Loading...
5BDRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FEBRUARY 17, 2015 CALL MEETING TO ORDER Agenda Item No. 5-B Meeting Date: 03-17-15 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:32 p.m. on Tuesday February 17, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Commissioners Present: Gray, Kirkpatrick, Mirsch, Smith and Chairman Chelf. Commissioners Absent: None. Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Shahiedah Coates, Assistant City Attorney, Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Bruce Bornemann, IWS Surveying. Tom Jankovich, 24 Outrider Road. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North. Spencer Karpf, 14 Caballeros Road. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 20, 2015 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-17-15 - 1 - DRAFT Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Uommission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 20, 2015 as presented. Commissioner Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. January 20, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Following correction of a few typographical errors, Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 20, 2015 as corrected. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMITTTE ON TREES & VIEWS MINUTES January 28, 2015 Meeting of the Committee on Trees and Views Following correction of a typographical error, Committee Member Gray moved that the Committee on Trees and Views approve the minutes of the Committee on Trees and Views meeting held on January 28, 2015 as corrected. Committee Member Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Commissioner Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf abstained. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232, SUBDIVISION NO. 93, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.05 ACRE LOT INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 852 AT 80 SADDLEBAG ROAD, (TURPANJIAN). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request for a two -lot subdivision at 80 Saddleback Road and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site last month and after deliberation at its evening meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the request and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that Vice Chairperson Smith visited the site with staff because she had an excused absence from the meeting when the Planning Commission visited the site as a group. She further stated that with regard to the subdivision process, the Planning Commission is an advisory agency to the City recommending approval or denial and the City Council is the body that makes the final decision. Vice Chairperson Smith asked if a condition could be included in the recommendation that would prevent the applicant from further subdividing the property. In response, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that if the Planning Commission finds that there are certain features of the property such as topography or geological conditions that make it not feasible for further subdivision such a notation would be appropriate on the final parcel map. Vice Chairperson Smith commented that her concerns are related to safety should another driveway access be added to the winding roadway and the grading that might be required should another lot be considered. Assistant City Attorney Coates further commented Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting C-2 02-17-15 ) DRAFT that it would be preferable to have the property owner's agreement should such a restriction be considered so that a covenant could be recorded against the property. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavishia Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant stating that she doesn't see there would be problem recoding a covenant to restrict further subdivision but she would like to review the request with the property owner. Vice Chairperson Smith suggested that the Planning Commission add a recommendation to the Resolution that there be no further subdivision of the property. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-02 recommending approval of a vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72232, Subdivision No. 93 a request to subdivide a 7.05 acre lot into two single family residential lots and recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in Zoning Case No. 852 at 80 Saddleback Road as amended to include a recommendation that there be no further subdivision of the lot. Commissioner Mirsch seconded the motion which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 869. SUBDIVISION NO. 94. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775. parcel located on Crest Road East. known as 23 Crest Road East. (�Iynes) (RECOMMEND CONTINUANCE TO MARCH 17. 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this case was continued to March 17, 2015. ZONING CASE NO. 870-871. Request for a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustments between four parcels of land located at 1 Buckboard Lane, 1 Georgeff Road, vacant lot known as 3 Georgeff Road and 8 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA; a Variance for less than minimum required frontage of a parcel in Zoning Case No.870 and a request for a Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment to change the zoning classification of the adjusted area of the property at 1 Buckboard Lane from RAS -2 (Residential Agricultural Suburban, two acre minimum lot size) to RAS -1 (Residential Agricultural Suburban, one acre minimum lot size) zoning district, and the adjusted area of the vacant lot at 3 Georgeff Road from RAS -1 to RAS -2 and to reclassify the land use categories of the adjusted areas in Zoning Case No. 871, Zoning Map and General Plan Amendment 2015-01. (Robinson). The Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) under the Class 5 Exemption, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch recused themselves from consideration of this case due to the proximity of their properties to the subject property. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for a Lot Line Adjustment and Zoning Map Amendment stating that the request involves four parcels — Parcel 1 at 1 Buckboard Lane; Parcel l at 3 Georgeff Road; Parcel 3 at 1 Georgeff Road and Parcel 4 at 8 Crest Road East. She stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day and further explained Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting a 02-17-15 - 3 - DRAFT the applicant's request for a Lot Line Adjustment and stated that the proposal will provide Parcel 2 with street access where it currently has none. She further commented that by making the proposed adjustments, several non -conforming situations will become conforming or less non -conforming. She further explained the applicant's request for a Zoning Map Amendment stating Parcel 1 forms a boundary of the RAS -1 Zone and the rest of the parcels are RAS -2 so a Zoning Map Amendment is required so that lines on the Zoning Map correspond with the new lot lines. She further stated that a General Plan Amendment is required because the properties in RAS -1 Zone are categorized as low density land development and the properties in RAS -2 Zone are categorized as very low-density land development so in order to maintain consistency it needs, to be changed to correspond with the Zoning Map and General Plan. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Bruce Bornemann, IWS Surveying addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant stating that they feel that the proposal is the best compromise between current zoning regulations; current land use and function; and future land use and function. Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated that he feels the proposal makes sense. Commissioner Gray concurred. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 870 and Zoning Case No. 871 with the standard findings of fact and conditions. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch returned to the dais. ZONING CASE NO. 875. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to convert an existing cabana to a guest house that encroaches into the north side yard setback at 5 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, (Lot 82-RH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Ruzic). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to convert an existing cabana to a guesthouse that encroaches into the north side -yard setback and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She further reviewed the requirements for guesthouses and stated that a landscaping plan will be required. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Jeanette Ruzic, 5 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road addressed the Planning Commission to further explain their request. She stated that her mother will be moving in with them and this will provide her with a little bit of privacy. Commissioner Mirsch disclosed that the applicant has been invited to a meet and greet event for her City Council candidacy but she does not personally know the applicant. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 875, at 5 Lower Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting= 02-17-15 - 4 - DRAFT Blackwater Canyon Road with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 876. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to merge two existing parcels into one lot; to construct a stable with a loft and corral, and to locate the stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot, at 77 Crest Road East, (APN 7567-008-12 and 13), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request stating that this property is a flag lot that gains access over another property. She stated that the applicant is proposing to merge two lots, 77 Crest Road East and the adjacent vacant lot, into one lot and is also proposing to construct a stable on the merged Iot. She further reviewed the applicant's request stating that the applicant is requesting a Variance to locate the stable in the front yard area given that the house is located in the rear of the property. She stated that the stable is proposed to be 4,148 sq. ft. with two stories — 3,456 sq. ft. on the lower level and a 692 sq. ft. loft. She further reviewed the stable configuration as well as the stable requirements. Vice Chairperson Smith expressed concern that the corral size is very small in relation to the size of the stable. Discussion ensued concerning the applicant's intended use for the structure. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Torn Jankovich, 24 Outrider Road addressed the Planning Commission stating they recently purchased this property and they intend to have horses and they also intend to come before the Planning Commission to build a new home on this property as well. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the lot line adjustment and the reasoning for placing the stable in the front yard area. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request. The public hearing was continued. ZONING CASE NO. 872. Request for a Site Plan Review for a 1,389 square foot residential addition and a Variance to encroach with a portion of the addition into the side and front yard setbacks, including with a basement and with a trellis into the rear setback at 23 Middleridge Lane North, (Lot 2 -MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Hammond). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the items and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for a 1,389 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence at 23 Middleridge Lane North. She reviewed the configuration of the lot stating that it is located in the Overlay Zone which reduces the setbacks to 30 ft. from the roadway easement and allows the footprint of an existing Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-17-15 - 5 10RA011 structure to encroach 10 ft. into the side yard setback. She further reviewed the applicant's request for an addition of which 349 sq. ft. was previously constructed without building permits. She stated that the current owner purchased the lot with several non -conformities and he is attempting to improve the lot and legalize the non -conformities. She stated that the applicant is proposing to convert an existing garage to living quarters and to construct a new 479 sq. ft. garage with access taken from the cul-de-sac. She stated that the applicant is also proposing an addition to the side of the garage that would encroach into the side -yard setback. She stated that also proposed is a new 735 sq. ft. swimming pool with the pool equipment to be located under the existing deck. She further stated that an existing unpermitted counter and barbeque will need to be permitted as well as the previously approved stable that was constructed but never received final construction approval. She further reviewed the development standards stating that the structural lot coverage is proposed at 19.4% and the total lot coverage is proposed at 31 %. She stated that there is no grading proposed other than excavation for the pool and basement. She commented that the basement is proposed at 329 sq. ft. that will encroach into the side - yard setback. She stated that the building pad coverage is proposed at 92.3% because the flat portion outside the setback is not calculated into the building pad size but the structures are. She stated that access to the stable is taken off Palos Verdes Drive North and there is an agreement with Rolling Hills Estates for access to the stable over the roadway easement. Brief discussion ensued concerning the difficulties associated with developing a property in this area of the City. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North addressed the Planning Commission stating that their goal is to work with the PIanning Commission and develop the project the correct way. Commissioner Mirsch disclosed that the applicant has been invited to a meet and greet event for her City Council candidacy but she does not personally know the applicant. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request. The public hearing was continued. 041111 -1 Ao1111:03aaIi11Q1.41 The Planning Commission scheduled field trips to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 77 Crest Road East 23 Middleridge Lane N. 6 Saddleback Road Report and Discussion regarding Zoning Code amendment relating to preservation of views and interpretation of Measure B. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-17-15 6 - DRAFT Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background of the Planning Commission's previous discussions regarding the City's View Preservation Ordinance stating that discussions were halted after the passage of Measure B in order to see how the provisions in the measure would be implemented. She reviewed the three items that were changed by Measure B and stated that those provisions cannot be changed without a vote of the people, but the City can provide clarification and define the items that were not defined in Measure B. She stated that before the Planning Commission is a proposal for discussion by the Planning Commission and then scheduling of a Public Hearing once the issues have been discussed. She further stated that the City Council formed an ad-hoc committee that discussed these items and is forwarding them to the Planning Commission for discussion and consideration. She stated that for clarification purposes a redline version of the draft proposed ordinance which includes the changes originally recommended by the Planning Commission as well the more recently proposed changes been placed on the dais. She reviewed the proposed draft Ordinance and stated that the Ad Hoc committee agreed on recommended changes in the following areas: 1. A property may acquire more than one separate and independent view through the Ordinance. 2. "Principal residence" should be defined to exclude bathrooms, hallways, garages and closets. 3. During the course of a hearing, an applicant may be required to amend an application or provide supplemental materials in specified circumstances. 4. Agreements reached in mediation shall be confirmed by an executed contract between the parties and will not be implemented or enforced by the City. 5. The CTV may make a finding that although a view exists and is significantly impaired, restorative action is precluded by specified circumstances (i.e., impacts to the environment or to the privacy of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located). 6. "View corridor" should be defined. 7. The ordinance should clarify that complainants bear the cost of initial restorative action, up to the amount of the lowest bid. 8. The period to implement the initial restorative action should be extended to reflect field conditions and arborist recommendations. 9. Measure B's retroactivity provision has the effect of invalidating all view restoration orders issued by the City prior to passage of Measure B. 10. A person is not precluded from applying for view restoration if. a) vegetation on the applicant's own property contributes to the view impairment; or b) the applicant previously obtained an order abating impairment of the same view caused by vegetation on another property. Planning Director Schwartz further stated that there were additional areas identified that should be changed but the ad hoc committee was not in agreement as to a recommended change. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Assistant City Attorney Coates clarified that what is being proposed is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. She stated that the ad hoc committee was created to help provide focus as to what Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-17-15 0-7- DRAFT changes should be of particular importance during the Planning Commission's review. Assistant City Attorney Coates reviewed the unresolved items and stated that they are open to the Planning Commission's recommendation for change to either the Ordinance or the Administrative Regulations interpreting Measure B. The unresolved items included: Whether or not the City should be indemnified for its costs and expenses related to litigation arising from view restoration orders. Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that this is a policy decision. Following discussion concerning this point, the Planning Commission asked staff to further research this matter with regard to what the City's insurance carrier recommends and how other cites handle this issue. Measure B limits potential view restoration to the view that existed when a "current owner" "actually acquired the property." What constitutes a change in ownership affecting the date that an owner "actually acquired" property? City Attorney stated that the staff report provides several scenarios that could be considered for inclusion in the Administrative Regulations interpreting Measure B. Subsequent Maintenance - Section 17.26.060(C) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code currently provides a general rule that the owner of view obstructing vegetation shall bear the cost and expense of subsequent maintenance of the vegetation required to comply with a view restoration order. However, Section 17.26.060(D) provides that the implementation method may be modified if grounds exist. The two provisions create some uncertainty as to whether subsequent maintenance costs may be allocated in part to a person seeking to restore a view. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the two alternatives set forth in Section 17.26.060(C) of the draft Ordinance to clarify this conflicting language. Option 2, which currently exists in the ordinance states "Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. Option 1 adds to the existing language "...unless the Committee adopts a final position providing an alternative cost allocations which shall be accompanied by written findings justifying the alternative cost allocation." Mature vs. Maturing - Measure B exempts from the Ordinance "any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property" and provides that "mature" and "maturing" shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. It has become apparent that arborists classify trees as "mature" and "maturing" in numerous ways, resulting in differences of opinion regarding the maturity of trees at issue in a view impairment complaint. The Ad Hoe Committee determined that the Sunset Western Garden Book is an authoritative reference guide for determining whether vegetation is "mature" or "maturing." That book provides a range of heights at which vegetation is considered "mature." The Planning Commission is asked to decide whether the vegetation should be considered "mature" by the City when it reaches the lowest or average height of the range and those two alternatives are presented in the draft Ordinance. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Spencer Karpf, 14 Caballeros Road addressed the Planning Commission to suggest that when the Ordinance is considered it would be helpful to highlight the language added by Measure B. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-17-15 - 8 ' 11 "Al Following stag's presentation, discussion and public comment the members Commission directed staff to provide further information with regard to the items the indemnification issue and how other cities handle view matters. Discussion continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ITEMS FROM STAFF of the Planning discussed including of this matter was Planning Director Schwartz reported that the City Council asked the Planning Commission to study the requirements for short term vacation rentals and the City Attorney has prepared an Ordinance prohibiting short term vacation rentals and that Ordinance will be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration at the March 17, 2015 meeting. 0131010W►1ur1"►�� Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 2015 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 77 Crest Road East, 23 Middleridge Lane North and 6 Saddleback Road. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk Approved, Brad Chelf Chairman Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-17-15 _ 9