Loading...
VRC MINS 19941027 PP 411 A ROVED'b 11/17/94 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES October 27, 1994 AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 : 03 PM by Chairman Clark at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. AGENDA ITEM II: ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Boudreau, Goern, A. Green, R. Green, Sweetnam, Weisz, Vice Chairman Cartwright and Chairman Clark. ABSENT: Commissioners Black and Eastwood. Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator, Joel H. Rojas, Senior Planner, and Helena Eudave' , Recording Secretary. AGENDA ITEM III: FLAG SALUTE The flag salute was led by Joel H. Rojas. AGENDA ITEM IV: COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff - Planning Administrator Petru reported that she had spoken with City Attorney, Carol Lynch, and was informed that on September 15, 1994 , the County Clerk notified the Court Reporter to prepare a transcript of the Yen et. al. versus City of Rancho Palos Verdes lower court decision. The Reporter has 120 days from September 15th in which to prepare the transcript. Once the Reporter has filed the transcript, then the Plaintiff's attorney will have thirty days to file the brief. The Court of Appeals will generally allow two to three extensions and based on past history, it is very likely that Mr. Bok-Boychuk (the plaintiff's attorney) will request all extensions that he possibly can. Once he files the brief, the City Attorney will have thirty days to respond and once that is filed, Mr. Bok-Boychuk will have an additional thirty days to file his final brief. Therefore, the City will probably not have a court hearing until at least May 1995 and then hopefully a decision on the appeal before the end of the year. Chairman Clark then asked if the City Attorney had been able to make the revisions to her memo on single vs. multiple viewing areas. Staff responded that she had obtained a draft of the letter that day and that a copy was included in the next agenda packet. Chairman Clark asked if it could be put on tonight's agenda and Staff said that it could not, since the memo had not been received 72 hours in advance, which is the requisite time allocated to be on the meeting's agenda. Staff said that she would hand out the packets for the November 3, 1994 meeting at the end of that evening's meeting. Commissioner Boudreau noted that she would be out of town on November 3, 1994 (the next regular meeting) . B. Commission - Chairman Clark asked if there were any Communications received by any of the Commissioners. No communications were reported. Chairman Clark then indicated that he had been selected as a Co- Chairman for the new San Pedro Restoration Advisory Board, which is made up of government officials and community members overseeing the environmental cleanup of the San Pedro Navy storage facilities, which borders Rancho Palos Verdes. AGENDA ITEM V: DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 17.02 .040 (View Preservation) and Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) Joel Rojas opened the discussion at the invitation of Chairman Clark, stating that since February the Planning Commission has been considering revisions to the City's Development Code (Titles 16 & 17) . First, the Planning Commission reviewed all issues conceptually, as identified by Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Attorney, through a Sub-Committee. Then draft language was incorporated into the Code by Staff and then presented to the Commission. Comments were received from the Commission and then final language was prepared, which the Planning Commission was currently reviewing. Staff anticipated that the entire Code package would be forwarded to the City Council for their final approval by the end of the year. The new Code would probably go into effect by January or February 1995. Chapter 17. 02 was the portion of the Code dealing with single family residential standards, which included the View Preservation and Restoration procedures of the City. This Chapter was presented to the Planning Commission to deal with the conceptual issues regarding second story additions (Height Variation Permits) . Unfortunately, due to other considerations, the final draft language had not been approved by the Planning Commission, but was in the format that was being presented to the View Restoration Commission that evening. The Staff was seeking direction, comments, and suggestions from the View Restoration Commission with regards to the language of the Chapter pertaining to the View Restoration process. Chairman Clark commented that the Commission had jurisdiction over only certain View Restoration Commission Meeting October 27, 1994 Page 2 portions of Chapter 17 . 02 . Chairman Clark went on to state that the View Restoration Commission wanted to be assured by Staff that no changes would be made by the Planning Commission to those portions of the Code that were the purvey of the View Restoration Commission. Senior Planner Rojas said that whatever language modifications would be suggested by this Commission would be taken back to the Planning Commission, and it would be made clear that those changes would be officially from the View Restoration Commission. Planning Administrator Petru interceded to make it clear that Staff was envisioning two separate recommendations on this Chapter, one from the Planning Commission and one from the View Restoration Commission, each pertaining to those sections of the Code over which each body had jurisdiction. Obviously, there were areas of where there are over-lapping jurisdiction, such as the Definitions, and it was anticipated that there would be some differences of opinion between the two Commissions which may require two sets of language to be presented as alternatives to the City Council and then highlighted in the Staff's written and oral report. Chairman Clark restated that he did not want this Commission to become subservient to the Planning Commission in areas of the Code that View Restoration Commission had jurisdiction over. He went on to say that, conversely, this Commission should not intrude upon the areas of the Code that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over. Commissioner Sweetnam agreed with Chairman Clark's remarks, but also indicated that he would like to make some observations on sections that are not in the jurisdiction of the View Restoration Commission, but might be helpful to the Staff. Commissioner Sweetnam went on to say that the two Commissions should be able to come up with a mutually agreeable document that can be forwarded to the City Council as a single submission. Commissioner Weisz felt that the two Chairmen should work together to iron out any differences. Chairman Clark agreed, adding that perhaps it could be coordinated between the two Chairmen and Staff too. Senior Planner Rojas provided some background on the Development Code Revisions by saying that Staff initiated a Development Code revision process back in 1991. At that time, there were some minor revisions suggested for this Chapter which were conceptually approved, but not adopted by the City Council. The intent of re- initiating the revision process in 1994 was to finish off and adopt those previous changes. However, what transpired was a comprehensive review of the changes in 1991, plus a lot of new changes. Senior Planner Rojas then explained the notations in the draft Code language which distinguished the 1991 changes from the 1994 changes. View Restoration Commission Meeting October 27, 1994 Page 3 111 Chairman Clark then suggested that the Commission review the Draft Revisions page by page and make their comments and suggestions. On Page 4, Chairman Clark asked if the Planning Commission was recommending any changes to minimum setbacks for single family residences. Senior Planner Rojas said that there was a change in 1991 which required a setback for a second story from the front property line and the current Commission has concurred with that change. However, the Planning Commission may still consider modifying the setback requirements in the final Code language. Chairman Clark asked several questions regarding the sizes of houses, which were answered by Staff. On Page 5, Chairman Clark asked if all the strike throughs in Paragraph A (Definitions) were due to the 1991 changes? Senior Planner Rojas concurred and stated that these definitions had simply been moved and combined into a separate Definitions chapter for the entire Development Code. On Page 8, Chairman Clark asked the meaning of "preconstruction" and Joel responded by saying that the Planning Commission was still working on a definition for that word. On Page 9, Commissioner Sweetnam pointed out that the 16 foot height dimension on the diagram was incorrectly drawn. On Page 10, Commissioner Sweetnam stated that he thought Paragraph 3 should be replaced with the City Attorney's rewording, as presented to the Commission at their last meeting. Senior Planner Rojas indicated that he had that language and that it would be changed. Commissioner Weisz referred to Paragraph 4, where it states "or records with the city a Covenant to Protect Views. " and indicated that he thought all of that language had been deleted. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that this language would be removed form the next version of the Development Code Revisions. On Page 11, Chairman Clark asked if this is where the Planning Commission changed the Code so that any height variation application goes directly to the Planning Commission? Senior Planner Rojas responded that the Planning Commission was recommending that there be certain criteria for second story additions. If the criteria were not met, the application would go directly to the Planning Commission, otherwise it would still be a Staff level decision. On Page 12, Commissioner Sweetnam commented that this finding for a Height Variation Permit should include a reference to a "view lot" . Staff indicated that they would work on some draft language for the Planning Commission consideration. View Restoration Commission Meeting October 27, 1994 Page 4 411 111 On Page 13 , Chairman Clark asked Staff if the criteria for the Commissioners to visit the foliage owners property should be included in the Code. Staff stated that there could be some clarification or they could rely on the Guidelines. Commissioner Weisz stated that he felt that the criteria should only be in the Guidelines. On Page 14, Planning Administrator Petru noted at the top of the page that the reference to the Covenants would be removed. In Paragraphs ii and iv, she also noted the word significantly had been added, as a result of the Joint Subcommittee workshop with the Planning Commission. On Page 16, there was considerable discussion relative to the issue of perpetual appeals and remands between the Commission and City Council. Staff would discuss this issue with the City Attorney. On Page 17, Commissioner Sweetnam felt that the existing definition of "view" was best, since the Ordinance does not specifically mention "near views" and "far views", except in the definitions section. Senior Planner Rojas said the Planning Commission had asked Staff to define a "distant mountain view" . Chairman Clark stated that it would be extremely difficult to define a "distant view" and felt that it was best not to pursue this. Staff indicated that the Development Code Revision would be brought back to the Commission on November 17, 1994 . AGENDA ITEM VI: ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS A. Staff - None. B. Commission - Commissioner Boudreau asked Staff about the trees that had been recently planted in the median along Silver Spur Road which she felt would eventually impair views. Planning Administrator Petru replied that several of the trees had already been replaced with lower-growing specimens to address the concerns of the upslope neighbors, but if Ms. Boudreau had additional concerns, she should direct her comments to the Public Works Department. Commissioner Weisz requested that the issue of "application fees" be added to a future agenda. View Restoration Commission Meeting October 27, 1994 Page 5 411 111 AGENDA ITEM VII: AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Kean Hamilton of 30747 Ganado Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes asked for an explanation of the View Restoration Commission's functions. He was also interested in how to document his existing view with the City. Staff instructed him on steps needed to be taken to file the necessary forms with the City. He requested to be placed on the mailing list for future meetings and agendas and asked that his neighbor, John & Joanne Dailey, 30753 Ganado Drive be placed on the list also. AGENDA ITEM VIII: ADJOURNMENT The motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Sweetnam and seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:40 P.M. The next regular meeting of the View Restoration Commission is scheduled for November 3, 1994, at 7: 00 PM, Hesse Community Park. View Restoration Commission Meeting October 27, 1994 Page 6