Loading...
PC MINS 20041214CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Appr ved January 11, 0.Q5 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mueller at 7:00 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Karp, Knight, Perestam, and Chairman Mueller Commissioner Tetreault arrived at 8.00 p m Absent. None Also present were Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Schonborn, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented, (5-0). COMMUNICATIONS Director/Secretary Rojas reported that Vice Chair Cote has resigned from the Planning Commission and that recruitment for a new Planning Commissioner is underway. He also reported that the City Council had begun to hear the appeal of Planning Commission's decision on the driveway on Vista Del Mar but no decision has been made. Chairman Mueller thanked Ms. Cote for her service on the Planning Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Revision to the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes The Planning Commission unanimously approved the requested amendment to the minutes. (5-0) 2. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2004-00550): 6612 Channelview Court Commissioner Knight asked if any of the proposed work would be conducted in the public right-of-way. Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the sign would be located on private property Commissioner Knight noted there are tall bushes on the property and asked if the Planning Commission is required to make sure the bushes do not interfere with the visibility triangle. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the process involves the Public Works staff performing a site visit to verify the site distances are adequate, noting that a memo from the Public Works Department did not recommend any changes to the bushes or foliage on the property. Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court stated that he was required to create a visibility triangle, and was inspected by the City Commissioner Knight moved to approve the project, via minute order, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0). 3. Amendment to Height Variation 884 and Conditions of Approval of Tract 31617 (Case No. ZON2004-00409): 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Commissioner Knight discussed section 3 of the Height Vanation Resolution, which discusses the balcony encroachment. He noted there was a statement in the Resolution which says that the neighboring property's view was significantly impaired. He did not recall that the Planning Commission made the determination that there was a significant view impairment based upon the Municipal Code, and asked staff to clarify the wording in the Resolution. Associate Planner Schonborn felt that the Planning Commission's conclusion was that there was a view impairment created by the balcony. Chairman Mueller agreed with Commission Knight, noting that his recollection was that there were several opinions among the Commissioners, however he recalled in the discussion that he pointed out that the height of the balcony is below the 16 -foot by right height limit, and therefore could not be used when discussing significant view impairment. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Perestam added that his recollection was that the Planning Commission was very explicit that the balcony did not cause a view impairment, as it is under 16 -feet in height. Chairman Mueller suggested striking the section discussing significant view impact resulting from the balcony Commissioner Perestam agreed, noting that it did not have a bearing on the motion or the vote. Director/Secretary Rojas suggested removing Section 3 entirely from the Resolution, and the Commission agreed. Commissioner Knight referred to the Resolution for the tract amendment, Section 2, he noted that he had mentioned at the last meeting that particular statement in the resolution was open ended and suggested adding a statement saying "pursuant to Condition 3 in exhibit A", which specifies that certain things have to be done in order for the columns to remain Associate Planner Schonborn noted typos in the Resolution regarding the height variation that would be corrected. He also noted that in Exhibit A of the Resolution, condition 3, he noted that staff does not incorporate a time limit to commence the work and recommended the condition further read that "the balcony shall be removed or modified within 180 days from the date of this approval". Director/Secretary Rojas stated that he had received an e-mail from Commissioner Tetreault with his recommended changes to the Resolution. He stated that Commissioner Tetreault was requesting a clarification be made to Condition 3 of the Resolution to clarify the property line, as currently the condition requires the balcony maintain a 15 -foot setback, which is equivalent to a 30 -foot setback from the rear south property line. He suggested language be added clarifying that as such line existed at the time the Planning Commission approved Height Variation No 884 on August 23, 1999. The Planning Commission agreed to that change Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-51 thereby approving Case No. ZON2004-00409, and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-52 as amended as follows: 1) Add to Exhibit A, Condition 3 to reflect the date of August 23, 1999; 2) to add language that work shall the balcony shall be removed or modified within 180 days of approval; 3) remove section 3 from the height variation Resolution; 4) page 3, Section 2 of the Resolution of the Tract Amendment Resolution, make reference to condition 3 of Exhibit A, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining. 4. One time extension of Parcel Map 26896 (Case No. SUB2004-00013) Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 3 The Planning Commission unanimously approved the requested 1 -year time extension, thereby setting the final expiration date of Tentative Parcel Map No 25896 as November 28, 2005, with all conditions of approval remaining in full force and effect CONTINUED BUSINESS . View Restoration Permit No. 173: 32653 Seagate Drive, Unit 106 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the applicant has withdrawn the application, and staff was requesting the Planning Commission accept the withdrawal Commissioner Karp moved to accept the withdrawal of the permit as requested, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Revision to Variance and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00542): 2967 Crest Road Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the applicant is requesting to revise the current approvals to allow for an additional 600 square feet to the residence He explained the proposed addition and that staff did an assessment of the addition, noting that with regards to bulk and mass nothing has changed from the original assessment, as the footprint will not change. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the revision to the Variance and Grading Permit. Commissioner Karp asked if the house was currently under construction Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the house is currently framed. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the Planning Commission had any discussion or concerns when this house was originally approved regarding the neighborhood compatibility as it related to the size of the proposed residence. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the size of the proposed residence in relation to neighborhood compatibility was not an issue during the original Planning Commission hearing Commissioner Knight referred to the soils report for the construction of the new home and asked staff if a subsequent report has been submitted showing the soil under the currently poured slab is adequate, and has the City Geologist approved that report Associate Planner Schonborn replied that this is reviewed during the Building and Safety plan check process Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Perestam asked staff to clarify what changes would be visible from the outside if this addition were approved Associate Planner Schonborn explained that there would be a window in the location of the currently approved screen access area. Commissioner Tetreault arrived at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp stated that this project, as proposed, is innocuous, however he was disturbed that once again the Planning Commission was being asked to approve something after -the -fact. He did not want to set a precedent that once something is built without approvals it will eventually get approval from the Planning Commission. He noted, however, that this project could easily be approved, even though he did not approve of the method' in which the approval was requested He questioned why the building inspectors did not catch this change and stop work on the area until approvals were given Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the only change would be the installation of the window rather than the screen, and the building inspectors brought this change to the attention of the Planning Department Commissioner Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Karp's comments, however he understood how changes could be conceived once construction has begun, and to restrict applicants to the approved plans could be somewhat difficult and arbitrary if the changes are rather innocuous. He felt the changes in this application were innocuous, as there are no changes to the footprint or lot coverage. Commissioner Knight also agreed with Commissioner Karp's comments regarding after - the -fact construction. He felt that the addition of 600 square feet was adding square footage to an already very large home. He was concerned that applicants could get the impression that larger projects could be piecemealed to avoid complications a large project may bring when before the Planning Commission. Chairman Mueller agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners, however he noted that in this situation the change to the appearance of the home is slight and was not against approving the project, even though he had some concerns about the overall size of the house. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2004-53 thereby approving Case No. ZON2004-00542 as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0) Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 5 7. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2004-00194): 7239 Rue Ia Fleur Associate Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and stating that staff was able to make the necessary findings to approve the height variation. He noted that staff had received comments in response to the public notice of the proposed project that were related to neighborhood compatibility and view impairment With regards to neighborhood compatibility, he explained that staff determined the resulting structure size did not deviate from the structure size in the immediate neighborhood Regarding view impairment, he explained that staff did a site visit to a neighboring property, and concluded that significant view impairment would not result to the neighboring property from their primary viewing area. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the proposed project subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the concerns of the neighbor regarding views, and noted that the Development Code states that a resident may appeal staffs decision of a primary viewing area and the determination of primary viewing area will then be made by the body reviewing the application He asked staff if the neighbor had appealed staffs decision regarding primary viewing area. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that Mr Zirkel had not formally appealed staffs decision of the determination of the primary viewing area, however he felt that this is the forum that will allow him to do so as he can state his case to the Planning Commission as to why he feels the second story master bedroom should be considered the primary viewing area Commissioner Knight asked if the photographs in the staff report were taken by staff or the applicant Associate Planner Schonborn stated that the neighbor took the photographs Commissioner Perestam asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant regarding the design of the project. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that staff did not have a concern with the design and neighborhood compatibility because of the location of the addition and the incorporation of the gable roof. Chairman Mueller opened the public hearing. Elmer Zirkel 7233 Rue Ia Fleur stated that the Rancho Palos Verdes Guidelines are very specific to preserve views and to protect, enhance, and perpetuate views available to property owners. He stated that the guidelines state that the view may be located on the 2nd or higher story of the structure, noting that his view is in the master bedroom on the second story and this is his only view room He felt that the applicants want to take his view and give it to themselves for their new "apartment" and make him pay for it by Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 6 devaluating his residence He felt this should not be allowed without exploring all possible means. He stated that the request by the Changs takes out a large portion of his ocean, offshore islands, and all of the fall and winter sunset views. He stated that his view extends from Malibu to the tip of Catalina Island, which he felt is protected by the Municipal Code which defines protected views as a far view containing the word ocean and off -shore islands. He also stated that the Code states clearly that even if the view impairment is determined not to be significant the view should be protected, noting that if does not say some or partially, but all, and that the new addition to an existing structure above 16 feet should be designed and situated in a manner to reasonably minimize view impairment. He also noted that the Code states that view impairment may be minimized by redesigning or relocating the structure or reducing the size of the structure. He did not feel that the applicant had attempted any of these and instead his design is for maximum height and maximum coverage on the back of the roof and felt that the addition looms like a large ocean liner from the view from his house He felt that there was also potential for cumulative view impairment, as the residents at 7245 Rue la Fleur could obtain the same variance and their addition would further block his view. He disagreed with staffs finding of neighborhood compatibility, noting that no house in the immediate neighborhood has increased the crown height from the original roof He gave several examples of homes in the neighborhood that have a second story addition but have had no modification to the existing roofline. He wondered how the Planning Commission could approve this request with the outstanding issues and asked what basis the Planning Commission would have to disapprove anything submitted by anyone in the future that would like the same height variation and roof coverage as requested by the Changs. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Zirkel if he has modified his house in any way. Mr. Zirkel answered that his home has not been modified, except for the bay window in the dining room, which is on the first floor Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Zirkel if he disagrees with staffs determination of where the viewing area is in his home Mr. Zirkel stated he disagrees with staffs determination, noting that the only room that has an ocean view is the master bedroom. Commissioner Gerstner wanted Mr. Zirkel to be aware that if it is determined in this instance that the primary viewing area is from the master bedroom, that determination cannot change in the future if there is another application before staff Mr. Zirkel understood, stating that the only viewing room from his house is the master bedroom. Chairman Mueller stated that Mr. Zirkel disagrees with staff's determination of the viewing area, and referring to the Guidelines, asked Mr Zirkel if he is claiming his main living area is on the second floor of his residence Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 7 Mr. Zirkel answered that he did not feel that was required and referred to a section in the Code. He stated that this is his only viewing area in the house. Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Zirkel what his recommendation would be for the new proposed chimney. Mr. Zirkel felt that there was no reason for a chimney, as the applicant could install a gas or electric fireplace that would not require a chimney. Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked if moving the second story addition up and closer to the street would mitigate many of Mr. Zirkel's concerns. Associate Planner Schonborn answered that could potentially mitigate some of Mr Zirkel's concerns, however moving the addition forward may raise questions regarding bulk and mass of the structure. Commissioner Perestam noted that there is a wide variety of homes in the neighborhood and various sizes of homes, which the neighborhood seems to absorb quite well In looking at the plans, Commissioner Perestam noted that modifying the roof pitch would make the home more compatible with the neighborhood as well as mitigating the view impact from Mr. Zirkel's home He also noted that this would not necessarily cause a modification in the overall square footage of the applicant's home Commissioner Knight asked staff if lowering the roof would indeed mitigate the view impairment from Mr. Zirkel's home Associate Planner Schonborn explained that because of the view angle the proposed roof on the second story would most likely be over the horizon line at any pitch. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff to explain the section in the Guidelines which identifies the areas of a home that can be considered a viewing area, specifically when discussing the viewing area on a second story Associate Planner Schonborn explained that the Zirkel residence is a two-story residence above 16 feet in height. Therefore, had the height variation process been in place when the home was built in 1969, any residence built over 16 feet in height would have been subject to the height variation process, and therefore the exceptions discussed in the Code would not apply. Commissioner Tetreault noted that Prop M describes where the viewing area can be located in a home, and asked staff if Prop M or the Development Code allows the Planning Commission to take into account the impact a structure may have on the view of a neighboring home taken from a room that is not defined as a view area. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 8 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Code states that views are protected from viewing areas, and the Planning Commission cannot go beyond the viewing area. He also explained that the Guidelines state how a viewing area is defined, noting that the Guidelines state a viewing area cannot be taken from a second story, with two exceptions He explained that staff has determined Mr. Zirkel's home does not meet either of the exceptions. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8.45 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:00 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) Commissioner Karp asked staff if the Planning Commission is able to make the finding that the main viewing area is at the second floor master bedroom Director/Secretary Rojas explained that if the Planning Commission follows the Guidelines then they cannot make that determination, and read the section of the Guidelines that discusses the primary viewing area requirements. He explained that for the master bedroom to be considered a primary viewing area it would have to be on the same level as the main living area He stated that in this situation the master bedroom is not on the same level as the main living area and therefore does not qualify for the exceptions in the City Council approved guidelines. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has not been in the Zirkel residence, however it does not appear that there is any view from the first floor and the only viewing area is from the second floor. He asked staff if it was possible to say the best and most important view is from the second story bedroom. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that the Guidelines state the viewing area is where the best and most important view is taken, however the Guidelines go on to say that the area shall not be from a second story room Further, it has been a policy of the City that one cannot gain a view from a second story or by the addition of a second story Chairman Mueller agreed, adding that one cannot capture a view by having built a second story that would have required a height variation at the time it was built Commissioner Knight stated that he was concerned with the cumulative view impact, as it was apparent to him that this tract was built and designed in such a fashion that people could get some type of view of the ocean from some part of their house He asked if this was a finding that the Planning Commission could consider in this application Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 9 Director/Secretary Rojas explained that part of making the finding for cumulative view is consideration of the amount of view impairment caused by the view structure that is above 16 feet He noted that there is no reference to viewing area in the finding, however staff has taken the position that when discussing views, the views are taken from the viewing area to be consistent with Prop M. In reviewing the Guidelines he noted that it states the criteria for determining the significance of a cumulative view impairment is the same as for the significance of an individual structure Chairman Mueller added that in past cases when considering cumulative view impact, the view was considered from the primary viewing area He asked staff if there was anything that could be done with the chimney to help mitigate the view impact Associate Planner Schonborn explained that per the Development Code, chimneys are allowed to be constructed without taking views or view impairment into account. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he first saw the structure he wasn't looking at it so much for the view, but more for neighborhood compatibility, specifically for finding no.2. He stated the neighborhood is one of long, low gabled type roofs and the roofs are a very dominant part of the aesthetics. He stated the houses are not so much about the front facade of the house but more of the appearance of the cohesive mass. He felt that many houses in the neighborhood have solved the problem of a second story addition by working within the framework of the structure. He stated that to do this in this case, the addition would have to be moved more towards the center of the existing house where there is more of the higher peak in the existing roof. He felt that if other homes in the neighborhood were able to build second story additions in this manner, and if it is possible to do so with this residence, then he felt to be consistent with the neighborhood it should be investigated to solve the problem in a manner consistent with the way the same problem has been solved in the neighborhood. He felt this problem could be solved with some variations made to the second floor addition and, if necessary, wanted to see some drawings to show him it wouldn't work. Commissioner Knight agreed, adding that he would recommend this item be denied or continued and instruct the applicant to present alternatives to the Planning Commission that will better meet the needs of the applicant and the concerns of the neighbor Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has a great deal of sympathy for the Zirkels and could appreciate the pleasure they get from looking out their bedroom window to enjoy their ocean view. However, he did not feel the viewing area could be taken from the master bedroom, therefore, the Planning Commission cannot deny the application based upon view obstruction. Reviewing neighborhood compatibility, he agreed that Commissioner Gerstner's idea might work for both the applicant and the neighbor, however he did not think the Planning Commission should dictate to the applicant what the design should be if, looking at the plan as presented to the Planning Commission, it meets the test of neighborhood compatibility. He felt that the proposed addition is well back from the street, it does not appear to impose a great deal of bulk and mass, and the style is consistent with the neighborhood Therefore, he was having difficulty saying Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 10 that it is not compatible in order to force upon the applicant an alternative that the Planning Commission or the neighbor would prefer. Commissioner Perestam asked staff if this situation regarding the view from the second story is unique, or if it is something that staff sees frequently. Director/Secretary Rojas explained that it is common to have residents raise issues about views being blocked from second stories, and staffs response is that views are not protected from second stories Chairman Mueller asked staff if this current design was the only one that was submitted to staff, or if the applicant had submitted alternate designs at some time during the process. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that this was the only design submitted to staff. Chairman Mueller asked staff if they felt this particular addition, if built, would look in any way out of place in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Schonborn stated that staff concluded the addition would not be apparent or cause a negative impact to the neighborhood when viewed from the street. Commissioner Karp stated that possibly in the strictest interpretation there would be no issue with the view impairment, however he did not see it that way and felt that the Planning Commission has to be able to use some discretion and good judgment when making decisions He felt Commissioner Gerstner's point was well taken and urged the Planning Commission to continue the item to allow the applicant to redesign the addition He felt this was within the purview of the Planning Commission to do this, and did not think the Commission was bound by any hard and fast rules, and if that was the case there would be no need for a Planning Commission. Commissioner Perestam asked staff if the applicant or architect was in attendance and if the Planning Commission could request they answer some questions. Director/Secretary Rojas stated that they were at the meeting, however had not requested to speak. Commissioner Gerstner explained that his earlier comments were based on his opinion about neighborhood compatibility and this particular design. He felt that the architect could do something to the design to make it more compatible with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission has the opportunity to do so. He clarified that he was not requesting this because of the view from the neighbor's house but on compatibility issues only Commissioner Knight stated that even though the design may not stand out in the neighborhood, it does have a bit of a broken up boxy look on one corner of the house, Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 11 and agreed that the architect might be able to design an addition that is more compatible with the some of the other remodels that have happened in the neighborhood. He too noted that his comments about redesigning the addition were independent of the view issue of the neighbor. Chairman Mueller asked staff if there was an issue with the deadline on the Permit Streamlining Act Associate Planner Schonborn replied that the deadline was December 24, and the applicant would have to agree to a 90 -day extension in order for the item to be continued Commissioner Gerstner suggested the Planning Commission request an extension from the applicant, continue the item, and ask the applicant to respond with some designs that are more within the volume of the existing structure. Commissioner Tetreault did not feel that this proposed addition was so offensive as to not meet the neighborhood compatibility guidelines. He felt that the Planning Commission was supposed to look at the designs submitted and reject those that are too offensive rather than finding ones that perhaps are agreeable, but could be made better, and turning those away to improve upon them. He stated that the Guidelines are submitted to the Planning Commission by the City Council and he feels bound to them. He noted that the applicant, or anyone else, has the right of appeal to the City Council if they do not agree with the decision, and if anyone is going to deviate from the Guidelines it should be the City Council. Chairman Mueller re -opened the public hearing to ask the applicant or their representative to address the Planning Commission. Wayne Sun 3345 Wilshire Blvd (architect) explained that the Changs need additional space for their growing family as well as the parents that are living with them Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Sun if he was willing to grant an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Sun answered that he was willing to grant the 90 -day extension. Chairman Mueller asked Mr. Sun if there was anything he wanted to tell the Commission about alternative designs versus the design currently submitted to the Planning Commission Chris Kung 2500 Wilshire Blvd (contractor) stated that the design follows the City Guidelines and Building Code, and as long as he builds the project per the Codes, there shouldn't be any problems with the project. He asked the Planning Commission for clarification as to whether the proposed project blocks views from the neighboring residence Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 12 Chairman Mueller explained that the Planning Commission is currently struggling with the finding of neighborhood compatibility rather than the issue of views from the neighboring property Chairman Mueller closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner stated it was his opinion that the proposed addition was not compatible with the style and mass of either the existing house or other additions that have happened in the neighborhood. He felt that if other additions in the neighborhood could be compatible with the neighborhood in a different way than this addition would, then he would like to continue the item to allow the applicant to try to redesign the addition, at the same size, but in a more compatible way. He felt that could be done by working within the existing volume of the existing gables, which would allow for the expansion within the attic He felt that the house from the street would not become much larger and remain more compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Knight agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments He added that this addition appears boxy and therefore not compatible with the other additions in the neighborhood, which tends to have a lower profile within the structure. He stated that he would like to see a similar type of design, if possible, to make the house more compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Perestam thanked the applicant for granting the extension as it would allow the architect an opportunity to work through modifications to the plan and everyone may be in a better position at the end of that exercise Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to March 8, 2005 to allow the applicant time to come back to staff and the Planning Commission with an alternative design that is more compatible with the neighborhood by working the second story into the existing lines of the house, which would be more of an expansion into the attic, and possibly changing roof lines but attempting not to raise the overall height of the structure beyond what it currently is, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. 8. Code Amendment for Geologic Disclosure Ordinance (Case No. ZON2004- 00530) Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the draft Geologic Disclosure Ordinance and the need for the Planning Commission to review the code amendment. He explained that the Ordinance, as currently proposed, would only apply to Landslide Moratorium Exclusion requests and to applications for residential sub -divisions that propose significant remedial grading. He explained that staff, the City Attorney, and Councilman Stern drafted the language in the draft Ordinance that has been forwarded to the Planning Commission from the City Council, and staff is recommending the Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 13 Planning Commission forward back to the City Council a recommendation to approve the Code Amendment via minute order. Commissioner Knight asked staff if a geologist or Councilman Stern came up with the thresholds of 1,000 cubic yards and the 10 -foot depth of fill or excavation Senior Planner Fox answered that it was his understanding Councilman Stern came up with those numbers, noting there was no specific reference as to why those numbers were chosen. He noted that 1,000 cubic yards was typically the threshold at which the Planning Commission reviews grading permits and 10 feet in depth is the maximum limit at which remedial grading is subject to minor review. Commissioner Knight asked how the nature and scope of the grading would be disclosed. Senior Planner Fox answered that staff anticipates that the actual disclosure document that is recorded will not contain a lot of specific information, but rather disclose to a future buyer that remedial grading has been done on the property and would refer that potential buyer to the City to review whatever material the City has on file. He stated that the intent is to notify a potential buyer that remedial grading has been done on a property. Commissioner Knight asked if there is anything that will accompany the disclosure that will explain or interpret what the grading meant. Senior Planner Fox explained that staff has not developed the language for the covenant, and perhaps that is something that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Knight asked if there would be any type of geotechnical input into the disclosure Director/Secretary Rojas explained that when a covenant is recorded, and when a potential buyer is doing a title search and discovers the covenant, they can then choose to come to the City to do further research. He noted that projects that would trigger this covenant are projects with significant grading and there would be extensive staff reports and geotechnical reports on file. He noted that staff does not interpret geology reports on file, and anyone who comes to the City to review these reports either interprets the reports themselves or has a geologist interpret the report for them Commissioner Knight asked if the covenant would be recorded against the subdivision or on each individual lot in the subdivision Commissioner Karp stated that when a covenant is recorded on a piece of property and the property is then subdivided, the covenant would also be recorded with each individual lot. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 14 Senior Planner Fox added that the intent of this Ordinance is that disclosure would appear on every affected property. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the 1,000 cubic yards was the combination of both the cut and the fill. Senior Planner Fox answered that staff looks at the total quantity of cut and fill combined, as defined by the Development Code. Commissioner Gerstner asked if this type of covenant was common in other municipalities. Senior Planner Fox responded that staff had not done research on that and therefore did not know. Commissioner Knight asked if this would only apply to residential development, as that is how it is worded in the Ordinance. Senior Planner Fox acknowledged that the Ordinance referred to "residential subdivisions" and that it might be appropriate to change the wording to "subdivisions" Commissioner Karp felt that the recording of the covenants was a very good idea, however he felt that it should encompass a smaller quantity of grading and be for every lot in the City. Commissioner Knight stated that he still had a concern about exactly what a buyer will be receiving and how that would be interpreted He asked staff if they could explore that issue and possibly come up with a draft covenant for the City Council to review. Senior Planner Fox felt that was a good concern and that staff would discuss this with the City Attorney before the Ordinance goes back to the City Council. Commissioner Gerstner felt that this should be an equitable application of the law and if this is being done based on the City's knowledge of remedial grading then any property for which the City has knowledge that there was remedial grading conducted should have to record the same covenant. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the application should be broadened to not just the landslide moratorium area, but to any property in the City that does 1,000 cubic yards of remedial grading within 2 years and does not necessarily have to be residential property. That way he did not feel there would be any discrimination between properties He also suggesting wording in the covenant saying that the covenant was by city ordinance enacted as of a particular date that all properties that fall into this category from that date forward are required to make this disclosure. He felt this would help prevent potential buyers from getting the wrong idea when looking at two properties, one with the disclosure and one without. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 15 Commissioner Knight moved to forward the recommended draft to the City Council with the term "residential" removed from page 3 of 4, paragraph 9, that the City Council consider the comments made at this meeting, and that the City submit a draft covenant for the Planning Commission to review and comment on before the item is forwarded to the City Council, seconded by Chairman Mueller. Approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault dissenting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 9. Minutes of November 23, 2004 Commissioner Karp moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Gerstner abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE MEETINGS 10. Pre -agenda for the meeting of January 11, 2005 Director/Secretary Rojas reviewed the pre -agenda for the January 11, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Karp stated that he would be absent from the January 11th meeting and Commissioner Knight stated he would possibly be absent from the meeting ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11 25 p m. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 16