Loading...
VRC MINS 19950420 APPROVED , ' ill/ 110 5/4/95 MINUTES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES • April 20, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7: 03 p.m. at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Clark led the flag salute. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Clark, Goern, R. Green, Weisz, Vice Chairman Sweetnam and Chairman Cartwright. Absent: Commissioners Eastwood and A. Green. Also present were Carolynn Petru, Planning Administrator, Joel Rojas, Senior Planner and Helena Eudave' , Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Cartwright asked for Approval of Agenda. Commissioner Black made a motion to Approve the Agenda, seconded by Commissioner Boudreau, and passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Chairman Cartwright opened the meeting by reiterating the remarks he made at the last meeting, thanking Commissioner Clark, on behalf of the entire Commission, for his efforts and leadership during the past year. Mr. Cartwright went on to say that he hoped the Commission would continue working in the same spirit throughout the next year and continue to make progress towards the Commission's goals. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Cartwright asked for any comments regarding the Minutes of April 6, 1995. Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked to eliminate the word "for" on the 6th line of Page 3 . Staff concurred with the change. Commissioner Boudreau made a motion to adopt the Minutes of April 6, 1995, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Weisz, and passed unanimously. 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 CONTINUED BUSINESS Adoption of V.R.C. Resolution No. 95-; Recommending to the City Council Approval of the Revisions to Section 17.02 . 040 in the Municipal Code. Chairman Cartwright asked Staff for any comments before the Commission began reviewing the draft Resolution. Planning Administrator Petru offered to go through the Exhibit "A" and point out the major changes to Section 17. 02 . 040 that were made by Staff and the City Attorney. Ms. Petru noted that the last time the Commission had reviewed the draft Development Code Revision language was on December 1, 1994 . At that time, Staff informed the Commission that the Municipal Code only allowed the Commission to make recommended Code Amendments on one particular section of Proposition M. Since that time, the City Council amended the Municipal Code to allow the Commission to make formal recommendations on any portion of the Development Code relating the preservation or restoration of views where foliage is a factor. In addition, since that Joint Meeting with the City Council on January 21, 1995, Staff had been working with the City Attorney in reviewing the proposed Development Code Revisions. As a result of the City Attorney's input, the following changes had been made to Proposition M for the Commission's review: 1. Previously, the definition of terms that were included in Proposition M had been moved to a separate Definitions Section. However, since the Ordinance was created by voter referendum, the City Attorney felt that the definition of terms should not be separated from the Ordinance. Therefore, these definitions were moved back, but some of them were modified slightly to be consistent with duplicate definitions contained in the separate Definitions Sections. 2 The definition of "View" was re-formatted to match the original Proposition M language. However, Staff had added a list as to what constituted "distant mountains" and "off-shore islands. " In addition, the process for "determination of view" was created in a separate portion of the Ordinance to be consistent with the "determination of viewing area. " 3 . The definition of "Viewing Area" was modified based on Staff's understanding of the Council's direction on this item from the January 1995 Joint Meeting. In addition, the process for "determination of viewing area" was moved into a separate section of the Ordinance for clarity. Page 2 411 111 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 At this point, Chairman Cartwright asked if the Commission members had any comments on the first four pages of Exhibit "A. " On Page 4, Commissioner Clark asked if there were any changes to the wording of the definitions since the Commission had last discussed them in December 1994. Senior Planner Rojas indicated that there had been some minor changes to definitions, such as Lot Coverage, which had been modified to be more consistent with the definitions that pre-dated Proposition "M. " In addition, Proposition M originally had a definition of "intent and purpose, " which the City Attorney agreed could be deleted, since the language was proposed to be re-stated in the opening section of the Ordinance. Chairman Cartwright referred to the definition of "Planning Commission" and asked this definition also included the View Restoration Commission, for •the purpose of considering Code Amendments. Planning Administrator Petru replied that there was a separate definition for "View Restoration Commission" that included the responsibility for reviewing Code Amendments relating to view issues involving foliage. On Page 5, Senior Planner Rojas mentioned that the definition of "Structure" had been modified, with the City Attorney's review and approval, to match the existing definition in the Development Code. Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked Planning Administrator Petru about the list of mountains identified in the definition of "View, " in that he did not remember if a list had been part of the previous definition. Ms. Petru indicated that the list had been added since December 1994 . Vice Chairman Sweetnam questioned whether the San Jacinto Mountains should be included in the list, since they are only visible on very clear days. Ms. Petru indicated that the Commission could alter the list, as it deemed appropriate, and noted that the fewer mountains included on the list, the easier it would be for Staff to conduct a view analysis. After much discussion, the consensus among the Commissioners was to leave the wording of this definition as presented. Page 3 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 On Page 6, Commissioner Boudreau wished to discuss the definition of "Viewing Area. " Commissioner Clark concurred that the wording of this definition needed further discussion. Vice Chairman Sweetnam felt that Staff's modifications to this definition had not been agreed upon by the Council during the discussion at the January 1994 Joint Meeting. He went on to say that he still felt that a viewing area could be taken from several locations within a structure. He felt that the revised definition took away what had previously been allowed in the adopted View Restoration Permit Guidelines. Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that the revised definition, as drafted by Staff, would eliminate the possibility of protecting different views from multiple locations within the residence. Commissioner Weisz asked if the Commission had previously decided to protect views from bathrooms. Planning Administrator Petru explained that there had been a meeting between a sub-committee of the View Restoration Commission and the Planning Commission and the joint subcommittee had recommended that bathrooms be included as protected viewing areas. However, based on the discussions at the January 1994 Joint Meeting, Staff felt that the Council was not in favor of including bathrooms as protected viewing areas. Ms. Petru went on to say that, while Staff understood the Commission's position on these issues, the Staff was trying to embody in the draft language Staff's understanding of the direction that was provided by the City Council at the January 1994 Joint Meeting. Vice Chairman Sweetnam felt that bathrooms should not be excluded from protected viewing areas and felt that this was also the desire of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Clark felt that there had not been a fair exchange with the Council on this point. He went on to say that the View Restoration Commission should recommend what it felt was best for the City and then allow the Council to make the ultimate determination as to whether or not bathrooms should be protected viewing areas. Commissioner Goern asked if the Commission was talking about "luxury" bathrooms or "ordinary" bathrooms, and whether the Code should differentiate between the two? Page 4 411 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 Planning Administrator Petru indicated that it would be difficult to write a definition that would differentiate between two types of bathrooms, since what constitutes a "luxury" bathroom and an "ordinary" bathroom could be extremely subjective. Commissioner Weisz suggested that the language with regards to bathrooms be left as stated. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that Staff would prefer the Code language to be as specific as possible, since the Staff must use the final language to advise landowners and conduct view analyses. The Commission also discussed the viability of establishing hallways, garages or closets as protected viewing areas. After considerable discussion, the Commission rejected the idea of protecting hallways, garages and closets as protected viewing areas, but tabled the discussion on whether to include or exclude bathrooms for later discussion. Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked for the rational in adding the word "vacant" in front of the word "lot" in the first sentence. Ms. Petru responded that Staff was differentiating between how a viewing area was established on undeveloped lot versus a developed lot. She also noted that this language is consistent with the criteria contained in the adopted Height Variation Guidelines. Vice Chairman Sweetnam felt that the two Commissions differed on this point, since the View Restoration Commission thought in terms of protecting multiple viewing areas on any given property, while the Planning Commission was interested in protecting the view only from a particular point inside the residence. He went on to explain that on a vacant lot the landowner can often see different views in many directions. However, it did not seem fair that once a structure was built on the lot, that the landowner was then limited to protecting only one view from one particular room in the house. Ms. Petru clarified that Staff and the City Attorney felt that the current language of the Code only protected the "best and most important view" from one viewing areas on the property. However, the revised definition would expand the viewing area to include multiple adjacent rooms, as long as they took the same view. Ms. Petru reiterated that Staff was not trying undermine the View Restoration Commission on these issues. Staff was only trying to embody what they understood the direction to be from City Council. The View Restoration Commission was free to make any recommendations it felt were appropriate to the City Council. Page 5 111 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 Vice Chairman Sweetnam felt that the revised definition of "Viewing Area" contradicted the definition of "View, " in that the Code language allowed a view to be broken into segments, i.e. viewed from different rooms. Planning Administrator Petru explained that Staff felt that there was no conflict, since the definition related to the view itself, which is physically separate and external from the lot where the view is taken. For example, if only parts of the view are visible because of the presence of structures or foliage on other properties located between the subject lot and the view, it is still considered to be one continuous view. Vice Chairman Sweetnam did not feel that this concept was adequately presented and discussed at the Joint Workshop. Commissioner Weisz stated his opinion that, as an applicant reading the definition of "Viewing Area, " he would not know how to interpret the meaning of that paragraph. Commissioner Black asked to see the December 1994 version of this definition. The Commission took a short break while Senior Planner Rojas copied the pertinent pages from draft V.R.C. Resolution of December 1, 1994, which were then handed out to each of the Commissioners. After reviewing the distributed pages, Commissioner Weisz proposed to modify the current language to embody the concepts included in the previous draft language. • After a lengthy discussion between the Commission and Staff, the definition was modified as follows: "Viewing area" means that habitable area of a structure or a lot (excluding setbacks) where the owner and city determine that the best and most important views exist. For lots with structures, viewing area may include more than one room within the structure and adjacent outdoor locations. Commissioner Clark noted that when the Planning Commission comes forth with its recommended changes of the Code, it will have a different definition of "Viewing Area" than the View Restoration Commission. Commissioner Boudreau agreed with Mr. Clark's statement. Page 6 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 Commissioner Clark made the motion to adopt the revised definition of "Viewing Area," which was seconded by Commissioner Black and approved unanimously. Commissioner Clark then asked Staff if the Commission should adopt the V.R.C. Resolution that evening. Staff responded by saying that, due to the amount of language changes requested by the Commission, Staff would prefer to make the proposed changes and bring back the revised V.R.C. Resolution for adoption by the Commission at the next regular meeting. Commissioner Clark then asked about the timing and scheduling of the Development Code Revision process. Senior Planner Rojas responded that Staff was still working with the City Attorney on the review of Title 17. Therefore, Staff was planning to present the final version of the Development Code Revisions to the Planning Commission by the end of May 1995. Once the Planning Commission has completed its review, the Development Code Revisions would probably be forwarded to the City Council by the end of June 1995 or the beginning of July 1995. Moving on through Exhibit "A, " Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked if Section 5, concerning the establishment of protected views and viewing areas, was an entirely new section. Senior Planner Rojas explained that sub-section "b" had been moved from the definition of "Viewing Area" to this new section, and that sub-section "a" had been basically copied from "b" and modified to address how a "View" is established. Commissioner Boudreau requested that on the second line of sub- section "b" the word "view" should be plural, i.e. "views. " With the Commissions concurrence, Mr. Rojas indicated that the word "view" would be pluralized throughout the Ordinance, for consistency. Vice Chairman Sweetnam noted that paragraph 5 (a) stated "The determination of a view shall be made by the city, . . . " and felt that this should be changed to " . . .by the city and the owner. . , " in order to be consistent with how a viewing area was established. The Commission unanimously agreed with this proposed change. On Page 9, Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked that in Section C(iv) where it stated, " . . . impairing the view, " should be changed to "a view. " Page 7 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 The Commission unanimously agreed with this proposed change. On Page 10, Section C(g) , Commissioner Clark addressed the issue of an "endless loop" developing between the City Council and the View Restoration Commission, where the same project is repeatedly appealed and remanded back between the two bodies, which was possible based on the current Ordinance language regarding appeals to the City Council. Planning Administrator Petru recalled that the issue was brought up before, and that she had discussed the matter with the City Attorney. Senior Planner Rojas, referring to the Minutes of November 17, 1994, noted that the City Attorney had suggested two alternatives: 1) set a limit on the number of appeals that could be filed on a single application; or, 2) include a provision in the Code which would allow the Council to rule on a particular aspect of the appeal that they felt the Commission was not interpreting correctly. Ms. Petru noted that Staff had been directed on November 17, 1994 to summarize the "endless loop" issue as part of the Staff Report presented to the City Council regarding the Development Code Revisions. Commissioner Clark recalled that the Commission had agreed to highlight this issue to the Council, thereby allowing the Council to amend the Ordinance, as it deemed appropriate. Vice Chairman Sweetnam was concerned that the Commission would have to use the Council's interpretations of the Ordinance in its rulings. Commissioner Clark replied that the Commission would still have the ability to exercise its judgment on a case by case basis. The Commission then discussed the merits of: 1) suggesting language modifications to the appeals portion of the Ordinance; 2) simply highlighting the issue for the Council; or, 3) not addressing the issue at this time and waiting for an actual case to be appealed to the Council. Page 8 410 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 In order to clarify the Commission's direction on this issue, Planning Administrator Petru reminded the Commission members that Staff had previously been directed at the November 17, 1994 meeting to only highlight the issues to the Council and suggest possible alternatives. She asked if this was still the Commission's direction to Staff or if the members now wished to take a different approach. Commissioner Clark felt that Staff should highlight the issue so that the City Council would be made aware of it and could take whatever action the Council deemed appropriate. Chairman Cartwright said that he could see no harm in this approach and felt that the Council should be aware of the Commission's discussions on the matter. Commissioner Clark went on to note that the Commission will have spent many hours reviewing the issues and draft language of the Ordinance, while the Council will not be able to spend nearly that amount of time on it. Therefore, the Council should have the benefit of the Commission's in depth discussion of the issues. Vice Chairman Sweetnam made a motion to not recommend any language changes to the Appeal section of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weisz. Before the vote was taken, Ms. Petru clarified that the motion included presenting the Code language, as written, with no highlighting of the issues. The maker and seconder of the motion concurred. The motion passed by the following role call vote: Yes: Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Goern, R. Green, Weisz and Vice Chairman Sweetnam No: Commissioner Clark and Chairman Cartwright Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any other comments on the draft V.R.C. Resolution or Exhibit "A. " There were none. In responding to a question from Commissioner Weisz, Planning Administrator Petru indicated that Staff would revise the V.R.C. Resolution and bring it back at the next regular meeting. Page 9 411 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 NEW BUSINESS: 3 . Covenants to Protect Views in Conjunction with View Restoration Permits. Planning Administrator Petru indicated that at the last meeting on May 4, 1995, the Commission had requested that this item be placed on this agenda. Chairman Cartwright stated that this item was placed on the Agenda because the Commission felt that it was an important issue and wanted to communicate its reasons to the City Council for opposing Covenants to Protect Views. Vice Chairman Sweetnam asked if any of the Commission members had watched the March 21, 1995 City Council meeting on television when Covenants to Protect Views were discussed. Several members of the Commission indicated that they had watched the meeting. Mr. Sweetnam went on to say that Ms. Petru had brought the matter to the attention of the City Council to get further input, but that the Council tabled the issue. He felt that there were two important points that needed to be communicated to the Council regarding this issue: 1) Since the landowner seeking a View Restoration Permit must record a Covenant to Protect Views on their property, they are in effect giving up their future right to have a public hearing before the View Restoration Commission if they become the subject of a View Restoration Permit application (i.e. the foliage owner) . 2) The landowner seeking a View Restoration Permit must pay all the costs associated with the permit (including substantial permit fees and the cost of removing the foliage that was blocking the view) , and then, because of the Covenant, would be required to pay for the removal of any foliage on their own property that was blocking a view if the City receives a Code Enforcement complaint in the future. Vice Chairman Sweetnam felt that the Covenant requirement weakened the View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance because it established a parallel requirement and duplicated what the Ordinance already accomplished. Page 10 • 411 411 View Restoration Commission Minutes April 20, 1995 Commissioner R. Green felt that, by having to sign a Covenant, the landowner would loose their right to due process that is currently available under the Ordinance. Commissioner Weisz felt that the Commission's analysis of this issue should be documented for the City Council's information. Commissioner Clark moved that a sub-committee be appointed to draft a letter to the City Council articulating the Commission's position on Covenants to Protect Views and that this requirement should be eliminated from the Ordinance. Included in Mr. Clark's motion was the suggestion that Vice Chairman Sweetnam and Commissioner R. Green be appointed to the sub-committee. Commissioner Weisz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: There were not items identified to be placed on a future agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no people in the audience, therefore there were no requests to address the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Cartwright called for a motion of Adjournment. Commissioner Weisz made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Commissioner Boudreau. The motion was passed unanimously and the meeting was duly adjourned at 9: 30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 4, 1995 at 7: 00 PM at Hesse Park. Page 11