Loading...
PC MINS 20170214 )0Sh Approved 2/28/17 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 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, Nelson, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, and Chairman Tomblin. Absent: Commissioner Leon was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Mihranian, Senior Planner Kim, Associate Planner Seeraty, Assistant Planner Lugo, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Mihranian reported that on January 31, 2017, the City Council conducted the Green Hills annual compliance review, and adopted the amended conditions of approval that now regulate the construction and operations at Green Hills. He added that the following day the City conducted mediation with the Vista Verde condominium owners and that a potential settlement is being negotiated that will be reported to the City Council at the March 7th meeting. Director Mihranian reported that at their February 21st meeting the City Council will consider the Commission's recommendations regarding the Minor Modification code amendment, as well as the extension of the Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit for the Pony Cub. The City Council will also consider topics to be included in the City's draft comprehensive noise ordinance. Director Mihranian distributed late correspondence between Staff and Commissioner Nelson regarding agenda item No. 3. He noted that, pursuant to Commission direction, staff worked with the business owner of the 7-11 on the corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive South to ensure the window signs comply with the Conditions of Approval and the Development Code. Lastly, he reminded the Commission that the Council of Homeowners' Association will hold an expo on February 15th at Hesse Park at 6:00 PM. Commissioner Emenhiser acknowledged the Commission's attendance at tonight's meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): David Turner discussed the proposed traffic signal at Western Avenue and Peninsula Verde Drive, as a result of the housing development being built. He asked if this was the proper body to get more details on this proposed signal, or if not, who would be. Director Mihranian suggested Mr. Turner contact the Public Works Department, and he would give him the information during the break. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the January 24, 2017 Minutes Vice Chairman Cruikshank noted a minor edit on page 8 of the minutes. Vice Chairman Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Bradley abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Appeal of View Restoration Notice of Decision (Case No. ZON2016-00015): 59 Paseo de Castana Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, noting that Staff's recommendation is to continue the public hearing to March 28th. He stated the two parties are meeting and are attempting to reach an agreement, however they need more time to work out some of the details. Commissioner Nelson noted that this case is dragging on and it may come down to the parties reaching an agreement or the Planning Commission will make a decision for them. Commissioner James moved to approve Staff's recommendation to continue the public hearing to March 28, 2017, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (6-0). NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2017 Page 2 3. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2017-00033): 5933 Ocean Terrace Drive Associate Planner Seeraty presented the Staff Report, explaining the scope of the project. She explained that the proposed pool is outside of the Tract's Building and Grading Restriction Line (BGR Line), and explained the purpose of the BGR line. She stated that per the Tract conditions, Planning Commission approval is required for the proposed retaining wall. She stated that Staff believes the proposed project meets all of the Tract conditions, as well as all of the requirements of the Development Code, and therefore was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the Staff Report. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner James moved to approve Staffs recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Nelson stated he had several questions, however these questions were answered by Staff before the hearing. However, he felt the vacant lot next to the subject property be disked before this project is finaled, as there are currently very deep ruts on the lot where equipment has run through the mud. Vice Chairman Cruikshank stated that in reading the Staff Report, he understands the applicant has the right to do what they are proposing. However, from a practical standpoint, he questioned why the access comes in from the trail and why the improvements are being built into the hillside. Associate Planner Seeraty answered that this is the only location for the pool in the rear yard because a Tract condition prohibits development on slopes of 10 percent or greater. In addition, the Tract conditions are fairly limited on what can be done, noting another Tract condition that allows only cut and no fill. Associate Planner Seeraty noted on Condition No. 22 a note had been inadvertently left in, and suggested this note be struck from the Resolution. Commissioner James moved to modify his motion to approve the project, with the removal of Condition No. 22, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion was approved, (6-0), thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2017-04. 4. Height Variation/Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2016-00416): 30803 Via la Cresta Assistant Planner Lugo presented the Staff Report, giving a brief description of the proposed project. She discussed the view findings, noting that staff did not believe the proposed addition would cause significant view issues to the neighboring properties. She also discussed neighborhood compatibility and stated Staff did not feel the proposed addition was compatible with the immediate neighborhood in regards to scale, bulk and Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2017 Page 3 mass. She stated that Staff felt the proposed addition will create a structure that will appear too prominent from the street, will result in a boxy and massive appearing structure, and the increase in overall building height will create a tall and massive appearing structure when observed from the street. She stated Staff is recommending denial of the proposed Height Variation because of neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Julie Strassner (property owner) explained she grew up in this neighborhood and knows the homes, and which homes have had additions over the years and which have not. She stated she wanted their home to keep in line with the neighborhood's appearance, and did not believe the proposed addition would take away from that neighborhood's appearance. She noted that a home on Vallon Drive has done the exact addition they are proposing, so therefore she felt their proposed addition was not out of character with the neighborhood. She stated she does not want her home to stand out in the neighborhood as a large home, noting they will be using the same materials that is on the current home. Mike Strassner stated that of the twenty closest homes in the neighborhood, the two houses that have similar additions are not listed on the twenty closest homes yet are closer than eight of the twenty homes on the list. He questioned why these two homes are not on the list. He noted there are a variety of home styles in this neighborhood, and there are many homes that have done additions. He did not feel there was anything unique about their project that hasn't already been done in the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser asked what the second story extension will be used for. Ms. Strassner explained they have three children and they would like each child to have their own bedroom and they would like all of the children to be on the second story. Mr. Strassner distributed photos which he explained shows other houses in the neighborhood with similar additions, many of which he felt showed more bulk and mass than their proposed addition. Dr. Hubert Gulak stated he is an original owner of his home in the neighbor and has walked the neighborhood extensively over the years. He explained that he likes the neighborhood because the homes have a variation to them. He felt a neighborhood is based on how it appears to other people, as well as the people who live there, and generate a pride in ownership. In looking at this proposed project, he could not find where it violates any City Code or infringes on anybody else's view. He did not like cookie-cutter type neighborhoods and felt neighborhoods are enhanced by variety. He felt that everyone should have the opportunity to modify their home as long as they're happy and it doesn't bother anyone else in the neighborhood and does not go against any City Code. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2017 Page 4 Director Mihranian commented that when Staff is looking at neighborhood compatibility and the twenty closest homes, it's typically the homes on the same street and the homes immediately behind the subject home. He stated that attached to the Staff Report is an email exchange he had with the property owner expressing Staffs concerns with the project's compatibility early on in the process and what he thought could be done to address Staffs concerns so that a favorable recommendation could be made. He explained that if the Commission chooses one of the alternative recommendations, Staff will have to come back to the next meeting with a Resolution reflecting the Commission's decision. Commissioner James moved to reject Staff's recommendation of denial and accept the request of the applicant to build the home as they designed it, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner James stated he drove the entire neighborhood, and if you look at the neighborhood, there are a number of homes that are much bulkier and are not articulated. He stated this design does not jump out at him at all when looking at the entire street. Commissioner Emenhiser felt this is a family trying to expand their home to accommodate their growing family. He felt he was one of the Commissioners most concerned with neighborhood compatibility. However, in this situation he saw no view issues, no privacy issues, and was happy to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Nelson agreed with the Commissioner's comments, adding he was fully in favor of the motion. Commissioner Bradley also agreed, noting that the plans do not seem unreasonable or out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. He therefore could support the motion. Vice Chairman Cruikshank also did not think the home will be out of character with the neighborhood. He felt the role of the Planning Commission is to look at the project in terms of the overall neighborhood and not in terms of what the use will be. The motion to adopt Alternative One, thereby approving the Height Variation and Site Plan Review was approved, (6-0). Director Mihranian stated a Resolution reflecting the approval of the project will be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 5. General Plan Update Senior Planner Kim presented the Staff Report, explaining the current status of the General Plan update. She stated Staff was anticipating having the draft Traffic Study Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2017 Page 5 completed in March. She stated the draft Traffic Study will go to each Department for review, as well as the Traffic Safety Committee. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff how much the contract for the consultant cost. Senior Planner Kim answered $150,000 was budgeted for the contract. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there will be legal review of the document. Senior Planner Kim answered there will be legal review of the document. Commissioner Emenhiser questioned how much the legal review would cost. Senior Planner Kim explained the City Council Staff Report on the subject was more focused on the budget to approve the consultant's time and not for the City Attorney's time. She noted that approximately 50 hours has been estimated for the City Attorney's time. Commissioner Emenhiser voiced his frustration with this process, noting that four years ago there was a draft General Plan update before the Commission, and four years later there is no longer a draft update. He felt that this update, instead of getting closer, is getting farther and farther away. Commissioner Nelson noted an IMAC review in April, and questioned what the Infrastructure Management Committee has to do with the General Plan update. Senior Planner Kim noted that was an inadvertent typo and it should be the Traffic Safety Committee review rather than the IMAC review. Commissioner Nelson noted that the civilian committee study of the draft General Plan updated was completed in November 2004. Since then there has been thirteen years of Staff expense, consultant expense, and legal expense which he felt would most likely total over$2 million in expenses for this General Plan. Commissioner James agreed, and questioned why this has to take so long. He also noted the expense involved, and felt there was no excuse for this type of expenditure. He stated this is just the General Plan and there is no reason for this document to have taken so long to update. Vice Chairman Cruikshank questioned why the Traffic Study is being done in March and two months later the other two analysis are taking place. He asked if there was a reason there is such a lag between the studies. Director Mihranian explained that the Traffic Study must be done and approved before the Noise and Air Quality studies can be completed, as there is data in the Traffic Study that is necessary for the other two modeling studies to be completed. Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2017 Page 6 Commissioner Nelson noted that the State has requirements for what has to be in a General Plan. He asked staff if the State requires a noise analysis and an air quality analysis, or is this something the City has added. Director Mihranian answered that these are required elements. Commissioner Nelson asked if the City is addressing any elements that are not required. Senior Planner Kim responded that there are seven mandatory elements, and to update these elements technical studies and environmental documents are necessary. She stated that for the elements not required, the Planning Commission has seen these drafts and they are not going to be modified as a result of the technical studies being performed. Commissioner Nelson felt that the General Plan should be stripped down to what is required by the State. Secondly, he stated this document is not a stated condition, but rather a plan. He felt that the General Plan should be say what the condition of the City is now and what the City's goals are. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Nelson. He felt that by the time the City finished all of the studies, the graphs and charts the Commission approved four years ago are now outdated and will have to be redone. He felt that staff needs to commit to having this General Plan update completed this year. Chairman Tomblin asked Staff if another update could be added to the agenda next month. Director Mihranian suggested waiting until the draft Traffic Study is completed near the end of March before adding the item to the agenda. Commissioner Nelson suggested waiting until the Traffic Study has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Safety Committee before bringing the item back to the Commission. Director Mihranian agreed, noting this will be near the end of April. Commissioner Bradley moved to accept and file the report, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (5-1)with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 28, 2017 Director Mihranian reviewed the items on the pre-agenda. The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2017 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 14,2017 Page 8