted that one of the reasons he has not submitted this lower roofline is because of the added expense to the applicant to build such a roof line. Loyd Kenworthy (3071 Deluna Drive) explained that he had assumed the present house height at 18 feet 6 inches would be grandfathered in, and was surprised to learn that wasn't the case. He stated that in looking at the silhouette and in discussing the issues with Mr. Martin and Mr. Thomas, it appears that he will be gaining as much view as he will be losing. He noted that Mr. Thomas has removed some trees and stated he will remove several more. He stated he agrees with the revised and lowered silhouette. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 4 Charles Boaq explained his original concern regarding vegetation has been taken care of by the applicant. His other concern had been the guest house, and explained Mr. Martin pointed out several things to him that were helpful to him. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they have done a foliage analysis and are satisfied with the foliage that has been or will be removed. Director Rojas clarified that because staff's recommendation is for denial staff has n6t done a foliage analysis or added any conditions of approval regarding the foliage. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if, as a result of the new information provided by the architect regarding lowering the height of the structure, that would change any of staffs findings or recommendations regarding the project. Director Rojas answered that staffs position is that, as much as staff agrees that the applicant has done a tremendous amount of work in trying to reduce the height and impacts of the proposed residence, because of the way the finding is worded staff feels that in order to make the finding the height of the structure would have to be reduced to sixteen feet. He noted, however, that if the change is so negligible that there would be no discernable difference at a height over 16 feet, then staff may be able to support it. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to reject the staff's recommendation of denial and instead select alternative No. 1 in the staff report to approve the project as submitted and direct staff to bring back the appropriate resolution at the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Emenhiser understood why staff would recommend denial, however he felt that the owner has made a good faith effort to incorporate the concerns from the neighborhood in the redesign. He noted the house has been lowered by approximately three feet, quite a bit of vegetation has been and will be removed, and the power poles and lines are being removed. He felt that this was the type of thing the Planning Commission likes to see, a home being changed but within the rules and within the recommendations of the Commission. Commissioner Lewis disagreed and could not support the motion. He felt staff had the right recommendation of denial and stated he could not make the findings stated in sections 5 and 6 of the Resolution. He agreed with staff that the proposed structure height could be further reduced to minimize the view impairment impacts to the neighboring residents. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Lewis. He explained that he was reviewing this project as new construction and the fact that some buildings were there and some buildings are going away doesn't weigh into his decision. He felt that there is still view impairment, and even though it may not be significant, he explained that there Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 5 is a finding that must be made that even if the view impact is not significant the project must be designed to minimize view impact. He felt there is some redesign that would further minimize the view impact. He felt that a lower plate height and a redesign of the roof would not detrimentally impact the architectural style of the residence. He was also concerned with the cumulative impact of the proposed residence in terms of views. He stated he was inclined to see a redesign of the project and therefore could not support the motion. Commissioner Gerstner stated that at the last meeting he had indicated that if the overall height of the residence were lowered he could probably make the necessary findings. He noted that the architect did precisely that, and he believed he could make the necessary findings. Further, the neighbors who were opposed to the project previously have now said they are satisfied with the redesign and no longer oppose the project. Therefore, he was able to support the motion. Commissioner Leon noted that the applicant has redesigned the project, gotten agreement from the neighbors, and brought the project back before the Planning Commission. For those reasons he felt the cumulative impact is actually a plus to the neighborhood as long as the view that is gained is real and long lasting. However, if the property owner by right can allow foliage to grow up to sixteen feet then the view gained is not a real gain. Because of that, he cannot support the motion. Commissioner Knight pointed out that a new second unit is being built and if the motion were to go forward he recommended a separate covenant for the new second unit. Director Rojas stated that if the project is approved staff will have to prepare the appropriate Resolution and bring it back to the Commission for approval and that a condition regarding the covenant will be included. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he could not remember any other case before the Planning Commission such as this where there is a finding of no significant view impairment but the project is still above sixteen feet and finding No. 5 cannot be made because there is still some view impairment and the project could be lowered to reduce the view impairment. He explained that this is all part of Prop M, and while it does not necessarily make a lot of sense to him in this case, he did not think he could ignore it and the finding must be made. He therefore could not support the motion. Commissioner Lewis explained that when residents come before the Planning Commission and state they do not oppose a particular project, the Planning Commission still has an obligation to make the required findings and uphold the laws of the City. He noted the next owner of the property may have a very different idea as to what is considered an impairment of a view and what isn't an impairment. Therefore, while it is a good thing that this applicant has resolved the view issues with his neighbor it is not necessarily sufficient reason to approve a project. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 6 Commissioner Emenhiser explained that this applicant has gone from a situation where there was neighborhood opposition to a project, the applicant has made changes to the project, and there is no longer neighborhood opposition. He felt the Planning Commission should stand behind the good faith efforts made by the applicant. He did not think the City should stand on principle and reject the project over eighteen feet of roof line. Commissioner Knight recalled other projects where he could not make finding No. 5. He was pleased that the applicant could work things out with the neighbor, however he looks at the way the code is designed, which is to establish uniform urban planning,for the City so that there is an even application of laws and an even look to the City. He stated he does take into consideration what the neighbors say about a project, however ultimately he has to go by what he feels is the proper application of the law. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that he has questioned staff in the past as to the effect that non-opposition by the neighbors of a proposed project has on the decision of the Planning Commission when certain findings cannot be made. He stated that what the Planning Commission does has precedence and has an impact on other projects that come before the Commission. Therefore, even though the neighbors may not have an objection to this project, there can be another property owner who may propose something similar to this and cite that the Planning Commission did approve a project where finding No. 5 could not be made. He therefore felt it is important that there be some consistency in the Planning Commission decisions. The motion to approve the project failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Lewis, Leon, Knight, and Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Commissioner Lewis felt that this is the kind of application, because of the good faith and because of the lack of opposition from the neighborhood, that instead of providing a motion to outright deny the project this would be one of the circumstances where he would support a redesign to try to lower the height of the structure. He noted that he did not feel he could support any structure over sixteen feet in height. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the project without prejudice, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Leon stated he would prefer the process of continuation and redesign over denial of the project. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion and Commissioner Knight withdrew his second of the motion. Commissioner Leon moved to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 7 Commissioner Leon moved to amend his motion to add language that the redesign must be within the sixteen foot height limitation. This amendment to the motion died due to the lack of a second. Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission votes to continue this item they should do so to a date certain, noting the next available date is April 26th Vice Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant his opinion on the motion and if he would prefer the Planning Commission deny the project to allow him the opportunity to take this to the City Council on appeal. Gerald Thomas began by stating that one of the Commissioner's had expressed concern that he can plant trees on his property that will grow up to sixteen feet in height. He explained he has no intention of planting such trees in the area in question since there will be a septic tank there and because planting the trees would affect his own view. Secondly, in regards to the sixteen foot height limit, he stated that staff's findings are subjective, and rightly so. However, he felt that part of the City's law give the Planning Commission the ability to be objective. He asked for clarification from the Commission and/or staff as to whether or not he has to go all the way down to sixteen feet in height and the question of grading quantity versus height. Director Rojas explained that grading is subjective but typically is very stringent and restrictive when modifying slopes. He stated that when grading is done on pads to lower a pad to help with views, staff is more tolerable in making the findings. Commissioner Gerstner asked if staff would therefore generally not object to this problem being solved by additional grading on the pad. Director Rojas stated that was correct, but pointed out that the code requires the sixteen feet to be measured from the existing grade. Commissioner Leon did not think the sixteen feet was the absolute limit for minimizing the view impact. He felt there are more elements to view impact than the sixteen foot maximum ridgeline height. He felt that the applicant has made a good faith attempt to balance the view he took away with the view that he added. Unfortunately, the applicant ran into a problem in that the view he added is not a permanent view. He realized that the applicant can agree to not put in foliage, however the next owner might let the foliage grow up and the adjacent owner would have no recourse. He stated that he might accept something over sixteen feet in height if it was balanced with real view addition. Commissioner Emenhiser noted he voted in favor of the current application. Commissioner Lewis stated the height would have to be very close to the sixteen foot height limit for him to be able to make the necessary findings. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 8 Commissioner Knight stated he had trouble making finding No. 5 and that there is some leeway in the design. He also stated that he would look towards the sixteen foot height, but would be open to something over sixteen feet. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he was able to make the findings for the current proposal. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he does not have a hard and fast sixteen foot rule in regards to this project, but felt at this point the proposed project could be lowered a bit more. David Martin agreed to the continuation to allow for a redesign and asked if he should redo the silhouette at the site to reflect whatever changes are being made to the design. Director Rojas responded that staff has done so much analysis on this site that they feel they can base any changes on the current silhouette. The Commission agreed that the project did not need a new silhouette. The motion to continue the public hearing to the April 26th meeting was approved, (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Appeal of Director's denial for a Special Use Permit (Case No. ZON2010- 00366): 27501 Western Avenue Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the Director denied the Special Use Permit request for the continued use of two temporary modular buildings currently being used at Green Hills to the year 2020, and the applicant is appealing this decision. She gave a brief timeline of the use for the two temporary buildings at the site, and the reasons given for the appeal. She explained that staff feels the points of the appeal are not warranted, as staff is of the opinion that the structures are temporary in purpose and appearance and are no longer necessary for the purpose in which they were originally approved to be located at the site. Further, because the temporary structures have never gone through the typical developmental review process for permanent structures staff believes the further long term use of these structures is detrimental to the public health and welfare. As such, staff is recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the City prohibits the use of modular buildings in the General Retail and Commercial zones within the City. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that modular buildings are not prohibited in the General Retail or Commercial zones. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 9 Commissioner Leon asked how far the modular buildings are from the neighborhood to the north. Assistant Planner Harwell answered the modular buildings are over 300 feet from the neighborhood to the south. Commissioner Leon commented that he went out to the area and the modular buildings were actually hard to find. He felt that there is quite a bit of landscaping in the area and they look consistent with a parking area or utility work yard area. Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. John Resich (appellant) explained that Green Hills has used these buildings for a long period of time and the buildings are shielded by landscaping on all sides so that they are not visible to the surrounding neighborhoods. He noted that the buildings house the sales staff, who absolutely have to be on the site. The buildings also have offices for the administrative officers as well as a conference room. He explained the conference room is used for families to meet and for various grief seminars for the public. He felt to lose these buildings and take them off site would be impossible, as the employees would not have the ability to come back and forth and serve the families in any manner. He is asking that these buildings not be looked at as modular buildings but rather as pre-fab buildings. He stated he is more than willing to do whatever it takes to make them look more attractive. He also noted that he believes these buildings meet all code requirements for modular buildings and comply with all California codes. He added that if there is any code they do not comply with they will be brought up to standards. He also noted there is a permanent handicapped ramp and handicapped restrooms in both buildings. He asked that the Commission allow Green Hills to maintain these buildings for the time period requested. Roger Metzler stated he lives on Avenida Feliciano. He referred to the appeal letter submitted and questioned the accuracy of the point regarding the possibility of termination of twenty five employees. He felt that the number was exaggerated. He also referred to the point made that the modular buildings do not look like modular buildings and fit in with the rest of the architecture on site. He disagreed and stated these buildings very much look like modular buildings. John Resich (in rebuttal) explained that the twenty five individuals referenced are not permanently housed in these buildings, but rather they come and go from the site. In regards to the buildings themselves, Green Hills will do whatever is reasonable to help shield them from the neighborhood and to change their appearance. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted this issue has been before the Planning Commission several times before with the same buildings and the same request, with an outcome being a limited amount of time that Green Hills can continue operating with those buildings in place. He asked Mr. Resich how this application is any different from the previous ones which resulted in a denial. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 10 Mr. Resich answered that the difference is the economy has not substantially changed, that Green Hills is willing to change the look of these buildings, and the State Code as well as the Municipal Code does not prohibit these types of pre-fab or modular buildings in commercial areas. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if there has been any effort on the part of Green Hills to have a permanent solution other than just maintaining thee buildings. Mr. Resich answered that they have discussed numerous permanent solutions, one being to convert the garage immediately to the east of the buildings to additional spaces. He explained that they only have a limited amount of space that is non- dedicated and they are trying to avoid taking dedicated space and converting it, as it is a long arduous process with the State to change the use of the space. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff why the request is for nine years. Director Rojas did not know why Green Hills was requesting nine years. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff to explain when modular buildings are permitted, when they are not permitted, and when they can be a permanent structure. Director Rojas explained that the Code does not address modular buildings. Historically, the City has approved them through a Special Use Permit process. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there are currently any of these types of structures within the City being used as a permanent structure. Director Rojas answered that the only one being used without a Special Use Permit that he is aware of is the one at City Hall being used by PV on the Net. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if they had a comment on Mr. Resich's statements that these buildings comply with all applicable Building and Safety codes. Director Rojas responded that the State governs these types of structures, and as far as he is aware there are no violations with regards to these particular structures. Commissioner Gerstner pointed out that the State guidelines for these structures are significantly different from the construction guidelines for structures within the City. He noted that these standards are a much lower set of standards because the use is intended as temporary. Commissioner Lewis moved to uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 11 Commissioner Lewis stated that the circumstances giving rise to these buildings was temporary in nature, and those circumstances no longer exist. He felt the City has given the applicant ample time to find a permanent solution and the therefore supports staffs recommendation. Commissioner Knight agreed, noting the modular buildings have been in place for over six years. He explained that the main purpose for the approval of the temporary buildings was to have these in place while the administration building was being constructed and were never intended to be permanent structures. Commissioner Leon felt that these are difficult economic times and that this is a business and the Commission should be reasonable with a business. He noted these buildings are in a fairly out of the way position within the sight of the cemetery. He agreed modular structures are meant to be temporary, but people live in modular structures. He would therefore support the applicant keeping these structures for some period of time, possibly four to five additional years. Commissioner Lewis felt that putting a firm deadline on these modular buildings will help the property owner make some permanent plans for the future, and it is the Commission's responsibility to give them that guidance. Vice Chairman Tetreault explained his difficulty with the history of these buildings and doing anything other than supporting the Director's action brings into question why the City didn't grant these applications earlier. He was not sure of what has really changed at the site over time that would change the decision. He felt that the City should be consistent with its decision. The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's denial, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-15 was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Leon dissenting. 4. General Plan update — proposed changes to the existing Land Use Map regarding areas "A", "B", "C", and "D" Commissioner Lewis stated that, on the advice of the City Attorney, he will recuse himself from item No. 4 since his property is located within one of the areas that will be discussed. He also noted that in regards to item No. 5, the minutes, he was not at the February 22nd meeting. Therefore, he stated he would be leaving the meeting at this time. Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, noting the Commission has finished their review of the draft text of the General Plan update but still need to review the Land Use Map. He showed the Land Use Map adopted in 1975 that is currently being used by the City, as well as the current Zoning Map. He explained how staff has been able to use the Zoning Map, which is parcel specific, to better identify where land use boundaries on the Zoning Map affect properties and where they do not affect properties. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 12 In regards to the General Plan update, he explained that staff is preparing a Land Use Map that is parcel specific and in doing so staff is finding inconsistencies or ambiguities between the Open Space Hazard and the Hazard location. Staff is attempting to fix this ambiguity by having the new General Plan Land Use Map be parcel specific and having the hazard designation be the same as the existing zoning designation. He explained that what is before the Commission is the clean-up of four different areas within the City. Commissioner Knight stated there is currently a process for a resident to appeal the placement of the Open Space Hazard boundaries. He asked if someone were to do that would they now also have to amend the General Plan now that the map will be parcel specific. Deputy Director Pfost answered that they will have to amend the General Plan. Commissioner Knight asked if that is a change from the current procedure. Deputy Director Pfost responded that it is a change from the current procedure. He added that it may be possible to identify something in the Municipal Code or identify a procedure which would allow for the movement of up to thirty feet. He noted that currently one can move their zoning boundary thirty feet through an interpretation procedure through the Director. Commissioner Knight asked, with the creation of this new map, is the City creating new existing non-conforming properties. Deputy Director Pfost answered that this map will not create new non-conforming properties, as staff is taking the existing adopted Zoning Map with zoning boundaries and making this map consistent with the Zoning Map. Commissioner Gerstner felt there is a fair amount of interpretation involved in order to determine where the actual line on the map is located relative to the property. He questioned how tightly staff interprets where the line is located on the property and whether there are survey points or intersect lines on edges of property or if it is more an interpretation by staff. Deputy Director Pfost explained that it is an interpretation by staff. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if, while going through the current process, it would be possible to look at these properties in regards to the hazard lines to see if these boundaries are accurately placed. He felt that the City puts a large burden on a property owner who comes to the City to ask that this line be moved, when the boundary seems to have been placed, in many cases, erroneously. Deputy Director Pfost agreed that it would be nice to be able to make those changes, however it would be a very expensive process and has not been budgeted for. He also Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 13 noted that at a past workshop with the City Council staff brought up the issue on how to go about doing this and the City Council directed staff move in the current direction. Director Rojas added that is why there is the interpretation procedure in the code, as it acknowledges that the hazard line may not be precise. He suggested staff look at the adjustment process and possible put more leeway into the process so that individual property owners have the ability to adjust the line based on their own geology. Commissioner Gerstner felt the City may be implying specificity that does not exist. He suggested adding a statement in the General Plan that specifically acknowledges the ambiguity and says that line wasn't established based on geology and therefore there is a specific appeal process in order to more accurately determine the line on a case by case basis. Deputy Director Pfost agreed with Commissioner Gerstner that having some sort of statement in the General Plan acknowledging there may be ambiguity on the map is a good idea. Commissioner Leon also agreed that the City has implied a higher degree of specificity than we actually have data to support. However, his concern was that the City protect the General Plan from having to be amended every time the open space hazard line is moved on the Zoning Map. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if this new General Plan Map will be replacing the Zoning Map, and if not, why the City has two maps. Deputy Director Pfost explained there are two maps because the General Plan Land Use Map is the governing document which generally describes properties and there is the Zoning Map, which goes into more specificity. He added that the Zoning Map gets more specific in the residential areas by identifying the RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4 areas within the same land use identified in the General Plan Land Use Map. He explained that current problem is that, because the Land Use Map is different from the Zoning Map, there are inconsistencies between the two. He stated that State law requires the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan land use. Therefore, staff is attempting to make them consistent by making the maps the same. Commissioner Leon stated that the only time the two maps will be consistent is when the City adopts the maps. As time goes on the Zoning Map will tend to have changes unless the City goes through a General Plan amendment with each change. He strongly suggested that staff makes sure the General Plan stays general so that there are not inconsistencies. Deputy Director Pfost agreed, noting that the Director had suggested looking into an adjustment so that there is more leeway so that staff does not have to go back to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map every time there is a these boundary line issue. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 14 Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Fred Zscheile (27060 Silver Moon Lane) referred to staff's slide showing the current General Plan Land Use Map and the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. He questioned why there is such a drastic change in the two maps. He agreed there is vagueness in the boundaries, which is what is driving his concern. He pointed out on the map where his property is located, noting the location of his residence and pool. He stated that the new open space hazard designation will go right through the middle of his home. He also pointed out that the area on his property is all flat land. He stated that he has listed out a series of questions that was included with the staff report. He asked if there are limitations to the use of the land if it is open space hazard. He also asked if his house is destroyed due to a natural disaster can he rebuild the home in the same spot. He questioned if there is a tax adjustment made on open space hazard land as he did not feel he has the same building rights on the land. He asked about the ramifications from an insurance perspective and will the insurance company insure him on open space hazard land. He asked that the City not burden residents with the need to do a geology report and to work on the interpretation procedure. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Zscheile, if the new General Plan map corresponds with the Zoning map, would he still have an issue with what staff is doing with the General Plan map. Mr. Zscheile answered that if you believe that area D is correct then, no, he does not have an issue. However, he clearly did not think area D is not correct. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to respond to the speakers issues. Deputy Director Pfost responded that Mr. Zscheile correctly notes that the open space hazard boundary line on the zoning maps sometimes goes onto flat property or can sometimes bisect a house or pool. He explained that this is the map that was adopted by the City and staff has to use this map. However, the Municipal Code allows for a deviation in that line and allows the line to be moved up to 30 feet with a geology report. He also noted that he could not recall an instance where the City has not approved a request to move the line. Director Rojas also explained that if a home were entirely within an OH zone and it was destroyed because of fire or other reason, the Open Space Hazard zoning allows that 'house to be replaced. Susan Taus referred to a cream colored area on staff's display and asked what that areas represented. She stated she was able to see some construction going on in that area and also asked if any more construction was proposed. Deputy Director Pfost explained it is an area zoned RSA-5 or residential with one dwelling unit per five acres. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 15 Nina Neumann asked what exactly it means if an area is designated as "hazard". She also questioned if a portion of your property is designated hazard can that portion of the property be used in any way. Director Rojas read the definition of open space hazard area according to the zoning code. Deputy Director Pfost added that the General Plan definition almost mirrors the zoning definition. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff what a property owner can do with land that is designated open space hazard. Deputy Director Pfost answered that a property owner can build minor things, such as fences and walls, but cannot build additions to their residence or swimming pools. He stated this is why some residents have moved their boundary line, so they can build an addition or swimming pool on their property. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if changing the General Plan maps will affect anyone's ability to build on their property. Deputy Director Pfost answered that it will not change what is already in place, since changing these maps will not do anything more than the Zoning Code already does, and the Zoning Code is the legal document that says what one can and cannot do on their property. Staff is trying to make the General Plan map consistent with that legal document. Commissioner Gerstner asked, now that we have the technology, why the City couldn't do a slope analysis on these properties to establish where the 35 percent slope starts at a more practical and accurate location. Director Rojas agreed, however he noted that a slope analysis doesn't deal with the geology and he questioned if it was prudent to just move the lines based on topography not knowing the underlying geology. Commissioner Gerstner argued that these lines were established without any geology in the first place and therefore moving the line without geology should be irrelevant. Deputy Director Pfost pointed out that the Municipal Code requires that geology be done before this line can be moved, and to do so without geology is a fairly large leap. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if any geology had been done to establish this line in the beginning he would agree, however since he did not believe any geology was done he did not think it was a leap at all. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 16 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map as related to areas A, B, C, and D, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would be more comfortable with this if the slope analysis was done and compared to the existing map. Deputy Director Pfost explained that by doing this it would create a Land Use Map that was inconsistent with the adopted Zoning Map. Commissioner Gerstner disagreed, as he felt that he was suggesting they establish the edge of the open space hazard based on some criteria that actually within the definition of what is hazardous. He added that he would feel good about saying this is a great map if he had knew why something is Open Space Hazard versus not Open Space Hazard other than it matches something on a previous map. Deputy Director Pfost stated that could be done, but staff would have to go to the City Council with the request. Commissioner Leon stated he supported Commissioner Gerstner's request to put logical and accurate maps in the General Plan and use that as the guiding document in the Code as opposed to the other way around. He also felt that maps in the General Plan should be general and not specific, implying accuracy that not only does not exist, but is incorrect. Commissioner Knight stated he agreed in principle in trying to use an overlay GIS, but would prefer to check with the City Attorney before doing so. He also favored looking into interpretation boundaries to help implement this process and would like to see some staff suggestions in this regards. The motion to approve staff's recommendation was approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Leon dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of February 22, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault noted a revision to page 11 of the minutes The Commissioner unanimously approved the minutes as amended, with Commissioner Leon abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on April 12, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 17 The Commission revised and approved the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 22,2011 Page 18