Loading...
PC MINS 20161025 Approved 11/29/II. A,1 k CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:04 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, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that there were three Planning related items discussed at the City Council's October 18th meeting: 1) The City Council initiated a code amendment to create a comprehensive noise ordinance that would be added to Title 9 of the Municipal Code; 2) The Council received and filed a report on the enforcement efforts prohibiting short-term rentals, and directed staff to prepare a punitive and robust penalty fine schedule to Title 1. The Council also directed the Planning Commission to prepare code language to add to Title 17 prohibiting the advertisement of short-term rentals; and 3) the Council introduced an ordinance adopting the 2016 California Building Code that will go into effect on January 1, 2017. Director Mihranian reported that, in regards to the Commission's request to schedule a meeting with the City Council, the City Attorney has opined that in order for the Commission to forward such a request to the Council, it needs to be considered as an agenda item by the Commission with a formal motion recommending the Council consider its request with specific topics to discuss. He added that the Commission should discuss this item under tonight's "future agenda items". Director Mihranian reported that, in response to public comments regarding the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, staff is currently reviewing the plans and will be providing the public speakers responses to their comments. He added that there are currently no violations related to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum because they are still under construction with an open building permit. Chairman Tomblin reported that he spoke to Mayor Dyda and three council members about scheduling a meeting with the City Council and that he will discuss this in more detail during future agenda items later this evening. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss requested prompt action on the Green Hills yearly review mandated by the City Council, noting it is not yet on any agenda and staff has not reported to the Commission when the yearly review will occur. He also felt it would be more efficient for the Commission to hear the appeal at the same time as the yearly review. Matt Martin did not feel the height of the Area 11 mausoleum complies with the CUP, noting condition No. 30 of the CUP. He showed a photo of the mausoleum which he felt demonstrates that it is built too high and therefore does not comply with condition No. 30. Sharon Loveys distributed copies of the silhouette certificate form, and noted the required site plan is not included, and the application should have been considered incomplete without it. David Turner discussed the proposed wall and his concern with the elevation. He asked that the plan show a better outline of where the existing Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is located, as well as a projection of the wall along the north /south line. He also noted there is a stairway proposed to access the water feature and the proposed family estates. He noted this would also provide access to the top of the mausoleum, and commented that this entire area can be accessed from the street. He recommended the entire area at the top of the mausoleum be fenced off and that nobody be allowed up there, as this area overlooks many of the homes in his neighborhood. He also noted this would be a platform from which sound can be projected into the neighborhood. Director Mihranian suggested to Mr. Turner that he contact Senior Planner Kim to review the plans and express his concerns. Minas Yerelian felt that many CUPs are being abused by many applicants, and he felt nobody was doing anything about it. He referenced Mr. York's property specifically, noting work has been taking place on the property for several years and the soil is saturated. He felt with such saturation, a heavy rain or earthquake could result in a landslide at the property, and there is no provision for landslide insurance. He felt that Mr. York is abusing his CUP and nobody is doing anything about it. CONSENT CALENDAR Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2016 Page 2 1. Approval of Minutes — October 11, 2016 Vice Chairman Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Bradley. Commissioner Nelson noted that in the discussion on The Terraces signage he recalled several of the Commissioners conveying very positive remarks to the sign company on the signage at The Terraces, and noted this was not mentioned in the minutes. He stated he was happy to approve the minutes, but wanted the record to show that several of the Commissioners had very positive remarks regarding the signage. The minutes were approved (7-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Amend Conditions of Approval of PC Resolution 2016-01 (Case No. ZON2016-00456); Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 23: 2935 Vista del Mar Commissioners Leon, Nelson, Emenhiser, James, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin stated they have visited the site. Commissioner Bradley stated he did not visit the site. Commissioner James commented that when he visited the site he noted there was no silhouette at the site and the project has been started. Therefore, there was absolutely nothing that one can see from a site visit that is applicable to what the Commission is considering at this hearing. He felt it would be helpful if staff would tell the Commission that there is nothing at the site that would help them when considering this application, and everything they need to make a decision can be found in the staff report. Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, explaining the new house was approved by the Planning Commission in January 2016. She explained the proposed revisions to the plan, as outlined in the staff report. She also explained that in Seacliff Hills tract any revision to the building footprint, driveway, patio, parking areas, and any unimproved areas of the site that are disturbed by grading and not restored to the original grade are considered lot coverage. She stated the proposed project was approved by the Planning Commission with 35.8 percent lot coverage, and the change to the drainage swale results in grading that will alter the topography and lot coverage by approximately 1.1 percent, making the overall lot coverage 36.9 percent. She explained that staff believes the total amount of earth movement is not increasing and the changes are to address plan check corrections required by Building and Safety for proper drainage. Therefore, staff believes the findings for the revision to the Conditional Use Permit can still be made, and recommends the Planning Commission approve the revisions as outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Leon stated he was surprised at what staff listed as lot coverage for this project. Associate Planner Seeraty explained this tract has specific, restrictive lot coverage conditions and design guidelines. Commissioner Leon asked staff to remind the Commission why a project with almost 36 percent lot coverage was approved if there is a 25 percent lot coverage restriction on the property. Director Mihranian explained that every property in Seacliff Hills requires a Conditional Use Permit, which is very unique to the City. Because a Conditional Use Permit is required, the Planning Commission does have the ability to change the conditions for each individual lot. Commissioner Emenhiser recalled when this project was before the Commission in January that the neighbors were concerned with lights and reflection issues with the lights coming off of the building. He asked staff to bring the Commission up to date on this issue. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that the applicant has submitted a reflectivity study which indicated the direction of sun reflection at certain times of year, and showed the reflection went directly into the street as well as into the driveways across the street. She explained that these studies and diagrams indicated that at the time of year when the sun did reflect off the windows towards the driveways of the concerned neighbors, the angle of the sun would be above the driveway. Staff felt that the angle of reflection would be high enough that it would not impair views of someone leaving that driveway. She stated that staff required tinting on several of the windows. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated, that in looking at the drainage plans, he noted the drainage will affect the downhill neighbors. He asked staff if, as a Commission, there was a responsibility to look at how drainage might affect surrounding neighbors. He also asked if the City still has a low-impact development guideline for storm water management. Director Mihranian answered that when there is a discretionary application before the Commission one of the findings is whether or not the project causes any adverse impacts to neighboring properties. He felt that drainage and erosion control issues could be considered when looking at adverse impacts. He noted there are conditions of approval that address the drainage and erosion control issues in this case. In terms of low-impact development, he did not think this project met the threshold that would trigger this review. He also noted that a drainage review of the project takes place during the plan check process in Building and Safety. Chairman Tomblin noted that grading has already started at the property, and asked if what was before the Commission was an after-the-fact approval. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2016 Page 4 Director Mihranian explained that this is a very unique situation in that this issue came up at the very end of the plan check process. When the change was brought to the attention of the Planning Department, the question arose as to whether or not this was a minor modification. He felt that, because the maximum lot coverage had already been exceeded, that this was not a minor modification and should come back to the Commission for review. Because a public notice was required and there would be some delay before the item could be heard before the Commission, the property owner signed an "At Risk"waiver where grading could begin on the property knowing that there was the possibility that the Planning Commission could deny the request to increase the lot coverage for this modification. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Luis DeMoraes (architect) explained this was a last minute situation that came up at the very end of the plan check process. He explained that to meet the requirement there is the need to fill in one to two feet maximum at the back of the structure. He stated this is a very minor amount of grading that will not benefit the property owner except to protect the property from having water come towards it. He explained this request is not to increase hardscape or building footprint, but rather to meet Building and Safety requirements. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he did not see any Best Management Practices or low- impact development on the plans, and asked if they are in place. Mr. DeMoraes explained that the Best Management Practices are standard on any project he works on in the City and are on the final plans with Building and Safety. He added that he could not recall the specifics of the Best Management Practices, but they are on the final set of plans. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner James asked if this requirement for a two and one-half foot setback for swales is something that is new in the Building Code. Director Mihranian answered that, to his knowledge, it is considered on a case-by-case basis, and in this situation the drainage swale was proposed right up against the structure. The City Engineer wanted, from an erosion standpoint, a setback from the structure so that whatever drained off of the building would slope down towards the swale. Commissioner James moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved, (7-0), thereby adopting PC Resolution 2016-13. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2016 Page 5 3. Pre-agenda for the meeting on November 29, 2016 Director Mihranian reviewed the pre-agenda, noting that in addition to the two items on the pre-agenda before the Commission three additional items have been added. He noted that the items on the pre-agenda most likely would be lengthy items. He suggested that the Commission may want to consider: 1) Starting the November 29th meeting earlier than 7:00; 2) Reconsider reinstating the November 22nd meeting; or 3) Consider holding a special meeting in December. Chairman Tomblin noted that an item should be added to discuss the topics of discussion for the possible joint meeting with the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he had concerns about having a very late meeting, and therefore would not be opposed to starting the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Nelson moved to start the November 29, 2016 meeting at 6:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend the motion that the meeting is to end by midnight. Chairman Tomblin moved to amend the motion that the meeting end at 11:00 p.m. with the ability for the Commission to extend that time if necessary. Commissioner Emenhiser accepted this amendment. Commissioner James suggested the Director discuss the items on the agenda, with estimates on how long each item may take. Director Mihranian discussed the various items on the pre-agenda and his estimates on how long each item may take. Commissioner Emenhiser expressed his concerns in regards to hearing the item on Green Hills, given the entanglements involved with the property. He did not think the Commission should meet on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, as that would be a disservice to the community. He suggested sticking to the schedule as planned and anything not heard should wait until 2017. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated he was in favor of starting the November 29th meeting early and ending at 11:00. He felt that the Commission should be able to get through the agenda in five hours. The motion to begin the November 29, 2016 meeting at 6:00 p.m. and ending at 11:00 p.m., with the ability for the Commission to extend the ending time if necessary, was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2016 Page 6 Chairman Tomblin discussed the proposed joint meeting with the City Council. He stated he has spoken with the Mayor and three council members, and noted there are different approaches that were discussed with the different council members. In conversations with the Mayor, the Mayor has recommended there be certain specific agenda items to discuss. He also noted the City Attorney's opinion that the Commission must agendize a discussion of what the Commission would propose as topics of discussion for the joint meeting. Assistant City Attorney Burrows added that what is before the Commission is whether to agendize a meeting at which potential agenda topics can be fully discussed. She stated that discussion is not on tonight's agenda, and therefore the Commission was limited to discussing a future date at which these items can be discussed. She stated that the goal at this future meeting would be to specify the specific agenda items that would be discussed at the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Tomblin asked if the Commission still wished to move forward to agendize a discussion of the proposed agenda for a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that, given the agendas for the upcoming meetings, it may be better to push this discussion to a meeting in 2017. Commissioner Nelson agreed that this issue should be discussed on a 2017 agenda item. Chairman Tomblin asked staff to add this discussion as a pre-agenda item for a discussion at the first meeting in January. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. to an adjourned meeting on November 29, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2016 Page 7