Loading...
PC MINS 20120911 APPROVED OCTOBER 9, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. Chairman Tetreault asked for a moment of silence in memory of those lost eleven years ago on this date. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Community Development Director Pfost, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their September 18th meeting the City Council will hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a View Restoration Permit on Narcissa Drive. Director Rojas distributed one letter and four photos for agenda item No. 1 and four letters for agenda item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regardinq non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Coastal Permit, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2012- 00141): 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief background of the project and the Planning Commission's request that staff research any merits or benefits to the community traveling on Palos Verdes Drive West of reducing the ridgeline of the home by approximately 1 foot 9 inches. As a result of this request, the applicant provided an extra string on the silhouette indicating the difference in elevation. She showed photos of silhouette with the added string taken from Palos Verdes Drive West. She explained that staff did not feel requiring the applicant to lower the ridgeline 1 foot 9 inches created any benefit and staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the project at the proposed height. She also explained that the applicant considered redesigning the project based upon staff's previous comments in the August 14th staff report. As a result, the applicant chose to increase the front setback by approximately 10 feet, change the ridgeline from 277.45 to 276.73, eliminating 127 square feet of the residence, and reconfiguring and reducing the overall grading by approximately 772 cubic yards. She explained that staff had been concerned with the excessive grading and the applicant has reduced the grading by six inches in the rear yard for the cut and about a foot for the fill. She stated the Planning Commission had also asked that the applicant give an opinion on what it would take to make the house go down even farther. The applicant estimated it would take another 3,000 cubic yards to make this home go down even farther, and staff felt this would be excessive grading for the home. She stated staff was requesting the Planning Commission consider the information before them and determine whether or not it meets their concerns. If the Commission's concerns have been met staff was recommending approval of the project, and requesting the Commission direct staff to return to the Commission with a Resolution of approval. Louie Tomaro (architect) explained how he was able to cut the grading and how he was able to shift the house. He noted that he pulled the house in at the rear because of the south neighbor and his privacy. He pointed out the new multiple levels in the rear yard to help reduce grading. He stated he planned to do quite a bit of mature landscaping on the property, keeping in mind the height restrictions in place, as well as a lot of green open space. Commissioner Tomblin stated he previously had concerns in regards to trying to maintain low hedge and fence heights, and asked the proposed wall height closest to Palos Verdes Drive West. Mr. Tomaro answered that there is an existing wrought iron fence adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West that will remain in place. Ravi Khosla (owner) stated he is available for any questions. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 2 Jason Sikola stated he lives across the street from the proposed residence and was opposed to the structure proposed on the property. He explained that he has looked at the Municipal Code and found section 17.02.030, which he felt opposes what the staff is presenting. He discussed what he felt was the immediate neighborhood, and did not think staff should have used the entire zone as the immediate neighborhood. He described the original house that was on the applicant's property, noting it was much smaller and farther down on the slope. He very much objected to and was concerned with the size of the residence, which he felt was in violation of the style, bulk, and mass of the immediate neighborhood. Louis Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated that the City is set up with different size lots and different size homes, and there is a wide variety of homes throughout the City. He noted that this is a large lot and can handle a larger home. He noted that while there may have been a smaller home on the lot many years ago, recently the lot has been vacant and this afforded the neighbor across the street a view. However, the property owner has a right to develop his property and this is within the guidelines allowed by the City. Jason Buck stated he lives on Via Lorado. He understood the property owner's wishes to build on his property, but was concerned about the size and height and wondered if it could be lowered any further. He noted that the homes at Oceanfront are large, however they are not visible from Palos Verdes Drive West. Louie Tomaro (in rebuttal) stated he was not aware of any view impairments from Mr. Buck's property on Via Lorado. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to clarify the definition of hillside lot, as he felt most of this lot is flat except for the downsloping area near the rear of the property. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that hillside lots are defined as not having a pad that is less than five percent slope. When moving across this property from front to back, the property maintains well over five percent slope, and at no point is there less than five percent. Commissioner Gerstner moved to direct staff to present a Resolution at the next meeting approving the house as currently designed, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Tetreault discussed the neighborhood compatibility requirements, and felt confident that the current home meets the City's neighborhood compatibility requirements. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 3 The motion to approve the project as currently proposed, with a Resolution to be presented on the next Consent Calendar was approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Emenhiser dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Update — Passive and Active Recreational designations Deputy Community Development Pfost presented the staff report, beginning with some background information regarding the General Plan and how the active and passive recreational land use designations were created. He noted that tonight what is of interest under the recreational section is the active and passive recreational designations, which are the park sites within the City. He noted how the General Plan defines active and passive recreation and discusses various park sites within the General Plan text and assigned an active or passive designation to them. He explained that as part of the General Plan update, staff looked at the active and passive park designations in the existing General Plan and looked at whether or not they made sense in regards to where the active and passive designations for those parks were. He noted that staff found some confusion with existing parks and some parks actually fell into both active and passive designations. In addition, since 1975 the City has added quite a few more parks, which are not addressed in the General Plan. He stated that staff believes there are three issues that should be discussed by the Planning Commission: 1) should the specific active and passive designations remain: 2) If they do remain, should the definitions be revised to provide more clarity; and 3) If the designations remain then what designation should be assigned to each park in the City. He explained that staff felt a good solution to remedying the details of what active and passive should be may be to revise the Development Code and propose the Development Code include an Active and a Passive Recreation zoning district, noting that the Zoning Code currently has only one district implementing the active and passive recreation which is called Open Space Recreation. Staff felt that if a Development Code amendment is done after the General Plan is adopted, by including both active and passive zoning districts, staff can then use each of these zoning districts to more specifically state exactly the uses and developments permitted in each designation. He added that by doing a Development Code amendment it might address the concerns expressed by some residents of the city moving forward with park changes without getting public comment on those park changes. He displayed a table noting the parks in the City where no changes were proposed to the General Plan Land Use Map designation. He also displayed a table showing parks where clarification was needed and/or changes were being proposed to the park site. He explained staff's four-part recommendation to the Planning Commission, as written in the staff report. He noted that Carolynn Petru, the Deputy City Manager and the interim Recreation and Parks Director was also present for any questions or clarifications the Planning Commission may have. Vice Chairman Emenhiser recalled the discussions regarding the planning process for Grandview and Hesse Parks, and the inclusion of active and passive elements foreseen Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 4 for the new park improvements. He asked staff how this discussion would affect those parks that were planned to have both active and passive uses. Deputy City Manager Petru explained that the plans for Lower Hesse Park did include several active elements and the plan that the City Council originally approved had several active elements, such as tennis and basketball courts. However the City Council has recently directed staff to go back and work further with the Homeowners Association that surrounds the site to work on a phased project. She noted that no direction was given to making the park strictly a passive use park. With regards to Grandview Park, the preferred plan the City Council adopted included many uses that fall into a grey area as to whether they fall into an active or passive designation. She explained that the Planning Department is currently going through the preparation of the environmental review for the project and that is an issue that has certainly come up. She noted that one of the areas the Mitigated Negative Declaration must look at is General Plan consistency. Staff has been waiting for these discussions with the Planning Commission to see what the definitions are going to be, as it could have a significant impact on what may ultimately be decided for that park site. Chairman Tetreault asked if the active and passive definitions would relate to the preserve properties. Deputy Director Pfost explained that in 2011 the Planning Commission looked at all of the preserve properties in the City and redesignated them as Open Space Preserve, which is a new General Plan land use district consistent with the NCCP. The active and passive designations would relate to the typical park site properties. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. John Freeman stated he is the president of the Pacific View HOA, which consists of the 345 homes that immediately surround Hesse Park. He stated he would address his comments to Hesse Park, as that is the specific area of concern for the HOA. He explained that when the General Plan was developed in 1975 Hesse Park did not exist, and in 1978 when the park was developed and use began there was no designation or differentiation between lower and upper Hesse Park. He suggested staff revise Table B for Hesse Park so that the upper Hesse Park is designated active recreational and lower Hesse Park be designated passive recreational. He noted staff's comment to his suggestion that it would be difficult to assign a separate General Plan land use designation for specific areas of each park site. He disagreed with staff's comment as he felt that upper and lower Hesse Park have very distinct and specific demarcation lines. He also noted that the surveys taken indicate the people want lower Hesse Park to be a passive park. Les Chapin (6710 Verde Ridge Road) stated he can look directly at lower Hesse Park from his home and he would like to reinforce the comments made by Mr. Freeman to divide Hesse Park into active and passive use parks. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 5 Sharon Yarber supported maintaining the active and passive designations that are in the General Plan, noting this is not supposed to be a General Plan amendment but rather a General Plan update. She referred to the definitions, pointing out some inconsistencies. She felt the new definition for passive opens up a Pandora's Box by allowing for interpretive centers and ancillary structures. She did not think buildings and structures should be allowed on passive park areas. She felt more active recreational activities are needed in the community, but she did want the parks in the coastal zone to remain passive. She noted the problem is where to put active use parks, as there are not many parks in the City that are not imbedded in residential communities. She noted that the questions of equestrian use and mountain bikes use are not discussed, and asked if they were going to be discussed in another area. John Wessel stated he generally supports staff recommendations. However, he disagreed with the designation of Gateway Park, as he felt it should be designated as passive recreation. He also asked that the Commission consider the recommendations made in late correspondence received from the Sierra Club. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff to respond to Mr. Freeman's suggestion that Upper and Lower Hesse Park have different designations. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff was concerned with going into park sites and designating certain areas as passive and active, and trying to distinguish where passive and active should be inclusive within one park. However, he understood Mr. Freeman's point that Hesse Park is a bit different in that it has very distinct upper and lower areas. In addition, staff was also concerned that this may preclude active recreation in the future in those areas. The original General Plan text as well as the General Plan land use designation on the existing General Plan designates Hesse Park in its entirety as active. Staff was keeping with the same context as the original General Plan. Deputy City Manager Petru added that much of the reason Hesse Park is developed the way it is stems from budgetary issues over the years. She noted that over the years different City Councils have had the desire to include some elements of active reaction there, but it has always been a matter of money. She also explained that the current City Council did not take any type of action or direct staff in any way to modify the conceptual Sycamore Plan for Lower Hesse Park. Rather, the Council asked that staff come back with a scaled back, phased project. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if Hesse Park is designated as a single unit or as two separate parks. Deputy Director Pfost answered that Hesse Park is designated as a single park. Chairman Tetreault asked staff if dividing the parcel at Hesse Park into two different zones would be more of a change to the General Plan rather than an update. He was Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 6 concerned that this may be a substantive change to what is in the General Plan, and referred to Ms. Yarber's comment that this is a General Plan update and not a General Plan amendment He was concerned as to how far the Commission should go in terms of updating the General Plan. Deputy Director Pfost explained that staff looked at the text of the General Plan as well as the Land Use Map to get to a point of what staff felt the proposed land use should be. Where it was clear, staff kept everything the same. Where there were new park sites added a new designation was needed and staff had to make a determination as to the designation. He explained that staff was attempting to stick with an update as opposed to getting into the details of what the future use of the park will be or what future City Councils may put on the park site. Chairman Tetreault noted that this updated General Plan will be in existence for quite some time, and asked if the Planning Commission should therefore recommend to the City Council their vision for the future of certain parcels. As an example, he questioned if the Planning Commission should be recommending to the City Council that Hesse Park have a split zone designation between active and passive because that is what the Commission foresees it to be, or does staff think that would be stepping beyond what the Commission is being asked to do. Deputy Director Pfost was not sure that such a recommendation would be stepping beyond what the Commission has been asked to do. The General Plan is being updated and there are things that need to change, and if it's the City's vision to see different changes then those changes most likely should occur in this updated General Plan. Chairman Tetreault asked if the matter of splitting Hesse Park into two designations was something before the Commission or is that a matter that has already been discussed in prior discussions of the General Plan update. If not, is this the appropriate time to discuss this topic. Deputy Director Pfost answered that was something that has not previously been before the Commission and this is the first time it has been brought to the attention of the Commission. He felt that this is possibly an appropriate time to discuss such a change, however if the Commission were to consider such a change staff would first have to provide notification, which has not yet been done. Commissioner Nelson felt the Commission was in place to listen to the comments of 40,000 residents. Tonight two residents have strongly suggested that Hesse Park be divided into two zoning districts, and he has no problem backing that suggestion. Commissioner Tomblin noted at Lower Point Vicente there are several designations. He understood these designations, however questioned how one would know where one designation stops and the other starts, and if there is an overlap between the two designations. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 7 Deputy Director Pfost explained there is a line where the Open Space Preserve stops and the Passive Recreation starts. Director Rojas added that in regards to Lower Point Vicente, only the bluffs are in the Open Space Preserve. The rest of the area is Passive Recreation. Commissioner Tomblin again referred to Lower Point Vicente, noting the Interpretive Center with all of its activity, parties, and rentals, is located in the Recreational Passive area. He could see the argument that the Interpretive Center could be classified as Active Recreation. He asked if it would behoove the City to define the Interpretive Center as Active Recreation. Deputy Director Pfost explained the Interpretive Center is in the definition of passive. Staff noted that many passive park sites have the potential room to add interpretive signs, kiosks, or centers. He noted the proposed Development Code amendment would create an active and passive zoning district on these properties and in that zoning district if, for instance, an interpretive center was being proposed at some other passive park site, it would have to go through the proper procedures and permitting process as defined in the zoning code. Commissioner Lewis noted staff's recommendation that the Land Use Map designation for Ladera Linda's Community Center be changed from Institutional Educational to Institutional Public. He asked staff if the active and passive designations apply to this area. Deputy Director Pfost answered that they do not apply to this area. Commissioner Lewis felt that the Table that ultimately gets presented to the City Council should separately deal with Upper and Lower Hesse Park. He felt it would be helpful to the City Council to highlight the concern of the residents regards those two different aspects of the park. He felt it was within the Planning Commission's purview to deal with this subject tonight, as the Table in the staff report put the residents on notice that the Commission would be discussing the designation of Hesse Park. Vice Chairman Emenhiser was confident that decisions about various parks will generate many comments from the surrounding HOAs and he didn't want the Planning Commission to get ahead of itself and make some decisions without notification and comments. He agreed with comments that the Commission should look at active and passive designations. He was also interested where bicycles and horses would end up in the definitions. Commissioner Gerstner felt the active and passive designations should remain in the General Plan, noting the General Plan is general and should remain general. Given that the designations remain, there are definitions that should be discussed as he did not feel the current proposed definitions were the best they could be. He felt some Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 8 clarify was needed in the definitions and staff and the Commission should spend some time on these definitions. He also believed the recommendation made to the City Council should include the multiple designations in the Development Code, as he felt it was the correct place to add more clarity to what is in the General Plan in regards to passive and active parks. In regards to the redesignation of parks, he felt there are a lot of passive parks in the community however as the City slowly eliminates the active parks in the City, the City may end up with nothing but passive parks. He did not think that was appropriate, as parks should also be community places more for children than adults. He was not generally in favor of splitting Hesse Park into upper and lower, however the way the park functions it could very easily be split. With regards to adjusting the definitions, he felt there is a real challenge in regards to structures and anything that can go into a passive park. He felt PVIC should be considered an existing, non-conforming structure as it goes beyond what a passive park should have. Commissioner Leon felt that having active and passive is appropriate, and that more time was needed to rewrite the definitions of active and passive. Specifically, he did not think significant amounts of energy belonged in the definition of active, as it is a term that is more confusing than clarifying. He suggested leaning more on the definitions from the National Park Service, as he felt they were good definitions and fairly broad definitions. With respect to the different park areas, if Hesse Park actually functions as two parks, he would certainly be supportive of having two separate designations. Chairman Tetreault noted the original General Plan has no mention of equestrian or bicycle uses and asked staff if there had been any consideration made with respect to the update, knowing this has been a rather controversial matter in recent years. Deputy Director Pfost felt that equestrian and bicycle activity could fall into either active or passive use. He stated that, again, this is where the Development Code change to go into more specifics would be useful. Chairman Tetreault felt that, with respect to Upper and Lower Hesse Park, while the Planning Commission could make the recommendation to bifurcate the park and giving it two designations, he felt it was a rather substantial policy issue that should be reserved to the City Council to make. It should be noted to the Council that there is significant community interest to do so, but he felt it should be a City Council decision. In addition, he did not like the idea of using the expenditure of energy or effort as some basis for defining activity, and was also concerned about the use of the term level of organization as a benchmark. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to October 9, 2012; to agree the active and passive designations stay within the General Plan; to ask staff to work on the definitions and present the Planning Commission with a few options that are consistent with Planning Commission comments; and that the Commissioners take time to look at parks they may not have seen and then at the next meeting be prepared to make a determination on those parks, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. The motion passed without objection. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 9 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 25, 2012 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2012 Page 10