Loading...
PC MINS 20110927 Approved October 25, 11 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:08 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Emenhiser led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Lewis, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the agenda to hear item Nos. 1 and 2 (Consent Calendar) to be heard after agenda item No. 6. The Commission unanimously agreed. In looking at the agenda, Chairman Tomblin suggested hearing items 5 and 6 first, followed by the Consent Calendar and the rest of the agenda. Commissioner Lewis amended his motion to hear agenda items 5 and 6 first, followed by the rest of the agenda. The Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their upcoming October 4t" meeting the City Council will consider the proposed code amendment related to banner signs in the public right-of- way. Director Rojas distributed one letter related to agenda item No. 5. Commissioner Knight reported that he had a conversation with a resident about the proposed Lower Point Vicente parking lot improvement project. Chairman Tomblin reported that he was contacted by residents regarding the ingress and egress with respect to the Chase Bank project at Hawthorne Boulevard and Crest Road. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2011-001520: 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and noted staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the request. She noted that previously the Salvation Army had been approached as to their interest in dedicating a trail easement along Palos Verdes Drive South. At that time they expressed verbal interest in dedicating an easement, however up until the time of the preparation of the staff report staff had not received any feedback. However, included in the late correspondence there is a response from the Salvation Army stating they will be working with the City to establish a trail easement. Therefore, staff is recommending condition No. 17 in the conditions of approval be removed. Staff will also be working with the Salvation Army to implement the trail easement. Director Rojas added that the City Attorney felt that the City could not condition the current project with condition No. 17 and the condition could only be added if the Salvation Army agreed to it. Chairman Tomblin disclosed that he had served on the Board of the Salvation Army in Los Angeles approximately ten years ago, but did not think this caused any conflict of interest. Director Rojas noted that Commissioner Emenhiser lives in the five hundred foot radius of the project and must recuse himself from this item. Commissioner Emenhiser left the dais. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis stated he was disappointed there would be no easement, but agreed with the City Attorney's advice in regards to condition No. 17 being removed. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, and with the exclusion of condition of approval No. 17, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he was very disappointed with the way this played out, noting it is not very frequent the City has an opportunity to seal the deal on an easement. In this case there is an applicant who is willing to do it, the City wants to do it, and there are a lot of people in the community who want to see it happen, and yet it's not getting done. However, given the City Attorney's opinion that condition No. 17 cannot be included in the conditions of approval, he could see no other solution. With that, however, he stated he was able to make all of the necessary findings in order to approve the project. Commissioner Knight agreed, stating this is the second time the Salvation Army has come before the City asking to do an improvement on their project and the City has asked in return they give an easement, however it still hasn't happened. He hoped this time it is just a matter of working out the details. Commissioner Leon was also frustrated, referencing his time on the Equestrian Committee and the importance of trail easements in the City. Commissioner Lewis agreed, however he reminded the Commission that the Salvation Army has property rights and an easement is a valuable property right. He stated that everyone agrees it would be nice for the City to have that easement, but the City does not have leverage and cannot force the Salvation Army to dedicate the easement. He felt that the Commissioners can make the required findings to approve the project and should vote accordingly. He suggested staff update the Commission once or twice a year on the status of the trail easement. Commissioner Gerstner thought the Salvation Army, with the approval of their last project, had a reasonable expectation of dedicating this trail easement and he felt that they are now changing their mind. He asked staff what the basic problems are. Director Rojas felt that the main issue for the Salvation Army is liability concerns. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing to hear from a representative of the Salvation Army on the issue of the easement. Kelly Nolan stated he can answer any questions, but has no authority to make any agreements. He stated that he is relatively new to this position and has only recently finished reading and understanding all of the past correspondence regarding this issue. He explained that the Salvation Army would like to see a document or agreement that specifies the responsibilities and terms of the agreement that is a bit more formal and detailed than what has been seen in past correspondence. He stated the Salvation Army has no problem in proceeding with the easement agreement with the City. He asked that this project not be contingent with the trail, as they are two separate issues. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 3 Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis amended his motion that the Planning Commission adopt staff's recommendation, delete condition No. 17 from the conditions of approval, and as a separate item not tied to this application, ask staff to report to the Planning Commission no less frequently than every six months on the status of the trail easement, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Commissioner Leon was in favor of continuing the item to the October 11th meeting to allow the City some time to work on the easement issues with the Salvation Army. He felt this would add more incentive to come to some type of agreement. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he shared the sentiment, however he did not think the Planning Commission could impose a restriction upon the applicant in a way which would not necessarily be fair. He noted the Salvation Army is waiting for something in writing from the City to address their concerns over this proposed easement, and he felt that it is the City's responsibility to take the next step and respond to the letter from the Salvation Army. Chairman Tomblin asked if this were a new development, would it then be in the purview of the Commission or staff to then require the easement situation be addressed and resolved before the approval of the development. Director Rojas answered that if this were a new development there would be an EIR that discusses the developments impacts on the environment and community and there would be mitigation measures identified. Chairman Tomblin asked when the cut-off happens when someone wants to make an improvement to their property and the City wants to bring items on the property into conformance with the Master Plan or City policy in reference to sidewalks, trails, and easements. Director Rojas explained there would have to be a project with impacts that must be mitigated, however in this situation the project exists and the current request does not have a nexus to the trail easement. Commissioner Knight noted, however, that there is a cumulative issue in that the Salvation Army has gone through a permit process before for improvements, and each one taken individually may not be very large, however looked at cumulatively they might be a much larger project. Director Rojas agreed, but explained that one could make the argument that cumulatively these projects may make an impact on traffic and there may be a need to make improvements to the roadway, however none of the multiple projects have any impact on the trail. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 4 Commissioner Leon felt there is a cumulative impact, and this is the second proposed project at the site where the Commission has been told there is no nexus. He vehemently disagreed with staff that the City necessarily has to pay for everything and that they can't come up with arrangements that don't involve the transfer of money or funds associated with this. He noted there are benefits to land owners for having easements with a City. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2011-30 approving the project as recommended by staff and revised by the Commission was approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Leon dissenting, Commissioner Gerstner abstaining, and Commissioner Emenhiser recused. 6. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00454): 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Commissioner Emenhiser was also recused from this item. Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report explaining the proposed request from the applicant. She noted that staff received three letters of concern from residents living across the street on Via La Cresta. She showed photos taken from the properties and explained that staff determined the proposal does not create a significant view impact. Staff was therefore able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Knight recalled that at one time the City had wanted to remove the monopole from property, and asked staff the status. Assistant Planner Kim explained that the City is currently developing a new city hall complex plan and with the plan it's the City's intent to remove the monopole in its entirety. Therefore all lease terms on this monopole will expire on the same date in 2014. Commissioner Lewis asked if the three homes on Via la Cresta are considered adjacent properties as required in the findings that the Commission must make. Assistant Planner Kim answered that they are considered adjacent, as they are directly across the street from City Hall property. Commissioner Leon asked staff if any research has been done regarding antennas that are not quite so visually imposing, as the current antennas are not invisible from the adjacent residences. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff did not look into alternatives, nor did they require that of the applicant. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 5 Nicolas Faure (applicant) stated he has read the staff report and agrees with the conditions of approval, and was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Leon asked if there is any antenna that would provide the same function but would be a smaller diameter and less visually imposing. Mr. Faure answered that this request is for the new technology AT&T is using and at this time there are not smaller antennas that could be used that would work at the site. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-31, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0) with Commissioner Emenhiser recused. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. Commissioner Knight requested that item No. 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, and the Commission agreed. 2 Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00293): The adoption of the Resolution failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon and Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Knight explained his no vote was because there is nothing in the current resolution that allows for a clarification documentation as to the initial analysis of view impact or the visibility triangle, which is why he favored a permit process. Director Rojas explained that if the Commission would like to have more discussion on the hedge issue, there would have to be a motion to renotice the matter for further Planning Commission discussion, or staff can report to the City Council that the Planning Commission failed to adopt the Resolution. Commissioner Gerstner questioned whether or not further discussion was necessary, explaining the difficulty with this proposed code amendment is that the Commissioners have slightly different opinions about each of the individual pieces of this and therefore many of the Commissioners will lean towards voting no because of their strong belief in the one item that is particularly important to them. He felt further discussion would most likely end in the same place. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 6 Vice Chairman Tetreault recalled that at the past meeting the Commission had split this item into two discussion, one being whether the Commission favored allowing hedges in excess of 42 inches in the front yard setback. The Commission voted 4-3 against it. With that, and knowing the City Council felt differently than the Commission and wanted direction, the Commission came up with this alternative plan which passed by a vote of 5-2. He stated it now sounds like the Commission has changed its decision and gone back to the 4-3 vote in favor of basically rejecting the entire proposal. Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is in favor of allowing hedges above 42 inches in the front yard setback, however he is against the methodology of control the City would impose in order to allow that to happen. He noted others on the Commission are against allowing hedges above 42 inches in the front yard setback, but if they are going to be allowed they are in favor of the methodology of control. Commissioner Knight explained his concern that there may be a hedge that is blocking a neighbor's view and there is no documentation of the view when the hedge was shorter or recordation of what was established in the past, and each time the hedge grows too tall the process will have to start over. He didn't think it would be an efficient use of city resources. Director Rojas noted that the next several Planning Commission agendas are fairly light, and with that Commissioner Knight stated that because the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to report back to them, he might then be in favor of renoticing the item and having a new discussion on it. Commissioner Knight moved to re-notice and re-agendize this item to be discussed at a future meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioners Lewis and Emenhiser dissenting. 1. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00239): 6923 Vallon Drive Commissioner Knight explained that he asked this item be removed from the Consent Calendar because he wanted staff to clarify the State and Federal regulations that preempt the Commission of having any sort of control over the solar panels. Director Rojas explained that the City cannot add other regulations to solar panels, other than those related to health and safety impacts. Therefore, the code is very simplified and there is a streamlined process in the Planning Department for solar panel approval. However, for solar panels that extend above the ridgeline of a home, additional criteria have been added for review by the City in regards to safety issues. He noted solar panels are still required to get a building permit from Building and Safety. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the item as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 7 3. Miscellaneous Code amendment (Case No. ZON2011-00023) Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report explaining that at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had requested modified language to some of the proposed amendments and had requested further information from staff. In addition, staff forwarded these proposed code amendments to the City Attorney, who recommended additional changes to some of the language, as discussed in the staff report. She stated staff is recommending that if the Planning Commission finds the proposed code amendments acceptable, they adopt the resolution included in the staff report, thereby recommending the City Council approve the recommended miscellaneous code amendments. The Commission reviewed and discussed the different sections of the proposed code amendments. Commissioner Lewis referred to paragraph B on page 7, concerning authority, and felt that paragraph should be deleted. Associate Planner Mikhail agreed, noting the change was made in the Resolution. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the miscellaneous code amendments are recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. PC The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2011-32 was adopted without objection. 4. FAR Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00332) Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of this item and explained the City Council's directive that staff and the Planning Commission further assess establishing an FAR and attempt to augment it through the neighborhood compatibility process. As a result, staff has conducted additional research and obtained city-wide information on lot and structure sizes. He discussed the different approaches staff looked at in regards to an FAR which included creating a single uniform FAR to be applicable citywide, developing an FAR for neighborhoods or districts, and developing an FAR based on each specific zoning district. He referred to a Table distributed by staff and explained that staff looked at approvals of neighborhood compatibility projects that were reviewed and approved by either the Director or the Planning Commission for a 4 '/year time span, which totaled approximately 172 applications. He also discussed the various options that staff considered in developing an FAR as well as the non- conformities that would be created by implementing an FAR. Finally, he discussed an option by which the FAR would be created by zone but to set the FAR at the maximum of the FAR range discussed in a previous table. He noted that the FAR would set a cap that may appear high, but the project would still be subject to neighborhood compatibility. He stated that based on the numbers provided in the staff report, staff is Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 8 seeking feedback from the Commission as to what can be established and what could be considered a fair and appropriate FAR throughout the City. Commissioner Lewis asked staff, beginning with the premise that the City Council thinks there is a problem with incremental creep in neighborhoods, and if the limits were set so that there would be no legal non-conformities, would this then address the issues that the City Council has with neighborhood creep. Senior Planner Schonborn acknowledged that the City Council was concerned with neighborhood creep, but they also wanted to see some sort of cap. He stated that cap is up for discussion, but from staff's perspective setting the cap at the maximum is the least impactful as it does not create nonconformities and there is still the neighborhood compatibility process which staff will base their recommendations on, irrespective of the FAR. Commissioner Leon felt that doing something like that will have a terrible result and will encourage people to mcmansionize the entire community as it will be encouraging residents to increase the size of houses by four and five times compared to what the houses are today. He felt the problem was with the approach of using the zoning districts and the neighborhoods are not arranged by those zoning districts. He did not think, therefore, that this was meaningful as a useful FAR. He felt it would make more sense to have a neighborhood based FAR as opposed to a zoning based FAR. He felt that the entire concept of an FAR is really telling people what they can do inside their house, whereas he felt the community has a right to what people do outside their house. He did not think that how people divide up the rooms of their home, such as it creates square footage in the house, is any of the City's business. From that standpoint, the whole concept of using FAR not only fails from the standpoint of how to administer it without encouraging people to mcmansionize the City, it also tells people how to design the interior of their homes. Commissioner Knight questioned if the City currently has regulations in place that set upper limits on what can be developed. Director Rojas answered that if the City applies lot coverage and setbacks as well as open space hazard areas then an upper limit does exist. However, one of the arguments driving the push for an FAR is that many lots have unusable area and therefore a project's actual lot coverage doesn't come close to what the maximum lot coverage allowed. Commissioner Knight asked staff how basements are calculated in the FAR. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that basements are included in the FAR calculation. He added that the Commission may want to be specific in defining what should be counted towards the FAR. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 9 Commissioner Knight asked if accessory structures are also included in the FAR calculation. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that accessory structures are part of the FAR calculation. Director Rojas added that the Commission can amend the process to allow second units to be exempt from an FAR cap. Commissioner Lewis did not think an absolute cap would achieve what City Council wants to achieve, which is to avoid creep. He suggested that, instead of sending the City Council a cap on structure size based on FAR, sending them a proposal whereby the FAR is somehow incorporated into the neighborhood compatibility process and makes it more difficult for the applicant to overcome the findings and get approval for the larger residence. Vice Chairman Tetreault explained that the City Council seems to want some sort of a cap to be as an adjunct to the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He felt the assumption has to be that the City Council does not think neighborhood compatibility does an adequate job in limiting the size of homes. If that is a reasonable assumption, the next assumption would be that neighborhood compatibility has allowed some homes to be built or added upon which shouldn't have been approved because they are too big, and therefore neighborhood compatibility failed. If that is the case, the proposed FAR shouldn't be the largest home, but rather something smaller so that it would prevent any homes reaching the size of those largest homes. He felt the difficulty is in assigning that number, as each number picked is increasing or decreasing the number of non-conformities. He also noted that the community is so diverse, with canyons and slopes and hazard areas, that he didn't know how a number would be achieved. He noted that an FAR confuses people, as there will then be an objective standard, the FAR, and a subjective standard, being neighborhood compatibility. He felt that residents will come to the City with the belief they should be entitled to build a house at the maximum FAR calculation, when in fact that is not the case. He felt that an FAR will not solve the problem and the best tool is neighborhood compatibility. He stated he is against the FAR and would not be able to support a recommendation to the City Council recommending inclusion of an FAR. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he also wrestles with the objective and subjective issue, though right now the City only has subjective in the terms of neighborhood compatibility. He felt a subjective number would be helpful. He liked Commissioner Lewis' idea of a standard and would suggest the standard be the 90th percentile. He understood the Commission's concern with a mandatory standard, which is why he suggested starting with an advisory standard and have an adjunct to neighborhood compatibility as opposed to a mandate. He felt that doing it this way will meet part of the desire of the City Council without setting the City up for failure. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 10 Commissioner Gerstner commented there may currently be a problem with people asking to build homes bigger than they should be. However he did not think there was a problem with actual approvals, and that what actually gets approved and built is compatible with the neighborhood. He also did not believe there is a problem with mansionization in the City, and has yet to see an example of this problem. In regards to creep, he felt that a slow and controlled change is a much better way for a community to thrive, because if you don't change some the community may wither and die. He also had an issue with establishing an FAR, however if the City Council is looking for an absolute cap he would suggest setting the FAR somewhere near or at the largest structure in that zone that has been built. He did not like the idea of telling a resident their home is now legal non-conforming, especially if the home has gone through neighborhood compatibility. He also believed that by setting an objective standard the City is going to indirectly encourage an argument that people are going to want to build to the objective standard. Commissioner Lewis questioned if the problem is that the City Council feels buildings have been approved that shouldn't have been approved; or if the problem is that the neighborhood creep and the buildings that have been recently approved, will have set a trend so that in twenty years the homes that are approved will get past neighborhood compatibility. If it is the latter, then staff has appropriately set the FAR at the outer range. He thought the Planning Commission might help the City Council by just using the FAR as a number or additional column in the neighborhood compatibility process that would somehow tighten and give more teeth to the neighborhood compatibility process for those homes that exceed whatever FAR number is determined. He explained that he is very close to voting against any type of FAR, however he also wants to be of service to the City Council. Commissioner Leon felt it will be very difficult to find houses that meet the objective standards but fail the subjective standards, and he felt the City will be digging themselves a big hole. He stated he would not support an FAR in this City, and did not think there was a rational way to have an FAR apply across all of the different neighborhoods and have the desired affect. Commissioner Knight felt the intent of the City Council was to try to look years down the road and put a maximum size on the houses in the City. However, he did not think this was the right way to go about it, as he felt this route creates more problems than it solves. He felt it is this objective number that creates a difficulty for the Commission to go forth with the subjective neighborhood compatibility. He also felt an FAR would actually make a neighborhood change faster than with the current process. Chairman Tomblin felt all of the Commissioners were wrestling with the situation where they are respectful of the City Council's direction, but are having trouble implementing this direction. He stated he could not support an FAR as he did not think it would get the City to where they want to be at. He also felt that if an FAR is set at a higher limit then residents will want to build to that higher limit. He questioned if the Planning Commission, based on everything they have discussed should give a status update Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 11 report to the City Council saying that the Commission has some very serious concerns about implementing an FAR in the City. He also questioned if the Planning Commission should continue going down the path of meeting the City Council's desires and recommend some type of FAR. He felt, however, that in doing so it will create a very poor piece of legislation. Commissioner Gerstner was in favor of taking the time to try to come up with something to present to the City Council, even if all of the Commissioners don't agree with it. He felt staff and the Commission should exhaust every possible reasonable approach. He felt that whatever the Commission decides should be part of the neighborhood compatibility process. He referred to Table 5 in the staff report and stated that would be more the side he would err on and felt the Commission should ask staff what would happen without the Portuguese Bend area. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt that an FAR is just one approach to try to limit the size of a structure and that there are other approaches that could be researched, including changes to neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Leon agreed, noting that there should be a more organized approach to the way in which the City may allow more square footage within a neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser appreciated staffs efforts, noting that every idea that staff has suggested has not been satisfactory to the Commission. He suggested the Commission might look into a subcommittee approach consisting of two Commission members who would meet with staff on this issue. Chairman Tomblin felt the Commission has given staff quite a bit of information to work with and suggested staff take time to come back to the Commission with different options. Commissioner Knight explained to staff that he would like to explore not only the twenty closest in terms of FAR but also in terms of pure square footage of the homes. He would like to see if there is a way to incorporate some type of maximum formula based on square footage rather than FAR. Director Rojas stated that at one time there was a maximum structure size, however it didn't work and was taken out of the Code. Director Rojas agreed that there staff can present additional information to the Commission and that the Commission should continue this public hearing to a date certain. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he is not in favor of recommending anything with an FAR to the City Council. However, if the Commission can come up with something that would impose a maximum size on home structures in some way that doesn't involve an FAR he would be open to a discussion on that. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7. Minutes of Auqust 23, 2011 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved (5-0-2) with Commissioner Lewis and Vice Chairman Tetreault abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Commissioner Lewis stated he would like to see an update and discussion on a future agenda regarding the city parking lot at Lower Point Vicente that was supposed to be a separate item from the actual Annenberg project. Commissioner Lewis stated he would also like to see a discussion on the on-going effort to secure an easement and trail at the Salvation Army site on Palos Verdes Drive South. He would also like a discussion on the progress and efforts of the Planning Department to make the Conceptual Trails Plan less conceptual and more of a reality. Director Rojas noted that it's not the Planning Department's role to build the trails, but rather the Planning Department plans where the trails will be placed. Implementing the Trails Plan is currently a function of the Public Works Department. However, there are currently discussions to move that function to the Planning Department. Director Rojas noted the first Commission meeting in November is scheduled for November 8t", which is election day, and would look to reschedule that meeting 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on October 11, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 Page 13