Loading...
PC MINS 20110125 Approved February 22, 1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Assistant Planner Kim, and City Attorney Lynch. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to move item No. 2 to be heard after item No. 7. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their January 18th meeting the City Council appointed Commissioner Tomblin as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Director Rojas disturbed an architectural rendering related to agenda item No. 1. SELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Gerstner nominated Commissioner Leon for the position of Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis nominated Commissioner Tetreault for the position of Vice Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Tetreault was elected to Vice Chairman by a vote of 4-3, with Commissioners Lewis, Tetreault, Knight, and Chairman Tomblin voting for Commissioner Tetreault and Commissioners Gerstner, Emenhiser, and Leon voting for Commissioner Leon. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010- 00328): 30629 Palos Verdes Drive East Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that they were not at the previous meeting when this item was heard, they have not reviewed the video or the minutes, and therefore recused themselves from the public hearing and left the dais. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the proposed project and explaining that at the previous meeting there were concerns with bulk and mass, noting the rendering presented at the meeting did not show as much articulation as the applicant had indicated. The Commission had directed the applicant to provide an updated rendering that would adequately show the articulations of the project. She displayed the renderings recently submitted by the applicant. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Gianni Kanounii (architect) explained the rendering he submitted, and stated he was available for questions. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there were any requirements regarding the outdoor lighting. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the Code requires any outdoor lighting shall not be directed towards or illuminate another property. She stated that this house is set back quite far from Palos Verdes Drive East and has large setbacks from neighboring .properties. Therefore staff was satisfied that these proposed lights would not illuminate any neighboring property. Commissioner Leon stated he was not enamored with the style of this proposed residence, however he supported the applicant's right to have it, noting this is a very eclectic neighborhood and the house will fit in. Commissioner Knight felt the full bulk and mass at the front of the house stands out, although the balconies are not that far from where they were before. He agreed this is Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 2 an eclectic neighborhood and due to the location of the house, he would agree to approve the project as submitted. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. PC Resolution 2011-03 was approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Tetreault recused. Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Tetreault returned to the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2010- 00191): 3304 Palo Vista Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report,'giving a brief explanation of the Palo Vista development and the homes in the tract. She explained the proposed addition and the need for the Conditional Use Permit revision and the Grading Permit. She explained that in considering the Conditional Use Permit revision staff analyzed the proposed location of the addition, structure size, open space, privacy impacts, bulk and mass, and view impacts. She stated staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Tetreault referred to condition No. 19 in the staff report regarding the maximum hardscape coverage. He asked if this was a standard condition and noted that since this approval would include a condition that the maximum lot coverage would be limited to 33 percent, he wanted to ensure there wasn't some amount of overlap between the two conditions such that interpretation could exceed the 33 percent. Assistant Planner Kim explained that condition No. 19 is a standard condition, and staff can add language to the condition that overall lot coverage shall not exceed 33 percent. Commissioner Knight asked staff if there was any language in the original Conditional Use Permit that kept the open space on the property specifically establishing a view corridor for the neighboring property. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff did not find any language discussing a view .corridor on the applicant's property. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the residents at the neighboring home at the end of the cul-de-sac submitted any comments to staff regarding the proposed project and the view obstruction to their home. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff did not receive any communications from the neighboring residents related to the silhouette since it was constructed during the early neighborhood consultation phase. She noted that staff conducted site visit to the residence and the owners understood that no view from their main viewing area was Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 3 being obstructed. They also understood that the view being obstructed was from their pool area and master bathroom, which are not considered primary viewing areas. Commissioner Leon asked if staff was requiring the applicants to eliminate all access from the front yard to the rear yard, eliminating all of the existing pathways. Assistant Planner Kim stated that was correct. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if there was unpermitted construction on the applicant's property. Assistant Planner Kim clarified that there was no unpermitted building construction, but rather there are planters, walkways, garden walls, and patio areas that are unpermitted. She explained that in this tract any alterations to the existing slope are considered lot coverage. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, he then closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, with the amended language to condition No. 19 that the total lot coverage shall not exceed 33 percent, seconded by Commissioner Knight. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting, and PC Resolution 2011-04 was adopted. 4. Code amendment for reasonable accommodations, et., at. (Case No. ZON2010-00336) Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief background and how this code amendment stems from the adopted Housing Element. The proposed code amendment identifies emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, and single room occupancy facilities and allowing for these types of uses in specified zones. He also explained the proposed reasonable accommodations procedures, the genesis of which stems from recommendations from the State Attorney General's office. He noted that reasonable accommodations requests run with the person and not the property. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed code amendment and make a recommendation that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for a code amendment revision Municipal Code Title 17. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to explain what types of requests or deviations might be likely with this code amendment in place. Director Rojas explained there may be requests for wheelchair ramps or railings that may exceed structure heights in the setbacks or lot coverage requirements, and this would give them the ability to go through the process for reasonable accommodations as opposed to the Variance process. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 4 Commissioner Gerstner questioned what a reasonable accommodation would be, noting there is a point where there is life safety or access accommodation as opposed to a life style accommodation. City Attorney Lynch answered that it is very difficult to draw a line and that it will be a determination made by the City as to what is reasonable. In regards to single room occupancy facilities, Commissioner Lewis asked if someone would be allowed to build and operate such a facility under the current zoning laws. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there currently are no standards for such a facility. Commissioner Lewis asked if a Conditional Use Permit would be required for anyone proposing to run a Single Room Occupancy facility or Transitional or Supportive Housing facility. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for such a use. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if someone targets a home they want and they require reasonable accommodations, however there are other like properties available to them that may not require the reasonable accommodations, would the City be required to do the reasonable accommodations. City Attorney Lynch answered that the City would have to consider the reasonable accommodations request. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that the focus seems to be on Western Avenue as the place where a majority of this can be done, and asked if there had been any public outreach or communication to that community to gain input or reaction to putting much of the implementation of this program in their neighborhood. Senior Planner Schonborn stated there had not. He explained that staff specifically targeted Western Avenue as the commercial corridor because of its functionality, transit .opportunities, and additional services that are offered within the immediate area. Commissioner Lewis asked where the CG zones are in the City. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that only Western Avenue is zoned CG. Commissioner Knight noted that a reasonable accommodation approval does not run with the land, however there is a covenant recorded against the land when the approval is given, which does run with the land. He asked staff for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 5 City Attorney Lynch explained that the covenant runs with the land but the accommodation can be removed if the person leaves the property. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the City can require the accommodation be removed when the person needing the accommodation leaves the property. City Attorney Lynch stated that is what the State is suggesting. Commissioner Gerstner asked what mechanism gets the covenant removed from the property once the person needing the accommodation no longer lives at the property. He felt that over the years the City could approve these special accommodations and there will be no mechanism to make them go away when they are no longer needed. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that removal will be captured in the conditions of the covenant. When property is transferred and a title search is done the covenant and its conditions will be revealed. Commissioner Gerstner felt that people who need special accommodations should be accommodated, however he didn't think the changes that are outside of the Code made to the residence should stay there just because they were once put there for someone. He used an example of an eight foot fence that was erected as a special accommodation and the family sells the house and moves. He asked what mechanism would be in place to make sure that eight foot fence is then lowered or removed. City Attorney Lynch answered that the City most likely wouldn't have any mechanism in place unless the subsequent owner came to the City to request some other approval for the property. She felt it would be reasonable to require in the covenant that the homeowners notify the City if the accommodation is no longer needed or if they sell the house. Commissioner Leon asked if there was anything in the city's Housing Element that is in excess of the State requirements. Director Rojas answered that the elements in the Housing Element are only the items needed to meet the States requirements for approval. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Commissioner Lewis stated he would vote in favor of the motion, however he noted that he is concerned with SROs, noting that the development standards set forth on page 17 of the staff report are not enough. Therefore his vote in favor of the motion is with the idea that a Conditional Use Permit will be required for SROs and that the Conditional Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 6 Use Permit will impose additional conditions of approval unique to any given application or project. The motion to approve staff's recommendations, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-05 recommending that the City Council certify a Negative Declaration and that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for a code amendment revising Municipal Code Title 17 was approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Proposed clean up amendments to the Planning Commission's Rules and Procedures Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the base document being used is the 2007 version of the Rules and Procedures, noting that staff looked at the document and, in terms of updates, there were only minor clerical changes. He reminded the Commission that Commissioner Knight had requested this item to come before the Commission to clarify when Commissioners abstain from a vote and when they are recused from a vote. Commissioner Knight stated that he agreed with the wording suggested by staff, but felt that Section 1.2 of the quorum might need some clarification in the wording. He thought the word "eligible" should be added when discussing the four members of the Commission needed to make a quorum. The Director agreed. City Attorney Lynch stated a new Resolution will be brought back at the next meeting for the Planning Commission's approval. 6. Discussion of the "Removal of foliage as condition of permit issuance" requirement of the Development Code Director Rojas stated that this item is before the Commission at the request of Commissioner Leon. He explained that there had been discussion concerning the way the City has been doing foliage analysis since Prop M was adopted, noting that there was a question in regards to the Commission's limits in regards to Prop M. He stated there are certain amendments can be made to Prop M without having to go back to the voters, and the City Attorney is available to articulate her opinion. City Attorney Lynch explained that there is no section in the code that provides a set restriction in regards to requiring only certain specified homes to have their view analyzed that would be a constraint on the provisions of Prop M that would require voter approval. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 7 Director Rojas explained that, as the report discusses, there was a concern that staff goes out and tries to see who has a potential view impairment, even if the property owner does not raise a concern, and making determinations without possibly going into the house. He stated that this is what staff does when doing a view analysis for Height Variation applications. He noted that in the past members of the Commission have raised the question as to whether the finding is there is significant view impairment or that there is significant view impairment only if a resident raises a concern regarding view impairment. He noted that the City interprets the finding to say that staff is to do an independent view analysis of view impairment from a property, regardless of the owner's position in terms of the view impairment. Commissioner Leon asked if the 500 foot radius notification was sufficient in terms of proactive view impairment issues, as the City is providing notification and opportunity to the residents if they have concerns about having their view impaired. Director Rojas explained that there is a section in the Code that discusses view analysis based on a permit request, where the City cannot issue the permit if the applicant has foliage that significantly impairs a view from the viewing area of another property. A short discussion followed on how the code defines a viewing area and where this is discussed in the Code. Commissioner Lewis explained that he requested that the City Attorney be involved in this discussion specifically for the purpose that, even if all of the Commissioners agreed that staff needlessly triggers view analysis especially from vacant lots or from view owner's residents who do not complain about the loss of a view, the Commission does not have the power to act and should not get into the debate of whether or not they should act and give staff new direction in that regards. Commissioner Lewis moved to close the discussion and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Unanimously approved. 7. Discussion of the City's Solar Panel Application Review criteria Director Rojas explained that this issue was also raised by Commissioner Leon and his concern that the installation of solar panels may, in some cases, may cause glare .impacts to neighboring residents. He noted that the recent code amendment on the solar panel review process does not include that as a review criteria. He stated that there are State laws directed at solar panel ordinances that the City must be consistent with. City Attorney Lynch added that sections of State law are attached to the staff report that restrict cities to imposing only reasonable conditions that do not create a barrier to the installation of solar panels, and that the review is to be limited to whether or not the installation of solar panels meets all health and safety concerns. Further, the Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 8 installation can only be denied if there is a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety. Commissioner Gerstner questioned how solar panels would cause glare impacts, as they are normally designed to absorb sunlight and not reflect sunlight. Commissioner Knight agreed, noting that the specifications for a solar panel's efficiency can be relevant to the type of glass they are using. He noted that the basic principle is the more sunlight that is reflecting off of the solar panel the less sunlight is being used to create electricity. Commissioner Leon explained that the genesis for his concern was a case in Laguna Nigel where the City allowed the installation of solar panels on a house. The sun reflected off of those solar panels directly into a house across the canyon. He explained that solar cells are not 100 percent absorptive, and almost all have a cover glass on the front surface. He also noted that almost none of the solar panels used in residential areas actually track the sun such that they are perpendicular to the sun absorbing the solar energy. He stated that in looking at the staff report, he did an internet search for health and safety and glare and found that the State of California is fairly immature in this matter. Commissioner Gerstner questioned, even if the Commission could determine that there is glare generated from solar panels, what could the City do to mitigate the problem. He asked if once the solar panels are up and a neighboring resident complains of glare would the City then make the owner remove the solar panels. He also questioned if there some reasonable analysis that could be done to determine that the solar panels are going to cause glare on a neighboring property or a public right-of-way. City Attorney Lynch added that this analysis would have to be done on specific health and safety grounds, which would make the analysis difficult to do from adjoining properties. Commissioner Leon stated that the geometry in determining reflective glare is relatively simple, and there are a number of engineering solutions to the problem. He also noted that the specific example that brought this question about was when the Annenberg Foundation proposed the installation of several acres of solar panels in their parking lot. In looking at the rudimentary reflective analysis and seeing where there would be a specular reflection of the sun and where that goes in the community, is an analysis the City should require of people when they are putting in these large solar facilities. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if there was a distinction between residential solar and non-residential solar. City Attorney Lynch answered there was not a distinction made between the two. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 9 Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that the State law says that cities are not to adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems. Therefore, the City is bound by the law with little discretion. Commissioner Knight explained that solar panels have efficiency ratings, with the lower anti-glare number being the more efficient panels. He asked staff if the City could impose a design criterion of a minimum anti-glare number for solar installations, which would make the panels more efficient. City Attorney Lynch answered that the City could as long as in doing so it does not increase the cost to the individual who would be installing the solar panels. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the City could impose a review criterion as part of the application process that would look at the panels and their angle to see if they would cause glare issues to neighbors, and if so if there would be an easy way to mitigate that issue. City Attorney Lynch responded that something of that nature would be more appropriate, as it may not significantly increase the cost or significantly decrease the efficiency of the solar panels. Director Rojas explained that if the Planning Commission wants to amend the Code to add that as a review criterion there must be a consensus vote among the Commissioners to initiate this to the City Council. City Attorney Lynch added that there should be some sort of engineering study to support the position that the City is specifically addressing one of the findings and addressing a specific health and safety concern. She didn't know how this could be done on a generic basis. Commissioner Knight noted that maximum solar efficiency year round for this area is 32 degrees. Changing the angle of the panel because of glare concerns will significantly affect the efficiency of the panel on a year round basis. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if they had an estimate of the number of solar panel applications the City processes each year. Director Rojas estimated that staff processes twelve applications per year. He added that he has never received a complaint from a resident regarding glare from solar panels. Chairman Tomblin asked staff if the Planning Commission would be in their purview to ask applicants who have large solar panel installation applications before the Commission to do an analysis of glare to intersections for safety reasons. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 10 City Attorney Lynch stated such an analysis is not currently in the Code and felt a Code amendment would be needed in order to add that level of review. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if the City can allow certain solar panels to be installed with a follow-up review with possible mandates for mitigation factors after-the-fact. City Attorney Lynch answered that it is possible as long as the mitigation factors would be directed towards specific public safety and health concerns and do not create an unreasonable barrier. Commissioner Lewis stated that, if there is a problem caused by the solar panels, the neighboring resident has a civil remedy and can sue as a private nuisance. Further, the City could pursue a public nuisance action for solar panels that cause problems in the public right-of-way. Therefore, he felt the status quo was sufficient since there are civil remedies to address the problem without the City having to get involved. Commissioner Knight moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. The motion was approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS (continued) 2. Floor to Area Ration (FAR) Review Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report and gave a brief history of the proposed code amendment. He noted that at the previous meeting a question was raised as to how many total projects have gone through the neighborhood compatibility process. He stated that staff researched the question and found that since August 2001 there have been 653 cases submitted to Department involving a neighborhood compatibility analysis. He noted this analysis is included in the staff report. He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission conclude its discussion regarding this issue and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Leon stated that, in general, he did not feel the FAR worked in Rancho Palos Verdes. He explained this is based on an assessment of looking at big houses and small houses and seeing how they fit together. He did not think there was any correlation between that and what perceived floor area ratio is. He raised the question .of setbacks, noting that setback requirements do not seem to take into account whether the houses is a very large house or a small house. He felt the City would be well served to have a larger setback for bigger houses than with smaller houses. He felt the character of the neighborhood would be improved if big houses were farther apart than small houses. He asked if the City can require an applicant submitting a larger home to provide a larger setback through the neighborhood compatibility process. Director Rojas answered that the Commission can, and has, requested a larger setback on certain projects. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 11 Commissioner Lewis explained that in looking at FAR he first has to establish if there is a problem that needs fixing. He felt that from the information provided by staff, there is no problem in terms of incremental growth. He therefore did not feel that implementing an FAR at this point in time was warranted. Commissioner Lewis moved to direct staff to report to the City Council that the Planning Commission does not feel there is a problem with the current system and that the City's current regulations and review procedure for residential projects are appropriate and there is no need to impose a Floor Area Ratio, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested adding a Floor Area Ratio column to staff reports, in addition to bulk and mass and subjective indicators, so that there is another way to assess the application. He suggested trying it on a probationary period of six months or year, noting that the FAR would not be a standard but merely a column in the staff report for informational purposes. He felt that the Planning Commission should do more than just tell the City Council that the current review procedures are adequate. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the neighborhood compatibility process has been successful in allowing neighborhoods to grow, but at a slow, controlled pace. He felt that the neighborhood compatibility process, though it is extremely subjective and a time consuming process, appears to work. Commissioner Lewis stated that the only other piece of information he would fine useful in the neighborhood compatibility chart in the staff report is an added column showing the median home size in the neighborhood. Director Rojas explained that he will have to look at the neighborhood compatibility guidelines, explaining staff would not want to add something that can be looked at as new criteria that isn't talked about in the guidelines. Commissioner Knight felt an FAR might create more problems than it will solve. He felt that if an FAR is established applicants will apply for and pursue projects at the maximum square footage allowed by that FAR. He felt this will allow for more abrupt changes in neighborhoods. Secondly, FARs work well in communities with similar size lots. However there are unusual circumstances in this City, noting many lots that go .down into canyons or very small lots next to very large lots. He felt that the City is currently controlling growth in neighborhoods and that neighborhood compatibility is working. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that neighborhood compatibility is an extremely subjective process, however he felt it was working and could not think of a better way to look at additions and new homes in this City. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that adding a FAR column to the table in the staff report will keep the subjective process while adding some objectivity. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 12 Commissioner Knight stated that in the staff report staff supports loosening the thresholds for one-story additions, increase the current 25 percent to 35 percent threshold, increase the original structure size, and increase the current 250 square foot exemption to neighborhood compatibility to 500 square feet. He noted that the Commission hasn't discussed this component of staffs recommendation. Director Rojas explained that because of the question of inconveniencing the applicants through a long neighborhood compatibility process, staff felt one avenue to address that would be to raise the thresholds so that certain smaller projects would not have to go through the neighborhood compatibility process. Senior Planner Schonborn added that these were only potential suggestions the Commission may want to consider, and it was not staffs intention to say these are items that should be considered and adopted. Commissioner Lewis stated that the reason he made the motion he did was because he didn't think there was a problem with the current system. He did not support recommending to the City Council that the threshold be modified. Commissioner Knight also didn't feel the suggested changes needed to be made and supported leaving the current system. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if staff has done any type of analysis to determine, of the properties that staff or the Commission has reviewed that fall between the 25 percent and 35 percent threshold, or between 250 square feet and 500 square feet, if the Planning Commission has ever denied a project that falls between these thresholds for reasons of neighborhood compatibility. He wanted to know if this proposed change would result in any difference, and if it hasn't then perhaps the proposed change would be appropriate to move up to City Council. Commissioner Lewis agreed, but felt that particular concern was a different problem than what caused the City Council to send the FAR issue to the Planning Commission for consideration. He felt this was a worthy area of study, but should be done separately or as an additional footnote to the report. .Director Rojas agreed and felt it could be noted under additional information in the staff report to the City Council. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8. Minutes of December 14, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 13 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioners Knight and Lewis abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 9. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 8, 2011 The Commissioner reviewed and approved the Pre-Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 14