Loading...
PC MINS 20140408 Approved May 13 2014 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 8, 2014 CALL 'TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their April V meeting the City Council adopted the Ordinance that will implement a number of changes to the City's Fence, Wall and Hedge review process. He also reported that the City Council agreed to appeal the Planning Commission's recent approval of the cellular antenna on the roof of the 7- Eleven building and that the appeal hearing is tentatively set for May 20, 2014. Lastly, he informed the Commission that Assistant Planner Abigail Harwell will be leaving for a promotion opportunity with another City. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 2, three items of late correspondence for agenda item No. 3, and one item of late correspondence for agenda item No. 4. Commissioner James reported that he and Commissioner Cruikshank attended the League's Planning Commissioner Academy and thanked the City for the opportunity, COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review, Grading, and Minor Exception Permit (Case No. ZQN2013- 00063): 2902 Vista del Mar Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant has submitted revised plans in order to address the Planning Commission's concerns, however the grading plans and the architectural plans did not match. In addition, the property owner wishes to make additional changes to the project. With that, the ,applicant has requested additional time to do so and has requested the public hearing be continued to April 22nd Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation and Site Plan Review Permit (Case No. ZON2013-00510): 29926 Avenida Anillo Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting that staff is requesting the public hearing be continued to the June 24th meeting to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the project to address concerns raised by staff and the neighbors. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Arlene Block stated she lives directly across the street from the proposed project and requested an approval be given as soon as possible, as the house has been vacant for quite some time and is deteriorating. Robert Keller stated he submitted a letter to the Commission noting the structure of the new house will something very different from what is normally seen in the neighborhood. He noted the average home in the neighborhood is 3,000 to 4,000 square feet, however the proposed home may be 5,400 square feet, which is fairly out of character with what is in the neighborhood. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to speak to the time frame raised by Ms. Block. Director Rojas explained that staff has raised concerns with the proposed structure. Therefore, staff is expecting the applicant to submit a redesigned project, which typically means the silhouette will have to be adjusted to reflect the revised plan. Once this is Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2014 Page 2 done, staff will per-form its analysis and staff report, and be heard by the Planning Commission at the June 24th meeting. He noted the July 24th deadline is not a meeting, but a decision deadline. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the public hearing to June 24th seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objection. 3. Halonia Point Consultants — CUP Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00476): 30940 Hawthorne, Boulevard Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from this item and left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project as outlined in the staff report. She stated that in visiting the properties across Hawthorne Boulevard on Via la Cresta, staff noted that although the six-foot wide microwave dish antennas themselves do not cause significant view impact, from one of the properties it the antenna monopole is in the center of the viewing area and adding these additional microwave dish antennas appeared to have an adverse view impact by increasing the bulk of the structure itself. She stated that staff, as well as the Homeowners Association representing the ten properties on Via la Cresta raised concerns regarding the adverse view impact. Hearing these concerns, the applicant agreed to look into smaller antennas or some other type of material to, use for the antennas that will cause less visual impact. With that, the applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to a future date. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the purpose of the proposed antennas is to increase service to the subscribers on Catalina, not necessarily the subscribers in Rancho Palos Verdes, Associate Planner Kim answered that was correct, Commissioner Gerstner asked if the applicant had looked at any alternate locations for these antennas, Associate Planner Kim answered that AT&T had only looked at existing sites and felt this was the best location. Commissioner Tomblin asked if the long-term plan for the City Hall property includes the monopole. Director Rojas responded that the long-term plan for this property does not include a monopole, which is why the City Manager's office extends the current leases on a year to year basis. Chairman Leon requested staff provide the phone numbers of residents whose view may be impacted so that Commissioners can contact them to arrange a site visit if they Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2014 Page 3 so choose. Secondly, he asked staff to ask the applicant if they have looked at other technologies, such as fiber optics, which provide three orders of magnitude of band width and no antenna. Commissioner Cruikshank stated he met with the residents at 30963 Via la Cresta, and while there noted two additional wood poles behind the pole in question, and asked staff what those poles are used for. Director Rojas answered that those antennas are on the Coast Guard property that abuts the City Hall property. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to May 27t", per staff's recommendation, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. NEW BUSINESS 4. Policy on Planning Commissioner site visits Director Rojas gave a brief introduction, explaining that comments have been made by members of the public about Planning Commission site visits, and it is unclear from the minutes or the tape as to whether or not all of the Commissioners have visited a site. He explained that the Code requires Planning Commission perform site visits for view restoration applications, however aside from that Code requirement neither the City's Municipal Code, City Guidelines, nor the Planning Commission rules and procedures address the matter of site visits. Therefore staff is presenting this item to the Commission for discussion in order for the Commission to determine if they want such a policy, and if so staff will draft a policy for review at a future meeting. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Joan Davidson stated she would very much appreciate the Planning Commissioners perform site visits to see any impacts for themselves. She went on to say that she found it interesting that Rancho Palos Verdes states they cannot deny an antenna because of FCC regulations, however the City of Los Angeles prepared a legal document that says the City can deny an antenna application. She stated that it was her understanding that the City has not requested information as to whether or not the proposed antenna is FCC compliant. She felt it was important for the City to find this information, as she felt everyone's health may be at risk without it. She also stated that some cities have done engineering studies of antennas to show that their residents are safe, and she felt this City should do something similar. She hoped the Commission would do site visits so that the type of situation that happened at the 7-Eleven building doesn't happen again. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2014 Page 4 Commissioner Gerstner asked for clarification as to whether the discussion was about the Planning Commission visiting sites, or was the discussion about antennas and FCC requirements. Chairman Leon stated the subject at hand was whether or not the Planning Commission should perform site visits on applications. Director Rojas agreed, noting that antenna application still has an appeal hearing and the application could be remanded back to the Planning Commission, and cautioned the Commission to not discuss that application during this item. Connie Semos stated that the antenna project is not the first time that she has questioned whether or not the Planning Commission has actually visited a property before the public hearing. She felt it was important to have a set policy in place. She didn't feel it was important to have a long conversation with the property owner, just for the Commissioner to go by the property and have a sense of the neighborhood' and what's going on. She discussed other additions that had built in the neighborhood, suggesting that when a project is appealed to the City Council that the Council members also be required to perform a site visit before voting on the item, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cruikshank stated that as an engineer, he always recommends people in his office to try to visit each site. He noted that, while he has only been on the Commission for a very short time, he has visited every site that has been on the agenda. He didn't think it may be necessary to have a new rule to require Commissioners to perform a site visit, as he felt it was a common sense thing to do. He suggested that when staff receives correspondence from residents about their concerns, they ask the resident what their available times may be for Commissioners to visit the site. He noted that, because of his work schedule, he can only do site visits on weekends. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the 7-Eleven issue is the one that has generated the comments from the public regarding site visits, and if there had been other comments from the public expressing the same concerns at different sites, Director Rojas explained that part of the concern was the statement from the property owner adjacent to the 7-Eleven project that no Commissioners had visited the site. He added that there were no other properties that had expressed this concern. Commissioner Emenhiser was not sure how he felt about a mandate to visit a site, and suggested there be a distinction between a major project and a minor project. He also noted that for some of the projects, a Commissioner may live in the area or drive by the site several times a day and be very familiar with the area or the concerns. Lastly, he suggested that if the Commission takes action on this item, given the comments from Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2014 Page 5 the public, the Commission might recommend to the City Council that they do the same thing, Commissioner Gerstner felt the characterization that Planning Commissioners don't visit sites is misinformed. He also felt the definition of the site should be clarified, noting that with the 7-Eleven project the "site" is the actual 7-Eleven property. He stated that in his ten years of experience on the Planning Commission whenever it was pertinent or close, or of any concern, the majority of the Planning Commissioner visited the site. Therefore, he felt that characterizing that the Planning Commissioners do not visit sites is not correct. He also noted that there have been occasions in more complex cases where Commissioners visited six or seven affected properties before the hearing, and then found out during the public hearing that there may be another affected property, He stated it was not unusual for the Commission to continue the public hearing so that they could go visit that additionally affected property. He felt it was extremely rare that an issue would be decided by the Commission and the problem in the end was that the Commissioners had not visited the site. He explained that having a rule is not for him to control himself and deciding he needs to make sure he does a site visit, but rather having the rule would be him concerned that other Planning Commissioners didn't have adequate judgment to make the same decision that he's making, and he didn't think that was the case. He stated he has been on the Commission for quite some time, and in that time he could not recall a situation where the core problem was that no Commissioners had visited the site. Vice Chairman Nelson explained that viewing a silhouette will give a Commissioner a good feel for size, bulk, and mass. However Commissioners cannot see any view impairments unless an affected neighbor notifies them and asks them to come into their home to see the view. He did not think the problem was visiting the actual site, but rather visiting the neighbors and visualizing what the problem may be, and unless neighbors invite the Commissioners onto their property, it may be difficult to analyze these problems, Commissioner Tomblin agreed with all of the previous comments. He added that sometimes it becomes very difficult for a Commissioner to make a site visit because of work schedules. He agreed with Commissioner Gerstner in that in the past if there has been a problem, the Commission has continued an item to allow the Commissioners time to do an additional site visit. Commissioner James agreed that there is a difference between visiting a site and ,analyzing views from neighboring properties. He agreed with the other Commissioners that a rule may not be needed, however suggested that a procedure be established wherein staff polls the Commission before a hearing to see who had visited the site.. This may help show the public that Commissioners do visit the site and do their due diligence. Chairman Leon stated that he trusts the judgment of the other Commissioners as to whether a site visit is required. He agreed with the comment that the difficulty of the site Pianning Commissbn Minutes April 8,2014 Page 6 visit is not the site itself, but rather determining where the possible impacts may be. He noted there are cases before the Commission where it is clear a site visit is not necessary. He added that in the case of 7-Eleven, he would not have known a specific property had a possible view impairment if the property owner or staff had not notified the Commission, He stated the Commission depends on staff and the community to notify them of the possible issues. He stated he would hate to see site visits legislated, but felt a statement added to the procedures that site visits are encouraged may help to satisfy the public's concerns, Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the site visit honor system that is currently in place along with the mandatory site visit that is required for view restoration cases, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on April 22, 2014 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 8,2014 Page 7