Loading...
PC MINS 19991109CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER APPROVED 11/23/99 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7:00 p.m at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Assistant Planner Schonborn led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Alberio, Paris, and Slayden, Vice Chairman Lyon, Chairman Cartwright Absent. Commissioners Vannorsdall and Clark were excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rous, Associate Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. There being no objection, the agenda was approved, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Directory Secretary Rojas reported that staff had distributed a letter to the Commission regarding agenda item no 2 and had five additional letters that were late correspondence. Regarding agenda item no 3, staff had distributed one package to the Commission and had two items of late correspondence The Commission asked for distribution of the late correspondence. Directory/Secretary Rojas commented that there were no items pertaining to the Planning Commission discussed at the last City Council meeting CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of October 26 1999 Commissioner Paris moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. The minutes were approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Slayden abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance No. 462 and Height Variation 891: Martha Gaglio and Carlos Amezcua, 27026 Freeport Road. Assistant Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained the Height Variation was requested for the 670 square foot expansion to the existing building footprint with a 1,280 square foot second story addition, the Variance was requested for the proposed 240 square foot roof deck as well as exceeding the maximum structure size. The proposed structure size would exceed the maximum structure size allowed by 208 square feet. He stated the proposed structure was found incompatible with the Immediate neighborhood Staff found the immediate neighborhood was comprised of one-story homes ranging in size from 1,800 to 3,150 square feet. The proposed addition would result in an overall structure size of 4,290 square feet Staff also felt that privacy was an issue in regards to the properties on either side of the applicant. The windows and roof deck both contributed to the infringement of the neighbor's privacy. In regards to the maximum structure size, staff felt the property currently had a large structure on it in relation to the surrounding homes and that there were no unique characteristics of the property that would result in the applicant not complying with the standards of the Development Code. Therefore, due to the lack of neighborhood compatibility and the privacy infringement, staff recommended denial of the height variation and the variance Commissioner Slayden asked staff for clarification on the formula used to calculate lot coverage. Assistant Planner Schonborn explained that the Code allows for 52 percent lot coverage. Lot coverage includes building footprint, driveways, decks, and any other structures on the property. Commissioner Slayden asked staff at what point in the process the applicant was informed that staff was recommending denial of the project. Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that once the silhouette was erected staff was aware that they could not recommend approval and informed the applicant of this possibility. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 2 Chairman Cartwright asked if staff would still have objections to the structure if the proposed roof deck were a balcony Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that from a height variation standpoint staff would still recommend denial regardless, based primarily on privacy infringement. Chairman Cartwright stated he had driven in the applicant's neighborhood and found a second story addition on Freeport Road, one on Woodbrook Drive, and one on Shorewood Drive and felt the neighborhood may be in a transition from all single story residences. He asked staff if any of those additions had been through the height variation process Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that he did not know if they were built before the city incorporated or after. Commissioner Alberio moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Carlos Amezcua (applicant) 27026 Freeport Road agreed that the proposal exceeded the maximum allowable square footage for his property, but claimed he was unaware of this until after the silhouette had been erected. He stated that in the height variation application there was no information on how to calculate the allowable square footage and that at no time during the meetings with the planning staff was he or his architect informed that the project would exceed the maximum allowable square footage. He stated it was not until after the formal application was submitted and the silhouette erected that they were informed the proposal would exceed the maximum allowable structure size and staff presented the options of redesigning the structure or applying for a variance Once the decision was made to seek a variance he included the small roof deck. He felt that there are extenuating circumstances to allow the project to exceed the maximum allowable square footage: the first being the exclusion of the alternate method of calculating the allowable square footage in the height variation packet, the second being that prior to erection of the silhouette the proposed square footage had been reviewed by staff and deemed to be acceptable; and thirdly, the fact that the issue of allowable square footage had not been raised until nearly three months into the height variation process. Regarding the issue of neighborhood compatibility, Mr. Amezcua stated his architect had designed the addition with neighborhood compatibility in mind He presented a photo board, which showed different second -story projects in the neighborhood. Commissioner Paris asked Mr Amezcua if he originally had a roof deck designed in the project. He wondered if the applicant added the roof deck once he realized he had to apply for a variance for the addition Mr. Amezcua responded that in the original set of plans there was a roof deck. When staff informed him that roof decks were not allowed unless a variance was applied for, Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 3 he decided against the roof deck. However, when he discovered that he had to apply for a variance for the maximum structure size, he decided to put the roof deck back into the plans. Commissioner Albeno asked Mr. Amezcua if he would be willing to make compromises to help ensure the privacy of the neighbors Mr. Amezcua answered that he would be willing to compromise up to a point. He stated he did not know what that point would be at this time. On the issues of height and privacy he may be flexible However, on the issue of the overall square footage of the project he may not be quite as flexible. He stated that the neighbor below has no objection to the project as long as his privacy is maintained. Chairman Cartwright stated that later in this meeting the Planning Commission was going to consider language that could modify the Development Code in regards to roof decks and maximum structure size. Recommendations of the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the City Council He suggested Mr Amezcua consider holding off on the project to hear the outcome of the discussions, which may affect his maximum structure size and roof deck proposal. Commissioner Paris asked staff if it was correct to say that the applicant had no indication that staff was going to recommend denial of his application until after the silhouette was erected. Assistant Planner Schonborn stated that was a correct statement. The silhouette illustrated the concerns that were raised by staff and were passed on to the applicant. During the first completeness review the maximum structure size was reviewed under the 100 percent expansion method However, at a later time, but still during the completeness review, it was determined that the second formula for determining maximum size structure applied, and at that time the issue was brought to the applicant's attention At that time the issue of neighborhood compatibility was also raised Ali Parsa 410 S Barringotn Ave. #106, Brentwood, stated he was the architect for the project. He stated that he had come up with a design which accommodates the needs of his client and is in keeping with the nature and theme of the neighborhood. He stated that in looking at the project from the street, the building would almost appear to be a single story Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Parsa what lowering the ridge of the roof would do to the design of the project Mr. Parsa referred to the displayed floor plan He explained that lowering the roof slope would make some of the spaces inside only six feet high, which would make them unusable. However, he felt he may be able to bring the height of the overall project down about two feet. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 4 Robert West 27115 Freeport Road stated he was very pleased to see the way the staff had investigated this project and the impact it would have in the neighborhood He stated he was strictly against the project. A house of this size and shape does not belong in the neighborhood He felt it was too massive Chairman Cartwright asked Mr West where his home was in relationship to the subject property Mr West responded that he was downhill on the opposite side of the street, closer to Hawthorne Blvd He said it was not that he was opposed to second story additions, he was opposed to the size of this structure Vice Chairman Lyon asked Mr West if he could see this addition from his house Mr West responded that he could not see the addition from his house Chairman Cartwright encouraged Mr West to review the architectural drawings on display so he could see exactly what the street view would be Frances Tsujimoto 27020 Freeport Road stated there were some things about this proposed structure she did not like She objected to the size of the addition, which would make this house much larger than the other houses on the street. She also stated that from the proposed roof deck one would be able to look directly into her kitchen and dining room She realized that the neighborhood stepped down from lot to lot and the house above could look into the house below, however she felt this was a little different in that someone would only have to walk out of the bedroom and onto the roof deck to be able to see into her home Commissioner Alberio asked Mrs Tsujimoto if the project were to be approved without the roof deck, if that would satisfy her Ms Tsujimoto responded that she would be much happier with the structure without a roof deck, however she still felt the house was too large Commissioner Alberio asked Ms Tsujimoto if putting a type of plexi -glass material around the roof deck at a height of approximately six feet so that it would not be easy to look over and into her property would be a satisfactory solution , Ms Tsujimoto answered that if it were opaque and could not be seen through it would be satisfactory, however she did not feel the applicant would be happy with that solution Sue Cutler 27012 Woodbrook Road stated that she is at the top of Woodbrook, above Freeport Road The entire back of her house consists of windows and she has a beautiful view of the harbor, San Pedro, and the mountains She also has a dramatic Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 5 view of the sun and moon rising over the horizon. The proposed addition will block her view She enjoys her view and it means slot to her. She stated that when the applicant originally presented his plans to her she pointed out that approximately half of her view would be blocked. She pointed out that if the garage were not changed her view would not be as dramatically changed. She stated that the applicant had stated they would not change the garage. However, these plans reflect that the height of the garage roof was indeed raised which would block her view. Chairman Cartwright asked Ms Cutler if the roofline on the garage were lowered two feet if she would be satisfied with the project Ms. Cutler said she would be willing to loose the view that was blocked by the addition if the view where the proposed garage addition would not change Commissioner Paris asked Ms. Cutler if she had an objection to the massiveness of the project. Ms. Cutler stated that she does have an objection to the size of the project Vice Chairman Lyon asked staff if Ms Cutler's view was a protected view Assistant Planner Schonborn answered that Ms Cutler's view was not a protected view Her view would be lost if a 16 -foot high structure, which is allowed by right, were built. Mr. Amezcua (in rebuttal) stated that he felt the alternate method of calculating square footage should be included in the height variation packet He felt the issue of maximum size was something that could and should be calculated early in the process. He did feel that the roof height could be reduced to 24 feet. He stated that as far as the mass of the house, any home built or added on to in this neighborhood will be larger than the other homes Regarding the roof deck, he suggested an alternative of using foliage. He suggested planting some type of tree or shrubbery at the property line. He did not think this would significantly impair the Tsujimoto's view and it would give them the privacy they desire. He reiterated that the view from Ms Cutler's property was not a protected view. Leaving his garage at the current height while adding a second story to his home will make the garage look more like a tool shed or ancillary structure rather than a garage that is part of the house Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Paris stated that this is a case where an applicant wants to build a large house on a small lot He felt the project is out of scale with the neighborhood. He felt that the applicants knew there were problems with the project and rather than try to mitigate the problems the applicants chose to add a roof deck to the project He felt the applicants should rework the project and try to decrease the size of the structure significantly Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 6 0 0 Commissioner Slayden felt that this type of situation is now happening throughout the peninsula. Larger families are moving into the area and are in need of larger homes The city is facing the dilemma of how to allow someone to increase the size of their house without disturbing the look of the neighborhood. He felt that compatibility was the look of the house He stated it was not easy for the Planning Commission to allow a house like this to go into a neighborhood because it is only the first or second two-story structure in the neighborhood However, he felt this neighborhood was going to be facing many types of similar additions in the future Commissioner Alberio agreed that the peninsula is in a transition as younger, larger families move into the area However, with this project he did feel that the overall size and height of the house could be reduced. He would also like to see the height of the garage reduced. He stated that the reason a variance comes before the Planning Commission was because an applicant was requesting something that nobody else in the neighborhood has However, he felt that to receive the variance the applicant should be willing to give things up and make compromises Vice Chairman Lyon agreed with many of the comments by the Commissioners and added that the code in this situation was vague and difficult to interpret. However, even if the code were to change it may not have any major impact on this particular application. He felt it was unfortunate that staff did not advise the applicant in a timely manner in regards to the structure size. He did not feel the size of the proposed structure was a problem He felt the proposed roof deck did create a privacy issue, but felt it was a minor problem that had solutions, such as foliage along the property line. He felt that lowering the height of the structure to 24 feet was a good idea, but wasn't sure if lowering the height would have an impact on restoring anyone's view. Chairman Cartwright commented that this application was a very difficult one for the Commission. He felt this proposal would be an enhancement to the neighborhood but felt there were some issues that have to be dealt with. Regarding the Variance, he agreed with staff that there was nothing presented that was exceptional, extraordinary or unique to this particular property that would allow for the granting of the variance However he did understand that the applicant had to file for the variance because the maximum structure size limitation was not discussed early in the process. He felt the applicant should attempt to lower the height of the structure. He also felt that the applicant should be able to work with his neighbor regarding the privacy issues He stated there was not much the Commission could do for those who had a view that was not protected. Vice Chairman Lyon moved to approve Height Variation No. 891 and Variance No. 462 subject to two conditions: 1) Lower the height of the structure to 24 feet, and 2) Work with the neighbors to mitigate the privacy issues which will be approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 7 0 Chairman Cartwright stated he would rather see a continuance of the project to allow the applicant to work with the neighbors and staff to address the issues of height, mass, and privacy Further, by returning to the Commission the neighbors would still have a forum in which to express their concerns and opinions regarding the project. Therefore he would not vote for approval of the height variation or variance at this time Commissioner Alberio agreed with Chairman Cartwright Commissioner Paris pointed out that the second -story floor plan consisted of a master bedroom suite, a large deck, and a large mezzanine He could see some tremendous solutions addressed in a redesign of the second floor Vice Chairman Lyon amended his motion to include the condition that the Planning Commission review the changes worked out between the applicant and neighbors. Chairman Cartwright still felt it would be better to continue the hearing The Planning Commission would be discussing, at this hearing, a possible change to the code regarding roof decks and maximum structure size that could possibly eliminate the need for a variance for this project. As proposed, he did not feel the findings were made to approve the variance at this time Director/Secretary Rous added that if the Commission were to vote for an approval of the project with conditions, the Resolution would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval If the Commission voted on a continuance, Mr. Rojas requested they give the applicant and staff specific direction on what they would like the applicant to do. Vice Chairman Lyon restated the motion to approve Height Variation 891 and Variance 462 subject to two conditions: 1) The maximum height be lowered to 24 feet, and 2) The applicant is to work with the neighbors to mitigate privacy issues through foliage and window modifications and to assisted by staff as appropriate. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement will approve these modifications, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The motion failed, (2-3) with Commissioners Alberio, Paris, and Chairman Cartwright dissenting. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue the item to allow the applicant to work with neighbors and staff to lower the height and mass of the structure and mitigate the privacy issues with the properties to the east and to the west of the applicant's property, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. The motion passed, (5- 0). Chairman Cartwright asked staff what the time limitation was for this continuance Director/Secretary Rojas stated that it was now up to the applicant as to how quickly they could revise the plans for review Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 8 0 After a discussion with the applicant and the architect it was decided to continue the item to the meeting of December 14, 1999 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:05 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 9 20 p m at which time they reconvened 3. Code Amendment No. 44 — Equestrian Permit for non-profit groups Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained that the City Council had given staff direction to develop a permit process to address the unique concerns of equestrian facilities and programs operated by non-profit organizations. On October 14, 1999 the Equestrian Committee reviewed a draft of the code amendment prepared by Staff and the City Attorney. The committee provided additional comments and revisions which have been incorporated into the language before the Commission The recommendations of the Equestrian Committee and Planning Commission will then be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Mr Fox briefly described the revisions under consideration. He explained that the permit would be granted to the non-profit applicant and not to the underlying property owner. He concluded by saying that staff believes the code amendment before the Commission reflects the direction given by the City Council and based on that direction and input from the community, Equestrian Committee, and City Attorney it incorporates the concerns of all interested parties If, based on discussion this evening and public testimony, the Commission wishes to make further modification to the language of the code amendment, any such revisions could be read into the record and they will be forwarded to the City Council He stated that there were members of the Equestrian Committee in the audience if the Commission had any questions of them Chairman Cartwright clarified that the staff and City Attorney had developed the wording for the code amendment and that there was a limited role in the review process for the Planning Commission. This item before the Commission was a procedural matter only since it involved a change to the Development Code. Commissioner Slayden moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Paris. There being no objection, the public hearing was opened. Lucy Brooks 5405 Bayridge Road asked the Commission to try to consider the needs of the people She explained that a month ago she Joined the "Ride to Fly" organization At that time she was unable to use her leg, now she is able to use it She stated that it was incredible what horseback riding does for patients. She stated there are many, many people who are helped by the "Ride to Fly" organization. Barbara Dye 7035 Hartcrest Drive stated she was one of the vice presidents for the Pony Club She stated that the Pony Club has been in the Portuguese Bend community for more than 30 years She explained that the City provided a mechanism for working Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 9 9 0 with equestrian uses within the equestrian zone. The mechanism is a grandfathering statement which the Pony Club applied for. However, it was soon made clear that the members of the community around the Pony Club had some major concerns since the grandfathering runs with the land. Ms. Dye felt that this code amendment provided a very good way to provide the city and the community with an appropriate level of review and control of the activities. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if there were just the two non-profit organizations that were operating as equestrian facilities. Mr. Fox stated that he was only aware of the two organizations Joseph Gallagher 9 Ginger Root Lane stated that the "Ride to Fly" organization had recently illegally moved They have set everything up to operate their business and are waiting for this code amendment to be approved He stated he was here to ask the Planning Commission not to approve this code amendment He was very much against the idea that the Equestrian Committee should be handling equestrian issues in their own neighborhoods. He felt this code amendment lacked specificity. He stated it allows improper use of the residential property and will allow a biased group to supervise the enforcement of the code He did not think the code change was in the best interest of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Gallagher was very concerned about the added traffic and parking issues related to moving a business into a residential neighborhood Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Gallagher if he was part of a Homeowners Association and stated that they commonly should have CC&R's to address these types of issues. Mr. Gallagher stated that he was part of the Homeowners Association and the CC&R's are being violated He stated that the person who wanted the "Ride to Fly" organization to move from it's former location is the president of the Homeowners Association Chairman Cartwright reminded Mr. Gallagher that any decisions made by the Equestrian Committee are appealable to the City Council. Commissioner Paris asked staff to respond to Mr. Gallagher's comments about the relocation of the "Ride to Fly" group Associate Planner Fox responded that in August it had been brought to staff's attention that the "Ride to Fly" had relocated to the property at the intersection of Narcissa Drive, Ginger Root Lane, and Cinnamon Lane The property owner was notified by Code Enforcement that "Ride to Fly" was not a permitted use for the land and that a Conditional Use Permit was required in order to operate this type of active outdoor use facility. "Ride to Fly" responded and a meeting was set up to discuss how to deal with the relocation and address the concerns of the community. The agreement reached at the meeting was to allow "Ride to Fly" to continue to operate on an interim basis at the present location without official approval. They have agreed to make improvements to Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 10 the facility. Once a permit process is established by the City, "Ride to Fly" will apply for a permit to try to make themselves legal at that location. Commissioner Paris felt that Mr. Gallagher was justified in his concern over parking and increased traffic in the area Associate Planner Fox stated that part of the permit process would be for the applicant to provide a description of how they will deal with parking, traffic, and how many people will be at the site at a given time. The Equestrian Committee will then have the ability to apply conditions to this type of permit that would put restrictions on the hours, number of people, etc. Commissioner Paris felt this type of permit process might be giving preferential treatment to non-profit organizations over commercial operations Robert Maxwell 7 Pomegranate Road stated he was opposed to more non-profit horse operations. He distributed photographs to the Commission and explained that they show the enlargements made to the Chairman of the Equestrian Committee, Mr Bara's, horse corrals. He did not feel that Mr. Bara follows horse boarding rules and he stated that he had no confidence in the Equestrian Committee chaired by Mr Bara He felt that "Ride to Fly" was used as a cover for commercial operations He felt that this was a good time to show that the Portuguese Bend area did not want or need more horses. Portuguese Bend does not need a new non-profit presence with a greater number of horses than are now allowed. He asked the Commission to oppose the code amendment. Commissioner Paris asked staff if they knew how long "Ride to Fly" had been in business. Director/Secretary Rojas thought they had been in Portuguese Bend since about 1994. Commissioner Albeno asked the Chairman of the Equestrian to step to the podium Richard Bara 1 Peppertree Lane stated that he was here representing the Equestrian Committee and was available for any questions Commissioner Alberio asked Mr Bara to comment on what he has heard at this meeting Mr Bara stated that it was important to understand that the permit, if granted, would be granted to the organization and not the landowner The Equestrian Committee has reviewed the code amendment and unanimously voted to send it to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 11 Joan Kelly 6 Fruit Tree Road stated that she was very much in favor of making this process work and felt that the neighbors should be able to get together with "Ride to Fly" to work out any differences they may have. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. There being no objection the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cartwright reminded the Commission that they were not hearing this item to pass judgement on "Ride to Fly" or any other non-profit organization in the Portuguese Bend area. They were to approve or disapprove the proposed code amendment for a permit process and give City Council any suggestions they may have. Commissioner Paris asked if they were also to decide if they approved of giving preferential treatment to non-profit organizations or were they just approving the establishment of a process by which these organizations can get approval to operate. Associate Planner Fox answered that the code language is proposing to add some specific provisions that deal exclusively with non-profit organizations, allowing them to request certain variations from standards that other organizations, whether they are private homeowners or commercial operations, would not necessarily be entitled to request. However, this amendment was trying to reflect the direction given by the City Council in addressing the unique circumstances that the non-profit organizations face in the area Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the staff recommendation and send Code Amendment No. 44 to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (5-0). 4. Code Amendment No. 46 — Roof Deck /Maximum Structure Size Before giving the staff report, Associate Planner Mihranian recommended addressing the two items, roof decks and maximum structure size, as separate issues. The Commission agreed Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report on maximum structure size. By using the overhead projector, Mr Mihranian explained the different criteria on how maximum structure size is currently calculated. He displayed a chart that showed the criteria for lots that were created before and after the city was incorporated Lots created prior to incorporation are subject to two methods for calculation of maximum structure size, the 100 percent expansion of the original structure or the calculation based on the percentage of open space of the RS zoning district If a lot was created after incorporation maximum structure size is determined based on the open space in the zoning district However staff feels this creates an inequity between similar zoning districts and lots created before incorporation and after incorporation, with the use of different criteria within the same zoning district. He displayed an overhead, which Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 12 0 i showed a sample lot in an RS -2 zoning district, and the different possible maximum structure sizes that could be calculated under the present system. He explained that staff presented three options in the staff report for the Planning Commission to consider He explained the options and clarified that staff was asking the Commission for more specific direction, based on the three options, to forward to the City Council. Commissioner Slayden asked staff which option they would recommend. Associate Planner Mihranian explained that if the Commission were looking at criteria that are already established, staff would lean toward neighborhood compatibility in lieu of a maximum structure size criterion In looking at the display, Vice Chairman Lyon suggested that the three options not be mutually exclusive and the Commission consider elements of all three His first suggestion was to eliminate the different standards for lots created before and after incorporation (footnote 1 of Table 02-A). In the column labeled maximum structure size footnote 2 state that the percentages appearing in this column represent the percent of total floor area in a house compared with the total lot area, which is what is proposed in alternate 3 of the staff report. This would translate specific square footage numbers into percentages so that if there were a lot that is smaller than the maximum, you would apply the percent to that lot size He also wanted to keep the requirement for neighborhood compatibility as he felt it was an important criterion in looking at maximum structure size. Commissioner Alberio was concerned that these options would not work in the Eastview area. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he was a proponent of the neighborhood compatibility concept He felt that it was something that could be dealt with easily at staff level and the Planning Commission is aware of the conflicts that arise through the use of neighborhood compatibility and deals with it very well It has been proven that it can be used in situations that are somewhat awkward where there may be a very large lot next to smaller adjoining lots Chairman Cartwright discussed the problems he saw with maximum structure size calculations and proposed eliminating maximum structure size and using the neighborhood compatibility standard. Commissioner Paris felt that maximum structure size was a good point of reference for a developer/applicant, giving them some idea of what can be put on their lot He was concerned about situations where there are interior driveways or courtyards that are incorporated into the mass of the building. He felt that in this type of situation the driveway and courtyard should be included in the structure size. He was also concerned with the issue of hardscape, where an owner cements their entire front yard and constructs a jacuzzi and pool in the back yard and everything is covered with cement. Mr. Paris felt the Commission should also consider the buildable pad as Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 13 opposed to the lot size R maximum structure size may be calculated for a specific lot size, but the actual buildable pad may not be able to support that size structure Commissioner Slayden stated his main concern was compatibility. He stated there could be an area of tract homes of approximately 2500 square feet in size. The area has potential for larger homes Commissioner Slayden also expressed concern with how neighborhood compatibility will address the future of the area and the ability to construct larger homes. He felt that view considerations, locations, and value of the lot should be considered. The future of the neighborhood should be considered when discussing maximum structure size. He stated his point was that he did not want neighborhood compatibility to limit what could be built on a property to the degree that it failed to acknowledge changing neighborhoods Chairman Cartwright felt that the Commission was in agreement that there should not be two sets of standards in determining maximum structure size The Commission discussed different situations that have occurred in the City regarding the maximum structure size on lots within similar zoning districts as well as the different situations that could occur with possible code amendments They agreed that the issue of when a lot was created should not be a factor in calculating maximum structure size They agreed that maximum structure size should be calculated in such a way as to be equitable and consistent within similar zoning districts, but with parameters. Chairman Cartwright stated that neighborhood compatibility was a requirement currently being used for all new homes or tear down/re-builds that are constructed, regardless of size. He did not feel there was anything in the staff report that would affect that. Therefore, a discussion on how neighborhood compatibility would apply to remodels and additions should be considered. Director/Secretary Rojas agreed Commissioner Paris commented that there seemed to be a difference of opinion between the Commissioners on the definition of neighborhood compatibility. If there is a difference of opinions then there is no standard. Director/Secretary Rotas stated that staff uses the definition that is in the Code He commented that there are many components to the definition including mass and architectural treatment Staff recognizes that neighborhoods are changing and felt that most of the additions that staff has approved have been on the top -end of the scale in terms of size. Staff can typically justify the size because the architectural design reduces the mass of a larger appearing structure, which is part of the neighborhood compatibility finding Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. There being no speakers the public hearing was then closed. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 14 Vice Chairman Lyon moved to eliminate all references of maximum structure size, by eliminating the maximum structure size column in the chart, maintain the open space criteria but redefine lot coverage to include the house and other structure footprints, driveways, parking areas, and interior patio and atrium areas, and to retain the neighborhood compatibility criteria, seconded by Commissioner Alberio. Commissioner Paris questioned eliminating all reference to maximum structure size He felt that this allowed too much leeway for applicants, especially since neighborhood compatibility really only applied to new homes and not additions. Director/Secretary Rous agreed and stated that there was the possibility that there may be some very large one-story additions that will be approved without neighborhood compatibility review He felt the chances would be remote, as most additions are two- story or requires some type of discretionary permit from the Planning Department He suggested that the Commission could add language stating that anytime there is 100 percent expansion of the original footprint of a residence, there must be a neighborhood compatibility analysis. He added that there is no requirement presently in the Code that requires neighbors be noticed when doing a neighborhood compatibility analysis He stated there is an internal policy to do so. He suggested adding language to the Code to include the noticing of neighbors when doing the neighborhood compatibility analysis Associate Planner Mihranian recapped the motion made for the Commission with the following: 1) eliminate any reference to maximum structure size on the table; 2) maintaining the open space criteria by redefining lot coverage to include the structure footprint, accessory structure footprint, driveway and parking areas, and interior patio and courtyard areas, 3) retain neighborhood compatibility which will apply to new residences, a 50 percent demolition/rebuild, and a 100 percent expansion of the original footprint; and 4) add a public noticing criteria to the Development Code. Vice Chairman Lyon modified his motion to include the information presented by Associate Planner Mihranian, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. Approved, (5- 0). Chairman Cartwright suggested waiving the staff report regarding roof decks The Commission had no objection Chairman Cartwright opened the public hearing. There being no speakers on the subject, the public hearing was closed. The Commission reviewed the exceptions in the staff report where roof decks would not be allowed and discussed the different exceptions Associate Planner Mihranian explained that staff supported the approval of certain roof decks because they provide articulation in a structure and are design elements used to reduce the massing of a structure Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 15 Vice Chairman Lyon questioned exception number two as it pertains to decks located on detached garages or accessory structures. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the intent of that exception was that there could not be a deck by itself on top of a garage. The deck would have to be adjacent to habitable structure above a garage. He stated that staff would reword the exception for clarification Commissioner Paris stated that the size of the roof deck or the outward projection of the deck was not addressed He also questioned exception 5 of the staff report discussing outdoor furnishings that shall not exceed the height of the highest roof ridgeline Director/Secretary Rojas responded that it was conceivable that, as worded, someone may have a lateral view over a deck that may be affected by furniture, etc. However, in most cases homes are aligned where each one is looking out in the same direction. A discussion followed between the Commissioners as to what had been approved in the past and if and how it would be possible to limit or restrict a maximum projection or a maximum square footage of the deck Commissioner Paris was concerned that if roof deck sizes were not limited they would become a type of outside living area Commissioner Slayden suggested changing the language of number 5 to say that the condition shall apply to decks that exceed the height of eight feet from the deck level, rather than exceed the height of the highest roof ridge line. Commissioner Paris was still concerned with the outward projection of the roof deck. He felt the purpose of roof decks was to create more aesthetic appeal to a property, not allow an outdoor living area Commissioners Slayden and Alberio both stated they did not want to restrict the size of the roof decks and thought that neighborhood compatibility would help restrict the size and outward projection of the deck Chairman Cartwright reviewed the five conditions in the staff report where roof decks would be prohibited and stated that condition 5 would be modified to read that outdoor furnishings or accessories shall not exceed 8 feet in height from the finished deck floor Vice Chairman Lyon stated that there were many variables that would affect making the size of the deck acceptable or unacceptable Commissioner Slayden moved to accept the proposal on roof decks as outlined in the staff report with the modification to number 5 to say that any outdoor furnishings or accessories shall not exceed 8 feet in height from the finished Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 16 0 • deck floor, seconded by Vice Chairman Lyon. Approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Paris dissenting. Commissioner Paris clarified that his dissenting vote was strictly due to his concern with the lack of restriction on the amount of protrusion the roof deck was allowed from the structure ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Albeno moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 a.m. to the next regular meeting on November 23, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Page 17