Loading...
VRC MINS 19960215 APPROVED 3/7/96 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1996 The Joint Orientation Session with the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair R. Green at 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed, led by Chair R. Green. PRESENT: View Restoration Commissioners Black, Boudreau, Gee, Goern, A. Green, Karmelich, Long, Vice Chair Sweetnam, Chair R. Green ABSENT: View Restoration Commissioner Marshall (Excused) Also present were City Attorney Carol Lynch, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Bernard, Planning Administrator Petru, Senior Planner Rojas, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi. JOINT ORIENTATION SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION City Attorney Lynch discussed in detail with the View Restoration and Planning Commission the Ralph M. Brown Act and Fair Political Practices Commission. The Joint Orientation Session was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. by Chair R. Green. REGULAR VIEW RESTORATION COMMISSION MEETING The meeting was called to order by Chair R. Green at 8:25 P.M. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved as presented, (9-0) COMMUNICATIONS Staff: NONE Commission: NONE 4111 APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR NONE CONTINUED BUSINESS NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE NEW BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS, SECTION 17.02.040 (CP) Planning Administrator Petru presented copies of the City Council Staff Report regarding this item to the View Restoration Commission, and stated that Section 17.02.040 of the draft Development Code Revisions would be discussed by the City Council at the February 20, 1996 meeting. Vice Chair Sweetnam explained to the newest members of the Commission that the major difference between the Planning Commission's and the View Restoration Commission's recommendations centered around the definition of"viewing area." He went on to explain that the View Restoration Commission had always taken a very broad interpretation of what should be considered the "viewing area," so as to include multiple locations within the residence as well as from the yard areas. Whereas, the Planning Commission held the opinion that the "viewing area" should only be taken from one fixed point within the structure, and, therefore, could not include multiple views from multiple locations on a particular lot. Commissioner Long observed that the View Restoration Commission's philosophy regarding the issue of multiple viewing areas appeared to have carried over to the references throughout the Commission's recommended Code language with regards to the suggestion to pluralize the word "view" where ever it appeared in the Ordinance. However, he was concerned that this pluralization might dilute the protection the Ordinance affords, because the Commission would be required to consider whether the foliage significantly impaired the views, taken as a whole, rather that on the individual impacts that were observed from each viewing area. Commissioner Black stated that in the proposed Code, the View Restoration Commission was asking for broader protection of all views that existed on a particular property. View Restoration Commission Minutes February 15, 1996 Page 2 Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that in the View Restoration Commission's version of the proposed Code Revisions could apply to "view" or"views." This language was also intended to protect different views from different areas of the structure or lot. Commissioner Long noted that, in the Planning Commission's version of the proposed Code Revisions, it states that the "viewing area" may not be changed for any subsequent application. Vice Chair Sweetnam stated that in Section 5 of the Planning Commission's recommended Code Revisions, he was concerned that the Planning Commission was proposing to change the word "lot" to "vacant lot." Therefore, the view from a yard area of a lot that is already developed with a house could not be considered as a viewing area, even if it was the only location on the property where a view was available. He reiterated that the View Restoration had taken a different position in an effort to protect as many views and viewing areas as possible. Chair R. Green stated his concern that the Planning Commission did not consider multiple views as constituting the "best and most important view". Commissioner Long stated that, in the View Restoration Commission's version of Section 5, the language should read "views and/or views" and that the phrase "significant view and/or views" should be inserted in Section 6 for clarification. Commissioner Boudreau stated that the Planning Commission's version only allows a view to be taken from inside the structure, where the View Restoration Commission's considered the possibility that views can be taken anywhere on the lot. In response to the Commission's discussion, Planning Administrator Petru stated that the Planning Commission had modified its recommended definition of"viewing area" in response its understanding of the input received from the City Council during the Joint Workshop held in June 1994. Instead of only one fixed point within the structure, the Planning Commission was now recommending that multiple viewing areas could be designated within the house, as long as they share the same view. For example, a view of the ocean could be protected from the family room, dining room and kitchen. Senior Planner Rojas clarified that the Planning Commission's recommended definition of"viewing area" included all habitable areas within a structure or within the buildable area of a vacant lot. Commissioner Karmelich asked if a particular house was designed so that all of the rooms faced a single view, would all the rooms be considered viewing areas. View Restoration Commission Minutes February 15, 1996 Page 3 • 0 Chair R. Green replied that, based on the Planning Commission's recommendations, all of the rooms would indeed be considered as protected viewing area. Vice Chair Sweetnam inquired if the Height Variation Guidelines from August 1993 were still the current version being used by the City and asked if Staff will consider views from a lot only when no primary residential structure exists on a lot. He also stated that "Proposition M" also includes the criteria and requirements for Height Variation Permits of the structure but it is interpreted differently. Senior Planner Rojas stated that Staff will include the issue regarding the use of"lot" versus "vacant lot" in the oral report to the City Council, since it was a difference in the recommendations from the two Commissions that had significant consequences and had not been fully discussed in the February 20, 1996 City Council Staff Report. The Commission decided that those members who were available, should attend that City Council meeting on February 20, 1996 to show support for the Commission's recommendations regarding the Development Code Revisions to Section 17.02.040. At a minimum, Chair R. Green and Vice Chair Sweetnam would attend to express the Commission's view point to the Council and to answer any questions. 2. PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATION FOR VIEW RESTORATION PERMITS (CP) Planning Administrator Petru presented the Staff Report and discussed the proposed fee schedule modification previously developed by the Commission, which involved modifying the present flat fee schedule to a combination flat fee/trust deposit system. Staff had estimated an initial flat fee of$200.00, which would cover the cost of Staff performing an initial site visit to the properties involved. Based on the information gathered at this stage, Staff could determine if the case would be small, medium or large in size and/or complexity. Therefore, the applicant(s) could decide at that point if they wished to proceed with the application. if they chose to proceed, all future costs would be paid out of a trust deposit account and would be based on the actual amount of time Staff spent processing the application. Commissioner Long inquired about the hourly rate used to estimate Staff time. Planning Administrator Petru replied the hourly rate for a Staff Planner was "fully burdened," therefore, the cost of providing benefits, building maintenance, and office overhead were already factored into the hourly rate. View Restoration Commission Minutes February 15, 1996 Page 4 I • Planning Administrator Petru added that the Commission had previously raised a concern about the initial amount of the trust deposit. The Commission felt that the Staff should have different initial deposit amounts based on the anticipated complexity of the case. However, until Staff processed several of these cases, she felt that Staff could not accurately make these types of estimates. Commissioner Long suggested that the simpler cases could be charged a flat fee, while only the more complicated cases could be required to establish a trust deposit to cover the costs. Planning Administrator Petru replied that once the City had the opportunity to process some more View Restoration Permits (perhaps in a year), the Staff would be able to make a more informed recommendation regarding this suggestion. The Commission agreed that, at the appropriate time, Staff should forward the Commission's previous recommendations regarding the fee schedule for View Restoration Permit to the City Council for consideration. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Staff: NONE Commission: Vice Chair Sweetnam said that the Commission may want to discuss the Development Code Revisions to Section 17.02.040, depending on the outcome of the City Council meeting on February 20, 1996. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) NONE ADJOURNMENT Chair R. Green moved to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Commissioner Black. The meeting was duly adjourned at 9:26 P.M. The next regular meeting will be held Thursday, March 7, 1996 at Hesse Park, 7:00 P.M. N:IGROUP\PLANNINGIVRC196VRCMN2.15 View Restoration Commission Minutes February 15, 1996 Page 5