Loading...
PC MINS 20120110 Approved January 24, 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Gerstner at 7:07 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, and Lewis. Chairman Tomblin arrived during agenda item No. 2 and Vice Chairman Tetreault arrived after agenda item No. 3. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commissioner unanimously agreed to move agenda item No. 1 to be heard after agenda item No. 3. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their December 20, 2011 meeting the City Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to extend Ride-To-Fly's operating permit for an additional five years. He also reported that as previously ,requested by the Planning Commission, an item will be scheduled before the City Council once a response is received from the Annenberg Foundation to discuss the Lower Point Vicente parking lot expansion project that was to be paid for by the Annenberg Foundation. Chairman Tomblin reported on the discussion at the recent Mayor's Breakfast. He noted that topics included the appropriate noticing for General Plan and/or Zoning Map amendments as well as discussion of traffic enforcement. He also reported that at their January 3, 2012 meeting, the City Council discussed possible increased roles for the Planning Commission in reviewing certain city projects. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Code Amendment— Interpretation procedure regarding location of Open Space Hazard boundary line (Case No. ZON2011-00168): Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed code amendment and staff's recommendations as outlined in the staff report. She noted that the Planning Commission's recommendations will then be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the proposed request to move the line is a one-time only request, or if the line can be moved more than once on a given property. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that the line can be moved up to a cumulative total of one hundred feet from the original location on the map Commissioner Leon asked staff what would happen in the event that common sense would show the line can clearly be moved more than 100 feet. Director Rojas answered that the proposed language allows for the line to be moved 100 feet and anything more than that would require a zone change. He added that the Planning Commission can modify this proposed language to allow the line to move more than 100 feet before a zone change is required. Commissioner Leon asked if staff is aware of areas where the line needs to move more than 100 feet. Director Rojas responded that staff has not done an assessment of the City to make that determination. However staff feels that 100 feet is more than sufficient given the situations staff has dealt with. .Commissioner Gerstner opened the public hearing. Nancy Sanders stated her home is in the Monaco area and has an OH line running through the property. She noted that there are properties in the city that are not in the Eastview area that are equally as important in terms of this issue. She agreed with Commissioner Leon in questioning why the City would want to limit the request to an arbitrary number of 100 feet. She noted the current OH lines appear to be fairly arbitrarily drawn and to put another seemingly arbitrary restriction on a property 100 feet away from the original line may result in a limitation that creates more problems than it solves. She asked if there was some way to word the Ordinance that would leave it up Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 2 to the discretion of the geologist or the Director so that when an issue comes up it can be decided on a site by site basis. Commissioner Leon asked Ms. Sanders, given the size of her lot and the geology, is it conceivable she would be asking to move the line on her property more than 100 feet. Ms. Sanders answered that she was not sure if she would be requesting the line be moved more than 100 feet. She added that she has had two geological studies done on her property in the last ten years and both studies show the land to be stable. However, she notified the Commission that according to her husband the line on their property would not need to move more than 100 feet. Commissioner Leon noted in the staff report that there is a five day appeal period, and questioned if five days was sufficient time for an interested party to prepare an appeal. Director Rojas acknowledged that five days is shorter than the typical time period for an appeal, however staff was trying to make this an expedited process for the applicant. Commissioner Leon suggested changing the language so that there would be a five day notice of intent to appeal, which would then trigger some longer period of time to get documentation together to submit the appeal. He suggested that the standard 15 day appeal period would then go into affect after the notice of intent be filed. Commissioner Lewis asked if the notice to appeal is within five working days or five calendar days. The Commission agreed that the notice to appeal must be submitted within five calendar days. Commissioner Lewis moved approve staff's recommendation as modified to add a five calendar day period to submit a written and signed notice of intent to appeal and fifteen calendar days thereafter to submit a complete appellant package including materials from a geologist, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2012-01 was adopted (4-0-1) with Chairman Tomblin abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. General Plan update — map changes Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the item is another in a series of changes to the General Plan Land Use Map. He explained the changes before the Commission are proposed changes to the City's NCCP preserve areas, which are lands owned by the City. He noted that several months ago the Planning Commission approved a change to the NCCP preserve areas to change the land use to Open Space Preserve. He explained that since the lands are now in what will be an Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 3 Open Space Preserve land use designation, whose purpose is to protect the habitat and natural resources, the overlay control districts are not necessary in the NCCP preserve areas any longer. Additionally, the City Council approval of the NCCP dictated that the General Plan be updated to remove the overlay control district from the NCCP areas. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the proposed land use changes to the General Plan Land Use Map as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment— hedges in front yard setback (Case No. ZON2010- 00293): Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief summary of the proposed code amendment and past Planning Commission directions to staff. She explained that since the last public hearing on this item staff has added an alternative to the recommendations that the Planning Commission may want to consider seeking direction from the new City Council on this issue. Julie Scrivens stated that one of the reasons she moved into her neighborhood was the openness of the neighborhood and the views. She felt that taller hedges would close in the neighborhood and block many of the views. She agreed with staffs recommendation to seek further direction from the new City Council, adding that in the meantime she would like to see the current code of 42 inches enforced. Maria Price spoke about the safety issues that could take place because of higher hedges, noting the increase in home invasion crimes in the neighborhood. She also noted that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and higher hedges would again be a safety concern. Karl Price reiterated the concerns stated by Ms. Scrivens and Ms. Price He stated that he would prefer the hedge height remain at 42 inches, and if a decision cannot be reached by the Planning Commission, that the issue be sent back to the City Council for further direction. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to address the issue of crime associated with hedges in the front yard. Associate Planner Kim stated that staff looked at the crime reports from January 2010 to October 2010, however noted that the reports are not specific in terms of robberies Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 4 and how they may be related to hedges in the front yard setback. Therefore, staff was not able to find any evidence that taller hedges welcomed more crime than areas without hedges. Director Rojas added that while the crime statistics do not have that detail, in speaking with Sheriff Department staff they conveyed that they did not think hedges created a crime issue. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the individual Commissioners have their opinions about hedges and that the only new variable is the new City Council. He felt the issue for discussion is whether or not to vote on the issue now or send it back to the new City Council for some direction. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed, adding that staff has given the Commission a good recommendation and that the issue should be presented to the new City Council for their review and direction. Vice Chairman Tetreault also agreed that this issue should go back to the new City Council for their input. He added that he too was concerned about the safety issue in terms of traffic and children in the neighborhood. He felt that the height of hedges in regards to an increase in crime was a personal preference of a property owner and there are other things a property owner can do, such as deadbolts and alarm systems that will make a resident less likely to be the victim of a crime. He did not think the City should have an Ordinance to protect people from themselves and their own hedges, and this should be deferred to residents to make their own decisions. Commissioner Lewis moved that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council retain the current limitation on hedge heights in the front yard setback to 42 inches and that the code amendment proceed no further, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Chairman Tomblin felt that the proposed code amendment should go back to the City Council for their review, input, and possible direction, as the new City Council may have a different philosophy than the old Council on this subject. He also noted that the new Council appears to have concerns about safety issues in the City .Commissioner Leon stated his preference was to send the issue back to City Council for their review. He noted that there are extensive notes from the Planning Commission meetings for the Council to review and educate themselves on the concerns and issues raised by both the residents and the Planning Commissioners. He pointed out that if the City Council has no interest in pursuing this proposed code amendment then the hedge height will remain at 42 inches. Commissioner Lewis understood Commissioner Leon's comments, however he felt that it was important that the City Council see the majority of the Planning Commission feels that the 42 inch limit currently in place is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 5 The motion to recommend the City Council retain the current limitation on hedge heights failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, and Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved staff's recommendation to forward the item back to the City Council for their consideration as to whether or not they want the Planning Commission to proceed with their discussions on the proposed code amendment, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 24, 2012 The Commission discussed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 6