Loading...
PC MINS 20150113 Approved 1/27/2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 13, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:07 p.m. at Point Vicente Interpretive Center, 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West. FLAG SALUTE The flag salute was bypassed since there was no flag present. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Caraveo. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented, COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their January 20, 2015 meeting the City Council will hear the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding Green Hills Cemetery. On February 3, 2015 the City Council will continue its discussion of the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project on Villa Rosa. In addition, the Council will decide whether to allow the view restoration mediator to mediate the Sprucegrove project recently before the Commission. On March 17, 2015 the City Council will hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of the project on Knoll View Drive. Director Rojas updated the Commission on the number of new planning applications received by the City, noting that in December the Planning Department received 53 new applications and took action on 51 of them. He also mentioned that the annual Planning Commissioner Academy has been set for March. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR Because of the item of late correspondence regarding the minutes, the Commission unanimously agreed to remove the minutes from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 1. Approval of the November 11, 2104 Minutes Director Rojas explained that the correspondence noted a typo on page 18 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that on pages 6, 8, and 9 the correct name of the mausoleum should be noted. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Golden Cove Master Sign Program review (Case No. ZON2014-00240): 31244 Palos Verdes Drive West. Director Rojas explained that at a previous meeting the Commission provided staff and the applicant with feedback in terms of sign changes the Commission could and could not support, and directed the applicant to come back with a modified sign program at tonight's meeting. Unfortunately, due to the holidays the applicant was not able to submit a modified sign program, but did agree to a 90 day extension. The applicant has also indicated they will have something prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting, Therefore, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to January 27, 2015. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to January 27, 2015, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection, PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2014-00408): 6517 Via Collinita. Assistant Planner Caraveo presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project, noting the proposed skylight will exceed the ridgeline by 9 inches and therefore Planning Commission approval is required. He explained the two findings that must be made in order to approve the project. He stated that staff believes the required findings Planning Commission Knutes January 13,2015 Page 2 can be made in order to approve the Site Plan Review, and was recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed project. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Commissioner James stated that because of the vegetation in the area, it was difficult for him to tell whether there will be any problem with light coming out of the skylight. He explained that he has seen situations where a large skylight can create quite a bit of ambient light going uphill. However, he noted that the Planning Commission is only being asked to review the view impairment issue, and not being asked to look at the ambient light issues. He noted that there may be a potential issue with the light, but since that was not a finding, he was in support of the motion. Chairman Leon asked staff if they had received any correspondence from neighbors in regards to the proposed skylight. Assistant Planner Caraveo stated that there was no public comment. The motion was approved (6-0), thereby approving PC Resolution 2015-01. NEW BUSINESS 4. Status update on the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing l2roiect Director Rojas presented the update report, focusing on the new retaining walls. He explained that during the plan check process the developer brought to staff's attention the need to take down the pre-existing slope and replace the uncompacted fill. In order to retain the lot layout, retaining walls would be needed. He explained that the walls that were erected are of a type that fit together and allow for vegetation to be planted within the wall so that in time the walls will become almost invisible. Staff believed that with the addition of these walls the slope will eventually look like a steep, landscaped slope and that this was something that could be approved at staff level. He noted that when the project was approved by the City Council they included a condition to allow the Director to make minor modifications, provided that it would achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Therefore, relying heavily on the photos provided by the applicant, staff approved the walls at staff level, with conditions they be landscaped to the satisfaction of staff. He noted that when the walls were first installed on the slope they were very obvious and noticeable from the roadway, however he noted that over time they will disappear with the landscaping. He also reported that staff has met with the developer and emphasized the need for landscaping as soon as possible. He stated that the developer has a draft landscape plan that has been conceptually approved by staff, but Fire Department approval is still required. He also explained that staff is researching the landscape material to ensure it will meet the requirements and the vegetation will come in quickly. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2015 Page 3 Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff what the overall height of each wall will be. Director Rojas answered that each wall is seven feet in height, noting the cross-section that is included in the staff report. Commissioner Cruikshank understood the need to repair the hillside because of the poor soil, however he questioned how staff determines the wall doesn't meet the intent of the approval process and has to come back to the Commission for approval, and what the threshold for that would be. Director Rojas explained that the condition states the Director can approve minor modifications to the project provided the modification has substantially the same results as what was approved, He noted that is somewhat subjective, however staff felt that the end result will be a steep landscaped slope, which is what the slope would have been without the walls. If staff believes a modification is not minor and could result in more impacts, staff will take the modification to the body that approved the final project for approval. Vice Chairman Nelson stated there is a very similar wall on Palos Verdes Drive South and there are plants growing between the individual blocks, and therefore there is a precedent for such a wall. Commissioner Tomblin stated that when, the wall was being installed he received some phone calls regarding the wall and whether or not the Planning Commission had approved such a wall. He understood staffs reasoning for approving these walls at staff level, however he felt that in the future the Planning Commission may want to consider a condition that things like this come back before the Commission. He questioned if this project has originally be presented to the Commission with these retaining walls that there may have been a chance the project would have been reduced, so as to not need the retaining walls. He felt that the developer, at the least, should bring the landscape plan before the Planning Commission for review as he felt that this is a very significant change to the approved project, Director Rojas explained that condition No. 29 states that prior to the issuance of the first building permit the applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for review and approval to the Community Development Director, He explained that the Planning Commission would have to amend that condition of approval to require the landscape plan be approved by the Planning Commission. He noted that the landscape plan is being amended to ensure the appropriate landscaping is reflected in that area. He also noted that staff understands the Commission's concerns in regards to the walls and landscaping and will ensure the issues are addressed in the plan. Chairman Leon recalled that when the Commission approved this project there was not a landscape plan included, but there was a series of renderings. He recalled the renderings showing tall pine trees along Crestridge Road. He stated there were no retaining walls shown on the slope, and if there had been the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 4 may have acted differently in their approval. He felt it was important to not have just ground cover in these retaining walls, but some sort of modulation that may be provided by trees. He felt this may be a problem with the Fire Department. Director Rojas noted the conceptual landscape plan that staff has seen does have trees in the area of the walls, and the plan is currently going through Fire Department approval. Commissioner Cruikshank explained that he is very familiar with this type of wall and the only location a tree can be planted would be the 2:1 slope in front of the walls, because planting trees in between the walls will destabilize the walls. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff for another update report when the final landscape plan has been submitted and before staff approves the plan. Director Rojas stated staff will do so. S. General Plan status update Senior Planner Kim presented the status report, noting that most of the text of the General Plan update as well as various land use changes have been approved by the Planning Commission, The last item presented to the Planning Commission was in June 2014 and was related to climate change. At that time the Commission felt that staff's revised text was not sufficient and asked that staff provide additional text as well as examples of text from other cities to help update our General Plan. As a result, a subcommittee was formed to help staff with this section of the update. She stated that since that time there have been no updates or changes to this section since the former Deputy Director left. She explained that the General Plan update has now been assigned to her and she is ready to move forward with the update. She stated that there are just a few updates left for the Commission to review and a land use change that needs to be made. Once that is done staff will prepare an Environmental CEQA document for the General Plan update as a whole along with minor miscellaneous text and graphic updates. The entire package should be back to the Planning Commission within the next two to three months. This will all be considered draft until the Planning Commission reviews it and makes a recommendation to the City Council, Once City Council adopts the General Plan update, it will be considered final, Commissioner Emenhiser expressed his concerns and frustrations with this update and the amount of time it is taking staff to complete this task. He stressed that this update must be done in 2015. Chairman Leon explained that a subcommittee was formed to work with staff and to do the preliminary review prior to the section coming to the Planning Commission, and that the intent was to streamline the process. He felt that staff should find the most terse city's climate change section and incorporate that into the Rancho Palos Verdes plan, and run that by the subcommittee for comment and suggestions such that this can be a Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2015 Page 5 very expedited process before the Planning Commission. He stated the subcommittee is small enough that it is informal and typically just a phone call away. He also asked that April be a hard date to have this item back before the Commission. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 27, 2015 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2015 Page 6