Loading...
PC MINS 20120124 Approved February 2&,,2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Leon, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Mihranian, and Associate Planner Mikhail APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their January 17th meeting the City Council initiated a code amendment to regulate the frequency of garage sales held on residential properties. Director Rojas also reported that the Commissioners can turn in their 700 Forms to the Director for delivery to the City Clerk. He added that the City Council will conduct interviews for Planning Commission candidates at their upcoming January 31't meeting. He noted that registration for the upcoming March Planning Commission conference is open and if any Commissioners are interested in registering, to contact the Director. Director Rojas distributed 9 letters for agenda item No, 1 and 4 letters for agenda item No. 4. Commissioner Leon reported that he received an email from a resident related to agenda item No. 3, which he distributed as late correspondence. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-a-genda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Ancillary residential zone text amendment (ZON2011-00345) Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this was a code amendment request originally initiated by the City Council in June 2011. She stated that staff proposes that ancillary residential uses be permitted within a commercially zoned property with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and explained the development standards created for such use as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Gerstner referred to language that would allow the outside of the commercial building to be changed with the addition of residential use. He asked staff if he was interpreting this language correctly. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the requirement is that the architecture of the commercial building be maintained, but that a residential addition would be permitted if a Conditional Use Permit were approved. Commissioner Gerstner questioned why any change to the architecture of the commercial building would be allowed and why it wouldn't be required that the architecture be maintained as approved in the original Conditional Use Permit. Director Rojas noted that is an issue that may want to be clarified. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the parking requirements, noting that it is not typical for the City to change the parking requirements when an ancillary use is added to the site. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the parking requirements would also depend on the commercial site, as many of the commercial developments have a common shared parking analysis that was done. She also noted that staff was intending there to be designated parking for the residential units on the property. Commissioner Gerstner referred to proposed language that the resident shall be employed at the commercial property. He asked what provisions are included if the person living in the residential portion of the property were to lose their job. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the intent is to have people employed within the commercial development living at the site. She noted a provision was added that if a resident of the property loses their job that they vacate the property when the residential lease expires. Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 2 Commissioner Gerstner felt that mixed use properties have a great benefit, however he felt that typically the City would determine where specifically the mixed use site would work and be beneficial. However, in this case the City is proposing to take all commercial properties and allowing them to be mixed use properties with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that some will make more sense from a planning point of view than others. Director Rojas agreed, explaining that staff wrote this language in a way where the use will clearly be ancillary and will not change the commercial use. Therefore, the intent was not to create a traditional "mixed use" zone but simply a process for any property owner who is interested in having some residential tenants can take advantage of the ,allowance if they want. He also noted that the property will remain zoned for commercial, as the language does not propose to change the zoning of the property. Commissioner Gerstner stated that he has never seen in any other City residential use as an ancillary use on commercially zoned property. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff for clarification on the City Council direction. He asked if the City Council has already decided that this is the direction they want to go, and have given the Planning Commission direction to recommend a set of standards by which this can be implemented. Or, did the City Council want the Planning Commission to explore the issue and provide feedback to the Council on the issue. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the City Council was asking the Planning Commission for feedback on this issue. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that staff had determined a revision to the Conditional Use Permit, rather than a zone change, was a more appropriate route in regards to this type of project, since this will be an ancillary use. He asked staff if there has been a determination made as to what that threshold is when an ancillary use will become inconsistent with the General Plan, Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney determined that in this case, since the primary use of the center will remain commercial and the zoning will not change, that there would be no issue with inconsistency with the General Plan, Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that the staff report discussed the health, safety, and welfare of the community in regards to this proposal. He asked if staff had considered the health, safety, and welfare of the possible residents who might be living in those spaces. He used the example of tenants who might have children, noting the potential safety issues with living in a busy commercial center. He asked if the City can regulate who can actually live in these units, as he felt there were safety issues. Director Rojas explained that before any units can be rented out the Building Official will confirm that they meet all life safety requirements, of the Building Code so that it can be assured the units will be safe, habitable dwelling units. He stated he would have to Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 3 check with the City Attorney on whether or not the City can prohibit children from living in these units. Vice Chairman Tetreault discussed the situation where a tenant moves into one of the units and feels that the noise from one of the businesses is a nuisance, even though the business is typical for a center such as Golden Cove and was there before the tenant moved in. He questioned if the tenant would have a right to bring an action for nuisance, even though the resident is new to the property. He felt that this type of mixed use opens up a lot of issues and that maybe that is why it's not a typical use in a shopping center, Chairman Tomblin questioned if the deed restrictions on these units could be limited to only employees of the Golden Cove Center. He felt that in doing so there could be a discrimination issue. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the City Attorney reviewed the proposal and felt that the units could be offered to employees only. Chairman Tomblin noted that as part of their Conditional Use Permit, the businesses in the Golden Cove Center have specific hours they can be open and operating. He didn't think the City could ask any potential residents at Golden Cove to abide by these hours of operation, and asked staff how that would be handled, Director Rojas reminded the Commission that if an application is submitted for an ancillary residential use, the property owner is opening up the entire Conditional Use Permit for review whereby existing conditions can be modified and new conditions imposed. He explained the Commission can put restrictions on what is allowed with any proposed residential use of the property. Commissioner Gerstner understood, but didn't think the City could amend the Conditional Use Permit to say that one could not operate a residence between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. He felt that some reasonable residential use would be appropriate and acceptable if the City allows the use. He also felt that enforcement would be next to impossible, and in the end it would mean that the shopping center almost has no hours of operation. Director Rojas stated that in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow an ancillary residential use there are specific findings the Commission must make, which include analyzing adverse impacts on adjacent neighbors. If the Commissioners cannot make these findings they cannot approve the request. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. John Wessel stated he was concerned with this proposal in terms of a conflict with the General Plan and that converting this site to allow ancillary uses represents a slippery slope in implementation of the General Plan as the governing document. He urged the Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 4 Planning Commission to recommend that this proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan and a revision to the General Plan would be required in order to allow this use. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt this is a rather significant proposal, and he had his doubts as to whether or not this would be good for the City. He felt that this proposal would allow an ancillary use which would have the affect, in various places around the City, of removing the cities stock of retail and commercial establishments. As the economy improves these spaces might turn out to be spaces that could be used for their intended primary use, and this would be a potential loss of revenue to the City. He also commented that adding residents to a shopping center could change the whole complexion of the area by changing the look and feel of the area and changing the use to 24/7. He stated that the only location looked at in detail is Golden Cove, but noted there are other shopping centers in the City this could affect. He felt that before making a recommendation to the City Council that all shopping centers should be looked at and how all the properties will be affected by this proposal. He didn't think he had nearly enough information to make any recommendation to the City Council. While Commissioner Emenhiser sympathized with the property owner, he questioned if the Development Code should be changed to may not be the answer to the problem. He agreed with the speaker that this might be a slippery slope and had a lot of questions about how this borders the line between commercial and residential zoning, Commissioner Gerstner noted that he is a big supporter of mixed use and that mixed use may have some very good possibilities in the City. He stated he has never seen a City with residential in a shopping center where it is called an ancillary use rather than a mixed use. He did not think that residential is an ancillary use to commercial, even if the people using the residential happen to be employed by the shopping center. He added that at this point he was inclined to recommend against the use, but would continue to listen to the idea. Commissioner Leon stated he was also a supporter of mixed use, but not as an ancillary use and felt this type of ancillary use will only create low quality housing. He also felt there could be a lot of unintended consequences that come out of this type of situation. He would therefore be generally opposed to having residential as an ancillary use in a commercial zone. Chairman Tomblin also noted he is a supporter of mixed use, however he was not in favor of this proposal. He explained that the design and living conditions of the apartment at the Golden Cove Center will dictate the pleasure of how that resident is going to feel. He noted that the plans for the proposed apartment show that it will be a unit that will result in grief for the resident and the people around it. Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 5 Commissioner Leon commented that it appeared most Commissioners are in favor of a high quality mixed use in the City, and suggested that the Development Code be amended to allow for a mixed use in the City, Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that the original request for this use came from the owner at Golden Cove and the City chose to look at this as a citywide proposal. He felt that the Commissioners were a bit uneasy with this proposal. He stated that he was only aware of one person ever asking to take their unused or unusable commercial space and turn it into residential. He asked why the City is basically inviting everyone to now make this request. He questioned why the City would want to do that rather than looking at these requests on a case by case basis. He stated he was having a problem looking at only this one shopping center when considering a policy change that would affect all of the shopping centers, as well as the surrounding neighbors, in the City. Director Rojas noted that Alternative No. I in the staff• report is to limit this code amendment only to the CN district. Commissioner Gerstner moved to send this back to the City Council with the recommendation that, having reviewed this proposal, the Planning Commission does not believe that residential as an ancillary use in commercial districts is an appropriate change to make. However, the Commission does feel there is a place for mixed use in the community and would be interested in investigating mixed use in the commercial districts of the City, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Director Rojas stated that several years ago the City looked at mixed use and found that developers and others they spoke to wanted taller buildings. He explained that in every commercial zone in the City staff identified that a taller building would significantly impair views from adjacent residents. Commissioner Gerstner amended his motion to state that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that ancillary residential use in a commercial space is not an appropriate use and the Commission recommends that it not be pursued. However, the Planning Commission does feel mixed use may have a place in the community and, if directed by the City Council, would like to pursue, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-0). Director Rojas stated that staff will prepare a Resolution memorializing the decision and bring it to the Commission for approval on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. 2. Miscellaneous clean-up zone text amendment revision Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining that at a previous meeting staff presented a number of code clean-up items before the Planning Commission. She noted that the wrong code section was inadvertently removed, and in the staff report the Commission can see what was intended and what was actually Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 6 done. She stated that staff was recommending the Commission approve, via minute order, the erroneous correction to the amendment. Commissioner Leon moved to correct the amendment as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved via minute order. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the section regarding roof decks, noting that roof decks are rather unique and there are a lot of special conditions that are applied to roof decks. He also felt that roof decks in Rancho Palos Verdes are more like a large balcony on a top floor rather than a true roof deck. In this proposed language he felt that other lesser balconies are being included in this higher range of privacy concern and it was a bit too restrictive. He felt that including the language regarding balconies will be codifying some of things he felt were negatives in the Planning Commission not accepting that residents live in close proximity to one another and that there is an expectation of privacy from a neighbor's balcony that shouldn't be as great as what it is becoming. The motion to correct the erroneous amendment as recommended by staff was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 3. Discussion of exterior lighting conditions Commissioner Leon distributed the text of an email he received from Cassie Jones discussing the process she went through in regards to the lighting at the new animal hospital, noting that if there are issues with the lighting they are not discovered early enough in the process. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief overview of situations where exterior lighting conditions may apply and the process staff follows in regards to exterior lighting. Commissioner Gerstner felt the City has to have a set of rules to give property owners in regards to lighting that will allow them to purchase and install the correct lighting on their property. He suggested the City be more specific with what we will' allow and narrow the field of what is acceptable, such that we feel confident that what we do allow works. He also suggested that lighting requirements not be described so much in a performance terminology, such as where the lights can and cannot shine, but rather more prescriptively. As an example, your lighting must do certain things and here are four light fixture types the City has found to be successful and acceptable. He also felt the City should not discuss lighting in terms of wattage, as that is a description of the amount of electricity and the City is concerned about the amount of light. He stated he would very much like to see what other cities do in terms of lighting restrictions and conditions, and also stated he would talk to some of the consultants he uses to see if Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 7 they would donate some of their time to discuss with staff their findings in terms of lighting. Lastly, he felt the most effective lighting is from light that bounces off of something else, explaining that when you look at diminished light you really don't want to look through the glass and see the light from the light bulb, but rather you want to see the light after it has bounced off of the pavement, a tree, or a building as this will moderate the light and take the glare out of the light, Commissioner Leon asked staff if they review the selection of the specific lighting fixtures, Director Rojas explained that staff reviews the lighting plan, looking at the fixtures to make sure they will achieve whatever conditions have been put on the lighting plan. Once the lighting has been installed staff will then review the lighting to verify that all conditions of approval in terms of the lighting have been met. Commissioner Leon felt that the problem applicants have with this process is that they submit something to the City, and if approved it should then be approved, and there shouldn't be any recourse by the City to come back and ask for modifications. He felt the City should have one chance and not have an infinite number of chances to ask for modifications to the lighting. Chairman Tomblin briefly reviewed past projects where lighting has been an issue. He also discussed the upcoming lighting at the St. John Fisher project. Commissioner Gerstner noted that exterior lighting design at facilities in every City is an issue, as it is one of the most difficult things to get right. He felt that there are so many criteria to consider when looking at lighting that it makes it extremely difficult to make everyone happy. He pointed out that Terranea is a particularly good example of an exterior lighting solution on a rather large scale, with more than one type of light fixture, and more than one type of exterior use. He stated he was very adamant about wanting to work with staff to help find ways to address the lighting issues. Chairman Tomblin appreciated and understood the information and process presented in the staff report. He felt that what the next step is to look at how to take the current process to a different, higher level in terms of the review process. He suggested forming a subcommittee to look into lighting alternatives. Commissioner Gerstner volunteered to work on the subcommittee, as did Commissioner Leon and Chairman Tomblin, Commissioner Gerstner moved to direct staff to look at other cities in regards to how they address the issue of lighting, and bring that information as well as the exterior lighting code back to the Commission at a future public hearing for review. Further, this information should be reviewed with a subcommittee made up of Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, and Chairman Tomblin, seconded by Commissioner Leon, Approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 8 4. Implementation of the Conceptual Trails Plan Deputy Director Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining that from time to time the Commission considers projects where trails are an issue or comments are raised by the public regarding trails. Therefore, staff wanted to brief the Commission on how staff reviews the Conceptual Trails Plan and works with applicants when projects are being proposed. As discussed in the staff report, he gave a brief history of how the Conceptual Trails Plan came about how staff uses this document when working with developers and land owners who are proposing projects in the City, Commissioner Leon asked if there was something the City could do in terms of incentives, such as allowing more lot coverage, to encourage property owners to dedicate trail easements on their property. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission can suggest the City offer incentives to property owners, similar to those offered in the equestrian areas, Commissioner Gerstner felt this was an important issue, stating he was not as concerned about the development of a trail easement from nothing to the ultimate trail as he was about getting an easement to get the opportunity in place for a potential trail in the future. Director Rojas explained the Conceptual Trails, and gave the Commission a brief update on potential trails in the City and how staff is working towards implementing these trails. The Commission unanimously received and filed this report, APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of December 13, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner, Approved, (5-0) 6. Minutes of January 10, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 14, 201 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda, Ranning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 9 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9-17 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 24,2012 Page 10