Loading...
PC MINS 19960819CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING AUGUST 19, 1996 l0/8/96D Q�D The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M by Chairman Glark at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard I FLAG SALUTE Recording Secretary Selogie led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Ng, Vannorsdall, Whiteneck and Chairman Clark. Absent- Commissioner Franklin (excused). Also Present was Senior Planner Rojas. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Cartwright asked that the agenda be modified to reflect the meeting day of Monday, August 19, 1996. By consensus, the Commission approved the agenda as written. COMMUNICATIONS Staff None Commission None 1 Planning Commission August 19, 1996 i CONSENT CALENDAR None CONTINUED BUSINESS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None NEW BUSINESS • 1. Discussion of the Final Staff Recommendations Regard!12g Development Code Section 17.02.040 Senior Planner Rojas advised that the City is in the process of revising the Development Code, including Section 17 02 040 which contains Proposition M (adopted by residents in 1989 and within the purview of the Planning Commission and the Review Restoration Commission) He explained that, because the version of Section 17 02 040 forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Commission was substantially changed by the Council, this item is before the Commission for comments prior to it being returned for the Council's consideration on August 20, 1998 Senior Planner Rojas related the Council's direction to return the language in Section 17.02.040 to that of Proposition M wherever possible He clarified that the changes remaining include those determined to be essential by the City Attorney and Staff to clarify Proposition M and those which the Council directed. He stated that the definitions of "view" and "viewing area" will be explained in the Guidelines, which will be prepared after the revisions to Section 17 02.040 are adopted. Commissioner Alberio noted that the revised version of Development Code Section 17 02 040 includes an appeal process before the View Restoration Commission. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the revised version of Section 17 02.040 includes an appeal process whereby the View Restoration Commission decisions could be appealed to the City Council, which was not included in the original version of Proposition M. Planning Commission August 19, 1998 2 Chairman Clark called attention to the fact that jurisdiction regarding Section 17 02 040 lies with two bodies, the Planning Commission and the View Restoration Commission, but, exclusive jurisdiction for the portion dealing with view impairment caused by vegetation lies with the View Restoration Commission and should not be commented on by the Planning Commission Senior Planner Rotas advised that, during recent consideration of the revisions to Section 17.02.040, the View Restoration Commission did not comment on the portion which lies exclusively within the purview of the Planning Commission In response to a question from Commissioner Vannorsdall, Senior Planner Rojas clarified that foundations are exempted from the setback requirements and that this issue is addressed in the Setbacks portion of the Development Code. The Commission reviewed the "marked up" (mu) copy of the proposed revisions to Development Code Section 17 02.040 as follows. Page 1 Paragraph 7. No. AS, Commissioner Cartwright expressed his disagreement with the addition of trellises as lot coverage. He related his understanding that the inclusion of the wording "including trellises; decks over thirty (30) inches in height, as measured from existing adjacent grade; parking areas, or driveways" would change the definition of either "building," "structure," or both, and that it would result in the need to consider those items for compatibility purposes Commissioner Ng pointed out that a trellis might not be attached to a building, that it could be a separate structure Senior Planner Rojas advised that, should the Commission feel that the proposed language would either change the meaning of Proposition M or appear to be unnecessary, it is within the Commission's authority to remove any of the recommended modifications. He explained that Proposition M was adopted with a definition of lot coverage and Staff s intent was to include "trellises" in the definition because trellises are currently counted as lot coverage by Staff, and to provide clarity and consistency within the Development Code Chairman Clark related his understanding that lot coverage is defined in the Development Code to include the specific language discussed above by Commissioner Cartwright and that it is a recommended addition for purposes of clarity and consistency He recalled that some of the cases previously considered by the View Restoration Commission included trellises and he stated his viewpoint that, if one agrees with the definition of "structure," in No. Al2, then a trellis should be considered a structure. Planning Commission August 19, 1996 Senior Planner Rojas pointed out that the definition of a "structure" in No. Al2 reads " located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized for residential purposes, excluding antennas, skylights, solar panels, and similar structures not involving the construction of habitable area," and that one could argue that "trellis" fits that definition Commissioner Whiteneck noted that a trellis is not a habitable area. Commissioner Ng stated her understanding that No. A5 only refers to how lot coverage is calculated, and not the habitable area on a lot. The Commission agreed that trellises should remain as lot coverage in No. A5. Paragraph 12, No. A10, Commissioner Ng related her concern that the language is not clear with regard to setbacks when a lot is vacant Senior Planner Rojas advised that the purpose of No A10 is to clarify how to measure a setback on a lot, but that the setback requirements are located elsewhere in the Development Code. The Commission agreed that Paragraph 12, No. A10, should be modified to cross reference the Development Code section in which setbacks are discussed. G__ Paragraph 2. No. A13, Commissioner Vannorsdall pointed out that the inclusion of No Al 3(f), "The number of stories," as part of the design elements could make it difficult to build a two-story home. He suggested that No A13, "Style," should be moved to the "Compatibility„ portion of the Development Code. Senior Planner Rojas advised that all the items listed as design elements in No A13 were part of the original Proposition M. Chairman Clark pointed out that it is not within the Commission's purview to change any portion of the original Proposition M adopted by the residents. Planning Commission August 19, 1996 4 ! 0 Paragraph 3, No. A14, Senior Planner Rojas advised that the View Restoration Commission recommended the deletion of all the language modifications proposed to Section No A14, which Staff suggested for clarity purposes. Commissioner Vannorsdall related his understanding that the Development Code defines a certain height as the viewing source and suggested that No. 14 should be modified to include that information He also suggested that the paragraph after No A14b be modified to exclude "three hundred sixty degrees of horizontal arc" and include "The significant view may extend in any horizontal direction..." Commissioner Cartwright commented that it would be difficult to have a three hundred sixty degree view and "the most significant view" defined as the same thing He noted that the word "significant" while referring to views is not included in No A14, but it is included later in Section 17.02.040. As a member of the committee which drafted Proposition M, Chairman Clark explained that the wording "three hundred sixty degrees of horizontal arc" was intentionally placed in Proposition M Senior Planner Rojas clarified that, for views involving structures, the word "significant" was already part of Proposition M, but it was not for views involving foliage and that the viewing source is defined in the Guidelines, revisions to which will be presented for the Commission's consideration in the near future. Page 3 Senior Planner Rojas pointed out that "Height Variation Permit" was revised to read "Height Modification Permit" throughout because residents have confused "Height Variation Permit" with "Variance " He noted that the different methods described for measuring the height of a structure are discussed on pages 3, 4 and 5 and that new figures have been added, which are numbered and now referred to in the text. 0 0 Page 4 Commissioners Ng and Cartwright suggested that the requirements for one-story basements and cellars should be illustrated in Figure 3. Commissioner Alberio suggested that Development Code language pertaining to basements and cellars should be cross referenced in Section 17.02.040. Senior Planner Rojas affirmed that the requirements for one-story basements and cellars will be addressed. He advised that cellars and basements are addressed in the Definitions and Grading sections of the Development Code and that additional language pertaining to them in Section 17 02 040 was recommended by Staff to prevent the construction of two-story residences by grading down. Commissioner Cartwright noted that, where the 16 foot maximum height is shown in Figure 2, the pre -construction grade appears to continue down and, if it is viewed from where the grading meets the front of the house, it would appear to be more than 16 feet Senior Planner Rojas advised that the 16 foot height in Figure 2 is measured from the average elevation of the setback line and that, no matter what is done with ` the steps or the grade, it does not change Page 5 Paragraph 1. No. Bid, Senior Planner Rojas advised that this paragraph was rewritten to read as follows. "On sloping lots described in Sections ' 17.02 040(B)(1)(a) and 17.02.040(B)(1)(b) of this chapter, the foundation of the structure shall contain a minimum 8 foot step with the slope of the lot as illustrated in Figure 4 below." He said that this addresses the situation where an applicant has a pad lot and wants to put a step in the pad in order to say they have a sloping lot. Page 6 Paragraph 2, No. B4. Commissioner Vannorsdall related his concern that no trees over 16 feet in height could be grown, particularly going up the slope on an up-sloping lot. He suggested that wording be added to address trees on up- sloping lots. Chairman Clark stated his understanding that the logic behind the 16 foot height limitation was to give residents the right to have trees which are at least at the same height as a single -story home, dwelling or structure. Planning Commission August 19, 1996 0 Senior Planner Rojas advised that the trees could grow up to the point where they are not impairing views. Therefore, there could be situations where trees over 16 feet could be allowed on a rear yard slope Chairman Clark explained that, should trees impair a view from above and a neighboring property owner pursues it with the View Restoration Commission, the View Restoration Commission could impose a requirement to trim or lace the trees to restore the view He related his opinion that more than what is needed should not be added to the Development Code and that clarification pertaining to trees could be added to the Guidelines. Commissioner Alberio questioned if the decisions by the Director referred to in No. B4 should be appealed to the City Council instead of the Planning Commission as shown Senior Planner Rojas advised that the section in question deals with foliage as a condition of Permit issuance With regard to height, Commissioner Ng pointed out that the step is a minimum 8 foot requirement and she asked if that means that split levels are not allowed if there is less than 8 feet Senior Planner Rojas advised that a split level on a sloping lot would be allowed with an minimum 8 foot step. Commissioner Ng stated that, when there is an 8 foot step, a structure is most likely to be two stories, but, it could be a split level with 4 to 5 feet down or up to another room. Senior Planner Rojas advised that there are existing situations as referred to by Commissioner Ng which would not be affected by this requirement; however, it would affect an applicant who is proposing a split level to gain another story on a lot which does not slope. Paraaraah 3. No. B5, Senior Planner Rojas advised that No B5 was moved to this portion of Section 17.02.040 from the Definitions portion because Staff felt it was more of a procedure and because applicants often look for this information in the body of the Development Code rather than under Definitions. He explained that the City Attorney felt this would not be a significant change to Proposition M because the actual language was not being changed, just moved. Planning Commission August 19, 1996 Page 7 Paragraph Nos. 1 - 7, No. C1, Senior Planner Rojas advised that the proposed language was recommended by the previous Planning Commission to create a procedure whereby some Height Modification Applications would go directly to the Planning Commission for review, thereby bypassing the Director's review; that the City Council added a criteria stating that such applications should go to the Planning Commission if there is a potential for significant view impairment; that almost every application has the potential for view impairment, which means a great majority of Height Modification applications would be referred to the Planning Commission; and that Staff feels a recommendation should be made to the Council that all Height Modification applications shall be considered by the Planning Commission Commissioner Cartwright questioned why all Height Modification applications should be referred to the Planning Commission if there is no issue involved with them Chairman Clark explained his understanding that the intent was based on input from the previous Planning Commission to give the Planning Commission cognizance over consistency in the City and over how these modifications are done. He stated his philosophical agreement with this and related his supportof the Planning Commission considering all Height Modification applications. Commissioner Cartwright suggested that consideration should be given to the impact such a procedure would have on the Planning Commission's work load Senior Planner Rojas advised that, in 1994 and 1995 combined, 26 Height Variation applications were submitted to the Director for determination and that 7 of those 26 were appealed to the Planning Commission, which means that approximately 27% of the total Height Variation applications were considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alberio recalled the feeling of the previous Planning Commission, on which he served, that the residents should have a forum to express any doubts they might have as to Staff's power to decide cases. Chairman Clark pointed out that the Staff time and the appeal costs are eliminated with the Planning Commission hearing appeals of the Director's decisions and that the initial Staff work would increase if the Planning Commission were to consider all Height Modification applications. Senior Planner Rojas advised that the current Height Variation analysis is very complex and that, other than noticing and the Staff Reports, the amount of time spent by Staff would not change that much Planning Commission August 19, 1996 With the exception of Commissioner Ng, the Planning Commission agreed to recommend that all Height Modification applications shall be considered by the Commission Commissioner Ng related her disagreement with making such a recommendation and she stated her opinion that the Director should make determinations on Height Modification applications. Paragraph 9. No. CI d, Commissioner Alberio suggested that the silhouette parameters should be added to the Guidelines. Specifically, that the silhouette remain in tact until appeal periods have been exhausted Senior Planner Rojas advised that there is much more detail about the construction of silhouettes in the Guidelines He verified that the parameters for silhouettes will be added to the Guidelines. MOTION Chairman Clark moved to eliminate the sub -criteria language pertaining to the approval of Height Modification applications as indicated and to recommend that all Height Modification applications shall be considered by the Planning Commission The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whiteneack and passed by majority roll call vote (5-1) as follows. Ayes. Alberio, Vannorsdall, Cartwright, Whiteneck and Chairman Clark. Noes. Commissioner Ng Abstain None. Absent: Franklin Noting his concern over the above recommendation, Commissioner Cartwright stated his assumption that the previous Planning Commission knew what they were doing. Page 8 Paragraph 5. No. CUM), Senior Planner Rojas advised that the proposed language would help situations on "upside down" houses to afford view protection for residents who have the living room on the upper story Paragraph 8. No. Cleft), Senior Planner Rojas explained that the finding about privacy was added here. Planning Commission August 19, 1996 • ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff None Commission None. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None ADJOURNMENT At 8.30 P M the meeting was formally adjourned to a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1996, 7 00 P.M , at Hesse Park Planning Commission August 19, 1996 10