Loading...
PC MINS 20001212APPROVED Janua 9, 2001 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7 05 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Building, 27301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Cartwright led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall and Chairman Lyon Absent: Vice Chairman Clark (excused) Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Schonborn, and Recording Secretary Peterson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Lyon suggested changing the order of the agenda to read items 1, 2, 4, 5, 3 There being no objection, it was so ordered COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a one-page summary of the Traffic Committee review of the Montessori School project (Agenda Item No 5) He also distributed a memo from Commissioner Long regarding Agenda Item No 3 Director/Secretary Rojas stated that at the last City Council meeting the appeal of the Grading Permit on Cachan Place was denied, thereby upholding the Planning Commission denial of the grading request. The City Council also forwarded a different aspect of the grading application to the Planning commission for review He also reported that the City Council would be considering whether to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the observation booths at CPH at its next meeting CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 28, 2000 Commissioner Cartwright noted that on page 10 of the minutes there was a statement he made that did not make sense. He asked staff to review the tape to clarify the statement. Without objection the minutes were approved as amended, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. 2. Variance No. 462, Height Variation No. 891, and Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit No. 30 — Time Extension: Martha Gallo and Carlos Amezcua (applicants), 27026 Freeport Road. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that the applications were approved by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1999, and were valid for one year. He explained that the Code does allow for a one-year time extension upon showing a substantial hardship, delays beyond the control of the applicant, or other good cause Staff had determined that the applicant had encountered a substantial hardship and the applicant had made an effort to continue the process in plan check. Therefore, staff recommended a one-year time extension with all conditions remaining in full force and effect. There being no objections, Chairman Lyon moved to approve the applicants' request for a one-year time extension, from the date of approval, via minute order, thereby setting the expiration date as December 14, 2001, with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and effect. Approved, (6-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance No. 479: Harry and Barbara Wormbrand (applicants), 29524 Stonecrest Road. Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report. He explained that in 1998 the applicants had received Planning Commission approval for an addition As part of the approval for the application, a potting area was conditioned to remain open and uncovered and enclosed by walls no higher than 6 feet in height. In April, 2000, the Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding the construction of a green house at the property. In response to the complaint staff conducted a site investigation of the property and found the potting area had been enclosed and covered to create a green house structure. He explained that the structure did not comply with the setback standards of 15 feet at the rear of the property, therefore a Variance application was required and submitted by the applicant He stated that staff determined that only 2 of Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page2 the 4 findings for a Variance application could be made in a positive manner and recommended denial of Variance No. 479. Commissioner Paulson asked if on the applicant's first application to the Planning Commission one of the conditions of approval was that the potting area not be enclosed and the walls be no higher than 6 -feet. He asked if the applicants signed a paper stating they understood and accepted the conditions of approval He further asked if the applicants then received approval of a Site Plan Review for a trellis area and again the condition of approval regarding the potting area was included. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that that was correct. Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Barbara Wurmbrand (applicant) 29524 Stonecrest Road stated that she did understand the conditions of approval relating to her previous applications She stated that she clearly did not think that anyone would mind if they added a roof to the potting area. She felt that it was a harmless structure, as it was quiet with no noise coming from the area She also stated that it sits at the rear of the property and is surrounded by tall trees. She felt that the complaint her neighbor behind her made to the City did not have anything to do with the green house. She explained that in September she contacted her immediate neighbors regarding the green house. All of her neighbors expressed support for the greenhouse, except the neighbor directly behind her. She explained that this neighbor was very angry, shocked, and offended by the previous addition to her property. Mrs. Wurmbrand explained that she was invited into the neighbor's living room to observe the view She stated that it was impossible to see the green house from the living room, as it is surrounded by 9 -foot trees. She did notice, however, that the room addition was very visible. She felt the logical remedy was to landscape the rest of the back fence area to preclude the neighbor's view of the room addition She did not think that lowering or removing the green house would solve the real problem. Commissioner Cartwright stated that, though the green house may be harmless, the applicant had signed the paper stating they understood and agreed to the conditions of approval. He felt this was a flagrant disregard for the conditions of approval. Mrs. Wurmbrand stated that she could not argue that point and it was a mistake to erect the structure and she should not have done it In hindsight she realized she should have requested the variance prior to erecting the green house. She added that having done it, she strongly felt the remedy of landscaping the back of the property was the logical one. Commissioner Cartwright stated that one of the requirements in approving a variance was that there be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that affect the applicant, but do not affect any of the other neighbors He asked Mrs. Wurmbrand what that exceptional or extraordinary circumstance was in her situation. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page3 Mrs. Wurmbrand responded that both she and her husband were retired and that the use of the green house was therapeutic. It reduces their stress and keeps them busy in a productive way and the green house was extraordinarily important to their well being. Commissioner Cartwright asked Mrs. Wurmbrand why she didn't ask the City for a Variance prior to erecting the structure. Mrs. Wurmbrand answered that she did not have a good answer to that question She stated that she would like to try to persuade the Commission to look kindly upon her project She stated again that she regretted the way in which the project was done, but still did not see how taking the structure down would change the situation for her neighbors. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Long stated that there were two concerns that would cause him to support the staff report The first would be that the Commission would be creating a bad precedent in approving an after -the -fact structure in a situation such as this. He felt this would almost encourage people to not apply for the Variance, build the project, and then come to the City for approvals Secondly, he felt there was a clear set of findings that could not be made that were necessary to grant the Variance. Commissioner Mueller agreed with Commissioner Long's comments and added that he agreed with the staff report. Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he had mixed feelings He agreed with the logic involved with denying the project, however he noted that the applicant admitted her mistake and he agreed that the greenhouse caused no harm to anyone Commissioner Paulson stated that the original project was not to build a greenhouse. This potting area was merely a condition of approval included with a larger addition. He felt that conditions of approval should be complied with. Chairman Lyon agreed with the comments of the Commission He stated that rules were made to be followed. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2000-43, thereby denying Variance No. 479, as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (6-0). 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 221, Grading Permit No. 2232, Variance No. 477 and Environmental Assessment No. 733: Peninsula Montessori School (Claudia Krikorian), 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He noted that the staff report indicated that the proposed structure was 15,099 square feet, however the applicant Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page4 revised the plans by reducing the structure by 100 square feet prior to the packets distribution to the Commission He explained the four different applications and why they were required and gave a brief presentation on the history of the lot. He used an overhead display to show the original application for the Montessori school and the subsequent modifications, which were made after meetings with city staff and residents at Villa Capri He noted that during this process noise and air quality studies were done and conditions were added to address those concerns He showed the current proposal with the underground parking garage He explained that access would be maintained by the common driveway between St. Paul Lutheran Church and the subject property and noted that there is an existing recorded easement for a shared driveway Mr Mihranian reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and the setback requirements He noted that at no point would the project exceed the 16 -foot height limit. Further, the existing earth mound is proposed to be removed, thus lowering the grade to an elevation that can accommodate a 16 -foot high structure without significantly impairing views from the surrounding residences He also explained that the parking structure would contain 50 parking spaces to fulfill the non-exclusive parking easement that is recorded on the property for the use by St. Paul's Lutheran Church Mr Mihranian explained that the Traffic Committee reviewed the traffic study prepared by the applicant and determined that the proposed use would not significantly adversely affect he intersection of Hawthorne Blvd and Palos Verdes Drive West. He stated that the Traffic Committee had conditionally approved the Public Works staff recommendations and that these conditions are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval The Traffic Committee did have concerns regarding the "U" turn on Palos Verdes Drive West. They asked that a study be conducted to see whether a left turn lane pocket could be constructed off of Palos Verdes Drive West. He stated that staff was requiring that the feasibility of constructing a left turn lane be part of a six month review if the Planning Commission were to approve the project. He stated that staff was requiring a lighting plan be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, and be subsequently reviewed 60 days after the installation of lighting In discussing the grading, Mr Mihranian noted that 18,600 cubic yards of earth would be exported off the site to a site in EI Segundo He stated that the Variance was required to allow the subterranean parking lot to encroach by 3 feet into the required setback as well as to allow the lot coverage to increase from the maximum 40% to 45% He stated that staff found all Variance findings could be supported He added that staff was recommending an additional condition be imposed on the project that puts a maximum student cap of 240 students with 26 staff members Staff was recommending this be included since the environmental studies conducted on the project were based on a student population of 240 Therefore, based on staffs analysis, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, and Environmental Assessment with the conditions of approval Commissioner Paulson asked if the entire 50 -foot setback area adjacent to Villa Capri was going to be landscaped Associate Planner Mihranian responded that the entire 50 -foot area would be landscaped, except for the required footpath for emergency egress and ingress Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page5 purposes Staff was requiring a condition be included that restricts the height of the landscaping from exceeding the ridgeline of the structure. Commissioner Paulson asked if the height and elevation figures presented included the air conditioning units on the roof Associate Planner Mihranian responded that that was correct. Further, staff was requiring a screening wall be included, which would be a finished wall in a color similar to the fagade of the structures RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:20 p.m. the Commission took a short recess until 8.30 p m. at which time they reconvened. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS There were no speakers. CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT.) Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing. Claudia Krikorian (applicant) 1821 Paseo Del Sol, PVE, stated that she was the owner and director of Peninsula Montesson School which was presently located at Ridgecrest School. Due to the necessity of the PVUSD to open additional classrooms to accommodate an increasing number of middle school children, the Montessori School must vacate its current premises by June, 2001. She explained that before committing to buying this property she had scheduled a meeting with the neighbors, including St Paul's Church and the residents of Villa Capri. She explained the purpose of the meeting was to discuss various options and receive input on the proposed school She explained that the plans were revised several times to accommodate the wishes of the neighbors. She felt that the current proposal meets the criteria for an accredited Montessori school as well as satisfy all conditions required by the city. She felt that if the school were approved it would serve as a beautiful and safe haven in which children may continue to thrive for generations to come Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms Krikorian if she had read the staff report and agreed with the report and the conditions of approval She answered that she had read the report and was in agreement with the conditions of approval Commissioner Cartwright asked Ms Krikorian if she had any comments regarding the Traffic Committee proposal for the left turn lane on Palos Verdes Drive South. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page6 Ms. Krikorian stated that she was very much in favor of constructing the left turn lane and would be petitioning for that as soon as the school construction was started. Sonya Haves 64 Via Capri, stated that she was not opposed to the school and wished them much luck She felt that the final proposal was acceptable She did not oppose the five-foot walkway around the building, but did not want it used for anything other than emergency use. She requested the doors that came out of there be emergency exit doors only. Paul Payne 52 Via Capri, stated that he was not speaking for the Homeowners Association but as a homeowner in the complex. He commended Mrs. Krlkorlan for going the extra mile, and then some to alleviate the concerns of the residents of Villa Capri. He stated that his concerns with the plans stemmed from work done at Villa Capri during reconstruction, particularly with hydrology and soils He was pleased that there would be an extensive hydrology and soils study done on the project. He stated that he looked forward to seeing the project completed. Commissioner Cartwright asked if there was a drainage problem at Villa Capri. Mr. Payne answered that there did not appear to be a drainage problem at the present time. He stated that Villa Capri had done extensive work to alleviate past drainage and land problems at the site Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Payne if he had any objections to the height of the structure and the screening wall. Mr. Payne stated that he did not have a problem with either, however he noted his unit was directly behind St. Paul's Lutheran Church Suzanne Gulcher 30034 Via Borica (representing St. Paul's Lutheran Church) stated her support for the project. She was particularly pleased with the parking solution and clarified that the church would be using the parking structure on the weekends, when school was not in session She stated that she was also very supportive of the left turn lane. Commissioner Cartwright asked if the church had a school associated with it. Ms. Gulcher responded that they only had Sunday school. John Tulchin 2329 Chelsea Road, PVE, stated that he had three children attending the Montessori School He commended the school and their style of teaching. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project Nancy DiPietro 30923 Rue de la Pierre, stated her support for the project and the current school. She stated that this project would be a real asset to the community Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Pagel 0 9 Jerry Kehle 42 Santa Catalina Drive, stated that he had three grandchildren attending the school and highly commended the school and this project. He too encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project Lesley Boyland 3434 Hightide Drive, stated her support for the school and the proposed project. Cone Hickson 50 Nuvola Ct , stated that she was Ms Krikorian's daughter and had attending Montesson School throughout her early education. She discussed the Montessori School and their unique approach to learning. She hoped that the Planning Commissioners had visited Peninsula Montessori and were aware of what the children could loose. She hoped that each Commissioner understood how their decision could impact the lives of the children. She felt that this school could happen through flexibility and vision. Chuck Bennett 28119 Lobrook Drive, felt the project was very beautiful, had far less Impact than any other commercial use, reasonable hours, and a place to educate the children. Dann Cloud 3563 Vigilance Drive, stated his support for the Montessori School project. Christine Kolandjian 1380 Via Romero, PVE, stated her full support to the Montessori School Joanne Lewis 62 Via Capri, stated that her townhome would directly face the Montessori school. She explained that she purchased her home less than a year ago and what had clinched the deal was the spectacular ocean view She also explained that what nearly killed the deal was the vacant lot directly in front of the townhome. She stated that she had researched what could possibly be built at that site and felt that what was being proposed for the site was better than anything she could have imagined She felt the building was aesthetically pleasing and was satisfied with the parking. She thanked Ms Krikorian for her hard work in pleasing the neighbors and offered her full support to the project Hannibal Petrossi (architect) 3700 Campus Drive #200, Newport Beach thanked the speakers for their support. He stated that he had put much thought into the roof of the building and had chosen an earthtone gravel with a mission style tile. He stated the top of the mechanical units would match the color of the roof, making it more difficult to see He explained that he has begun looking into shoring on the north side of the property and is working closely with engineers to ensure everything is constructed safely. He explained that he has done everything possible to provide a beautiful, safe project for the community. He stated that he was available to the Commissioners for questions Commissioner Long asked staff about the shoring. He asked if the contractor would be required to carry Liability Insurance, and to what degree to protect the neighbors against subsidence. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page8 Mr Petrossi stated that there was a minimum $1 million insurance for the contractor Director/Secretary Rojas stated that there was no planning requirement for a certain type of insurance He noted that the shoring plans would have to be approved by Cal OSHA and they would have certain insurance requirements He noted that he could not recall the Planning Department or Commission putting conditions on an approval specifying an insurance requirement. Commissioner Long did not think $1 million would be enough insurance Commissioner Paulson asked Mr Petrossi about the building doors that face the buffer area to Villa Capri He asked if it were possible to make those doors emergency exit doors only as requested by Ms Hayes Mr Petrossi answered that those doors were designed as emergency exit doors Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if it was possible to put the mechanical equipment in the subterranean garage rather than on the roof Mr Petrossi answered that he had researched the possibility but that would require too much space and was extremely expensive Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he had spoken with John Schurick from PV Engineering, who was familiar with the Villa Capri project. Mr Vannorsdall expressed concern regarding the runoff water at the site, considering the problems experienced at Villa Capri He asked Mr Petrosi if he had done any test borings to see what the water content was and the location and where bedrock was located Mr Petrossi responded that one of the first things done at the site were borings for the soils and geologic reports He stated that the results of these borings were in the geologic report that had been submitted, and subsequently approved by the City Commissioner Lyon closed the public hearing Chairman Lyon complimented the audience, the applicant, and the staff on what he felt was an outstanding job on working together to bring together a project that meets the needs of the applicant and avoids problems with the neighbors Commissioner Paulson stated that after listening to the public testimony, the staff report, and the discussion that has taken place, he had no further discussion or questions to ask and was prepared to vote on the matter Commissioner Cartwright stated that the staff report and presentation were excellent. He noted that the Montessori school had an outstanding reputation, but the question before the Commission was whether they could put this school on this particular piece Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page9 of property without unacceptable impacts to the neighbors. He felt that after listening to the public comments and reading the staff report the answer was that you could Commissioner Vannorsdall asked if there was going to be any outside lighting on the project Associate Planner Mihranian answered that there will be lighting, and stated that a condition of approval requires that a lighting plan be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit He noted that the conditions of approval require that the lighting be shut off Sunday through Thursday at 9 00 p m and Friday and Saturday at 10 p.m., except for any lighting deemed necessary for security purposes. Commissioner Long echoed the thoughts of the other Commissioners. He clarified however that it was not up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the school will exist. The Planning Commission was to apply a land use ordinance to determine whether or not this particular piece of property, chosen by the school owner, is a suitable piece of property for this school to be built Therefore, it is the school's owner who is responsible for whether or not the school exists, not the Commission He did feel all of the findings could be made but again questioned the insurance requirement for the grading on the project and the protection of the Villa Capri homeowners in case of subsidence. He requested that if it were in the City's power, to add a condition to the grading permit requiring that insurance of limits and type, to be approved by staff, be documented to the City before the grading proceeds. He felt $1 million was inadequate and that $5 million or more would be adequate. He felt the insurance policy should not have any exclusion of the very type of subsidence risk the city was concerned about, that the coverage have broad forms, that it include completed operations coverage, and the certificate of insurance provide adequate time and notice of cancellation. Commissioner Mueller agreed with the statements made by the Commissioners and complimented the staff on their thorough report. He did have concern over the enrollment figure in the staff report which capped the enrollment at 240 students He asked how that figure addressed the current enrollment at the school and what increase in enrollment was anticipated in the long term at the site. Chairman Lyon re -opened the public hearing Claudia Knkonan stated that the current enrollment of the school was 300 and they were going to downsize the school at the new location She felt that the school year would begin with 240 children and then create a waiting list for additional children. She stated that there would never be more than 240 children attending the school at one time. Commissioner Mueller asked why this site was so desirable since the school would have to be downsized Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 PagelO Ms. Krikonan responded that this was the only site available in the city, and she did not want to leave the peninsula. Commissioner Mueller asked if there would ever be classes held on the weekends. Ms. Krikoran answered that there were not classes held on Saturdays or Sundays, and all students were enrolled in a 5 -day a week program Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mueller felt the enrollment cap was a stringent requirement. He asked if this was a realistic requirement and how was staff going to verify the enrollment. Associate Planner Mihranian stated that on a yearly basis the applicant will provide the city with an enrollment count to verify that there are no more than 240 students in the school. Because the environmental review specifically accounted for 240 students, which was how the cap was established. Any future increase in the enrollment cap would require a Conditional Use Permit amendment and additional environmental review. Chairman Lyon suggested amending Condition No. 13 He felt that the wording should be changed to delete the words "per academic year" and adding "at any point in time" to clarify the condition. Staff agreed Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that he had attended the Traffic Committee meeting and he discussed the proposed left turn lane and the many advantages of this lane. He felt that the possibility of a future left turn lane should be included in the conditions of approval of the project Commissioner Paulson pointed out that staff recommended a six-month review period and felt that at that time the left turn lane be discussed Director/Secretary Rojas suggested that, since the applicant has expressed a desire to construct the left turn lane, a condition of approval be placed that a left turn lane be constructed some time in the future. Chairman Lyon felt this was a win-win situation for all parties involved. Chairman Lyon moved to approve the staff recommendations thereby adopting P.C. Resolution No. 2000-44 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and P.C. Resolution No. 2000-45 thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 221, Grading Permit No. 2232, Variance No. 477, and Environmental Assessment No. 7333 with the additional amendments Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Pagel1 • that Condition Nos. 26 and 13 be modified as discussed and a condition be added to cover the insurability of the contractor, and add a condition regarding the construction of a left turn lane. Also, the condition regarding lighting shall be amended to allow for lighting in the parking garage to be on until midnight when the church is holding special services. Further, Condition No. 11 shall read the structure size of 14, 990 square feet and the lot coverage is 45 percent, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10 15 p m the Commission took a short recess until 10.25 p m at which time they reconvened CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Guidelines and Procedures for preservation of views where structures are involved (Height Variation permits. Chairman Lyon began by explaining that this subject was being discussed at his request because he felt that on several occasions in the past there had been misunderstandings about what the code and guidelines meant regarding view impairment. He felt a session was necessary to discuss what the code meant and what the guidelines say, and if the guidelines are not sufficient to describe the intent and meaning of the code then the guidelines should be changed He briefly reviewed the discussion held at the last Planning Commission meeting and explained that since two Commissioners were absent he did not want to make any conclusions at that time Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report. He clarified that the City Council, the Planning Commission, and city staff all have to follow the Development Code He stated that the Development Code itself gives the Commission and staff the authority to exceed, in some cases, the code requirements if certain findings can be made With respect to Height Variation application findings 4 and 6, he noted that both were part of the Development Code and the City Council has the final authority to amend the Development Code He noted that any person has the ability to initiate a code amendment, which will go to the City Council, a public hearing process, and back to the City Council for approval He explained that the portion of the code that contains findings 4 and 6 comes from Proposition M, which was approved by the voters. This makes proposing changes to findings 4 and 6 particularly sensitive and any amendment to this section cannot be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Prop M He explained that the Height Variation guidelines were used by the staff and Planning Commission to process height variation applications The purpose of the guidelines was solely to clarify the definitions, procedures, and findings found in the code These guidelines were adopted by the City Council, and any amendments to the guidelines must be approved by the City Council He felt it was beneficial for the Commission to discuss the interpretation of the guidelines to ensure consistency when reviewing applications However, he hoped the Commission could resolve the issues without Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page12 having to amend any guidelines or codes, as these amendments would have to go through a lengthy review process and ultimately before the City Council He suggested that if the Commission were to agree that the guidelines are in need of clarification, and the clarifications are determined to be consistent with Prop M, that those amendments be tabled until after the neighborhood compatibility subcommittee has an opportunity to report to the Commission whether it thinks any clarification amendments need to be made to the guidelines on the neighborhood compatibility portion Commissioner Long noted that any major changes, as opposed to minor changes, that change the intent or scope of Prop M requires approval of the voters L Commissioner Cartwright felt this discussion was being held to make sure the Commissioners understood what the guidelines say and that the Commission can communicate this to the public He hoped that the Commission would not get hung up on whether or not they were going to change the Guidelines or Code, but to concentrate on interpretation of the code and guidelines as written Chairman Lyon felt that it would be helpful to provide a definition of a protected view in the documentation He noted that staff had provided a proposed definition in the staff report, which he was in agreement with, and suggested that the Planning Commission adopt this definition of a protected view Commissioner Long did not think this proposal would allow the Commission to reconcile their points of view He read aloud the definition of protected view as given in the staff report. He stated that many commissioners may interpret this definition to read any view below 16 feet is not protected He did not interpret the definition in that way He felt that the term protected view had been put into staff reports and discussions and he felt it was something that was created because of a departure from the ordinance He noted that the Planning Commission's role was to apply the ordinance and he urged the Commission to go back to the words of the ordinance He felt the words could be understood in their literal terms and should be interpreted in that way He felt that protected view meant different things, depending on facts, in the ordinance He noted that in the case of a height variation the ordinance says the Commission must make a finding Finding No 4 does not refer to protected view He stated that the term and the staff deliberations regarding protected view violates the ordinance and warp the intent of the people He felt what the Commission was intending to do at this time, through the back door, was to amend the ordinance to restrict protection for views He did not feel there was a need for a definition of protected view, as he felt there was a definition of view in the ordinance He did not think the Commission or staff could amend this definition In looking at Finding No 4 it states that there must be a reasonable effort to minimize impairment of views, but not protected views Therefore, he felt that protected view shall be the view as defined in the ordinance Commissioner Paulson stated that the basic issue was personal interpretation on whether or not a view was being impacted as it applied to the specific finding no 4 He was not sure that defining protected view would solve that interpretation problem Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page13 Chairman Lyon distributed a memo outlining his suggestions on the differences between findings no. 4 and no. 6. He discussed finding no, 6 and stated that he felt that the finding, as written, was adequate. However, in discussing finding no 4 he noted that the way it was written was not clear and understandable He felt that when you combine the ordinance language with the guideline language in 4(a) there was a problem. He explained that the requirement explained in 4(a) preempts finding no. 6, but in practice he did not feel that was what was intended. He felt it would be prudent to adopt a reasonable interpretation of finding 4 and clarify its meaning and intent, as long as the code is not contradicted. He acknowledged that this may need City Council approval and that this may wait until after a report from the neighborhood compatibility committee. After outlining and discussing several alternate word changes, Chairman Lyon proposed to delete the words entirely in guideline 4(a) and replace it with. "The applicant shall demonstrate that they have considered and/or implemented reasonable design alternatives to diminish the impact on other property owners views." He felt these changes would make the guidelines consistent with the Commission's past practice and consistent with the intentions of those who wrote the code Commissioner Cartwright did not think there was much the Commission could do at this meeting that would solve the interpretation problems the Commission was encountering. He did not feel these changes would help solve the problem. He felt that taking away the words "protected view" and replacing them with "view" was making it more difficult for residents to understand what was expected. Commissioner Long liked the language the Chairman suggested and felt they were helpful ways to help clarify Guideline 4(a). However, he did not think it solved the core problem of the different interpretations of the guidelines Commissioner Paulson had a concern with changing words. He noted that 7 people can look at the same word and define it differently. He felt that changing the word "minimize" to "unreasonable" may not work because every commissioner may have their own definition of unreasonable. Chairman Lyon stated that each commissioner has the right and obligation to decide what he thinks is reasonable and he did not want to prevent that independence of thinking Commissioner Long stated that "significant" and "reasonable" were words that were left to the interpretation of each commissioner. He stated that the commission will not always arrive at a consensus but they would use the same measuring stick, and he felt that was useful Commissioner Cartwright felt that a significant first step had been made in opening the discussion on the subject He felt that there would be the opportunity in a few weeks to see if this first step was enough, and proposed to table this discussion to some time in the future if the Commission was still having difficulties on the subject Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page14 Commissioner Long agreed that significant, positive steps had been taken He clarified that statements he made earlier In the meeting may have been taken out of context and what he meant to say was that in his view, it seemed as though people were suggesting amendments that he felt had undesirable affects He stressed that the view ordinance was an area where the commission needed to be particularly careful in terms of what they did to terms of changing and implementing the ordinance He apologized if his memorandum gave the impression that these were ulterior motives by other commissioners Chairman Lyon accepted Commissioner Long's apology and opened the public hearing. Ken Dyda 5715 Capeswood Drive stated that the discussion he had heard dealt with the specificity of guidelines. He stated that guidelines were meant to give one the latitude to interpret things which are not definable. He did not think staffs proposed definition of protected view added to the ordinance He agreed that the definition of view was in the ordinance and in the guidelines He noted that a view owner and a person wanting to build a building were going to define protected view in different ways. He felt that the guidelines gave all of the guidance needed to make an interpretation He suggested that any changes suggested to the guidelines be brought before the view restoration commission for their review, as they too would be affected. Martin Dodell 5751 Capeswood Drive stated that he was a member of RPV Voice, which was a corporation with the objective of the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of views in the city. He wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to focus on and simplify language that will continue to preserve and protect views He did not think the Planning Commission should depart from the ordinance and did not think there was a need for any language addressing protected views. He told the Commission that views were important to every single resident on the peninsula. Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing Director/Secretary Rojas referred to the memo distributed by Commissioner Long He noted that Mr. Long had written that by staff using the term protected view it departs from the Ordinance and effectively rewrites the Ordinance. Mr. Rojas stated that staff applies the definition of view from the Ordinance, the definition of viewing area from the Ordinance, and the areas from where the view is protected in the home from the Ordinance and when you combine the three, the net effect is what staff refers to as a protected view. He also noted a statement from the memo stating that staff had adopted an interpretation that if finding no. 6 can be made, that finding no. 4 can automatically be made He stated that staff has always felt that these are two different findings and sometimes staff does make the finding for item no 6 and not for item no. 4 and visa versa. Finally, he clarified that staff does not believe that the definition of viewing area is in contradiction with the language covered in the guidelines which allow the viewing area to include multiple rooms, as stated in the memo Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Page15 Commissioner Cartwright felt that the memo from Commission Long gave the impression that there was hidden agenda to change the guidelines or code He stated that this item was agendized to look for ways to flow through the height variation guidelines a little smoother than had been done in the past. He stated there was no attempt to covertly change the guidelines or definitions in the code. Commissioner Long disclaimed any intent to suggest that anyone had any ulterior motives, but clarified that at the same time he received the minutes from the last meeting he also received what he interpreted to be proposed amendments to the code He interpreted these amendments to have the effect of contradicting the ordinance. Commissioner Paulson complimented the Chairman for bringing this item up as an agenda item, recognizing the sensitivity of the issues He felt that bringing the item onto the table and having it discussed in an open forum may not have resulted in any word changes but may very well have accomplished the Chairman's objective, which was to get clarity on the issues Commissioner Cartwright concurred Chairman Lyon did not feel that continuing this item to a date certain would be the best thing to do. He felt it would be better to table the item until there was a need to bring the subject up again at a later date. Commissioner Long felt it would be useful to bring the subject up again in connection with neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Mueller moved to table the discussion, seconded by Commissioner Long. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Lyon. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cartwright moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. WAMMinutes\2000\20001212 doc Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2000 Pagel6