Loading...
PC MINS 200011280 0 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2000 ,,-Approved Dece r 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:00 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 27301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Mueller led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon Commissioner Cartwright arrived at 7:10 p.m. Absent Commissioner Long and Vice Chairman Clark were absent (excused). Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Pfost, Senior Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mihranian, and Recording Secretary Peterson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objection, Chairman Lyon approved the agenda as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a copy of an e-mail received from Commissioner Long with suggested changes to the minutes He also reported that at the City Council meeting of November 21, 2000 the City Council considered entering into a second exclusive negotiating agreement with the developer for the affordable senior housing project and that the item was continued to the meeting of December 12, 2000 Finally, Mr. Rojas reported that the City Council had elected not to have the joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop Commissioner Vannorsdall reported that the dates for the Planning Institute in Monterey were March 21, 22, and 23 and that the View Restoration Commissioners would also be attending the conference CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 14, 2000 The Planning Commission reviewed the e-mail from Commissioner Long regarding his suggested changes to the minutes. Chairman Lyon directed staff to review the tape of the meeting to decide to what extent the revisions suggested by Commissioner Long should be incorporated The Commission agreed. Chairman Lyon noted a typo on page 12 of the minutes and asked for clarification He also noted a grammatical change on page 13. Without objection, the minutes were approved as amended, (5-0) 2. Conditional_ Use Permit No. 158 — Revision `C'. Coastal Permit No. 94 - Revision `A', Encroachment Permit No. 32, and Sign Permit No. 1096 - Resolution: RPV Associates, Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates), Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne Boulevard Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He briefly summarized the conditions and design standards that the Planning Commission had specified for the guard booths He stated that staff had prepared the resolution to incorporate the design standards, the standard conditions of approval for encroachment permits that are specified in City Council Policy No. 31, and the condition of approval for a 6 -month review. Commissioner Vannorsdall made a statement for the record as to why he was voting NO on the observation booths. He felt that it was the responsibility of the Planning Commissioners to not only look at the immediate project at hand but to also consider the long-term ramifications on the community as a whole By this he meant not just the impact of the issue at hand on the general public but to consider the impact of setting precedents that will be established in terms of future requests for observation booths throughout the community. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that if the commission were to start this practice now, they would be faced with many more applications for the same privilege in the future. The impact on the community will be to encourage isolation of many areas of the city, one from another, while city policy has always been to promote a city wide community feeling and participation in community affairs and an aura of working together. He stated that the only other observation booth that has been approved in the city to date was in Island View He noted that they started with a manned booth, then reduced this to part-time manned booth and then video camera only. The best he could determine is that this booth has done very little to accomplish its original goal and had been cost prohibitive to operate it for its original purpose. He felt that these booths were an intimidation to the general public, who should be able to use the streets for which they were paying maintenance, fire protection, and police protection. He felt very strongly that this was Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 2 a practice that should be turned down now and for all time. Therefore, he was voting NO and hoped this issue could be resolved Commissioner Cartwright stated that he did not disagree with the intent of what Commissioner Vannorsdall was saying. He felt it was something that needed very careful consideration However, he felt that the Planning Commission had considered this application very carefully. The one area he suggested needed clarification was on page 3, section 2b. He did not think the wording in this section was strong enough and suggested including language that the guard booths would not interfere with the public's access to the interior streets of the development Chairman Lyon felt that the language adopted was a compromise position. He did not see why anyone would want to drive through the interior portion of the development if they didn't live there. He felt it was much different than access to the parking lot and the coastal blufflops. Commissioner Cartwright stated that it may be, but they were all public streets and the public should be able to drive wherever they wanted to. Chairman Lyon pointed out that one of the requirements was to provide signage on the booths to indicate the roads were public and access was not restricted. He felt the issue was adequately covered. Senior Planner Fox noted that Condition No 26 on page 10 discussed the signage on the booths and on page 12 Condition No 29 (h) discussed the restriction that no person or vehicle will be required any type of identification or otherwise be restricted or denied access by personnel in the booths Commissioner Cartwright felt that the Commission had gone out of its way to say that the guards will not interfere with the general public's ability to access the blufftops and trail system. He felt that a sentence to the resolution's findings should be added that all of the streets are public and the booths should not interfere with public access Commissioners Paulson and Mueller agreed with Commissioner Cartwright's statements. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there would not be a problem adding that language. There being no objections, Chairman Lyon directed staff to add the appropriate language to Section 2B of the Resolution Commissioner Paulson noted Condition No 11 and said that in reading the original approvals of the project his interpretation was that the fence should be 3 feet high and 90 percent light and air. He was concerned that the shrubs planted, even at a Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 3 height of 3 feet, would eventually block the view through the fence. He stated that this violated the 90 percent light and air fence requirement that the original approval was trying to accomplish Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed. He stated that the original intent of the Planning Commission when the project was approved was to have no shrubs planted in front of the fence. Senior Planner Fox stated that the original conditions allowed for low shrubs and ground cover Chairman Lyon felt that the wording of the new condition allowed for the shrubs and ground cover to grow to a height of 3 feet and have the possibility of becoming very dense He asked staff if there could be some clarification made to the condition in this new Resolution to address the issue Director/Secretary Rous stated that the original conditions were not specific on heights of shrubs but discussed the prohibition of significant view impairment, which is discretionary. He felt the way to prevent the shrubs from becoming a continuous hedge was to monitor them and ask the developer to thin them out periodically or to add a condition to this resolution that states shrub heights more explicitly He explained that the 90 percent light and air requirement referred to the fence and not specifically the vegetation Commissioner Cartwright suggested wording that stated the vegetation should not exceed 3 feet or significantly impair views Commissioner Vannorsdall felt the vegetation should be no more than 6 inches above the ground Commissioner Paulson stated that in reading the past minutes of the original hearings that the view through the fencing was a very sensitive issue Chairman Lyon felt that the wording in the original resolution allowed for ground cover with a shrub every so often. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that even 12 inches in height was reasonable Director/Secretary Rojas agreed that 12 inches was reasonable and that the intent of the original approvals was for low-lying shrubs or ground cover. Chairman Lyon suggested that ground cover be limited to a height not over 12 inches and shrubs, which must be spaced no less than 12 feet apart and cannot exceed a height of 3 feet Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 4 Commissioner Vannorsdall objected to the suggestion as he felt that would still block the view from Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioner Cartwright suggested a compromise between one and three feet and suggested vegetation should not exceed a height of 2 feet. Chairman Lyon asked staff if they felt that changing condition 11 to read 2 feet rather than 3 feet would be a problem to the developer. Director/Secretary Rojas did not see a major problem but noted that a few existing plants may have to be trimmed or removed. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing Rob Katherman 19300 S Hamilton Avenue, Gardena stated that the Commission had originally set the height limit at 3 feet based on the standard of the typical eye level in an automobile, which was 3 Y2 feet. He was not sure that changing the condition was an issue that should be before the Planning Commission. He did not think it was possible to maintain all of the plants currently there at a level of 2 feet and some would have to be replaced He felt that 2 feet was a difficult standard to maintain However, he felt the developer would cooperate in any way the Commission saw fit. He thought the developer might work with staff to accomplish the Commission's goal of providing view corridors through the landscaping area and removing some of the vegetation to accomplish this. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Chairman Lyon noted that the requirement already stated that the fence had to be 90 percent open and suggested putting that same requirement on the landscaping by saying that no shrub shall be more than 3 feet in height and collectively the shrubbery shall not block the view to an extent exceeding 10 percent. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that it was almost impossible to regulate vegetation to a percentage standard He added that he had received no complaints from the public regarding the existing vegetation, but rather had received many compliments regarding the foliage. He felt that decorative and colorful groundcover could be achieved at one foot, but there was the question of how to modify what was currently existing to achieve the one -foot requirement Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to after condition no. 11 to limit ground cover and foliage to a height of no more than one foot, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Chairman Lyon felt it would be appropriate to allow staff to work with the developer to come up with appropriate restrictions that satisfy both the Planning Commission's and the developer's wants Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Vannorsdall repeated his motion. The motion passed, (3-2) with Commissioner Cartwright and Chairman Lyon dissenting. Commissioner Paulson clarified that the issue that he raised and the reason he raised it was not because he disliked the landscaping but because the Commission would be approving a new condition that he felt conflicted with a previous project condition. Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing Alyda White 32614 Coastsite Drive stated that she has served on the landscape committee in her residential development for many years and stated that when plants are trimmed in height they tend to grow thicker She noted that low growing ground cover may mound up to up to 12 inches, but are not the kind of things referred to as a hedge Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Chairman Lyon felt that the Planning Commission had come up with an irrational change to the Resolution, and felt the Commission could have done better He summarized that the current Resolution, as amended, will have a sentence added into finding `B' under Section 2 to clarify that the public has access to all of the roads in the community. The Commission also clarified Condition No. 11 so that the maximum height of shrubs would be one foot instead of three feet. The Planning Commission voted (4-1) with Commissioner Vannorsdall dissenting to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-41, as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Tentative Parcel Map 25696: 3440 Via Campesina, Mr. And Mrs. Steve Wertheimer Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report He explained the components of the proposed project as it relates to the findings He noted that staff determined that all of the findings could be made, which included minimum lot size, that each lot have a contiguous lot area of at least 6,600 square feet to ensure that the newly created lots are buildable lots, and the minimum required lot depth and width With regards to the utilities and the access to the property, staff believed that since the subject lot was located in a developed portion of the city that all utilities are accessible to the property. Furthermore staff has required that the two lots, which are now on a septic system, connect to the existing sewer line which runs under Via Campesina Via Campesina is in the City of Palos Verdes Estates and permits and approvals must be acquired from that city Staff circulated the proposed parcel map to various agencies including Southern California Edison, California Water Service, Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 6 and Los Angeles County Fire Department Their comments and suggestions were included in the staff report. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel Map as conditioned Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing Roger Mueller 630 N. Gravier Street, Orange stated that he was the civil engineer representing the applicants. He stated that he had carefully reviewed all of the conditions of approval and had no objections Commissioner Vannorsdall asked what the purpose of splitting the lot was Mr Meurer responded that the purpose was to make the second lot available to sell and develop Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any outstanding issues, and if so would they be covered prior to issuance of a building permit. Associate Planner Mihranian answered that most of the conditions would have to be adhered to prior to the final recordation of the map. Commissioner Cartwright asked about drainage issues Associate Planner Mihranian stated that drainage issues would be addressed at the time the lot is developed. Commissioner Paulson moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2000-42, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25896 subject to conditions, as presented to staff, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (5-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8*40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:50 p.m. at which time they reconvened. 4. General Plan Housing Element Senior Planner Pfost presented the staff report He stated that the item before the Planning Commission was an amendment to the General Plan Housing Element The purpose of the hearing was to allow the public and Planning Commission to provide any comments on the document. Staff will then present this element with any additional comments to the City Council. After the City Council reviews the document, it will then be submitted to the State Once the state has completed their review, the housing element will return to the Planning Commission and City Council Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 7 • 0 for formal adoption He explained that the housing element was divided into three main sections an introductory section describing applicable housing law and requirements, the main section which discusses the city housing strategy, goals, policies, and objectives, and the third section which is an appendix that provides background information that supporting the programs categories in the second section He concluded by recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive any comments from the public, and forward these comments as well as Planning Commission comments to the City Council Commissioner Cartwright asked if there were any significant changes to the goals, policies, and objectives from the current document. Senior Planner Pfost stated that there were changes, however he did not consider them significant. He explained that there are changes in the number and types of programs that the City undertakes Chairman Lyon stated that on page 1-3 there was language that the Planning Commission conducted a community workshop on the housing element. He questioned when that took place Senior Planner Pfost stated that this meeting was the community workshop and that notices had been circulated regarding the meeting Chairman Lyon noted that on page 2-7 there was a reference to the City's popular Housing Improvement Program He asked what that was Senior Planner Pfost explained the City's Housing Improvement Program is managed through the Public Works Department. He noted that in three years the City has assisted 17 residents that are in the low to moderate -income range with the rehabilitation of their homes Chairman Lyon also noted on page 2-7 there was a discussion on senior affordable housing He understood that the project was an RDA action, and asked if there were any alternative locations considered He wondered if the City was responding to a request from a developer or did the City take a broader view of its stewardship of RDA funds by looking at alternate locations where a senior housing project might be located Senior Planner Pfost answered that there were no other locations considered at this time and this was mainly responding to a request from a developer Commissioner Paulson asked about the reference to affordable housing at Ocean Trails and if it was permanent housing Senior Planner Pfost explained that through the project entitlements Ocean Trails was required to provide four on-site and four off-site units The conditions for the Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 8 • project specify a certain priority in who gets to occupy the units. It is up to Ocean Trails to manage the program Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing, however there being no speakers, the public hearing was closed Chairman Lyon suggested that the body of the report contain the date that the Planning Commission held the public hearing. He directed staff to forward the draft report to the City Council, without objection. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that she was told that fences in the City could not be higher than 6 feet She stated that Mr York had built rusty chain link fences over 6 feet in height on his property and asked that Mr. York be made aware of this NEW BUSINESS 5. Guidelines and Procedures for preservation of views where structures are involved (Height Variation Permits) Chairman Lyon stated that he had requested this item be added to the agenda because on more than one occasion in the past a few of the Commissioners had exhibited different understandings of the guidelines and procedures for the preservation of views. He thought it best to discuss the item in this forum rather than in front of an applicant who had applied for a height variation application. He felt it was a subject that needed to be addressed and resolved so that all of the Commissioners had a common understanding of what the guidelines meant He was disappointed that Commissioner Long was not at the meeting, as he had brought up some very good points on the interpretation of the height variation guidelines. Chairman Lyon stated that the section of the guidelines that he believes warrants attention is the mandatory findings for a height variation He felt there was an apparent conflict between findings no. 4 and 6. He read finding no. 4 aloud and distributed to the Commission what the code says and what he felt were two alternatives to clarify the intent. In Alternative 1 he added language to "avoid unreasonable" impairment of a neighbor's view "even when the view is not protected by this section of the code." He added a section, 4(e), that would clarify that an applicant shall have considered reasonable design alternatives to diminish the impact on other property owner's views. He felt that alternative 1 was his interpretation of what a prudent person would conclude upon reading the words in the development code He pointed out that this was not to say that he agreed with alternative 1, but was suggesting it for discussion purposes He then discussed alternative 2, which was the same as alternative 1, with the deletion of the language in section 4 (a). He felt that alternative 2 was more preferable He stated that he felt that finding no 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 9 was more important and relevant than finding no. 4. He noted that he did not propose any changes to finding no. 6. Commissioner Cartwright did not feel the findings were the same He felt that finding no 4 was in place to make sure the applicant had made an attempt to minimize view impairment and no. 6 said that even if an attempt had been made, if there is significant view impairment, the finding could not be made. He noted that 2 commissioners were not present at this meeting and did not think changes should be approved without their input. Chairman Lyon stated that his intent was not to conclude the discussion this evening, but to continue the item to the next meeting to allow the full Commission to comment. He felt that the discussion should begin at this meeting, however. Commissioner Mueller agreed with the intent of section 4(e) and agreed that finding 4 intended to supercede finding 6. Commissioner Paulson referred to page 3, Section B (2) of the guidelines. He stated that when he read that, he did not see anything that said the viewing area had to be on the first floor. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that the language that does not allow views to be protected from the second story is in a different finding. Commissioner Paulson then quoted page 3, Section 4 regarding viewing areas, which he interpreted to mean he could have a viewing area on the second floor of the house. Director/Secretary Rojas clarified that if a house had a second floor that could be built without a height variation, then the viewing area could be on the second floor. The Commission discussed different scenarios where a height variation may or may not be required and if the viewing area was on the second floor. Chairman Lyon asked the commission for their reaction to alternate 1 versus alternate 2 in terms of their interpretation of condition no. 4. Commissioner Cartwright stated that if one used the interpretation that he has, except for downsloping types of houses where a second story could be built without a height variation, none of the other second story homes built under the County are entitled to a view from the second floor Chairman Lyon stated that the view is from anywhere as the definition of view does not say anything about protected view. The Commission discussed viewing areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 10 The Commission agreed to leave this discussion on the table as something to be considered at the next meeting Chairman Lyon then distributed a copy of page 3 of the Height Variation Guidelines with one proposed change He felt that the language in Section B.3. was in clear conflict with the definition in B of viewing area at the top of the page. He suggested deleting the last sentence in B 3. Commissioner Cartwright discussed continuous, uninterrupted views and felt that was what the sentence was trying to clarify. Chairman Lyon agreed, but felt there was a better way of stating it in the definition. Director/Secretary Rojas stated trying to define view and viewing area and how they relate to multiple rooms was a very complicated issue He explained that the last time this issue was addressed, the View Restoration Commission had one interpretation and the Planning Commission had their own interpretation and that they both went to the City Council at the same time. He explained that the language, as written, was a compromise that was agreed upon by the City Council. He added that staff has found it rare that the same exact view is found from multiple rooms. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on viewing rooms and Chairman Lyon felt that everyone was thinking the same thought, but the words could easily be improved to convey the thought. Commissioner Vannorsdall felt that the job of the Planning Commission was to interpret the code in relation to the given project and have the outcome make sense. He didn't think a Planning Commission would be necessary if all one had to do was follow the code and plug it in He felt the Planning Commission was the group that could interpret the code for each individual situation. Commissioner Cartwright agreed with Commissioner Vannorsdall but also agreed with the Chairman that the Planning Commission had to find some type of common ground on which to make these decisions for consistency sake Chairman Lyon suggested continuing the discussion to the meeting of December 12, 2000 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that if the Commission eventually does agree to make revisions to the Guidelines, staff will work with the City Attorney to make sure the amendments are consistent with Prop M, after which the revisions would be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Lyon stated that it was his main objective that the Planning Commission operate with a common understanding regarding these issues Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 11 Chairman Lyon directed staff to include this discussion on the next agenda and incorporate the proposals discussed this evening. He also added that he would like staff to try to define a view. Director/Secretary Rojas cautioned that a definition of a view already exists in the Code and noted that there could be problems if the Planning Commission tried to define a view differently than what is defined in the Development Code. He suggested the Commission could clarify in the Guidelines what the existing definition means, provided it remains consistent with Prop M. Chairman Lyon stated that, given the definition in the code, the Planning Commission may want to add some explanatory language in the Guidelines to clarify what a view IS. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that could be done ADJOURNMENT There being no objections, Chairman Lyon adjourned the meeting at 9 42 p m Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 12