Coronado Planning Commission Minutes

Regular Meeting February 24, 2009 The regular meeting of the Coronado Planning Commission was called to order at 3 p.m., Tuesday, February 24, 2009, at the Coronado City Hall Council Chambers, 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, by Chairperson Dale St. Denis. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Gaylord, Grimes, and Santos, Dale St. Denis, and Doug St. Denis MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rachel A. Hurst, Director Peter Fait, Associate Planner John Swanson, Assistant Planner Martha L. Alvarez, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of January 27, 2009, were approved as amended. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Annual Meeting for Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair) This item was taken up later in the meeting. COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSIONER DOUG ST. DENIS MADE A MOTION TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER GRIMES AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHAIRPERSON DALE ST. DENIS SECONDED THE MOTION. AYES: Commissioners Gaylord, Grimes, Santos, St. Denis, and St. Denis. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0. COMMISSIONER GRIMES MADE A MOTION TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER DOUG ST. DENIS AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER GAYLORD SECONDED THE MOTION. AYES: Commissioners Gaylord, Grimes, Santos, St. Denis, and St. Denis. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0. Appointment of PC Commissioner to serve as a representative on the Historic Resource Commission COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSIONER GAYLORD MADE A MOTION TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER DOUG ST. DENIS AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER SANTOS SECONDED THE MOTION. AYES: Commissioners Gaylord, Grimes, Santos, St. Denis, and St. Denis. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0. COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Doug St. Denis reported that the Historic Resource Commission, at their February 18 meeting, recommended to the City Council that the property located at 456 Palm Avenue (HRPA 8-05 Jim and Melinda Marlar) be treated as a special exception to the 2009 Mills Act program; be treated independently of others on the waiting list; and excluded any future additions to the residence from the inclusion in the Mills Act valuation for the property. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS NON AGENDA ITEMS Nancy Warner, 861 H Avenue, expressed concern about the Planning Commission’s determination in July 2008, which approved the permitted use of a computer software company to be situated on the ground floor of Orange Avenue (PC 12-08 Coronado City Views, LLC). She said she was concerned about the impact of this decision on future City staff decisions regarding similar proposed uses. She understood that the intent of the Commission was to apply this determination to this specific site only; however, the minutes of the meeting state that this use is deemed permitted for any properties on the first floor of Orange Avenue. She requested that the decision not be used to expand this type of use and that City staff not interpret this determination as blanket approval for all such businesses. Rita Sarich, Coronado Main Street, supported Ms. Warner’s position on this issue. She added that former Community Development Director Pena assured her and MainStreet that there can be site-specific designation attributed to this item on the record. She requested, on behalf of MainStreet, clarification on this issue. Director Hurst stated that information on the Commission’s decision regarding this matter would be provided to the Commission for their information. LISTED AGENDA ITEMS There were no members of the public wishing to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS PC 3-09 CITY OF CORONADO – Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Initiate an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning Residential Development Standards related to Roof Dormers Mr. Peter Fait introduced the agenda items as outlined in the staff reports. Commissioner Gaylord referenced the Resolution which requests approval of the initiation of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning residential development standards related to roof dormers and other minor revisions. She asked for clarification on what the “minor revisions” included. Mr. Fait replied that the revisions refer to “housekeeping” items. Approval today will allow staff to begin “clean up” of the Ordinance; those changes will be presented to the Commission for their approval at a future date. Chairperson St. Denis clarified that this request is for a re-study of the Ordinance by staff and will return before the Commission for approval of any proposed changes. He supported the request because he said that the existing Ordinance language was not intended for the street elevation. Commissioner Doug St. Denis further clarified that the current Ordinance applies not only to the front elevation but to all elevations. She agreed that the language must be “cleaned up” to communicate the Commission’s intentions. Chairperson St. Denis asked staff if the Ordinance includes the definition of a dormer, i.e. whether it is a shed dormer, gable dormer, or a Dutch gable dormer. Mr. Fait replied that the Ordinance does not include a definition of a dormer. This is one of the items that will be included in the changes to the Ordinance. Commissioner Gaylord asked if a dormer is required to be in a specific location of a house. Mr. Fait said a dormer can be located mostly anywhere but depending on its location, it is subject to certain restrictions, e.g. the width of a dormer, amount of spacing between dormers, whether the dormer opens into an attic or the second story below, and so on. Commissioner Santos said it is a great idea to move forward in “cleaning up” the Ordinance. She expressed concern about the length of time the bureaucratic process would take, and asked how much time it would be before the applicants can move forward. Mr. Fait said the process would take about two or three months to obtain final approval from City Council. Vice Chair Grimes asked if the Commission may approve a one-time request for the applicants. Mr. Fait replied that this type of request would be considered a variance, which would take more time to process because a variance is tied to the geographical features of the land and not to a preferred architectural roof style. PUBLIC COMMENT Commander David Cline, 333 B Avenue, thanked the Commission for their efforts in helping them to accomplish their goals. COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSIONER GAYLORD MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE PC, 3-09, A REQUEST FOR THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO ROOF DORMERS AND OTHER MINOR REVISIONS. COMMISSIONER DOUG ST. DENIS SECONDED THE MOTION. AYES: Commissioners Gaylord, Grimes, Santos, St. Denis, and St. Denis. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion passed 5-0. There is a 15-day appeal period. PC 21-08 CITY OF CORONADO – Christopher J. Bower, 1015 Ocean Blvd., Coronado, CA, in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone. “Determination of Development” to determine if an existing row of mature plant material constitutes an over height hedge, per Coronado Municipal Code Section 86.58.160, Fences, Walls or Hedges, Height Limit, Side or Rear Yard. Mr. John Swanson introduced the agenda items as outlined in the staff reports. Chairperson Dale St. Denis asked if the hedge is sitting on an east/west boundary wall. Mr. Swanson replied yes. Chairperson Dale St. Denis said that the photographs depict that the trees are causing a substantial amount of shade to the neighbor’s home located south of the affected property. He noted that the photographs, which appear to be taken at about noon, considerably shadow the property to the east of the applicant’s home as well. Mr. Swanson said the property east of the applicant’s home is located at 1030 Loma Avenue. Commissioner Gaylord asked if there were additional trees behind the hedge. Mr. Swanson said the trees are Podocarpus and are not in the required rear yard setback. Commissioner Doug St. Denis asked if the two above-ground pools are located in the setback. Mr. Swanson replied no, they are conforming. Vice Chair Grimes asked if there is an issue with the distance of the trees’ trunks or branches from the rear setback. Mr. Swanson referred to the City’s Municipal Code which states, “Any fences, walls or hedges located in Residential Zones shall not exceed eight feet in height in a required side or rear yard…” Mr. Swanson said this is consistent with departmental policy. He stated that it is academic whether the stem of the plant or plant material is causing the encroachment; however, generally speaking, with a hedge it is a fairly vertical element of plant material so one will have part and parcel with the stem and the associated leaves and branching in the rear yard area or the side yard, depending on the location of the complaint. Commissioner Gaylord asked about one of options which would require the property owner to “remove significant sections of the hedge (permanently maintaining minimum five foot clear openings, with a five foot mass of remaining plant material) parallel to the rear property line…” She asked about the height requirements of the five foot mass of plant material. Mr. Swanson reiterated that there is no definition for a hedge in the Municipal Code. Therefore, to be consistent with department policy, the former Community Development Director determined that if a property owner removes significant portions of the hedge, it would essentially be from the ground to the sky with five feet of spacing and five feet of plant material. This is essentially holding plant material to a tree form which would not be considered to be a hedge by the non definition of a hedge in the Ordinance but by the common usage or dictionary definition of the term of a hedge. The property owner would then become compliant with the Municipal Code. Commission Gaylord asked if the plant material needs to be in the form of a tree and not in the form of a hedge and have five feet between each five foot grouping in order to allow sun and air. Mr. Swanson said yes. It would allow light and ventilation. He added that the plant material can grow towards the property owner’s home or over the wall towards the neighbors’ home without any regulation. As long as the openings are maintained, the plant material can grow within the five foot space as wide and tall because there is no regulation of trees. Commissioner Doug St. Denis asked if the part of the trees that hang over the neighbors’ fence becomes the responsibility of the hedge owner. Mr. Swanson replied that this specific issue is considered a civil matter between the two property owners and the City would not become involved. Commissioner Gaylord asked for clarification on one of the options which reads, “Remove sections of the hedge, with minimum five foot openings in the hedge, and plant other species of plant materials or trees so that the hedge ‘form’ has been completely altered.” Mr. Swanson said this option was allowed by the former Community Development Director and was the policy in place for many years. This option has never been presented to the Planning Commission for interpretation or direction; however, it worked by allowing the property owner to remove portions of the hedge so that the plant material does not look like or function like a hedge but instead looks like trees growing together in massing. Director Hurst clarified that the three options outlined in the staff report are the options that have been offered to the property owner by staff in order to gain compliance, and are the same options that have been offered in other similar cases involving over height hedges. The item is being presented to the Commission today in order that a determination be made as to whether the plant material in question represents a hedge or not. If the Commission determines that the plant material does constitute a hedge, the property owner would be required to bring the plant material into compliance with the Ordinance by means of one of the three options. If the Commission determines that the plant material does not constitute a hedge, then the property owner is not required to bring the plant material into compliance. Commissioner Santos asked about the height of the wall. Mr. Swanson said the wall is six feet tall. He added that some years ago this property had a similar issue with the previous owner. The same Code enforcement process was followed and the property owner lessened the plant material to eight feet in height. Commissioner Santos asked if the photograph of the plant material depicts only Ficus trees within the six foot setback. Mr. Swanson replied yes. It is all one genus and species of plant material which is emanating from the stems or trunks located within the setbacks. Mr. Fait added that they consider any plant material which gives the effect of creating a wall and functions like a solid brick or wood fence to be a hedge, which would then have the same restrictions as a fence or wall. Commissioner Doug St. Denis asked if standard inspections are conducted in Coronado with regard to hedge height. Mr. Swanson said that the City Council policy for code enforcement is that City staff will not take action unless a complaint is received by the City, or if it is a life/safety/health issue of immediate concern. Commissioner Dale St. Denis said he looked up the word “hedge” in the 20th Century Webster Dictionary and it indicated that a hedge could consist of trees. Commissioner Gaylord commented that even if the trees are cut down to eight feet, it does not solve the problem because within three years the trees will grow back to their original height, and unless someone complains, the trees will remain as is. Mr. Swanson agreed. He said that what generally happens in these types of cases is that the property owners are unaware of the regulations of the Municipal Code until action is brought against them. At this point, compliance is initially gained and ongoing maintenance is then provided by the property owner. PUBLIC COMMENT The applicant, Christopher Bower, 1015 Ocean Boulevard, gave a brief overview of the request and answered questions. He stated that during his last six years of residence at the property, the hedges have always been the same height and he has never had an issue with neighbors. Unfortunately, his relationship with his neighbors recently changed and he now has to contend with this matter. He feels that his neighbors are using a government Ordinance to achieve a private individual’s objective. Mr. Bower stated that the fact that there is no definition of a hedge in the Ordinance and that staff may have applied their policies in the past should not be a precedent for this proceeding. He understands that there are hundreds of examples of these types of violations in Coronado and that it would be difficult to enforce all of the violations. He stated that Joe Hough is the person who maintains the landscaping and is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Doug St. Denis referenced a letter from Carol Orlasky to the Planning Commission dated December 3, 2008. She asked if Mr. Bower is the owner who placed five feet of space between the hedges. Mr. Bower said he has not made any changes to the hedges since he purchased the property six years ago. He added that even if he were to trim down the trees, his neighbor would still not have the view she desires because the four large trees that are planted behind the Ficus would still block her view. Commissioner Gaylord asked about the photograph depicting a row of large tree trunks. Mr. Bower said the trunks belong to very old Ficus trees which are about seven to ten feet apart and are trimmed to the height of the wall. They are about 30 to 40 feet in height and would not constitute low trees as found in the Webster Dictionary definition of a hedge. Commissioner Doug St. Denis asked if the trees located within the setback are as tall as the Ficus trees. Mr. Bower said they are taller. Commissioner Doug St. Denis stated that if the Ficus trees were trimmed to a lower height, Mr. Bowers would not lose his wall of lush green because of the additional tall trees behind the Ficus which are conforming within the setback. Mr. Bower stated that the Ficus trees would not survive if they were trimmed down to eight feet in height. Vice Chair Grimes asked if the wall is eight feet in height. Mr. Bower replied yes. Vice Chair Grimes commented that if the Ficus trees were cut down to eight feet, they would be “pretty much trunks.” Mr. Bower agreed. He added that the wall is very, very long—200 feet—and the Ficus trees are not as close as they appear in the photographs; the Ficus tree trunks are about 10 feet apart. He added that the Ficus trees do not create a barrier because there is an existing wall. Commissioner Gaylord asked if the wall is on Mr. Bower’s property. Mr. Bower said he does not know. Commissioner Doug St. Denis said the side of the yard facing Hotel Del Coronado looks like a very tall green wall and asked if it is also about 30 feet high. Mr. Bower replied yes. He said that if he is required to cut down the trees to eight feet, he would feel obligated to trim down his other trees because they are of a similar format on the other walls. Commissioner Doug St. Denis asked if these other trees are on his property line. Mr. Bower replied yes. Chairperson Dale St. Denis said he did not feel that Mr. Bower would need to trim down the other trees. Mr. Bower feels that the 30-foot Ficus trees are part of the character of his home and is what they inherited; he would like the trees to remain the same. Chairperson Dale St. Denis said the aerial photograph appears to depict a bunching of trees and not a continuous hedge of trees. Vice Chair Grimes asked if Mr. Bower is trimming the Ficus trees so that they do not encroach on the neighbor’s yard. Mr. Bower replied yes. Chairperson Dale St. Denis said he noticed the photograph shows the Ficus trees in the forefront and the other trees in the background. He clarified that the Ficus trees do not make up a substantial part of the “wall.” Instead, the Ficus trees stagger down and the other trees are in the background. Mr. Bower said that the height differential between the Ficus trees and the other trees is because he previously agreed with his neighbors that he would trim down the Ficus trees to the height level of the neighbor’s home’s roof line. He trimmed down the trees about eight feet in April at his neighbor’s request. Edward Sweeney, 939 G Avenue, provided comments regarding the Zoning Ordinance with regard to hedge height and the limitation policy. He expressed concern that the limitation policy may not meet the intent of the zoning requirements. He asked that the Commission consider whether a maximum of five feet between the hedge is sufficient, allow no loopholes in the policy, and make certain that the wording is not too liberal or vague in order to ensure that the intent of the policy is met. Jim Runner, 1007 Ocean Boulevard, stated he lives next door to the subject property. He said he has difficulty maintaining his lawn because of the amount of shade created by the applicant’s trees facing his residence and supports the Ordinance being enforced. Joe Hough, 1015 Ocean Boulevard, said he is in charge of trimming the applicant’s trees. He stated that the applicant has accommodated the neighbor’s request to keep all trees trimmed on the neighbor’s side of the yard, and confirmed that the Ficus trees are planted 10 feet apart. Commissioner Doug St. Denis asked if Mr. Hough maintained the trees for the previous owners. Mr. Hough replied no. Bill Caldarelli, a local real estate land use attorney for Mazzarella & Caldarelli, addressed some of the legal issues concerning this matter. He stated that the Ordinance on which the implementation policy is being based is not the right tool for the job. He said the Ordinance as it was written does not encompass this type of problem. He stated that hedges do have a definition and read from the Collins Essential English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 2006: “Hedge: A row of shrubs or bushes forming a boundary; barrier or protection against something.” He added that the Marion Webster Dictionary defines a hedge as “a row of closely planted shrubs or low growing trees forming a fence or boundary.” He argued that the Ficus trees are not a hedge as they are not a solid barrier and one can walk through the row of trees. He stated that the trees can grow as high as they can because the Ordinance does not state a height limitation, and can be as extensive in a fashion that does not run parallel to the wall but cannot join so there must be five foot barriers between the trees. He stated there are thousands of trees located along property barriers in Coronado that exceed thirty feet. He suggested that if the City wishes to adopt an Ordinance that regulates trees between property lines, they should do so. He stated that if this matter was challenged in court, it would not hold up because the Ordinance does not define a hedge. He stated that the Ficus trees are not a hedge as practically defined, used, and applied. He added that the neighbor’s complaint is that they are not able to view the fireworks and that the trees cause too much shade on their property. Mr. Caldarelli stated that these types of problems are not caused by hedges, they are caused by trees. He concluded that the Commission does not have the correct Ordinance for this type of implementation, and urged the Commission to make their determination based on whether the Ficus trees are regulated under Municipal Code 86.56.160. Mr. Caldarelli opined that legally, the clear answer is that they are not. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Doug St. Denis commented that although she loves “green walls,” the trees look like a 30-foot hedge from the neighbor’s side although they look like trees from the applicant’s side. She supports staff’s recommendation that the Ficus trees should be trimmed down to eight feet in height and added that it is almost impossible to kill a Ficus tree. She added that the applicant would still have lovely 15-foot trees inside the property line. She says that although the other neighbors did not file a complaint, they still deserve the same courtesy. She feels that this matter is about courtesy between good neighbors. She does not feel that the beauty of the applicant’s landscaping would be diminished and supports City staff’s recommendations. Mr. Fait commented that in 1990, there was a similar complaint about the hedge height at this property. The matter did not involve this type of plant material because often hedges can be made up of very thin plants which are planted very close together, or they can be trees that grow together to form a hedge. It was staff’s opinion at that time that the trees formed a hedge and the applicant was required to trim down the trees; the applicant complied. It was also during this time that the other trees located behind the Ficus trees were planted and were not subject to the height restriction. Commissioner Gaylord said she has visited the site and agrees that there is a significant amount of vegetation. She hopes there is some neighborly way that there can be a compromise so that the hedge does not have to be trimmed down to eight feet because the wall is eight feet in height. Vice Chair Grimes said the definition of a hedge is making this decision difficult. He is leaning towards the fact that these are large trees and understands that theses types of tree issues are typically considered civil matters. He acknowledges that the applicant has trimmed the trees back to the property line in order to accommodate the neighbor’s wishes. Commissioner Santos said she hopes that the neighbors can work together. She realizes that Ordinances are created for reasons. This Ordinance is written for good reasons: to protect and keep our City beautiful and to protect each other’s property, health reasons, having sunshine, a beautiful garden. She said that trees can be used as hedges, as protective barriers, so she is leaning that they are hedges. Commissioner Gaylord said that great care must be given when writing Ordinances. She suggested that the Ordinance should contain the definition of a hedge although she understands this is not the forum in which to do so. She stated that she will support the City Ordinance although she would prefer that the neighbors work this issue out between them. Chairperson Dale St. Denis said he agrees with the Commissioners. He feels that the Ordinance is less definitive than they would like; however, he also feels that the neighbors should work together to solve some of these issues. He stated that the Codes and Ordinances originated in 1871 during the Chicago fires. The Code at that time was to ensure light, air and fire protection. Unfortunately, the Ficus trees violate two of those basic Codes: 1) the prevailing breeze blows off the ocean across the applicant’s property and is blocked by the Ficus. It probably isn’t blocked by the trees the applicant planted because it can go around and in between; 2) the air (ventilation) hits the trees and goes upward, passing right over the neighboring property. He added that at 2 p.m., the house located at the east property line is in shadow. The property to the north at 4 p.m. would have no light at all, and during the winter solstice, is in shadow almost all day long. He stated that he has an issue with the height of the Ficus trees. Mr. St. Denis added that it is very important for the parties to work this issue out. As a separate matter, he feels that the shadowing of vegetation and walls is an issue that should be discussed and an Ordinance initiated. Commissioner Doug St. Denis agreed that the Ordinance can be clearer; however, she feels that this issue is about neighbors. She asked if it is possible for the applicant and neighbors to work it out on their own, even though the Commission may agree to support staff’s recommendation. Director Hurst said it is possible for the affected property owners to work together toward a mutually agreeable solution. She feels that because this did not happen, it resulted in the code compliance case in the first place. She would, however, encourage property owners to work together to resolve these types of issues. Vice Chair Grimes asked about the City’s recourse should the applicant choose not to comply. Mr. Swanson replied that the Municipal Code outlines an Administrative Hearing process. Commissioner St. Denis asked about the process should the applicant choose to work this issue out with the neighbors. Mr. Swanson said it would depend on the Commission decision to implement the process. COMMISSION ACTION COMMISSIONER DOUG ST. DENIS MADE A MOTION THAT A DETERMINATION BE MADE (PC 21-08) THAT THE ROW OF VERY TALL, MATURE PLANT MATERIAL, LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK AT THE SUBJECT ADDRESS, IS AN OVER HEIGHT HEDGE IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE. THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THE APPLICANT TO EITHER TRIM THE HEDGE TO EIGHT FEET TALL, AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE OR GAIN COMPLIANCE BY CREATING LARGE VERTICAL OPENINGS FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY AT REGULAR FIVE FOOT INTERVALS IN THE HEDGE. THE COMMISSION ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THEIR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE SOLUTION TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE. COMMISSIONER SANTOS SECONDED THE MOTION. AYES: Commissioners Gaylord, Santos, St. Denis, and St. Denis. NAYS: Commissioner Grimes. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion passed 4-1. There is a 15-day appeal period. MISCELLANEOUS Chairperson Dale St. Denis requested that a discussion be placed on a future agenda regarding the initiation of an Ordinance which defines the limits of shadowing a neighbor’s property. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m. _____________________________________________ Rachel A. Hurst, Director of Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services