Loading...
PC MINS 19940222APPROVED �� o�1A►� 3/8/94 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 22, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M., by Chairman Alberio at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Commissioner Vannorsdall. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferraro, Hayes, Vannorsdall, Wang, Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman Alberio ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, and Assistant Planner Klopfenstein. COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - Director Bernard suggested taking agenda items out of order, and discussing the Development Code Revisions last, because there are speakers in the audience for the other two items. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. B. COMMISSION - Commissioner Ferraro asked about the correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Winkler distributed at the last Planning Commission meeting as she did not receive a copy. Staff advised that this was a thank you letter to the previous Commission, so the four new Commissioners did not receive a copy. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of February 8, 1994 Changes were suggested as follows: Commissioner Hayes asked, regarding page 11, in the next to the last paragraph in the sentence beginning "Vice Chairman Mowlds said ......new roof mounted equipment", if this refers to residential and/or commercial? Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that he was referring to commercial; therefore, the sentence will be revised to read: "new commercial roof mounted equipment". Commissioner Wang, regarding page 6, in the next to the last paragraph, requested that the last sentence should be reworded to read "If there is no fence...." Chairman Alberio, regarding page 12, in the 7th paragraph, stated that he was wrong about the concrete requirement. Chairman Alberio PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 1 stated that he had checked the Uniform Building Code and that for any commercial area, the requirement is actually 3,000 pound concrete. The Minutes are correct, but his statement was not. Director Bernard noted that the February 8, 1994 Minutes will stand, but a note will be placed in these Minutes (February 22, 1994) indicating Chairman Alberiols comment. Chairman Alberio, regarding page 13, in the third paragraph from bottom in the sentence beginning "Vice Chairman Mowlds ...... 11, requested that the word "crises" should be replaced with "crisis". Commissioner Hayes made motion to approve the February 8, 1994 minutes with changes and it was seconded by Commissioner Wang. Approved (6-0-1), with Commissioner Vannorsdall abstaining as he was not present at the February 8, 1994 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Variance No. 370, Site Plan Review No. 7414; David and Laura Purvis, 4232 Exultant Drive. (KK) Assistant Planner Klopf enstein read the Staff Report. Mr. and Mrs. Purvis are requesting a Variance for a 380 sq. ft. master bedroom, bathroom and laundry expansion which would encroach.121 into the required 201 front yard setback, resulting in an 81 setback from the front property line to the proposed structure. In addition, they submitted Site Plan Review No. 7414 for construction of a pool and spa in the level rear yard area, which will be reviewed ministerially by Staff. Staff has reviewed the building permits for the homes located on Exultant Drive and found that they were constructed with a minimum 201 front yard setback. However, the adjacent property located at 4222 Exultant Drive received, through administrative error, an after -the -fact Variance for construction of the garage which encroaches 121 into the front setback area. In this case, the location of the front property line was improperly identified on the submitted plans, and Staff did not discover the encroachment until substantial construction had taken place. Since the subject property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Purvis meets the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district and is rectangular in shape with a large level area in the rear yard which can be developed, Staff does not feel that there is a physical hardship or any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which apply to the lot; therefore, Staff is unable to make all the findings that are required and necessary to approve the Variance request and recommended denial of the project. I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 2 David and Laura Purvis, (applicants) 4232 Exultant Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. David Purvis noted that there were four findings mentioned in the Staff Report to be considered in order to grant a Variance. Finding No. 1: Are there exceptional and extraordinary conditions applicable to the property? Mr. Purvis felt there were and noted the following: (1) A large garage in the back yard constrains their ability to build in the back. In canvassing the neighborhood, he has found that there is only one other house in the neighborhood with a garage in the rear. Building into the back yard was considered, but this would necessitate that 600 sq. ft. being added instead of the proposed 380 sq. ft. This larger square footage would impinge on the 50% open space requirement, which in itself would necessitate a Variance. (2) There are five large eucalyptus trees in the back which would have to be removed in order to build the swimming pool and spa, if the addition were built onto the back of the house. Finding No. 2: Is the Variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which others enjoy? Mr. Purvis stated that the next door neighbor was allowed to build a garage with the same Variance they are requesting. He understood it was after -the -fact, but noted that it was still a Variance. Findings 3 and 4: Will the granting of the Variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare or cause visual impact? Mr. Purvis mentioned that there is no sidewalk on his side of the street; therefore, the setback encroachment will have less of a visual impact. He added that all the neighbors who had received notices from the City had all been contacted by the applicant and that they all indicated their approval of the project. Well over half, 60-70%, indicated that they preferred that the Purvis' build at the front of the house rather than add a second story. Mr. Purvis indicated that they had looked at all alternatives (building in the front, back, and adding a second story) to avoid the need for a Variance. He added that he believed this addition would enhance the house and would not detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Wang asked how many trees would have to be removed in order to build in the back? Mrs. Laura Purvis replied that at least three would have to be removed, maybe four. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 3 Commissioner Wang mentioned that in the Purvis' application, they stated that several houses in the tract have this kind of Variance; however, the City says that there is only the one next door. Mr. Purvis said he would refer this question to his general contractor, Bruce Burrell, who would be speaking next. In response to Chairman Alberiols question of whether the trees would need to be removed to build the swimming pool, Mr. Purvis advised that this would not be necessary. Vice Chairman Mowlds commented that their neighbor's receiving the after -the -fact Variance through an error did not mean that they should have the same Variance. Mr. Purvis replied that he understood that it was within the Planning Commission's power to have had the garage next door torn down rather than grant the after -the -fact Variance. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that the City Council, about a month ago, indicated that would have been their action. He added that variances are granted very carefully and that he did not consider the conditions Mr. Purvis mentioned to be exceptional and extraordinary. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he felt this project was not compatible with the neighborhood and that in asking for a Variance, Mr. Purvis is asking the Commission to ignore a whole section of the Code. Mr. Purvis replied that he was only responding to the points brought out in the Staff Report; however, the neighbors have indicated they felt the addition would be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked for details about the administrative error which allowed the after -the -fact Variance and added that the applicant has to realize that the neighbors obtained this Variance through error, not because it was being condoned. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein replied that, according to Public Works Department records, the front property line begins 121 back from the curb. In 1989, when the plans were approved for the property at 4222 Exultant Drive, the front property line was misidentified and not until the garage was substantially under construction, did the Building Department discover the error and issue a stop work order. The property owners submitted an application for an after -the -fact Variance, paid the penalty fees, and had a hearing before the Planning Commission. Planning Administrator Petru stated that, when granting after -the - fact Variances, the Planning Commission is not required to make the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 4 four mandatory findings. They only need to make the finding of administrative error. In the particular case under discussion, the property owner had proceeded with their project in good faith and, ultimately, a Variance was granted. Bruce Burrell, (contractor/ architect representing the applicant) 87 Marguerite Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Burrell stated that building into the backyard was investigated, but reiterated what Mr. Purvis had said regarding the garage and the trees. Positioning the master suite on the back on the house would have necessitated removing the walls of two of the bedrooms to gain access to the back yard. These two bedrooms would have had to be re -configured, causing a larger sized addition. With the addition in the back, along with the pool, there would be almost no yard left for the children to play and for the family dog. Although the maximum 500 lot coverage would probably be met, it would be very close. An investigation of adding a second story revealed that there would be a beautiful view of Smuggler's Cove. Unfortunately, it appeared that the view of the neighbor above, on Stalwart Drive, would be destroyed. Knowing that second story additions had been very divisive in the neighborhood, Mr. Burrell advised against this plan. The best option seemed to be enlarging the existing master bedroom toward the front with a walk-in closet, adding a new bathroom, and converting the existing master bathroom into a laundry room, using the same plumbing. Mr. Burrell concluded that homes are not designed or built in a vacuum, that vegetation must be considered, and that this project was approved by 1000 of the neighbors. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked Mr. Burrell if he was aware that the existing house did not meet code, that a portion of the house was in the front yard setback? Mr. Burrell said he was aware of that fact. In response to Commissioner vannorsdall's question as to who measured the dimensions shown on the plans, Mr. Burrell answered that he had measured them himself from the curb. Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested that a feasible compromise design might be to reduce the size of the addition, so that the addition would extend out to the existing wall of the residence that is closest to the front property line. Commissioner Wang agreed that this sounded like a good plan. She also asked about the other Variances in the neighborhood. Mr. Burrell stated that, as he drove through the neighborhood, it appeared to him that there were a lot of houses which had reduced PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 5 r front yard setbacks. Contributing to this close feeling on other streets is that fact that there is no sidewalk on this particular section of Exultant as there is in most other parts of the neighborhood; giving it a more open feeling. Commissioner Whiteneck felt that the mistake next door was no justification for continuing that mistake and that an alternative design should to be investigated which would comply with the Code. Mr. Burrell wanted to make sure it was understood that he and the applicants did not know this was an after -the -fact Variance at the time the plans were submitted but that he understood Commissioner Whiteneck's comment. Commissioner Hayes agreed with Commissioner Whiteneck. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that he preferred investigating the possibility of continuing this item to provide time for an alternative design to be developed. Chairman Alberio agreed with the other Commissioners that it would be a good idea to look at a compromise design. Edward Graf, 4271 Admirable Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Graf commented that the Planning Commission had allowed many second story additions in the neighborhood which he felt were devaluing his property. He stressed that there should be more to remodeling homes than just Code, that the neighborhood should be considered and how the changes affected other people. He felt that these second story additions blocked the views of other people. Commissioner Hayes reminded Mr. Graf that the Code also protects views. Mr. Graf said that the Code does not say anything about the non - view houses and that he does not have a view. He expressed his opinion that the Code is one-sided, since it only protects 50% of the people. Elsie Graf, 4271 Admirable Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes. Mrs. Graf expressed her concern for neighborhood compatibility. The second story additions allowed by the Planning Commission on Admirable Drive created a lot of turmoil in the neighborhood and there are people who don't speak to each to other any more. It had been said that views are protected but these people already had a view so she did not understand why they needed a second story. She noted that her home was on the non -view side, and wondered if the Planning Commission would allow her to build a second story to obtain a view. She added that the second story option was given to the Purvis' by the Planning Commission but she supported the plan they PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 6 0 1 0 are proposing instead. She felt the Purvis' should have the right to build on the front of their house because they have approval from all the neighbors, which is very different from the situation in which all the neighbors were against the second story additions. After Mrs. Graf's questions were answered by Staff regarding various measurements on the plan, she was of the opinion that the debate was over a 4 1/21 encroachment beyond the existing front facade currently closest to the street into the setback. Director Bernard explained that the discussion was not about the difference between the two portions of the house, but about the relationship of the house to the front property line and the curbline. Vice Chairman Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Whiteneck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried -7-0. Director Bernard indicated that, other than the after -the -fact Variance next door, granted because of an error, no other house in the neighborhood had been granted a Variance to build into the front yard setback. He emphasized that the granting of a Variance is a very, very important matter to the commission. It is one of the few portions of the Code in which the State requires the City to make all four findings. If the Commission were to grant this Variance, a precedent would be set for every other property owner on that street to potentially be granted the same Variance. Even though the neighbors may not object to this particular project, they might not agree with future plans of other residents. The reason the City has adopted setback areas in the front yard is to keep houses separated to maintain an open space corridor between them. Chairman Alberio asked for comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that he agreed with Director Bernard regarding the danger of setting a precedent. He asked Staff why there is a sidewalk only one side of the street at this location, while down the block, the street has sidewalks on both sides? Planning Administrator Petru stated that there may have been different County requirements at the various times the Seaview tract was developed. The upper portion of the tract was built at a different time than the lower portion. Another possibility was that the road may have been widened at some point and the sidewalk taken out, although research would have to be done to make a definite determination. Commissioner Vannorsdall wondered about the possibility that a sidewalk might be put in later on this side of the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 7 Planning Administrator Petru replied that there was always that potential since the City has a 121 right of way. Commissioner Vannorsdall expressed concern that the visual impact of granting this Variance would become even more obvious if a sidewalk were put in. He repeated that a compromise seemed appropriate, with possibly about 81 added, which would bring the addition up to the front wall of the existing living room. Commissioner Wang understood the precedent situation but was also interested in the human point of view, including the fact that the applicant had the support of all the neighbors. She favored a compromise. Commissioner Whiteneck disagreed that the support of the neighbors was significant because State Codes have been established over many years of experience and they are put in for specific reasons. He felt strongly that a precedent should not be set. commissioner Whiteneck was interested in the details of a compromise plan and wondered if a Variance would even be needed if the project was re- designed to match the living room setback. Director Bernard explained that a Variance would still be required for building in line with the living room, but it would be for less than a 60% encroachment into the setback area. Commissioner Ferraro commented that the decision should be based on the four findings required by State law. The neighbors were in favor of the project and, from her observation, if the Purvis' addition were done well, it would not necessarily have a negative visual effect. However, she was concerned about neighborhood compatibility and felt that a compromise to build less into the setback would be best. She was most worried about the fact that the circumstances did not seem exceptional and extraordinary and wondered if they truly constituted a serious design problem. She agreed with Mr. Burrell, that homes are not built in a vacuum and that vegetation must be considered. She expressed her concern for setting a precedent and favored a compromise. Because of the economy, people are not exchanging homes as in the past and she would like to accommodate the Purvis' in enlarging their home. Commissioner Ferraro also mentioned that aesthetics were a factor because there were no windows for the front facade indicated on the plans. Commissioner Hayes felt this project was not compatible with neighborhood and that there were no extenuating circumstances. It was a violation of General Plan and Development Code and would come back to haunt either this Commission or future commissions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 8 Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that it was not the Commission's job to redesign the house, but they could give general parameters. He did not agree with Commissioner Ferraro that granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area. However, in the worst case, if every homeowner on both sides of the street received the same Variance of 121 into the front yard setback, the corridor between the houses would be reduced by 241. Therefore, Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he favored some type of compromise. Chairman Alberio stated that he would like to make sure that this development falls into the parameters of the Development Code and repeated that if a sidewalk is added, and this is a very real possibility, the lack of open space would become more obvious. He requested the architect and the applicant to develop a plan that respected the minimum setback. Vice chairman Mowlds made a motion to accept Staff recommendation No. 3, which is to direct the applicant to redesign the project to address any concerns of the Planning commission and to reopen the public hearing and continue the item to March 8, 1994. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion carried (6-1) on the following roll call vote: AYES; FERRARO, WHITENECK, WANG, VANNORSDALL, MOWLDS, AND ALBERIO NOES; HAYES NEW BUSINESS Conditional Use Permit No. 136, et.al. - Time Extension; Monaghan Company, 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South. (CP) Planning Administrator Petru read the Staff Report. On July 2, 1991, the City Council approved the Long Point Resort Hotel project for a 450 -room hotel structure with facilities such as a conference room, 9 -hole golf course, and two free standing restaurants. The life of these permits, as they were originally conditioned, was for a two-year period. The application was appealed to the Coastal Commission. However, the Coastal Commission did eventually approve a Coastal Permit. Although the City and the Coastal Commission's permits are valid for a two year period, the life of each permit commences on a different date. The Coastal Permit starts from the date that the appeal was first presented to the Coastal Commission for consideration while the City's permits start on the date of the Coastal Commission's final action on the appeal. As a result, the Coastal Permit expired last September and the Monaghan Company was granted a one-year time extension. The City permits expiration PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 9 date was February 18, 1994, and if the Planning Commission grants a one-year time extension, to February 1995, the life of the permits will remain out -of -synch. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant the time extension to September 11, 1994, thus enabling Staff and the public to more easily track the progress of this project. In the time extension request, the Monaghan Company also asked for modifications to several conditions of approval relating to precise plans that were to be submitted - such as a golf course plan, public amenities plan, parking plan, etc. These were set on 120 - day time clocks and, because the financing of the project has been uncertain, Staff has continually renewed those 120 -day periods to the end of the life of the Conditional Use Permit. However, a consideration of these changes requires a public hearing so this issue has been separated from this time extension request and will come to the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use Permit Amendment within the next few months. Commissioner Ferraro asked about the expiration date of February 18 having passed. Planning Administrator Petru explained that this was not a problem because the Monaghan Company had submitted their request before that date, along with the $100 extension fee. Simon Whitmey, SW Consulting, 30011 Ivy Glenn Drive, #102, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 (representing the Monaghan Company). Mr. Whitmey requested favorable consideration of the Planning Commission for the time extension for this project. He added that he would have preferred a one-year extension, so that they would not have to come back so soon, but understood the problem regarding the "out -of - synch" permits. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Ms. Larue commented that because of the efforts of "Save Our Coastline 2000" group, the City will have a park and more access to the coastline once the project is constructed. She clarified that the proposed hotel would also include some casitas along with the hotel rooms. Additionally, she asked if Mr. Simon Whitmey had a license with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to operate a business at the Long Point site. Planning Administrator Petru explained that the approved entitlement provided for 390 rooms in the main hotel building and 60 casitas, individual bungalows scattered over the site, in a configuration yet to be determined. This configuration was approved by the City and upheld by the Coastal Commission. In reference to Ms. Larue's question regarding Mr. Whitmey's conducting business in Rancho Palos Verdes, his office is in Laguna PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 10 Niguel. Planning Administrator Petru added that there is a caretaker on the site who does not have, nor would be required to have, a business license. The New York Food Company was operating a commercial business, associated with the Catalina Room, where parties and receptions were held. Until recently, this company did have a business license with the City, but they have now discontinued use of the Catalina Room. Ms. Larue mentioned she has a seen a white trailer at the back of the property and said this is business she is referring to. Planning Administrator Petru replied that she would have a Code Enforcement officer investigate the situation. Commissioner Hayes made a motion to accept the Staff's recommendation and it was seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved (7-0) by acclamation. CONTINUED BUSINESS Development Code Revisions; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Citywide. (JR) Senior Planner Rojas read the Staff Report. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission conceptually reviewed the revisions and issues associated with Title 16 and Article VI of Title 17. Draft language for these revisions was presented to the Commission for review and approval at tonight's meeting. Not included in the Commissioners' packets was draft language for Title 16 as well as two chapters in Title 17, the chapters on parking and recycling development standards, because Staff is still working on those revisions. Staff anticipated bringing this language back to the Commission for the next review meeting scheduled for March 8, 1994. Attached for the Planning Commission's review was new language for the three chapters of Article VI, Title 17. The new language which has been added to the text is shown by "double underline" and the language proposed to be deleted is shown by 11##"0 idfifi4ll. There may be confusion in looking at the text b ... 6'pre"Vious language revisions from prior Development Code proceedings are still noted, indicated by "single underline" and 1194-rikeeu 11. The reason those were left in was to keep in perspective what changes were proposed in the past as those changes are still not approved. In this way, the Commission, Staff and the public may follow what is being changed or added. Staff noted points of clarification to two of the revisions, one dealing with extreme slopes and the other with roof equipment. These will be discussed at the time the Commission reviews those sections. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 11 17.48.030 fSetbacksl Vice Chairman Mowlds was concerned about the phrase "located under or on top of the ground.... ". A structure is measured from the outside wall to the property line but the footing encroaches into the side yard setback. He wondered if the word "under" should be deleted because, if something can't be seen, maybe the encroachment is not significant. Senior Planner Rojas replied that, as part of the previous revisions, the definition of a structure now reflects that basements and other structures built under the ground must respect the setbacks. However, if the Commission desires, the word "under" can be deleted. Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that he was not necessarily saying it should be changed but was asking Staff to think about underground structures in relationship to setbacks. I 17.48.030(C) [Hillside Setbacks] Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if this section prohibits someone from building on both parts of the pad and Staff said no. He asked then if a terraced house can be built on split pads and Staff said yes. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that this section applies only to building pads on properties under separate ownership. 17.48.030(C)(2)(c)(1) [Front Setbacks] Chairman Alberio wanted to make sure that this section provides a passageway for emergency personnel. 17.48.030(E)(4) rGaragesl Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that he was not sure where to put the following statement but that it must be included somewhere in Development Code before the revisions are complete: When the Planning commission has approved an envelope for a house or a garage, the plans cannot be changed later by a Minor Exception Permit. 17.48.050(A) (3) [Building Height] Senior Planner Rojas requested input from the Commission as to whether parapet walls should be added to the list of exceptions in this paragraph (skylights, solar panels, and chimneys) that may exceed the 161 height limit. Parapet walls are often architectural features and would actually hide some equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 12 Vice Chairman Mowlds asked if parapet walls are considered part of the basic structure. Senior Planner Rojas answered that currently they are included in the height. If a 21 parapet wall is added to a flat roof structure that is 161 high, the structure would be over the 161 height limit. Vice Chairman Mowlds responded that a height variation would be necessary. Chairman Alberio added that a parapet wall could be a subterfuge, to hide equipment on the roof. Senior Planner Rojas replied that a parapet wall is sometimes used, architecturally, to screen existing roof ducts and vents that may be considered unsightly. Vice Chairman Mowlds felt strongly that there should be no exception for parapet walls and that a height variation would have to be requested. Senior Planner Rojas explained that the way the Code is currently written, a height variation is not necessary for minor structure or equipment that exceeds 161 in height, only a miscellaneous hearing to the Planning Commission. Chairman Alberio reiterated that any structure over 161 should require a height variation. 17.48.060 rExtreme Slopesl Senior Planner Rojas noted that Planning commission direction was needed for this section in order to define "construction". Does construction refer to just accessory structures, main structures, a tennis court, etc.? For example, the way the Code is currently written, if someone wants to grade on an extreme slope, a grading application is necessary, but if someone wants to grade on an extreme slope to accommodate a tennis court, is this considered construction? If so, a variance application would be necessary. Staff felt it was open to interpretation. Vice Chairman Mowlds stated that if a project required a foundation, (and a tennis court does) it should be considered construction. Senior Planner Rojas suggested that a definition of construction be included in the definition section of the Code and that the Planning Commission review that language at the appropriate time. The Commission agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 13 • Drawing Regarding Site Distance Standards for Measurement Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if this drawing had been used for a long time. Senior Planner Rojas replied that the current Code does not have a drawing to demonstrate the Intersection Visibility restrictions and this drawing was introduced as part of the previous Development Code Revision proceedings. Staff stated that, although the drawing is helpful, it seems to have been created by engineers and needs to be less technical for planners and the public to use. Chairman Alberio agreed it should be simplified. 17.54.020 [Underground Utilitiesl Commissioner Wang expressed her opinion that the word "undergrounding" should be changed to simply "underground" in the sentence beginning "The Planning Commission and/or City ...,....consistent with a likely future undergrounding project". She also stated that the phrase "shall be undergrounded" should be changed to "shall be put underground" in the sentence which begins "For any addition to an existing building... shall be undergrounded ... it. Commissioner Vannorsdall and Senior Planner Rojas both replied that "undergrounding" and undergrounded" were common usage terms. Director Bernard noted that, nonetheless, if these terms sound foreign to a layperson, these changes could be made. 17.54.040 [Screening of Mechanical Equipment. -.1 Commissioner Wang asked regarding the sentence beginning "In appropriate circumstances, the Director may approve.... how "appropriate" is determined. Chairman Alberio explained that this was a discretionary right reserved for Staff. Director Bernard commented that Commissioner Wang raised a good point and suggested that language be added to make this decision appealable to the Planning commission. Commissioner Hayes mentioned that the title of "Director of Planning" should be changed to "Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 14 17.56.202(C) rTemporary Construction Fencingi In response to Commissioner Vannorsdall I s request for clarification on the new temporary construction fencing requirement, senior Planner Rojas explained that this was an attempt to prevent a situation in which a vacant lot was fenced in anticipation of development by the owner but the application was never acted upon and the fencing had become unsightly. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked about the usual construction fence and if the City was concerned about liability? Director Bernard said that a construction fence is usually chain link and that there was the potential for the City's being liable if someone was working on a project and the city required the fence to be removed. Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if a fence could be removed if construction was never started and the permit had expired. Director Bernard replied that the landowner could keep the fence until the permit expired. Chairman Alberio noted that when a permit was issued, the property owner would have to hold the city free from liability and comply with OSHA requirements. Director Bernard stated that if someone wanted to protect their construction, they could fence their property but the fence would not be considered permanent. Vice Chairman Mowlds noted that, if the posts were placed in concrete, the fence would no longer be considered temporary. If the landowner believed the site to be potentially hazardous and was concerned about a lawsuit, he could fence the area and a permit would not be required. He added that it was extremely difficult to stop a construction fence; however, the appearance of the fence could be regulated under the City's property maintenance standards. Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that he had not seen a definition of an "acceptable" fence. Vice Chairman Mowlds replied that was a separate issue and was not being addressed at the moment because it was part of the City's Property Maintenance standards. Director Bernard suggested that this could be brought up at the Subcommittee meeting the following night to establish a City-wide standard of neighborhood compatibility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 15 0 - Vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that should also include the procedure construction project is halted. • the Subcommittee discussion to be followed when a Commissioner Vannorsdall commented that it had always been his impression that the city had no jurisdiction over construction fences and he felt that now this would be possible. Chairman Alberio suggested that the topic be carried over to the Subcommittee meeting the following night. 17.56.020(A) FDust Control) Vice Chairman Mowlds felt that the City could not prohibit dry sandblasting but could require dust control during this process. According to the Torrance Code, if a contractor uses fine net on the outside of scaffolding, dry sandblasting is allowed. vice Chairman Mowlds suggested that this subject be investigated further and added that there was a big cost difference between wet and dry sandblasting. 17.56.020(8) (Hours of Operation In response to Vice Chairman Mowlds question as to whether this section states that leaf blowers can't be used on Sunday, Senior) Planner Rojas replied this was correct. Vice Chairman Mowlds responded that he thought this restriction was lifted during the drought and that Rancho Palos Verdes was probably the only City that did not make this change. 17.56.030 [Outdoor Lighting - Residential Commissioner Vannorsdall was bothered by the fact that the Code is defining illumination by wattage. He stated that voltage has nothing to do with wattage. Another problem was that the wattage of incandescent bulbs is considerably greater than fluorescent. Previously, the Code contained a foot candle measurement but since that was taken out, there is no meaningful measurement. The Code seems to address only the glaring of light onto another property. Senior Planner Rojas agreed that the main intent of this section is to prevent light from being directed toward a neighbor. In speaking to the City's building inspector, he learned that the inspectors usually count the wattage of the bulbs for total light on the property for enforcement purposes. There is low voltage lighting and that is why the last line of this Paragraph "All states that the total watts is irrespective of the voltage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 16 Vice Chairman Mowlds explained that this section of the Code was written during the days of the oil shortage when lighting was being reduced to save oil, and the Code has never been changed. Neighbors complain when someone's security lights shine in their bedroom but this is not outdoor lighting because the lights are attached to the eaves. This section is referring to ground lighting, which usually doesn't exceed 1,000 watts unless it is a very big property. The reason the 110 volts was deleted from the Code is because the inspectors could not measure this way in the field. 17.56.040(A) (Residential Neiahborhood Protection Commissioner Whiteneck noted that this section reads "a two -ton rating or 6,000 pounds", and 6,000 pounds would be three tons. Senior Planner Rojas explained that, at the last meeting, it was determined that the City's Development Code should be consistent with the State, so a three -ton rating was established. In reviewing the City Attorney's letter on this issue, it appears that the main concern is that the City's own Municipal Code be consistent within itself; therefore, the Development Code must designate 6,000 pounds because the Municipal Code indicates 6,000 pounds as an acceptable upper limit for regulating trucks in the City. "Rating" refers to the vehicle's load carrying capacity; therefore, the Development Code's current designation of a one -ton rating is too low. Chairman Alberio asked if this change was being made because the Development Code must be consistent with the rest of the Municipal Code? I Senior Planner Rojas replied that State law requires this consistency and that is why the City Attorney suggested changing the Development Code to either a 2 -ton rating or 6,000 pounds. In order to enforce the 6,000 pound designation, the vehicle would have to be weighed; however, if both descriptions were included, Staff would have the flexibility to enforce this regulation by vehicle rating or by vehicle weight. In order to avoid confusion, one description could be used. Commissioner Whiteneck suggested using just capacity rating. Vice Chairman Mowlds agreed that this did need to be clarified; however, he suggested that weight be used and advised Staff to contact auto dealers to determine typical vehicle weights. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 17 0 9 - REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF - Pre -Agenda for the February 8, 1994, meeting. B. COMMISSION - None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE (reaardina non-aaenda items) - None FAIR%- mbe WNIORW Notion to adjourn by Vice Chairman Mowldsp, seconded by Commissioner Hayes and passed by acclamation. Adjourned at 9:13 P.M. to the Planning Commissioners' Retreat for the "Tour of the Port of Los Angeles" on February 26, 1994 at 9:00 A.M. Planning Commission Development Code Subcommittee adjourned to February 23, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. in the Fireside Room at Hesse Park. Next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for March 8, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 18 .1