Loading...
PC MINS 20110726 Approved August 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Deputy Community Development Director Pfost and Assistant Planner Kim, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 2 before agenda item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost reported that at their last meeting the City Council followed the Planning Commission's recommendation to keep the temporary banner permit program. Staff will follow up with the City Council in terms of proposed locations. Deputy Director Pfost distributed eleven items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (rg_qardin_q non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Update Review Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, noting staff's recommendation that the proposed text regarding passive versus non-passive land use designations be deferred to a future meeting so that staff has the opportunity to speak to members of the public who have expressed concerns. He noted that the remainder of the proposed General Plan text that is before the Commission was publically noticed, no new changes have been made, and could be discussed by the Commission this evening.. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Ken Duda stated that he came to speak on the issue of parks, but was gratified to hear the Commission is considering reviewing the entire General Plan issue. In regards to the park issue, he felt there was a deliberate position taken to differentiate between active and passive. He stated that neither staff nor the City Council at the time was really responsible for the General Plan, and its genesis was basically from over 250 residents who struggled for a year to come up with it and put the terms in the document. He felt that any change, in terms of the General Plan, should go back to review the goals report to see why they did what they did and why the differentiations are there. He commended the Commission for wanting to look at more than the park portion and felt that was appropriate. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing until such time as staff has had an opportunity to meet with members of the public, and provide at least 30 days notice to the public that this will be before the Planning Commission. The notice should conspicuously describe that the issue of active and passive use designations will be discussed at the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). 1. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00293) Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, gave a brief background of this proposed code amendment, noting that at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had questions related to how Public Works would conduct a visibility analysis and directed staff to return with more information. She explained, as discussed in the staff report, the criterion used by the Public Works Department is written by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. She noted that because every residential property has different topography, layout, location on the street, and different traffic flow, Public Works conducts a traffic visibility analysis that is customized on a case by case basis. Therefore it is difficult to have standard language that could be codified on how the analysis is actually done. She also noted there was mention at the last meeting to consider modifying the 20 foot setback to 10 feet. She explained that the shortest distance the Public Works Department conducts a view analysis from is 14.4 feet, and because of other variables to be considered, staff is recommending leaving the setback at 20 feet. Additionally, she explained that the Planning Commission had asked staff to craft code language that would be somewhat Planning commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 2 similar to view restoration in that having a hedge over 42 inches would not automatically become a code enforcement issue if the hedge had no visibility or view impacts. She noted that staff had several concerns with this type of language with regards to documentation, maintenance, enforcement and staff's time. After speaking to the City Attorney on this matter, staff added a subsection that requires a hedge owner to apply for a permit. She noted that two resolutions have been included in the staff report- one reflecting the original Planning Commission direction and one with the added subsection requiring a permit. Commissioner Knight noted that there is an analysis for visibility, but the proposed amendment also deals with view impact. He asked staff what standards would be used in evaluating view impact. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the same criteria used by the Planning Department now in terms of primary viewing area in looking at height variation applications, as well as view restoration and view preservation applications. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked why staff and the City Attorney felt that a permit process was necessary. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff was concerned that there would be no way to document the height at which a certain hedge over 42 inches would cause a view impairment. Without some type of documentation every time a concern is raised regarding the hedge height it would cause planning staff and public works staff to do a view analysis and traffic visibility analysis. A permit process would give documentation that the hedge does not cause view impairment at a specified height and if the hedge exceeds that height, it would trigger a code enforcement case. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that in some cases a tree may be allowed to grow up to 40 feet in height, depending on topography and location, without any type of permit. However, this proposal would force residents to get a permit for a hedge over 42 inches in height even though it may not cause any adverse impacts to traffic or views. He was concerned about requiring permits for things that don't have any adverse impacts. Deputy Director Pfost understood the Vice Chairman's concerns, and explained that staff had concerns about being able to document what an approved height for a particular hedge might be, specifically because the hedge is in the front yard and there could be traffic impacts. Staff wanted to be able to acknowledge and document the height of the hedge so there is an enforcement mechanism to ensure the hedge stays at the approved height. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if, by the fact that code enforcement staff is called out to a particular site for an over-height hedge and writes a letter stating the hedge must be reduced to a specific height, that there is then documentation as to how high the hedge can grow. Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 3 Deputy Director Pfost explained that code enforcement staff would go to a site and require a hedge be reduced in height, however this height is not acknowledged anywhere except for a closed code enforcement file. By requiring a permit, the permit will be on file in the address file and will acknowledge the height of the hedge. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if there has ever been an instance where a hedge less than 42 inches in height has caused a public safety issue. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the code allows a hedge up to 42 inches in height, and therefore was not aware of any situation where a hedge under 42 inches would cause a public safety issue. He noted that with properties in the intersection visibility triangle, hedges are restricted to only 30 inches in height. Commissioner Gerstner asked if staff currently gets phone calls about hedges blocking driveways and causing safety issues. Deputy Director Pfost answered that code enforcement staff gets calls regarding hedges, but thought it was more of an aesthetic issue rather than a traffic safety issue. Commissioner Gordon felt that an unanticipated consequence of allowing hedges over 42 inches in height is that there is the possibility that several houses in a row will then have a six foot hedge along their front property line. He asked staff if views from the public right-of-way have been considered, specifically if there has been any discussion regarding significant view impacts from the public right-of-way. Assistant Planner Kim answered there has not been such a discussion. Deputy Director Pfost added that the height variation findings include a finding that talks about views from public property, and similar language could be added to this. Commissioner Knight could see the benefit to staffs recommendation regarding a permit, noting that city staff would only have to make an analysis of the hedge once and not have to go back to the property every time a complaint is made. He noted this recommendation only addresses hedges in the front yard setback, and asked staff what would happen with a corner lot, Assistant Planner Kim explained that this recommendation is structured to include hedges in the front yard setback and hedges in the intersection visibility triangle. The intersection visibility triangle would take in hedges on a corner lot in both the front and side yards, Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, Julie Scrivens stated she was against staffs recommendations for several reasons. She questioned if staff had discussed this with the Fire Department or the Sheriffs Department in regards to safety issues. She noted at the last meeting it was stated that Planning commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 4 the Public Works Department would prefer hedges in the front yard setback at 30 inches, and that staff has pointed out that only 10 to 20 percent of the residents that are in violation. She explained that when she moved into her home she had a view, however today there is no view because of neighbor's hedges. She was also concerned about the safety of children in the neighborhood, Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt stafff s recommendation with the exception of subdivision 4 concerning the permit process, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis explained that he felt staff was well intentioned in suggesting a permit process but he felt it brings undo burden on the residents in terms of the application. He felt that it creates more bureaucracy and didn't think it solved any problems. Commissioner Gerstner felt a clear understanding and definition of an intersection was needed. He questioned if the intersection is two streets or if it is being defined as the intersection of the street and a driveway. He didn't think something should be created that will cause the City a lot of extra work in analyzing traffic views out of driveways. Deputy Director Pfost noted the intersection visibility triangle is clearly defined in the Development Code, and read the definition to the Commission, Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the recommendation, as written, would include an analysis of visibility coming out of a driveway. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the way it is currently worded Public Works would go out to a property and view the driveway. With that, Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would be against the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he agreed with Commissioner Lewis and his concern with item 4. He also understood Commissioner Gerstner's comments regarding the burden on staff. However, he stated that he was in favor of the motion. Commissioner Leon moved to include a reference in paragraph 3 to include views from public property as well as viewing areas in the motion. Commissioner Lewis accepted the amendment and Commissioner Emenhiser seconded. Commissioner Knight noted that this code amendment was generated from the City Council and staff was directed to bring an amendment to the Planning Commission, He asked staff what motivated the City Council to ask that this code be changed. Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 5 Assistant Planner Kim explained that there were quite a few complaints about hedges that were brought to the attention of code enforcement. In looking at hedges, it was noted that there are quite a few hedges in the City that are in violation of the current code. Staff suggested a code amendment to the City Council, who agreed to the code amendment initiation. After researching the subject, staff felt that leaving the code at 42 inches was prudent, and went to the City Council in an attempt to withdraw the code amendment initiation request. However, the City Council felt there might be situations where hedges can be taller than 42 inches and not be a safety hazard, and asked to find a way to allow that on certain properties. Commissioner Knight stated he was in favor of including views from public rights-of- way. In terms of taking out number 4, he had mixed feelings. He understood not wanting to require additional permits to residents and the added regulations. However, he understood the intent was to try to save the City money as well as the property owner's aggravation since it will cause the City to come out every time to reanalyze the hedge. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt that if the Commission were looking to decrease the work load of staff in regards to these hedges, he was not sure how this helps and could not see how this addresses the problem. He noted that the City does not currently allow six- foot tall fences and walls in front yard setbacks, and a hedge is just a growing wall. He felt that by allowing this, the City is permitting a change in the aesthetics of neighborhoods. He wouldn't want to see neighborhoods become more and more walled off from the street and look more like private estates. He understood that the City Council may want some type of amendment, however he also felt they should hear from the Planning Commission and possibly hear a contrary view, For that reason he was opposed to changing the current code of 42 inches. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to also eliminate staffs paragraph No. 2, but keep Commissioner Leon's amendment to paragraph 3. Commissioner Gerstner explained that by eliminating item No. 2 it would effectively allow hedges to exceed 6 feet in height as long as they don't impair views from viewing areas or the public right-of-way. He stated this would still give staff the ability to review hedges in terms of the intersection visibility triangle. Chairman Tomblin seconded the motion. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they felt the City Council wants to allow six-foot high hedges in the front yard setback as long as they meet a set of criteria, or are they relatively silent on the six-foot versus forty-two inch issue, Assistant Planner Kim clarified that the City Council wanted some type of process to allow hedges over forty-two inches in height and did not specify whether or not they wanted a maximum height of six feet, Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 6 Commissioner Knight pointed out that if the Commission agrees to move ahead to eliminate the language in 2 and 4 then the language should be adjusted in E to remove the portion discussing the visibility triangle, which is discussed in a separate section of the Code, Commissioner Gerstner agreed and moved to amend his motion to also correct the language in E to say "permitted in the front yard setback with exception to the intersection visibility triangle". Seconded by Chairman Tomblin. Vice Chairman Tetreault expressed a concern in that this proposal is now removing a public safety element where clearly there could be a public safety issue. He stated that if he were to weigh staff time versus public safety, public safety would win, Commissioner Knight asked staff if the other section of the code dealing with the visibility triangle would also address the public safety issues that are a concern of the Vice Chairman. Deputy Director Pfost explained that there is a section of the Code that discusses the visibility triangle, and public safety issues would be addressed in that section, however that section of the code does not discuss where a driveway may exit elsewhere on the property and the public safety issues with that situation. Commissioner Lewis stated that he does not support Commissioner Gerstner's proposed amendment and would like to retain paragraph 2. If the City Council chooses to allow hedges that exceed 42 inches, then paragraph 2 is important. In regards to the motion to eliminate staff's paragraph 2, the motion failed by a vote of(3-4) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Lewis, and Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Deputy Director Pfost summarized the original motion, which is to adopt staffs recommendation with the exception of No. 4, and add to No. 3 the issue of views from public property. Commissioner Leon felt that the majority of the City has very suburban types of neighborhoods with front yards that are roughly connected together and having a 42 inch hedge height limit, by right, is consistent with the City's current urban design. He felt that going to a 6 foot hedge height is inconsistent with the City's current urban design. Voting for this code amendment will allow people to have, by right, six foot hedges around their entire properties, which he felt would negatively impact the community. To that extent, Commissioner Lewis agreed. However, he felt the mandate from the City Council was to find a way to allow hedges over 42 inches in height in the front yard setback. He stated that he would be willing to amend his motion to add a conspicuous Planning commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 7 and explicit statement that the Planning Commission feels that as a better policy the City should not allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Vice Chairman Tetreault agreed, however felt it might be better to have such language as a separate motion. Chairman Tomblin agreed that the City Council has given the Planning Commission a mandate and the Commission is working to meet the request of the Council. However, the Commission has some reservations, and he thought splitting the vote was a good idea to give an opinion and to express their concerns. Commissioner Leon preferred to have the Planning Commission's opinion as part of the original motion. He stated he could support the motion if it included a recommendation that the first choice is to leave the hedge height at 42 inches and the second choice is to raise the height if necessary. Commissioner Lewis agreed to amend his motion to say that the Planning Commission recommends leaving the hedge height at 42 inches; however, if the City Council desires to make any changes then adopt staff's recommendation with the exception to subsection 4 and include a reference to paragraph 3 to include views from public property, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Deputy Director Pfost felt it would be beneficial if the Planning Commission would express to the City Council their concerns in allowing hedges up to six feet in height in the front yard setback. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion and proposed two new motions. The first motion is for staff to convey to the City Council that the City continue to restrict hedges in the front yard setback to 42 inches in height. The Second motion was to adopt staff's recommendation with the exception to subsection 4 and include a reference to paragraph 3 to assess views from public property, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis explained that his intent was that no matter how the vote comes out for the first motion, the Planning Commission will still vote on the second motion to give the City Council their recommendation should they choose to allow hedges over 42 inches. The first motion for staff to convey to the City Council that the Planning Commission feels 42 inch high hedges in the front yard setback is a sufficient height was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, and Chairman Tomblin dissenting. The second motion to adopt staff's recommendation excluding paragraph 4, and include a reference of not blocking views from property was approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting. Pianning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of July 12, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Emenhiser and Leon abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Aqenda for the meeting on August 9, 2011 The Commission discussed and accepted the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m, Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 Page 9