Loading...
PC MINS 20120724 Approved August 14, 20119`1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present- Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Associate Planner Kim, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Senior Engineer Nicole Jules from the Public Works Department. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming August 7 th meeting, the City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's recent denial of a View Restoration Permit application. Director Rojas distributed four items of late correspondence related to agenda item No, 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment— Hedges within the front and setback (Case No. ZQN2010-002931 Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the Commission's request that a member of the Public Works Department be present at this meeting to answer questions, and introduced Nicole Jules from the Public Works Department. Ms. Jules gave a brief power point presentation explaining how Public Works staff determines traffic visibility impacts. Commissioner Leon asked Ms. Jules if the Public Works Department has a set of criteria for review that is reasonably objective in which residents could read the criteria to determine ahead of time whether or not their hedge may or may not comply. Or, is it fairly subjective in the kinds of criteria the Public Works Department will apply in viewing different applications. Ms. Jules answered that for the most part the objectivity comes when reviewing hedges located at a curve in the street. She explained that she would determine if the minimum clear visibility exists, which is 155 feet from her point of reference coming out of the driveway extended both directions of traffic. She stated everything else is subjective and based on engineering judgment, conditions at the site, and several other elements involved to deem it safe or unsafe. Commissioner Gerstner questioned why staff would use the criteria of a driver sitting in the driveway looking for oncoming cars, when in fact the critical criteria is whether or not the oncoming traffic can see the vehicle pulling out of the driveway. Ms. Jules explained that one needs a point of reference, that being the driveway, then measure from the driveway 155 feet in both directions. Commissioner Gerstner understood that, but explained that his concern is that there are not some objective criteria that a reasonable resident can understand whereby they feel comfortable with the determination. These criteria would allow them to look at the application and feel confident that their application may be approved based on this criteria. Ms. Jules stated this criterion does exist, explaining she has a thick book which is a guideline for road design which clearly dictates what objective elements can be used when evaluating a driveway or an intersection or a roadway on a curve. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Ms. Jules how often she is called into the field on these types of issues, and if this policy is approved how often she anticipates she will be addressing these issues. Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 2 Ms. Jules answered she has been called into the field to look at this type of issue maybe two or three times in the past ten years, Chairman Tetreault explained that he could foresee a situation where there may be some fairly tall hedges up against a driveway where the hedges terminate at a driveway edge. Somebody backing their car out of the driveway, once past the hedge can clearly see 155 feet in both directions. However, there is still the sidewalk, and as they are backing their car out of the driveway they would not be able to see a pedestrian emerging from around that hedge. He felt that would seem to be a rather significant hazard, and hoped that this type of scenario would be considered when reviewing applications. Ms. Jules stated that this situation would absolutely be looked at, as she would be looking at motor and pedestrian safety, Chairman Tetreault asked Ms. Jules what her recommendation would be if she were to look at a tall hedge that obstructed the view of traffic, but would continue to obstruct the view even if cut down to 42 inches in height, Ms. Jules answered that staff would make the recommendation that the hedge be trimmed down to a height that is safe, even if that height is below 42 inches, Commissioner Gerstner stated that would then mean a resident was not allowed to have a 42 inch tall hedge by right, but rather the hedge height would be dependent on staff's recommendation. Director Rojas clarified that currently 42 inches is a by-right height limit for hedges in the front yard setback, however what is before the Commission is a permit process to exceed the 42 inch height limit. Specifically, a change to the Code is being contemplated, which would subject properties to a discretionary process. As a result of that, it will need to be reflected in the Code that a hedge can be up to 42 inches in the front yard setback unless restrictedfurther through this process. He added that, not withstanding a memo from the Public Works Department stating a hedge at 42 inches is not safe, the hedge will typically be left at 42 inches since that is the by-right height. Commissioner Leon suggested establishing a permit process with a by-right height limit of 42 inches so that residents are running the risk of having their hedge cut to a level lower than 42 inches. This would allow residents to live with the level of safety that the City has afforded them for many years. Chairman Tetreault hoped there would not be a situation where an inspection was performed by the Public Works Department and it was their opinion that, even at 42 inches, the hedge presents a hazard to pedestrians and other vehicles. This hazard would then be documented and what would happen if some time in the future this hazard comes to pass and someone was injured because of a visibility problem caused by the hedge, Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 3 Commissioner Gerstner felt that criteria for the analysis or report could be a review or analysis of that portion of the hedge that is above 42 inches in height, since the by-right height of the hedge is 42 inches, Commissioner Nelson moved to approved staff's recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon stated that in his reading of staff's recommendation a resident could submit an application requesting a hedge at some height over 42 inches, but depending on staff's analysis, could end up being required to trim the hedge to 30 inches. Associate Planner Kim clarified that Planning staff and Public Works staff would conduct an analysis of only the portion of the hedge that is over 42 inches in height. The resolution included in the staff report does not include the discretion to require a hedge be trimmed to a level below the by-right level of 42 inches. Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted his frustration with this issue and the number of meetings that have been spent on the topic. He felt that if the City Council keeps sending the issue back to the Planning Commission, and staff keeps recommending approval, then the Planning Commission should give the Council and staff what they want. If it is something that is enforced fifty times a year rather than once a year, and there is an objection from the public, then the City Council can once again change the Code. Director Rojas suggested adding language to findings 2 and 3 for clarification that states if the height of the hedge over 42 inches does not significantly impair a view or that the hedge over 42 inches does not impair vehicular visibility, Commissioner Gerstner agreed with the Director's suggestion. Commissioner Nelson moved to amend the motion to add the language for finding Nos. 2 and 3 as suggested by Director Rojas, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Associate Planner Kim clarified the suggested language, referring the to page 11, E(2) to say the proposed hedge over 42 inches in height allows for the safety of oncoming vehicular traffic. Further, E (3) would be modified to say the height of the hedge over 42 inches in height. The motion approving PC Resolution 2012-13 was approved as amended, (5-1-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting and Commissioner Lewis abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 4 2. Six-month review of Point Vicente Animal Hospital shared parking 121an with St. Paul's Lutheran Church (Case No. ZON2008-00505 and ZON2009- 00158,): 31270 and 31290 Palos Verdes Drive West Vice Chairman Emenhiser reported that he is a customer of the Point Vicente Animal Hospital and has also attended several events at St. Paul's Lutheran Church. He did not think this would affect his decision on this case. Chairman Tetreault and Commissioners Nelson, Leon, Lewis, and Tomblin all noted they use Point Vicente Animal Hospital for their pets, but this would not impair their decision making for this case. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report giving a brief background of the shared parking plan. She explained that during construction of the new animal hospital the church restriped their parking lot, eliminating one parking space. Rather than requiring the church restripe the parking lot, since the Planning Commission required a 6-month review of the shared parking plan between the two properties staff would monitor the efficiency of the parking with one less space. As noted in the staff report, staff has not found any issues with the current parking between the two properties. As such, staff is recommending the Planning Commission determine the shared parking plan is acceptable and that the Commission approve an addendum to the originally approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as a Resolution amending condition Nos. 70 and 71 to reflect the total number of parking spaces at 61 spaces, She added that staff received four letters of corresponded, which have been distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the lighting situation at the animal hospital can be brought into this discussion. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that this six-month review is specifically for the shared parking plan, and therefore the lighting plan is not in the Commission's purview at this time. However, a report on the lighting was previously presented to the Planning Commission on January 24, 2012. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Cassie Jones stated she has not had any problems with the combined parking with the church. She also noted that the church has added another parking spot for handicapped parking, which brings the parking total back up to 61 spaces, but she was not sure if the additional spaces was approved at the current location. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Ms. Jones if she has had any problems with customers of Golden Cove parking in the animal hospital parking lot. Ms. Jones answered that there have been instances of such parking, however she has not made any complaints about the situation. Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 5 Michelle Boyar stated she was speaking on behalf of Golden Cove, She stated Golden Cove is growing, and they need all of the available parking for their tenants and customers. The owners of Golden Cove are concerned over the safety issues in regards to customers of the animal hospital making the left turn off of Palos Verdes Drive West into the shopping center. They also felt this leaves the parking lot at the animal hospital underutilized. They asked that the animal hospital put up some type of sign or ask their customers to park in their own lot. She also suggested making a left turn land into the animal hospital parking lot, Commissioner Lewis asked Ms. Boyar if Golden Cove would be willing to pay for the cost of constructing that left turn lane pocket. Ms. Boyar answered Golden Cove would not be willing to pay for the left turn lane. Commissioner Lewis asked if there has been an occasion in the past six months where all of the parking spots at Golden Cove have been taken, Ms. Boyar did not know. Commissioner Lewis noted that customers of the new Yellow Vase may find it more convenient to park at the animal hospital rather than up the hill in the Golden Cove parking lot, Ms. Boyar did not know. Commissioner Nelson commented that the letter from Golden Cove states customers on Palos Verdes Drive West must drive past the animal hospital all the way up to Terranea before they can make a U-turn to come back. He noted that one can easily pull into the Point Vicente Interpretative Center driveway and come back around from there. Ms. Boyar was not aware of that. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Director Rojas stated that, because the letter on the subject from Golden Cove was addressed to the City Attorney, he had discussions with the City Attorney about the letter. He explained that the City Attorney commented that this is not a legal issue for the City Attorney to get involved with, as it is a parking dispute between two adjacent property owners. In addition, the issues discussed in the letter about parking on the street or making a new left turn lane come under the purview of the Public Works Department and he will follow up with them. Vice Chairman Emen:hiser moved to approve the recommendations in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. PC Resolution 2012-14 approving Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 6 addendum I to the Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration and PC Resolution 2012-15 were adopted as recommended by staff, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. View Restoration discussion, Director Rojas explained that this item was put on the agenda at the request of Commission Leon, with the mediation process being the focus and prime issue raised. He cautioned that because Commissioner Leon had attended a meeting involving a view restoration case that could come before the Planning Commission, it is very important that no issues with that particular case be brought up at this time. Nonetheless, he outlined the current process, as explained in the staff report, giving a brief history of how the mediation process came into being and how the process works, Coleen Berg (city mediator) came to the podium to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Leon explained that he met Ms. Berg through the mediation process, which he felt was quite beneficial. He noted that in speaking to Ms. Berg he learned that there may be several things that could be improved upon that Ms. Berg felt could make the mediation process better than it is today, and this is the reason he suggested the item be put on the Planning Commission's agenda, He noted that while the Ordinance it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission, it certainly is within the Commission's responsibility to bring things up to the City Council that could be improved upon and have the Council act on it, Ms. Berg briefly explained what her job is in regards to the view restoration process. She stated her goal is that everyone involved somehow benefits. She explained that the biggest challenge she has in being successful is the bigger cases with multiple parties because the more property owners involved, the bigger the challenges involved. Commissioner Leon asked if there was a change to the rules that encouraged larger cases. Ms. Berg explained that a number of years ago there was a change in the fee structure from a fee per applicant to one flat fee per application. She found that when the fee structure changed to one flat fee, that is when she began to have up to thirty two different properties on a single application. Director Rojas explained that about five years ago the City Council did a very comprehensive fee structure review. Prior to this fee study there was not a set fee for view restoration permit applications, as the fee was based on the number of properties involved as well as the number of trees. After the fee structure review the recommendation to the City Council was to have an average fee determined that would then become the set fee for the permit application. Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 7 Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Berg how many different mediation meetings she has per year, and how long the average mediation process lasts. Ms. Berg answered that she has had as few as fifteen cases per year, and as many as twenty to twenty two per year. She couldn't answer how long the average mediation case lasts, guessing maybe one to two months. However, she noted there are too many variables with the different cases to give an accurate answer. Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Berg three changes she would like to see in the mediation process. Ms. Berg did not think she would make changes in the mediation process, as she felt the current system works well. Commissioner Leon thought it sounded as if Ms. Berg felt the current fee structure encourages to included more trees in the application than may be warranted, creating a larger wish list of trees they would like to have trimmed. He asked Ms. Berg if she had any suggestions as to whether that is appropriate and if there is a structure that may encourage applicants to only include the trees causing a truly significant view impairment. Ms. Berg agreed it is a problem in trying to contain the size of the applications without ending up with multiple cases for the same trees. Commissioner Leon asked if potential applicants enter this process with the knowledge that they may have to pay to have the trees trimmed or removed. Ms. Berg answered that they are not always aware of that. Commissioner Lewis moved to receive and file the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of June 26, 2012 Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Tomblin and Lewis abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on August 14, 2012 The Commission unanimously approved the pre-agenda, Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 24,2012 Page 9