Loading...
PC MINS 20170110 4 Approved 1/24/201 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 10, 2017 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:01 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 Silva, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that at their December 20, 2016 meeting the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding short-term rentals. They adopted an Urgency . Ordinance, and introduced an Ordinance affirming the prohibition of short-term rentals in the City's residential and multi-family zoning districts, as well as the advertisement of short-term rentals. The City Council also amended the City's Administrative Citation fine schedule by creating a two-tier fine schedule, with a second tier of fines at $2,500, $5,000, and $7,500 for violators of project-approved conditions of approval or the prohibition of short-term rentals. He also reported that at the January 17, 2017 meeting the City Council will consider the second reading of the Ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals. Director Mihranian reported that staff distributed as late correspondence a revised Resolution for agenda item No. 2. He also noted that the upcoming Planning Commissioner's Academy will be held March 1 through 3, and he encouraged the Commissioner's to notify staff to register for the conference as soon as possible. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): Noel Weiss discussed the upcoming compliance review of Green Hills that will be heard before the City Council, and felt it was something that the Planning Commission should be hearing. He stated there are so many ambiguities in the Master Plan and it was important for everyone to know where the Master Plan can be strengthened for consistency. Matt Martin recapped the issues with Green Hills, the construction of the mausoleum, and the setback issues. He stated his disapproval with the City Attorney's opinion that the City Council hear the Green Hills CUP compliance review, and felt the Planning Commission should hear this review. Steve Espolt stated he currently serves as the Manager of Strategic Planning and Compliance at Green Hills, and he is representing the new Green Hills Management Team. He stated that being a good neighbor is a top priority, and Green Hills takes seriously the concerns of the neighbors and strives to continuously respond, understand and address their concerns accordingly. He also explained that Green Hills has served many generations of families and wants to continue serving many more generations, and this the reason Green Hills has pursued park improvements as part of their Master Plan. He understood that any changes need to be mindful of the neighbors, and he is here to listen and to let the neighbors and the City know Green Hills welcomes input. He stated Green Hills has met, and will be meeting again in the next few days with representatives from multiple Homeowners Associations and with City Staff. He stated these are the types of meeting and discussions he would like to see continue in the future. Commissioner Leon stated when he was in Lompoc the actual funeral service was held in a small covered area away from the actual gravesite. He questioned if something like that would be beneficial to Green Hills. Director Mihranian stated this is something staff will discuss with Green Hills as part of the annual review. Chairman Tomblin noted the speaker mentioned there was a new management team in place at Green Hills, and asked staff if they could circulate a memo to the Commissioners. Director Mihranian stated that as soon as staff gets more information he will include a weekly report item to the City Council and Commission. David Turner stated that the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association would like to make sure that the City Council has access to all of the information that has been submitted to the Planning Commission and staff over the past year as the Council prepares for the compliance review. He stated this would include the letter from the Peninsula Verde HOA dated August 29, 2016 which details the problems to be addressed along with proposed statutory changes and changes to the conditions of approval. Also, he asked that files containing sound levels recorded during funerals and visitations, Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2017 Page 2 pictures showing violations of Green Hills rules, and email traffic that has been sent to the Planning Commission and staff. He urged the Planning Commission to bring the City Council's attention to the letter from the Peninsula Verde HOA prior to the meeting. Chairman Tomblin asked if the hearing date has been set with the City Council. Director Mihranian stated a special meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 31 at 6:30 p.m. at Hesse Park. A public notice has already been issued, a Listserve message has gone out, and staff plans on transmitting the staff report on January 24th Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked if any of the Councilmembers asked if at least the Chairman attend the meeting to answer any questions they may have. Director Mihranian stated he had not received that request, and he will report back to the Commission regarding this at the January 24th meeting. Bernadette Sabath stated she and others are very much looking forward to the upcoming community meeting taking place at City Hall with members of Green Hills. She thanked the Commission for their integrity and knowledge while dealing with this issue over the past several years. Joanna Jones Reed asked that the Planning Commission review Green Hills' Master Plan and clarify the ambiguities in the Plan. She noted the Lilley Report cost the City$30,000, and results of the report will once again be brought up at the next City Council meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the November 29, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Tomblin stated he has read through the minutes, but would like to go through again to look at his notes. He asked if the Commission could defer approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Commissioner Leon amended his motion to continue the approval of the minutes to the January 24, 2017 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner James abstaining. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Minor Modifications Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2016-00493) Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 3 Associate Planner Silva presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the item. He briefly summarized the proposed amendments to Sections 17.78.040 and 17.78.050, as detailed in the staff report. Lastly, he noted the late correspondence noting typos and minor modifications to the proposed language. He stated that staff was recommending the Commission review the proposed code language, and if acceptable, forward this language to the City Council for their consideration. Director Mihranian added that what prompted this code amendment was that the minor modification process was never codified in the Municipal Code, and language that was in the Code was misplaced. He stated there have been some issues with minor modifications that have occurred over the past few years and questions as to what gives the Director the authority to make minor modifications. Staff brought an item to the City Council, who initiated the code amendment based on the Commission's concerns. This item is codifying the minor modification language and removing the language that was misplaced in the Code. This language establishes criteria and required findings for the Director to approve minor modifications. Commissioner James, explained the sub-committee met with staff three times with the goal of codifying a procedure that is basically already being followed by the Director. He stated the goal was to have a set of procedures that are workable, and felt the language presented in the staff report will be useful. Vice Chairman Cruikshank added that he felt this language gives the Director the clarity so that the Director can make the decision on a minor modification based on specific findings. Commissioner Bradley felt this was a well thought out process. He asked why the word "applicable" was added to the language in 17.78.040.C.4, as it is not in the other criteria. Director Mihranian explained that view impact is not always considered in every application. Commissioner Bradley referred to the privacy finding, and asked if that finding always applies and if the word applicable should be added to that finding. Director Mihranian agreed that a privacy finding is not always applicable and agreed that language should be added. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Noel Weiss felt this language goes a long way to clarify minor modifications, however he felt there were still some issues that should be addressed. He stated that making the determination as to what is minor versus substantial subject to the interpretation review procedure of Section 17.78.050 may still not be clear. He stated the hope and objection should be to let everyone know upfront to be thorough, thoughtful, and complete. He felt a sentence should be added to the language that the decision as to what is major versus Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2017 Page 4 minor is still subject to the interpretation review procedure. Secondly, he felt the issue of interested persons should be clarified. Vice Chairman Cruikshank asked staff to clarify the term interested parties. Director Mihranian stated the language is very specific in that interested parties are those that are on file with the City when the original project was being processed. This would consist of those individuals that contacted staff in response to a public notice and received a Notice of Decision. Chairman Tomblin asked if an interested party would also include the Planning Commission. Director Mihranian noted the language says notice will be given to the final deciding body. Minas Yerelian recommended that there be no minor modifications for any Conditional Use Permit. He did not think that five days was enough time for anyone to respond to a minor modification request or decision, and therefore a minor modification request should be put on the Consent Calendar. He also felt that some applicants may prepare their application based on the fact that they can later ask for a minor modification. This would make it easier to submit the application and get an approval, and ask for modifications to the project later down the line. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner James stated that he did not remember the words, if applicable, being part of the language discussed with the sub-committee. He felt that the same conclusions could be met without the words, if applicable. Commissioner James asked staff if they had a comment regarding the speaker's suggestion regarding Conditional Use Permits. Director Mihranian explained that the way this draft code language is written the public will be made aware of any minor modifications proposed to a Conditional Use Permit, and can appeal the Director's decision. This process is designed to be very open and transparent. In addition, the Director would not process a minor modification if he did not believe he could make the required findings. In that situation, the Director would tell the applicant it is a substantial revision and they would have to go back to the deciding body to amend the conditions. He stated that any proposed change to the operation would automatically go back to the deciding body. Commissioner James asked how often in the past has there been an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit. Director Mihranian answered there was a minor modification to the Crestridge project's CUP. He explained that in regards to that project under this draft code language, the Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2017 Page 5 Director would approve the minor modification, the Planning Commission and interested parties would be notified of the minor modification, and there would be an opportunity to appeal the decision. Commissioner Leon asked if the Code defined "interested parties". Director Mihranian read the definition as written in the Zoning Code. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that if the City Council were the original deciding body, he could still contact a Council member and say he has a concern, and that Council member can then voice that concern. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to clarify Section 17.78.050 and the suggested amendments. Director Mihranian explained that Section 17.78.050 is where the minor modification discussion occurs, and staff feels this discussion is misplaced. He stated there are two discussions, one being an interpretation and one being a minor modification. Staff felt the minor modification discussion was better suited under amendments to approved applications. Therefore, he stated he would not support what Mr. Weiss was suggesting because it would be reintroducing what staff feels doesn't belong in the interpretation section of the code. Commissioner Nelson asked if there are costs associated with the appeal. Director Mihranian answered that currently the appeal fee is $2,275. He stated that the Planning Commission is forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council will ultimately adopt an Ordinance to codify the language. He explained that at the second reading before the Council in February staff is intending to present a reduced appeal fee for this process. Commissioner Bradley moved to approve staff's recommendation with the modification to strike the word "applicable" from Section 4, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2017-0001 was adopted (7-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 24, 2017 Director Mihranian reviewed the items on the pre-agenda and noted the November 29, 2016 minutes will be added to this agenda Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff to schedule a status of the General Plan update at an upcoming meeting, noting when he joined the Planning Commission eight years ago, the Commission had already been working on the General Plan for two years. Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2017 Page 6 Director Mihranian stated the General Plan item could be scheduled on the February 14th agenda. In regards to Green Hills, Chairman Tomblin stated that both the Mayor and the Mayor Pro-Tern had asked him if he was getting current updates on the appeal from the City Attorney's office. He questioned if a closed session meeting was needed to bring the Commission up to date on the issues. Director Mihranian explained that Green Hills is on the next agenda, and while Green Hills has requested an extension to the item, it is still a noticed public hearing and there could still be testimony. In terms of a closed session, he did not believe there was anything to report in that closed session, as all of the information will be presented in the report. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2017 Page 7