The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_SR_2010_06_01_12_PART_II_RDSSC_Code_Amendment_Issue_Summary_PacketsISSUE SUMMARY PACKET REAR YARD SETBACKS ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Rear Yard Setbacks RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Increase the 15-foot rear-yard setback requirement to twenty feet (20’-0”) in the RS-A-5, RS-1, and RS-2 districts for “Lots Created Prior to Incorporation/Annexation” DISCUSSION The RDSSC discussed setbacks because the Committee felt that current trends are diminishing the open-space feel of the City by allowing the construction of taller structures up to the setback limits. The Committee reviewed the single-family setback criteria established by the Development Code in Table 02-A. The Committee also reviewed the existing development standards for all of the City’s single-family zones, as well as equivalent standards for other cities on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. Based on this review, the Committee found that the rear-yard setbacks should be modified for the “Lots Created Prior to Incorporation/ Annexation.” The Committee felt that the rear-yard setback for lots in the RS-A-5, RS-1, and RS-2 zoning districts should be increased from fifteen feet (15’) to twenty feet (20’) because these lots are typically large enough to accommodate additional open space without compromising the buildable area or causing a hardship to property owners. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS RDSSC Minutes of August 9, 2004 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES None IS-1 August 9, 2004 Page 7 of 15 that would be presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission at a joint workshop. At that meeting, the Council can either accept all, some, or none of the suggested amendments and initiate the code amendment public hearing proceedings accordingly. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if it made sense to extend the Committee’s tenure until June 2005. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that June 2005 seems reasonable. He also stated that the Committee may wish to take a break during the General Plan public hearings, with the understanding that the Committee would reconvene afterwards to address topics that may have arisen during the public hearings. He stated that it is typical for a Municipal Code/Development Code to be updated after a General Plan has been updated in order to incorporate the changes. He suggested that the Committee wait until after the updated General Plan has been adopted before presenting its recommended code amendments to the Council. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to complete the Meeting / Topic calendar through June 2005 with the understanding that there may be a period when the Committee will not meet. He would also like to leave room within the calendar for topics that may be placed on the agenda, with milestones where the Committee can monitor its progress. He also wants the record to show that if no new topics arise as a result of the General Plan public hearings then the tenure of this Committee may end before June 2005. The Staff directive was approved without Committee objection. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff for its report on the proposed amendments to the City’s setback criteria. Senior Planner Mihranian presented the Committee with a power point presentation on setbacks. As part of the presentation, Mr. Mihranian showed examples of structures that were built to the minimum side yard setbacks within recent years. The illustrations intended to reveal how new structures, built to the maximum standards permitted per zoning district, appear next to existing structures built 30 or more years ago. During the presentation, he noted that for the most part, he did not identify any majors problems. However, he stated that from Staff’s perspective, there appears to be trend occurring where property owners are preparing plans for a remodel, addition or new structure that is built up to the setback limits, specifically the side and rear yards. Mr. Mihranian stated that although concerns regarding setbacks is typically addressed by Staff through Neighborhood Compatibility, applicants are not pleased that their plans need to be revised to increase the setbacks, especially when the proposed structure complies with the Residential Development Standards. He stated that the common complaint by an applicant with revising plans has to do with additional time and costs. He also reminded the Committee that there are cases where Neighborhood Compatibility is not triggered and Staff does not have the leverage to require the setbacks be increased. IS-2 August 9, 2004 Page 8 of 15 Senior Planner Mihranian said that the current construction trend is to build larger structures with smaller yards, that is essentially maximizing the building footprint. He reiterated the concerns that arise in neighborhoods that were developed 30 or more years ago and are being exposed to tear-down rebuild projects. He stated that pursuant to the City’s goals and policies, and in reaction to current building trends, Staff is proposing to increase the rear yard setbacks to 20-feet for all lots within the City. Committee Member Dyda stated that people will look at an ordinance and figure out a way to build what they want to build. He stressed the importance of having aggregate limitations. Committee Member Karp emphasized the importance of setting limits. She stated that if you wait unit a problem occurs, rather than detecting a trend and correcting the situation before a problem arises, the damage may be irreversible. She stated that based on the illustration presented, the examples are mechanically correct, but aesthetically incorrect. Committee Member Perestam asked how do we define lot coverage, referring to a specific slide from the power point presentation. He noted that lot coverage limitations may address the setback and structure concerns. Senior Planner Mihranian defined lot coverage as the building footprint, parking and driveway areas, interior courtyards, and decks 30-inches or larger. He stated that the topic of lot coverage will be the next subject addressed by the Committee. Committee Member Cartwright asked if an existing structure would have to comply with the current setbacks if it were remodeled by 50% or more. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the Development Code, a legal non- conforming structure would have to be brought to conformity if more than 50% of the existing structure is demolished and rebuilt, with the exception to setbacks. He stated that if an existing structure did not comply with the current setbacks, only the new portion of the structure would have to comply. He stated that the Code was written so that residents remodeling or expanding their home would not be penalized for existing legal, non-conforming setbacks. Committee Member Cartwright asked if there were any special overlay districts, referring to the Portuguese Bend Club. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there are no overlay districts within the City that apply less stringent standards, aside from Residential Planned Developments. He stated that because of the unique lot configurations and sizes, combined with the fact that the homes were constructed prior to the City’s incorporation, most of the existing homes within the Portuguese Bend Club do not comply with the current residential development standards. As such, these structures are for the most part legal, non- conforming, and if improvements are proposed, in most cases variances are necessary. IS-3 August 9, 2004 Page 9 of 15 He stated that the Commission often considers variances within the Portuguese Bend Club. Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that the genesis for the City’s incorporation was to reject the County’s projected density levels. He stated that instead of having a population of approximately 42,000 residents, under the County’s plan, the City would have a population of approximately 90,000 residents today. Incorporation was to avoid the high density. He stated that ordinances change through time, and if a structure is considered legal non-conforming, a resident who wants to improve such a structure should be required to comply with the rules that were adopted to preserve the character of the community. Councilman Wolowicz questioned the judgment of a discretionary application. Committee Member Dyda stated that was what variances are for, to allow the decision makers to find a compelling reason to allow a deviation from the code requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the setback criteria is ultimately based on the City’s goals and policies, and its vision for the future. He stated that most neighborhoods were developed prior to the City’s incorporation and currently require a 5-foot side yard setback. He stated that based on his observation, the homes within these neighborhoods maintain open space between structures that exceed the minimum requirements. He said it would be a disservice to the community and this Committee to not say that the new construction trend is leaning towards maximizing the building footprint by building up to the City’s limits. He stated that if the City feels that the current standards are adequate for the scenario of a maximum build-out, then changes are not warranted. Councilman Long noted that there appears to be a minimal burden on legal non- conforming structures because the Code is written so that only the new portion of structure needs to comply with the current standards, unless of course the entire existing structure is voluntarily torn down and rebuilt, then the entire new structure must comply with the current requirements. Committee Member Dyda added that if a structure is demolished as a result of a natural disaster, such as a fire or earthquake, it can be rebuilt to its original envelope even if the Codes are more stringent. Commissioner Gertsner asked why Staff is recommending to increase the rear yard setback requirement when the analysis and presentation focused on the side yard setback. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that it was Staff’s opinion that increasing the side yard setback would result in a greater burden on property owners than increasing the rear yard setback since most homes were not built out to the rear yard setback limits. IS-4 August 9, 2004 Page 10 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if they were seeking direction on the proposed changes to rear yard setbacks. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that Staff’s proposal is merely a recommendation and that the Committee is to ultimately decide what will be recommended to the Council. Committee Member Slayden stated that he would support Staff’s proposal. Committee Member Lyon asked Staff if the setback criteria for lots created prior to City- hood could be changed. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the laws can be amended and that only new structures would have to comply with the new criteria. He stated that the existing laws are not conditions to specific tracts. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the suggested changes and its potential impacts to neighborhoods, such as Eastview. He stated that many of these home do not comply with current standards, similar to the Portuguese Bend Club. He asked why Neighborhood Compatibility could not govern the setback limits. He did not think a change to the side yard setback is warranted, but could support a change to the rear yard setback limits. Councilman Long mentioned that he supports increasing the rear yard setback limit to 20-feet and would consider implementing a split side yard setback requirement, with a minimum of 5-feet on one side and perhaps 15-feet on the other side. He suspects that having a split setback requirement for side yards, would reduce the number of non- conforming lots, provided that one side remains at 5-feet. This concept is not just Neighborhood Compatibility, but open space. Committee Member Dyda stated that this change would not limit the size of a structure, but rather ensures that adequate open space will be maintained around the structure. He stated that he supports Councilman Long’s suggestion to have a split side yard setback criteria similar to the criteria for City created lots, with a minimum of 5-feet on one side. Commissioner Mueller indicated his lack of support of Councilman Long’s suggestion since it may penalize property owners who did not improve their home before the suggested changes and reward property owners who already built out to their property lines. Committee Member Perestam stated that the City is not in conflict with the mechanics and aesthetics yet because we are addressing the mechanics within the rear yard and the aesthetics in the front yard through Neighborhood Compatibility. He stated that since we are not making a significant change to the criteria he could support the suggested change. IS-5 August 9, 2004 Page 11 of 15 Committee Member Cartwright stated that he could support the change to the rear yard setbacks but not convinced with changing the side yard setbacks, as suggested by Councilman Long. Councilman Long reiterated his suggestion that the Development Standards Table be modified so that the side yard setback criteria for lots created prior to City-hood include a new column that states “Total Side Yard” with 15-feet, and another column stating “One Side” with 5-feet. He stated that this suggestion would allow 5-feet on one side and 10-feet on the other side. Commissioner Gertsner stated that if the City increases the rear yard setback requirement, people will then expand along the side and front yards. He stated that allowing development to occur to the back of a property is typically preferred by other jurisdictions because its less visible than the front and side of a property. He stated that when looking at setbacks you need to decide on a series of importance for the City because the developer, will look for creative ways to accomplish its goal within the established parameters. He reiterated the need to prioritize setbacks, stating that the front yard is typically the most important, followed by side yards and then rear yards being the least important. He supports Councilman Long’s suggestion but does not support Staff’s proposal to increase the rear yard because that is the least visible. Committee Member Cartwright reiterated his concern with the Eastview neighborhood as it relates to Councilman Long’s suggestion because many of the homes in that neighborhood are already built up to the 5-foot setback. He requested more information on the potential impacts to the smaller lots, such as lots located within the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Councilman Long stated that within the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning district people tend to expand upward rather than outward because of the lot size limitations. The issue is to try to preserve some open space between structures. Committee Member Dyda stated that the City should be concerned with unjustly penalizing people, not for trying to preserve the intent for incorporation by maintaining a semi-rural character with low density. He stated that the City should not establish development criteria based on property values. Councilman Long stated that Commissioner Gertsner persuaded him to consider modifying his earlier suggestion so that the rear yard setback remains as is for smaller lots and that the side yards be changed as suggested earlier. Committee Member Lyon questioned the proposed changes to the setbacks as it relates to lots that were created prior to the City’s incorporation, citing an example of a resident who voluntary tears down their home that maintains a 15-foot rear yard setback and is told that the new structure must now maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback. He questioned whether the existing home is grand-fathered. IS-6 August 9, 2004 Page 12 of 15 Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that voluntary tear-down rebuilds or additions must always comply with the City’s current Codes, while structures damaged or destroyed by involuntary acts, such as a fire, are grand-fathered, meaning they can be rebuilt to its original footprint. Committee Member Lyon asked why the City distinguishes between a City created lot and a lot created prior to incorporation. Senior Planner Mihranian responded by saying at the time Code was originally adopted in 1975, it was the City’s position that new lots, created under the City, should meet more stringent standards than lots created under the County. He said that one option to consider today is to combine the two sets of standards. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a formal motion. Committee Member Lyon moved to accept the existing setback criteria, as stated in Table 2-A, with the exception of Councilman Long’s suggestion to create two columns for the side yard setbacks for lots created prior to City-hood, one column would require a total of 15-feet and the other column would require a minimum 5-foot side yard setback on one side. He stated that the rear yard setbacks should remain at 15-feet, as suggested by Commissioner Gertsner. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. Committee Member Cartwright reiterated his concern that such a change might have an adverse impact on the Eastview neighborhood. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that according to the City’s Zoning Map, the Eastview neighborhood is designated as a RS-4 zoning district. He stated that based on Staff’s observation, that area is comprised of smaller homes that are built up to the 5-foot side yard setback. Councilman Long said that based on the Zoning Map these lots are approximately 10,000 square feet in area. Commissioner Mueller cited a concern similar to Committee Member Cartwright’s concern. He then referred to the City of Malibu and how their non-beach front properties require a 5-foot setback on one side, and a 15-foot rear yard setback. He said that the Committee is stretching the limits. He did not support the motion because it restricts a property owner from expanding their existing residence to the side. Committee Member Dyda proposed an amendment to the motion requiring the rear yard setbacks for lots within the RS-A1, RS-1, and RS-2 districts that were created prior to incorporation to maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback since these lots are larger in area. Councilman Long seconded the amendment to the motion. IS-7 August 9, 2004 Page 13 of 15 Committee Member Lyon, the motion maker, accepted the amendment. Councilman Wolowicz summarized the amended motion that across the board for lot created prior to City-hood would require a total side yard setback requirement of 15-feet with 5-feet on one side, the rear yard setbacks would be increased to 20-feet for the RS-A5, RS-1, and the RS-2 zoning districts, and all other setbacks would not change. Committee Member Perestam asked Commissioner Gertsner if the proposed motion addressed his earlier concern. Commissioner Gertsner stated that the proposed motion properly addresses the concerns expressed by the Members and the City’s goals and policies. He said that the motion still needs to evaluate situations where the proposed change may or may not work, such as the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. He said that there appears to be lots within zoning districts that do not conform to the underlying zoning standards. Committee Member Cartwright said that he is not certain that the proposed motion is going to cause a problem for the Eastview neighborhood, but from what he has heard this evening combined with his own observation, it appears that the motion may pose a problem to that specific neighborhood, if not other neighborhoods. He said that the size of a lot can be misleading because in some cases the majority of a lot can be considered un-buildable because of slope restrictions and the City needs to be sensitive of that condition. He said the Committee needs to be fully informed on the potential impacts such a change may cause before finalizing its decision. Councilman Long raised a concern with lots that may be inconsistent with the lot area requirement for the respective zoning district. He cited an example of a 4,000 square foot lot located within the RS-5 zoning district and said that perhaps the setbacks are not the problem, but rather the zoning designation. He said the City may need to create another RS zone to address this concern. He proposed that as part of the motion, that Staff report to the Committee on the impact it would have to change the setbacks on the RS-5 zoning district and if an impact exists, where that impact exists and what is Staff’s proposed solution, such as there is a problem and we should reconsider the proposed motion for the RS-5 zoning district, or yes the problem exists, but only in Eastview and we can address that by creating a new zoning district with different criteria. Councilman Wolowicz suggested modifying the motion so that RS-5 is removed from the discussion until Staff presents its report. Councilman Long agreed. Committee Member Karp expressed a similar concern with the RS-4 zoning district. IS-8 August 9, 2004 Page 14 of 15 Councilman Long proposed an amendment to the motion requiring Staff to further investigate potential impacts the proposed setback changes would have to the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Commissioner Gertsner seconded the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Mueller stated that since a number of the lots in Rancho Palos Verdes consist of extreme slopes so that 1/3 of a lot is buildable and the remaining 2/3 is un- buildable, changes to the setback requirements limits a property owner from improving their residence. Committee Member Slayden would like to increase the rear yard setback to 20-feet as originally proposed. Commissioner Gertsner said he does not support increasing the rear yard setback because a back yard is least visible, while the front and side yards are more visible to the public. Councilman Long re-stated the motion, emphasizing the direction that Staff is to look at impacts that may result from changing the side yard setback for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Committee Member Lyon, the framer of the original motion, accepted the proposed amendment. He supports further review of the matter before the Committee finalizes. Committee Member Dyda, who seconded the motion, accepted the amendment to the motion. Committee Member Cartwright suggested that the Committee look at the matter regarding extreme slopes, that is buildable versus non-buildable area, for future discussion by the Committee. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a vote on the amended motion. The motion passed with Committee Member Perestam dissenting. Councilman Wolowicz asked that Staff include extreme slopes for the discussion at the next meeting. Councilman Long moved to continue the discussion on second story setbacks and distance between structures, as well as the topics under New Business to the next meeting. Councilman Wolowicz seconded the motion and asked for public comments. IS-9 Director Rojas referred to Finding No. 3 of the Conditional Use Permit, which says that in approving the subject use in the specific location there will be no significant adverse affect on adjacent properties. He stated that this broad finding of the Conditional Use Permit can be use for whatever significant adverse affects the Planning Commission identifies. He stated that staff’s discussion of view impacts are under this finding. He explained that staff’s approach to this application has been to be consistent with the way other applications are handled. While the City Council clarified the by-right height limit, that discussion was specific to the 16-foot height limit. He explained that for consistency, staff is applying the findings for the 16-foot height limit to this project. He stated that he will have to check with the City Attorney to verify how much discretion the Planning Commission has on this issue given the CUP application that is required. Chairman Perestam summarized the concerns raised by the Planning Commission as: decreasing the height of the stair tower; the value of the left hand turn cut in the median as opposed to the convenience of having the cut in place; the landscaping plan and possible upgrade of the landscaping; the possibility of decreasing the overall height of the building area through additional grading; and guidance from the City Attorney and staff on the limits and bounds the Planning Commission has in regards to the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Knight added that he would like to see a condition that no roof mounted equipment be allowed, that the drainage and different types of permeable surfaces be looked at to reduce the amount of runoff from the site, and a mitigated pest management plan to reduce and control the amount of pesticides used on the property. Commissioner Tetreault added that he would like to see something from the City Attorney in regards to the letter from Rolling Hills Estates regarding their concerns with cumulative traffic impacts. Chairman Perestam asked staff to provide the Planning Commission with contact numbers of residents on Via la Cima so that, if desired, Commissioners can make arrangements to visit their residences. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of May 13, 2008 so staff and the applicant can address issues raised by the Planning Commission and the public speakers, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 4. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment & Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had voiced concern regarding possible conflicts of interest. He stated that there is a lengthy section in the staff report prepared by the City Attorney Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 9 IS-10 addressing this issue. He briefly explained that the City Attorney did not feel the Planning Commissioners should have to abstain from any decisions about any proposed amendments to the Development Code, even if they do affect a unique circumstance on their own property. However, the City Attorney does recommend that if a Commissioner has a concern that there will be a material affect to the value of the property, that concern should be stated for the record and the Commissioner should recuse themselves from making a decision. He then discussed the recommendations as presented to the Planning Commission at the February 12th and March 11th meetings, and explained that staff was looking for direction from the Planning Commission. He began with the proposed rear-yard and side-yard setback changes, briefly describing the Committee’s proposed modification to the code. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that this change only applies to lots created prior to incorporation, and asked why this modification is necessary, as he felt there are other tools in the code that can allow the Planning Commission and staff to address this issue. Associate Planner Fox explained that is true if there is an application that requires a neighborhood compatibility analysis. However a smaller scope project that, for whatever reason does not require the neighborhood compatibility analysis, then staff and the Planning Commission does not have that leverage. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if any consideration was given to the possibility that changing the setback may encourage applicants to build up since they may not have the room on the lot to expand out. Associate Planner Fox felt that since the smallest of the lots that this affects is at least a half acre, and it is only a five foot change, he did not think that this will be an issue. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg’s concern, adding that he did not see what the City would be gaining on the positive side, as the proposed amendment seems to be limiting flexibility and potentially driving the City towards areas that the City is trying not to encourage. He also noted that while many of these lots may be large, many have slopes that are not buildable. Commissioner Knight felt that there was the benefit to the City of increasing the rear yard setback which will create more open space. Commissioner Knight moved to accept the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the rear yard setback (alternative No. 1), seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to accept the committee’s recommendation in regards to RS-A5 and RS-1 zoning districts, seconded by Chairman Perestam. The motion failed (3-3-1) with Commissioners Knight, Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 10 IS-11 Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting, and Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. The motion to accept the committee’s recommendation (alternative No. 1) failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Gerstner, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to reject the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the rear yard setback (alternative No. 2), seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic before the Planning Commission is the side-yard setback, explaining the Committee recommendation was to enact a 15-foot aggregate side-yard setback for all lots in all zoning districts that were created before City incorporation. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the side yard setback, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated the next topic is the Eastview re-zoning. He explained that the committee recommended changing all of the RS-4 zoned areas in Eastview to RS-5. Commissioner Tetreault stated that applications on lots in Eastview have come to the Planning Commission, and these are looked at as legal nonconforming lots. He questioned why a zone change was necessary, and why they couldn’t remain legal nonconforming lots. He felt that changing the zoning opens up the opportunity for subdividing some of the lots and he didn’t want that opportunity opened up. Other than correcting the non-conformities, he asked what other positive thing is being done by changing the zoning in that area. Chairman Perestam asked staff if this recommendation is in any way tied into the recommendation for the overlay district. Associate Planner Fox answered that the overlay proposal deals more directly with the issue of existing non-conforming issues, as that one tract has many structures in it that don’t meet setback requirements, have inadequate off-street parking, and other deficiencies that were identified by the committee. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the area proposed for the zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 is the same geographic location as the proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District. Associate Planner Fox answered that they are one in the same. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 11 IS-12 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET SIDE YARD SETBACKS ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Side Yard Setbacks RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Retain the 5-foot interior side-yard setback requirement, but add a 15-foot aggregate side-yard setback requirement in all single-family districts for “Lots Created Prior to Incorporation/ Annexation” DISCUSSION The RDSSC discussed setbacks because the Committee felt that current trends are diminishing the open-space feel of the City by allowing the construction of taller structures up to the setback limits. The Committee reviewed the single-family setback criteria established by the Development Code in Table 02-A. The Committee also reviewed the existing development standards for all of the City’s single-family zones, as well as equivalent standards for other cities on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. Based on this review, the Committee found that the side-yard setbacks should be modified for the “Lots Created Prior to Incorporation/ Annexation.” After extensive discussion the Committee agreed to increase the existing 5-foot interior side-yard setback for all single-family districts to a 15-foot aggregate setback with a minimum setback of five feet (5’) on one side. The Committee felt that this change would secure open space between structures without causing a significant hardship to property owners because existing 5-foot side-yard setbacks along one side of a property could be maintained, provided that the other side maintains a 10-foot side-yard setback or some combination thereof that totals at least fifteen feet (15’). Upon further review, Staff now believes that this change will create thousand of nonconformities and impose a burden upon property owners. Therefore, Staff recommends rejecting this RDSSC and Planning recommendation. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Table 02-A RDSSC Minutes of August 9, 2004 (excerpt) RDSSC Minutes of February 7, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCE Exhibit ‘C’ of Draft Ordinance IS-13 TA B L E 0 2 - A : S I N G L E - F A M I L Y R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T S T A N D A R D S Fo r e x c e p t i o n s a n d e x p l a n a t o r y d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e s e s t a n d a r d s a n d f o r o t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s t h a t a p p l y t o s i n g l e - f a m i l y re s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , s e e A r t i c l e s V I a n d VI I o f t h i s t i t l e . T h e n u m b e r w h i c h f o l l o w s a n “ R S - ” d e s i g n a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e m a x i m u m n u m be r o f l o t s p e r a c r e p e r m i t t e d i n t h e z o n e ; t h e “ R S - A ” n u m b e r i n d i c a t e s t h e mi n i m u m n u m b e r o f a c r e s p e r l o t p e r m i t t e d . DI S T R I C T LO T D I M E N S I O N S 1 MI N I M U M S E T B A C K S 3, 6 FO R C I T Y C R E A T E D L O T S MI N I M U M S E T B A C K S 2, 3 , 6 FO R L O T S C R E A T E D P R I O R T O IN C O R P O R A T I O N / A N N E X A T I O N MA X I M U M LO T CO V E R A G E 8 MA X I M U M HE I G H T 3, 4, 7 PA R K I N G RE Q U I R E M E N T 5 AR E A WI D T H DE P T H FR O N T IN T E R I O R SI D E ST R E E T SI D E RE A R FR O N T IN T E R I O R SI D E ST R E E T SI D E RE A R TT L BO T H SI D E S ON E SI D E TT L BO T H SI D E S ON E SI D E le s s t h a n 5 , 0 0 0 s. f . o f h a b i t a b l e sp a c e = 2 en c l o s e d g a r a g e sp a c e s RS - A - 5 5 ac r e s 20 0 30 0 20 30 10 20 20 20 15 5 10 15 6% 16 RS - 1 1 a c r e 10 0 15 0 20 25 10 20 20 20 15 5 10 15 25 % 16 RS - 2 20 , 0 0 0 s. f . 90 12 0 20 20 10 20 20 20 15 5 10 15 40 % 16 RS - 3 13 , 0 0 0 s. f . 80 11 0 20 20 10 20 15 20 15 5 10 15 45 % 16 RS - 4 10 , 0 0 0 s. f . 75 10 0 20 20 10 20 15 20 15 5 10 15 50 % 16 RS - 5 8, 0 0 0 s. f . 65 10 0 20 20 10 20 15 20 15 5 10 15 52 % 16 5, 0 0 0 s . f . o r mo r e o f h a b i t a b l e sp a c e = 3 en c l o s e d g a r a g e sp a c e s 1. F o r a n e x i s t i n g l o t w h i c h d o e s n o t m e e t t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , s e e C h a p t e r 1 7 . 8 4 ( N o n c o n f o r m i t i e s ) . 2. L o t s o f r e c o r d , e x i s t i n g a s o f N o v e m b e r 2 5 , 1 9 7 5 ( a d o p t i o n o f th i s C o d e ) , o r w i t h i n E a s t v i e w a n d e x i s t i n g a s o f J a n u a r y 5 , 1 98 3 ( a n n e x a t i o n ) , s h a l l u s e t h e s e de v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s f o r m i n i m u m s e t b a c k s . 3. F o r d e s c r i p t i o n , c l a r i f i c a t i o n a n d e x c e p t i o n s , s e e C h a p t e r 1 7 . 4 8 ( L o t s , S e t b a c k s , O p e n S p a c e A r e a a n d B u i l d i n g H e i g h t ) . 4. F o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f h e i g h t m e a s u r e m e n t m e t h o d s a n d t h e h e i g h t va r i a t i o n p r o c e s s , s e e S e c t i o n 1 7 . 0 2 . 0 4 0 o f t h i s c h a p t e r . A he i g h t v a r i a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n sh a l l b e r e f e r r e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i f a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i s p r o p o s e d : A . A n y p o r t i o n o f a s t r u c t u r e w h i c h e x c e e d s s i x t e e n f e e t i n h e i g h t e x t e n d s c l o s e r t h a n t w e n t y - f i v e f e e t f r o m t h e f r o n t o r s t r e e t - s i d e p r o p e r t y l i n e . B . T h e a r e a o f t h e s t r u c t u r e w h i c h e x c e e d s s i x t e e n f e e t i n h e i g h t ( s e c o n d s t o r y f o o t p r i n t ) e x c ee d s s e v e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e e x i s t i n g f i r s t s t o r y f o o t p r i n t a r e a ( r e s i d e n c e a n d g a r a g e ) ; C . S i x t y p e r c e n t o r m o r e o f a n e x i s t i n g g a r a g e f o o t p r i n t i s c o v e re d b y a s t r u c t u r e w h i c h e x c e e d s s i x t e e n f e e t i n h e i g h t ( a s e c o n d s t o r y ) . D . T h e p o r t i o n o f a s t r u c t u r e t h a t e x c e e d s s i x t e e n f e e t i n he i g h t i s b e i n g d e v e l o p e d a s p a r t o f a n e w s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e ; o r E . B a s e d o n a n i n i t i a l s i t e v i s i t , t h e d i r e ct o r d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a n y p o r t i o n o f a s t r u c t u r e w h i c h i s p r o p o s e d t o e x c e e d s i x t e e n f e e t i n h e i g h t m a y s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r a v i e w as d e f i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . 5. F o r p a r k i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s , s e e Se c t i o n 1 7 . 0 2 . 0 3 0 ( B ) o f t h i s c h a p t e r . 6. A g a r a g e w i t h d i r e c t a c c e s s d r i v e w a y f r o m t h e s t r e e t o f a c c e ss s h a l l n o t b e l e s s t h a n t w e n t y f e e t f r o m t h e f r o n t o r s t r e e t - s id e p r o p e r t y l i n e , w h i c h e v e r i s t h e st r e e t o f a c c e s s . 7. E x t e r i o r s t a i r s t o a n u p p e r s t o r y a r e p r o h i b i t e d , u n l e s s l ea d i n g t o a n d / o r c o n n e c t e d t o a c o m m o n h a l l w a y , d e c k o r e n t r y r a t h er t h a n a s p e c i f i c r o o m . 8. F o r p u r p o s e s o f c a l c u l a t i n g l o t c o v e r a g e , a p r i v a t e s t r e e t e a s e m e n t s h a l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t o f t h e l o t a r e a a n d t h e i mp r o v e d a r e a o f a p r i v a t e s t r e e t ea s e m e n t s h a l l n o t b e c o u n t e d a s l o t c o v e r a g e . EX H I B I T ‘ C ’ Pr o p o s e d T a b l e 0 2 - A IS-14 August 9, 2004 Page 7 of 15 that would be presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission at a joint workshop. At that meeting, the Council can either accept all, some, or none of the suggested amendments and initiate the code amendment public hearing proceedings accordingly. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if it made sense to extend the Committee’s tenure until June 2005. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that June 2005 seems reasonable. He also stated that the Committee may wish to take a break during the General Plan public hearings, with the understanding that the Committee would reconvene afterwards to address topics that may have arisen during the public hearings. He stated that it is typical for a Municipal Code/Development Code to be updated after a General Plan has been updated in order to incorporate the changes. He suggested that the Committee wait until after the updated General Plan has been adopted before presenting its recommended code amendments to the Council. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to complete the Meeting / Topic calendar through June 2005 with the understanding that there may be a period when the Committee will not meet. He would also like to leave room within the calendar for topics that may be placed on the agenda, with milestones where the Committee can monitor its progress. He also wants the record to show that if no new topics arise as a result of the General Plan public hearings then the tenure of this Committee may end before June 2005. The Staff directive was approved without Committee objection. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff for its report on the proposed amendments to the City’s setback criteria. Senior Planner Mihranian presented the Committee with a power point presentation on setbacks. As part of the presentation, Mr. Mihranian showed examples of structures that were built to the minimum side yard setbacks within recent years. The illustrations intended to reveal how new structures, built to the maximum standards permitted per zoning district, appear next to existing structures built 30 or more years ago. During the presentation, he noted that for the most part, he did not identify any majors problems. However, he stated that from Staff’s perspective, there appears to be trend occurring where property owners are preparing plans for a remodel, addition or new structure that is built up to the setback limits, specifically the side and rear yards. Mr. Mihranian stated that although concerns regarding setbacks is typically addressed by Staff through Neighborhood Compatibility, applicants are not pleased that their plans need to be revised to increase the setbacks, especially when the proposed structure complies with the Residential Development Standards. He stated that the common complaint by an applicant with revising plans has to do with additional time and costs. He also reminded the Committee that there are cases where Neighborhood Compatibility is not triggered and Staff does not have the leverage to require the setbacks be increased. IS-15 August 9, 2004 Page 8 of 15 Senior Planner Mihranian said that the current construction trend is to build larger structures with smaller yards, that is essentially maximizing the building footprint. He reiterated the concerns that arise in neighborhoods that were developed 30 or more years ago and are being exposed to tear-down rebuild projects. He stated that pursuant to the City’s goals and policies, and in reaction to current building trends, Staff is proposing to increase the rear yard setbacks to 20-feet for all lots within the City. Committee Member Dyda stated that people will look at an ordinance and figure out a way to build what they want to build. He stressed the importance of having aggregate limitations. Committee Member Karp emphasized the importance of setting limits. She stated that if you wait unit a problem occurs, rather than detecting a trend and correcting the situation before a problem arises, the damage may be irreversible. She stated that based on the illustration presented, the examples are mechanically correct, but aesthetically incorrect. Committee Member Perestam asked how do we define lot coverage, referring to a specific slide from the power point presentation. He noted that lot coverage limitations may address the setback and structure concerns. Senior Planner Mihranian defined lot coverage as the building footprint, parking and driveway areas, interior courtyards, and decks 30-inches or larger. He stated that the topic of lot coverage will be the next subject addressed by the Committee. Committee Member Cartwright asked if an existing structure would have to comply with the current setbacks if it were remodeled by 50% or more. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the Development Code, a legal non- conforming structure would have to be brought to conformity if more than 50% of the existing structure is demolished and rebuilt, with the exception to setbacks. He stated that if an existing structure did not comply with the current setbacks, only the new portion of the structure would have to comply. He stated that the Code was written so that residents remodeling or expanding their home would not be penalized for existing legal, non-conforming setbacks. Committee Member Cartwright asked if there were any special overlay districts, referring to the Portuguese Bend Club. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there are no overlay districts within the City that apply less stringent standards, aside from Residential Planned Developments. He stated that because of the unique lot configurations and sizes, combined with the fact that the homes were constructed prior to the City’s incorporation, most of the existing homes within the Portuguese Bend Club do not comply with the current residential development standards. As such, these structures are for the most part legal, non- conforming, and if improvements are proposed, in most cases variances are necessary. IS-16 August 9, 2004 Page 9 of 15 He stated that the Commission often considers variances within the Portuguese Bend Club. Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that the genesis for the City’s incorporation was to reject the County’s projected density levels. He stated that instead of having a population of approximately 42,000 residents, under the County’s plan, the City would have a population of approximately 90,000 residents today. Incorporation was to avoid the high density. He stated that ordinances change through time, and if a structure is considered legal non-conforming, a resident who wants to improve such a structure should be required to comply with the rules that were adopted to preserve the character of the community. Councilman Wolowicz questioned the judgment of a discretionary application. Committee Member Dyda stated that was what variances are for, to allow the decision makers to find a compelling reason to allow a deviation from the code requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the setback criteria is ultimately based on the City’s goals and policies, and its vision for the future. He stated that most neighborhoods were developed prior to the City’s incorporation and currently require a 5-foot side yard setback. He stated that based on his observation, the homes within these neighborhoods maintain open space between structures that exceed the minimum requirements. He said it would be a disservice to the community and this Committee to not say that the new construction trend is leaning towards maximizing the building footprint by building up to the City’s limits. He stated that if the City feels that the current standards are adequate for the scenario of a maximum build-out, then changes are not warranted. Councilman Long noted that there appears to be a minimal burden on legal non- conforming structures because the Code is written so that only the new portion of structure needs to comply with the current standards, unless of course the entire existing structure is voluntarily torn down and rebuilt, then the entire new structure must comply with the current requirements. Committee Member Dyda added that if a structure is demolished as a result of a natural disaster, such as a fire or earthquake, it can be rebuilt to its original envelope even if the Codes are more stringent. Commissioner Gertsner asked why Staff is recommending to increase the rear yard setback requirement when the analysis and presentation focused on the side yard setback. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that it was Staff’s opinion that increasing the side yard setback would result in a greater burden on property owners than increasing the rear yard setback since most homes were not built out to the rear yard setback limits. IS-17 August 9, 2004 Page 10 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if they were seeking direction on the proposed changes to rear yard setbacks. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that Staff’s proposal is merely a recommendation and that the Committee is to ultimately decide what will be recommended to the Council. Committee Member Slayden stated that he would support Staff’s proposal. Committee Member Lyon asked Staff if the setback criteria for lots created prior to City- hood could be changed. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the laws can be amended and that only new structures would have to comply with the new criteria. He stated that the existing laws are not conditions to specific tracts. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the suggested changes and its potential impacts to neighborhoods, such as Eastview. He stated that many of these home do not comply with current standards, similar to the Portuguese Bend Club. He asked why Neighborhood Compatibility could not govern the setback limits. He did not think a change to the side yard setback is warranted, but could support a change to the rear yard setback limits. Councilman Long mentioned that he supports increasing the rear yard setback limit to 20-feet and would consider implementing a split side yard setback requirement, with a minimum of 5-feet on one side and perhaps 15-feet on the other side. He suspects that having a split setback requirement for side yards, would reduce the number of non- conforming lots, provided that one side remains at 5-feet. This concept is not just Neighborhood Compatibility, but open space. Committee Member Dyda stated that this change would not limit the size of a structure, but rather ensures that adequate open space will be maintained around the structure. He stated that he supports Councilman Long’s suggestion to have a split side yard setback criteria similar to the criteria for City created lots, with a minimum of 5-feet on one side. Commissioner Mueller indicated his lack of support of Councilman Long’s suggestion since it may penalize property owners who did not improve their home before the suggested changes and reward property owners who already built out to their property lines. Committee Member Perestam stated that the City is not in conflict with the mechanics and aesthetics yet because we are addressing the mechanics within the rear yard and the aesthetics in the front yard through Neighborhood Compatibility. He stated that since we are not making a significant change to the criteria he could support the suggested change. IS-18 August 9, 2004 Page 11 of 15 Committee Member Cartwright stated that he could support the change to the rear yard setbacks but not convinced with changing the side yard setbacks, as suggested by Councilman Long. Councilman Long reiterated his suggestion that the Development Standards Table be modified so that the side yard setback criteria for lots created prior to City-hood include a new column that states “Total Side Yard” with 15-feet, and another column stating “One Side” with 5-feet. He stated that this suggestion would allow 5-feet on one side and 10-feet on the other side. Commissioner Gertsner stated that if the City increases the rear yard setback requirement, people will then expand along the side and front yards. He stated that allowing development to occur to the back of a property is typically preferred by other jurisdictions because its less visible than the front and side of a property. He stated that when looking at setbacks you need to decide on a series of importance for the City because the developer, will look for creative ways to accomplish its goal within the established parameters. He reiterated the need to prioritize setbacks, stating that the front yard is typically the most important, followed by side yards and then rear yards being the least important. He supports Councilman Long’s suggestion but does not support Staff’s proposal to increase the rear yard because that is the least visible. Committee Member Cartwright reiterated his concern with the Eastview neighborhood as it relates to Councilman Long’s suggestion because many of the homes in that neighborhood are already built up to the 5-foot setback. He requested more information on the potential impacts to the smaller lots, such as lots located within the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Councilman Long stated that within the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning district people tend to expand upward rather than outward because of the lot size limitations. The issue is to try to preserve some open space between structures. Committee Member Dyda stated that the City should be concerned with unjustly penalizing people, not for trying to preserve the intent for incorporation by maintaining a semi-rural character with low density. He stated that the City should not establish development criteria based on property values. Councilman Long stated that Commissioner Gertsner persuaded him to consider modifying his earlier suggestion so that the rear yard setback remains as is for smaller lots and that the side yards be changed as suggested earlier. Committee Member Lyon questioned the proposed changes to the setbacks as it relates to lots that were created prior to the City’s incorporation, citing an example of a resident who voluntary tears down their home that maintains a 15-foot rear yard setback and is told that the new structure must now maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback. He questioned whether the existing home is grand-fathered. IS-19 August 9, 2004 Page 12 of 15 Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that voluntary tear-down rebuilds or additions must always comply with the City’s current Codes, while structures damaged or destroyed by involuntary acts, such as a fire, are grand-fathered, meaning they can be rebuilt to its original footprint. Committee Member Lyon asked why the City distinguishes between a City created lot and a lot created prior to incorporation. Senior Planner Mihranian responded by saying at the time Code was originally adopted in 1975, it was the City’s position that new lots, created under the City, should meet more stringent standards than lots created under the County. He said that one option to consider today is to combine the two sets of standards. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a formal motion. Committee Member Lyon moved to accept the existing setback criteria, as stated in Table 2-A, with the exception of Councilman Long’s suggestion to create two columns for the side yard setbacks for lots created prior to City-hood, one column would require a total of 15-feet and the other column would require a minimum 5-foot side yard setback on one side. He stated that the rear yard setbacks should remain at 15-feet, as suggested by Commissioner Gertsner. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. Committee Member Cartwright reiterated his concern that such a change might have an adverse impact on the Eastview neighborhood. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that according to the City’s Zoning Map, the Eastview neighborhood is designated as a RS-4 zoning district. He stated that based on Staff’s observation, that area is comprised of smaller homes that are built up to the 5-foot side yard setback. Councilman Long said that based on the Zoning Map these lots are approximately 10,000 square feet in area. Commissioner Mueller cited a concern similar to Committee Member Cartwright’s concern. He then referred to the City of Malibu and how their non-beach front properties require a 5-foot setback on one side, and a 15-foot rear yard setback. He said that the Committee is stretching the limits. He did not support the motion because it restricts a property owner from expanding their existing residence to the side. Committee Member Dyda proposed an amendment to the motion requiring the rear yard setbacks for lots within the RS-A1, RS-1, and RS-2 districts that were created prior to incorporation to maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback since these lots are larger in area. Councilman Long seconded the amendment to the motion. IS-20 August 9, 2004 Page 13 of 15 Committee Member Lyon, the motion maker, accepted the amendment. Councilman Wolowicz summarized the amended motion that across the board for lot created prior to City-hood would require a total side yard setback requirement of 15-feet with 5-feet on one side, the rear yard setbacks would be increased to 20-feet for the RS-A5, RS-1, and the RS-2 zoning districts, and all other setbacks would not change. Committee Member Perestam asked Commissioner Gertsner if the proposed motion addressed his earlier concern. Commissioner Gertsner stated that the proposed motion properly addresses the concerns expressed by the Members and the City’s goals and policies. He said that the motion still needs to evaluate situations where the proposed change may or may not work, such as the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. He said that there appears to be lots within zoning districts that do not conform to the underlying zoning standards. Committee Member Cartwright said that he is not certain that the proposed motion is going to cause a problem for the Eastview neighborhood, but from what he has heard this evening combined with his own observation, it appears that the motion may pose a problem to that specific neighborhood, if not other neighborhoods. He said that the size of a lot can be misleading because in some cases the majority of a lot can be considered un-buildable because of slope restrictions and the City needs to be sensitive of that condition. He said the Committee needs to be fully informed on the potential impacts such a change may cause before finalizing its decision. Councilman Long raised a concern with lots that may be inconsistent with the lot area requirement for the respective zoning district. He cited an example of a 4,000 square foot lot located within the RS-5 zoning district and said that perhaps the setbacks are not the problem, but rather the zoning designation. He said the City may need to create another RS zone to address this concern. He proposed that as part of the motion, that Staff report to the Committee on the impact it would have to change the setbacks on the RS-5 zoning district and if an impact exists, where that impact exists and what is Staff’s proposed solution, such as there is a problem and we should reconsider the proposed motion for the RS-5 zoning district, or yes the problem exists, but only in Eastview and we can address that by creating a new zoning district with different criteria. Councilman Wolowicz suggested modifying the motion so that RS-5 is removed from the discussion until Staff presents its report. Councilman Long agreed. Committee Member Karp expressed a similar concern with the RS-4 zoning district. IS-21 August 9, 2004 Page 14 of 15 Councilman Long proposed an amendment to the motion requiring Staff to further investigate potential impacts the proposed setback changes would have to the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Commissioner Gertsner seconded the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Mueller stated that since a number of the lots in Rancho Palos Verdes consist of extreme slopes so that 1/3 of a lot is buildable and the remaining 2/3 is un- buildable, changes to the setback requirements limits a property owner from improving their residence. Committee Member Slayden would like to increase the rear yard setback to 20-feet as originally proposed. Commissioner Gertsner said he does not support increasing the rear yard setback because a back yard is least visible, while the front and side yards are more visible to the public. Councilman Long re-stated the motion, emphasizing the direction that Staff is to look at impacts that may result from changing the side yard setback for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Committee Member Lyon, the framer of the original motion, accepted the proposed amendment. He supports further review of the matter before the Committee finalizes. Committee Member Dyda, who seconded the motion, accepted the amendment to the motion. Committee Member Cartwright suggested that the Committee look at the matter regarding extreme slopes, that is buildable versus non-buildable area, for future discussion by the Committee. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a vote on the amended motion. The motion passed with Committee Member Perestam dissenting. Councilman Wolowicz asked that Staff include extreme slopes for the discussion at the next meeting. Councilman Long moved to continue the discussion on second story setbacks and distance between structures, as well as the topics under New Business to the next meeting. Councilman Wolowicz seconded the motion and asked for public comments. IS-22 February 7, 2005 Page 5 of 7 Councilman Wolowicz requested that the March 14th meeting be rescheduled to March 7th because of the Council meeting set for the next evening. Councilman Long noted that unless otherwise noted, the Committee meetings will continue to be scheduled on the second Monday of each month. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the amended Meeting Calendar, seconded by Committee Member Slayden. The motion passed without objection. Senior Planner Mihranian asked whether the Committee wanted to assign meeting topics to each meeting. Councilman Wolowicz thought it would be helpful to have a pre-agenda. Councilman Long suggested the Committee talk about the concept of a pre-agenda as part of Agenda Item No. 8, Items to be Placed on Future Agendas. He then introduced the next agenda item on City Setbacks and Lot Coverage Criteria and asked for a brief Staff Report. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Committee has spent the last three to four meetings discussing the City’s setback and lot coverage requirements, and thought that since the Committee has formally adopted a goal and objective statement whether they would like to revisit the decisions made thus far. Councilman Wolowicz noted that during the Committee’s discussion of the setback requirements for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts, the Committee began to consider whether the Eastview neighborhood should be treated differently by creating a new zoning district, such as RS-6. Councilman Long added that if the Committee is recommending increasing the setbacks for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts, the thought was would such an increase adversely impact the Eastview Neighborhood, and whether the current RS-4 zoning designation is appropriately set. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Committee introduced the idea of creating an RS-6 zoning district for the Eastview area a few meetings ago, but requested to continue the discussion to a later date to allow Staff additional time to investigate this idea. He then noted that his investigation would look at the Eastview area in segments and as a whole to better understand whether such a zoning classification would be feasible. IS-23 February 7, 2005 Page 6 of 7 Committee Member Dyda referred to a hand-out he prepared on possible requirements for an RS-6 zoning district. He noted that since the area is already developed it is the residential development standards in place that will shape the future of the area. Councilman Long noted that Eastview area is a good example for implementing criteria standards that encourage people to build outward by increasing lot coverage as a means to preserve views or to build upward by reducing lot coverage all depending on the topography of the immediate area. He referred to the balancing issue that the Committee discussed earlier. He said the Committee can make a tentative decision regarding setbacks, but will likely reconsider its decision at the time the Committee discusses the balancing issue. Councilman Wolowicz asked that the discussion on the creation of a RS-6 zoning district with proposed development standards be brought back at a later time. Councilman Long agreed, but suggested that Staff propose preliminary standards depending on the specific neighborhoods within Eastview, and to also propose some form of variance that would allow property owners relief from the development standards if they are seeking to preserve views. Committee Member Dyda raised a concern with allowing structures to encroach within the side yard setback if the minimum distance is 5-feet, because if eaves can currently encroach into the setbacks, there is the potential to end up with a situation where eaves are nearly touching. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that when the Committee first considered the concept of “balancing” development standards, the thought was to establish set standards and then establish an incentive, such as reduced standards that would apply if a property owner can prove that they are preserving neighbor’s views. The Committee directed Staff to discuss this concept with the City Attorney. He then stated that the City Attorney suggested that the Minor Exception Permit findings be modified to allow relief from the standards, rather than creating two tiers of residential standards. Councilman Wolowicz would prefer not to use the word “incentive” because it alludes to an objective. He would like to be able to structure an RS-6 zone so that it can encompass these issues without creating sub-districts no more cumbersome or wordy than the RS-4 and RS-5 districts, but that captures the spirit of balancing. Councilman Long stated that the problem lies in cases where within the same zoning district on the same street, homes next to each other, may end up with different outcomes. He then referred to his home as an example. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if it is at all possible to create a RS-6 zoning district that captures the spirit of what has been discussed this evening. IS-24 February 7, 2005 Page 7 of 7 Senior Planner Mihranian believes it is possible, but will know for certain after doing some further research and developing possible standards for review by the Committee. Councilman Long stressed that the RS-6 district will have to have some minimum standards. Councilman Wolowicz moved to adopt the changes to the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts and to direct Staff to further investigate the viability of creating an RS-6 zoning district for the Eastview neighborhood. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. He then clarified that the standards being considered for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts are contained in the agenda packet. Councilman Wolowicz requested that the information Staff prepares be distributed prior to the next meeting. Without objection the motion passed. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Redfield explained his interest in this Committee’s assignment, referring to his interest with the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering Committee. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Councilman Wolowicz moved to instruct Staff take the topics and match it with the calendar dates and spread it out through the year, and to place it in some logical order. Committee Member Karp seconded the motion. Committee Member Slayden suggested that each scheduled meeting should be over- loaded. The amended motion passed without objection. ADJOURNMENT Committee Member Dyda moved to adjourn the meeting. Committee Member Slayden seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. IS-25 Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting, and Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. The motion to accept the committee’s recommendation (alternative No. 1) failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Gerstner, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to reject the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the rear yard setback (alternative No. 2), seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic before the Planning Commission is the side-yard setback, explaining the Committee recommendation was to enact a 15-foot aggregate side-yard setback for all lots in all zoning districts that were created before City incorporation. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the side yard setback, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated the next topic is the Eastview re-zoning. He explained that the committee recommended changing all of the RS-4 zoned areas in Eastview to RS-5. Commissioner Tetreault stated that applications on lots in Eastview have come to the Planning Commission, and these are looked at as legal nonconforming lots. He questioned why a zone change was necessary, and why they couldn’t remain legal nonconforming lots. He felt that changing the zoning opens up the opportunity for subdividing some of the lots and he didn’t want that opportunity opened up. Other than correcting the non-conformities, he asked what other positive thing is being done by changing the zoning in that area. Chairman Perestam asked staff if this recommendation is in any way tied into the recommendation for the overlay district. Associate Planner Fox answered that the overlay proposal deals more directly with the issue of existing non-conforming issues, as that one tract has many structures in it that don’t meet setback requirements, have inadequate off-street parking, and other deficiencies that were identified by the committee. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the area proposed for the zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 is the same geographic location as the proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District. Associate Planner Fox answered that they are one in the same. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 11 IS-26 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET EASTVIEW REZONING ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Eastview Rezoning RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Rezone the RS-4 portions of the Eastview area to RS-5 DISCUSSION Based on the Committee’s review of the average lot sizes within the various single-family districts, the Committee found that the zoning in the Eastview area was the most inconsistent with existing conditions “on the ground.” The Committee found that the single-family portions of Eastview are designated RS-4, which requires a minimum 10,000-square- foot lot, while the average lot in this area is 8,000 square feet, which is more consistent with the minimum lot size required in the RS-5 district. As such, the Committee recommended that the zoning of the single-family portions of the Eastview area be changed from RS-4 to RS-5. The Committee’s recommendation took into account the possibility that there may be an increase in lot-split applications as a result of the change to the RS-5 zoning designation. However, after considering minimum lot area, minimum lot width and depth requirements, and topography, the Committee identified no more than a few lots within Eastview that could be further subdivided under the new RS-5 zoning designation. Staff has identified twenty-two (22) parcels in Eastview between 16,000 and 20,000 square feet in area that might be split under RS-5 zoning (but not under current RS-4 zoning). Based upon topography and lot configuration, Staff estimates that less than half of these lots could be easily subdivided. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Zoning Map RDSSC Minutes of April 11, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) PC Minutes of May 13, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES Exhibit ‘A’ of Draft Ordinance IS-27 Areas outlined in RED to be re-zoned from RS-4 to RS-5 EXHIBIT ‘A’ Proposed Eastview Re-Zoning RS-4 to RS-5 IS-28 Adopted June 13, 2005 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING April 11, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Councilman Long called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held at the City Hall Community Room, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Long, Planning Commissioners Mueller and Perestam, Committee Members Cartwright, Karp, Lyon, Dyda, Denton, and Slayden. Absent: Councilman Wolowicz and Commissioner Gertsner. Also present was Senior Planner Mihranian. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the Agenda, seconded by Committee Member Slayden. Without objection, the agenda was approved by the Committee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Long asked the Committee if there were any changes to the March 7, 2005 draft minutes. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the March 7, 2005 minutes, seconded by Committee Member Karp. The motion passed without objection. Councilman Long and Committee Member Denton abstained since they were not present at the March 7, 2005 meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS Councilman Long asked for an update from the Eastview Sub-Committee. Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the Sub-Committee members as, Committee Members Denton, Dyda, and Karp. He indicated that the Sub-Committee has been meeting on Tuesday mornings for the past month and he acknowledged the additional April 11, 2005 Page 1 of 11 IS-29 April 11, 2005 Page 2 of 11 work and time the Sub-Committee set aside for this assignment. He then briefly recapped the power point presentation given at the March 7, 2005 meeting. He explained the zoning established by Los Angeles County and the background facts on the Eastview Area that from the 1980 U.S. Census that was used by the City at the time of annexation. He identified the eight residential neighborhoods located within Eastview, including three multiple-family areas. Included in the background data was that the Goals Report prepared by the City identified the average density of the residential units as 5-units per acre. He briefly recapped the lot evaluation prepared for the area discussing Staff’s rationale for the calculations. Based on the lot evaluation table, he indicated that Staff presented the Committee at the March 7th meeting a proposal to rezone the area from RS-4 to RS-6. He recapped the suggested criteria and then mentioned how after discussing the proposal, the Committee agreed not to create a new zoning designation for the Eastview area, but perhaps rezone it as RS-5 with two overlay districts. Based on the Committee’s discussion, a Sub-Committee was formed to develop standards for the overlay districts. He began to discuss the Sub-Committee’s accomplishments thus far. He stated that the Sub-Committee’s first task was to develop an objective statement which is as follows: to develop residential development standards that would improve the open space of the area without creating undue hardship to property owners. He explained three “issues” raised by the Sub-Committee relating to enhancing the open feel of the area similar to that of the entire City. The three issues were summarized as: off-street parking, open space in relation to the landscape requirement. In terms of off-street parking, Mr. Mihranian indicated that the Sub-Committee wanted to encourage parking on-site (individual lots) rather than on the street. Some options included tandem driveways along the side of the home, and reducing the parking compliance requirement for remodels of existing homes, reduced parking space dimension requirement. He stated that after spending time observing the parking condition within the neighborhood, it become more and more evident that the alternatives being contemplated would not be realistic because of the way the existing homes are built. The observation for this exercise was focused within four specific streets, Trudie, Jaybrook, Homeworth, and Highmore streets. Committee Member Denton indicated that while observing these four streets, the focus area, it was evident that the existing homes had already incorporated one or more of the alternatives being contemplated. She indicated that only five homes did not have on-site parking and could not accommodate the suggested alternatives unless the homes were substantially torn down. Committee Member Dyda indicated that these homes were built into the current required side or front yard setbacks. He stated that it would be considered a hardship to require a homeowner to tear down a portion of their residence in order to accommodate on-site parking. He discussed the behavioral aspect of the issue and IS-30 April 11, 2005 Page 3 of 11 noted that people who have the ability to park on-site choose to park on the street because it is more convenient. Committee Member Denton raised a concern with the use of tandem parking garage because it does not help in getting cars off the street because of the behavioral aspect of it. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Development Code stops short of stating whether parking should be side-by-side or tandem. He then raised a concern regarding the Development Code’s parking dimension requirement and the size of cars being driven today, noting that the two do not correspond. Committee Member Dyda added that the City has no regulation that prevents residents from using their garage for storage rather than parking. He then mentioned that one of the Sub-Committee’s goals was to make certain that cars parked in the driveway did not overhang onto the street. Committee Member Karp stated that based on the Sub-Committee’s observation of the area of concern focused on these four streets because the remaining area of Eastview was like many other parts of the City. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that based on his observation, the time period that these homes were developed dictate the character of the neighborhood and that for the most part, Eastview is much like the remaining portion of the City with the exception of the four streets that were developed in the early 1950’s. Councilman Long noted that it was his impression that a great majority of homes built in the 1940’s and 1950’s only had a one car garage, which changed to two-car garages as the times changed in the 1960’s onward. Committee Member Denton mentioned that the homes located on these four streets were built as army housing. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on the Sub-Committee’s task thus far, the impression at this time is that the entire Eastview area does not warrant an overlay district. He stated that the Sub-Committee believes the overlay should include at least the four streets mentioned this evening, and perhaps other streets as further analysis dictates. He then noted that some other streets being considered as included in the overlay are Caddington and Gunter, but that further research needs to be conducted before the Sub-Committee makes its final recommendation. Committee Member Denton noted that before the Committee makes any final decisions, that Staff should prepare some “real life” examples to see whether the suggested changes are applicable and can make a positive difference to the neighborhood. IS-31 April 11, 2005 Page 4 of 11 Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that in its past discussions it was determined that creating a RS-6 zoning district for any portion of the Eastview area is inappropriate and that the zoning for the area should be changed to RS-5 to better suit the type of development that currently exists and the zoning at the time Los Angeles County maintained jurisdiction of the Eastview area. Councilman Long asked the Sub-Committee to clarify the streets being considered for the overlay at the moment referring to the map placed on the power point slide. He asked Staff to continue with its presentation. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Sub-Committee is not recommending any changes to the parking requirement. He then continued with his presentation by discussing the setback standards. He reminded the Committee that there has been discussion within the Committee to recommend increasing the side yard setback requirement for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. He mentioned that since there is an isolated area within Eastview that needs special attention to encourage improvements and not create a hardship to property owners, the Sub-Committee believes that as a whole, Eastview is able to meet the new side yard setback standards, with the exception of the four streets mentioned earlier. Therefore, the Sub-Committee is recommending as part of the overlay district that the side yard setback requirement remain at 5-feet. Committee Member Dyda added that a change to the side yard setback requirement in this specific area of Eastview would force people to build upward that would then introduce possible view and compatibility concerns. He said however, that if a property owner voluntarily tears down their entire home then they would be required to reconstruct the new home at the increased setback requirement (as currently proposed). Councilman Long for clarification purposes reiterated that according to the Development Code, if you tear down 50% or more of the existing interior and exterior walls, the Code considers that to be a tear-down / rebuild project that is essentially a new home that needs to be built at the current development standards. Senior Planner Mihranian agreed. He then added that in this case, the Code exempts an existing home from complying with the current setback requirements if more than 50% is being added to an existing residence. Committee Member Denton noted that the Sub-Committee is recommending that for the overlay district only tear-down / rebuilds or new homes would have to comply with the new setback standards, otherwise additions to existing homes could meet the less restrictive setback standards. She added that a lot of time was spent researching the neighborhood, such as lot width, to see if the suggested developments standards are realistic. IS-32 April 11, 2005 Page 5 of 11 Committee Member Cartwright informed the Committee that to avoid an increase to the property taxes, people leave up one wall when doing a major remodel. He said this will encourage people not to tear down their home and to leave up one wall. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that at this time the Sub-Committee is not prepared to give a suggested definition for a tear-down / rebuild. Councilman Long summarized by stating that the Sub-Committee believes that the entire Eastview area is fine, aside from changing the zoning designation to RS-5, and that there are four streets, and possibly a few more streets, that would need special attention in the form of an overlay district to be less restrictive than the proposed development standards. Committee Member Denton noted that many people are building second story additions when they do a tear-down / rebuild. She said there is not as many view issues as one might expect because of the terrain of the area, as well as the placement of windows on the existing homes. She also raised a concern with the dense feel of the area. Councilman Long asked Staff to continue with its presentation on Open Space. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Development Code requires 50% of the front yard setback area be landscaped. He stated that the Sub-Committee is suggesting that the percentage of landscape area be increased within the overlay district to create more green space rather than hardscape. He stated that at first the Sub-Committee was going to recommend increasing the landscape percentage within the front yard between 60% and 65%. However, after playing out different scenarios, such as driveway widths and walkways, it seems that any percentage higher than 55% would not be feasible within this area. He then noted that the Sub-Committee is also recommending for discussion at a later time that the landscape requirement be evaluated and possibly increased citywide. Committee Member Dyda disagreed with Staff’s statement referring to illustrative examples he prepared for two and three car garages with direct and indirect driveways that would allow for 65% landscape requirement. Committee Member Denton expressed a concern with Member Dyda’s numbers. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that Staff is still researching these numbers to see what change, if any, can be considered for the landscape (open space) requirement. He then mentioned that he would present the Committee with real life scenarios for review at the next meeting. He reminded the Committee that tonight’s presentation is merely an update and that the Sub-Committee will only give its final recommendation once these topics have been fully analyzed. IS-33 April 11, 2005 Page 6 of 11 Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the Sub-Committee’s objective as it relates to the Steering Committee’s objective. He questioned whether the Sub- Committee’s objective applies to all of Eastview or just the overlay district. Committee Member Karp and Dyda both indicated that the objective statement originated for the entire Eastview area but has consequently been narrowed to the four or so streets mapped as the overlay district. Committee Member Denton stated that despite Staff’s request to continue this matter to continue researching some grey areas regarding the Sub-Committee’s suggested development standards for an overlay district, that she felt the Sub-Committee was prepared to make its formal recommendation this evening. Committee Member Dyda agreed that rezoning Eastview to an RS-5 district can be considered a formal recommendation by the Sub-Committee, but felt that the specifics to the development standards and the boundary limits for the overlay district still need to be researched and felt that a formal recommendation at this time is premature. Committee Member Lyon requested one of the Sub-Committee Members make a formal recommendation to change the zoning for Eastview from RS-4 to RS-5. Committee Member Dyda moved that based on the Sub-Committee’s analysis the residential portion of the Eastview area should be recommended to the City Council to be rezoned from RS-4 to RS-5 with the possibility that an overlay district be created with specific development standards that will be mapped at a later time. Committee Member Karp seconded the motion. Commissioner Mueller raised a concern that Staff’s analysis may have been limited to visual impressions rather than statistical data. He then suggested that before considering rezoning any portion of the City the Committee should be given statistical information to support the recommendation. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that statistical information was prepared and transmitted to the Committee early in the Committee’s overall discussion of the City and its respective development standards. He mentioned that a table was prepared and presented to the Committee in October 2004 that analyzed random streets within the Eastview area, as well as other City neighborhoods, as it relates to lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, and structure size. Committee Member Dyda noted that it was looked at statistically and validated by field observations. Senior Planner Mihranian referred to the table previously presented to the Committee and explained the data he collected for lots on Trudie and Jaybrook. IS-34 April 11, 2005 Page 7 of 11 Councilman Long indicated that the motion is only to rezone the Eastview area from RS-4 to RS-5 with the possibility of creating an overlay district pending further research by Staff and the Sub-Committee. He noted the compelling evidence to recommend rezoning Eastview was based on the data that revealed the average lot size was more suitable for 5 or more lots. Committee Member Slayden supports the motion and believes it is less complicated than creating the once contemplated RS-6 zoning district. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that the difference between RS-4 and RS-5 is lot coverage and lot area requirements. Committee Member Denton feels that an overlay district is important for the four or more streets because these home are small with one car garages. Councilman Long would like to see a presentation by the Sub-Committee as to where the overlay boundary line is to be drawn and why. Commissioner Perestam asked if we knew how many properties exist within the contemplated overlay district. He would like to see a total unit count for the overlay district. Councilman Long requested that the Sub-Committee present that information at the next meeting, along with an overlay map and a justification as to why the boundary line is being where it is. Committee Member Cartwright sought clarification on the motion to rezone Eastview from RS-4 to RS-5. He then asked if it was the Committee’s intent to create an Overlay District. He then expressed his concern that the Committee has not been presented with adequate information or documentation to support the motion. Committee Member Denton responded that based on the Sub-Committee’s research the proposed rezoning is to better suit the existing character of the area because RS-4 is an inappropriate zoning designation. She added that this will help eliminate any future issues that may arise if changes are made to the RS-4 zoning designation that may adversely impact this area if not properly zoned. Committee Member Dyda added that the information presented has revealed that the average lot size within Eastview is less than 10,000 square feet in area, which is the minimum lot area for the RS-4 zoning district. He suggested that the rezoning to RS-5 is intended to represent what actually exists. He stated that the lots that exceed 10,000 square feet in area are because of the canyons that are un-buildable. Committee Member Cartwright asked what the average lot size is for the lots on Caddington. IS-35 April 11, 2005 Page 8 of 11 Councilman Long stated that there is always some deviation, some lots may be larger and some smaller. He referred to his neighborhood as an example and said that the zoning as a whole is based on the average lot size of the area. Committee Member Cartwright believes that in order to present the City Council with a rezoning recommendation, the research conducted should include the entire City. Committee Member Dyda stated that is quite a cumbersome task. Councilman Long indicated that Staff presented the Committee with data regarding average lot size, lot depth, lot width, and structure size for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts within the entire City. Committee Member Denton recalls that she requested information be presented for the entire City before the Committee isolated the discussion to Eastview. Senior Planner Mihranian reminded the Committee that at the August 30, 2004 meeting, Staff first presented the Committee with a table that analyzed the lots for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts throughout the City. He mentioned that the Table was updated for the October 11, 2004 meeting because Committee Member Denton requested more streets from Eastview be added to the table. He stated that the analysis was prompted by the Committee’s discussion on changing the setback requirements. He added that the streets mentioned in the table represent samples for each neighborhood within the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts within the City. He then explained the table. Committee Member Cartwright stated that based on the table, the Committee needs to justify why it is only changing the zoning for the Eastview area and not areas such as the Hartcrest Drive, where the average lot size does not match the zoning designation. Commissioner Perestam asked the Sub-Committee for clarification on the difference between a tear-down/rebuild and a remodel for purposes of the Overlay District. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the definition of a tear-down/rebuild for the purposes of the Overlay district has not been completely defined at this time. Committee Member Denton noted that in terms of tear-down/rebuilds those type of projects within the contemplated overlay district would be subject to the new proposed standards. Councilman Long called for a vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that the Eastview area be rezoned from RS-4 to RS-5 and to ask the Sub- Committee to further study the possibility of whether or not there should be an Overlay District, and if so, what the justification, boundaries and how would it be implemented for review at a subsequent meeting. The Motion passed unanimously. IS-36 Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting, and Commissioner Tetreault abstaining. The motion to accept the committee’s recommendation (alternative No. 1) failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Gerstner, Ruttenberg, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to reject the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the rear yard setback (alternative No. 2), seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic before the Planning Commission is the side-yard setback, explaining the Committee recommendation was to enact a 15-foot aggregate side-yard setback for all lots in all zoning districts that were created before City incorporation. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept the committee’s recommendation in regards to increasing the side yard setback, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated the next topic is the Eastview re-zoning. He explained that the committee recommended changing all of the RS-4 zoned areas in Eastview to RS-5. Commissioner Tetreault stated that applications on lots in Eastview have come to the Planning Commission, and these are looked at as legal nonconforming lots. He questioned why a zone change was necessary, and why they couldn’t remain legal nonconforming lots. He felt that changing the zoning opens up the opportunity for subdividing some of the lots and he didn’t want that opportunity opened up. Other than correcting the non-conformities, he asked what other positive thing is being done by changing the zoning in that area. Chairman Perestam asked staff if this recommendation is in any way tied into the recommendation for the overlay district. Associate Planner Fox answered that the overlay proposal deals more directly with the issue of existing non-conforming issues, as that one tract has many structures in it that don’t meet setback requirements, have inadequate off-street parking, and other deficiencies that were identified by the committee. Chairman Perestam asked staff if the area proposed for the zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 is the same geographic location as the proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District. Associate Planner Fox answered that they are one in the same. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 11 IS-37 Chairman Perestam asked staff if there are any other ties that would prevent approving the Overlay District if the City did not change the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5. Associate Planner Fox explained that the overlay by its nature is creating specialized standards that aren’t addressed in the standards for the tract. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to reject the recommendation of the committee regarding the proposed zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 (alternative No. 2), seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg understood that the committee had participation from the community when making these recommendations, and asked if the community was generally in favor of this proposed change. Chairman Perestam answered that the community was generally in favor of the proposed changed, however he felt that if the overlay district assured a fifty two percent lot coverage, this would accommodate the community’s concern. Commissioner Tetreault expressed his concern that the zone change would allow some of the lots to be subdivided. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff can report back to the Planning Commission as to how many lots in Eastview are over 16,000 square feet and therefore could potentially be subdivided if the zoning changed. Vice Chairman Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the discussion regarding changing the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5 to a future meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic is the committee’s suggestion of a proposed overlay control district, noting in the staff report the suggested regulations that would apply in the overlay control district. Chairman Perestam added that the recommendations by the Committee were made after extensive neighborhood input from the residents. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt alternative No. 1 of the staff report, with the modification that the lot coverage be changed to fifty two percent lot coverage, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained the next item, which was to strike language regarding courtyard area lot coverage, and noted in the staff report the language being discussed. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 12 IS-38 Associate Planner Fox noted that because of the scope of changes, staff and the applicant agree that June 10th may not give them enough time, especially if the Planning Commission would like the project re-silhouetted. He therefore suggested that the public hearing be continued to the June 24th meeting, or to a meeting from that date. Commissioner Knight modified the motion to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). 2. Residential Development Standards code amendment & zone change Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, reporting on the additional research staff had done in regards to subdivision potential under the suggested change in the RS-4 zoning to the RS-5 zoning in the Eastview area. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept staff’s recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Chairman Perestam recalled from the last meeting that the Planning Commission had discussed not approving the proposed zone change because the proposed overlay district would give the flexibility they were looking for. Associate Planner Fox recalled there was discussion about that at the previous meeting, however he did not recall that being the consensus. He pointed out that the overlay district would only give the flexibility in the actual areas covered by the overlay and not the entire RS-4 zoning district. The motion to accept staff’s recommendation for the RS-4 zoning district was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that at the last meeting there was a question regarding the flag lots and why Councilman Gardner had asked the Planning Commission to look at the issue. He explained that staff had looked at the video of the City Council meeting and also provided the definitions of “driveway” and “private street”, and explained staff’s recommendation as written in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the use of the term “reciprocal easement” as used in staff’s recommendation and didn’t feel it should be used in this circumstance. Associate Planner Fox referred to page 12 of the staff report, which is the language staff is recommending, and suggested striking the word “reciprocal” and simply say “an access easement”. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approved staff’s recommendation (alternative No. 2) with the deletion of the word “reciprocal”, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 11 IS-39 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET MIRA VISTA OVERLAY DISTRICT ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Mira Vista Overlay District RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Create the Mira Vista Overlay Control (OC-5) District and Regulations for Tract No. 16010 in the Eastview area DISCUSSION At the time that the Committee agreed to recommend that the rezoning of Eastview, concerns were raised regarding the impacts such a change might have, such as the creation or exacerbation of non-conforming setbacks, lot coverage and the like. A subcommittee identified a portion of Eastview as a candidate for an overlay district. Pursuant to Section 17.40.010 of the Development Code, an overlay control district is intended to “provide criteria which further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the City. These areas have been defined by the General Plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique characteristics contributing significantly to the City’s form, appearance, natural setting, and historical and cultural heritage.” The area identified is Tract No. 16010, which was subdivided in the late 1940s. The homes that were built there in the early 1950s were very small and had only 1-car garages. In addition to the fact that the homes in this neighborhood are far smaller than average and have inadequate off-street parking, the lots in this tract are smaller than the lots located in other, newer single-family neighborhoods in Eastview. The determination to form an overlay district was based upon the existing physical development patterns found within this tract. Therefore, in order to promote the modernization of the housing stock in this unique tract (Mira Vista), the subcommittee recommended the creation of an overlay district. On May 13, 2008, the Planning Commission asked to revisit the development standards for the Mira Vista Overlay Control (OC-5) District to consider the appropriateness of allowing tandem garage parking. Notwithstanding Staff’s concern about the frequent underutilization of tandem parking spaces, Staff agrees that the unique circumstances in this area—the fact that the homes were originally built with only single-car garages—makes it perhaps the one area of the City where IS-40 tandem parking should be allowed to satisfy the minimum off- street parking requirements. This would allow property owners to provide additional off-street parking without having to demolish significant portions of existing residences to provide two (2) enclosed off-street spaces. Staff understands that the concerns of Mira Vista residents included finding ways to get more vehicles off the streets, and tandem parking would help to address this concern. Furthermore, Staff suggests allowing the construction of new detached garages to encroach into the 15-foot rear-yard setback as another means to increase the number of off-street parking space in the neighborhood. Under the County’s jurisdiction, such detached rear-yard garages were frequently permitted, so this is a common development pattern within the overlay district area. In addition, Staff recommends limiting the encroachment of detached garage to within five feet (5’-0”) of the rear property line and including an analysis of view impacts so as to minimize adverse impacts upon abutting properties. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept RDSSC and Staff recommendations 2. Reject RDSSC and Staff recommendations 3. Propose modifications to RDSSC and Staff recom- mendations P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Code Section 17.40.080 Diagrams of Alternative Garage Concepts RDSSC Minutes of June 13, 2005 (excerpt) RDSSC Minutes of February 27, 2006 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) PC Minutes of September 8, 2009 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 7 and Exhibit ‘B’ of Draft Ordinance IS-41 Proposed Section 17.40.080 17.40.080 Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5) and regulations A. Purpose. The purpose of the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5) is established to: 1. Acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area, which is generally characterized by very small homes on small lots, with substandard or no off-street parking facilities; and, 2. Allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay area, in a manner compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood, and with the needs and desires of current property owners. B. Application. The Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5) shall be applicable to lots located within Tract No. 16010, as recorded on September 8, 1949 in Book 353, Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive), of maps of the County of Los Angeles, including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two hundred fifteen (215) original lots in the tract, but excluding therefrom that portion of Lot 215 of Tract No. 16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract No. 21184, as recorded on September 28, 1955 in Book 578, Pages 7 through 8 (inclusive), of maps of the County of Los Angeles. C. Development Standards. The following development standards shall apply to lots subject to the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5). If not specified below, the RS-5 zoning district and other general development standards shall apply. 1. Minimum Setbacks. The following minimum building setbacks shall be maintained: Front Interior Side Street Side Rear 20’ 5’ 10’ 15’ 2. Front Entry Porch. A front entry porch shall be permitted to encroach into the required front-yard setback, provided that the following criteria are met: a. The footprint of the porch does not exceed 50 square feet in area; b. The footprint of the porch does not encroach more than 5 feet into the required front yard; and, c. The height of the porch does not exceed 16 feet in height or the highest roof ridgeline, whichever is lower. 3. Front-Yard Landscaped Area. If a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is required for a project, where applicable a landscaped parkway shall be IS-42 provided by the property owner. Approvals for parkway landscaping shall be obtained from the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building or grading permits. In addition, at least 50% of the front yard area shall be maintained as landscape area, in accordance with as defined in Section 17.48.030(D). 4. Driveways. In cases where a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is required for a project, if a garage is located in the rear of a property, a minimum 9-foot-wide driveway shall be provided that utilizes grass strips or “grasscrete.” If a garage is located at the front of a property, a minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area shall be provided between the side property line and the nearest edge of the driveway. 5. Garages. As alternatives to the minimum off-street parking requirements specified in Section 17.02.030(E), enclosed garage spaces may be provided as follows: a. Tandem parking spaces in an attached garage, provided that each garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section 17.02.030(E); or, b. Detached garage encroaching to within five feet of the rear property line provided that: i. The each garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section 17.02.030(E); ii. The maximum height of the garage does not exceed twelve feet; and, iii. The Director determines that the detached garage will not result in significant view impacts from the viewing area of any nearby properties. iv. All other development standards are met, including but not limited to lot coverage, side setbacks and construction on extreme slopes. 6. Lot Coverage. Notwithstanding the underlying zoning within the overlay control district area, the maximum permitted lot coverage shall be 52%, as defined in Section 17.02-040(A)(5). IS-43 Existing House New Addition 5’ Expand Existing 1-Car Garage to 2-Car Tandem Garage 5’ 15’ IS-44 New 1- Car Garage Existing House New Addition Retain Existing 1-Car Garage 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 15’ IS-45 New 2-Car Garage Existing House New Addition Existing 1-Car Garage Converted to Living Area 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 15’ IS-46 ADOPTED: JULY 11, 2005 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING June 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Councilman Wolowicz called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the City Hall Community Room, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Wolowicz, Planning Commissioners Gerstner and Perestam, Committee Members Cartwright, Karp, Lyon, Dyda, Denton, and Slayden. Absent: Councilman Long and Commissioner Mueller. Also present was Senior Planner Mihranian. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the Agenda, seconded by Committee Member Karp. Without objection, the agenda was approved by the Committee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if there were any changes to the April 11, 2005 draft minutes. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the April 11, 2005 minutes, seconded by Committee Member Lyon. The motion passed without objection. Councilman Wolowicz abstained since he was not present at the April 11, 2005 meeting. CONTINUED BUSINESS Councilman Wolowicz asked for the Eastview Sub-Committee presentation. Senior Planner Mihranian began the presentation with some background information that was previously presented to the Committee. He summarized the zoning established by the County prior to incorporation and the various residential June 13, 2005 Page 1 of 12 IS-47 June 13, 2005 Page 2 of 12 neighborhoods that comprise the Eastview area. He reminded the Committee that data was collected from various neighborhoods as it relates to lot size, lot dimensions, and structure size. He stated that the data collected represent samples from these neighborhoods intended to give the Committee an idea of what exists in this area. He stated that based on the data presented to the Committee and the notion that the current development standards and the current zoning designation are need of further review, Subcommittee was formed. The Subcommittee meet on several occasions and determined that the Eastview Area, as a whole, should be rezoned from RS-4 to RS-5 because the existing density was better represented with the RS-5 designation. It was pointed out that there is a wide range of lot sizes, ranging from 5,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. He stated that the larger lots consist of extreme slopes that slope into the canyons areas and that for the most part, the average lot size is approximately 8,000 square feet, which is better represented by the RS-5 zoning designation. Mr. Mihranian mentioned that the Committee directed the Subcommittee to consider residential development standards in the form of an overlay district for two possible areas. He reported that after further review of the two areas in questions, researching data on the lots and field observations, the Subcommittee concluded that only one overlay district was necessary. He mentioned that the proposed overlay district would be comprised of four streets within Eastview. He noted that the homes in this area were built in the early 1950’s that did not resemble the character of the City. He stated that the goal of the Subcommittee was to develop residential development standards that would encourage modernization without causing the property owners undue hardship. He indicated that the overlay district is comprised of 220 housing units, that is less than 10% of the 2,201 housing units within Eastview. He then presented the Committee with a map that delineates the Overlay District. He then introduced the residential development standards proposed by the Subcommittee. He mentioned that as the Subcommittee analyzed the Eastview Area, it was the opinion that most of Eastview is comparable with the rest of the City with two car garages and adequate size yards to accommodate expansions. He stated that the Subcommittee felt that the area identified as the Overlay District is an area experiencing a significant amount of new construction and that current development standards should be written to assist the property owners with modernizing their homes. He proceeded to explain the proposed standards. Setbacks Since the Committee is contemplating increasing the side yard setback requirement from 5-feet to 10-feet for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts, the Subcommittee felt that such a change to the area comprised by the overlay district would be prohibitive. The Subcommittee decided that additions to existing residences should maintain the current side yard setback requirement of 5-feet, in addition to the 20-foot front yard setback requirement and the 15-foot rear yard setback requirement. He then noted that for new construction, which the Subcommittee is recommending being defined as tear-down / rebuilds consisting of 75% or more of interior and exterior walls, that the new setback requirements for the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning district apply. The new standard would IS-48 June 13, 2005 Page 3 of 12 require a 15-foot side yard setback requirement, with a minimum of 5-feet on one side. He then presented an illustrative example of the proposed change along with a sample scenario. Second-Story Setbacks He introduced a new requirement that does not currently apply throughout the City. He stated that the Subcommittee is only recommending this criteria if it is applied citywide, otherwise it would be considered a hardship to these property owners which is in direct conflict with the goal of the Subcommittee. As proposed, the second story setback requirement would require the floor area or ceiling volume above 16-feet be no more than 2/3rds the lower level, and that the second story would have to be setback 25-feet from the front property line. He explained that this requirement was to provide articulation between the lower and upper levels, especially the street facing façade. He then stated that this requirement would provide the articulation up front without having property owners revise their plans to incorporate articulation. Committee Member Dyda stressed that this requirement would only apply if it applied Citywide, otherwise it would be considered more restrictive than the rest of the City. He stated that this requirement would be beneficial Citywide. Committee Member Denton noted that the Subcommittee’s proposal includes various other standards that are to be considered Citywide. Committee Member Cartwright asked if the tear-down / rebuild definition included in the overlay district is consistent with the definition in the Development Code. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that the definition is different in that the Overlay District is less restrictive. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to add the Subcommittee’s recommended Citywide changes to the Committee’s Task List. He then asked for clarification on the second story setback requirement. Committee Member Dyda stated that the second story would have to be setback an additional five feet from the first story. Committee Member Lyon stated that it was his understanding that the second story setback requirement already applied. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the 25-foot setback requirement was once in the Code but was taken out of the Code because of the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement. Committee Member Denton asked if the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement currently addresses articulation adequately. IS-49 June 13, 2005 Page 4 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that Neighborhood Compatibility ensures articulation is incorporated into the design of a project. However, he stated that the process getting to the point where adequate articulation is provided may be considered a long and costly process for property owners because of the various revisions that need to be made to the plans. He explained that it is rare to see adequate articulation with the initial submittal, stating that Staff spends a lot of time working with the project applicant to get to that point. He mentioned that having this requirement would improve the starting point. Committee Member Denton noted that it sounded as though it is not clear to a property owner up front as to what is adequate articulation. Commissioner Perestam suggested that the second story setback requirement be collapsed with the general setback requirements. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to continue with the Subcommittee’s presentation. Senior Planner Mihranian provided the Committee with an illustrative example of the second story setback requirement. He then continued to the next proposed development standard. Front Entry Porches Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the Front Entry Porch standard as one that does not currently exist, nor is it suggested to apply Citywide. He stated that entry porches are unique to the Overlay District and that the standard has been written to encourage the use of entry porches by allow the porch to encroach into the required front yard setback by 5-feet and not to exceed 50 square feet in area or 16-feet in height. He mentioned allowing this architecture feature would enhance the character of the area without causing an undue hardship to property owners who want porches but cannot design them because of the setback requirement unless a Variance is processed. Commissioner Gertsner raised a concern with the proposed language if it is applied Citywide. Committee Member Dyda reiterated that this architectural feature is unique to the Overlay District and that is why the standard is included in the proposal. Committee Member Denton raised a concern that applying such a standard to this area that does not apply Citywide may result in a further disconnect with the remaining City. Committee Member Karp noted that the standard is designed to enhance a feature that already exists and to make it easier for a property owner to build. Senior Planner Mihranian provided the Committee with an illustrative example of a front entry porch. IS-50 June 13, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Lot Coverage Senior Planner Mihranian explained that the maximum lot coverage requirement for the Overlay District would remain at 52%, which is the standard for the RS-5 zoning district. He then presented an illustrative example explaining the definition of lot coverage. He noted that as a future agenda item, there will be a discussion on modifying the definition of lot coverage so that courtyards do not apply. Commissioner Gerstner stated that included courtyards are difficult to define and apply when it comes to lot coverage calculations. Front Yard Landscape Area Senior Planner Mihranian noted that this criteria currently exists in the Development Code and requires that no more than 50% of the required front yard be hardscape, that is the area 20-feet in from the front property line. He noted the Overlay District does not propose to change that requirement. However, he mentioned that for projects that require the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement, which is considered a substantial development project, if a property does not have a green parkway the property owner will be required to remove the concrete from the parkway and replace it with landscaping. The intent is to improve the open and green impression of the area. Committee Member Lyon suggested removing the word “unimproved” from the definition to further clarify the intent. Committee Member Slayden raised a concern with the compatibility with the neighborhood. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that the words “where applicable” were added to the text so that it could be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The goal is ultimately to increase the green open space requirement. He mentioned that the City Attorney has not reviewed this criteria and may have a concern with such a requirement as it relates to a nexus with the development project. Committee Member Denton indicated that this requirement is proposed to be considered throughout the City. Councilman Wolowicz mentioned that if this is considered, language should be added that explains the intent and objective, as well as it is not to cause an undue hardship on property owners. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that if the Overlay District is added to the Development Code, that such language would be included in the ordinance that explains the objective for creating the Overlay District. IS-51 June 13, 2005 Page 6 of 12 Committee Member Cartwright suggested that guidelines be developed for the Department of Public Works. Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that the City Attorney has not reviewed the language as proposed. He mentioned that she might have a concern with requiring improvements within the public right-of-way and its nexus to a development application. Committee Member Dyda mentioned that work within the right-of-way requires an encroachment permit. He questioned whether the concrete walkways that exist were permitted by the City or County. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if encroachment permits exist at City Hall. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that if an encroachment permit were issued by the County prior to incorporation, the City may not have a record of the permit for one reason or another, such as it being lost in the transfer of information between agencies at the time of incorporation. He then mentioned that City issued permits should be on file. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to further investigate this matter. Commissioner Perestam indicated that this requirement should not be problematic because the Code already has a landscape requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that the parkway requirement does not neatly fit under the current landscape requirement because you are dealing with public property versus private property. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern regarding the application of the parkway requirement as it relates to the entire City and thought that perhaps the City can require such a change across the board. Councilman Wolowicz agreed with Member Cartwright and stated that there were two options: 1) Require such a change throughout the City, or 2) Notify residents that certain projects will require a green parkway. Committee Member Denton did not think it is a viable option to require people to make such a change. She prefers that the change occur over an extended period of time through major development projects. Off-Street Parking Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the majority of the homes within the Overlay District were built in the 1950’s. Because of the time period, these homes mostly have a one car garage and one car driveway. In order improve the off-street parking situation in this area, it is proposed that new single-family residences, as defined for the Overlay IS-52 June 13, 2005 Page 7 of 12 District, would be required to provide a two-car garage and two-car driveway. He reminded the Committee that this requirement is less restrictive than the current Code requirement that states if more than 50% of existing interior and exterior walls are demolished current Code compliance is required. He stated that this is a notable hardship for most of the property owners in this area because of the mere size of the existing homes. Committee Member Slayden asked if a one car driveway was adequate for a two car garage. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that if a property owner is designing a two car garage they should be able to incorporate a two car driveway into the project. He stated that the dimension for a parking space is currently 9-feet by 20-feet. He indicated that the Committee may want to consider increasing the dimensions to accommodate the size of vehicles being driven today. He noted that this item will be brought back to the Committee at a later time. He then continued with the presentation by stating as a new Citywide requirement, projects that trigger the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement, would be required to provide an 18-inch landscape area between the side property line and the driveway edge. The intent here is to maintain more landscape area along the side of the property. Fences Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the fence requirement of 42-inches within the front yard area and 80% open and permeable is the existing Code requirement. He then presented the Committee with an illustrative example. He summarized the Subcommittee’s recommended development criteria for the Overlay District and then reiterated that the Subcommittee believes that before we present the City Council with such a recommendation, it would be beneficial to present this information to the residents that live within the Overlay District to receive input from them. He stated that if the suggested standards are not welcomed by the residents, that the Committee should decide whether or not to proceed with such changes. Committee Member Dyda agreed stating that a “straw-man” needs to be presented to the residents before we get too far down the stream. Senior Planner Mihranian believes that it is important to hear what the residents have to say before preparing the final draft for Council consideration. He stated that the residents may have suggestions that the Subcommittee and Committee did not consider. Committee Member Cartwright asked why items are listed under the Overlay District when they already exist in the Development Code. IS-53 June 13, 2005 Page 8 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that for organizational purposes it would be simpler to have all the development criteria in one section rather that having to search for specific standards throughout the Development Code. Councilman Wolowicz thinks it would be helpful to identify the criteria that is different from the RS-5 zoning district. Committee Member Denton noted that there are three separate items for the Overlay district, that being setbacks, front entry porches, and the definition of a new single- family residence. Commissioner Perestam questioned whether the second-story setback requirement was in direct conflict with the objective to make the standards simpler for the Overlay District to encourage modernization. Committee Member Denton agreed, but stated that the intent here is to apply these requirements Citywide. She noted that if they do not apply Citywide, then they would be considered more restrictive and should not apply to the Overlay District. Committee Member Dyda mentioned that to him Citywide could mean the RS-4 and RS-5 zoning districts. Committee Member Denton believes that the reason why this is being presented as a Citywide item is that the Subcommittee felt that such standards would benefit the entire City. However, it doesn’t mean that the final outcome applies across the board. She thinks this topic should be opened for discussion as a separate Citywide item. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that if the Committee wants to accept the Second Story Setback requirement, it should be accepted with the understanding that it should be considered Citywide. Committee Member Dyda moved that the Committee accept the boundaries established for the Overlay District as presented by Staff. Committee Member Slayden seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection by the Committee. Committee Member Dyda moved to accept the Eastview Overlay Residential Development Standards with the understanding that second-story setbacks, second paragraph of V, and VI be considered as a Citywide requirement and if not, then the proposed standards should not apply to the Overlay District. Committee Member Karp seconded the motion. IS-54 June 13, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Committee Member Lyon raised a question regarding the language for Item II and suggested that the last paragraph is overly restrictive in that the Code refers to a 3/4th requirement and that the suggested language refers to 2/3rd. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the 3/4th requirement is to determine whether a Height Variation project is considered by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission. He stated that it is not a development standard and stated that aside from Neighborhood Compatibility, the Code does not restrict the size of a second story. Commissioner Gerstner suggested that the criteria be replaced to 3/4th because it is less restrictive. Committee Member Lyon agreed. Commissioner Gerstner believes that the two requirements make it too difficult and restrictive for a property owner. He suggested that the Committee pick the standard that states where the articulation should occur. He then raised a concern regarding the side yard setback for the second story. Committee Member Lyon proposed an amendment to the motion by deleting the first sentence to the second paragraph. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. Commissioner Gerstner asked for a definition of articulation. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that Staff considers articulation a setback in a building’s massing. Committee Member Lyon proposed amending his original amendment to the motion by deleting the entire paragraph. Committee Member Dyda seconded the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Perestam suggested changing the title to Front Yard Second Story Setback and merging Item Nos. I and II. Committee Member Dyda raised a concern with the application of the setback requirements if Item Nos. I and II were collapsed because it has the potential to apply Citywide. He provided a substitute motion that would keep Item No. II, adding “16-feet or higher in height” after the Front Yard Setback requirement for second stories, and deleting the last paragraph. Committee Member Karp accepted the substitute motion. IS-55 June 13, 2005 Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern with the wording for the Second Story Side Yard Setback requirement stating that the final outcome may result in the use of overhangs if not further clarified to be similar with the first story setback requirement. Commissioner Perestam expressed his concern that the Second Story Setback requirement is more restrictive than the remaining City. Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that this requirement would only apply if found acceptable for other zoning districts within the City. Committee Member Denton indicated that the Citywide residential development standards have been found to be too restrictive for this specific area because the homes are not the same as other homes throughout the City. Committee Member Lyon suggested a language modification to Item No. II inserting after 16-feet in height “lie wholly within the first story footprint and shall…” Committee Member Dyda accepted the amended language. Councilman Wolowicz asked for additional comments. Committee Member Denton asked when would the Committee review the City’s current parking standards, referring to tandem parking and minimum parking dimensions. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated the parking requirements will be brought back for Committee discussion at a later date. He indicated that as a result of the Subcommittee’s recommendation, Staff believes that the Committee’s Task List needs to be revised to include the items that were noted to be Citywide standards. Committee Member Cartwright wants to make sure that the Committee will have an opportunity to review the final draft of the Overlay District. Committee Member Dyda stated that the entire Committee will be involved in the presentation to the neighborhood. Committee Member Denton asked when and who will be reviewing the items proposed to be changed for the entire City. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that if the Committee accepts the proposed Overlay District Standards, he suggested that for the time being we put this item aside and move on with the remaining items on the Committee’s Task List. Once the Committee has completed its entire task, the changes that are proposed can be revisited for the Overlay District and then presented to the neighborhood as a workshop. He stated that a Committee meeting can be dedicated to the Overlay District and that a public notice would be sent to the neighborhood inviting them to attend the meeting and to provide input on the proposed Overlay District. He then stated that after that workshop, the IS-56 June 13, 2005 Page 11 of 12 Committee should go back and review the Standards and at that time determine what changes, if any, need to made or to determine whether to move forward with the recommendation. He believes that before this item is presented to the Council, the Committee should present it to the neighborhood to address any concerns early in the planning process. Committee Member Dyda believes that the community involvement is a two step process where we first present the Overlay District to the neighborhood and then we present the Citywide changes to the residents of the City. Committee Member Karp believes that the Overlay District should not be presented to the neighborhood until after the Committee reviews its entire task, that way if the Overlay District needs to be modified it can be done without confusing the residents with various renditions. Councilman Wolowicz asked that Staff bring back a revised Committee Task List along with some of these Citywide items to the next Committee meeting. Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern regarding improvements on City property, such as the green parkway. He stated that the requirement is reasonable for the Eastview area but may not be considered reasonable throughout the City. He would like the City Attorney to comment on this before we present this item to the residents. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to research this matter identifying concerns regarding parkways and permits that have or have not been issued. He also understands this to be huge task. He then asked for a vote on the motion regarding the Overlay District. The amended motion passed without objection. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to send the matter regarding the parkway to the City Attorney and whether this should apply Citywide. He asked if other items should be added to the Task List for future Committee discussion. Commissioner Perestam referred to a comment he made at the April 11, 2005 meeting regarding the analysis of traffic, noise, views, and density impacts when it comes to the Subcommittee’s assignment and whether that analysis occurred. Committee Member Dyda indicated those items were considered. Committee Member Cartwright asked for an update on the Committee’s Task List since we are approaching the one year anniversary. Senior Planner Mihranian referred to the March 9, 2005 agenda packet for the most recent Task List. IS-57 June 13, 2005 Page 12 of 12 Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to present the Committee with an updated Task List at the next meeting, that is to include items added this evening. He requested that some of the items be placed on the agenda for discussion purposes as well. He suggested that we consider extended the calendar to December 31, 2005 and added up to two additional meetings to keep things moving along, perhaps a couple times a month rather than once a month. The majority of the Committee agreed to extend its tenure to December 31, 2005 and to increase the meeting frequency by at least two meetings. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the meeting time should be extended to 10:00 p.m. The majority of the Committee disagreed. Committee Member Dyda suggested adding time limits to each agenda topic. Councilman Wolowicz asked to continue Agenda Items 5-2 and 6-1 to the July 11, 2005 meeting. He then noted that Staff is requesting to reschedule the August 8, 2005 meeting. He stated that Staff should consider a replacement meeting along with the revised calendar. PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilman Wolowicz asked for any public comments. There were no public comments ADJOURNMENT Committee Member Dyda moved to adjourn the meeting. Committee Member Karp seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. IS-58 February 27, 2006 Page 2 of 10 CONTINUED BUSINESS Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the next item on the agenda pertaining to the Mira Vista Overlay District. He presented the Committee with an updated table summarizing the proposed development standards for the overlay district. He noted that the table was updated to include a column that lists the public concerns raised at the February 13th meeting. He then distributed a handout prepared by Committee Member Dyda responding to the various concerns raised by the public at the workshop. Councilman Wolowicz requested that the Committee discuss each item listed on the table individually. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that the current proposal to rezone the Mira Vista Overlay District, as well as the entire Eastview Area, from RS-4 to RS-5 raised public concern pertaining to increased density through additional subdivisions. He stated that he spoke to Committee Member Denton who is requesting that Staff gather additional data for the entire Eastview Area, including the proposed overlay district, that analyzes how many lots can potentially be subdivided if the zoning were changed to RS-5. Councilman Wolowicz referred to Committee Member Dyda’s handout, specifically the preamble that states the intent of the Overlay District. He stated that it is important to clearly state why the overlay district is being considered and the preamble should explain why the zoning is being changed from RS-4 to RS-5. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern that based on the comments heard at the workshop, the residents are not certain whether the proposal is a good idea. Committee Member Slayden added that some residents felt the proposal was more restrictive. Committee Member Cartwright summarized the public concerns as being parking, side yard setbacks, the increase in the threshold from 50% to 75%, and the zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 resulting in a higher density. Commissioner Perestam commented how there was no discussion on the two options that exist for remodeling, that is either going upward or outward. He asked if the Committee is encouraging residents to build upward or if the Committee even has a position on this topic. Committee Member Slayden responded that neighborhood compatibility is the mechanism that determines whether a project is built upward or outward. Committee Member Lyon stated that he does not see a change in the zoning to RS-5 as being problematic because there are only a handful of lots in the area that can conceivably be subdivided. IS-59 February 27, 2006 Page 3 of 10 Committee Member Dyda concurred with Mr. Lyon. He stated that the configuration of the existing lots would prohibit subdivisions and the development of these lots. He added that there are mechanisms in place, such as neighborhood compatibility and the height variation requirement that will determine the development pattern of the area. He does not believe changing the zoning will result in an increase to density. Committee Member Cartwright stated that the Committee should be able to demonstrate that the change to the zoning will not result in an increase in density. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the data can be collected. He added that the criteria in place for subdividing a lot within the RS-5 zoning district would make it nearly impossible for most properties in the area to be subdivided, referring to the minimum lot width dimension and the minimum driveway width requirement for a flag lot. Councilman Wolowicz requested the Committee review the preamble provided by Committee Member Dyda. He stated that he would like the preamble to include a discussion on the zone change without getting too long, such as the zone change is intended to represent the existing built condition of the area. Committee Member Dyda stated that the criteria for the RS-4 zoning district would create a hardship whereas the RS-5 zoning district would not because of the differing criteria. He explained that the public perception of the change would be different if written in that manner. The change is intended to correct the hardship. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to wordsmith the preamble as expressed by Committee Member Dyda. Senior Planner Mihranian asked the Committee whether language should be added to the table that indicates the minimum lot dimensions and lot area criteria taken from the subdivision ordinance. Commissioner Perestam stated that it is essential that this Committee have the data on how many lots can conceivably be subdivided if the zoning changes. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that he could collect data on lots that are 16,000 square feet or larger because according to the RS-5 zoning district the minimum lot area is 8,000 square feet. He stated that once he has collected that information, he can further study each lot to see if the combined topography and lot dimensions will allow these lots to be subdivided. Councilman Wolowicz requested that the preamble explain the intent of the zone change. Senior Planner Mihranian explained the criteria for setbacks, stating that there are two sets of standards for side yard setbacks, one for additions and the other for new homes including tear-down and rebuilds of 75% or more of the interior and exterior walls. He IS-60 February 27, 2006 Page 4 of 10 stated that concerns from the public were raised at the workshop relating to the side yard setback criteria being too restrictive for new homes. Committee Member Dyda noted that based on what he heard at the workshop he would like to provide an option that would allow detached garages to be built toward the rear of a property with an 8-foot wide driveway and eliminate the 18-inch landscape requirement. Committee Member Cartwright stated that he felt the side yard setback should remain at 5-feet and only be increased to 15-feet if the project was a new home or a complete tear-down / rebuild. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if the side yard setback criteria should be left at 5-feet. The Committee agreed that the side yard setback should remain at 5-feet. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that if the Committee wants to encourage rear yard garages that perhaps incentives can be offered, such as reduced setbacks for the garage and/or a reduced minimum driveway width, 8-feet rather than 10-feet, and eliminate the 18-inch landscape requirement. He stated that if the Committee desires to increase the landscape area perhaps encouraging “Hollywood” style driveways. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern that an 8-foot driveway is too narrow and tight for the type of cars being driven today. He would support a 9-foot wide driveway. Committee Member Dyda stated that to encourage on-site parking to the rear of a property if you have a narrow driveway between the house and the property line fence people will less likely park their cars in that location. Councilman Long noted that the big cars will never park in the back but will rather be parked in the front. Committee Member Dyda stated that he researched car sizes on the web and found that the largest vehicles on the market today are approximately 67 inches wide. He added that this is not a requirement but an option to make a remodel less burdensome. Commissioner Perestam believes that the minimum driveway width should be 9-feet. Commissioner Gerstner stated that 9-feet is consistent with compact parking standards for other jurisdictions. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if the preference for the width of a driveway is 8-feet or 9-feet. IS-61 February 27, 2006 Page 5 of 10 Committee Member Dyda would package the proposal as a 9-foot driveway width, eliminate the 18-inch landscape requirement, provide a “Hollywood” style driveway and a turning radius or hammerhead. This criteria would only apply to rear garages. Commissioner Gerstner indicated that he does not want to see the term “detached” associated with garages located in the rear because that would prevent a garage from being attached to a main residence. Councilman Long asked if there should be a lot coverage allowance to account for the additional impervious surface leading to the rear garage. Commissioner Gerstner estimated the amount of lot coverage permitted for the RS-5 zoning district by accounting for the house footprint, turning radius, driveway and rear yard garage. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the additional coverage may be used for actual structural improvements rather than for the driveway. Committee Member Dyda agreed stating that the use of a “Hollywood” style driveway would help off-set the additional lot coverage and provide landscape space. The Committee agreed not to provide a lot coverage allowance for rear yard garages. Councilman Wolowicz indicated that there were no public comments relating to front entry porches. He added that the lot coverage criteria is consistent with the RS-5 zoning district throughout the City. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that Staff will need to verify with the City Attorney whether the landscaped parkway requirement can apply for projects involving neighborhood compatibility. Councilman Wolowicz suggested the Committee consider expanding the threshold for tear-down / rebuild projects that need to provide a two-car garage by including a square footage calculation in addition to a percentage. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that at the workshop concerns were raised by the public that the threshold should remain at 50% in order to get parked cars off the street. Committee Member Dyda suggested that if a house is of a certain square footage that a two-car garage be maintained. Committee Member Cartwright would like to see the threshold criteria remain at 50%. Committee Member Slayden agreed. IS-62 February 27, 2006 Page 6 of 10 Committee Member Lyon noted that increasing the threshold to 75% would be less restrictive which is in line with the intent of the overlay district. Committee Member Dyda stated that if the threshold remained at 50% and the rear garage criteria is established you are essentially provided an opportunity to expand the existing house and provide a 2-car garage without having to convert livable floor area to garage area. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Committee would like to keep the threshold at 50%. The Committee agreed to keep the threshold at 50%. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on the comments at the workshop the criteria for fences, walls, and hedges will remain at 42-inches within the front yard area and the language referring to 80% open to light and air will be deleted. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is a color requirement for fencing and walls. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that there is no Code requirement for fence and wall color. Commissioner Perestam wanted a confirmation that the landscaped parkway requirement would apply Citywide if neighborhood compatibility is triggered. Committee Member Dyda stated that the parkway and the sidewalk in most cases belongs to the City and there is occasionally a misunderstanding as to what can or cannot be done within this area. He stated that an encroachment permit is required for any improvements within this area. Councilman Wolowicz indicated that he would like to dispel any misunderstandings. Councilman Long would like to see cases where utility companies come in and tear out the concrete from the parkway not repair the condition back to concrete but rather restore it with landscaping. Committee Member Dyda stated that the threshold for requiring the landscaped parkway was based on neighborhood compatibility because the Committee felt the scope of the project would be large enough to justify such an improvement. Committee Member Cartwright requested that this criteria apply Citywide. Committee Member Dyda stated this criteria was discussed some time ago and agreed that it would apply Citywide in addition to the overlay district. He added that the criteria is listed in the overlay district to emphasis its importance to enhance the open space character of the area. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a motion. IS-63 February 27, 2006 Page 7 of 10 Committee Member Dyda moved to make the landscaped parkway requirement apply Citywide with further direction from the City Attorney. Committee Member Cartwright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz suggested that the agenda item of the Committee Status Summary Table should be continued to the next meeting so that the Committee can discuss the next agenda item. He stated that the next meeting will be dedicated solely to the Summary Status Table. Committee Member Mueller requested that the Committee reconsider its decision to change the side yard setback requirement because of the potential hardship it may cause property owners. Councilman Long introduced the next agenda item on square footage limitations for residential structures and asked the Committee whether the tools in place that help control density are sufficient. He asked the Committee whether other options should be considered based on other jurisdictions as means of limiting density. He added that there are limitations in place that control density such as lot coverage and setbacks. He said that relying on neighborhood compatibility will result in a temporal limitation on density over time because as you evaluate the 20 closest homes ultimately what is compatible will grow in size and the line will continue to grow further away. He noted that although the City at one time had a structure size limitation that failed, that does not preclude a different criteria from being considered rather than assuming square footage limitations are bad. He referred to the chart prepared by Staff that summarizes various structure size limitations for other jurisdictions. Committee Member Cartwright indicated that a structure size limitation is not the most effective way to regulate mansionization and that the neighborhood compatibility requirement is an effective tool that is in place today because it looks at design rather than focusing on structure size. Committee Member Dyda stated that it is easy to circumvent structure size limitations referring to the examples listed in the chart. Committee Member Lyon stated that Councilman Long’s concerns are valid, but there is not a problem today. He said that the tools in place today are adequate and that perhaps in 20 to 30 years from now there may be a problem that should be addressed at that time because standards will be different. He recommends not making any changes at this time. Commissioner Perestam agrees with Councilman Long that the tools in place are temporal and will get to the same place as other jurisdictions but at a slower pace. IS-64 Chairman Perestam asked staff if there are any other ties that would prevent approving the Overlay District if the City did not change the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5. Associate Planner Fox explained that the overlay by its nature is creating specialized standards that aren’t addressed in the standards for the tract. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to reject the recommendation of the committee regarding the proposed zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 (alternative No. 2), seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg understood that the committee had participation from the community when making these recommendations, and asked if the community was generally in favor of this proposed change. Chairman Perestam answered that the community was generally in favor of the proposed changed, however he felt that if the overlay district assured a fifty two percent lot coverage, this would accommodate the community’s concern. Commissioner Tetreault expressed his concern that the zone change would allow some of the lots to be subdivided. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff can report back to the Planning Commission as to how many lots in Eastview are over 16,000 square feet and therefore could potentially be subdivided if the zoning changed. Vice Chairman Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the discussion regarding changing the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5 to a future meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic is the committee’s suggestion of a proposed overlay control district, noting in the staff report the suggested regulations that would apply in the overlay control district. Chairman Perestam added that the recommendations by the Committee were made after extensive neighborhood input from the residents. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt alternative No. 1 of the staff report, with the modification that the lot coverage be changed to fifty two percent lot coverage, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained the next item, which was to strike language regarding courtyard area lot coverage, and noted in the staff report the language being discussed. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 12 IS-65 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Residential Development Standards code amendment and zone change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the remaining issues to discuss are tandem parking spaces in garages and considering allowing tandem parking in the Mira Vista Overlay District. He explained that the Committee had recommended permitting tandem parking spaces, however staff recommended permitting tandem parking spaces only for enclosed off-street parking spaces in excess of the minimum code requirements. He also explained that in regards to the Mira Vista Overlay District, staff agrees that the unique circumstances of the Mira Vista area makes it the one area of the City where tandem parking should be allowed to satisfy the minimum off-street parking requirements, thereby allowing property owners to provide additional off-street parking without having to demolish a significant portion of their existing residences. Staff is also suggesting allowing the construction of new detached garages to encroach into the 15-foot rear setback as another means to increase off- street parking in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the City currently specifically prohibits tandem parking for non-required spaces. Associate Planner Fox answered that the City does not currently prohibit tandem parking. However, he noted that there was an interpretation procedure in 2002 where the Director made an interpretation that tandem parking was only allowed for surplus parking spaces. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt staff’s revised recommendation regarding tandem parking, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. The motion was approved without objection. Commissioner Knight referred to page 12 of the staff report, item No. 8, which discusses driveways adjacent to the property line and the need for a minimum 18 inch landscape area between the property line and adjacent driveway. He discussed properties in the city where it would not be possible to conform to this code and asked staff how those would be handled. Associate Planner Fox explained that in those cases they could be considered legal non-conforming, or if they want to do improvements they could apply for a Variance or a Minor Exception Permit. Associate Planner Fox continued to the recommendations from the Committee in terms of fences, walls, and hedges. He explained the three recommendations made by the Committee as outlined in the staff report. He explained that staff is recommending modifying a committee recommendation to allow for 6-foot tall fences, walls, and hedges at the street side property line of corner lots rather than at the setback line. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 10 IS-66 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET COURTYARD AREA LOT COVERAGE ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Courtyard Area Lot Coverage RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Exclude courtyard areas from the calculation of lot coverage/open space DISCUSSION In 2000, the definition of “lot coverage” in Section 17.02.040(A)(5) was amended to include uncovered courtyard areas as a part of the building footprint for the purpose of calculating lot coverage. The original intent of this change was to encourage the articulation of building facades, but in practice Staff found that it generally had the opposite or no effect. The RDSSC agreed that the inclusion of courtyard areas as lot coverage was overly burdensome and difficult to accurately calculate. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS RDSSC Minutes of July 25, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCE Section 9 of Draft Ordinance IS-67 July 25, 2005 Page 8 of 11 Councilman Long suggested further modifying the sentence by deleting “street” so that it is not limited to street facades. Commissioner Gerstner suggested deleting “of this street facade.” Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the amendments made to this section by Commissioner Gerstner seconded by Councilman Long. The motion passed unanimously. Senior Planner Mihranian reminded the Committee that the changes to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook, as it relates to articulation, would be presented to the City Council for consideration. Councilman Long introduced the next agenda item on the definition of Lot Coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian provided the Committee with a brief power point presentation on lot coverage and its current definition. He discussed the various criteria per zoning district. He mentioned that as it stands, Staff believes the definition of lot coverage is adequate with the exception of the requirement regarding courtyards. He explained that this requirement has proven to be overly burdensome to property owners and equally difficult for Staff to calculate. Staff recommends that this part of the definition be eliminated. Commissioner Gerstner emphasized the hardship with having this requirement as part of the lot coverage definition and cited an example of a u-shaped home. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt Staff’s recommendation to delete the interior courtyards from the lot coverage definition, seconded by Committee Member Slayden. Councilman Wolowicz asked for further clarification regarding the definition of lot coverage as it relates to walkways. Committee Member Dyda explained that as written walkways do not constitute lot coverage but areas that can accommodate the parking of vehicles is considered lot coverage. He added that the Code also regulates how much coverage and hardscape can be permitted within the required front yard. Councilman Wolowicz stated that if you calculate the actual coverage of a lot versus the lot coverage as defined by the Code there is a significant difference in the end product in terms of the percentage of coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the City’s definition of lot coverage is not based on impervious surfaces. IS-68 Chairman Perestam asked staff if there are any other ties that would prevent approving the Overlay District if the City did not change the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5. Associate Planner Fox explained that the overlay by its nature is creating specialized standards that aren’t addressed in the standards for the tract. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to reject the recommendation of the committee regarding the proposed zone change from RS-4 to RS-5 (alternative No. 2), seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg understood that the committee had participation from the community when making these recommendations, and asked if the community was generally in favor of this proposed change. Chairman Perestam answered that the community was generally in favor of the proposed changed, however he felt that if the overlay district assured a fifty two percent lot coverage, this would accommodate the community’s concern. Commissioner Tetreault expressed his concern that the zone change would allow some of the lots to be subdivided. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff can report back to the Planning Commission as to how many lots in Eastview are over 16,000 square feet and therefore could potentially be subdivided if the zoning changed. Vice Chairman Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the discussion regarding changing the zoning in the area from RS-4 to RS-5 to a future meeting, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic is the committee’s suggestion of a proposed overlay control district, noting in the staff report the suggested regulations that would apply in the overlay control district. Chairman Perestam added that the recommendations by the Committee were made after extensive neighborhood input from the residents. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt alternative No. 1 of the staff report, with the modification that the lot coverage be changed to fifty two percent lot coverage, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained the next item, which was to strike language regarding courtyard area lot coverage, and noted in the staff report the language being discussed. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 12 IS-69 Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt alternative No. 1, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight asked if this includes covered courtyards. Associate Planner Fox clarified that this includes only courtyards that are open above to the sky. The motion to adopt alternative No. 1 regarding striking the language in the code regarding courtyard area lot coverage was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic was the discussion of private street easements and how that relates to lot coverage, explaining that the committee suggested revising the Development Code so that neighborhoods with private streets would be treated the same as neighborhoods with public streets in terms of lot coverage. He showed a diagram on how lot coverage is currently calculated on a private street and how the committee has proposed to calculate lot coverage. He explained that staff was recommending alternative No. 2 in the staff report. Commissioner Knight stated that at the previous meeting he had some concerns, however after doing some calculations he realized that this proposal will be advantageous to the property owners living on private streets. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he favors this recommendation, however he felt that clarification was still needed on the differences between private streets and driveways. Associate Planner Fox explained that the definitions of private street and driveway were included with the previous Planning Commission packet, but not with this current package. Commissioner Knight moved to support alternative No. 2 as presented in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that the last item was not actually a recommendation from the Steering Committee, but rather there was a discussion at the Committee level about whether to exclude the pole portion of flag lots from calculation of lot coverage and open space, and it was the determination of the Committee not to exclude this portion and to continue to include the pole portion in the calculation. However, when the City Council received the recommendations from the Committee, there was a question raised by a City Council member and it was asked that the Planning Commission revisit this topic. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that this recommendation is inconsistent with the decision just made regarding private streets. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 13 IS-70 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT LOT COVERAGE ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Private Street Easement Lot Coverage RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Exclude private street easements from the calculation of lot coverage/open space DISCUSSION The RDSSC wished to revise the Development Code so that neighborhoods with private streets were treated the same as neighborhoods with public streets in terms of lot coverage and setbacks. Currently, private street easement areas are included in the gross area of lots and improvements within those easement areas are counted as lot coverage. The RDSSC believes that this was unfair to property owners in neighborhoods with private streets, and directed changes to several Development Code sections. Of these recommended changes, Staff believes that adding the RDSSC-recom- mended change to Section 17.48.040 (Setbacks) could create confusion by mixing the issues of lot coverage and setbacks in a single Code section. As such, Staff recommends not making this change, but instead making the RDSSC-recom- mended change to Section 17.48.040 (Lot Coverage). ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation as originally proposed 2. Accept the RDSSC recommendation as amended by Staff 3. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 4. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Code Amendments regarding private street easement lot coverage Diagram of “Typical” Public and Private Street Lot Conditions RDSSC Minutes of August 29, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES Sections 10 and 11 and Exhibit ‘C’ of Draft Ordinance IS-71 Private Street Lot Coverage Code Amendments (Additions underlined, deletions struck-out) New Footnote 8 to Table 02-A 8 For purposes of calculating lot coverage, a private street easement shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area of a private street easement shall not be counted as lot coverage. Proposed Section 17.48.040 (Lot Coverage) An open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential structure. Open space area shall not include any portion of a lot or building site which is within the definition of lot coverage, as defined in Section 17.020.040(A). Lot coverage shall not exceed the maximum area requirements established in the district development standards (see Table 02-A in Chapter 17.02). For purposes of calculating lot coverage, a private street easement shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area of a private street easement shall not be counted as lot coverage. In multiple-family residential units, private outdoor decks and balconies with one minimum horizontal dimension of seven feet which are designated for the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual unit may comprise up to thirty percent of required open space. Proposed Section 17.96.2020 (“Street, private”) “Private street” means any lot not dedicated as a public street over which a private easement for road purposes has been recorded and used or intended to be used for ingress to or egress from a lot or lots which may or may not have frontage on a public street. For purposes of measuring setbacks and calculating lot coverage, a private street easement shall not be considered a part of a lot. A private street does not mean a “driveway.” IS-72 Typical Public Street Lot Property Line Sidewalk Curb Street Centerline Edge of Pavement Private Street Easement Line Driveway Property Line Driveway Typical Private Street Lot IS-73 August 29, 2005 Page 2 of 13 The motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Private Streets and asked for a Staff Report. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that at the last meeting, the Committee raised a concern regarding the treatment of private streets as it relates to lot coverage. He stated that the concern was that private streets are included in the lot coverage calculation while setbacks are measured from the edge of the easement of a private street. Although Staff stated that it is the City’s practice to include private streets as lot coverage because the area is also included in the gross lot area calculation, the Committee directed Staff to draft code language that would treat private streets similarly to setbacks when it comes to calculating lot coverage. He stated that based on Committee direction, Staff prepared draft language that excludes private streets from the lot area and lot coverage calculations. He then presented the Committee with the proposed amendments, starting with the Development Code definition of a private street. He stated that the definition was modified to include a sentence that a private street shall not be counted as part of a lot for purposes of measuring setbacks and calculating lot coverage. Councilman Long asked for the definition of a private street. He then provided an example located in his neighborhood where there is a shared private driveway that leads to four houses, and asked when does a driveway become a private street. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that an easement would specify whether it is a private street or driveway. Councilman Long asked whether for the purpose of this rule if a driveway or private streets that is used to access the four lots in his earlier example should be considered lot coverage. Committee Member Dyda raised the question regarding shared access by an easement and which property is accountable for the lot coverage calculation. He referred to the City of Rolling Hills stating that all the streets are private and used by its residents, but individual property owners own the area in front of their home. Councilman Wolowicz referred to the definition of a private street that states that a private street does not constitute lot coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian explained the definition and cited examples between a driveway and a private street. He stated that based on the current definition, a driveway counts towards lot coverage and it is at the Committee’s pleasure whether they want to recommend to the City Council that a private street count or not count as lot coverage. IS-74 August 29, 2005 Page 3 of 13 Committee Member Cartwright explained that his home is part of a tract that maintains a private street, but that the private street is a part of the common open space area. He said that differs to other areas where the private street easement is a part of each lot abutting the street. Committee Member Karp explained that in her neighborhood there are flag lots that share a common driveway to the public street. Committee Member Dyda raised a concern regarding flag lots and the lot coverage requirement as it pertains to driveways. He is concerned that the lots that grant an easement to another lot for access purposes should not be penalized when it comes to lot coverage. He stated that the entire driveway should not be counted as lot coverage for a property owner who grants an access easement to another lot. Councilman Long asked what is the definition of a driveway. Senior Planner Mihranian read the Code Definition, stating that a driveway is paved access to off street parking facility on a lot or parcel and any paved circular or semi- circular return to a public or private street servicing the property. Any pervious or semi- pervious surface which is part of, or within, the paved access area shall be considered driveway. Committee Member Dyda mentioned that in the City of Rolling Hills the property lines go to the centerline of the private street and each property grants an access easement. Committee Member Denton sought clarification on the two types of private streets being discussed this evening. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that in Mr. Cartwright’s case, the private street in his neighborhood is its own lot, while in the Miraleste neighborhood, such as Rockinghorse, the private street is a part of each lot with an access easement. He stated that typically the front property line starts at the centerline of the street. He stated that in Mr. Cartwright’s case, because the private street is its own lot it does not get counted towards lot coverage for the individual property owners because it is not part of their lot area, whereas the other scenario includes the improved area of the private street as lot coverage because the private street is counted as lot area. Councilman Long raised a concern that by excluding private streets from the lot coverage calculation we could unintentionally exclude things that should be counted as lot coverage, that is why he requested the definition of a driveway. In other words would something defined as a driveway actually be considered a private street but would now not be counted as lot coverage because of the suggested change. IS-75 August 29, 2005 Page 4 of 13 Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Code’s definition of a driveway removes any ambiguity concerns. Councilman Long agreed. Committee Member Dyda believes the definition to be fine, but he has a concern regarding driveways as it relates to lot coverage for flag lots. He thinks that some property owners are being penalized for the benefit of other property owners. Committee Member Slayden raised a question regarding the suggested footnote to Table 2-A and its lack of reference to setbacks. Senior Planner Mihranian passed out Table 2-A which was inadvertently left out of the agenda packet and explained that the footnote in question refers solely to lot coverage. Councilman Long summarized the two issues being discussed. First, that a private street should be treated similarly to public streets when calculating lot coverage; and secondly, how driveways should be calculated for lot coverage when serving flag lots. Councilman Wolowicz asked if a separate definition or code requirement should be considered for flag lots as it relates to lot coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian raised a concern that flag lots come in different sizes and shapes. He referred to an example where a driveway serves three lots off a public street but each lot has its respective share of the driveway pole. He stated that in this scenario a property owner would only have to calculate the lot coverage on their portion of the driveway pole. Councilman Long believes that if a lot is not adjacent to the street and is an unusual large distance from the street to the lot that the property owner is being penalized for having to calculate the pole as part of lot coverage. He said that in this case, the lot is not the same as other lots and should be given some compensation or else this lot would be treated unfairly. Councilman Wolowicz asked if was the Committee’s pleasure to direct Staff to evaluate this matter and come back with a suggested solution that does not penalize a property owner. The Committee unanimously agreed. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that this item would be brought back for the Committee’s consideration at the next meeting. IS-76 August 29, 2005 Page 5 of 13 Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Committee had any comments regarding the suggested amendments to the Development Code definition of a private street. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff’s recommended changes to the Development Code definition of a private street. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Committee Member Cartwright asked whether setbacks were treated similarly. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that setbacks are measured from the edge of a private street easement. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the definition for a private street, as amended to not be considered a part of a lot when calculating lot coverage, be added to the definition of setbacks for consistence purposes. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the current definition for setbacks, setbacks are currently measured from the edge of the private street easement. Councilman Long stated that as much as possible a private street should be treated similarly to a public street. He added that setbacks should be measured from the street easement line for private streets. Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that setbacks are taken from the property line and in some cases the front property line is at the edge of the street or the edge of the sidewalk. He said that each tract is different. Councilman Long moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendments to the definitions relating to private streets and lot coverage. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Parking and Driveway Standards. He asked for a brief staff report. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that this item is before the Committee as a result of concerns raised by the Eastview Sub-Committee regarding the City’s parking standards. He explained that for clarification purposes, Staff is recommending that the requirements clearly state that a two-car garage and two-car driveway shall be maintained for a house less than 5,000 square feet of habitable area and that a three- car garage and a three car driveway shall be maintained for a house that is greater than 5,000 square feet in area. He added that as part of the Sub-committee’s review of the Eastview area, a concern was raised regarding the parking stall dimensions stating that IS-77 Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt alternative No. 1, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight asked if this includes covered courtyards. Associate Planner Fox clarified that this includes only courtyards that are open above to the sky. The motion to adopt alternative No. 1 regarding striking the language in the code regarding courtyard area lot coverage was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic was the discussion of private street easements and how that relates to lot coverage, explaining that the committee suggested revising the Development Code so that neighborhoods with private streets would be treated the same as neighborhoods with public streets in terms of lot coverage. He showed a diagram on how lot coverage is currently calculated on a private street and how the committee has proposed to calculate lot coverage. He explained that staff was recommending alternative No. 2 in the staff report. Commissioner Knight stated that at the previous meeting he had some concerns, however after doing some calculations he realized that this proposal will be advantageous to the property owners living on private streets. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he favors this recommendation, however he felt that clarification was still needed on the differences between private streets and driveways. Associate Planner Fox explained that the definitions of private street and driveway were included with the previous Planning Commission packet, but not with this current package. Commissioner Knight moved to support alternative No. 2 as presented in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that the last item was not actually a recommendation from the Steering Committee, but rather there was a discussion at the Committee level about whether to exclude the pole portion of flag lots from calculation of lot coverage and open space, and it was the determination of the Committee not to exclude this portion and to continue to include the pole portion in the calculation. However, when the City Council received the recommendations from the Committee, there was a question raised by a City Council member and it was asked that the Planning Commission revisit this topic. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that this recommendation is inconsistent with the decision just made regarding private streets. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 13 IS-78 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET FLAG-LOT LOT COVERAGE ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Flag-Lot Lot Coverage RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Continue to include the “pole” portion of flag lots in the calculation of lot coverage/open space DISCUSSION On September 26, 2005, the RDSSC had extensive discussion of the treatment of the “pole” portion of flag lots vis- à-vis lot coverage and open space. Based upon Staff analysis, three (3) alternatives were presented to the RDSSC: • Amend the lot coverage standards so that the improved driveway area of a “pole” serving a flag lot that traverses property not benefiting from the driveway would not be counted as lot coverage; • Amend the lot coverage standards so that the improved driveway area of a flag “pole” is not counted as lot coverage. It should be noted that if the driveway area is not counted as lot coverage, but is still counted towards the gross lot area, then the net result most likely will be additional lot coverage in the form of structure area; and, • Do not change the definition of lot coverage, and if a hardship exists advise a property owner to apply for a variance. The variance process was established to address hardships caused by unique constraints upon lots that cannot be developed similar to other properties. The RDSSC decided not to exclude the “pole” and improvements therein for the purposes of calculating lot coverage and open space. However, then-Councilman Gardiner asked the Planning Commission to reconsider this matter in August 2006. Councilman Gardiner believed that not excluding the “pole” portion of flag lots from lot coverage was inconsistent with the RDSSC recommendation to exclude private street easements from lot coverage. Based upon their current definitions in the Development Code, “driveway” and “private street” are mutually exclusive concepts. As such, Staff believes that it could be reasonably argued that the “pole” portion of a flag lot is equivalent to a private street if there is an easement recorded over it for IS-79 ingress/egress to other lots. In this circumstance, Staff recommends that it is appropriate to exclude the easement area and the hardscape within it for the purpose of calculating lot coverage. However, if the “pole” is not encumbered by a reciprocal access easement and serves as the driveway access for a single flag lot, Staff recommends that it should be included in the calculation of lot coverage. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Accept the Staff recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the recommendations P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Section 17.48.040 regarding Flag Lots Definitions of “Driveway and “Private Street” Diagram of Flag Lots with and without Easements RDSSC Minutes of September 26, 2005 (excerpt) CC Minutes of August 1, 2006 (excerpt) PC Minutes of April 8, 2008 (excerpt) PC Minutes of May 13, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 10 of Draft Ordinance IS-80 Proposed Section 17.48.040 (Lot Coverage) (Language originally proposed on April 8, 2008 underlined, revised language proposed on May 13, 2008 bold and underlined and struck out) An open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential structure. Open space area shall not include any portion of a lot or building site which is within the definition of lot coverage, as defined in Section 17.020.040(A). Lot coverage shall not exceed the maximum area requirements established in the district development standards (see Table 02-A in Chapter 17.02). For purposes of calculating lot coverage, a private street easement area shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area of a private street easement shall not be counted as lot coverage. For flag lots, the “pole” portion of any flag lot that is encumbered by a reciprocal access easement benefiting another property shall not be considered a part of the lot area. In no case shall any hardscape or other improvements within a private street easement or a flag-lot “pole” that is encumbered by a reciprocal access easement be counted as lot coverage. In multiple-family residential units, private outdoor decks and balconies with one minimum horizontal dimension of seven feet which are designated for the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual unit may comprise up to thirty percent of required open space. IS-81 17.96.600 Driveway. “Driveway” means a paved access to an off-street parking facility on a lot or parcel and any paved circular or semi-circular return to a public or private street servicing the property. Any pervious or semi-pervious surface which is part of or within the paved access area shall be considered “driveway.” 17.96.2020 Street, private. “Private street” means any lot not dedicated as a public street over which a private easement for road purposes has been recorded and used or intended to be used for ingress to or egress from a lot or lots which may or may not have frontage on a public street. A private street does not mean a “driveway.” IS-82 Property Line Flag Lots Without Reciprocal Access Easement Easement Line Property Line Flag Lots With Reciprocal Access Easement IS-83 September 26, 2005 Page 2 of 12 Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Flag Lots as it relates to Lot Coverage and asked for a Staff Report. Senior Planner Mihranian introduced this agenda topic by providing the Committee with some background information, stating that at the last meeting, the Committee discussed private streets in relation to lot coverage. As a result of that meeting, a concern was raised regarding flag lots and lot coverage. Specifically, the concern was that counting the pole portion of a flag lot towards lot coverage may be considered unfair to property owners who provide such an easement to other property owners and too restrictive to property owners whose lots are located an unusual distance from the street. The Committee directed Staff to bring back information responding to the Committee’s concerns. Using a power point presentation, Mr. Mihranian provided the Committee with various examples of flag lot driveway easements. He stated that although the improved driveway portion of a flag lot is counted as lot coverage, since this area is also counted as part of the gross lot area, it is Staff’s opinion that the outcome is an even wash. He said that if the Committee believes that counting the improved driveway portion of a flag lot as overly restrictive, there are three options for consideration by the Committee: 1. Amend the lot coverage standards so that the improved driveway area of a pole serving a flag lot that traverses property not benefiting from the driveway not be counted as lot coverage; 2. Amend the lot coverage standards so that the improved driveway area of a flag pole is not counted as lot coverage. It should be noted that if the driveway area is not counted as lot coverage, but is still counted towards the gross lot area, then the net result most likely will be additional lot coverage in the form of structure area; and, 3. Do not change the definition and if a hardship exists advise a property owner to apply for a variance. The variance process was established to address hardships caused by unique constraints to lots that cannot be developed similarly to other properties. He concluded his presentation by seeking the Committee’s direction on this matter. Councilman Wolowicz asked for clarification on lot coverage standards as it relates to private streets. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Committee at its last meeting agreed to recommend to the Council that the Development Code be amended so that private streets are not counted towards lot coverage, gross lot area and setback measurements. He indicated that for private streets, setbacks are measured from the edge of the easement line. Commissioner Mueller asked how setbacks are measured for flag lots. IS-84 September 26, 2005 Page 3 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian indicated a property owner would not be permitted to build within the driveway easement but could build up to the edge of the easement line if they comply with the defined setbacks. Commissioner Gerstner noted that in many cases driveway easements do not exist as part of a flag lot because the pole portion serves as the driveway. Committee Member Dyda was under the impression that the pole portion of a flag lot was to provide access to the street. Senior Planner Mihranian agreed, but added that in some cases a pole portion of a flag lot may only be a few feet wide and in order to provide an adequate driveway width a driveway easement would be provided. He referred to an example where there a multiple flag lots that stack up behind one another where the pole ends up being a total of 30-feet wide and each property owner grants the other property owners a driveway easement. Councilman Wolowicz asked where one can expect to find such an example within the City and whether this is a common scenario. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that this example is fairly common and could be found along Via Campesina and Miraleste, among other neighborhoods. Commissioner Gerstner asked whether the Code makes the distinction between a private street that serves more than one lot and a flag lot that has driveway that only serves the property in question. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the Code does not make that distinction and relies on what is spelled out in the legal document for the easement. Committee Member Dyda stated that Staff’s scenario of multiple poles adding up to a 30-foot driveway easement in essence serves the same purpose as a private street. Committee Member Denton asked Staff what would be considered the front property line for a flag lot. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that it is the property line most parallel to the street of access. Councilman Wolowicz referred to Staff’s options on circle page 14 of the agenda packet and asked the Committee for comments in the context of lot coverage and driveway easements for flag lots. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff Option No. 3 where there is no change to the definition and that if a hardship exists a property owner is advised to apply for a Variance. IS-85 September 26, 2005 Page 4 of 12 Committee Member Karp seconded the motion. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if the definition of lot coverage needs to be amended to reflect this agenda matter. Senior Planner Mihranian informed the Committee that the lot coverage definition does not warrant changing. He reminded the Committee that based on the current definition, a driveway is calculated as lot coverage, and in the case of a flag lot, the improved driveway portion of a pole is counted as lot coverage for the respective property owner but Staff considers that a wash because the pole is also counted towards the lot area. Commissioner Gerstner asked how the decision is made for a private driveway on a flag lot versus a private street. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that Staff relies on the legal description. Committee Member Dyda noted that this may result in an inconsistency because if a driveway easement is 30-feet wide just because the legal description describes the easement as a private driveway it is in reality being used as a private street. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that just because multiple flag lots result in a 30-foot wide private driveway easement, it does not necessarily mean that all 30 feet is improved with a paved driveway. Councilman Wolowicz added that it usually is not necessary to have a 30-foot wide driveway. He then asked Staff if this matter is a problem at the Planning Department. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the Planning Department has not experienced a problem with private driveway easements and flag lots as it relates to lot coverage and setbacks. He added that the typical inquiry relates to the property line determination, such as what is the front property line. Commissioner Gerstner referred to an illustration he drew and asked what would be considered a private street and a private driveway. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that it is based on the legal description of the easement. He added that the Development Code does not define a private driveway or private street by the number of lots it serves. Committee Member Dyda suggested that the definition be expanded for purposes of setbacks, so that easements that provide access to multiple properties shall be treated as a street. Senior Planner Mihranian asked the Committee where the setback measurement should be taken from in cases of flag lot poles. IS-86 September 26, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Muller stated that if the driveway pole of a flag lot is treated as a street then that would require a greater setback distance. Councilman Wolowicz reminded the Committee that according to Staff this is not an issue and was wondering if the definition needs to be amended as suggested by Committee Member Dyda. Committee Member Dyda does not want to change to definition but rather expand the requirement under the setback discussion. Commissioner Gerstner stated that a property owner can simply change the legal description of a driveway to a private street by going to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it is not that simple to change a legal description when it serves other properties, adding that the property owner being served by such an easement would have to agree to such a change. He stated that an easement is an agreement between two or more parties. He added that if you change the description of an easement, all parties involved would have to agree to such a change. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the change is based on the type of use, not eliminating the easement. He stated that for purposes of consistency it would be better to treat the driveway as an easement. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff whether one can build within an easement. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that a property owner cannot build within a private street or driveway easement, but could build within a utility easement provided authorization is given by the easement holder. He referred to an example at the Golden Cove Shopping Center where the three new buildings are built over a sewer easement and that was permitted because the county sanitation district gave the developer permission. Committee Member Slayden reiterated his earlier motion to accept Staff Option No. 3 not to change the definition of lot coverage as it relates to the driveway pole of a flag lot. Commissioner Mueller proposed an amendment to the motion to amend the definition so that it is clear that setbacks are measured from outside the easement. Committee Member Dyda noted that the amendment to the motion is not germane to the topic being discussed, but rather is a separate agenda topic. Committee Member Lyon asked Staff if the existing policy regarding lot coverage and driveways has been a problem in the past. IS-87 September 26, 2005 Page 6 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that this issue is not a problem that is seen at the Planning Department. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a second to the amendment to the motion. Hearing to no second, he asked for a vote on the original motion made by Committee Member Slayden and seconded by Committee Member Karp. The motion passed with Commissioner Gerstner objecting. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if the amendment to the earlier motion made by Commissioner Mueller warranted further discussion as a separate agenda topic. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that was not necessary because the Code already requires setbacks be measured from the edge of the easement line. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there were any other comments regarding the amendment to the motion. He then introduced the next agenda topic of Fences, Walls and Hedges and asked for a Staff presentation. Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the next agenda topic by providing the Committee with background information. He stated that at the last Committee Meeting, Staff raised a concern regarding the current Code requirement for fences, walls and hedges located on corner lots. He mentioned that although Staff raised a concern, Staff stopped short from identifying a suggested change. Therefore, the Committee directed Staff to bring back a recommendation for consideration this evening. Furthermore, the Committee asked Staff to bring back a definition of what a hedge is and is not, as well as provide illustrative examples for each of the requirements. Based on Committee directive, he presented the respective information using a power point presentation. Mr. Mihranian stated that the Code’s setback requirements do not apply for fences, walls and hedges as they have their own requirements. He stated that fences, walls or hedges cannot exceed 42-inches in height from the front property line up to the closest building façade to the front property line, and this requirement is similar to corner lots. Committee Member Dyda asked what if the back yard of one’s property abuts the front area of another property how tall can a fence be? Senior Planner Mihranian stated that in this scenario the fence along the rear property line can be up to 6-feet in height provided it is on that property. He added that as long as there is no grade differential between the two properties, otherwise a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit may be required to assess whether a potential view impairment would be caused by a 6-foot high fence. Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern with the line that establishes where a 42-inch high fence, wall or hedge can go up to 6-feet in height within the front yard area, stating IS-88 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 9 of 16 which has essentially prevented this issue from being placed on the November ballot; and noted that the Sheriff’s Department is therefore requesting this item be tabled. Councilman Clark moved to table this item. Councilman Stern asked if the approximate $500,000 given to the community under this proposal can wisely be earmarked, noting there is limited gang activity in this area. Sheriff Captain Jay Zuanich agreed that there is no gang problem in Rancho Palos Verdes, but stated that there has to be a nexus between the use of that money and gang activity; he stated that the money could be used for gang-related education; noted that it can be used to stop gang graffiti which is taking place on the peninsula from gangs living elsewhere; and mentioned that the Sheriffs do make arrests of gang members who are visiting and commit crimes in this area. Councilman Stern expressed his concern with the limitations on the package for spending the $500,000, believing there is potential to not spend the money wisely; and questioned if there is a way to broaden the breadth of those limitations for this community. Captain Zuanich stated that he will advise his superiors of that concern. Councilman Clark asked if any more consideration has been given to establishing a Sheriff’s substation in Rancho Palos Verdes. Captain Zuanich stated that there has been no clearly defined discussion of that proposal. Councilman Stern seconded the motion to table this item. Without objection, Mayor Wolowicz so ordered. Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Residential Development Standards (Title 17 of the RPVMC) (1801 x 1203) Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report and the recommendation to 1) Congratulate and thank the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee; 2) Refer the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Report to the Planning Commission for review; and, 3) Direct staff and the Planning Commission to reexamine the issues raised by Council regarding the Steering Committee’s recommendations. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Wolowicz thanked and commended Senior Planner Mihranian for his impressive efforts in this process. IS-89 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 10 of 16 Councilman Gardiner stated that it is not clear to him how many properties will be affected by the change in setbacks, the scale being impacted, or the practical implication of an increase in setback and when it would matter. City Attorney Lynch noted for Councilman Gardiner that if a permitted structure already has encroached into a required setback, it would be considered a legal, nonconforming structure. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that if at some point a property owner proposes an addition/remodel to a structure that exceeds 50 percent of the original building, for example, the Code requires that any nonconformity be brought to conformity with the current Code, except in terms of nonconforming setbacks. Councilman Gardiner questioned if limiting someone’s ability to use their property through development standards would be considered a taking. City Attorney Lynch explained that a property owner could allege a taking, but noted that court cases say that if someone has a substantial use of their property, the fact that they might not necessarily be able to completely develop another portion of it would not be a taking; in other words, if they have a house, they are considered to have full use of their lot and property, and would not be asked to dedicate their lot for some other purpose. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Wolowicz recessed the meeting at 9:02 PM and reconvened the meeting at 9:11 PM. Councilman Gardiner stated that page 17 of the staff report indicates if one owns a corner lot, they are allowed to have a 6-foot fence along the street side property line, but that the proposed code would require the wall on that corner lot to be reduced to 42 inches in height; and he stated that he is not in support of that requirement because of privacy issues. He expressed his belief that Council should send this item to the Planning Commission for further refinement. Mayor pro tem Long mentioned that the concept of square footage limitations tied to lot size has been a tool increasingly employed by a number of cities to deal with mansionization; he expressed his belief that the Committee rejected this issue too quickly without further study or direction to staff to further study the possibility of implementing such a limitation here; and stated that this is something that needs multiple tools to better control increased density. He noted his desire to see the Planning Commission study the concept of square footage limitations based on lot size, on buildable area of a lot, or some formula that makes sense; to study it in a more rigorous way than this Committee was able to do; and to provide Council with an independent recommendation on that issue as well as look at what other cities have done in this regard, why they’ve done it, and what the advantages/disadvantages are. IS-90 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 11 of 16 He asked that staff distribute to Council the full minutes and full report related to the square footage limitation issue from the deliberations of the Committee, so that each Council Member can make a decision; and if enough Council members agree, that Council could ask the Planning Commission to look at this issue. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that staff will summarize that discussion and give the background information to the Planning Commission. Councilman Clark noted, echoed by Councilman Stern, his support to send the Committee’s report to the Planning Commission for refinement, noting that the Commission should take the appropriate amount of time to study the proposals. Mayor pro tem Long stated it is incumbent upon Council to guide the Planning Commission on which items need further study, believing that it would over burden the Planning Commission if the majority of the Council does not have an issue with all 18 topics covered in the report. Councilman Clark stated the Planning Commission should review the recommendations in a comprehensive manner, noting that he does not want to provide direction that may cloud the Planning Commission’s objective input. Councilman Gardiner suggested that this matter be continued to the next City Council meeting to allow each Council Member an opportunity to take a look at the list and digest the information, and to then provide staff a list of issues each member feels needs further attention. He stated that the Planning Commission should be given some direction rather than an ambiguous charge. Karl Price, Rancho Palos Verdes, requested and received from staff further definition on the new single-family residence 50-percent expansion rule. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that the proposed criteria is taken from the criteria that is current applied to the entire City; noting that if a property owner was to tear down an existing structure, calculating 50 percent or more of the combined linear square footage of all exterior and interior walls, it would be considered a new residence and would have to comply with the new standards. Mr. Price stated that the proposal for the Miravista Neighborhood is confusing and noted his concern with how this may negatively impact on-street parking, noting that parking is limited in his particular neighborhood; and noted his support to enhance properties, but stated this deserves further analysis from different angles. Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, commended Senior Planner Mihranian’s dedication and professionalism during the Committee’s effort. He stated that if one looks at the existing code in terms of the percentage of the lot one is allowed to build on, the percentage is always less than the property remaining after subtracting the side, front and rear setbacks. He stated that the problem of creating an issue for a property owner IS-91 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 12 of 16 with rear or side setback is about location, not of size; and explained that the intent of the Committee was to take a look at those things they thought would need to be revisited from the original code without creating an undue hardship for the residents. He stated that the overall square footage is a problem, but they’ve got a percentage of lot coverage one is allowed; noting that the problem only would occur if one uses that percentage on a 2-acre parcel, for example; that if a property owner used that same percentage and complied with the current setbacks, they can build a huge structure on such a lot; and that to some extent, Mayor pro tem Long’s concern needs to be looked at for the larger properties. He stated the chart included in the staff report identified all the issues. Mayor pro tem Long pointed out that Mr. Dyda and Lois Karp dutifully attended all the meetings and put in an enormous amount of time on this effort; and he expressed his gratitude to everyone who participated in this effort. Councilman Stern stated that this should go to the Planning Commission without a lot of direction; and noted his desire to minimize unintended consequences/ results of these potential changes. Mayor Wolowicz noted his support to send this to the Planning Commission with a belief that all items need to be addressed at once because each item impacts related issues. Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to congratulate the Committee on its tremendous work effort the past couple years; to send this to the Planning Commission for its comprehensive summary review and ultimate input back to City Council in the areas where recommendations are being requested, as well as comments on other areas that did not have recommended changes to the Development Code; request that staff and the Planning Commission look at the issue of size limitation on residential structures on residential lots, taking into account prior lessons learned; and to research how other communities have successfully tackled this issue. Councilman Gardiner stated that he would be opposed to the motion because it has only incorporated one Council Member’s comments and reservations in the instructions for the Planning Commission and had not included his concerns. Councilman Clark stated that was not his intent and amended his motion to also have the specific comments made by any of the City Council this evening included in the report to the Planning Commission by the Director of Planning and the lead staff member as they embark upon this review. Councilman Gardiner highlighted the following issues included in the staff report that he would like the Planning Commission to address: page 16, not to recommend excluding driveways for a flagged lot; page 17, Fences, Walls, Hedges, provide more detail on why corner lots should not be permitted 6-foot fences instead of the proposed 42 inches, noting his support for 6-foot fences; page 19, the need for clarification on the IS-92 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 13 of 16 first item; and page 19, define “respect adjacent properties” and how to measure and enforce it. Mayor pro tem Long volunteered to review the summary and assist in polishing its presentation. Without objection to the motion, Mayor Wolowicz so ordered. Councilman Clark departed the meeting at 10:07 P.M. Moisture Remediation at Hesse Park (1201 x 1101) The staff report of August 1, 2006 recommended City Council 1) Authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process to complete the proposed Interior Moisture Remediation Work Plan at Hesse Park for a total cost not to exceed $9,000; 2) Authorize staff to conduct a formal bid process to complete the proposed Exterior Moisture Remediation Work Plan at Hesse Park for a total cost not to exceed $50,000; and 3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE BUILDING REPLACEMENT FUND. Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Long, to waive staff report and to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Gardiner, Long, Stern and Mayor Wolowicz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Clark City Manager Recruitment (1101) The staff report of August 1, 2006 recommended City Council: 1) Select Avery and Associates to conduct the recruitment for a new City Manager; 2) Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare an appropriate professional services contract; and 3) Direct staff to bring the contract back for Council approval. Mayor Wolowicz advised the public that the City Council interviewed three executive search firms for the recruitment of a new City Manager; noted that Council did not take a vote following those interviews; and mentioned that the proposed fees of each firm were in a similar range. Councilman Stern mentioned that all three firms were very qualified. Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Petru distributed the ballots. IS-93 Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt alternative No. 1, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight asked if this includes covered courtyards. Associate Planner Fox clarified that this includes only courtyards that are open above to the sky. The motion to adopt alternative No. 1 regarding striking the language in the code regarding courtyard area lot coverage was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox stated that the next topic was the discussion of private street easements and how that relates to lot coverage, explaining that the committee suggested revising the Development Code so that neighborhoods with private streets would be treated the same as neighborhoods with public streets in terms of lot coverage. He showed a diagram on how lot coverage is currently calculated on a private street and how the committee has proposed to calculate lot coverage. He explained that staff was recommending alternative No. 2 in the staff report. Commissioner Knight stated that at the previous meeting he had some concerns, however after doing some calculations he realized that this proposal will be advantageous to the property owners living on private streets. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that he favors this recommendation, however he felt that clarification was still needed on the differences between private streets and driveways. Associate Planner Fox explained that the definitions of private street and driveway were included with the previous Planning Commission packet, but not with this current package. Commissioner Knight moved to support alternative No. 2 as presented in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that the last item was not actually a recommendation from the Steering Committee, but rather there was a discussion at the Committee level about whether to exclude the pole portion of flag lots from calculation of lot coverage and open space, and it was the determination of the Committee not to exclude this portion and to continue to include the pole portion in the calculation. However, when the City Council received the recommendations from the Committee, there was a question raised by a City Council member and it was asked that the Planning Commission revisit this topic. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that this recommendation is inconsistent with the decision just made regarding private streets. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 13 IS-94 Associate Planner Fox felt that it might be helpful for the Planning Commission to have the definitions of private street and driveway, which were not included in the Planning Commission packets for this meeting. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they recalled in reason or rationale for Councilman Gardner asking that the Planning Commission revisit this issue. Associate Planner Fox and Director Rojas could not recall any specifics of the request, and it was not reflected in the City Council minutes. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to accept alternative No. 1 in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Knight stated that he was uncomfortable with the motion, not knowing what City Councilman Gardner’s concerns were. Chairman Perestam was also reluctant to support the motion, as he needed more clarification on the definitions of “driveway” and “private street”. The motion failed, (3-4) with Commissioners Tomblin, Knight, Ruttenberg, and Chairman Perestam dissenting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the discussion regarding the issue of the pole portion of the flag lot to the May 13, 2008 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to provide clarification to the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Ruttenberg and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue this item to the May 13, 2008 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 6. Affordable Housing code amendment (Case No. ZON2008-00161) Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the three components of the proposed amendment, and explained that these changes are proposed to implement City Council policy, to implement state law, and to incorporate minor changes to the affordable housing requirements for non-residential projects. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2008-14, thereby recommending that the City Council certify a Negative Declaration for the project; and Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2008-15 recommending that the City Council approve a Code Amendment that revises Municipal Code Chapter 17.11, "Affordable Housing", and Chapter 17.96, “Definitions”, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2008 Page 14 IS-95 Associate Planner Fox noted that because of the scope of changes, staff and the applicant agree that June 10th may not give them enough time, especially if the Planning Commission would like the project re-silhouetted. He therefore suggested that the public hearing be continued to the June 24th meeting, or to a meeting from that date. Commissioner Knight modified the motion to continue the public hearing to June 24, 2008, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). 2. Residential Development Standards code amendment & zone change Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, reporting on the additional research staff had done in regards to subdivision potential under the suggested change in the RS-4 zoning to the RS-5 zoning in the Eastview area. Commissioner Tetreault moved to accept staff’s recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Chairman Perestam recalled from the last meeting that the Planning Commission had discussed not approving the proposed zone change because the proposed overlay district would give the flexibility they were looking for. Associate Planner Fox recalled there was discussion about that at the previous meeting, however he did not recall that being the consensus. He pointed out that the overlay district would only give the flexibility in the actual areas covered by the overlay and not the entire RS-4 zoning district. The motion to accept staff’s recommendation for the RS-4 zoning district was approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox explained that at the last meeting there was a question regarding the flag lots and why Councilman Gardner had asked the Planning Commission to look at the issue. He explained that staff had looked at the video of the City Council meeting and also provided the definitions of “driveway” and “private street”, and explained staff’s recommendation as written in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned about the use of the term “reciprocal easement” as used in staff’s recommendation and didn’t feel it should be used in this circumstance. Associate Planner Fox referred to page 12 of the staff report, which is the language staff is recommending, and suggested striking the word “reciprocal” and simply say “an access easement”. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approved staff’s recommendation (alternative No. 2) with the deletion of the word “reciprocal”, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 11 IS-96 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET MINIMUM DRIVEWAY AREA ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Minimum Driveway Area RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Establish minimum standards for both enclosed and unenclosed off-street parking for single-family residences DISCUSSION Based upon the Committee’s review of the current off-street parking requirements, there was a concern that these standards do not accurately reflect or accommodate the types and sizes of vehicles driven by motorists today. In addition, there was general acknowledgement that even when garages are provided, homeowners frequently use them for general household storage rather than off-street parking. Therefore, the Committee recommended imposing a minimum requirement for parking spaces within the driveway adjacent to the required garage, equal in area to the size and number of parking spaces in the garage. These Code changes would occur in Sections 17.02.030(E)(1), (E)(2) and (E)(5). ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Proposed modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Section 17.02.030(E) Diagram of Minimum Driveway Areas RDSSC Minutes of August 29, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of May 13, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 12 of Draft Ordinance IS-97 Proposed Section 17.02.030(E) (Additions underlined, deletions struck out) E. Parking/Driveway Standards. 1. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space, as determined by the director. 2. A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing five thousand square feet or more of habitable space, as determined by the director. 3. A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line, whichever is the street of access. 4. In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on a property, parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards). 5. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth, with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth. 6. The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a residential parcel: a. A driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet; and b. A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which have an average slope of ten percent or more, and which are fifty feet or more in length. 7. Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of- way. 8. A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a minimum 18-inch-wide landscape area between the side property line and the adjacent driveway, unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the driveway to less than ten feet, in which case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director. 98. All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications of the Los Angeles County fire department. If there is any inconsistency between the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los Angeles County fire department, the stricter shall apply. IS-98 10. Enclosed tandem parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, provided that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5) of this section. IS-99 Driveway Spaces Garage Spaces Parking Requirement for SFR with <5,000 SF of Living Area Driveway Spaces Garage Spaces Parking Requirement for SFR with >5,000 SF of Living Area IS-100 August 29, 2005 Page 5 of 13 Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Committee had any comments regarding the suggested amendments to the Development Code definition of a private street. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff’s recommended changes to the Development Code definition of a private street. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Committee Member Cartwright asked whether setbacks were treated similarly. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that setbacks are measured from the edge of a private street easement. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the definition for a private street, as amended to not be considered a part of a lot when calculating lot coverage, be added to the definition of setbacks for consistence purposes. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the current definition for setbacks, setbacks are currently measured from the edge of the private street easement. Councilman Long stated that as much as possible a private street should be treated similarly to a public street. He added that setbacks should be measured from the street easement line for private streets. Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that setbacks are taken from the property line and in some cases the front property line is at the edge of the street or the edge of the sidewalk. He said that each tract is different. Councilman Long moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendments to the definitions relating to private streets and lot coverage. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Parking and Driveway Standards. He asked for a brief staff report. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that this item is before the Committee as a result of concerns raised by the Eastview Sub-Committee regarding the City’s parking standards. He explained that for clarification purposes, Staff is recommending that the requirements clearly state that a two-car garage and two-car driveway shall be maintained for a house less than 5,000 square feet of habitable area and that a three- car garage and a three car driveway shall be maintained for a house that is greater than 5,000 square feet in area. He added that as part of the Sub-committee’s review of the Eastview area, a concern was raised regarding the parking stall dimensions stating that IS-101 August 29, 2005 Page 6 of 13 the Sub-committee felt that based on the size of cars being driven today the dimensions should be increased Citywide. He explained that the minimum width is proposed to be increased from 9-feet to 10-feet and that the depth is proposed to remain at 20-feet. He then explained how the Sub-committee suggested that a landscape area of 18-inches be provided between the side property line and the edge of a driveway. Mr. Mihranian informed the Committee that in regards to the parking stall dimensions, the current 9’ x 20’ requirement applies for both commercial and residential zoned properties. He stated that increasing the minimum width to 10-feet may result in non- conformities and that the Committee should consider in its decision. He also stated that if it is the Committee’s desire to increase the minimum width of a parking stall for residential properties, that in its recommendation to the City Council, that the increased dimension be considered for commercial zoned properties as well. Councilman Long asked what triggers a non-conforming structure from having to conform. He asked about homes destroyed by a natural disaster. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that if 50% of the structure were being demolished than it would have to be brought to conformity. He explained that a home destroyed by a natural disaster is grand-fathered and could be rebuilt as is. Councilman Long stated that the new requirements would only apply to a substantial remodel or a new home. Senior Planner Mihranian agreed. He added that the new homes being built today have garages that are already much larger than the minimum dimensions and that the proposed changes is to reflect the current trend. Committee Member Dyda stated that for the proposed Eastview Overlay District a non- conforming structure would have to be brought to conformity if 75% of the house were being demolished. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that by increasing the parking dimension the result may be more variance applications being processed requesting relief from the minimum parking dimensions. He added that for the contemplated overlay district, the minimum dimensions for a parking stall were set at 9’x20’. Committee Member Denton asked how easy it is to have a variance granted. Councilman Wolowicz mentioned that it was his understanding that variances are not easily granted. Committee Member Dyda commented on the proposed 18-inch landscape requirement between a property line and the edge of the driveway. He stated that the intent is to prevent having two driveways abut one another and to provide more green space within the front yard. IS-102 August 29, 2005 Page 7 of 13 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the 18-inch landscape requirement originated with the Eastview Overlay District and only applies if the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement is triggered. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the Portuguese Bend Club and how that community does not comply with most of the City’s current development standards and that variances are frequently sought after. He questioned what such a change would do to that part of the City and why an overlay district has not been contemplated similarly to Eastview. Councilman Wolowicz questioned whether the Portuguese Bend Club had an overlay district established already. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there is no overlay district for the Bend Club and that there was a time when the City was coordinating with the HOA to develop an overlay district but that was eventually shelved. Councilman Wolowicz asked whether there should be an overlay or at least a study as to whether one should or should not be established. Committee Member Cartwright stated that there should be a study. Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that the HOA chose not to proceed with an overlay district. Committee Member Dyda emphasized that similar to any other neighborhood in the City, the Bend Club should be subject to the City’s development standards unless special standards are adopted for that community. Councilman Long stated that if the rules that apply to the City are so different to the reality on the ground so that anytime there is something done a variance is sought after then the rules are being broken. Committee Member Dyda stated that is the reason why an overlay district was considered for Eastview. Committee Member Cartwright moved that the Committee discuss at an upcoming meeting whether an overlay district should be considered for the Portuguese Bend Club. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Senior Planner Mihranian asked whether Staff should contact the HOA to see if they are interested in developing an Overlay District. Committee Member Denton stated that the HOA should not dictate what the City feels is best for the overall community. IS-103 August 29, 2005 Page 8 of 13 Councilman Long added that the public hearing process provides the residents an opportunity to share their opinions. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee to forward points of interest relating to the Portuguese Bend Club to Staff. He then asked Staff to bring this item back as soon as possible. Committee Member Slayden raised a concern that contemplating an overlay district for the Bend Club may not prove to be worthwhile. Committee Member Cartwright stated that his motion was not to develop an overlay district but rather to determine whether there should be one. He then stated that if the study finds that an overlay district is warranted the next step would be to develop specific standards. Councilman Long agreed that this item should be placed on a future agenda. He also stated that Committee Member Slayden’s concern may be legitimate but would need to be analyzed to draw that conclusion. He then mentioned when the Committee formalizes its recommendation to the Council the report can state that other neighborhoods were studied to determine whether an overlay district should be considered. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is any objection to having the discussion on the possibility of creating an overlay district for the Portuguese Bend Club at a future meeting. Councilman Long added that the discussion should entail any suggestion Staff may have regarding ways to in which to modify the Code for the Portuguese Bend Club to allow it to function more effectively and what recommendations Staff makes for input on that if any. The motion passed with one objection from Committee Member Slayden. Councilman Wolowicz continued with the discussion on Parking and Driveway Standards and asked if there were any further questions or comments regarding the proposed modifications. He expressed a concern with the use of the term “directly adjacent” in the definition and asked whether the phrasing as presented is consistent with other sections of the Code. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that there is no specific reason why the term “directly adjacent” is used aside from emphasis. He then stated that “directly” could be dropped. Councilman Long moved to adopt the proposed amendments to the Parking and Driveway Standards with the removal of the word “directly” from Sections E.1 and E.2. IS-104 August 29, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Committee Member Denton asked if tandem parking for both garages and driveways should be considered in this discussion. She reminded the Committee that one of the items identified by the Eastview Sub-committee pertained to the appropriateness of tandem parking because the Sub-committee found it to be useless with the intent of the Code because it was not practical. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the matter relating to tandem parking should have been included in the discussion this evening. He mentioned that as written, the Code merely states that a two-car garage shall be maintained, but the Code does not mention that the two parking spaces shall be side-by-side. Therefore, as long as two parking spaces are being provided and the spaces meet the required minimum dimensions it does not matter if the spaces are side-by-side, tandem, or placed in different places on the property. He then added that the Sub-committee found that tandem spaces are not practical and actually results in cars parking on the street, which is direct conflict with the intent to get cars off the street. Committee Member Karp asked Staff how often do projects include tandem parking. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that is quite rare and in most cases the tandem parking is in addition to the required spaces that are provided in the traditional layout of side-by- side. He added that tandem parking is not prohibited but that the trend today is to construct a house with a four to five car garage. Committee Member Denton noted that a tandem garage was recently approved for a project on Trudie. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee whether the Code should address tandem parking spaces. Councilman Long stated that he can see the problem occurring occasionally but not frequently enough to pose a problem warranting a Code amendment. Councilman Wolowicz asked for any additional comments. Councilman Long restated his earlier motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Parking and Driveway Standards with the removal of the word “directly” from Sections E.1 and E.2. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Slayden. Senior Planner Mihranian requested that if the Committee decides to recommend increasing the minimum parking dimensions to 10’x20’ that the recommendation to the Council include amending the commercial parking standards as well. IS-105 August 29, 2005 Page 10 of 13 Committee Member Karp asked if the recommended change to the minimum parking dimensions would apply to institutional zones as well. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the change to the parking dimensions should apply across each zoning district in the City. Councilman Long amended the motion to include commercial and institutional zones to the proposed parking dimension change. Committee Member Slayden seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Long asked about compact spaces and that the Code should allow for them. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Code currently allows for compact parking spaces in commercial and institutional zoning districts. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Sloping Lots and asked for a Staff Report. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that this item is a concern raised by Staff relating to the 8-foot step requirement for sloping lots. He mentioned that as currently written, the Code does not establish a minimum separation between the upper and lower floors with the 8-foot step. He stated that in several cases, Staff has seen applications involving the construction of a house on a sloping lot with a 1-foot separation between the upper and lower floors. He stated that this is a Staff concern because the intent of the 8-foot step between the upper and lower floors is to encourage the structure to step with the natural topography and if projects continue to be designed with little to no separation between floors then the intent is not being achieved. He presented Code language that would require sloping structures, including lots that slope parallel to the street, to maintain an 8-foot step with a minimum separation between the upper and lower floors of at least 10-feet or 25% of the depth of the structure, whichever is greater. He provided the Committee with illustrative examples. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the recommended language as presented. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Cartwright. Councilman Wolowicz asked for comments. Committee Member Dyda stated that it clarifies the intent of the 8-foot step requirement. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda topic on Fences, Walls and Hedges. IS-106 Associate Planner Fox reported on the next topic, which was the minimum driveway area and explained the recommendations made by the Committee. Commissioner Gerstner asked what the intent of this revision was. Chairman Perestam recalled the intent was to help provide parking outside of the garage, but off the street. Commissioner Knight questioned the phrase “adjacent to the garage” and asked staff if they would be lenient enough to allow parking adjacent to the house. Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission would like to maintain the flexibility to allow the Director to look at cases where there may be some unique circumstances and have residents not have to apply for a Variance, then he would suggest taking out the phrase “adjacent to the garage”. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt the Committee’s recommendation (alternative No. 1) as modified by striking the phrase “adjacent to the garage” in each instance it occurs, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7- 0). Associate Planner Fox reported the next topic was driveway landscape buffers, and explained the Committee recommendations. He explained that staff supports the recommendation, but suggested some additional language as seen in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned that there are some houses in the City where there is a very narrow driveway that leads back to a rear garage. He explained that in some of these houses they wouldn’t be able to meet this proposed requirement without possibly doing some type of additional foundation work to the house or applying for a Variance. Associate Planner Fox agreed, and suggested additional language that stated this was in effect provided there is adequate width between the property line and the foundation of any existing primary or accessory structure. Commissioner Knight moved to approve alternative No. 2 as amended by staff, seconded by Chairman Perestam. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox discussed the last topic, tandem parking. He noted that tandem parking is not addressed in the Code and that the Director has made an interpretation that tandem parking spaces could be allowed, but only to provide for excess parking and not to provide the minimum necessary parking requirements for a single family residence. He explained the Committee had recommending allowing tandem parking, but noted that it has been staff’s experience that tandem parking spaces are under utilized because they’re inconvenient to use. Therefore, staff was recommending retaining the previous interpretation by the Director. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 12 IS-107 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPE BUFFER ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Driveway Landscape Buffer RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Require a landscaped buffer between driveways and side property lines DISCUSSION For aesthetic reasons and to provide more open space within setback areas, the Committee wished to avoid the placement of driveways directly abutting property lines and one another. To do so, it recommended adding a new subsection to Section 17.02.030(E) requiring an 18-inch-wide landscape buffer between a driveway and an adjacent property line. Staff supported this recommendation, but suggested that the language might be clarified to specify that it applies to abutting side property lines only. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation as proposed 2. Accept the RDSSC recommendation as amended 3. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 4. Proposed modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Section 17.02.030(E)(8) Diagram of proposed driveway landscape buffer RDSSC Minutes of August 29, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of May 13, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 12 of Draft Ordinance IS-108 Proposed Section 17.02.030(E) (Additions underlined, deletions struck out) E. Parking/Driveway Standards. 1. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space, as determined by the director. 2. A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing five thousand square feet or more of habitable space, as determined by the director. 3. A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line, whichever is the street of access. 4. In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on a property, parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards). 5. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth, with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth. 6. The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a residential parcel: a. A driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet; and b. A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which have an average slope of ten percent or more, and which are fifty feet or more in length. 7. Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of- way. 8. A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a minimum 18-inch-wide landscape area between the side property line and the adjacent driveway, unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the driveway to less than ten feet, in which case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director. 98. All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications of the Los Angeles County fire department. If there is any inconsistency between the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los Angeles County fire department, the stricter shall apply. IS-109 10. Enclosed tandem parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, provided that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5) of this section. IS-110 Garage 18”-Wide Landscape Buffer House IS-111 August 29, 2005 Page 5 of 13 Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Committee had any comments regarding the suggested amendments to the Development Code definition of a private street. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff’s recommended changes to the Development Code definition of a private street. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Committee Member Cartwright asked whether setbacks were treated similarly. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that setbacks are measured from the edge of a private street easement. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the definition for a private street, as amended to not be considered a part of a lot when calculating lot coverage, be added to the definition of setbacks for consistence purposes. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the current definition for setbacks, setbacks are currently measured from the edge of the private street easement. Councilman Long stated that as much as possible a private street should be treated similarly to a public street. He added that setbacks should be measured from the street easement line for private streets. Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that setbacks are taken from the property line and in some cases the front property line is at the edge of the street or the edge of the sidewalk. He said that each tract is different. Councilman Long moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendments to the definitions relating to private streets and lot coverage. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Parking and Driveway Standards. He asked for a brief staff report. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that this item is before the Committee as a result of concerns raised by the Eastview Sub-Committee regarding the City’s parking standards. He explained that for clarification purposes, Staff is recommending that the requirements clearly state that a two-car garage and two-car driveway shall be maintained for a house less than 5,000 square feet of habitable area and that a three- car garage and a three car driveway shall be maintained for a house that is greater than 5,000 square feet in area. He added that as part of the Sub-committee’s review of the Eastview area, a concern was raised regarding the parking stall dimensions stating that IS-112 August 29, 2005 Page 6 of 13 the Sub-committee felt that based on the size of cars being driven today the dimensions should be increased Citywide. He explained that the minimum width is proposed to be increased from 9-feet to 10-feet and that the depth is proposed to remain at 20-feet. He then explained how the Sub-committee suggested that a landscape area of 18-inches be provided between the side property line and the edge of a driveway. Mr. Mihranian informed the Committee that in regards to the parking stall dimensions, the current 9’ x 20’ requirement applies for both commercial and residential zoned properties. He stated that increasing the minimum width to 10-feet may result in non- conformities and that the Committee should consider in its decision. He also stated that if it is the Committee’s desire to increase the minimum width of a parking stall for residential properties, that in its recommendation to the City Council, that the increased dimension be considered for commercial zoned properties as well. Councilman Long asked what triggers a non-conforming structure from having to conform. He asked about homes destroyed by a natural disaster. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that if 50% of the structure were being demolished than it would have to be brought to conformity. He explained that a home destroyed by a natural disaster is grand-fathered and could be rebuilt as is. Councilman Long stated that the new requirements would only apply to a substantial remodel or a new home. Senior Planner Mihranian agreed. He added that the new homes being built today have garages that are already much larger than the minimum dimensions and that the proposed changes is to reflect the current trend. Committee Member Dyda stated that for the proposed Eastview Overlay District a non- conforming structure would have to be brought to conformity if 75% of the house were being demolished. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that by increasing the parking dimension the result may be more variance applications being processed requesting relief from the minimum parking dimensions. He added that for the contemplated overlay district, the minimum dimensions for a parking stall were set at 9’x20’. Committee Member Denton asked how easy it is to have a variance granted. Councilman Wolowicz mentioned that it was his understanding that variances are not easily granted. Committee Member Dyda commented on the proposed 18-inch landscape requirement between a property line and the edge of the driveway. He stated that the intent is to prevent having two driveways abut one another and to provide more green space within the front yard. IS-113 August 29, 2005 Page 7 of 13 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the 18-inch landscape requirement originated with the Eastview Overlay District and only applies if the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement is triggered. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the Portuguese Bend Club and how that community does not comply with most of the City’s current development standards and that variances are frequently sought after. He questioned what such a change would do to that part of the City and why an overlay district has not been contemplated similarly to Eastview. Councilman Wolowicz questioned whether the Portuguese Bend Club had an overlay district established already. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there is no overlay district for the Bend Club and that there was a time when the City was coordinating with the HOA to develop an overlay district but that was eventually shelved. Councilman Wolowicz asked whether there should be an overlay or at least a study as to whether one should or should not be established. Committee Member Cartwright stated that there should be a study. Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that the HOA chose not to proceed with an overlay district. Committee Member Dyda emphasized that similar to any other neighborhood in the City, the Bend Club should be subject to the City’s development standards unless special standards are adopted for that community. Councilman Long stated that if the rules that apply to the City are so different to the reality on the ground so that anytime there is something done a variance is sought after then the rules are being broken. Committee Member Dyda stated that is the reason why an overlay district was considered for Eastview. Committee Member Cartwright moved that the Committee discuss at an upcoming meeting whether an overlay district should be considered for the Portuguese Bend Club. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Senior Planner Mihranian asked whether Staff should contact the HOA to see if they are interested in developing an Overlay District. Committee Member Denton stated that the HOA should not dictate what the City feels is best for the overall community. IS-114 August 29, 2005 Page 8 of 13 Councilman Long added that the public hearing process provides the residents an opportunity to share their opinions. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee to forward points of interest relating to the Portuguese Bend Club to Staff. He then asked Staff to bring this item back as soon as possible. Committee Member Slayden raised a concern that contemplating an overlay district for the Bend Club may not prove to be worthwhile. Committee Member Cartwright stated that his motion was not to develop an overlay district but rather to determine whether there should be one. He then stated that if the study finds that an overlay district is warranted the next step would be to develop specific standards. Councilman Long agreed that this item should be placed on a future agenda. He also stated that Committee Member Slayden’s concern may be legitimate but would need to be analyzed to draw that conclusion. He then mentioned when the Committee formalizes its recommendation to the Council the report can state that other neighborhoods were studied to determine whether an overlay district should be considered. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is any objection to having the discussion on the possibility of creating an overlay district for the Portuguese Bend Club at a future meeting. Councilman Long added that the discussion should entail any suggestion Staff may have regarding ways to in which to modify the Code for the Portuguese Bend Club to allow it to function more effectively and what recommendations Staff makes for input on that if any. The motion passed with one objection from Committee Member Slayden. Councilman Wolowicz continued with the discussion on Parking and Driveway Standards and asked if there were any further questions or comments regarding the proposed modifications. He expressed a concern with the use of the term “directly adjacent” in the definition and asked whether the phrasing as presented is consistent with other sections of the Code. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that there is no specific reason why the term “directly adjacent” is used aside from emphasis. He then stated that “directly” could be dropped. Councilman Long moved to adopt the proposed amendments to the Parking and Driveway Standards with the removal of the word “directly” from Sections E.1 and E.2. IS-115 August 29, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Committee Member Denton asked if tandem parking for both garages and driveways should be considered in this discussion. She reminded the Committee that one of the items identified by the Eastview Sub-committee pertained to the appropriateness of tandem parking because the Sub-committee found it to be useless with the intent of the Code because it was not practical. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the matter relating to tandem parking should have been included in the discussion this evening. He mentioned that as written, the Code merely states that a two-car garage shall be maintained, but the Code does not mention that the two parking spaces shall be side-by-side. Therefore, as long as two parking spaces are being provided and the spaces meet the required minimum dimensions it does not matter if the spaces are side-by-side, tandem, or placed in different places on the property. He then added that the Sub-committee found that tandem spaces are not practical and actually results in cars parking on the street, which is direct conflict with the intent to get cars off the street. Committee Member Karp asked Staff how often do projects include tandem parking. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that is quite rare and in most cases the tandem parking is in addition to the required spaces that are provided in the traditional layout of side-by- side. He added that tandem parking is not prohibited but that the trend today is to construct a house with a four to five car garage. Committee Member Denton noted that a tandem garage was recently approved for a project on Trudie. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee whether the Code should address tandem parking spaces. Councilman Long stated that he can see the problem occurring occasionally but not frequently enough to pose a problem warranting a Code amendment. Councilman Wolowicz asked for any additional comments. Councilman Long restated his earlier motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Parking and Driveway Standards with the removal of the word “directly” from Sections E.1 and E.2. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Slayden. Senior Planner Mihranian requested that if the Committee decides to recommend increasing the minimum parking dimensions to 10’x20’ that the recommendation to the Council include amending the commercial parking standards as well. IS-116 August 29, 2005 Page 10 of 13 Committee Member Karp asked if the recommended change to the minimum parking dimensions would apply to institutional zones as well. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the change to the parking dimensions should apply across each zoning district in the City. Councilman Long amended the motion to include commercial and institutional zones to the proposed parking dimension change. Committee Member Slayden seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Long asked about compact spaces and that the Code should allow for them. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Code currently allows for compact parking spaces in commercial and institutional zoning districts. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Sloping Lots and asked for a Staff Report. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that this item is a concern raised by Staff relating to the 8-foot step requirement for sloping lots. He mentioned that as currently written, the Code does not establish a minimum separation between the upper and lower floors with the 8-foot step. He stated that in several cases, Staff has seen applications involving the construction of a house on a sloping lot with a 1-foot separation between the upper and lower floors. He stated that this is a Staff concern because the intent of the 8-foot step between the upper and lower floors is to encourage the structure to step with the natural topography and if projects continue to be designed with little to no separation between floors then the intent is not being achieved. He presented Code language that would require sloping structures, including lots that slope parallel to the street, to maintain an 8-foot step with a minimum separation between the upper and lower floors of at least 10-feet or 25% of the depth of the structure, whichever is greater. He provided the Committee with illustrative examples. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the recommended language as presented. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Cartwright. Councilman Wolowicz asked for comments. Committee Member Dyda stated that it clarifies the intent of the 8-foot step requirement. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda topic on Fences, Walls and Hedges. IS-117 Associate Planner Fox reported on the next topic, which was the minimum driveway area and explained the recommendations made by the Committee. Commissioner Gerstner asked what the intent of this revision was. Chairman Perestam recalled the intent was to help provide parking outside of the garage, but off the street. Commissioner Knight questioned the phrase “adjacent to the garage” and asked staff if they would be lenient enough to allow parking adjacent to the house. Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission would like to maintain the flexibility to allow the Director to look at cases where there may be some unique circumstances and have residents not have to apply for a Variance, then he would suggest taking out the phrase “adjacent to the garage”. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt the Committee’s recommendation (alternative No. 1) as modified by striking the phrase “adjacent to the garage” in each instance it occurs, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7- 0). Associate Planner Fox reported the next topic was driveway landscape buffers, and explained the Committee recommendations. He explained that staff supports the recommendation, but suggested some additional language as seen in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned that there are some houses in the City where there is a very narrow driveway that leads back to a rear garage. He explained that in some of these houses they wouldn’t be able to meet this proposed requirement without possibly doing some type of additional foundation work to the house or applying for a Variance. Associate Planner Fox agreed, and suggested additional language that stated this was in effect provided there is adequate width between the property line and the foundation of any existing primary or accessory structure. Commissioner Knight moved to approve alternative No. 2 as amended by staff, seconded by Chairman Perestam. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox discussed the last topic, tandem parking. He noted that tandem parking is not addressed in the Code and that the Director has made an interpretation that tandem parking spaces could be allowed, but only to provide for excess parking and not to provide the minimum necessary parking requirements for a single family residence. He explained the Committee had recommending allowing tandem parking, but noted that it has been staff’s experience that tandem parking spaces are under utilized because they’re inconvenient to use. Therefore, staff was recommending retaining the previous interpretation by the Director. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 12 IS-118 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET TANDEM PARKING ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Tandem Parking RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Permit enclosed tandem parking spaces for single-family residences DISCUSSION Tandem (i.e., end-to-end) parking spaces are not specifically addressed in the Development Code. However, in 2002 the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement issued an interpretation of the single-family residential parking standards and determined that tandem spaces could not be used “to satisfy the minimum off-street parking requirements for single-family residences.” The RDSSC desired to allow enclosed tandem parking spaces by adding a new subsection to Section 17.02.030(E), to wit: 10. Enclosed tandem parking spaces may be used to satisfy the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, provided that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5) of this section. Staff’s professional experience was that tandem parking spaces are underutilized due to the inconvenience of having to move one vehicle to get to another. As such, Staff recommended only allowing tandem parking for parking spaces provided in excess of the minimum requirement, based upon the living area of the residence, except in the Mira Vista overlay area. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation as proposed 2. Accept the RDSSC recommendation as amended 3. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 4. Proposed modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Section 17.02.030(E)(10) Tandem parking diagrams RDSSC Minutes of August 29, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of May 13, 2008 (excerpt) PC Minutes of September 8, 2009 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 12 of Draft Ordinance IS-119 Proposed Section 17.02.030(E) (Additions underlined, deletions struck out) E. Parking/Driveway Standards. 1. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space, as determined by the director. 2. A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing five thousand square feet or more of habitable space, as determined by the director. 3. A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line, whichever is the street of access. 4. In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on a property, parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards). 5. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth, with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth. 6. The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a residential parcel: a. A driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet; and b. A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which have an average slope of ten percent or more, and which are fifty feet or more in length. 7. Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of- way. 8. A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a minimum 18-inch-wide landscape area between the side property line and the adjacent driveway, unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the driveway to less than ten feet, in which case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director. 98. All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications of the Los Angeles County fire department. If there is any inconsistency between the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los Angeles County fire department, the stricter shall apply. IS-120 10. Enclosed tandem parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, provided that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5) of this section. IS-121 Tandem Parking Diagram: < 5,000 SF Living Area, 2 Spaces Required IS-122 Tandem Parking Diagram: > 5,000 SF Living Area, 3 Spaces Required IS-123 August 29, 2005 Page 5 of 13 Councilman Wolowicz asked if the Committee had any comments regarding the suggested amendments to the Development Code definition of a private street. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff’s recommended changes to the Development Code definition of a private street. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Committee Member Cartwright asked whether setbacks were treated similarly. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that setbacks are measured from the edge of a private street easement. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the definition for a private street, as amended to not be considered a part of a lot when calculating lot coverage, be added to the definition of setbacks for consistence purposes. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the current definition for setbacks, setbacks are currently measured from the edge of the private street easement. Councilman Long stated that as much as possible a private street should be treated similarly to a public street. He added that setbacks should be measured from the street easement line for private streets. Committee Member Dyda reminded the Committee that setbacks are taken from the property line and in some cases the front property line is at the edge of the street or the edge of the sidewalk. He said that each tract is different. Councilman Long moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendments to the definitions relating to private streets and lot coverage. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Parking and Driveway Standards. He asked for a brief staff report. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that this item is before the Committee as a result of concerns raised by the Eastview Sub-Committee regarding the City’s parking standards. He explained that for clarification purposes, Staff is recommending that the requirements clearly state that a two-car garage and two-car driveway shall be maintained for a house less than 5,000 square feet of habitable area and that a three- car garage and a three car driveway shall be maintained for a house that is greater than 5,000 square feet in area. He added that as part of the Sub-committee’s review of the Eastview area, a concern was raised regarding the parking stall dimensions stating that IS-124 August 29, 2005 Page 6 of 13 the Sub-committee felt that based on the size of cars being driven today the dimensions should be increased Citywide. He explained that the minimum width is proposed to be increased from 9-feet to 10-feet and that the depth is proposed to remain at 20-feet. He then explained how the Sub-committee suggested that a landscape area of 18-inches be provided between the side property line and the edge of a driveway. Mr. Mihranian informed the Committee that in regards to the parking stall dimensions, the current 9’ x 20’ requirement applies for both commercial and residential zoned properties. He stated that increasing the minimum width to 10-feet may result in non- conformities and that the Committee should consider in its decision. He also stated that if it is the Committee’s desire to increase the minimum width of a parking stall for residential properties, that in its recommendation to the City Council, that the increased dimension be considered for commercial zoned properties as well. Councilman Long asked what triggers a non-conforming structure from having to conform. He asked about homes destroyed by a natural disaster. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that if 50% of the structure were being demolished than it would have to be brought to conformity. He explained that a home destroyed by a natural disaster is grand-fathered and could be rebuilt as is. Councilman Long stated that the new requirements would only apply to a substantial remodel or a new home. Senior Planner Mihranian agreed. He added that the new homes being built today have garages that are already much larger than the minimum dimensions and that the proposed changes is to reflect the current trend. Committee Member Dyda stated that for the proposed Eastview Overlay District a non- conforming structure would have to be brought to conformity if 75% of the house were being demolished. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that by increasing the parking dimension the result may be more variance applications being processed requesting relief from the minimum parking dimensions. He added that for the contemplated overlay district, the minimum dimensions for a parking stall were set at 9’x20’. Committee Member Denton asked how easy it is to have a variance granted. Councilman Wolowicz mentioned that it was his understanding that variances are not easily granted. Committee Member Dyda commented on the proposed 18-inch landscape requirement between a property line and the edge of the driveway. He stated that the intent is to prevent having two driveways abut one another and to provide more green space within the front yard. IS-125 August 29, 2005 Page 7 of 13 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the 18-inch landscape requirement originated with the Eastview Overlay District and only applies if the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement is triggered. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the Portuguese Bend Club and how that community does not comply with most of the City’s current development standards and that variances are frequently sought after. He questioned what such a change would do to that part of the City and why an overlay district has not been contemplated similarly to Eastview. Councilman Wolowicz questioned whether the Portuguese Bend Club had an overlay district established already. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there is no overlay district for the Bend Club and that there was a time when the City was coordinating with the HOA to develop an overlay district but that was eventually shelved. Councilman Wolowicz asked whether there should be an overlay or at least a study as to whether one should or should not be established. Committee Member Cartwright stated that there should be a study. Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that the HOA chose not to proceed with an overlay district. Committee Member Dyda emphasized that similar to any other neighborhood in the City, the Bend Club should be subject to the City’s development standards unless special standards are adopted for that community. Councilman Long stated that if the rules that apply to the City are so different to the reality on the ground so that anytime there is something done a variance is sought after then the rules are being broken. Committee Member Dyda stated that is the reason why an overlay district was considered for Eastview. Committee Member Cartwright moved that the Committee discuss at an upcoming meeting whether an overlay district should be considered for the Portuguese Bend Club. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Senior Planner Mihranian asked whether Staff should contact the HOA to see if they are interested in developing an Overlay District. Committee Member Denton stated that the HOA should not dictate what the City feels is best for the overall community. IS-126 August 29, 2005 Page 8 of 13 Councilman Long added that the public hearing process provides the residents an opportunity to share their opinions. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee to forward points of interest relating to the Portuguese Bend Club to Staff. He then asked Staff to bring this item back as soon as possible. Committee Member Slayden raised a concern that contemplating an overlay district for the Bend Club may not prove to be worthwhile. Committee Member Cartwright stated that his motion was not to develop an overlay district but rather to determine whether there should be one. He then stated that if the study finds that an overlay district is warranted the next step would be to develop specific standards. Councilman Long agreed that this item should be placed on a future agenda. He also stated that Committee Member Slayden’s concern may be legitimate but would need to be analyzed to draw that conclusion. He then mentioned when the Committee formalizes its recommendation to the Council the report can state that other neighborhoods were studied to determine whether an overlay district should be considered. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is any objection to having the discussion on the possibility of creating an overlay district for the Portuguese Bend Club at a future meeting. Councilman Long added that the discussion should entail any suggestion Staff may have regarding ways to in which to modify the Code for the Portuguese Bend Club to allow it to function more effectively and what recommendations Staff makes for input on that if any. The motion passed with one objection from Committee Member Slayden. Councilman Wolowicz continued with the discussion on Parking and Driveway Standards and asked if there were any further questions or comments regarding the proposed modifications. He expressed a concern with the use of the term “directly adjacent” in the definition and asked whether the phrasing as presented is consistent with other sections of the Code. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that there is no specific reason why the term “directly adjacent” is used aside from emphasis. He then stated that “directly” could be dropped. Councilman Long moved to adopt the proposed amendments to the Parking and Driveway Standards with the removal of the word “directly” from Sections E.1 and E.2. IS-127 August 29, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Committee Member Denton asked if tandem parking for both garages and driveways should be considered in this discussion. She reminded the Committee that one of the items identified by the Eastview Sub-committee pertained to the appropriateness of tandem parking because the Sub-committee found it to be useless with the intent of the Code because it was not practical. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the matter relating to tandem parking should have been included in the discussion this evening. He mentioned that as written, the Code merely states that a two-car garage shall be maintained, but the Code does not mention that the two parking spaces shall be side-by-side. Therefore, as long as two parking spaces are being provided and the spaces meet the required minimum dimensions it does not matter if the spaces are side-by-side, tandem, or placed in different places on the property. He then added that the Sub-committee found that tandem spaces are not practical and actually results in cars parking on the street, which is direct conflict with the intent to get cars off the street. Committee Member Karp asked Staff how often do projects include tandem parking. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that is quite rare and in most cases the tandem parking is in addition to the required spaces that are provided in the traditional layout of side-by- side. He added that tandem parking is not prohibited but that the trend today is to construct a house with a four to five car garage. Committee Member Denton noted that a tandem garage was recently approved for a project on Trudie. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee whether the Code should address tandem parking spaces. Councilman Long stated that he can see the problem occurring occasionally but not frequently enough to pose a problem warranting a Code amendment. Councilman Wolowicz asked for any additional comments. Councilman Long restated his earlier motion to adopt the proposed amendments to the Parking and Driveway Standards with the removal of the word “directly” from Sections E.1 and E.2. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Slayden. Senior Planner Mihranian requested that if the Committee decides to recommend increasing the minimum parking dimensions to 10’x20’ that the recommendation to the Council include amending the commercial parking standards as well. IS-128 August 29, 2005 Page 10 of 13 Committee Member Karp asked if the recommended change to the minimum parking dimensions would apply to institutional zones as well. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the change to the parking dimensions should apply across each zoning district in the City. Councilman Long amended the motion to include commercial and institutional zones to the proposed parking dimension change. Committee Member Slayden seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Long asked about compact spaces and that the Code should allow for them. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Code currently allows for compact parking spaces in commercial and institutional zoning districts. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item on Sloping Lots and asked for a Staff Report. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that this item is a concern raised by Staff relating to the 8-foot step requirement for sloping lots. He mentioned that as currently written, the Code does not establish a minimum separation between the upper and lower floors with the 8-foot step. He stated that in several cases, Staff has seen applications involving the construction of a house on a sloping lot with a 1-foot separation between the upper and lower floors. He stated that this is a Staff concern because the intent of the 8-foot step between the upper and lower floors is to encourage the structure to step with the natural topography and if projects continue to be designed with little to no separation between floors then the intent is not being achieved. He presented Code language that would require sloping structures, including lots that slope parallel to the street, to maintain an 8-foot step with a minimum separation between the upper and lower floors of at least 10-feet or 25% of the depth of the structure, whichever is greater. He provided the Committee with illustrative examples. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the recommended language as presented. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Cartwright. Councilman Wolowicz asked for comments. Committee Member Dyda stated that it clarifies the intent of the 8-foot step requirement. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda topic on Fences, Walls and Hedges. IS-129 Associate Planner Fox reported on the next topic, which was the minimum driveway area and explained the recommendations made by the Committee. Commissioner Gerstner asked what the intent of this revision was. Chairman Perestam recalled the intent was to help provide parking outside of the garage, but off the street. Commissioner Knight questioned the phrase “adjacent to the garage” and asked staff if they would be lenient enough to allow parking adjacent to the house. Director Rojas stated that if the Planning Commission would like to maintain the flexibility to allow the Director to look at cases where there may be some unique circumstances and have residents not have to apply for a Variance, then he would suggest taking out the phrase “adjacent to the garage”. Commissioner Gerstner moved to adopt the Committee’s recommendation (alternative No. 1) as modified by striking the phrase “adjacent to the garage” in each instance it occurs, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7- 0). Associate Planner Fox reported the next topic was driveway landscape buffers, and explained the Committee recommendations. He explained that staff supports the recommendation, but suggested some additional language as seen in the staff report. Commissioner Knight was concerned that there are some houses in the City where there is a very narrow driveway that leads back to a rear garage. He explained that in some of these houses they wouldn’t be able to meet this proposed requirement without possibly doing some type of additional foundation work to the house or applying for a Variance. Associate Planner Fox agreed, and suggested additional language that stated this was in effect provided there is adequate width between the property line and the foundation of any existing primary or accessory structure. Commissioner Knight moved to approve alternative No. 2 as amended by staff, seconded by Chairman Perestam. Approved, (7-0). Associate Planner Fox discussed the last topic, tandem parking. He noted that tandem parking is not addressed in the Code and that the Director has made an interpretation that tandem parking spaces could be allowed, but only to provide for excess parking and not to provide the minimum necessary parking requirements for a single family residence. He explained the Committee had recommending allowing tandem parking, but noted that it has been staff’s experience that tandem parking spaces are under utilized because they’re inconvenient to use. Therefore, staff was recommending retaining the previous interpretation by the Director. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 12 IS-130 Commissioner Knight agreed with staff’s recommendation. Chairman Perestam asked if this condition will be different in the proposed overlay district, noting that the original intent started with the need for some flexibility and relief for the smaller homes on the smaller lots. Associate Planner Fox stated that the distinction is not in the current language, but agreed that if there is any place in the City where tandem parking would be appropriate, it would be in that area. Chairman Perestam suggested looking at the approved language for the overlay district. Associate Planner Fox stated he could review the minutes and staff reports to see what the intent was, and report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the discussion regarding tandem parking to the next Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Green Building Program Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the request to amend Titles 15 and 17 of the Municipal Code to encourage green building construction. She discussed the proposed volunteer residential green building program, the incentives to participate in this type of program, and proposed city wide green building requirements. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed voluntary green building program and proposed green related code amendments, provide staff with feedback, and continue the public hearing to June 10, 2008. Vice Chairman Lewis noted that impervious walkways and patios less than 500 square feet in area would be excluded from lot coverage calculations, and asked if that includes decks less than 500 square feet in area. Director Rojas explained that currently decks less than 30 inches in height are excluded from lot coverage calculations and no change is proposed. Commissioner Knight referred to the discussion on roof mounted photovoltaic panels and asked if that also included domestic hot water panels. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the current code amendment only includes photovoltaic panels, however the hot water solar panels could be included in this type of code amendment. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2008 Page 13 IS-131 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Residential Development Standards code amendment and zone change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the remaining issues to discuss are tandem parking spaces in garages and considering allowing tandem parking in the Mira Vista Overlay District. He explained that the Committee had recommended permitting tandem parking spaces, however staff recommended permitting tandem parking spaces only for enclosed off-street parking spaces in excess of the minimum code requirements. He also explained that in regards to the Mira Vista Overlay District, staff agrees that the unique circumstances of the Mira Vista area makes it the one area of the City where tandem parking should be allowed to satisfy the minimum off-street parking requirements, thereby allowing property owners to provide additional off-street parking without having to demolish a significant portion of their existing residences. Staff is also suggesting allowing the construction of new detached garages to encroach into the 15-foot rear setback as another means to increase off- street parking in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the City currently specifically prohibits tandem parking for non-required spaces. Associate Planner Fox answered that the City does not currently prohibit tandem parking. However, he noted that there was an interpretation procedure in 2002 where the Director made an interpretation that tandem parking was only allowed for surplus parking spaces. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt staff’s revised recommendation regarding tandem parking, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. The motion was approved without objection. Commissioner Knight referred to page 12 of the staff report, item No. 8, which discusses driveways adjacent to the property line and the need for a minimum 18 inch landscape area between the property line and adjacent driveway. He discussed properties in the city where it would not be possible to conform to this code and asked staff how those would be handled. Associate Planner Fox explained that in those cases they could be considered legal non-conforming, or if they want to do improvements they could apply for a Variance or a Minor Exception Permit. Associate Planner Fox continued to the recommendations from the Committee in terms of fences, walls, and hedges. He explained the three recommendations made by the Committee as outlined in the staff report. He explained that staff is recommending modifying a committee recommendation to allow for 6-foot tall fences, walls, and hedges at the street side property line of corner lots rather than at the setback line. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 10 IS-132 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET STREET-SIDE WALL & FENCE HEIGHT ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Street-Side Wall & Fence Height RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Limit the height of fences, walls and hedges between the street-side property line and setback line to forty-two inches (42”) and allow 6-foot-tall fences, walls and hedges outside of the street-side setback area. DISCUSSION For corner lots, the current Code requires that a fence, wall or hedge not exceed forty-two inches (42”) in height between the street-side property line and the closest building facade. The Committee believed that this standard causes a hardship to corner lots because it limits the private use and enjoyment of rear yards. As such, the Committee consensus was to allow a 6-foot-tall fence/wall/hedge at the street-side setback line, which is typically ten feet (10’-0”) from the property line. Some Committee members were concerned that the recommended language would allow a 6-foot-tall fence/wall/ hedge to be built closer to the street than is currently permitted. This is true. However, Staff agreed that the current Code penalizes corner lots and creates many nonconforming conditions throughout the City. In comments made on August 1, 2006, then-Councilman Gardiner appeared to share this concern. In fact, Staff recommended modifying the Committee’s recommendation to allow 6-foot-tall fences/walls/hedges at the street-side property line, rather than at the setback line. Staff believed that this would be most equitable to corner lots and would reduce the number of nonconformities created when the current Code language was adopted in 1997. Staff recommended modifying the Committee’s proposed language as follows (RDSSC recommendation underlined, Staff suggestion bold and underlined): a. Fences, walls and hedges located between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line or between the street side property line and the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line shall meet the following standards: In addition, the current Code language of Section 17.76.030(D)(1)(a) that allows 6-foot-tall fences in front and IS-133 street-side yard areas with a minor exception permit would need to be revised as follows (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than forty-two inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street-side setback areas; provided, the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan approved by the director of planning; ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Accept Staff’s recommendation 3. Reject either/both recommendations 4. Propose modifications to either/both recommendations P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS Proposed Section 17.76.030(C) Comparative Diagram of RDSSC and Staff Recommendations RDSSC Minutes of September 26, 2005 (excerpt) CC Minutes of August 1, 2006 (excerpt) PC Minutes of September 8, 2009 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 13 of Draft Ordinance IS-134 Street 20’ 5’ Location of Maximum 6’-Tall Fence/Wall/Hedge under RDSSC Recommendation Location of Maximum 6’-Tall Fence/Wall/Hedge under Current Code 15’ Existing Building Setback (example) 10’ Minimum Street-Side Structure Setback Location of Maximum 6’-Tall Fence/Wall/Hedge under Staff’s and Councilman Gardiner’s Recommendation Street IS-135 September 26, 2005 Page 6 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian reiterated that this issue is not a problem that is seen at the Planning Department. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a second to the amendment to the motion. Hearing to no second, he asked for a vote on the original motion made by Committee Member Slayden and seconded by Committee Member Karp. The motion passed with Commissioner Gerstner objecting. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if the amendment to the earlier motion made by Commissioner Mueller warranted further discussion as a separate agenda topic. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that was not necessary because the Code already requires setbacks be measured from the edge of the easement line. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there were any other comments regarding the amendment to the motion. He then introduced the next agenda topic of Fences, Walls and Hedges and asked for a Staff presentation. Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the next agenda topic by providing the Committee with background information. He stated that at the last Committee Meeting, Staff raised a concern regarding the current Code requirement for fences, walls and hedges located on corner lots. He mentioned that although Staff raised a concern, Staff stopped short from identifying a suggested change. Therefore, the Committee directed Staff to bring back a recommendation for consideration this evening. Furthermore, the Committee asked Staff to bring back a definition of what a hedge is and is not, as well as provide illustrative examples for each of the requirements. Based on Committee directive, he presented the respective information using a power point presentation. Mr. Mihranian stated that the Code’s setback requirements do not apply for fences, walls and hedges as they have their own requirements. He stated that fences, walls or hedges cannot exceed 42-inches in height from the front property line up to the closest building façade to the front property line, and this requirement is similar to corner lots. Committee Member Dyda asked what if the back yard of one’s property abuts the front area of another property how tall can a fence be? Senior Planner Mihranian stated that in this scenario the fence along the rear property line can be up to 6-feet in height provided it is on that property. He added that as long as there is no grade differential between the two properties, otherwise a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit may be required to assess whether a potential view impairment would be caused by a 6-foot high fence. Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern with the line that establishes where a 42-inch high fence, wall or hedge can go up to 6-feet in height within the front yard area, stating IS-136 September 26, 2005 Page 7 of 12 that it should be based on the front yard setback limit because that is where a structure can be built up to 16-feet in height. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the height requirement for fences is based on aesthetics and that it is the City Council’s policy decision whether they want to allow taller fences closer to the street property line. Commissioner Gerstner reiterated his concern stating that it did not make sense since a house at 16-feet can built up to the front yard setback limit which is 20-feet. Councilman Wolowicz expressed his concern with fences and hedges, citing examples in his neighborhood, specifically on Lomo Drive. He stated that the hedges he sees in his neighborhood exceed the Code’s height limit. Commissioner Mueller asked what the height limit is for a hedge located within the front yard area. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the area between the front property line and the closest building facade to the street property line, a hedge cannot exceed 42-inches in height. Committee Member Karp referred to hedges and fences that are taller than 42-inches in height located within the front yard area, specifically a 5-foot tall redwood fence. Committee Member Denton agreed referring to the same redwood fence as Committee Member Karp. Senior Planner Mihranian continued with Staff’s presentation by reminding the Committee of Staff’s concern regarding corner lots, stating that as written, the Code prohibits a fence, wall or hedge to be taller than 42-inches in height unless it is beyond the building facade line and this limits the useable portion of the rear yard. He stated that Staff is recommending that the Code requirement be amended for corner lots so that fences, walls and hedges are limited to 42-inches in height between the street side property line and the street side setback, which in many cases is 10-feet in from the street side property line. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if a 6-foot high fence that is in need of repair be replaced in its same location if it is non-conforming. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that a legal non-conforming fence can be repaired within the same location. Committee Member Dyda asked if the fence can be repaired from wood material to concrete block material. IS-137 September 26, 2005 Page 8 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Code allows legal non-conforming fences/walls to be repaired with a similar type of structure, such as fence for fence or wall for wall. He defined a wall as a solid structure constructed from either wood or concrete, and a fence allows light and air to pass through it. A fence can be replaced with a fence and a wall can be replaced with a wall. He added that if one voluntarily demolishes a legal non-conforming wall as part of a modernization project, then the property owner will be asked to construct the new wall based on current Code requirements. Councilman Wolowicz asked if a variance would be supported by Staff to allow such a fence or wall to be replaced in its existing location if it were voluntarily torn down. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that in most cases Staff would recommend denial for such a Variance. Commissioner Mueller stated that the Planning Commission has reviewed such variance requests and the decision by the Planning Commission varies on a case-by- case basis. Councilman Wolowicz asked if it would make sense to add language that spells out when a fence or wall can be torn down and replaced in its pre-existing location. Committee Member Denton stated that aside from repairing damaged fences and walls, what other situation would the City allow a non-conforming fence or wall to be rebuilt without having to be brought to conformity. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that a legal non-conforming fence or wall can be repaired because it is grand-fathered. However, if a fence or wall is voluntarily upgraded it will have to meet the new Code requirements. He added that new language is not necessary because it already exists. Committee Member Dyda asked Staff when the 80% light and air requirement is applied. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that within the required front yard area a fence beyond 42-inches in height up to a maximum 6-feet in height may be permitted with a Minor Exception Permit, provided it is 80% open to light and air. Committee Member Karp asked why hedges within the front yard area are allowed to grow taller than 42-inches in height. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that such hedges are not allowed to exceed 42- inches in height. If a hedge exceeds 42-inches within the front yard area then the property owner is in violation of the Development Code and it becomes an enforcement matter. Committee Member Karp raised a concern regarding enforcement. IS-138 September 26, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt Staff’s recommendation to amend the fence, wall and hedge requirement for corner lots to read as follows: “Fences, walls and hedges located between the from property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line or between the street side property line and the street side setback requirement, as defined in Section 17.02, shall meet the following standards…” Committee Member Slayden seconded the motion. Commissioner Mueller stated that this change allows a fence, wall or hedge to be built closer to the street. The motion passed with Commissioner Mueller objecting. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to continue with its next recommended amendment. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that based on an error identified by the Committee at the last meeting, the Code section prohibiting chain link, chicken wire, and fiber glass fences along property lines abutting major arterial roads, Staff is recommending adding Palos Verdes Drive West to the list which was inadvertently left out. Committee Member Karp raised a concern with fencing that is prohibited on private property but is allowed on City owned property. Committee Member Dyda stated that the criteria difference is based on aesthetic value and costs. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendment to Section 17.76.030(E)(5) by adding Palos Verdes Drive West to the list. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. Commissioner Gerstner informed the Committee that chicken wire is now referred to as poultry netting. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that fences placed on City owned property is a Public Works matter. He added that this Committee should not review such fence requirements as it is beyond the Committee’s scope of work that is to review residential development standards. He suggested that the Committee recommend to the City Council that they review the fence criteria on City owned property as a separate matter. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Council to review the type of fencing permitted on City owned properties. IS-139 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 9 of 16 which has essentially prevented this issue from being placed on the November ballot; and noted that the Sheriff’s Department is therefore requesting this item be tabled. Councilman Clark moved to table this item. Councilman Stern asked if the approximate $500,000 given to the community under this proposal can wisely be earmarked, noting there is limited gang activity in this area. Sheriff Captain Jay Zuanich agreed that there is no gang problem in Rancho Palos Verdes, but stated that there has to be a nexus between the use of that money and gang activity; he stated that the money could be used for gang-related education; noted that it can be used to stop gang graffiti which is taking place on the peninsula from gangs living elsewhere; and mentioned that the Sheriffs do make arrests of gang members who are visiting and commit crimes in this area. Councilman Stern expressed his concern with the limitations on the package for spending the $500,000, believing there is potential to not spend the money wisely; and questioned if there is a way to broaden the breadth of those limitations for this community. Captain Zuanich stated that he will advise his superiors of that concern. Councilman Clark asked if any more consideration has been given to establishing a Sheriff’s substation in Rancho Palos Verdes. Captain Zuanich stated that there has been no clearly defined discussion of that proposal. Councilman Stern seconded the motion to table this item. Without objection, Mayor Wolowicz so ordered. Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Residential Development Standards (Title 17 of the RPVMC) (1801 x 1203) Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report and the recommendation to 1) Congratulate and thank the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee; 2) Refer the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Report to the Planning Commission for review; and, 3) Direct staff and the Planning Commission to reexamine the issues raised by Council regarding the Steering Committee’s recommendations. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Wolowicz thanked and commended Senior Planner Mihranian for his impressive efforts in this process. IS-140 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 10 of 16 Councilman Gardiner stated that it is not clear to him how many properties will be affected by the change in setbacks, the scale being impacted, or the practical implication of an increase in setback and when it would matter. City Attorney Lynch noted for Councilman Gardiner that if a permitted structure already has encroached into a required setback, it would be considered a legal, nonconforming structure. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that if at some point a property owner proposes an addition/remodel to a structure that exceeds 50 percent of the original building, for example, the Code requires that any nonconformity be brought to conformity with the current Code, except in terms of nonconforming setbacks. Councilman Gardiner questioned if limiting someone’s ability to use their property through development standards would be considered a taking. City Attorney Lynch explained that a property owner could allege a taking, but noted that court cases say that if someone has a substantial use of their property, the fact that they might not necessarily be able to completely develop another portion of it would not be a taking; in other words, if they have a house, they are considered to have full use of their lot and property, and would not be asked to dedicate their lot for some other purpose. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Wolowicz recessed the meeting at 9:02 PM and reconvened the meeting at 9:11 PM. Councilman Gardiner stated that page 17 of the staff report indicates if one owns a corner lot, they are allowed to have a 6-foot fence along the street side property line, but that the proposed code would require the wall on that corner lot to be reduced to 42 inches in height; and he stated that he is not in support of that requirement because of privacy issues. He expressed his belief that Council should send this item to the Planning Commission for further refinement. Mayor pro tem Long mentioned that the concept of square footage limitations tied to lot size has been a tool increasingly employed by a number of cities to deal with mansionization; he expressed his belief that the Committee rejected this issue too quickly without further study or direction to staff to further study the possibility of implementing such a limitation here; and stated that this is something that needs multiple tools to better control increased density. He noted his desire to see the Planning Commission study the concept of square footage limitations based on lot size, on buildable area of a lot, or some formula that makes sense; to study it in a more rigorous way than this Committee was able to do; and to provide Council with an independent recommendation on that issue as well as look at what other cities have done in this regard, why they’ve done it, and what the advantages/disadvantages are. IS-141 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 11 of 16 He asked that staff distribute to Council the full minutes and full report related to the square footage limitation issue from the deliberations of the Committee, so that each Council Member can make a decision; and if enough Council members agree, that Council could ask the Planning Commission to look at this issue. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that staff will summarize that discussion and give the background information to the Planning Commission. Councilman Clark noted, echoed by Councilman Stern, his support to send the Committee’s report to the Planning Commission for refinement, noting that the Commission should take the appropriate amount of time to study the proposals. Mayor pro tem Long stated it is incumbent upon Council to guide the Planning Commission on which items need further study, believing that it would over burden the Planning Commission if the majority of the Council does not have an issue with all 18 topics covered in the report. Councilman Clark stated the Planning Commission should review the recommendations in a comprehensive manner, noting that he does not want to provide direction that may cloud the Planning Commission’s objective input. Councilman Gardiner suggested that this matter be continued to the next City Council meeting to allow each Council Member an opportunity to take a look at the list and digest the information, and to then provide staff a list of issues each member feels needs further attention. He stated that the Planning Commission should be given some direction rather than an ambiguous charge. Karl Price, Rancho Palos Verdes, requested and received from staff further definition on the new single-family residence 50-percent expansion rule. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that the proposed criteria is taken from the criteria that is current applied to the entire City; noting that if a property owner was to tear down an existing structure, calculating 50 percent or more of the combined linear square footage of all exterior and interior walls, it would be considered a new residence and would have to comply with the new standards. Mr. Price stated that the proposal for the Miravista Neighborhood is confusing and noted his concern with how this may negatively impact on-street parking, noting that parking is limited in his particular neighborhood; and noted his support to enhance properties, but stated this deserves further analysis from different angles. Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, commended Senior Planner Mihranian’s dedication and professionalism during the Committee’s effort. He stated that if one looks at the existing code in terms of the percentage of the lot one is allowed to build on, the percentage is always less than the property remaining after subtracting the side, front and rear setbacks. He stated that the problem of creating an issue for a property owner IS-142 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 12 of 16 with rear or side setback is about location, not of size; and explained that the intent of the Committee was to take a look at those things they thought would need to be revisited from the original code without creating an undue hardship for the residents. He stated that the overall square footage is a problem, but they’ve got a percentage of lot coverage one is allowed; noting that the problem only would occur if one uses that percentage on a 2-acre parcel, for example; that if a property owner used that same percentage and complied with the current setbacks, they can build a huge structure on such a lot; and that to some extent, Mayor pro tem Long’s concern needs to be looked at for the larger properties. He stated the chart included in the staff report identified all the issues. Mayor pro tem Long pointed out that Mr. Dyda and Lois Karp dutifully attended all the meetings and put in an enormous amount of time on this effort; and he expressed his gratitude to everyone who participated in this effort. Councilman Stern stated that this should go to the Planning Commission without a lot of direction; and noted his desire to minimize unintended consequences/ results of these potential changes. Mayor Wolowicz noted his support to send this to the Planning Commission with a belief that all items need to be addressed at once because each item impacts related issues. Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Stern, to congratulate the Committee on its tremendous work effort the past couple years; to send this to the Planning Commission for its comprehensive summary review and ultimate input back to City Council in the areas where recommendations are being requested, as well as comments on other areas that did not have recommended changes to the Development Code; request that staff and the Planning Commission look at the issue of size limitation on residential structures on residential lots, taking into account prior lessons learned; and to research how other communities have successfully tackled this issue. Councilman Gardiner stated that he would be opposed to the motion because it has only incorporated one Council Member’s comments and reservations in the instructions for the Planning Commission and had not included his concerns. Councilman Clark stated that was not his intent and amended his motion to also have the specific comments made by any of the City Council this evening included in the report to the Planning Commission by the Director of Planning and the lead staff member as they embark upon this review. Councilman Gardiner highlighted the following issues included in the staff report that he would like the Planning Commission to address: page 16, not to recommend excluding driveways for a flagged lot; page 17, Fences, Walls, Hedges, provide more detail on why corner lots should not be permitted 6-foot fences instead of the proposed 42 inches, noting his support for 6-foot fences; page 19, the need for clarification on the IS-143 City Council Minutes August 1, 2006 Page 13 of 16 first item; and page 19, define “respect adjacent properties” and how to measure and enforce it. Mayor pro tem Long volunteered to review the summary and assist in polishing its presentation. Without objection to the motion, Mayor Wolowicz so ordered. Councilman Clark departed the meeting at 10:07 P.M. Moisture Remediation at Hesse Park (1201 x 1101) The staff report of August 1, 2006 recommended City Council 1) Authorize staff to conduct an informal bid process to complete the proposed Interior Moisture Remediation Work Plan at Hesse Park for a total cost not to exceed $9,000; 2) Authorize staff to conduct a formal bid process to complete the proposed Exterior Moisture Remediation Work Plan at Hesse Park for a total cost not to exceed $50,000; and 3) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE BUILDING REPLACEMENT FUND. Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor pro tem Long, to waive staff report and to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Gardiner, Long, Stern and Mayor Wolowicz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Clark City Manager Recruitment (1101) The staff report of August 1, 2006 recommended City Council: 1) Select Avery and Associates to conduct the recruitment for a new City Manager; 2) Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare an appropriate professional services contract; and 3) Direct staff to bring the contract back for Council approval. Mayor Wolowicz advised the public that the City Council interviewed three executive search firms for the recruitment of a new City Manager; noted that Council did not take a vote following those interviews; and mentioned that the proposed fees of each firm were in a similar range. Councilman Stern mentioned that all three firms were very qualified. Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Petru distributed the ballots. IS-144 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Residential Development Standards code amendment and zone change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the remaining issues to discuss are tandem parking spaces in garages and considering allowing tandem parking in the Mira Vista Overlay District. He explained that the Committee had recommended permitting tandem parking spaces, however staff recommended permitting tandem parking spaces only for enclosed off-street parking spaces in excess of the minimum code requirements. He also explained that in regards to the Mira Vista Overlay District, staff agrees that the unique circumstances of the Mira Vista area makes it the one area of the City where tandem parking should be allowed to satisfy the minimum off-street parking requirements, thereby allowing property owners to provide additional off-street parking without having to demolish a significant portion of their existing residences. Staff is also suggesting allowing the construction of new detached garages to encroach into the 15-foot rear setback as another means to increase off- street parking in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked if the City currently specifically prohibits tandem parking for non-required spaces. Associate Planner Fox answered that the City does not currently prohibit tandem parking. However, he noted that there was an interpretation procedure in 2002 where the Director made an interpretation that tandem parking was only allowed for surplus parking spaces. Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt staff’s revised recommendation regarding tandem parking, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. The motion was approved without objection. Commissioner Knight referred to page 12 of the staff report, item No. 8, which discusses driveways adjacent to the property line and the need for a minimum 18 inch landscape area between the property line and adjacent driveway. He discussed properties in the city where it would not be possible to conform to this code and asked staff how those would be handled. Associate Planner Fox explained that in those cases they could be considered legal non-conforming, or if they want to do improvements they could apply for a Variance or a Minor Exception Permit. Associate Planner Fox continued to the recommendations from the Committee in terms of fences, walls, and hedges. He explained the three recommendations made by the Committee as outlined in the staff report. He explained that staff is recommending modifying a committee recommendation to allow for 6-foot tall fences, walls, and hedges at the street side property line of corner lots rather than at the setback line. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 10 IS-145 Staff felt this would be most equitable to corner lots and reduce the number of nonconformities that were created when the code language was last amended in 1997. Vice Chairman Gerstner supported staff’s recommendation to allow the fence, wall, or hedge at the property line, as he felt that recommendation is more consistent with what is already happening in the City. He did not feel this would create any compromise to the street and would allow residents on corner lots much more flexibility. Commissioner Perestam stated that the City has been enforcing the reduction of walls along the property line for quite some time, and to now allow a 6-foot wall out to the street seems to be in conflict with what the City is currently trying to enforce. He felt it was more appropriate to allow corner lots a 6-foot wall at the setback line rather than the street line. Commissioner Knight acknowledged that corner lots are at a disadvantage, but was not sure he agreed with the 6-foot allowance at the property line. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation regarding the 6- foot fence, wall or hedge on the corner lot at the property line, rather than the committee’s recommendation to allow the 6-foot fence, wall, or hedge to the setback line, seconded by Chairman Lewis. The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Knight and Perestam dissenting. Associate Planner Fox continued with the next issue regarding hedges. He explained that the committee’s recommendation was to discontinue the use of the “barrier” test as part of the definition of what constitutes a hedge. He stated that staff disagrees with the recommendation, explaining that the definition of a hedge is that it is foliage that creates a physical barrier and the determination of whether a hedge is a barrier is important because if it is a barrier the historical premise of the Development Code is to treat a hedge the same way fences and walls are treated. He also noted that redefining hedges to allow the consideration of view impact below the 16 foot level would be contrary to Proposition M. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission reject the committee’s recommendation and continue to use the “barrier” test to define a hedge. Director Rojas added that there are instances where a wall of shrubs has been planted that impairs a view or is too high. The foliage owner will go in and trim between each plant so that a person can walk between each tree, but there is a wall of shrubs still blocking a neighbor’s view. He explained that if one had individual trees that were planted in that way that formed a canopy that are connected, anything over 16 feet in height would be regulated by Prop M. He explained that this is one reason for staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Perestam recalled that the committee was advocating a visual barrier test rather than a physical barrier test. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 11 IS-146 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET DEFINITION OF “HEDGE” ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Definition of “Hedge” RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Discontinue the use of the so-called “barrier test” as a part of the definition of what constitutes a hedge. DISCUSSION Current Code language defines a hedge as “shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier.” Based upon past challenges to the definition of a hedge, the Planning Commission considered initiating a Code Amendment to refine this definition. Staff presented this matter to the Planning Commission in May 2004. At that time, Staff noted that it was Staff’s practice to use a “barrier test”— consisting of determining if a person could easily walk between the planted shrubbery or trees—to decide if such a planting of shrubbery or trees constituted a “hedge.” The Planning Commission neither initiated a Code Amendment nor directed Staff to discontinue the use the “barrier test” procedure. However, the RDSSC wished to codify that Staff’s “barrier test” was not to be used to determine whether or not a planting of shrubbery or trees was a hedge. Staff respectfully disagreed with the Committee’s recom- mendation. The critical aspect of the definition of a “hedge” is that it creates a physical barrier. The determination of whether or not a hedge is a barrier is important because if it is a barrier, the historical premise of the Development Code is to treat the hedge the same as a fence or wall. In other words, if a hedge is a barrier, it is regulated based upon that fact, which should be no different than the standard applied to other barriers such as fences or walls. As such, Staff believed that the creation of a physical barrier should continue to be the basis for determining if foliage constitutes a hedge. It may be unfortunate that property owners “take advantage” of this situation to avoid a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit by keeping foliage open enough at ground level to allow passage and not create a physical barrier, but dense enough at higher elevations to affect views. However, Proposition ‘M’ prevents the City from regulating foliage below the 16-foot height limit with respect to view impacts, so redefining hedges to allow consideration of view impacts below the 16-foot level would be contrary to Proposition ‘M’. Therefore, Staff recommended rejecting the RDSSC recommendation. IS-147 ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 2 ATTACHMENTS Definitions of a “hedge” from the Development Code and Dictionary.com Diagrams of Foliage that is not a Hedge RDSSC Minutes of September 26, 2005 (excerpt) RDSSC Minutes of November 14, 2005 (excerpt) RDSSC Minutes of December 12, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of September 8, 2009 REFERFENCES None. IS-148 17.96.900 Hedge. “Hedge” means shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier. Dictionary.com (accessed 5/23/08) A row of bushes or small trees planted close together, esp. when forming a fence or boundary; hedgerow: small fields separated by hedges. IS-149 16 ’ Le v e l Sa m p l e “ N o t a H e d g e ” D i a g r a m s 16 ’ Le v e l NO T T O S C A L E IS-150 September 26, 2005 Page 11 of 12 Committee Member Dyda added that beyond the building facade a solid fence or hedge can go up to 6-feet in height. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that in this case it can go up to 16-feet in height and then View Ordinance is triggered. Commissioner Mueller asked what the difference between a hedge and a row of trees. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that if you can easily walk between the planted shrubs or trees then it is not considered a hedge. Commissioner Mueller raised a concern regarding the canopy of trees that cause a view impairment but are not considered a hedge. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that if the canopy of a tree is causing a view impairment and it exceeds 16-feet or the roof ridgeline, then the View Ordinance is triggered. Committee Member Slayden asked if Staff is recommending an amendment. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that Staff is not recommending an amendment to the Code and that the Committee at its last meeting directed Staff to bring back the City’s definition of a hedge and its practice for testing what is a hedge. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if there is a prevailing concern worth amending the Code and what the concerns may be regarding enforcement. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this topic nearly two years ago because of some loophole concerns, but after presenting all the information to the Commission, as included in tonight’s agenda packet, the Committee determined that the City’s definition and practice for testing a hedge is satisfactory. Committee Member Lyon mentioned that the Committee should not propose to change the definition of a hedge because it is adequately defined and the City’s practice to test what a hedge is equally adequate. He stated that dealing with the growth of a hedge is an enforcement matter. Committee Member Dyda reiterated that if located within the front yard or street side area then a fence, wall or hedge is limited to 42-inches in height. Beyond that, the view ordinance governs when a view impairment exists above 16-feet in height or the roof ridgeline. His concern is between 42-inches in height and the 6-foot height limit. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Code regulates a hedge that is above 42- inches in height within the front yard area, stating that a Minor Exception Permit is required so that the hedge is 80% open to light and air. He added that beyond the IS-151 September 26, 2005 Page 12 of 12 building facade, a solid wall can be constructed at 6-feet in height by right without having to be 80% open to light and air. Councilman Wolowicz stated that in light of Staff’s clarification that there is no need to amend the Code and no action is necessary. He asked for Committee comments. There were no Committee comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Beverly Rhodes described the trees located on her neighbor’s property that exceed 16- feet in height and exceed the highest roof ridgeline. Committee Member Dyda noted that it is a View Ordinance matter. Senior Planner Mihranian asked if there is a view impairment. Mrs. Rhodes stated that there is no view. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the View Ordinance is designed to address view impacts. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Wolowicz indicated that the agenda topic on the Portuguese Bend Club Overlay District be continued to the next meeting. Committee Member Slayden moved to adjourn the meeting. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. IS-152 November 14, 2005 Page 9 of 13 Committee wrap-up meeting would be held at the end of February. He stated that the Committee’s final recommendation will likely be presented to the Council at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in early Spring 2006. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to proceed with the tentative timeline and then asked Staff to present the next agenda item. Senior Planner Mihranian referred to the next agenda item on the hedge illustration submitted by Committee Member Cartwright. He briefly explained the Code definition of a hedge and the City’s practice for determining a hedge. Referring to the illustration, he stated that Staff researched the address file and learned that the wall was approved in the mid 1980’s. As for the vegetation, he stated that because the crown was approximately 4-feet in height, it would be considered a hedge because the average person could not easily walk through it. Committee Member Cartwright stated that the home across the street has a pool within the front yard with a 42-inch high wall and a wrought fence on top of the wall for a combined height of 6-feet. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that such a combined wall and fence is permitted if the findings for a Minor Exception Permit could be made. He then explained the criteria for making the findings. Committee Member Dyda asked if a Minor Exception Permit to exceed 42-inches in height for fences applies to foliage along a fence. Senior Planner Mihranian responded no. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is something as a result of this situation that warranted a code amendment. Senior Planner Mihranian did not think so because the current Code would not allow the situation in the illustration to occur. He stated that this situation would likely be an enforcement matter. Councilman Wolowicz then asked about enforcement because hedges continue to grow, noting that when the vegetation was first planted it was likely in compliance but eventually grew to be in violation. He asked, absent from complaints filled by neighbors, how does the City address enforcement matters. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that because of personnel limitations enforcement is not proactive but rather reactive. He added that the City does not have Staff to inspect violations and therefore relies on neighbor complaints. Commissioner Mueller raised a concern with the definition of a hedge stating that with a little trimming this illustration can go from a hedge to not a hedge. IS-153 November 14, 2005 Page 10 of 13 Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with the practice of using an average person being able to walk through a row of vegetation as the determination of what is a hedge. Commissioner Gerstner questioned whether the ultimate goal to limiting the height of vegetation within the front yard is to see the front of a house. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the reason why fences, walls and hedges within the front yard area are limited to 42-inches is to provide an open feel between the street and the front facade and to increase the visibility of a home, noting that aesthetics weighs heavily on this requirement. Commissioner Gerstner mentioned that the reason is not stated clearly in the Code. Councilman Wolowicz noted that is why he advocates purpose statements within the Code so that a reader can understand the intent of the requirement. Committee Member Dyda stated that the issue is if the plantings creates a visual barrier then it should be considered a hedge regardless of height. It should have nothing to do with whether you can walk through it or not. He added that hedges are growing walls and that the definition should account for that. He suggested that the definition be modified to read “if the foliage from the plantings creates a contiguous visual barrier then such plantings are considered a hedge.” Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if the definition of what a hedge is should include a statement of intent. Committee Member Cartwright reiterated his concern that the definition needs to be modified. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the City is very critical of what the front of a house looks like but then does not want landscaping that may obstruct the structure’s facade. In other words, the City wants to see landscaping providing it does not exceed the height of one’s knee nor can it exceed the top of one’s head because it blocks part of the house. Committee Member Dyda stated that his concern is when you have a row of planting that creates a visual barrier it is a hedge. He stated that you could still have a tree within the front yard. Commissioner Gerstner provided an example of trees planted throughout the yard that obstructs portions of the building facade. Commissioner Perestam asked for clarification on the use of the words “visual” and “physical” barriers when referring to hedges. IS-154 November 14, 2005 Page 11 of 13 Committee Member Lyon suggested adding the words “physical or visual” to the hedge definition of Code. Senior Planner Mihranian asked how would one define a “visual” barrier. Committee Member Dyda suggested using the fence criteria of 80% open to light and air. He stated that the criteria is to avoid a contiguous barrier, that way you can still have a tree within the front yard. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a motion. Committee Member Dyda moved to amend the definition of a hedge to include the words “contiguous visual barrier.” Committee Member Cartwright second the motion. Commissioner Perestam asked what problems are we solving or preventing by amending the definition. Committee Member Cartwright responded view impairment. Councilman Wolowicz stated that the discussion of view impairment is reserved for a different content of the Code. He then asked if the word “visual” is used in the definition would that lead to a different application process. Commissioner Gerstner expressed a concern that many homes throughout the City have trees within the front and side that obstructs the structure which in essence would not be permitted if the Code definition of a hedge were modified because such trees create a visual barrier. He cited examples of neighborhoods throughout the City that have mature vegetation that are essential to the character of the neighborhood. Committee Member Dyda asked what the difference was between planting a vegetation that can grow up to 16-feet tall and create a visual barrier, to a 16-foot tall solid wall. Senior Planner Mihranian reminded the Committee that the Code limits fences, walls and hedges to 42-inches from the street property line to the closest building facade. He added vegetation that grows above 16-feet in height is subject to the view ordinance. Councilman Wolowicz suggested that in light of the discussion that Staff bring back additional information on questions asked this evening. He requested that Committee Members contact Staff with additional comments or concerns for discussion at the next meeting. He asked for clarification of the intent of the ordinance as it pertains to visual or view impairment. He reminded the Committee that there is a motion on the floor and suggested that the discussion on the motion be continued to the next meeting. He requested that Staff bring back information to the next meeting on the specific issues and the intent behind the issues, and what is accomplished with such an amendment. IS-155 November 14, 2005 Page 12 of 13 Councilman Wolowicz asked for Committee input on the topic relating to City enforcement. He stated that the City now reacts to complaints filed by neighbors and was wondering whether the City should be more proactive in identifying Code violations. Committee Member Lyon responded that is a decision to be made by the Council and added that if that were done there would be many unhappy constituents. Councilman Wolowicz raised a concern that without enforcement the regulations enacted by the City may be overlooked. He stated that as Council member, he receives numerous communications from residents who do not want to file a compliant but want the City to take action. Committee Member Cartwright agreed with Councilman Wolowicz but raised a concern with the outcome of proactive enforcement. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the City has any further responsibility to take action on entitlements that have been inspected and finalized. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the City has one Code Enforcement Officer and a Building Official. He added that the City has a team of inspectors who inspect construction activities. He noted that in the case of the illustration example submitted by Committee Member Cartwright, the violation would be addressed by the City when a complaint is filed. He stated that the City does not police neighborhoods looking for violations because of limited staff and resources, and is therefore reactive to a complaint. He added that this is a common practice for small municipalities. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the City should be dedicating the resources for such enforcement personnel and is looking for the Committee to either support or deny the concept of increasing the resources for such Staff personnel. If there is a need for it, then the Council should consider the matter. Committee Member Dyda stated that the burden is on the property owner affected by the violation that is why they file a complaint with the City. Commissioner Mueller asked if a complaint filled is anonymous. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that all code enforcement complaints require a name and address to be filed with the complaint but is anonymous unless the case goes to litigation at which time the complainants name may be revealed. Councilman Wolowicz asked that Staff come back to the next meeting with an answer as to whether there is a need to be proactive in seeking violations, and if not, why. He asked what is the purpose for having Codes if they cannot be enforced. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that there is a process for enforcing the Code. IS-156 December 12, 2005 Page 2 of 12 The motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the next item on the agenda pertaining to the definition of a hedge. He indicated that at the November 14th meeting, the Committee requested that this matter be continued to tonight’s meeting so that Staff can further investigate the application of the definition of a hedge. Mr. Mihranian presented the Committee with information pertaining to hedges as it relates to a physical / visual barrier. He reminded the Committee that at the November 14th meeting a suggested change was made to the definition of a hedge by adding the words “contiguous visual barrier.” Committee Member Dyda raised a concern with defining a hedge based on two different criteria. He stated that a hedge is a barrier whether physical or visual. He suggested eliminating the current test of a hedge. Councilman Long indicated that the regulations for the height of a wall and the height of a hedge is not intended to allow a greater height by combining the two. He then referred to the trees on his property indicating that although staggered when the canopies overlap it would create a hedge. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the definition states “planted and maintained” and if vegetation is planted in a staggered manner but not maintained to be a hedge then the argument would be that it is not a hedge. He stated that a forest is not a hedge but meets the same criteria as presently being discussed. Commissioner Denton indicated that it appears the issue relates to a height factor explaining that what is unclear in the definition is that portion of the foliage that is above 5-feet. She stated that rather than changing the definition, a maximum height limit should be established. Committee Member Cartwright clarified that he is not proposing to change the definition of a hedge but rather the test. He then referred to an illustration of a neighbor’s wall/hedge indicating that at one time the foliage in front of the wall reached 14-feet in height. Commissioner Gerstner asked whether the foliage in Mr. Cartwright’s illustration impaired a view. Committee Member Cartwright stated that the foliage blocked ocean and Catalina views from the neighbor’s home. Councilman Long asked whether the wall was legally constructed. IS-157 December 12, 2005 Page 3 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that under the current Code such a wall could not be built without processing a Minor Modification Permit, however, at the time the wall was constructed it was permitted by the old Code. Committee Member Slayden questioned whether the Committee should be reviewing this criteria because the foliage is used for screening and privacy. Committee Member Dyda stated that if the Committee does not address this matter how would the City be able to address complaints filed by residents. Councilman Wolowicz raised the concern with enforcement of hedges. He noted that aside from view related issues a hedge typically starts of in compliance with the Code and then evolves into not being in compliance. He questioned the City’s role in enforcing Codes and noted that the City does enforce the Code unless a resident complains which is considered the triggering mechanism. He added that it is not the City’s responsibility to initiate the enforcement but that is not specified in the Code and does not think that is fair to the public. He noted that as a councilman, he receives numerous inquiries on enforcement matters. The response that the City is not proactive but rather reactive to resident complaints is not typically satisfactory to residents. Committee Member Karp stated that the Code limits the height of a wall within the front yard to 42-inches, then why can you have a 6-foot tall hedge. She asked what is the recourse when a complaint is filed with the City. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that according to the Code, a fence, wall or hedge cannot exceed 42-inches in height within the defined front yard area. He stated that if a complaint is filed, then the City would investigate the matter by first determining whether the foliage in question meets the test of a hedge. Councilman Wolowicz stated that if a resident does not file a complaint then nothing happens. Committee Member Cartwright indicated that is the case throughout the City for other enforcement matters. He added that the City only has one code enforcement officer and that person is not driving around the City looking for violations but rather addressing the complaints filed with the City. Committee Member Denton raised a concern that reactive enforcement results in situation that puts neighbor against neighbor. Aside from hiring additional City Staff she was not sure how to address this matter. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the Code is written in a manner that is subject to interpretation. He stated that if the City were proactive, just on the matter regarding hedges, you could keep tree trimmers busy for years stating that there are Code violations on several properties throughout the City. He noted that in some neighborhoods hedges and mature foliage is desired. IS-158 December 12, 2005 Page 4 of 12 Councilman Long commented that the City does not have the funding to be proactive either now or in the near future. He added that enforcement is a separate discussion matter on the agenda. Committee Member Dyda stated that the public will always turn to the letter of the law and find a way to circumvent the rules. He added that the definition of a hedge is fine but it is the test that needs to be re-evaluated. In terms of enforcement, he does not want the City to become a police state. He stated that the public needs to understand the process for filing an enforcement complaint, such as writing a newsletter article. He would like the rules to specify the intent, such as a preamble. Committee Member Cartwright reiterated that the matter in question involves a physical barrier that is between the front property line and a residence that exceeds 11-feet in height and is maintained in a manner that is a hedge. He would like to eliminate the test requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian raised a concern that if you eliminate the test requirement how to do you explain to the public what is a physical barrier. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if foliage is maintained or sculptured in the form of a wall then it is a hedge. Councilman Long stated that if a hedge looks like a wall then it should be treated as a wall. Committee Member Denton raised a concern with foliage that is staggered. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if foliage is planted in random or staggered manner and grows into one another than that type of planting should not be considered a hedge because it is not maintained in manner to create a barrier. Committee Member Denton stated that the foliage in this scenario essential forms a physical barrier and should be considered a hedge. Councilman Long stated you know what a hedge is when you see it and it is never 100% precise. He added that in this case what persuades him to consider it a hedge is that it is designed to evade both the rules against hedges and wall heights. Committee Member Cartwright stated that when foliage is planted in a random manner then views are going to differ depending on the viewing corridor. Committee Member Slayden moved to accept Staff’s recommendation to not include the words “and contiguous visual barrier” in the definition of a hedge and to eliminate the test. Councilman Wolowicz seconded the motion. IS-159 December 12, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Senior Planner Mihranian expressed a concern with the elimination of the test. He questioned how one would verbally express what a physical barrier is without the test. He stated that the current Code regulates the height of fences, walls and hedges to 42- inches between the front property line and the closest building facade and that the test enables the City to clearly inform the public on the process for determining what is a hedge. Councilman Long stated that the determination of a hedge should not be based on height and whether a person can or cannot walk through it. He stated that the current definition is sufficient. Councilman Wolowicz requested that this topic be discussed as a Mayor’s did you know fact at a future Council meeting and wants to make certain this topic is clearly understood by the public. Senior Planner Mihranian asked that if the test is eliminated how do we address determinations that have been made thus far. Councilman Long stated that the determinations that have been made by the City are grand-fathered because rulings have already been made. The change to the Code is prospective. Committee Member Dyda stated that if a new complaint is filed with the City then it should be addressed based on the criteria at the time the complaint is filed. Councilman Long asked for a vote on the motion. The motion passed without objection. Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the next agenda item on proposed amendments to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook in order to clarify that the analysis for compatibility is based on the front, sides, and rear of a project. Councilman Wolowicz asked whether language should be included that distinguishes the level of importance between the front, sides or rear of a project. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that according to Circle Page 18, language is proposed to be added that states the emphasis of a project will be given from where the project is most visible, which in some cases may be the rear facade. He added that the intent here is to let the public know that the analysis for neighborhood compatibility is not limited to the front or street facing facade, but the sides and rear facades as well. Commissioner Gerstner asked how is “most visible” defined. Councilman Long responded that “most visible” should be taken from the most affected properties. IS-160 relied upon to accurately determine this and therefore it is recommended the City Council and Coastal Commission take the action necessary to address the situation, and then continue on to the recently modified language in Section 3. This would say that the land use map is the official map and the one to be relied upon until the situation is remedied. However, it is also saying that the Commission feels the map has inaccuracies in it based upon its large scale. Therefore this map is the map to be used in the interim and the Commission is recommending the interim be as short a period as possible. Commissioner Knight felt that if the Commission were to go with the recommendation that a site specific geology report be used, that a separate section is needed in the Resolution that says if a geology report is presented that is in conflict with the maps, then the applicant can go forward with a zone change application and a coastal setback change application process. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to modify Section 1 of the Resolution to read: “The Planning Commission finds that the large scale of the zoning map and the maps that are set forth in the City’s local Coastal Plan cannot be relied upon to accurately determine the location of the coastal setback line on individual properties and recommends that the City Council and Coastal Commission address the situation.” Section 2 would then be eliminated and Section 3 would be changed to Section 2 and would read: “However because the local coastal plan does not currently specific the process and maps that will be used to determine the location of the coastal setback line on individual properties, the Planning Commission concurs that due to the variation in location of the coastal setback line on different city maps, until the issue can be further clarified by amending the LCP, the location of the CSL on properties shall be based on a site specific geologic study and the Coastal Specific Plan map.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (4-2-1) with Commissioner Knight and Chairman Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Tomblin abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Residential Development Standards code amendment and zone change (Case No. ZON2007-00377) Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Jay Hatefi stated that shrubs, hedges and plants are the only defense residents have against heavy smoke coming out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks going up the street. He stated he lives on a very busy street where the street and house level are the same and is constantly bombarded with dust and dirt from the street. Cutting the level of the hedges and walls will create a very bad problem for many residents. Chairman Lewis tabled the item to hear the view restoration case. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 6 IS-161 Staff felt this would be most equitable to corner lots and reduce the number of nonconformities that were created when the code language was last amended in 1997. Vice Chairman Gerstner supported staff’s recommendation to allow the fence, wall, or hedge at the property line, as he felt that recommendation is more consistent with what is already happening in the City. He did not feel this would create any compromise to the street and would allow residents on corner lots much more flexibility. Commissioner Perestam stated that the City has been enforcing the reduction of walls along the property line for quite some time, and to now allow a 6-foot wall out to the street seems to be in conflict with what the City is currently trying to enforce. He felt it was more appropriate to allow corner lots a 6-foot wall at the setback line rather than the street line. Commissioner Knight acknowledged that corner lots are at a disadvantage, but was not sure he agreed with the 6-foot allowance at the property line. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation regarding the 6- foot fence, wall or hedge on the corner lot at the property line, rather than the committee’s recommendation to allow the 6-foot fence, wall, or hedge to the setback line, seconded by Chairman Lewis. The motion was approved, (4-2) with Commissioners Knight and Perestam dissenting. Associate Planner Fox continued with the next issue regarding hedges. He explained that the committee’s recommendation was to discontinue the use of the “barrier” test as part of the definition of what constitutes a hedge. He stated that staff disagrees with the recommendation, explaining that the definition of a hedge is that it is foliage that creates a physical barrier and the determination of whether a hedge is a barrier is important because if it is a barrier the historical premise of the Development Code is to treat a hedge the same way fences and walls are treated. He also noted that redefining hedges to allow the consideration of view impact below the 16 foot level would be contrary to Proposition M. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission reject the committee’s recommendation and continue to use the “barrier” test to define a hedge. Director Rojas added that there are instances where a wall of shrubs has been planted that impairs a view or is too high. The foliage owner will go in and trim between each plant so that a person can walk between each tree, but there is a wall of shrubs still blocking a neighbor’s view. He explained that if one had individual trees that were planted in that way that formed a canopy that are connected, anything over 16 feet in height would be regulated by Prop M. He explained that this is one reason for staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Perestam recalled that the committee was advocating a visual barrier test rather than a physical barrier test. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 11 IS-162 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 12 Chairman Lewis agreed with staff’s recommendation that a physical barrier test was more appropriate, and the Commission unanimously agreed. Associate Planner Fox continued explaining there is a list of streets that back up to major streets where the City does not allow chicken wire, chain line, or fiberglass fences. Palos Verdes Drive West is not included on that list, and the recommendation of the Committee is to add Palos Verdes Drive West to that list. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with the recommendation to add Palos Verdes Drive West to the list. Associate Planner Fox stated that the last issue was a staff recommendation that would allow six-foot fences and walls outside of the front setback area. The Commission unanimously agreed with staff’s recommendation. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff will now compile all of the recommendations into one Resolution and present the Resolution to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to October 13, 2009 without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 28, 2009 Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of September 22, 2009 No changes ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. IS-163 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET CHAIN-LINK FENCING ALONG P.V. DR. W. ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Chain-Link Fencing along Palos Verdes Drive West RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Add Palos Verdes Drive West to the list of major arterials where the use of chain-link, chicken-wire and fiberglass fencing is prohibited. DISCUSSION Section 17.76.030(E)(5) prohibits the use of chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences within the rear yards of properties abutting most of the City’s major arterial streets. The purpose of this regulation is to protect the aesthetic quality of the City’s major thoroughfares. However, the list of streets does not currently include Palos Verdes Drive West. Therefore, the RDSSC recommends revising Section 17.76.030(E)(5) as follows (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): 5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line; in side yards between the street side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line; and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city’s general plan: a. Crenshaw Boulevard; b. Crest Road; c. Hawthorne Boulevard; d. Highridge Road; e. Miraleste Drive; f. Palos Verdes Drive East; g. Palos Verdes Drive North; h. Palos Verdes Drive South; and i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and, j i. Silver Spur Road. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENT(S) RDSSC Minutes of September 26, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of September 8, 2009 (excerpt) REFERENCE Section 14 of Draft Ordinance IS-164 September 26, 2005 Page 9 of 12 Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt Staff’s recommendation to amend the fence, wall and hedge requirement for corner lots to read as follows: “Fences, walls and hedges located between the from property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line or between the street side property line and the street side setback requirement, as defined in Section 17.02, shall meet the following standards…” Committee Member Slayden seconded the motion. Commissioner Mueller stated that this change allows a fence, wall or hedge to be built closer to the street. The motion passed with Commissioner Mueller objecting. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to continue with its next recommended amendment. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that based on an error identified by the Committee at the last meeting, the Code section prohibiting chain link, chicken wire, and fiber glass fences along property lines abutting major arterial roads, Staff is recommending adding Palos Verdes Drive West to the list which was inadvertently left out. Committee Member Karp raised a concern with fencing that is prohibited on private property but is allowed on City owned property. Committee Member Dyda stated that the criteria difference is based on aesthetic value and costs. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendment to Section 17.76.030(E)(5) by adding Palos Verdes Drive West to the list. Committee Member Dyda seconded the motion. Commissioner Gerstner informed the Committee that chicken wire is now referred to as poultry netting. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that fences placed on City owned property is a Public Works matter. He added that this Committee should not review such fence requirements as it is beyond the Committee’s scope of work that is to review residential development standards. He suggested that the Committee recommend to the City Council that they review the fence criteria on City owned property as a separate matter. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Council to review the type of fencing permitted on City owned properties. IS-165 September 26, 2005 Page 10 of 12 Councilman Wolowicz asked whether the City should consider a uniform fence/wall program along major arterial streets. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that such a program was discussed in prior years. Committee Member Dyda said that there was a proposal years ago to develop a Fence/Wall Plan along major arterial streets. Each neighborhood was designed to have its own unique appearing fence/wall standard. Committee Member Slayden stated that there was a bond that did not pass. Committee Member Karp said that there was a beautification program for Hawthorne Boulevard that was eventually rescinded by the Council. Councilman Wolowicz suggested that this be packaged to the Council as a Committee recommendation for Council review as an independent matter. He asked for a vote on the earlier motion. The motion passed with Commissioner Mueller objecting. Commissioner Mueller expressed a concern that the Code section implies that a solid block wall should be constructed along major arterial streets which has the potential to impair views from neighboring properties. Senior Planner Mihranian continued his presentation by defining a hedge according to the Development Code as shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier. Committee Member Karp stated that because the Code defines a hedge as a physical barrier it should be treated similar to a wall. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that a hedge is treated as a wall, in terms of height limits, when placed within the required front yard area. Committee Member Karp mentioned that walls and hedges should be interchangeable because they share the same amount of light, air and height. Committee Member Dyda stated that if a fence or wall is limited to 42-inches within the front yard area so should a hedge. Senior Planner Mihranian reminded the Committee that within the required front yard area and street side area, the height limit for a fence, wall or hedge is 42-inches. Anything above that up to 6-feet in height requires a Minor Exception Permit and must be designed to be 80% open to light and air. Otherwise, anything taller than 42-inches is in violation of the Code. IS-166 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 12 Chairman Lewis agreed with staff’s recommendation that a physical barrier test was more appropriate, and the Commission unanimously agreed. Associate Planner Fox continued explaining there is a list of streets that back up to major streets where the City does not allow chicken wire, chain line, or fiberglass fences. Palos Verdes Drive West is not included on that list, and the recommendation of the Committee is to add Palos Verdes Drive West to that list. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with the recommendation to add Palos Verdes Drive West to the list. Associate Planner Fox stated that the last issue was a staff recommendation that would allow six-foot fences and walls outside of the front setback area. The Commission unanimously agreed with staff’s recommendation. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff will now compile all of the recommendations into one Resolution and present the Resolution to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to October 13, 2009 without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 28, 2009 Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of September 22, 2009 No changes ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. IS-167 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET FRONT-YARD FENCE, WALL & HEDGE HEIGHT ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Front-Yard Fence, Wall & Hedge Height STAFF RECOMMENDATION Limit the height of fences, walls and hedges between the front property line and the front-yard setback line to forty-two inches (42”) and allow 6-foot-tall fences, walls and hedges outside of the front setback area. DISCUSSION Current Code establishes a height of forty-two inches (42”) for fences, walls and hedges located anywhere between a front or street-side property line of a lot and the nearest portion of any front or street-side facade, respectively, to said property line. Over many years of applying this Code language, Staff believes that it unfairly punishes properties where main structures were built further back than the minimum setbacks in that it prevents a minor structure like a fence or wall in excess of forty-two inches (42”) in height in the same area of the lot where the Code would otherwise allow construction of a main structure up to the 16-foot “by-right” height limit. In the previous discussion of fence and wall height in street- side setback areas, Staff recommended modifying the RDSSC recommendation to allow 6-foot-tall walls and fences up to the street-side property line on corner lots, while the RDSSC only recommended allowing such fences and walls up to the street- side setback line. However, within front-yard areas where an existing main structure exceeds the minimum setback, Staff suggested an approach similar to the RDSSC’s original recommendation, whereby a 6-foot-tall wall or fence would be allowed up to the front-yard setback line, while fences and walls within the front-yard setback area would still be limited to forty-two inches (42”) in height. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept Staff’s recommendation 2. Reject Staff’s recommendation 3. Propose modifications to Staff’s recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS Staff’s Proposed Section 17.76.030(C) Diagram of Comparative Front Setbacks for Fences, Walls and Hedges PC Minutes of September 8, 2009 REFERENCES Section 13 of Draft Ordinance IS-168 Staff’s Proposed Section 17.76.030(C) (Additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out) C. Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section, fences, walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1. Residential Zoning Districts. a. Fences, walls and hedges located between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line within the front-yard setback area or between the street side property line and the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line shall meet the following standards: i. Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Areas and Building Height) of this title; ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed forty-two inches, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Areas and Building Height) of this title; and iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot, up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this section shall meet the following standards: i. Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility) of this title; ii. Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-family Residential Districts); iii. When combined with a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed six feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv. When combined with a fence, freestanding wall, retaining wall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback IS-169 areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) (Environmental Protection) of this title. 2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a. Fences, walls and hedges located between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single within front and street-side setbacks within the front-yard and street-side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i. Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title. ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title. b. Fences, walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i. Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title. ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental Protection) of this title. IS-170 20’ Minimum Front Structure Setback 25’ Existing Building Setback (example) Location of Maximum 6’-Tall Fence/Wall/Hedge under Current Code Location of Maximum 6’-Tall Fence/Wall/Hedge under Staff’s Recommendation 5’ Street Street IS-171 Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 12 Chairman Lewis agreed with staff’s recommendation that a physical barrier test was more appropriate, and the Commission unanimously agreed. Associate Planner Fox continued explaining there is a list of streets that back up to major streets where the City does not allow chicken wire, chain line, or fiberglass fences. Palos Verdes Drive West is not included on that list, and the recommendation of the Committee is to add Palos Verdes Drive West to that list. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with the recommendation to add Palos Verdes Drive West to the list. Associate Planner Fox stated that the last issue was a staff recommendation that would allow six-foot fences and walls outside of the front setback area. The Commission unanimously agreed with staff’s recommendation. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff will now compile all of the recommendations into one Resolution and present the Resolution to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to October 13, 2009 without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 28, 2009 Commissioner Perestam moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Knight abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of September 22, 2009 No changes ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. IS-172 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET SETBACK ENCROACHMENT CLARIFICATION ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Setback Encroachment Clarification RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Break out and clarify the permitted encroachments for architectural features, garden windows/awnings and eaves into required setback areas DISCUSSION Current Code language consolidates architectural features, garden windows/awnings and eaves into a single section for the purpose of discussing allowable projections into setback areas. The RDSSC recommended separating these out, since the standard for each is slightly different. Therefore, the RDSSC recommended revising Section 17.48.030(E)(1) as follows (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): 1. Architectural Features. Cornices, belt courses and other similar architectural features may project into the required setback area not more than four inches for each foot of the required setback; provided, that no portion of such an architectural feature is located or projects below eight feet above grade; and provided, that there are no vertical supports or members within the required setback area. Garden windows may project into the required setback area not more than four inches for each foot of the required setback; provided, that there are no vertical supports within the required setback area. Eaves may project into the required setback not more than six inches for each foot of the required setback. 2. Garden Windows and Window Coverings. Garden windows and window coverings, including retractable awnings, may project into the required interior side and rear year setback areas not more than four inches for each foot of the required setback; provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback area. 3. Roof Eaves. Roof eaves may project into the required setback not more than six inches for each foot of the required setback; provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback areas. Roof eaves shall not be calculated towards lot coverage as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(5). IS-173 ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS RDSSC Minutes of October 24, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of October 13, 2008 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 15 of Draft Ordinance IS-174 October 24, 2005 Page 8 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz asked Committee Member Cartwright to meet with Staff to develop a list of concerns to be attached to the Committee recommendation that would give the new committee direction. Councilman Long called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed with Committee Member Slayden abstaining because he does not believe the neighborhood should get involved at this point because they may not be that informed. Senior Planner Mihranian began Staff’s presentation on Architectural Features referring to Section 17.40 of the Development Code. He noted that Staff is recommending changes to the organization of this section, as well as adding or clarifying sections to reflect current development trends. He stated that the Planning Department is processing requests for outdoor living spaces, including kitchens and fireplaces and the Code is not clear on these improvements. He stated that the suggested amendments are to address these items. Commissioner Mueller noted that language is changing by adding retractable awnings to the criteria. He asked how far would they be allowed to project. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it depends on where it is located and that the encroachment is similar to a garden window. Commissioner Gerstner stated that garden windows and window covering, such as retractable awnings, share a similar setback requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that roof eaves were placed in its own section of the Code for clarification purposes, but that the standard did not change. He added language to clarify that roof eaves do not count towards lot coverage so that it encourages the use of eaves. Commissioner Gerstner asked if eaves with vertical supports count towards lot coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that eaves with vertical supports are counted towards lot coverage. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there have been past problems with retractable awnings that led Staff to add this to the list. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there have been no past problems. However, when residents inquiry about installing a retractable awning since the Code is silent to such a structure, then it is implied that it is prohibitive. Staff believes retractable awnings should be allowed and is therefore treating them similar to a garden window when proposed to project within a required yard. IS-175 October 24, 2005 Page 9 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz questioned why something is prohibitive rather than permissive if the Code is silent. Councilman Long stated that since a retractable awning is attached to a structure than it is a part of the structure, and if it is permissive then it can be of any size because the Code is silent. He stated that if the Code is silent to something it should be addressed so that it can be regulated. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that in order to allow retractable awnings to project into a required yard, the Director has interpreted a retractable awning to be similar to a garden window. Councilman Wolowicz stated that if the Code is silent then it is prohibitive and by addressing topics in the Code then we are providing an outlet for property owners. Committee Member Lyon noted that he was under the impression that the Development Code states what you cannot do and everything else is permissible. Councilman Wolowicz agreed. Committee Member Cartwright referred to an example in his neighborhood regarding the color of the awnings. Councilman Long stated that awnings can change the character of a home and most certainly a neighborhood. Councilman Wolowicz asked Commissioner Mueller to comment on colors as it relates to architectural features. Commissioner Mueller expressed a concern not so much on color but rather materials, such as metal roofs. Councilman Wolowicz stated that technology may lead to future problems with the Code. Councilman Long agreed and stated that the Development Code is a work in progress and needs to be updated periodically to address new technology. He expressed a concern with having a Code that was permissive when silent. He added that you do not want the Development Code to be inflexible for new technologies, but on the other hand you do not want to permit something that you know nothing about. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is a head note paragraph in the Development Code that informs the reader that if something is not mentioned than it is prohibited. Commissioner Gerstner stated that Codes are usually not that explicit. He added that a code cannot address everything. IS-176 October 24, 2005 Page 10 of 15 Councilman Long stated that it could be by implication. Committee Member Slayden asked if the proposed language can be modified to include compatible awnings. Commissioner Gerstner stated that compatibility is addressed in the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement. Councilman Wolowicz returned to his original question if the Code should have a head note paragraph. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if a Code states you need to get a permit for any improvement to your house, then an awning is considered an improvement and a permit is required. Senior Planner Mihranian cited a section from the Development Code that states any new development requires a site plan review application. Councilman Long suggested that the Committee focus on its task adding that the discussion on the Development Code is not on the agenda. Committee Member Karp asked how color and material for awnings can be addressed. Commissioner Gerstner stated that reviewing the color of an awning is no different that reviewing the color of a house. He stated that the way to control it is through the Neighborhood Compatibility ordinance. Committee Member Karp stated that the Code does not allow the City to regulate house color. Councilman Long stated that you can evaluate compatibility by reviewing all the architectural features including color. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that color is not considered a component of Neighborhood Compatibility. He added that if a property owner requested to install an awning, whether retractable or not, neighborhood compatibility would not be required because it does not qualify as a trigger. Commissioner Mueller stated that reviewing color is usually done by an art jury or an architectural review board. Councilman Wolowicz asked if we added compatible to the proposed text would it result in confusion. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it would because there are no guidelines to evaluate compatibility. IS-177 October 24, 2005 Page 11 of 15 Committee Member Slayden said that compatibility should be based on color and whether it matches the house. Councilman Long stated that color is a new set of criteria that requires reviewing color palettes for a structure. He suggested that this issue be addressed at a later time. He then asked that the Committee should look at window coverings to be treated similarly as garden windows for projecting into required yards. Committee Member Slayden stated that Staff’s proposed language is acceptable for garden windows and window coverings. Senior Planner Mihranian asked if there were any comments to the proposed language on roof eaves. There were no comments so he moved the discussion to fireplace chimneys. He stated that this is a new section that clarifies the difference between chimneys attached to a structure and detached chimneys that are a part of an outdoor living space. He reviewed the new language for detached structures. Commissioner Gerstner asked why detached chimneys were limited to twelve feet. Senior Planner Mihranian responded to be consistent with the Code’s requirement for other detached accessory structures. Commissioner Gerstner asked how would the City treat an attached chimney to a detached structure. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the chimney would be considered attached to a habitable structure regardless of whether it is a detached accessory structure and would be subject to said criteria. He proceeded to discuss criteria for minor structures and mechanical equipment explaining that the list of permitted structures that may project into the required yards was expanded. Committee Member Karp asked if a dog house requires a permit. Councilman Wolowicz asked if a permit is required for a playhouse or sports equipment and whether fees are required as well. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it was his impression that a permit is required as well as a permit fee. Committee Member Karp stated that an article should be placed in the City’s quarterly newsletter on this matter so that people know when a permit is needed. Councilman Wolowicz raised a concern as to why permits and application filing fees are required for such structures. He then asked if there are guidelines that identify what requires a permit. He thinks the public needs to be educated on these requirements. IS-178 October 24, 2005 Page 12 of 15 Committee Member Cartwright asked how noise levels from mechanical equipment were going to be measured based on Staff’s proposed amended text. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on today’s technology, mechanical equipment includes noise specifications that the City would rely on. Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern with relying on the mechanical equipment’s specifications. He stated that the specifications are based on limited variables and the outcome can drastically vary from what is included in the manual. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with pool equipment and stated that the original text provided the City with an enforcement mechanism to test noise levels. He indicated he would like the existing text to remain. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the existing text provides the City with an enforcement mechanism and places the burden to prove the equipment does not adversely impact neighbors on the property owner. Councilman Long suggested that although Staff’s attempt is to seek more precision, the text should remain. Commissioner Gerstner stated that noise is related to ambiance and since the City is relatively quiet, noise is more evident. He stated that noise levels should be measured from property lines with ambient noise factored into the equation. Commissioner Mueller raised a concern with allowing fountains within the front yard because of noise levels and aesthetics. Committee Member Karp stated that fountains were not as popular as they are now and are much more elaborate today. Committee Member Cartwright gave an example of a fountain that started off as this simple decorative feature but was expanded to have many features and statues added to it that resulting in a much more obtrusive structure. He recommended that a definition of what is a fountain be included. He stated that if fountains are permissible, then we should define to what extent, otherwise you can end up with the entire front yard as a fountain. Senior Planner Mihranian suggested that the Committee establish limits to the size, height and hours of operation for a fountain. Commissioner Perestam spoke of the visual impacts of a fountain referring to an example on Palos Verdes Drive South near Trump National. IS-179 October 24, 2005 Page 13 of 15 Committee Member Karp would like language added that regulates the size and hours of operation of a fountain. She stated that a fountain should not be allowed to run all night. Councilman Wolowicz asked if fountain made no noise, would it still be a concern. Councilman Long stated that some of the concerns relating to fountains has to do with the architectural appearance, especially in the front yard, and that it is not just noise. Councilman Wolowicz asked for some guidance as to what is considered a minor structure. Senior Planner Mihranian referred to the Code language citing the 120 square foot limit. Committee Member Cartwright asked about light fixtures and if there are luminous standards. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that the Environmental Protection section of the Development Code addresses wattage. Councilman Long raised a concern with regulating wattage because people can choose different things to install in a light fixture which can be more luminous. He stated that the Code should regulate luminous not wattage. Commissioner Gerstner added that two of the most important things that affect the character of a community are light and noise. He noted that they are hard things to regulate. He expressed a concern with homes that are overly illuminated stating that the quality of life is affected. He stated that the City Council should evaluate noise and lighting. Committee Member Cartwright indicated that when he was on the Planning Commission, conditions were seldom imposed that regulated light fixtures, typically so that they are downcast and lighting does not spill over to the neighbors property. Councilman Long asked why ornamental ponds were reduced from a depth of 24- inches to 18-inches. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the change is to make the Code consistent with the Uniform Building Code that requires fencing around a body of water that exceeds a depth of 18-inches. Councilman Wolowicz suggested that Staff bring back the section on architectural features with modifications identified by the Committee. Councilman Long stated that starting with Circle Page 18, the Committee accepts the changes proposed to sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and the beginning portion of 5. He IS-180 October 24, 2005 Page 14 of 15 added that the Committee does not support a change to the noise requirement in Section 5.I and that Staff bring back information on Section 5c with a definition of a fountain, a consideration of what are and are not minor structures, the Committee accepts the change to ornamental ponds and the changes proposed on Circle Pages 21 and 22 for consistency purposes. Councilman moved to adopt Councilman Long’s summary statement, seconded by Committee Member Cartwright. The motion moved unanimously. Senior Planner Mihranian presented the Committee with a list of items reviewed by the Committee during its tenure. He added that the Committee is near it completion. Councilman Long stated that based on the recent workshop with the Planning Commission there appears to be this perception that this Committee will be answering questions regarding Neighborhood Compatibility. Specifically, when evaluating whether a structure is compatible, is compatibility based on a neighborhood as it currently exists, the vision of a neighborhood as it will exist in the future, and what is the definition of that. He asked if the Committee is formulating an answer to this question. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the three Commissioners on this Committee, as well as the formers members on the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering Committee can assist in answering this question. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on Saturday’s Joint Workshop, Staff will bring to this Committee some clean-up items to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook as it pertains to color and the compatibility evaluation process. He added that one of the outstanding matters that the Committee needs to address is conducting a meeting with Eastview residents regarding the proposed Overlay District. He reminded the Committee that at the time the Overlay District was contemplated the thought was that the residents affected by the proposal should be given the opportunity to provide input on the proposal outside of the public hearing process. Committee Member Cartwright asked about CC&R’s. Councilman Long stated that the Council decided not to enforce CC&R’s but to make the public aware that CC&R’s may exist. He stated that Councilman Gardiner asked if the Committee is addressing the carrying capacity of the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS IS-181 2. Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00048): 28614 Mt. Hood Court Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued from a previous meeting with the Planning Commission’s request that minor modifications be made to the project in order to add some articulation to the south sideyard setback. She gave a brief overview of the project and highlighted the revisions made to the plans. Frank Politeo (architect) explained his revisions and stated he was available to answer any questions. He added that he agrees with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Mr. Bilan (applicant) felt that this home complies with all of the code regulations and he has made compromises in the design in terms of articulation. He felt that this design is comparable with other homes in the neighborhood, is well designed, and asked the Planning Commission approve the project. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perestam commented that the architect has responded to what the Planning Commission asked of him, and he appreciated the changes made. He stated that he is now in support of the proposed project. Commissioner Perestam moved to approve Height Variation and Minor Exception permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Knight also appreciated the effort of the architect. He noted that he would have preferred articulation all the way to the back, but understood the circumstances that would create a smaller bedroom size. Commissioner Tetreault felt that this addition encroaches into a portion of the view from the Goshi residence, as he discussed at the last meeting. He questioned if this view impairment constituted a significant view impairment. Chairman Lewis did not feel that a majority of the Commission felt that the view impact to the Goshi residence was significant. He stated that he supports the current motion. The motion to approve PC Resolution 2009-42 thereby approving the Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit was approved, (6-0). 3. Residential Development Standards Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No. ZON2007-00377): Citywide Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Page 2 IS-182 Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly explaining the three categories regarding minor structures and miscellaneous development standards scheduled to be discussed. He began with the first item, the setback encroachment clarification and explained the Committee’s recommendation. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that staff’s clarification on the setback encroachment was consistent with the Committee’s recommendation. The Commission agreed with the proposed language. Director Rojas explained the next subject, ornamental pools, by explaining that the suggestion is to change the language in the Code to state that the depth of an ornamental pool shall be to 18 inches, which is consistent with the language in the Building Code. The Commission had a brief discussion regarding the intent of the Uniform Building Code in restricting the depth of pools without fencing to 18 inches. Commissioner Knight noted what he felt may be confusing language when looking at the depth of pools and ornamental pools in Section 7 of the staff report, and how that may conflict with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that 18 inches is actually irrelevant in Section 7, as it is not the depth that is being defined but rather whether or not the pool can be allowed in the side or rear yard setback. Director Rojas felt that the language should be clarified in Section 7 to be consistent with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested striking the words “measuring more than 18 inches” from the first part of the paragraph and anywhere else where the depth measurement for ornamental ponds is mentioned, other than in the definition. Chairman Lewis suggested language for Section 7 which states that “. . . swimming pools, spas, ornamental pools, as defined in the proper section . . . .” The Commission agreed that referring the reader to a definition was the best way to word this section. Director Rojas stated that the final issue is in regards to minor structures in setback areas and the recommendation was to clarify and modify the list of the types of minor structures that are permitted within the setback areas. Commissioner Perestam felt that some of a previous discussion regarding lot coverage in regards to decks and trellises did not seem to be included in this language, and wondered if the issues had been brought before the Commission at a previous meeting for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Page 3 IS-183 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET DEPTH OF ORNAMENTAL POOLS ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Depth of Ornamental Pools RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Resolve the current conflict between the Zoning and Building Codes regarding the maximum depth permitted for ornamental pools without triggering the pool fencing requirement. DISCUSSION Current Development Code language defines ornamental pools as being less than twenty-four inches (24”) deep, while the Uniform Building Code defines ornamental pools as being less than eighteen inches (18”) deep. This creates a potential conflict because a 20-inch-deep pond requires pool fencing under the Development Code, but not under the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the RDSSC wished to adopt a standard consistent with the Uniform Building Code by amending Section 17.48.030(E)(5) as follows (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): 57. Swimming or Ornamental Pools. Swimming pools, spas, ornamental pools and any other body of water measuring more than twenty-four eighteen inches deep, may be located within an interior or rear yard setback; provided, that no portion of said pool is located closer than three feet from the property line. Ornamental ponds less than twenty-four eighteen inches deep may be located within any required setback and may abut any property line. In addition to the RDSSC recommendations, Staff recommends making corresponding changes to the language of Sections 17.76.030(E)(3) and 17.96.1460, respectively, so as to provide consistent language regarding the definition of an ornamental pool (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): 3. Fences or Walls – Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water twenty-four eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching IS-184 device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates shall meet City specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. "Swimming or ornamental pool" means any body of water measuring more than twenty-four eighteen inches deep at its deepest point, whether above or below the surface of the ground. “Ornamental pool” means any body of water measuring eighteen inches or less in depth at its deepest point, whether above or below the surface of the ground. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC and Staff recommendations 2. Reject the RDSSC and Staff recommendations 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC and/or Staff recommendations P.C. ACTION Alternative 3 ATTACHMENTS RDSSC Minutes of October 24, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of October 13, 2009 (excerpt) REFERENCES Sections 16 and 17 of Draft Ordinance IS-185 October 24, 2005 Page 8 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz asked Committee Member Cartwright to meet with Staff to develop a list of concerns to be attached to the Committee recommendation that would give the new committee direction. Councilman Long called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed with Committee Member Slayden abstaining because he does not believe the neighborhood should get involved at this point because they may not be that informed. Senior Planner Mihranian began Staff’s presentation on Architectural Features referring to Section 17.40 of the Development Code. He noted that Staff is recommending changes to the organization of this section, as well as adding or clarifying sections to reflect current development trends. He stated that the Planning Department is processing requests for outdoor living spaces, including kitchens and fireplaces and the Code is not clear on these improvements. He stated that the suggested amendments are to address these items. Commissioner Mueller noted that language is changing by adding retractable awnings to the criteria. He asked how far would they be allowed to project. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it depends on where it is located and that the encroachment is similar to a garden window. Commissioner Gerstner stated that garden windows and window covering, such as retractable awnings, share a similar setback requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that roof eaves were placed in its own section of the Code for clarification purposes, but that the standard did not change. He added language to clarify that roof eaves do not count towards lot coverage so that it encourages the use of eaves. Commissioner Gerstner asked if eaves with vertical supports count towards lot coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that eaves with vertical supports are counted towards lot coverage. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there have been past problems with retractable awnings that led Staff to add this to the list. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there have been no past problems. However, when residents inquiry about installing a retractable awning since the Code is silent to such a structure, then it is implied that it is prohibitive. Staff believes retractable awnings should be allowed and is therefore treating them similar to a garden window when proposed to project within a required yard. IS-186 October 24, 2005 Page 9 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz questioned why something is prohibitive rather than permissive if the Code is silent. Councilman Long stated that since a retractable awning is attached to a structure than it is a part of the structure, and if it is permissive then it can be of any size because the Code is silent. He stated that if the Code is silent to something it should be addressed so that it can be regulated. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that in order to allow retractable awnings to project into a required yard, the Director has interpreted a retractable awning to be similar to a garden window. Councilman Wolowicz stated that if the Code is silent then it is prohibitive and by addressing topics in the Code then we are providing an outlet for property owners. Committee Member Lyon noted that he was under the impression that the Development Code states what you cannot do and everything else is permissible. Councilman Wolowicz agreed. Committee Member Cartwright referred to an example in his neighborhood regarding the color of the awnings. Councilman Long stated that awnings can change the character of a home and most certainly a neighborhood. Councilman Wolowicz asked Commissioner Mueller to comment on colors as it relates to architectural features. Commissioner Mueller expressed a concern not so much on color but rather materials, such as metal roofs. Councilman Wolowicz stated that technology may lead to future problems with the Code. Councilman Long agreed and stated that the Development Code is a work in progress and needs to be updated periodically to address new technology. He expressed a concern with having a Code that was permissive when silent. He added that you do not want the Development Code to be inflexible for new technologies, but on the other hand you do not want to permit something that you know nothing about. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is a head note paragraph in the Development Code that informs the reader that if something is not mentioned than it is prohibited. Commissioner Gerstner stated that Codes are usually not that explicit. He added that a code cannot address everything. IS-187 October 24, 2005 Page 10 of 15 Councilman Long stated that it could be by implication. Committee Member Slayden asked if the proposed language can be modified to include compatible awnings. Commissioner Gerstner stated that compatibility is addressed in the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement. Councilman Wolowicz returned to his original question if the Code should have a head note paragraph. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if a Code states you need to get a permit for any improvement to your house, then an awning is considered an improvement and a permit is required. Senior Planner Mihranian cited a section from the Development Code that states any new development requires a site plan review application. Councilman Long suggested that the Committee focus on its task adding that the discussion on the Development Code is not on the agenda. Committee Member Karp asked how color and material for awnings can be addressed. Commissioner Gerstner stated that reviewing the color of an awning is no different that reviewing the color of a house. He stated that the way to control it is through the Neighborhood Compatibility ordinance. Committee Member Karp stated that the Code does not allow the City to regulate house color. Councilman Long stated that you can evaluate compatibility by reviewing all the architectural features including color. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that color is not considered a component of Neighborhood Compatibility. He added that if a property owner requested to install an awning, whether retractable or not, neighborhood compatibility would not be required because it does not qualify as a trigger. Commissioner Mueller stated that reviewing color is usually done by an art jury or an architectural review board. Councilman Wolowicz asked if we added compatible to the proposed text would it result in confusion. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it would because there are no guidelines to evaluate compatibility. IS-188 October 24, 2005 Page 11 of 15 Committee Member Slayden said that compatibility should be based on color and whether it matches the house. Councilman Long stated that color is a new set of criteria that requires reviewing color palettes for a structure. He suggested that this issue be addressed at a later time. He then asked that the Committee should look at window coverings to be treated similarly as garden windows for projecting into required yards. Committee Member Slayden stated that Staff’s proposed language is acceptable for garden windows and window coverings. Senior Planner Mihranian asked if there were any comments to the proposed language on roof eaves. There were no comments so he moved the discussion to fireplace chimneys. He stated that this is a new section that clarifies the difference between chimneys attached to a structure and detached chimneys that are a part of an outdoor living space. He reviewed the new language for detached structures. Commissioner Gerstner asked why detached chimneys were limited to twelve feet. Senior Planner Mihranian responded to be consistent with the Code’s requirement for other detached accessory structures. Commissioner Gerstner asked how would the City treat an attached chimney to a detached structure. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the chimney would be considered attached to a habitable structure regardless of whether it is a detached accessory structure and would be subject to said criteria. He proceeded to discuss criteria for minor structures and mechanical equipment explaining that the list of permitted structures that may project into the required yards was expanded. Committee Member Karp asked if a dog house requires a permit. Councilman Wolowicz asked if a permit is required for a playhouse or sports equipment and whether fees are required as well. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it was his impression that a permit is required as well as a permit fee. Committee Member Karp stated that an article should be placed in the City’s quarterly newsletter on this matter so that people know when a permit is needed. Councilman Wolowicz raised a concern as to why permits and application filing fees are required for such structures. He then asked if there are guidelines that identify what requires a permit. He thinks the public needs to be educated on these requirements. IS-189 October 24, 2005 Page 12 of 15 Committee Member Cartwright asked how noise levels from mechanical equipment were going to be measured based on Staff’s proposed amended text. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on today’s technology, mechanical equipment includes noise specifications that the City would rely on. Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern with relying on the mechanical equipment’s specifications. He stated that the specifications are based on limited variables and the outcome can drastically vary from what is included in the manual. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with pool equipment and stated that the original text provided the City with an enforcement mechanism to test noise levels. He indicated he would like the existing text to remain. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the existing text provides the City with an enforcement mechanism and places the burden to prove the equipment does not adversely impact neighbors on the property owner. Councilman Long suggested that although Staff’s attempt is to seek more precision, the text should remain. Commissioner Gerstner stated that noise is related to ambiance and since the City is relatively quiet, noise is more evident. He stated that noise levels should be measured from property lines with ambient noise factored into the equation. Commissioner Mueller raised a concern with allowing fountains within the front yard because of noise levels and aesthetics. Committee Member Karp stated that fountains were not as popular as they are now and are much more elaborate today. Committee Member Cartwright gave an example of a fountain that started off as this simple decorative feature but was expanded to have many features and statues added to it that resulting in a much more obtrusive structure. He recommended that a definition of what is a fountain be included. He stated that if fountains are permissible, then we should define to what extent, otherwise you can end up with the entire front yard as a fountain. Senior Planner Mihranian suggested that the Committee establish limits to the size, height and hours of operation for a fountain. Commissioner Perestam spoke of the visual impacts of a fountain referring to an example on Palos Verdes Drive South near Trump National. IS-190 October 24, 2005 Page 13 of 15 Committee Member Karp would like language added that regulates the size and hours of operation of a fountain. She stated that a fountain should not be allowed to run all night. Councilman Wolowicz asked if fountain made no noise, would it still be a concern. Councilman Long stated that some of the concerns relating to fountains has to do with the architectural appearance, especially in the front yard, and that it is not just noise. Councilman Wolowicz asked for some guidance as to what is considered a minor structure. Senior Planner Mihranian referred to the Code language citing the 120 square foot limit. Committee Member Cartwright asked about light fixtures and if there are luminous standards. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that the Environmental Protection section of the Development Code addresses wattage. Councilman Long raised a concern with regulating wattage because people can choose different things to install in a light fixture which can be more luminous. He stated that the Code should regulate luminous not wattage. Commissioner Gerstner added that two of the most important things that affect the character of a community are light and noise. He noted that they are hard things to regulate. He expressed a concern with homes that are overly illuminated stating that the quality of life is affected. He stated that the City Council should evaluate noise and lighting. Committee Member Cartwright indicated that when he was on the Planning Commission, conditions were seldom imposed that regulated light fixtures, typically so that they are downcast and lighting does not spill over to the neighbors property. Councilman Long asked why ornamental ponds were reduced from a depth of 24- inches to 18-inches. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the change is to make the Code consistent with the Uniform Building Code that requires fencing around a body of water that exceeds a depth of 18-inches. Councilman Wolowicz suggested that Staff bring back the section on architectural features with modifications identified by the Committee. Councilman Long stated that starting with Circle Page 18, the Committee accepts the changes proposed to sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and the beginning portion of 5. He IS-191 October 24, 2005 Page 14 of 15 added that the Committee does not support a change to the noise requirement in Section 5.I and that Staff bring back information on Section 5c with a definition of a fountain, a consideration of what are and are not minor structures, the Committee accepts the change to ornamental ponds and the changes proposed on Circle Pages 21 and 22 for consistency purposes. Councilman moved to adopt Councilman Long’s summary statement, seconded by Committee Member Cartwright. The motion moved unanimously. Senior Planner Mihranian presented the Committee with a list of items reviewed by the Committee during its tenure. He added that the Committee is near it completion. Councilman Long stated that based on the recent workshop with the Planning Commission there appears to be this perception that this Committee will be answering questions regarding Neighborhood Compatibility. Specifically, when evaluating whether a structure is compatible, is compatibility based on a neighborhood as it currently exists, the vision of a neighborhood as it will exist in the future, and what is the definition of that. He asked if the Committee is formulating an answer to this question. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the three Commissioners on this Committee, as well as the formers members on the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering Committee can assist in answering this question. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on Saturday’s Joint Workshop, Staff will bring to this Committee some clean-up items to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook as it pertains to color and the compatibility evaluation process. He added that one of the outstanding matters that the Committee needs to address is conducting a meeting with Eastview residents regarding the proposed Overlay District. He reminded the Committee that at the time the Overlay District was contemplated the thought was that the residents affected by the proposal should be given the opportunity to provide input on the proposal outside of the public hearing process. Committee Member Cartwright asked about CC&R’s. Councilman Long stated that the Council decided not to enforce CC&R’s but to make the public aware that CC&R’s may exist. He stated that Councilman Gardiner asked if the Committee is addressing the carrying capacity of the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS IS-192 Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly explaining the three categories regarding minor structures and miscellaneous development standards scheduled to be discussed. He began with the first item, the setback encroachment clarification and explained the Committee’s recommendation. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that staff’s clarification on the setback encroachment was consistent with the Committee’s recommendation. The Commission agreed with the proposed language. Director Rojas explained the next subject, ornamental pools, by explaining that the suggestion is to change the language in the Code to state that the depth of an ornamental pool shall be to 18 inches, which is consistent with the language in the Building Code. The Commission had a brief discussion regarding the intent of the Uniform Building Code in restricting the depth of pools without fencing to 18 inches. Commissioner Knight noted what he felt may be confusing language when looking at the depth of pools and ornamental pools in Section 7 of the staff report, and how that may conflict with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that 18 inches is actually irrelevant in Section 7, as it is not the depth that is being defined but rather whether or not the pool can be allowed in the side or rear yard setback. Director Rojas felt that the language should be clarified in Section 7 to be consistent with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested striking the words “measuring more than 18 inches” from the first part of the paragraph and anywhere else where the depth measurement for ornamental ponds is mentioned, other than in the definition. Chairman Lewis suggested language for Section 7 which states that “. . . swimming pools, spas, ornamental pools, as defined in the proper section . . . .” The Commission agreed that referring the reader to a definition was the best way to word this section. Director Rojas stated that the final issue is in regards to minor structures in setback areas and the recommendation was to clarify and modify the list of the types of minor structures that are permitted within the setback areas. Commissioner Perestam felt that some of a previous discussion regarding lot coverage in regards to decks and trellises did not seem to be included in this language, and wondered if the issues had been brought before the Commission at a previous meeting for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Page 3 IS-193 ISSUE SUMMARY PACKET MINOR STRUCTURES IN SETBACK AREAS ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET: ISSUE Minor structures in setback areas RDSSC RECOMMENDATION Modify the list of the types of minor structures permitted within the setback areas—with and without Site Plan Review approval—while restricting the hours of operation of fountains due to concerns about noise impacts upon neighbors. DISCUSSION The RDSSC wished to expand the list of minor structures and improvements specifically requiring site plan review, as well as specifically exempting certain limited structures. It also wished to identify permitted minor structures in front yards. The RDSSC was concerned that fountains in the front yard should count towards the 50-percent hardscape coverage limitation. Furthermore, the Committee wished to ensure that noise from fountains did not disturb neighbors. Therefore, the RDSSC recommended amending Section 17.48.030(E)(3) as follows (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): 35. Minor Structures and Mechanical Equipment. Trash enclosures, storage sheds or playhouses less than one hundred twenty square feet, doghouses, play/sports equipment, fountains, light fixtures on a standard or a pole, flag poles, enclosed water heaters, barbecues, outdoor kitchens, garden walls, air conditioners, pool filters, vents and other minor structures or mechanical equipment shall not be located in any setback area in residential districts except as specified below: a. Minor structures and equipment less than six inches in height, as measured from adjacent finished grade, may be located in any required front, side or rear setback; b. Minor structures and mechanical equipment which exceed six inches in height, as measured from adjacent finished grade, may be permitted within an interior side or rear setback area by the director, through a site plan review application, unless the minor structure is a play house less than 120 square feet, a dog house, or play/sports equipment, then a site plan review application shall not be required; provided IS-194 that no significant adverse impacts will result and provided that: i. Noise levels from mechanical equipment do not exceed sixty-five dBA as measured from the closest property line, ii. No part of any minor structure or mechanical equipment, exceeds six feet in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade), iii. If located within a rear setback area which abuts a public or private street, the minor structure or mechanical equipment is not visible from the public or private street, iv. No part of any mechanical equipment, including but not limited to pool/spa equipment and air conditioning/heating equipment, extends within three feet of the property line, and v. No part of any minor structure extends within three feet of the property line. However, minor structures (not mechanical equipment) may be allowed to abut the side or rear property line; provided, that the minor structure: (A) Is placed adjacent to an existing solid wall; (B) Does not exceed the maximum height of the adjacent solid wall, up to a maximum of six feet; (C) Is less than one hundred twenty square feet in size; and (D) Is located a minimum of three feet from an adjacent structure, unless the structures are parallel and abutting each other, as determined by the director. c. The following minor structures shall be permitted within a front yard setback area provided that the minor structure does not exceed 42-inches in height, as measured from adjacent pre-construction grade: i. Balustrades and columns; ii. Light fixtures, including light fixtures attached to a standard, a pole or a column; IS-195 iii. Fountains, provided that the fountain is within the maximum front yard landscape requirement and is not operated between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.; and; iv. Ornamental ponds less than 18 inches deep. In addition to the RDSSC recommendations, Staff also recommends adding the following to the list of permitted minor structures within the front-yard setback area (additions bold and underlined, deletions struck out): v. Decorative landscape elements, including but not limited to: rocks, boulders, raised planter beds, pilasters and statuary. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the RDSSC recommendation 2. Reject the RDSSC recommendation 3. Propose modifications to the RDSSC recommendation P.C. ACTION Alternative 1 ATTACHMENTS RDSSC Minutes of October 24, 2005 (excerpt) RDSSC Minutes of November 14, 2005 (excerpt) PC Minutes of October 13, 2009 (excerpt) REFERENCES Section 15 of Draft Ordinance IS-196 October 24, 2005 Page 8 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz asked Committee Member Cartwright to meet with Staff to develop a list of concerns to be attached to the Committee recommendation that would give the new committee direction. Councilman Long called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed with Committee Member Slayden abstaining because he does not believe the neighborhood should get involved at this point because they may not be that informed. Senior Planner Mihranian began Staff’s presentation on Architectural Features referring to Section 17.40 of the Development Code. He noted that Staff is recommending changes to the organization of this section, as well as adding or clarifying sections to reflect current development trends. He stated that the Planning Department is processing requests for outdoor living spaces, including kitchens and fireplaces and the Code is not clear on these improvements. He stated that the suggested amendments are to address these items. Commissioner Mueller noted that language is changing by adding retractable awnings to the criteria. He asked how far would they be allowed to project. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it depends on where it is located and that the encroachment is similar to a garden window. Commissioner Gerstner stated that garden windows and window covering, such as retractable awnings, share a similar setback requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian noted that roof eaves were placed in its own section of the Code for clarification purposes, but that the standard did not change. He added language to clarify that roof eaves do not count towards lot coverage so that it encourages the use of eaves. Commissioner Gerstner asked if eaves with vertical supports count towards lot coverage. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that eaves with vertical supports are counted towards lot coverage. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there have been past problems with retractable awnings that led Staff to add this to the list. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there have been no past problems. However, when residents inquiry about installing a retractable awning since the Code is silent to such a structure, then it is implied that it is prohibitive. Staff believes retractable awnings should be allowed and is therefore treating them similar to a garden window when proposed to project within a required yard. IS-197 October 24, 2005 Page 9 of 15 Councilman Wolowicz questioned why something is prohibitive rather than permissive if the Code is silent. Councilman Long stated that since a retractable awning is attached to a structure than it is a part of the structure, and if it is permissive then it can be of any size because the Code is silent. He stated that if the Code is silent to something it should be addressed so that it can be regulated. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that in order to allow retractable awnings to project into a required yard, the Director has interpreted a retractable awning to be similar to a garden window. Councilman Wolowicz stated that if the Code is silent then it is prohibitive and by addressing topics in the Code then we are providing an outlet for property owners. Committee Member Lyon noted that he was under the impression that the Development Code states what you cannot do and everything else is permissible. Councilman Wolowicz agreed. Committee Member Cartwright referred to an example in his neighborhood regarding the color of the awnings. Councilman Long stated that awnings can change the character of a home and most certainly a neighborhood. Councilman Wolowicz asked Commissioner Mueller to comment on colors as it relates to architectural features. Commissioner Mueller expressed a concern not so much on color but rather materials, such as metal roofs. Councilman Wolowicz stated that technology may lead to future problems with the Code. Councilman Long agreed and stated that the Development Code is a work in progress and needs to be updated periodically to address new technology. He expressed a concern with having a Code that was permissive when silent. He added that you do not want the Development Code to be inflexible for new technologies, but on the other hand you do not want to permit something that you know nothing about. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is a head note paragraph in the Development Code that informs the reader that if something is not mentioned than it is prohibited. Commissioner Gerstner stated that Codes are usually not that explicit. He added that a code cannot address everything. IS-198 October 24, 2005 Page 10 of 15 Councilman Long stated that it could be by implication. Committee Member Slayden asked if the proposed language can be modified to include compatible awnings. Commissioner Gerstner stated that compatibility is addressed in the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement. Councilman Wolowicz returned to his original question if the Code should have a head note paragraph. Commissioner Gerstner stated that if a Code states you need to get a permit for any improvement to your house, then an awning is considered an improvement and a permit is required. Senior Planner Mihranian cited a section from the Development Code that states any new development requires a site plan review application. Councilman Long suggested that the Committee focus on its task adding that the discussion on the Development Code is not on the agenda. Committee Member Karp asked how color and material for awnings can be addressed. Commissioner Gerstner stated that reviewing the color of an awning is no different that reviewing the color of a house. He stated that the way to control it is through the Neighborhood Compatibility ordinance. Committee Member Karp stated that the Code does not allow the City to regulate house color. Councilman Long stated that you can evaluate compatibility by reviewing all the architectural features including color. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that color is not considered a component of Neighborhood Compatibility. He added that if a property owner requested to install an awning, whether retractable or not, neighborhood compatibility would not be required because it does not qualify as a trigger. Commissioner Mueller stated that reviewing color is usually done by an art jury or an architectural review board. Councilman Wolowicz asked if we added compatible to the proposed text would it result in confusion. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it would because there are no guidelines to evaluate compatibility. IS-199 October 24, 2005 Page 11 of 15 Committee Member Slayden said that compatibility should be based on color and whether it matches the house. Councilman Long stated that color is a new set of criteria that requires reviewing color palettes for a structure. He suggested that this issue be addressed at a later time. He then asked that the Committee should look at window coverings to be treated similarly as garden windows for projecting into required yards. Committee Member Slayden stated that Staff’s proposed language is acceptable for garden windows and window coverings. Senior Planner Mihranian asked if there were any comments to the proposed language on roof eaves. There were no comments so he moved the discussion to fireplace chimneys. He stated that this is a new section that clarifies the difference between chimneys attached to a structure and detached chimneys that are a part of an outdoor living space. He reviewed the new language for detached structures. Commissioner Gerstner asked why detached chimneys were limited to twelve feet. Senior Planner Mihranian responded to be consistent with the Code’s requirement for other detached accessory structures. Commissioner Gerstner asked how would the City treat an attached chimney to a detached structure. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the chimney would be considered attached to a habitable structure regardless of whether it is a detached accessory structure and would be subject to said criteria. He proceeded to discuss criteria for minor structures and mechanical equipment explaining that the list of permitted structures that may project into the required yards was expanded. Committee Member Karp asked if a dog house requires a permit. Councilman Wolowicz asked if a permit is required for a playhouse or sports equipment and whether fees are required as well. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that it was his impression that a permit is required as well as a permit fee. Committee Member Karp stated that an article should be placed in the City’s quarterly newsletter on this matter so that people know when a permit is needed. Councilman Wolowicz raised a concern as to why permits and application filing fees are required for such structures. He then asked if there are guidelines that identify what requires a permit. He thinks the public needs to be educated on these requirements. IS-200 October 24, 2005 Page 12 of 15 Committee Member Cartwright asked how noise levels from mechanical equipment were going to be measured based on Staff’s proposed amended text. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on today’s technology, mechanical equipment includes noise specifications that the City would rely on. Commissioner Gerstner raised a concern with relying on the mechanical equipment’s specifications. He stated that the specifications are based on limited variables and the outcome can drastically vary from what is included in the manual. Committee Member Cartwright raised a concern with pool equipment and stated that the original text provided the City with an enforcement mechanism to test noise levels. He indicated he would like the existing text to remain. Commissioner Gerstner stated that the existing text provides the City with an enforcement mechanism and places the burden to prove the equipment does not adversely impact neighbors on the property owner. Councilman Long suggested that although Staff’s attempt is to seek more precision, the text should remain. Commissioner Gerstner stated that noise is related to ambiance and since the City is relatively quiet, noise is more evident. He stated that noise levels should be measured from property lines with ambient noise factored into the equation. Commissioner Mueller raised a concern with allowing fountains within the front yard because of noise levels and aesthetics. Committee Member Karp stated that fountains were not as popular as they are now and are much more elaborate today. Committee Member Cartwright gave an example of a fountain that started off as this simple decorative feature but was expanded to have many features and statues added to it that resulting in a much more obtrusive structure. He recommended that a definition of what is a fountain be included. He stated that if fountains are permissible, then we should define to what extent, otherwise you can end up with the entire front yard as a fountain. Senior Planner Mihranian suggested that the Committee establish limits to the size, height and hours of operation for a fountain. Commissioner Perestam spoke of the visual impacts of a fountain referring to an example on Palos Verdes Drive South near Trump National. IS-201 October 24, 2005 Page 13 of 15 Committee Member Karp would like language added that regulates the size and hours of operation of a fountain. She stated that a fountain should not be allowed to run all night. Councilman Wolowicz asked if fountain made no noise, would it still be a concern. Councilman Long stated that some of the concerns relating to fountains has to do with the architectural appearance, especially in the front yard, and that it is not just noise. Councilman Wolowicz asked for some guidance as to what is considered a minor structure. Senior Planner Mihranian referred to the Code language citing the 120 square foot limit. Committee Member Cartwright asked about light fixtures and if there are luminous standards. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that the Environmental Protection section of the Development Code addresses wattage. Councilman Long raised a concern with regulating wattage because people can choose different things to install in a light fixture which can be more luminous. He stated that the Code should regulate luminous not wattage. Commissioner Gerstner added that two of the most important things that affect the character of a community are light and noise. He noted that they are hard things to regulate. He expressed a concern with homes that are overly illuminated stating that the quality of life is affected. He stated that the City Council should evaluate noise and lighting. Committee Member Cartwright indicated that when he was on the Planning Commission, conditions were seldom imposed that regulated light fixtures, typically so that they are downcast and lighting does not spill over to the neighbors property. Councilman Long asked why ornamental ponds were reduced from a depth of 24- inches to 18-inches. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the change is to make the Code consistent with the Uniform Building Code that requires fencing around a body of water that exceeds a depth of 18-inches. Councilman Wolowicz suggested that Staff bring back the section on architectural features with modifications identified by the Committee. Councilman Long stated that starting with Circle Page 18, the Committee accepts the changes proposed to sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and the beginning portion of 5. He IS-202 October 24, 2005 Page 14 of 15 added that the Committee does not support a change to the noise requirement in Section 5.I and that Staff bring back information on Section 5c with a definition of a fountain, a consideration of what are and are not minor structures, the Committee accepts the change to ornamental ponds and the changes proposed on Circle Pages 21 and 22 for consistency purposes. Councilman moved to adopt Councilman Long’s summary statement, seconded by Committee Member Cartwright. The motion moved unanimously. Senior Planner Mihranian presented the Committee with a list of items reviewed by the Committee during its tenure. He added that the Committee is near it completion. Councilman Long stated that based on the recent workshop with the Planning Commission there appears to be this perception that this Committee will be answering questions regarding Neighborhood Compatibility. Specifically, when evaluating whether a structure is compatible, is compatibility based on a neighborhood as it currently exists, the vision of a neighborhood as it will exist in the future, and what is the definition of that. He asked if the Committee is formulating an answer to this question. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the three Commissioners on this Committee, as well as the formers members on the Neighborhood Compatibility Steering Committee can assist in answering this question. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that based on Saturday’s Joint Workshop, Staff will bring to this Committee some clean-up items to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook as it pertains to color and the compatibility evaluation process. He added that one of the outstanding matters that the Committee needs to address is conducting a meeting with Eastview residents regarding the proposed Overlay District. He reminded the Committee that at the time the Overlay District was contemplated the thought was that the residents affected by the proposal should be given the opportunity to provide input on the proposal outside of the public hearing process. Committee Member Cartwright asked about CC&R’s. Councilman Long stated that the Council decided not to enforce CC&R’s but to make the public aware that CC&R’s may exist. He stated that Councilman Gardiner asked if the Committee is addressing the carrying capacity of the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS IS-203 November 14, 2005 Page 6 of 13 Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the majority of the area is RS-2 with portions designated as RS-1. Commissioner Mueller commented on the prohibition of new residences with the moratorium area. Councilman Wolowicz stated that it was his impression that several homes may have been remodeled or added to without City approvals. Senior Planner Mihranian reminded the Committee that the criteria for the moratorium was recently amended by the Council with a square footage limitation, previous to the amendment, there was no square footage limitation, therefore allowing larger additions. Committee Member Dyda stated that in light of Committee Member Lyon’s clarification he believes that a vote should be taken on the motion. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there was any opposition to the Motion. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously Senior Planner Mihranian introduced the next agenda item by reminding the Committee that at its last meeting, various amendments to the Architectural Features section of the Code was amended with the exception of 5c. He stated that the Committee requested Staff to revisit some of the criteria relating to minor structures. He proceeded to list what is defined as a minor structure, such as trash enclosures, storage sheds less than 120 square feet, dog houses, fountains, flag poles, barbecues, etc. He then listed minor mechanical equipment, such as air conditioners and water heaters. He added that according to the Development Code, a site plan review application is required for minor structures or mechanical equipment that constitute lot coverage, otherwise a minor site plan review application is required. He stated that a few months ago a situation arose where a property owner installed a playhouse and was required to pay an application fee. He stated that the Planning Director determined that a site plan review application is not required, provided that the equipment is installed according to Code. He indicated that the Planning Director authorized the fee to be refunded. Councilman Wolowicz stated he would like to see deminimis items excluded from the entitlement process, but understands the associated concerns. Senior Planner Mihranian continued with his presentation by identifying the areas that were revised from the last meeting, specifically on minor structures in the front yard like fountains. He stated that the Committee wanted Staff to come back with standards that limit fountain size and hours of operation. He mentioned that in terms of size, that the maximum front yard open space landscape requirement would indirectly limit the size of minor structures in the front yard when calculating a driveway and a walkway. As for noise, staff is recommending prohibiting a fountain in the front yard from operating between midnight and 7 a.m. He added that some members of the public might not IS-204 November 14, 2005 Page 7 of 13 favor limiting the hours of operation because it appears to be overly restrictive. He asked for Committee input. Committee Member Dyda stated that a fountain would then be considered hardscape. He then asked if the Code currently regulates noise generated after 10 p.m. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the Code regulates noise levels in the commercial standards. He added that the Code does not have a noise ordinance. He stated that according to the Environmental Protection the Code regulates the hours of operation for landscape and construction activities. Committee Member Mueller asked if the City regulates tree houses. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the City does not consider tree houses to be a structure unless they are affixed to a foundation or maintain vertical supports. Committee Member Cartwright referred to an article written in the LA Times on a 2,000 square foot tree house that was built in Brentwood and expressed a concern that such a structure may become an issue in Rancho Palos Verdes because of current trends. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if the Committee should address tree houses. Senior Planner Mihranian said at this time Staff does not believe tree houses pose a problem. He added that in the event a large tree house is constructed, if it requires a foundation or vertical supports, then the City would require a permit because the tree house is now considered a structure. Committee Member Dyda questioned whether this is something that the City should address before it becomes a problem. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that Staff believes mechanisms are in place that would allow the City to regulate a large tree house. Councilman Wolowicz asked if tree houses should be discussed at the next meeting. The Committee unanimously agreed not to discuss tree houses. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt Staff’s recommended amendments to the Architectural Features Section 5C. Committee Member Lyon second the motion. Councilman Wolowicz asked for comments. Commissioner Mueller indicated his opposition for fountains in the front yard and the permissible hours of operation because they are not reasonable. He would prefer to IS-205 November 14, 2005 Page 8 of 13 see no change to the Code as it relates to fountains in the front yard because they pose a nuisance to neighbors. Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff if there were any modifications that could be made to address his concerns. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that a change could be made to the permitted hours or operation. As for the size of fountains, Staff believes using the front yard open space requirement is adequate. Committee Member Dyda stated that if fountains are going to be counted as hardscape, for purposes of the front yard open space requirement, so should ornamental ponds. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that change could be made. Councilman Wolowicz asked if the maker of the motion accepts the proposed amendment. Committee Members Dyda and Lyon accepted the amendment. Committee Member Dyda raised a concern with the noise limitation for fountains and believes it should apply to other mechanical equipment, such as pool and spa equipment. Councilman Wolowicz indicated that the issue relating to noise has been an on going matter discussed by the Council in the past and may require further discussion in light of the comments expressed by the Committee. Committee Member Dyda believes that noise generated by mechanical equipment is an unresolved matter because although limited to 65 dba, as measured from the closest property line, such equipment can be operated 24-hours a day. Councilman Wolowicz asked for a vote on the motion. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Mueller dissenting. Councilman Wolowicz asked Commissioner Mueller to send a note to Staff listing his concern. He then asked if there are any items to be placed on future agenda items. Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the next meeting is December 12th. He indicated that there are no more new items to discuss other than what gets continued from this evening’s meeting. He mentioned that in the agenda packet is a timeline of future meetings on the Eastview Overlay District. He briefly explained that a public notice would go to affected property owners and homeowner’s associations in January within the Eastview area informing them that a public meeting would be held in February 2006 by this Committee to solicit input on a possible overlay district. He added that a final IS-206 Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly explaining the three categories regarding minor structures and miscellaneous development standards scheduled to be discussed. He began with the first item, the setback encroachment clarification and explained the Committee’s recommendation. Vice Chairman Gerstner felt that staff’s clarification on the setback encroachment was consistent with the Committee’s recommendation. The Commission agreed with the proposed language. Director Rojas explained the next subject, ornamental pools, by explaining that the suggestion is to change the language in the Code to state that the depth of an ornamental pool shall be to 18 inches, which is consistent with the language in the Building Code. The Commission had a brief discussion regarding the intent of the Uniform Building Code in restricting the depth of pools without fencing to 18 inches. Commissioner Knight noted what he felt may be confusing language when looking at the depth of pools and ornamental pools in Section 7 of the staff report, and how that may conflict with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that 18 inches is actually irrelevant in Section 7, as it is not the depth that is being defined but rather whether or not the pool can be allowed in the side or rear yard setback. Director Rojas felt that the language should be clarified in Section 7 to be consistent with the definition of ornamental pools. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested striking the words “measuring more than 18 inches” from the first part of the paragraph and anywhere else where the depth measurement for ornamental ponds is mentioned, other than in the definition. Chairman Lewis suggested language for Section 7 which states that “. . . swimming pools, spas, ornamental pools, as defined in the proper section . . . .” The Commission agreed that referring the reader to a definition was the best way to word this section. Director Rojas stated that the final issue is in regards to minor structures in setback areas and the recommendation was to clarify and modify the list of the types of minor structures that are permitted within the setback areas. Commissioner Perestam felt that some of a previous discussion regarding lot coverage in regards to decks and trellises did not seem to be included in this language, and wondered if the issues had been brought before the Commission at a previous meeting for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Page 3 IS-207 Chairman Lewis suggested giving staff direction to approve what is currently before the Commission with the caveat that staff check to make sure all issues of lot coverage have been brought before the Commission for review. Director Rojas explained that the Commission is discussing two different sections of the code; one section being lot coverage, which was discussed by the Commission at a previous meeting, and the one before the Commission tonight, which is discussing what specifically is allowed in the setback areas. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that staff has asked the Planning Commission whether or not to add decorative landscape elements to the list of minor structures. He noted specifically that would include rocks, boulders, raised planter beds, pilasters, and statuary as structures. He stated his concern with defining a rock or boulder as a structure. He suggested language which might say “other elements including rocks, boulders, raised planter beds, pilasters, and statuary.” Director Rojas explained that there will be staff generated clean-up items for the Commission’s consideration, and suggested the Planning Commission continue this hearing to the November 10th meeting. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to November 10, 2009, without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00223): 5658 Ravenspur Drive Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the requested Variance. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the Variance for the reasons stated in the staff report. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to explain how the lack of a notice from the Public Works Department shifts the burden of not complying with the code away from the Homeowners Association. Director Rojas explained that the purpose of the recycling grant is to allow the HOA to improve their common areas. When they are notified that they have received a grant they are also notified as to what permits and City approvals are needed. In this case the HOA was told they did not need permits, and they relied on this information and built the fountain. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Grace Yung (representing the HOA) stated she was available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Page 4 IS-208