Loading...
08/19/1993GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1993 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on August 19, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Jim Sims, Vice -Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Moire Huss, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLEDGE: Jim Sims, Vice -Chairman CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 6:42 P.M. The Community Development Director stated that the commissioners who were absent at the previous meeting could vote on SA 92-11 (Drechsler) tonight if they have read the minutes and feel comfortable in doing so. The Community Development Director summarized what took place at the City Council Meeting regarding the Sign Inventory, stating that Cn. • icil voted for a partial moratorium, which would involve notices being sent but no code enforcement to take place for three months, unless in cases of safety or major violation. Vice -Chairman Sims expressed frustration with the sign problem and the fact that code enforcement can not take place. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 7:10 P.M. C CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 5, 1993 MOTION PCM-93-52 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 5, 1993 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-52 ITEM #2 Z-93-01 Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve the August 5, 1993 minutes. Commissioner Wilson seconded. Motion carries. 3-0-2-2. Commissioners Huss and Van Gelder absent. Vice - Chairman Sims and Commissioner Munson abstained. Chairman Buchanan deferred this item to the end of the meeting. TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:13 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 7:13 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-92-11 FRANK DRECHSLER 22696-22698 MC CLARREN G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THREE DUPLEXES (TOTAL OF SIX ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS) IN THE R2 DISTRICT 2 Chairman Buchanan asked Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioner Munson to stated whether or not they would be voting. Vice -Chairman Sim stated he read the minutes and feels comfortable voting. Commissioner Munson stated he would be abstaining. The Associate Planner presented the staff report. FRANK DRECHSLER 9140 EL AZUL CIRCLE FOUNTAIN VALLEY Mr. Drechsler indicated the proposed location of the air conditioning units. Discussion took place regarding Vice -Chairman Sims suggestion of a Loffelstein wall. 8:08 P.M. RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING 8:08 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-93-53 SA-92-11 Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. He said they had a motion that the air conditioning and heating units be ground -mounted in the rear portion of the unit, which was passed, and they had a motion that the trash enclosure be in decorative block or block wall with matching stucco treatment, which also passed. He said that, in light of the applicant's discussion regarding location of the air conditioning units, he thinks where he indicated is consistent with their requirement that they be ground -mounted at the rear portion, and in the event that the units are shifted around to the side of the building, and particularly with respect to the one facing Canal, the side yard fencing for that unit would have to be moved out to enclose this. He didn't feel a separate motion was needed for this. Vice -Chairman Sims made a motion that the proposed retaining wall on the north side of the project be of Loffelstein construct or similar in nature, maintaining an 8' minimum depth in the patio area. Chairman Buchanan seconded. 3 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-53 MOTION PCM-93-54 SA-92-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-11 MOTION PCM-93-55 SA-92-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-55 MOTION PCM-93-56 SA-92-11 Motion carries. 3-1-2-1. Commissioner Wilson voted no. Commissioners Huss and Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Munson abstained. Commissioner Wilson made a motion that a minimum of 8' of clear width be preserved between the back of the unit to the face of the wall in all conditions. Any condition where there is a difference in elevation, measuring from the top of the existing fence along the north property line to the pad elevation exceeding 8', the retaining wall structure shall include the opportunity for either a crib wall treatment or a stepped retaining wall. Chairman Buchanan seconded. Motion carries. 4-0-2-1. Commissioners Huss and Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Munson abstained. 0 Chairman Buchanan made a motion that a gate arrangement, acceptable to the Planning Director, be constructed at the southern entrance to the breezeway between Units B and C. Vice -Chairman Sims seconded. Motion carries. 3-1-2-1. Commissioner Addington voted no. Commissioners Huss and Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Munson abstained. 4 K MOTION VOTE PCM-93-56 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve SA-92-11 as conditioned and amended. Commissioner Wilson seconded. Motion carries. 3-1-2-1. Commissioner Addington voted no. Commissioners Huss and Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Munson abstained. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 8:28 P.M. RECONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. ITEM #2 Z-93-01 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITYWIDE ZONING AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Commissioner Wilson excused himself from this project, both discussion and vote. The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan said this was a good move from the intangible stuff they were discussing before to actually putting it down in ordinance form and cleaning it up and tying in all of those things that we wanted to do. Vice -Chairman Sims said this is like a one-time situation, where somebody comes and playhouse or some structure and staff notifies the neighbors and nobody complains and it gets approved administratively by staff, then the neighbors move and a different set of neighbors come in; what if they don't like it? The Community Development Director said the structure has already been approved, as it is a one-time review. She said if they change the color or take the roof off and use it as an observation tower, then it will be subject to another review. She stated that if they have revised it significantly, and, for example, if the structure was to be of very pale color or to match the fence or something like that and they change it completely and change the use of C 5 it instead of a playhouse to be an observation tower with the windows looking over the swimming pool, then it breaks the conditions the approval was based on which would trigger another review. Vice -Chairman Sims said it is nice to see something in writing. Commissioner Addington said on Section 18.63.100 of Attachment A, Expiration and Extensions, Item A, staff has added, "and commit sufficient investment", this seems a little general, and he is a little unclear on this issue. The Community Development Director said she basically utilized the wording that is already in the Code for a Conditional Use Permit. She said she wasn't actually thinking about playhouses; she was thinking about the James Harber project. She said every time they have a Conditional Use Permit and the applicant's do not follow the conditions, they have the authority to revoke the project; with the Site and Architecture, the way it was worded before, they took a permit and that's it, or if they request an extension, it could be forever, in non-compliance with the conditions of approval, and they have a case where a person is there for 15 years, and they couldn't revoke the Site and Architectural Review because there is permit taken. Commissioner Addington asked if the permit had expired. The Community Development Director said the permit expired, but that expiration is already into the jurisdiction of the Engineering Department, and the Planning Department can not revoke the Site and Architecture because they took a permit. She said the Building Official could revoke the permit, because it was never finalled, and in that particular situation, they did not have an inspection to final. She said with Conditional Use Permits, she does have that authority, so she just used the same wording for the Site and Architecture just to give staff a little more strength, but what she really means in terms of "commit sufficient investment" is, for example, if you take a permit but do not implement any of that and do not start the work, and you come back a year later and ask for an extension and don't do anything about what you propose, it should really expire; why should you be able to get so many extensions without proper reevaluation of the project? Commissioner Addington asked who grants the extensions. The Community Development Director said she has the authority to grant extensions twice, up to two years, and then they'll need to come to the Planning Commission, but according to the previous wording, if you have a permit, you can always ask for an extension, and if not to her, to the Planning Commission. 9 Commissioner Addington asked if they can deny it, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Vice -Chairman Sims said the point is somebody comes in with plans and they want to pull a permit and then accomplish that, then all of a sudden, they find they don't have enough money because they get a bid or something like that on it and they don't have enough money to build it and they don't proceed with it over the years, so we have provisions that the Planning Director can extend that permit for up to two years. He said after that point in time, codes may change, standards may change, concrete may get harder, that type of thing, that the old permit was issued under. He stated they have to have the opportunity to void that original permit so new standards can be applied. However, if they have gone in and, say, poured a concrete slab, that is sufficient investment in that patio structure. He said this was the purpose of putting this in here so that the permit could be extended. The Community Development Director said the reason this item is here is to apply to larger projects when applicants are not meeting Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Addington said it states that, "the approval of a Site and Architectural Review application shall expire, etc., unless the following actions occur", and when you turn the page to the new Item B, "A business license is t issued in accordance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code". He asked if someone wants to go in and put something on their own property if they would have to go get a business license. The Community Development Director said it should say, "as applicable". She said they only need a business license for certain items that provide income. Commissioner Addington asked if was appropriate to make that motion. Chairman Buchanan said they need to open public testimony for this, and then they will have +o come back to it. Commissioner Addington asked if there is still a minimum of 125 sq. ft. to require a building permit, and if this is still there, has it disappeared or is the minimum reduced. The Community Development Director said it is still there. She said they are not amending the Uniform Building Code, and there is no permit need unless structures go above 125 sq. ft., more than one story and have footings. She said what she is changing is that she would have the authority to review it, even though a permit may not be needed. She said right now, their 'Plan 7 Check of Working Drawings" is only a clearance for things that need permits. She said a lot of playhouses don't need permits, so when people call, staff has no authority to ask them to come for a review. She said staff would be able to impose conditions, and if the applicant doesn't like it, they can appeal her decision to the Commission. Commissioner Addington said previously there was a height restriction of 10', and he asked if this was modified. The Community Development Director said yes, through the latest amendments, because that used to be a criteria to bring structures to the Planning Commission, and the intention of the latest amendments was to decrease the amount of minor projects that would come to this body. She said at that time, they were also thinking to increase the fees for public hearing items, and now they did, so it would be less fees for the applicant, less length of the process, (inaudible) much simpler and much easier, so basically, by having these projects reviewed at staff level, it would be much easier on the applicant. They took the 10' criteria out, because basically all accessory structures are above 10'. She said they deleted that and replaced it with the bulk, mass criteria and lot coverage, so when structures are very bulky or above 65% of the main structure, and if they are larger than 1,200 sq. ft. and if they cover more than 25% of the lot, then they will come to the Commission, otherwise they will be reviewed at staff level. By replacing that 10' criteria they eliminated the review of a lot of the playhouses, and at that time, playhouses needed to come to the Commission. Currently, it would cost $550 to come here if they had not changed that criteria. She said the way the Code is written, there are a lot of footnotes in a lot of areas that if they just looked at one section, other requirements will be missed. She said in some areas of the Code, there is no reference sending you to another section so there are things not clear. In other words, current Code has sections that still require playhouses to come to the Planning Commission and other areas say "no". She said by doing this amendment now, it is going to clear the wording completely. There will be no more ambiguity in the Code. She said playhouses are proposed not to come to the Planning Commission, they would not require administrative review, they would only require over-the-counter review, Land Use Approval, by the Planning Director. Only controversial cases would require notice to the adjacent neighbors. The fee would be of $33.00 instead of $100 or $500. So staff would have that authority; a little bit, not as much as they had before at all, but a little bit of authority to impose conditions, so that issue does not become code enforcement hopefully if it is addressed before construction. She said if they put in their newsletters, for example, that all the playhouses should be reviewed, maybe more people are going to call staff before building playhouses, so they will know how to build them. Planning Department staff will tell them to build them far away so the 8 neighbors won't see them; they can build two stories, it doesn't matter, but put them in a place where the neighbors don't see them, or at least according to accessory structures setbacks and compatible in colors and materials. 8:51 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING DOUG WILSON 12168 OBSERVATION G.T. Mr. Wilson stressed he is not speaking as a member of the Commission at this time, that he has withdrawn his participation in relation to being a member of the Commission, but he does speak as a citizen of the City of Grand Terrace. He said he has reviewed the public information regarding this proposed change and the ordinance, and what he personally finds unacceptable within the body of the proposed revision is the concept of over - legislating our approval process to include playhouses. He said if they ask themselves the question, "What is the nature of a playhouse?", a playhouse is a temporary use, and in 99% of the cases, you can qualify it as a temporary use; by nature it is, it is not a habitable use, it ordinarily has no permanent foundation to it, and if it does, it ordinarily has something holding it up from the ground, but not construed as a really permanent foundation. He said children grow up and move away, and playhouses are not there forever, and if you view in respect of the fact that a changeable landscape is a normal condition in single family or multi -family houses, that trees effect our views and effect our privacy ratios, but we do not legislate whether a tree can be built in a particular place. He said by definition, he takes issue with what the Planning Director has stated so far as the U.B.C. addressing the case of a playhouse, and he quoted, per the 1991 U.B.C., Chapter 3, under Permits and Inspections, Section 301 b-1, "One-story, detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 sq. ft. are classified as work exempt from a permit". He said the Department of Building and Safety, due to the nature of the playhouse, does not require a permit for a playhouse, and it considers a playhc.::,e a temporary use as long as it is less than 120 sq. ft., that is to say, a building permit shall not be required for it. He said he is not sure he understands the idea of the Building and Safety Department, who is responsible in a large respect for protecting the interests of the community with regard to protection from hazards or unsuitable conditions, and the U.B.C. was actually established with the concept that minimums are established to make sure that there are no dangers or conditions that would harm the citizens or whatever; that when they propose to legislate under a planning situation a review of something that doesn't even require a building permit, that they have overstepped their boundaries as citizenry. He said by 9 practicality, a playhouse is a temporary use; you won't be living there, most are kits; under this new proposed legislation, all playhouses would be reviewed - you could even classify a dog house as a temporary use, or rather a use suitable for a review by the Planning Department. He said he wouldn't ask for an answer, but asked if any structure can be allowed in the City that directly violates City ordinances or by its nature represent a significant threat to life or safety, setting aside the issue which he believes is an arbitrary one, and that is, the issue of the almighty property value comparison? He said no, that any person in the City who sets about constructing even a temporary use knowing that it might endanger another is a criminal, in essence, but at the same time, if they construct it and are just not aware or choose to make themselves aware of minimum standards adopted by the City to preserve the rights and safety of its residents, if he or she constructs a structure that is a hazard or is defined under CC&Rs which are legally binding documents, as a result of either ignorance or stubbornness, and is notified to either correct the condition yet refuses to comply with the law, the government, in its role as a police authority, has the right to revert to legal means to remove the hazard. He said they already have that condition, and if a playhouse, for example, is set within a side yard closer that 5', it is against the Zoning Code, it is illegal; if it is taller than 20', it may also be against the Zoning Code, and at this point, he believes that the Code does not provide for a visual criteria or a scenic analysis; he believes that becomes a completely subjective situation. He asked, "What is the function of Planning?", to which he answered, to review proposed uses and insure that the laws of the jurisdiction will not be violated; this often includes protection of wildlife, mitigation of impacts, projection to insure quality of life, redevelopment to mitigate natural and economic cycles, in short, to help people live together by establishing reasonable standards and enforcing them. He said what is proposed tonight is beyond reason, and he personally feels that it is over -legislation, but he would like to clarify that he believes that the items that have been shown in the proposed public report that clarify situations with regard to procedural situations with the exception of playhouses, those that specifically address playhouses and include playhouses as an accessory structure, he believes those items are called for, and he does believe that they clarify the procedures and open up the opportunity for Planning Staff in the City of Grand Terrace to review things without taking them to the Planning Commission and unnecessarily tying up their volunteer staff in that way. He said he would like to say again that if Building and Safety ignores these structures, why does Planning feel as if they should create a situation where they would be reviewed. 11e said he does not believe that it is in the best interest of the City of Grand Terrace to inherit a latent liability if this change is made, not to mention the cost and social implications; it just reinforces the previous discussions by the Commission at public testimony last week. He urged them to leave the ordinance as it is with exception of the clarification and language 10 that straighten out the procedural items, but he urged the Commission to exempt playhouses from this review process. Vice -Chairman Sims said the Planning Department needs to be concerned about the setbacks of the playhouses and where they put these facilities and these kits into areas that could potentially harm the children who are playing in them. He asked how he would think that these things would become known to the Planning Department so they could made that determination if the playhouses were improperly placed in the setbacks and is not placed in an area that could cause potential harm. He said he was a little bit confused, as Mr. Wilson seemed to say that the people that do those things are criminals and should be brought into compliance. A local person would not even know those rules if they were not brought to their attention in some manner. Vice - Chairman Sims said he was curious why Mr. Wilson felt the Planning Department was trying to create overlegislation as Vice -Chairman Sims felt this was not going to over -legislate but was going to provide information to people to help them place those things in the proper areas. Mr. Wilson said the difference is, at this point, those items are being addressed on a policy basis, on a case -by -case basis. Vice -Chairman Sims said on a complaint basis. Mr. Wilson said on a complaint basis or a case -by -case volunteer, the person comes in and utilizes the services of the Planning Department and asks; the few that would actually want to know whether they were going to inherit some sort of liability by sticking something right up against their fence. He said every citizen in the City of Grand Terrace has that opportunity to do that, and he believes that vehicle already exists and doesn't think it is necessary when you consider the nature of the playhouse that you would have to go through a formal Planning review, because he believes they are creating a step that really isn't there, and he doesn't know of any other way of explaining it other than the fact that the building permit process does not require anything of that definition to be even reviewed, so he think if the City of Grand Terrace feels it is necessary to step into the role of kind of arbitrary or judiciary view, he believes in the proposed language it states something to the effect about if it would affect the scenic views. He said he thinks we're still in the realm, unless they can give some sort of criteria in this proposed change to the ordinance, of what would interrupt a scenic view, it's bad legislation to set up the instance where it's completely judiciary on the part of the staff or even on the part of the Planning Commission to decide what cutting somebody's view off is. He gave a short example: to the south of him is a house that's had an improvement put upon it, and he received no notice of this, and it is definitely a large add -on. He said it cuts off his view, and he has a wide vista, but it cut 11 off a portion of his view, but he received no notice on this. He said this is a permanent structure, but because it is defined under the Code as not requiring a notice on it, that situation took place. He said he honestly thinks they are going overboard here with this legislation for playhouses, and he would like to think that he can build a playhouse and work out his problems with his neighbors, and he believes that is what this country is supposed to be about and they have stepped away from it and they need to step back towards it. 9:06 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Vice -Chairman Sims asked where it says specifically in the proposed Code that playhouses were accessory structures. Chairman Buchanan said it is in the definition chapter. The Community Development Director said it is in various areas; including in the accessory structures definition. Currently, the playhouses are not clearly stated in the accessory structures. If they are not considered accessory structures, they could not even regulate the distance of the setback, because if they are not an accessory structure, then they don't even have setback requirements. Vice -Chairman Sims asked if they are being reactive to the complaint of a single property owner or if there has there been a number of complaints that have created a growing pattern. The Community Development Director said they can say that most complaints are received in the summer, but it happens a lot. She thinks views and privacy issues can vary according to different areas. She said she was in Italy and everybody builds on top of each other, and their houses are all three stories high and very close to each other. She said the other day they went to Beverly Hills and Century City and there are buildings of 20 stories adjacent to houses that are still there and are just one or two stories high, so depending on the location you are in, there are perceived property values and perceived privacy rights. She said in Grand Terrace, it is very clear, and she thinks the evidence is provided to them by the number of complaints they receive that residents perceive that they have a certain freedom with their property and a certain privacy that needs to be respected, and she thinks that the calls they have been receiving in many cases is sufficient for staff to take as a public nuisance, because they receive complaints of people extremely 12 upset and trying to get petitions and talk to all their neighbors. Apparently, for the values of the community because of the size of the lots or the location, people feel they should maintain the level of freedom and back yard privacy they have now. She said on Wilshire Boulevard, it is impossible to maintain privacy because of the nature of the land use. She said it is impossible to maintain privacy in some of the cities in Italy, but right here in Grand Terrace, it is possible; with a minimum review of those houses, it is very possible to maintain privacy and do not decrease the property values. People that call staff say that staff is allowing their neighbors to interfere and lower their property values. She said from staffs perspective, they feel there is a problem, and they feel it is staff s duty to provide certain help; it is the Planning Department's duty to help because it has to do with the protection of the property values, enhancement of property values, and so she feels it is her job to take care of this issue based on the type of complaints and the number of complaints they have received. Vice -Chairman Sims asked, then, if this is complaint -driven. The Community Development Director said yes, basically. Vice -Chairman Sims said, when it's complaint driven, and they make contact with whoever is making the complaint, is she saying they are going to charge him money to help him, or is she just going to go up to him and say, "You've got it in the wrong place, you've got to move it over there". He asked if he gets charged for all of that. The Community Development Director stated that they contact property owners, discuss issues and make recommendations. Most times property owners agree. With this proposal, they will proceed to submit sketches and pay a $33.00 fee. Vice -Chairman Sims asked if, when they get a complaint, they go out and visit the site, and let the guy know there has been a complaint here. The Community Development Direzt3r said this is correct. Vice -Chairman Sims asked if it is not just a simple matter, sometimes, that the playhouse or accessory structure is just in the wrong place. The Community Development Director said sometimes that's all. Vice -Chairman Sims asked if they can just tell him it's in the wrong place. The Community Development Director said unfortunately, no, as sometimes even if you tell them it is in the wrong place, if you don't have the authority, 13 they can say, "Okay, but I'm going to leave it there". She mentioned that this is not just complaint -driven. She said for the last five years, with the previous Director, they were subject to the Planning Commission review, so it was just in the last six months when she altered the criteria, so they have been receiving complaints and can not tell property owners they need to go to the Planning Commission like David Sawyer used to tell them before, nor that there structure is illegal. She said in the past, he has resolved several cases in that way and they have demolished it and that's it, but right now, she has no right to do that, so it's not just complaint -driven, it is that she doesn't have that power anymore, not even to review the playhouses at staff level. Vice -Chairman Sims said she wouldn't know about it unless somebody complained about it. He said they don't go drive around the City looking for - these things trying to create revenue for the City. The Community Development Director said they don't have staff to do that. Vice -Chairman Sims said it is his firm belief that the Planning Department has the responsibility to know where issues are causing problems and to try to take care of those problems for the betterment of the whole. He said he thinks it is a good move on their part to move it away from this body into a more over-the-counter type of scenario to help the citizens understand the rules and regulations that they may not totally be aware of, and yes, that costs a certain amount of dollars to implement that, and it has to save someone a tremendous amount of grief later on in trying to get a waiver on conditions. Chairman Buchanan said he agrees with a lot of what Mr. Wilson said, that there's something distasteful about getting to the point of legislating playhouses and back yards. He said on the other hand, it's obviously a real issue, and it has to be addressed in some way, and while he finds it somewhat distasteful that people would have to come to the Planning Department to process an application to put a playhouse up in the back yard, unless people are required to go through some kind of process, you never get an advanced opportunity to deal with setback issues, privacy issues, height issues, material issues that can be dealt with satisfactorily. He said he `hinks the gist of this is that it's staffs feeling that a lot of the problems will be headed off and dealt with up front rather than in an angry neighbor situation a little bit farther down the road, and he thinks from a planning standpoint, the proposed ordinance is well -designed and makes a lot of sense, and he thinks Mr. Wilson has raised valid policy issues of government participation in people's use of their back yard and where you draw the line in protecting neighbor's privacy from another neighbor's recreation. He said maybe he's advocating some responsibility, but they are only recommending or not 14 recommending this to the City Council for adoption, and he thinks it is up to 0 the City Council to make that kind of policy decision, because he thinks it really does boil down to what the Community Development Director was talking about -- is this community willing to commit its Planning Staff resources to trying to head off privacy issue concerns and neighbor vs. neighbor concerns, and if this were Italy or downtown L.A. or something, it wouldn't make sense to try and do that; here maybe it does make more sense, and he thinks that is kind of an ultimate policy issue that the City Council is really better equipped as elected representatives to deal with. He said from his perspective as a Planning Commissioner, he thinks that this cleans up a lot of problems and actually gives staff the ability to deal with something formally that they have been struggling to deal with informally, even though they have been dealing with it fairly successfully informally, and he is a believer in having things structured a little better than that rather than just relying on the Community Development Director's persuasive abilities and luck. He said he is willing to recommend that this be approved to the City Council, and if the City Council makes a determination from a policy standpoint that this is going too far in terms of looking into people's back yards, etc., that's fine; he thinks that playhouses still need to be considered an accessory structure because they are an accessory structure, and if they are a certain size, they do require building permits, and if they are small they don't, that's fine, but because staff has found that there is evidence that playhouses become a volatile neighborhood issue, and staffs believes and he tends to agree that the more effective way of dealing with that would be up front rather than after the fact, because the alternative is if they are not going to get involved in this, then staff should be directed by City Council to take the position when a neighbor comes in to complain that they do not do anything about that and not even get involved in the mediation -- you're either not going to be involved, or if you're going to be involved, you should be involved up front. The Community Development Director said she thinks staff could deal with the issue through the Nuisance Abatement Code Enforcement procedures if the issue was declared a nuisance. Chairman Buchanan said the playhouse has to be considered an accessory structure, he is convinced of that, and if it falls within a violation as an accessory structure if it is encroaching, if it is over height, something like that, then yes, nuisance abatement action would be appropriate, even in the absence of some initial review process. He said what nuisance abatement would not do is allow them to deal with an aesthetically distasteful, as long as it does not present any safety hazard, if it just looks bad, they wouldn't really be able to deal with that from a nuisance abatement standpoint. 15 MOTION PCM-93-57 Z-93-01 The Community Development Director said it depends, because the Nuisance Ordinance says if you have a petition from the neighbors and the peace of the neighbors is being disturbed by the structure, they could declare it a nuisance and staff would need to abate it themselves. Chairman Buchanan said he can see it triggering the process, but he doesn't believe that their Nuisance Abatement statute makes neighbor complaints the criteria for something being a nuisance; maybe beginning the process, but he doesn't think that a neighbor comes in and complains that he thinks something is a nuisance, that that establishes it as a nuisance. He said it isn't like you gather the neighbors together and say, "All those that think this is a nuisance, raise your hands, those that don't raise your hands" and you take a vote and if the majority says it is a nuisance, it is a nuisance. He said he doesn't believe that is the law. He said it might be sufficient for starting the process. The Community Development Director said the way it reads right now, it says that any violations for the Municipal Code could be considered a nuisance. Chairman Buchanan said that is the problem -- what is a violation of the Municipal Code? He said if a playhouse is within the setbacks and does not exceed the height requirement, it is not going to be a violation of the Municipal Code, and even if it intrudes on three or four neighbors' privacy, it is not going to be a violation of the Municipal Code, and therefore, nuisance abatement would not do anything about that. The Community Development Director asked what about the violation of the peace of the neighborhood, as they have wording that says that if it violates the peace of the neighborhood, and if they receive a petition of five or six neighbors that says that doesn't make sense to them. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks the City Attorney will tell her that, "I don't like going out in my back yard and seeing that because I can see the kids looking down in my back yard" is a violation of the peace of the neighborhood issue; if the kids are up their yelling and screaming at 11:00 p.m., that is something different. He said he thinks her hands are probably more tied than she even thinks they are in terms of dealing with these problems as it currently exists, and that is why he is currently in favor of seeing it cleaned up. 16 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-57 Chairman Buchanan made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Z-93-01. Commissioner Munson seconded. Chairman Buchanan asked if there was an environmental assessment. The Community Development Director said just as a recommendation, as staff will present this to the City Council for their approval. Chairman Buchanan asked if that had been noticed. The Community Development Director said it had not, and they are just making a recommendation that staff prepares one. Chairman Buchanan recommended that staff prepare an environmental assessment. Commissioner Munson concurred. Motion carries. 3-1-3-0. Commissioner Addington voted no. Commissioners Huss, Van Gelder and Wilson absent. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:24 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1993. Respectfully submitted, q(A Cl P trizia Materassi Community Development Director 09-02-93:ma c: \wp5 1\planning\minutes\08-19-93.m 17 Approved by, D uchanan Chairman, Planning Commission