Loading...
PC MINS 20140311 Approved 3/25/2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES mfst� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Emenhiser at 7:10 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Chairman Emenhiser welcomed newly appointed Planning Commissioners Cruikshank and James and provided a brief summary of their backgrounds. Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Gerstner, James, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Leon, Chairman Emenhiser Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail and Associate Planner Kim APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their March 4, 2014 meeting, the City Council agreed not to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the proposed project at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. He also reported that at their March 18th meeting the City Council will appoint a new Planning Commission Chairman. The Director also reported that at the request of a Council member, on April 1, 2014 the City Council will consider whether to appeal the Planning Commission's recent approval of an antenna application on the 7-Eleven building. Director Rojas distributed a letter regarding agenda item No. 1 and three letters for agenda item No. 2. Vice Chairman Leon reported that he attended the Mayor's breakfast where there was a discussion on the importance of Planning Commissioner site visits. Chairman Emenhiser reported that he represented the Planning Commission at the March 4th City Council meeting in regards to the possible appeal of the Commission's decision regarding 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Prior to agenda item No. 4, Councilman Campbell thanked outgoing Commissioners Tetreault and Lewis for their service on the Planning Commission and welcomed newly appointed Commissioners Cruikshank and James. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Chase Bank—Annual review (Case No. ZON2002-00216: 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. Chairman Emenhiser stated that he was not at the February 11th meeting when this item was initially discussed, however he has reviewed the minutes and feels he will be able to render a judgment on this item. He also explained that if the new Commissioners have reviewed the February 11th minutes for this item, they too may take part in this discussion. Both Commissioners James and Cruikshank stated they had reviewed the minutes for this item. Commissioner Tomblin stated he too was absent from the February 11th meeting but has reviewed the minutes and will participate in tonight's discussion. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this item was continued from the February 11 th Planning Commission meeting. She reviewed the various issues with the bank that were discussed at that meeting. In regards to the concerns with the trees, she reported that the applicant has agreed to remove the trees that were of concern with Staff and the Commission, and Staff has added a condition of approval stating those trees will be removed within 30 days. She reviewed the other conditions of approval that were added by Staff, as discussed in the staff report. Finally, she noted that a letter of late correspondence was submitted that evening and was distributed to the Commissioners. She stated there is a resident asking that the trees along Crest Road also be removed, and that is within the purview of the Commission. Commissioner Tomblin referred to a tree on Crest Road on the far west side that is very near the preserve property. He asked staff if there is a height limitation to the trees so that the trees do not block the view corridor coming down Crest Road. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail stated there is a condition of approval that requires the tree meet the Development Code requirements. She noted this condition only covers views from private property and not from the public right-of-way. Therefore, if the Commission would like to address the issue of views from the public right-of-way, a specific condition will have to be added stating such. Commissioner Tomblin stated he would like to recommend that such a condition of approval be added. Commissioner Cruikshank noted a condition of approval in regards to clearing vegetation during a time period where there could potentially be birds or nesting, and asked if there is a conflict in terms of timing if the Commission were to ask the trees be removed at this point. Associate Planner Mikhail answered there would not be a conflict in regards to the particular trees in question. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Bob Superneau (architect representing Chase Bank) stated he has reviewed the staff report and the additional conditions of approval. He stated it is a bit disappointing to go through the process of purchasing the trees and planting them, and then having to remove them, but is agreeable to do so. With regards to the additional trees on Crest Road, he has discussed the issue with Chase Bank, and they would agree to remove those trees if required. He referred to condition No. 85, which allows for security lighting around the vault and the ATM, and noted there are ATMs in the vestibule which are operational until 10:00 p.m. and wanted to ensure there would not be a conflict in conditions. Associate Planner Mikhail agreed that the ATM is allowed to be used until 10 p.m. and therefore the lighting at the ATM can be included and specified in the condition of approval. Commissioner Tomblin stated there are four trees on Hawthorne Boulevard and one on Crest Road, and asked Mr. Superneau if he had any comment of trimming the trees to the height of the ridgeline. Mr. Superneau noted the trees in question are crepe myrtle, and would not object if a condition of approval were added that the trees were to be maintained at a height no taller than the ridgeline of the building. Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Superneau if he had a concern with turning lights off at 10 p.m. as opposed to having shades to block the lighting. Mr. Superneau stated that initially the project was designed so that the interior lighting would remain on, as it is a common practice at the various branches of Chase for Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 3 security purposes. However, in this case when the lighting concern was brought to the attention of Chase, Chase routed it internally to their security team and was able to find ways to eliminate certain lights. The lights in the parking structure and near the vaults are the minimum Chase Bank feels are necessary. Vice Chairman Leon complimented Chase Bank for their efforts in reducing the lighting, as he felt the lighting it is now much better than it was months ago. Minas Yerolin noted the business hours for Chase and asked that the lighting for the ATM area only be lit to 10 p.m. He felt any indoor after-hours lighting should be for the cleaning crew only, and for no more than two hours. He stated that in the future this could be a real estate office or an office building where people work seven days a week and it will be difficult to be more restrictive on the lighting in the future. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the condition to restrict the hours of operation for this particular commercial building is more restrictive than for other commercial buildings throughout the City. Commissioner Gerstner asked if it was the bank's intent to put the lights on a timer to turn off at 10 p.m. or if it was their intent to turn the lights off an hour or so after the close of business. Associate Planner Mikhail noted the condition of approval states the lights must be off when the business is not in operation, other than when maintenance is occurring. Burt Centofante stated he is the manager of the investment group that owns the property. He felt it was more than reasonable in regards to the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. hours, however he explained that currently the lease states that the owners have continuous quiet enjoyment of the property. He asked staff for an extension, as he needed more time to contact the owners to inform them of the proposed change. Commissioner Gerstner asked if there is anything in the lease that they have to continue to comply with all City Codes. Mr. Centofante answered that the lease is very vague. He again asked for a little extra time to discuss the issue with the investment group, noting that he did not anticipate any problems. Director Rojas stated that the item can be continued to the next meeting on March 25th Commissioner Gerstner discussed his objections to the City's process, noting that the building was designed, went through an approval process, and six months later there is a complete subjective review of anything on the property. He understood that it is good for everyone to see a finished product, however he felt it was important to find a way to review the issues in such a way that the project does not have to be built, go through a review process, and then be rebuilt. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 4 Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tomblin asked Commissioner Gerstner if he would consider amending the motion to put the agreed upon changes into the revised Resolution. Commissioner Gerstner asked Commissioner Tomblin to articulate those proposed changes. Commissioner Tomblin moved to amend the motion to say the four trees on Hawthorne Boulevard and the one additional tree on Crest Road, that being the far western tree, be removed and that the trees be maintained to not exceed the building ridgeline. Commissioner Gerstner accepted the amendment to his motion. Commissioner James felt it would be prudent to leave the tree on Crest Road out of the motion to allow staff the opportunity to do an analysis to determine if the tree is blocking views from the public right-of-way. Commissioner Gerstner suggested the amendment to the motion state that staff write an alternative to the resolution that adds an additional condition for the tree on Crest Road. Along with, staff can give a report at the next meeting as to what that tree is and how it relates to what has been said at this meeting. Commissioner Tomblin accepted that amendment. Vice Chairman Leon felt that, in looking at the photograph, there may be more than one tree on Crest Road that is obstructing the view. Associate Planner Mikhail noted there are four or five trees along Crest Road. She stated that, although this is not a protected view from a public right-of-way, they do partially encroach into the ocean view. She stated that at the February 11th meeting staff noted that as the young trees grow taller they will likely be growing up out of the view. Vice Chairman Leon felt all of the trees in question should be.addressed, not just the one tree. Commissioner Gerstner agreed. Commissioner Nelson was disappointed with the fact that the Commission would consider cutting these trees based on the request from only one person. He stated over five hundred notices were sent out with only one comment received by staff in regards to the lighting and no comments in regards to the trees. He stated the person complaining about the trees lives approximately five miles away. He did not think the Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 5 trees needed to be removed. He said it was important that the public understands that one voice does count. Director Rojas summarized the current motion, which was to continue the public hearing to March 25th to allow the Chase Bank and the property owner the opportunity to react to the hours of operation condition and to allow staff the opportunity to look at the trees along Crest Road to identify if any of the trees may create a view impact as well as if there are any nesting birds in the trees and if so, present recommendations on how to deal with the trees and to come back with a condition of approval that will limit the landscaping on the property to not exceed the ridgeline of the building. The motion was approved, (7-0). 2. Green Hills Annual Review (Case No. ZON2003-00086): 27501 Western Ave Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, noting the item was continued from the February 25th Planning Commission meeting. Since that meeting staff was contacted by the attorney representing the adjacent condominiums as well as the attorney for Green Hills, both requesting the public hearing be continued to the April 22nd meeting to allow them the opportunity to work together to find solutions to this issue. With that, staff was recommending the Planning Commission continue the item to the April 22, 2014 meeting. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they and the Planning Commission were aware of the fact that there would be rooftop burial allowed at this site at the time the project was reviewed and approved. Senior Planner Schonborn stated that in the Master Plan booklet that was distributed to the Commission there were renderings and schematics that showed the rooftop ground internments. Ellen Berkowitz (representing Green Hills) reiterated that Green Hills has reached out to the HOA to talk to them about some possible resolutions, and a meeting has been scheduled. She stated that Green Hills is optimistic that there will be some resolution by the April 22nd meeting, and was therefore requesting the public hearing be continued to April 22nd Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. General Plan Annual Report Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining this State required report not only delineates how the General Plan elements are consistent with the seven Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 6 mandated elements, but also relays the recent developments, progress, and actions taken by the City over the last year. The State requests this report be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council before being forwarded to the State. She stated Staff is recommending the Planning Commission direct Staff, via minute order, to forward the 2013 annual report to the City Council. Vice Chairman Leon noted that the City is in the process of updating the General Plan, and is probably 99 percent through the process. He asked if it would be appropriate to include in this report to include the status of where the City is with the modification of the General Plan and when it is expected to be done. Associate Planner Mikhail stated there is a notation in the body of this report that mentions the City is working on the General Plan and it is anticipated to be completed within the next year. Vice Chairman Leon moved staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (7-0). 4. Housing Element Annual Report Associate Planner Mikhail stated that, similar to the General Plan Annual Report, this report is a separate annual report regarding the status of the Housing Element and the progress on its implementation in the 2013 calendar year. She noted that this report is for the previous Housing Element and not the Housing Element that was recently approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that Staff believes the goals and policies of the City's Housing Element continue to be implemented by the actions taken by the City, and staff recommends the Planning Commission direct Staff to forward this annual report to the City Council. Commissioner Tomblin moved staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. February 11, 2014 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Leon. Approved, (2-0-5)with Commissioners Tomblin, James, Cruikshank, Gerstner, and Chairman Emenhiser abstaining since they were not present at that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 25, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 11,2014 Page 8