Loading...
PC MINS 20130910 Approved September 13 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:07 p.m, at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tetreault, Tomblin, and Chairman Emenhiser Absent: Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Leon were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Assistant Planner Harwell. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming September 17th meeting, the City Council will hear the Commission's recommendation on the proposed code amendment dealing with an expanded notification for City Tree Review permits. Director Rojas distributed Page 8 of the Resolution related to agenda item No. 2, which was inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet. Commissioner Gertsner reported on the City's 40th Anniversary event held at Trump National on September 7th COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE_(regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2013-00226): 27108 Diamondhead Lane Director Rojas noted staff's recommendation was to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 24th, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to September 24, 2013, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objection. 2. Code Amendment for Fences, Walls and Hedges Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00346 Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the Planning Commission's previous recommendations on the code amendment were forwarded to the City Council for consideration. At the August 6th City Council meeting the Council remanded this item back to the Planning Commission for consideration of additional code language. She explained the proposed code amendment as well as additional language proposed by staff that would add an initial site visit to the process that could reduce the overall cost of the application to some applicants. Chairman Emenhiser noted in the staff report staff's estimate that approximately 1,000 residences could be affected by the language in the proposed code amendment. He asked staff if they had an estimate of how many of those 1,000 residences might be able to benefit from the initial site visit and not have to go through the entire process. Director Rojas did not feel there was any way to estimate the number, as it depends on factors unknown to Staff such as the site conditions of each individual property. He reviewed staff's explanation in the staff report of when the initial site visit would be performed and how staff would make a determination of whether or not the full Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee would apply. Commissioner Nelson felt that making a determination of no view impairment was a difficult call, as staff will be looking five or ten years down the road in making that determination. He noted on page 4 of the staff report, the reference to swimming pool fencing requirements in subsection e. He stated that there was no subsection e included. He also stated that the word "absolutely" occurs several times in reference to view impairment, and he felt that word provides a tremendous amount of jurisdiction that he felt could be arbitrary. Director Rojas responded that the word "absolutely" could be removed, as the standard being used was that of no view impairment at that moment in time. He added that if the hedge were to grow into the view some time in the future, staff would get then get involved in a complaint was received. Planning Commission Minutes September 10,2013 Page 2 Commissioner Gerstner recalled that the Commission has already reviewed and approved the language in the proposed ordinance, and the only new information is the proposed less expensive approach of a possible site visit to determine whether or not there would be any view impairment. Director Rojas stated that was correct, adding that the reason the entire Ordinance is not before the Commission is because staff is focusing on only the area of the proposed change. He stated that all of the changes the Commission recommended at the previous meeting the City Council accepted and the only new issue that was remanded bark to the Commission is the new Section 2, as described in the staff report, Commissioner Tetreault referred to a letter he had written to the Mayor and City Manager that was included in the staff report, which questioned this approach. He read the letter aloud for the record and noted he still has the same issues and concerns expressed in the letter. He explained that when it comes to hedges, he sees no difference between a hedge and tree in terms blocking a view. In addition, he felt the City should not be enacting Ordinances that, for the most part, the public will not follow. He felt that if the City is proposing an Ordinance that nobody is going to obey, then it probably shouldn't be done. In reality, he did not see anyone coming to City Hall to get a permit to plant a hedge. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that he did not see a difference between a hedge and a tree and we have a system in place that could handle that situation. He asked Commissioner Tetreault if he was in favor of a permit needed for a wall or fence, or if he felt there should be a "by right" height for the wall or fence. He asked staff if there was a way to consider bifurcating the issues of hedges and walls and fences. Director Rojas stated since the Ordinance is being considered, now is the time to make amendments to the processing requirements. He agreed that hedges could be taken out of this process and be addressed separately. He stated the Commission has the opportunity to make a recommendation that the Ordinance be changed so it addresses only fences and walls and establish height limits for hedges separately. If the Commission chooses to be silent on hedges and let them be regulated by Prop M, they will be allowed to grow to a height of sixteen feet, and he felt that would be problematic. Commissioner Gerstner did not think there should be a by-right height for a hedge, as a hedge is a more intentional type of barrier than a tree. He suggested the height of a hedge be regulated solely by its view impairment. Commissioner Tomblin asked if currently a hedge can be addressed through a view impairment case. Director Rojas answered it could not, and explained the current process on how hedges are regulated as opposed to trees. Planning commission Minutes September 10,2013 Page 3 Commissioner Tomblin agreed hedges should be included under the view ordinance and Prop M. Director Rojas explained that the item remanded by the City Council to the Planning Commission was the additional step in the process of an initial site visit. However, that does not mean the Planning Commission cannot make additional recommended changes to the Ordinance to the City Council. He noted that removing the hedge from the fence wall and hedge ordinance and placing it under view restoration will mean that no hedge under sixteen feet in height can be regulated. He suggested that if the Commission wanted to remove hedges from Fence Wall and Hedge Permit process, but want to regulate hedges so as to prevent view impairment, that hedges be placed in the section of the Code where the height of fences and walls is established. Chairman Emenhiser suggested that the Commission approve the reduced fee process, change the language in B to say, rather than absolutely no view impairment, make a determination that there is no significant view impairment and then possibly bifurcate the issue with another motion on whether or not to eliminate hedges from the Fence Wall and Hedge process or coming up with a different standard. Director Rojas explained that staff did not use significant view impairment as a standard was because staff has found that may be too subjective and many times the view owners will disagree with staffs determination that the view is not significantly impaired. He agreed the word "absolutely" could be removed and the standard would still be no view impairment. Commissioner Tetreault moved to direct staffto rework the language to reflect hedges being taken out of the Fence Wall and Hedge process and be put into subsection c so that walls and fences are treated separately from hedges thereby eliminating the requirement that hedges are only allowed with a permit. In addition, approve the two step process with the reduced fee as recommended by staff for fences and walls only, with the elimination of the word "absolutely", and bring the language back to the Commission for review, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Rojas suggested continuing the public hearing to October 8th . The Commission agreed. The motion to continue the public hearing and modify the language was approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Clarification of May 14, 2013 PC Minutes Director Rojas explained that in the May 14th minutes staff noted in the section regarding the arterial fences, the motion captured in the minutes was not accurate Planning Commission Minutes September 10,2013 Page 4 based on the tape of the meeting. He asked the Commission if the modified motion presented was the intent of the Commission, and if so, staff would correct the minutes. Commissioner Nelson noted a typo on page 3 of the minutes. Commissioner Nelson moved to clarify that the motion made on May 14, 2013 was that irrigation and landscaping be pursued along all the City's arterials identified by staff rather than just Hawthorne Boulevard and that the typos be corrected on page three, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 1. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 24, 2013 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 10,2013 Page 5