Loading...
PC MINS 20160927 / Approved 10/11/16 •' CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Cruikshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at the September 20, 2016 meeting, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's preferred option addressing short-term rentals, along with staffs report and public testimony.. The Council determined that because the Development Code is a permissive code, and short-term rentals are not expressly allowed, that the use is currently prohibited and the prohibition should be enforced in the City's single-family residential zoning districts immediately. He reported that staff is working closely with the other South Bay cities on the enforcement of the prohibition. Director Mihranian also provided the Commission with an update on the Elkmont Canyon project, and reported that the development application is currently incomplete and when deemed complete it will be considered by the Planning Commission. Director Mihranian reported on a house fire on Calle de Suenos, and discussed how staff is working with the Peninsula Verde HOA to address border issues between the residential neighborhood and Green Hills. Commissioner Emenhiser requested staff play the video from the September 6th City Council meeting on the minor modification code amendment initiation request. After viewing the video the Commission directed staff to coordinate with the City Manager and the Mayor considering, scheduling a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission. The Commission requested staff to provide an update at the October 11th meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Matt Martin stated he was reporting another CUP violation at Green Hills. He showed photos of a wrought iron gate and fence that Green Hills has recently constructed in what he felt was an easement. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of September 13, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. The minutes were approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Leon abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitor Plan, a subdivision for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72658. A Variance, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. SUB2014-00003, ZON2014-00273 and ZON2016-00120): 27581 Palos Verdes Drive East Director Mihranian presented the staff report, giving a brief background on the project and the previous public hearing with the Planning Commission. He explained the applicant and the architect have not yet finalized the revised plans, and therefore staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue this public hearing to a date uncertain. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2016 Page 2 Commissioner Bradley stated he has a real concern with splitting a lot, then going with a zero lot line building, and asked staff how this is reconciled when looking at neighborhood compatibility. Director Mihranian stated that there are two separate issues, the zoning and the density issue and the architectural and aesthetics issue. In regards to the density, a lot split is a discretionary application before the Planning Commission and the Commission needs to analyze the minimum zoning standards for the neighborhood. He stated there are findings that the Commission must be able to make in order to approve a lot split. Separate from this issue are the structures and neighborhood compatibility issues. When there is an application before the Commission with both the lot splits and the houses combined, that is when the Commission can look at both issues together. He noted that the appearance of the two homes on the two lots appeared to be a concern of the Commission at the last public hearing, and staff has been meeting with the applicant and their architect to address concerns. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Leon asked what was to stop an applicant from bringing a lot split before the Commission for approval, then a few months later submitting one house for approval, and a few months after that submitting another. He noted that in this way the Commission would not see these two houses side by side to see the cumulative affect the houses would have on the neighborhood. Director Mihranian answered that it was conceivable that a lot split could be processed separately from the development applications. Once the lot split was approved the lots could be sold to two different owners and noted that there was no way for the City to require that the development of those two lots occur at the same time. He stated that staff can inform the Commission at the time of the lot split that the lots may be sold off individually for development. He added that each lot would be subject to the neighborhood compatibility findings. Commissioner Bradley asked if there was anything in the Code that could be made clearer that in a lot split, such as this, there is some type of cap that future developers would know that large house may not necessarily be allowed. Director Mihranian explained that when a lot split is before the Commission the Commission has the ability to put conditions on the tentative parcel map that establish caps, such as minimum setbacks on each of the lots or maximum structure sizes. That would address their concerns. The motion to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2016 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS 3. Minor Modification and Interpretation Procedure Code Amendment Director Mihranian presented the staff report, explaining that at an earlier meeting the Commission noted ambiguities and inconsistencies in the language in Code Sections 17.78.040 and 17.78.050. The Commission felt it was unclear of the authority of the Planning Director to make certain minor modifications to previously approved Planning Commission and City Council approved projects. In light of that, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a code amendment to clean up these two sections of the Code. The City Council discussed this issue and initiated the code amendment proceedings. Director Mihranian explained that the item before the Commission at this time does not involve any of the language germane to the code amendment, but rather this item is a request to create a subcommittee to meet with the Director and staff to help staff prepare language that addresses the concerns the Commission raised at their June meeting. He also noted that at the previous meeting there had been some discussion on trying to quantify what a minor modification is. He explained that staff feels there are some challenges in doing this, as every neighborhood and every property is unique. Because of this, staff would like to work with a subcommittee to come up with some draft language to present to the Commission as a whole at a duly noticed public hearing. Finally, he noted that there are no public speakers on this item. Chairman Tomblin stated he had recommended to the Director that three members of the Commission be involved on this subcommittee, and asked if any of the Commissioners would like to volunteer. Commissioners Leon and James and Vice Chairman Cruikshank volunteered to be members of the subcommittee. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to select Commissioners Leon and James, and Vice Chairman Cruikshank to the subcommittee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Nelson commented that quantification may not be a good idea and did not think a quantified list was the way to achieve the goal. The motion was approved, (7-0). Commissioner James asked the Assistant City Attorney if she is aware of any other cities that her firm serves that has some type of minor modification ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Burrows answered that if there are she will forward the information to the Director to bring to the meeting with the subcommittee. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2016 Page 4 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on October 11, 2016 Director Mihranian reviewed the pre-agenda for October 11, 2016. He also noted that currently there are no items on the October 25th agenda, but anticipated that items will be added. He noted that the first meeting in November is scheduled for November 8th, which is the general election, and staff was requesting that the Planning Commission meeting be cancelled. He also noted that the second meeting in November takes place during Thanksgiving week, and historically that meeting has also been cancelled. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to keep the October 25th Planning Commission meeting open and cancel the November 8 and November 22 Planning Commission meetings, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Bradley dissenting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2016 Page 5