Loading...
PC MINS 20100413 Approved May 11, 10 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:04 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present- Commissioners Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: Commissioner Emenhiser was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Fox, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their March 30th, 31st, and April 6th meetings the City Council discussed the Marymount college appeal, and this item will be discussed again at their May 4th meeting. He also noted that the appeal on the time limit code amendment is before the City Council on April 20. Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 1, three letters and twelve photographs for agenda item No. 2 and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 4. Chairman Gerstner reported that he met with Mr. O'Sullivan regarding agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Knight reported that he spoke to Mr. Parsons regarding agenda item No. 2. Commissioner Leon reported that he spoke to Mr. Roberts regarding agenda item No. 4. Commissioner Tetreault thanked the City for the opportunity to attend the recent Planning Conference in Monterey. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00497): 30939 Rue Valois Director Rojas reported that this item was heard by the Planning Commission at an earlier date and direction was given by the Commission to the applicant to work with the neighbors on a solution regarding the privacy impact. He stated that the applicant is requesting more time to work with the neighbors, and therefore staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to May 11, 2010. The Commission agreed, without objection, to continue the public hearing to the May 11, 2010 meeting. 2. Proposed revision to the View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining this is a staff initiated proposed revision to the existing view restoration and preservation guidelines. He explained that staff believes there are a number of specific issues that have been raised over the course of several years that need to be addressed in the language of the guidelines. He noted that the changes proposed by staff do not change the original Proposition M or the View Ordinance, City Tree Review Permit, or the Development Code pertaining to views. He explained the proposed changes merely seek to clarify how the view restoration and preservation ordinance is to be implemented through the view guidelines. He explained the two key changes, as presented in the staff report. He also reviewed the nine suggested amendments to the view guidelines as submitted by a resident, Mr. Michael O'Sullivan. He reviewed staff's recommendation to review the proposed amendments, provide staff with direction, and to continue the hearing for adoption of a resolution. Director Rojas added that the proposed amendments are intended to officially recognize practices that have been utilized by staff for quite some time. He stated that the City Attorney has reviewed these amendments and supports the changes. He reminded the Commission that amendments to the actual Ordinance are not an item for discussion. Commissioner Leon asked if city trees are part of the View Restoration process. Director Rojas answered that view impairment caused by city trees is not part of the view ordinance and is a different City regulation adopted after the City's view ordinance was put into affect. He stated that this issue is not on this Agenda. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 2 Michael O'Sullivan showed three photos of his canary island pine tree before and after it was trimmed. He then addressed the suggestions he made on the proposed revisions, noting that he felt these suggestions created a win-win situation. He also explained that some of the language he suggested that staff was opposed to is actually part of the guidelines existing language that he modified. Commissioner Knight noted that Mr. O'Sullivan suggested adding language to the view restoration ordinance that would preclude the Commission from ordering the foliage owner to plant replacement trees that cannot be maintained at height levels that would disfigure a tree. He asked Mr. O'Sullivan to give him an example. Mr. O'Sullivan explained that he felt it would be reasonable to replace a tree with a tree that is reasonably mature, not a 24 inch box, which is not of the kind that will grow into the view. He agreed with staff that a replacement tree should not be restricted to those on the City list of approved trees, He also felt that certain types of trees that are kept trimmed at a certain level may be permanently disfigured. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. O'Sullivan what message he was trying to convey to the Commission when he showed the pictures of his canary island pine. Mr. O'Sullivan explained that everyone benefits if a tree can be saved and preserved to be a reasonable tree at a height that does not impair a neighbor's view. He felt that there has been a real disproportion between the loss of a tree which is extremely expensive to replace and a very valuable asset in terms of property value and the cost to the applicant to replace a tree. He stated that in many cases trees may recover from a drastic cutting and felt it was reasonable to allow a tree the time to recover. He stated that the amount it would cost the applicant to replace the tree after giving it time to recover is still trivial when compared to the value the tree adds to the foliage owner's home. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. O'Sullivan how long it took before he felt his canary island pine was going to survive and be something that would be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. O'Sullivan answered that it was about three years from him to determine the tree would survive and be adequate, but five years before the tree looked like it does in the photograph he showed earlier. Regina O'Melveny asked that the Commission's deliberations be guided by fairness, balance, and a sense of integrity. She felt the sense of community has been fractured by the contentious way the ordinance has been implemented to exploit of foliage owners. She also felt that when view owners abuse their neighbors by making unbalanced demands that are then supported by the City, there is a loss of the ordinance's original intent to bear in mind the concerns of all residents. She stated that one of the most important aspects that should be addressed is the mediation process, and suggested that no application should go forward without first going through meaningful mediation. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 3 Commissioner Knight asked Ms. O'Melveny if she had any specific suggestions that might help the Commission with the language in the guidelines. Ms. O'Melveny stated that in reading the guidelines she felt there were several things already in place that could be followed. She felt that language could be clarified around the mediation process, noting that during her mediation phase she never met the applicants. She also noted that in her case there were seven applicants, which made her feel very intimidated. She suggested that there be a restriction on the number of applicants allowed on a view restoration permit. Barbara O'Sullivan stated that was very frustrating for her was after the public hearing for her case was finished and staff and the Commission or the City Council would be discussing the information, some of the information was incorrect. She stated that there is no way for a member of the public to then correct any misinformation. Commissioner Lewis asked staff to explain how the mediation process works. Director Rojas gave a history of the mediation process and how it currently is working with a hired professional mediator. Senior Planner Alvarez then explained staff's intent to clarify the foliage height test for view preservation requests, and noted the specific places in the Ordinance where the changes would be placed. Commissioner Lewis stated that he read the proposed language several times and had trouble understanding it. He suggested alternative language statingif foliage not subject to the view restoration permit subsequently grows into the VIP applicant's documented view, the new foliage will be considered significant view impairing foliage only if the new foliage exceeds the lesser of the ridgeline of the primary structure on the property or 16 feet. Chairman Gerstner felt that Commissioner Lewis' suggested language was clearer than that proposed by staff. Director Rojas stated that staff will ask the City Attorney to review the proposed language. Moving to staff's next proposed change, Director Rojas explained the proposal of matching language for view preservation permits. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that this would be a situation where an applicant has not gone through the view restoration process, but rather has documented their view at a point after 19!89 and wish to protect and preserve that view. Staff is introducing language which will ensure foliage meets the criteria of the view ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 4 After some discussion the Commission agreed that height language should be added that the Director's decision is appealable. Senior Planner Alvarez discussed the next item, referring to the staff report showing the strike-out language and the reason for it. The Commission agreed. Senior Planner Alvarez discussed the next issue, discussing the language added to deal with the Migratory Bird Act and the need to hire a consultant to advise on matters that deal with nesting birds within view impairing trees. Chairman Gerstner felt that the proposed language was consistent with existing language, and the Commission agreed. The Commission had a lengthy discussion as to the language suggested on how to determine when a lot was created. The Commission and staff determined that the suggested language needed clarification and therefore the Commission added its own language clarifying lot recordation. Senior Planner Alvarez reviewed the minor clean-up items, as noted in the staff report. The Commission agreed with staff's suggestions on the minor clean-up items. Senior Planner Alvarez then discussed the suggestions that were made by Mr. O'Sullivan. He explained that staff did not feel the language in his first two suggestions was necessary, as the language in the Development Code and Guidelines already provides the ability for the tree owner to appeal the determination of the viewing area. He noted that adding the suggested language in suggestion number three would basically redefine the Ordinance. He stated that staff agrees with Mr. O'Sullivan's suggestion about monitoring the tree's health for a longer period than what currently occurs. He noted that Mr. O'Sullivan suggested three years while staff would support a two year monitoring period. He also noted that staff does not agree with Mr. O'Sullivan's addition of language regarding a disfigured tree, as it would be too subjective for staff to make a determination on a disfigured tree. The Commission discussed the option of two years versus three years, and agreed with staff that two years would be more appropriate. Director Rojas noted that there is language in the Guidelines which would allow an option for a longer period if needed. Senior Planner Alvarez discussed tree removal and Mr. O'Sullivan's suggestion of an automatic tree replacement policy. The Commission discussed and agreed that a mandatory one to one tree replacement ratio would not always be in the best interest of the foliage owner, and agreed with staff not to change the tree removal and replacement language. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 5 Senior Planner continued with Mr. O'Sullivan's suggestions about tree replacement size and the suggestion that the Commission require tree maintenance only when trees reach a certain height. Commissioner Tetreault raised the question of an established viewing area on a residence for view restoration purposes and how staff handles or the Guidelines address a remodel on that property which would change the primary viewing area. Director Rojas noted that this was a subject that has not been addressed and that staff would discuss with the City Attorney. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to May 11, 2010 to allow staff to address the feedback on the proposed revisions. He also moved that all of Mr. O'Sullivan's comments be included in the staff report that will go to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Leon addressed staff's practice of conducting a view analysis on properties where the owners have applied for certain building permits, and requiring certain foliage be trimmed before the building permit is issued. He felt that as a consequence, trees are being cut even when there is no view restoration or preservation case filed. He did not feel trees should be required to be proactively trimmed if a neighboring viewing area has not been established. Director Rojas explained that this practice is not an interpretation of the View Guidelines but rather is a requirement under Prop M. He added that the Ordinance not only provides a process for dealing with view restoration and view preservation, but also provides for a process when an applicant requests certain building permits. He explained a past process by which residents were given the option to record a covenant stating that they would cut any trees on their property if, in the future, they impaired a neighbor's view. However, after concerns were expressed with enforcing these covenants, the City Council eventually stopped the covenant procedure for foliage. Commissioner Lewis supported Commissioner Leon in bringing up this issue, however he was concerned that the Commission was beginning to go beyond what has been noticed through the public notice and what can be discussed on this item. He felt that if Commissioner Leon were to suggest to bring this issue up as a separate item at a future meeting, he would support the suggestion. Commissioner Knight suggested that staff research this and report back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the situation where there is a substantial remodel and there is an opportunity to apply for a new viewing area, would the old viewing area be surrendered, or could the applicant continue to insist the foliage owner trim the vegetation even if there is no longer a view from the applicant's property, Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 6 Commissioner Lewis moved to incorporate that discussion into his motion, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion to continue the public hearing to allow staff to address the Planning Commission feedback was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Coastal Permit, Height Variation, Minor Grading Permit & Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2009-00181): 23 Marguerite Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She noted that there are two trees that were identified in a view analysis that impair a neighbor's view and will be required to be trimmed down to 16 feet in height. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the project. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Tom Blair (architect) stated that this house was built in the 1940's and has been expanded over the years. This remodel and addition is an attempt to take care of the issues of circulation and connection issues throughout the house. He stated he was available for any questions. Deanne She (applicant) explained that the area in the back of the house where the proposed addition is located is an area with a detached guest house, which was built with permits, but is an area that they do not currently use. Commissioner Leon noted that there are a number of nicely matured trees in the rear area of the property and he was concerned that may be removed because of the view ordinance. Ms. Shey explained that the mature trees on her property are part of the character of not only her property, but the neighborhood. She noted, however, that it will be very difficult to build the new foundation in such close proximity to some of the trees, so some of the trees may have to be removed. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis noted that staff has recommended trimming of certain trees on the property but did not see that as a condition of approval, Associate Planner Mikhail acknowledged that there should be such a condition and staff will have to add the condition. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 7 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the proposed addition and remodel as recommended by staff with the addition of a condition to reflect staff's recommendation on trimming certain trees on the property, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to approve the project. Commissioner Tetreault also stated that he was able to make all of the necessary findings. The motion to approve the project as recommended by staff, with the added condition, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2010-12 was approved, (6-0). 4. Three month review of Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. YON2004-00232): 5640 Crestridge Road Director Rojas presented the staff report. He explained this item had previously been approved by the Planning Commission with a condition that the lighting be reviewed three months after permit final to ensure it is in compliance with the conditions of approval. He stated that staff made a site visit and determined that fewer lights were installed than were approved and confirmed that the lighting met the approved wattage. Therefore, staff determined the lighting was in compliance. However, he noted a letter was received from a neighbor raising concerns with the lighting. Staff has been unable to see the lighting at night, and therefore staff is requesting a continuance of the item to allow staff the opportunity to view the lights at night from this neighbor's property. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Nagy Bakhourn (architect) stated that in talking with the Pastor of the church, a proposal was crafted to try to mitigate Mr. Roberts' concerns. He proposed changing the 250 watt luminaries to 150 watts, thereby reducing the impact of the light by approximately 40 percent. This will still meet the required illumination for it to be a safe and secure parking lot. He explained that the lights are not regularly on in the parking lot, but are only on when they are needed. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Bakhourn how long it would take to affect that change. Mr. Bakhourn answered that he spoke with the electrical contractor who felt that this could be done in the next few days. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Bakhourn if he would be agreeable to continuing this item to allow time for him to make this change and then have staff go out to assess the situation with the new lighting. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 8 Mr. Bakhourn answered that he would have no opposition. He did request that this item come back as a Consent Calendar item. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to May 25th to allow the applicant to make adjustments to the lights and for staff to re-analyze the lighting, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of March 9, 2010 Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0) ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS The Commission agreed to place a discussion item on a future agenda of the Municipal Code section that requires a view analysis as a condition of permit issuance, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 13,2010 Page 9