Loading...
PC MINS 20161011 Approved 10/25/16 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Cruikshank at 7:02 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Director Mihranian led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Bradley, Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin (arrived at 7:38 p.m.). Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Associate Planner Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Cruikshank recommended that agenda item No. 2 follow agenda item No. 3, and to move the communications to be heard before agenda item No. 4. The Commission unanimously agreed. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Matt Martin discussed what he felt was another possible CUP violation at Green Hills. He showed photos of Inspiration Slope and felt that the currently built retaining wall violates a condition of the CUP. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff if the wall discussed by Mr. Martin is built per plan and if staff has any comment. Director Mihranian stated that the building permit for this structure has not yet been finaled and he would like to look into the issue with the Building Official. Sharon Loveys stated that she will follow-up and make sure the Director does investigate this wall. She noted that she has filed an appeal of the structure at Inspiration Slope, noting that the structure can be seen from Western Avenue, however when the silhouettes were constructed they could not be seen from the road. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes — September 27, 2016 Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. Six-month review compliance review of The Terraces Master Sign Program: 28901 Western Avenue Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the signs on the property and showed photos of the signage. He explained that staffs assessment included the review of the illumination of the signage; ensuring that no flashing, rotation or animated signs were on site; and that there was no illumination of the tower ID signs along the westerly side of the property, which faces the residential properties. He stated that staff found that the signs were generally in compliance and was recommending the Planning Commission receive and file Staff's assessment of the Master Sign Program's six-month compliance review. Commissioner Leon asked if staff received any complaints regarding the lighting at The Terraces. Associate Planner Silva stated that staff received no complaints. Commissioner Leon asked who pays for the compliance review. Director Mihranian answered that the review is built into the Conditional Use Permit application fee. Commissioner Leon moved to receive and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (6-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00315): 3608 Coolheights Drive Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report. He showed a site plan of the previously approved addition by the Planning Commission, along with the new proposed addition at the rear of the previously approved addition. He explained the new proposed addition is 420.2 square feet, and would allow for the two bedrooms on the second floor to be expanded to the rear wall on the first floor. He noted the proposed front elevation would not be altered in terms of the existing height. He also showed plans of the proposed east, west, and rear elevations. He stated that late last week staff received a phone Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2016 Page 2 message from the neighboring property owner at 3602 Coolheights Drive, expressing view and privacy impact concerns. He explained that staff performed a site visit and determined the proposed addition would not significantly impair the view or create privacy impacts to the home. With that, he stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission conditionally approve the height variation request. Commissioner James asked staff if the neighbor is now satisfied that there will not be privacy or view concerns as a result of the proposed construction. Associate Planner Silva explained that part of his assessment was that the proposed addition would not create a significant view impairment to the neighboring property. He also noted that he determined that there would be no privacy impacts, as the proposed addition does not include windows along the east side of the project. He also noted the addition is enclosing an existing balcony area, and staff feels the degree of privacy infringement is being reduced. Director Mihranian added that staff understands the neighbor and the applicant have come up with some type of agreement to address the concerns. Chairman Tomblin arrived at this time. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. John Peterson (owner) explained his neighbor is concerned about view issues because he is going to try to build a small deck in the rear yard. He explained that, in talking with the neighbor, all he needs to do is make a small change to his plans, which he has agreed to do, to help open up the neighbor's view of Terranea. He demonstrated on the proposed floor plan the approximately 25 square feet he has agreed to remove to open up the neighbor's view. He also showed on the proposed floor plan how the addition will give his neighbor more privacy, since he will be enclosing an existing deck and the section of the addition near his neighbor will not include any windows. Commissioner James stated the plan before the Commission is really not ready for the Commission to approve, as it will be modified to address the neighbor's concerns. He also noted that the owner has more than one option for how the plan might be modified. He therefore recommended the applicant bring the plan back to the Commission when he has made the decision on how he will modified the plan, and let the Commission see what they are really approving. Mr. Peterson responded that he will only be improving what is currently being shown on the plans for the benefit of his neighbor. Director Mihranian stated that, because the Resolution and the conditions of approval do not reflect this change, it can be read into the record or the item can be continued to the next meeting where corrected plans can be presented to the Commission along with a modified Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2016 Page 3 Commissioner James asked if the Commission could approve the current application and make a motion that would allow the Director to approve a minor modification reducing the square footage that the Commission approved. Director Mihranian answered the Commission can memorialize that in the conditions of approval, however he would state that the project is approved with direction that the Director can review and accept the modification. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that, left unchanged, the Commission most likely would have approved this proposed addition. However, the applicant is trying to accommodate the concerns of his neighbor and the Commission should help him in this effort. He felt that the Commission should try to read into the motion the proposed changes to that everyone can proceed with the project. Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner Emenhiser' s comments. Commissioner Leon also felt it was important to reach a decision at this meeting. Fred Boetcher (architect) stated he will have no problem designing the modification and making it structurally sound. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser asked the Director the best way to incorporate the proposed changes into the motion and the conditions of approval. Director Mihranian suggested the Commission could accept the current conditions of approval and direct staff to work with the applicant to address the neighbor's concerns prior to submitting to the Building and Safety Department. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned, and to direct staff to work with the applicant to address the neighbor's concerns prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner James noted that the Director would only approve a modification to the plan if the resulting structure would be structurally sound. Director Mihranian stated that was correct. The motion was approved, (7-0), thereby adopting PC Resolution 2016-12. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2016 Page 4 Director Mihranian reported that there were no Planning related items to report from the October 4th City Council meeting. Director Mihranian reported that on Friday, October 7th, he conditionally approved a Site Plan Review application at Green Hills to allow the construction of a combination wall, a water feature, a stairway to access the upper areas of Vista del Ponte and Inspiration Slope, and grading to support the proposed improvements. He noted that this decision has been appealed, and will be heard by the Planning Commission at a future meeting. He also reported that the Mayor and the City Manager are working to schedule a City Council meeting with the Planning Commission. Chairman Tomblin reported that at the September 30th Mayor's Breakfast he spoke to Mayor Dyda about scheduling a meeting with the City Council to discuss procedural matters. He briefly discussed three potential topics to be discussed at that meeting. He stated that a date has yet to be confirmed but will likely occur in November. He asked if any Commissioners had any thoughts or comments they would like to have discussed at that meeting. Commissioner Leon cautioned the Commission in regards to a code of conduct and ensuring that the residents' right of free speech is not infringed upon. He felt it was important to stress the Commission was not trying to control the message of the speakers. Chairman Tomblin then asked staff if there are still no Planning Commission meetings scheduled for the month of November. Director Mihranian answered that no meetings are currently scheduled for November. Chairman Tomblin noted he had mentioned this to the Mayor, and was hoping the joint meeting could be scheduled in November. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on October 25, 2016 Director Mihranian reviewed the October 25th agenda, noting there is currently only one item on the agenda. He noted that the following meeting will be on December 13th, and there are currently five large items on that agenda, including two Green Hills related items. He suggested the Commission consider having a special meeting in November, possibly the fifth Tuesday of November, to hear some of the items to that the December meeting won't be so overwhelming. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned why the Planning Commission was going to be dealing with the Green Hills CUP at this time, given that there are multiple attorneys involved, the City Council involvement with the issue, and the fact that it will most likely end up in court. He felt the Commission was going to spend several meetings litigating what was already done several years ago, with the complexity of more lawyers and more Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2016 Page 5 City Council members being involved. He asked how the Planning Commission will be helping the situation by going through the motions of revisiting the CUP. Director Mihranian explained that, per the City Council approved conditions, there is a mitigation measure that requires the Planning Commission conduct an annual review. In order for the conditions to remain in compliance, the City must adhere to that condition. However, since those conditions were approved by the City Council in November 2016, staff has spent quite a bit of time going over these conditions, and he felt this will be an opportunity to revisit the conditions and see what conditions need to be amended to reflect what is actually happening at the site. He also noted that the Planning Commission is acting in an advisory capacity, and that any final amendments to the conditions will be made by the City Council, the final deciding body. Commissioner Emenhiser understood, however he questioned how the Commission was going to keep the CUP review limited to the issues of the CUP, as opposed to everything else going on at the site. Commissioner James stated he supported adding a meeting in November, noting too many meetings are being cancelled and he did not want to jam up one meeting. Chairman Tomblin stated that the joint meeting with the City Council could happen on the fifth Tuesday in November. Director Mihranian stated that at the October 25th meeting he will have more information on possible meeting dates, and by that time he hoped there would be more information on the possible meeting date with the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2016 Page 6