Loading...
11-17-15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETIl�iG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSiON OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS NOVEMBER 17, 2015 CALL MEETING TO �RDER �- A regular meeting of the Planning Commissian of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:37 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, at City Ha�l,2 Partuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Carnmissioners Present: Cardenas, Gray,Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairma.n Chelf. Commissioners Absent: None. Others Present: Yalanta Schwartz,Planning DirecEor. 5hahiedah Coates,Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Cle;rk. Myung Chung, CMC Architects. Aaron Nichols,Kamus and Keller Architects. Tavisha Nicholson,Bolton Engineering. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM N�T ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL 4F MINUTES October 20, 2015,Adjourned Regular Meeting of the PIanning Cammission Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on October 20, 2015. Commissianer Cardena,s seconded the motion,which carried without objection. October 20, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith moved that the P�anning Cammission approve the minutes of the regular rrieeting of the Planning Commission held on Qctobex 20, 2015. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS A RESOLUTI�N OF THE PLANNING COMMI55ION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RIDING ARENA, LUNGING RING TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD A REA OF THE LOT AND TO RETAIN AN AS BUILT GAZEBO IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 890 AT 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH, (LOT 167-UR), {PQPOVICH}. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15343(E) (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) AND SECTION 15061{B)(3) (COMMON SENSE EXEMPTIOl� OF "THE CEQA GUIDELINE�. Chairman Chelf intraduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request to construct a dressage arena and lunging ring in the front yard area and Minutes Planning Commission Regular Mee�ing 11-17-15 - � - stated that the Planning Commission visited the site and discussed the request a# a public hearing on October 20, 201 S. She further stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval and it is presented far consideration. She reviewed the conditions of approval which include that the rings will not be lit, that there be a fence around the iunging ring and the dressage arena;that the landscaping sha�l comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping ordinance and that if a mirror is installed that any issues related to glare from the mirror be resolved to the campfaining parties satisfaction. Vice Cha.irman Gray stated for the record that although he wa.s not present at the last meeting, he familiarized himself with the xecord and visited the site; and f�.us, is eligible to deliberate and vote on this application. Chairrnan Chel�called for public comrnent. Hearing none, he asked for comrnents from the Planning Corrimission. Follawing brief discussion,Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutian No. 2015-22 granting appraval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 890 at 1 Middleridge Lane South as presented. Cammissioner Smith seconded the motion which carried without objection. ZON�NG CASE NO. 888. 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (L�T 5-MR),APPLICANT REQUESTED C�NTINUANCE OF THE REQUEST TO THE DECEMBER 15, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Planning Director�chwartz stated that the applicant is studying their optiions with regard to the direction provided by #he Planning Commission at the last meeting and requested that consideration of the Resolu�ion of Approval be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cammission scheduled to held on Tuesday, Decernber 15, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. The public hearing was continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 8$4. Request for a Site Plan Review for proposed addition, and construction of a pool equipment enclosure and walls on a property with restricted development condition, and for grading to provide �est parking area and Variances to locate the equipment encIosure within the front yard area of the site, to exceed the allawed amount of lat disturbance resulting from grading; and to construct a retaining wal1, a porkion of which will be within the side yard setback at 13 Outrider Road, (Lot 94-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, (Hang Ja Yoo). The project is exempt from the California Environmen#al Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exempfion Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site and discussed the request at a public hearing on October 20, 2015. She stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission asked the applicant to re�ise the request to address its concems relative to the width of the drieeway approach as well as the grading, wall and widening of the parking area. She further reviewed the applicant's revised request, which addresses the Planning Commission's concems. She further explained the applicant's request and in response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, stated that the wall is proposed to be below 3 ft. in height and can be approved over the counter. Commissioner Smith stated that she appr�ciates the efforts the applicant made to address the Planning Carnrnission's concerns and suggested that the wide area before the first parking space be landscaped to soften its appearance. Brief discussion ensued concerning the parking area. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Myung Chung, Architect addressed the Planning Cammissian on behalf of the applicant to further explain the revised request. Vice Chairman C�ay stated for the record that altl�ough he was not present at the last meeting, he familiarized himself with the record and visited the site; and thus, �s eligible to deliberate and vote on this application. Following brief discussian, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a�Resoiution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 �utrider Road with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approvai plus a condition that the parking area be. landscaped to soften its appearance. Cammissioner Smith secanded the motion, which carried withaut objection. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-17-15 -2 - ZONING CASE NO. 891. Requests for a Site Plan Review for a 117 square faot raised patio and 5' high patio screen wall; a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing cabana and raofed patio to a 421 square foot guest house; a Variance for patio screen wall that will not a�erage out to 2.5' in height and interpretation of a lighting proposal at 7 Crest Road E, (Lot 3-FT'), Rolling Hills, CA, (Doty). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this is a continued public hearing where the Planning Commission visited the site at 7 Crest Road .� East earlier in the day. She then. xeviewed the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an exiting cabana to a 42I sq. ft. guesthouse and for a Variance to construct a 117 sq. ft. raised patio to serve the guesthouse. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a Variance to construct a S ft. wall within a proposed trellis and outdoor kitchenlentertainmEnt area. She further stated #hat the applicant is also requesting that the Planning Commission provide an interpretation with regard �o the �utdoor Lighting Ordinaz�ce as it relates to the propased lighting which will hang from the praposed trellis because what is being proposed is not listed as allowed. She stated that he Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to make madifications if special circumstances exist that make compliance impractical or unsafe; or if the requested modification is warranted by exceptiana� architectural design. She further reviewed the configuration of the lot and the existing structures. �he stated that the development standards are being met with the application with structural lot coverage at �.6%, total lat coverage at 19.7% and the building pad coverage at l 8%. She stated �hat there is no grading proposed nor is there any change in the disturbance. in response to Commissioner Smith, the applicant's representative provided copies of a rendering to show what the outdoor kitchenlentertainment area is proposed to Yook like. Chairman Chel�called for public comment. Aaron Nichols, Kamus & Keller Architects addressed the Planning Commissian on behalf of the applicant and offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Brief discussion ensued concerning the proposed wa11. Mr. Nichois commented that the purpose of the wall is to provide .__ a screening for the noise from the pool equipment and to hide the roof of the guesthouse. With regard to the proposed lighting, Cornrnissioner Kirkpatrick commented tha.t the proposed lighting, if�installed to code with proper permits wi111ikely be a better op#ion than hanging lights. Following brief di�scussion concerning the renderings,they were shared wi�h the public as we11. Discussion ensued conceming the Variance for the pmposed wall. Vice Cha.irman Gray comrnented that he is uncomfortable with the currently pro�osed configuration of the wall and suggested that maybe it could be softened with landscaping. He further ez�pressed concern that the wall extends past the edge of the outdoor kitchen on both sides and stated tha� he is uncomfortable granting a Variance for a wall under the circumstances. Commissioner Cardenas concurred with Vice Chairman Crray's comments. He cornrnented that the wall could be considered part of the kitchen if not for the portion that extends past the edge of the outdoor kitchen. In response to Chairman Chelf, Vice Chairnian Gray and Commissioner Cardenas commented that they are not opposed to the other items being requested and they feel that the proposed lighting is acceptable. Commissioner Smith also expressed concern regarding the proposed wall where it extends past the outdoor kitchen area but is okay with it serving as a backsplash to #he outdoar kitchen area. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he is not concerned about granting a Variance for the propased wall as long as the guesthouse (cabana) exists because it provides screening for that st�-ucture and softens it. Further discussion ensued cancerning the wall and optians for amending the request sa that the need for a Vari�ance could be eliminated. Chairman Che1f commented that one positive is that �. the wall is not visib�e from any neighboring properties nor does it impa.ct any neighbors. Fo�lowing discussion, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting appraval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. $91 �t 7 Crest Road East as amended to elimina.te the 5 ft. patia screen wall so that instead, the wall serves as a backsplash to the outdoor kitchen and only extends 1.5 feet on each side beyond the kitchen countertop, with the standard findings of fact and condidons of approval. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes Pla�aning Com�nissian Regular Meeting 11-17-15 -3 - NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 893. Request for a Conditianal Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Variances for a new 475 square foot cabana, grading, abo�e grade deck, walls, pool and related structures and for encroachment with a portion of the raised deck, walls, pool equipment azea and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two existing sheds, trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximurn permitted disturbance of the lot; to exceed the maximurn permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area far a future stable and corral in the front yard area of t1�e lot in Zaning Case No. 893, at 66 Eas�eld Drive, (Lot 107-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, (Thomas}. The praject is exernpt from the California Environmental Quaiity Act(CEQA)pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf intraduced the itern and asked for staff's comments. Planning Dir�ctor Schwartz reviewed the applicant's zequest in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66. Eastfield Drive. She reviewed the configuratian of the lot stating that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 475 sq. ft. cabana as well as a Site Plan Review to construct a raised deck, wa11s, pool and related structures a portion of vvhich are proposed ta encraach into �he rear yard setback. 5he stated that there are also some exisfing amenities in the setback that were constructed prior to the current property owner acquiring the property and they would Iike to retain thase amenities. She further reviewed the history of the existing structures an the lot and stated that the applicant is also proposing a set aside area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the house. She reviewed the configuration of the proposed cabana stating that it is proposed to be 13'10.5" in height except for an area on the North side of the cabana where an a�t of grade condit�on is proposed and the height in that area will be 19 ft. She briefly reviewed the other requests and stated that the current disturbat�ce on i�he lot is 54.5% where the maacimum is 40% and with the proposed grading the disturbance will be 67.6%. She stated that building pad coverage is currently 35% and with the proposed modifications will be 39.3%. She explained that per th� applicant's representative, the reasan that Variances are requested is due to the location of the house causing most everything to be in front af the house. Chairman Chelf called for public comYnent. Tavisha Nichalson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Cornmission on behalf af the applicant. In response ta Chairman Chelfs camment, she stated that some o�'the dirt from the pool excavation could be retained an site to even aut the steep slope in the area on side of tY�e cabana but it would increase the disturbance. In response to Vice Chairman Gray, Ms. Nicholson stated that the neazest property to the cabana is 44ft. from the comer af the cabana to the existing house. Following staff's presenta�ion 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 pubiic hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Cornmission scheduled a field trip to the following praperty to be conducted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 beginning at 8:00 a.m. 66 Eastfield Drive 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. (cont.from October 20, 201 S) -per the applicant's representative, the appdicant requested that this item be continued to a field trip to he held on Tuesday, January 19, 2016. ITEMS F�OM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ITEMS FROM STAFF Discussion of Administrative Interpretation Regulations of Measure B regarding Views and Trees. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background and history of this discussion item. She stated that the Planning Commission Minutes Planning�ommission Regular Meeting 11-17-15 -4 - previously discussed amendments �o the View Ordinance and adopted a Resolution making changes to the Ordinance that will be reviewed and considered by the City Cauncil in January. She further stated that the Planning Commission also previously discussed ad.ministrative regulations ta interpret Meas�re B so that it can be applied consistentiy given that it cannot be changed exc�pt by a vote of people. She stated that discussion on that matter was continued in hopes that the Committee ori Trees and Views would obtain useful information with regard to issue of mature vs. maturing during its deliberation an a previous view case. She stated that during the previous view case, the Committee on Trees and Views obtain,ed four opinions with rega�rd ta that matter, but none pro�iaed a definitive answer. 5he sta.ted that staff recommends that the Planning Commission re�iew the foi.� arborists reports included in the staff _ report, discuss the matter and choose a methodology to use in making the determination as to whether a tree is mature or maturing. She further explained that one methodology thaf seems widely accepted by the arborists in determining maiurity is tree height and Suraset �estern Garden Book provides height ranges for many trees which the Planning Commission may wish to use that as a reference. 5he further stated that the City Council ad hoc committee that previously discussed this matter and referred it to the Planning Commission, agreed that Sunset Western Garden Boak was a good reference but could not agree on what percentage of the maximum potential height should be used in making the determination regarding maturity. She further reviewed the opfions for determining tree maturity before the Planning Commission as presented in the staff report. Pianning Director Schwartz stated t1�at the other issue b�fore the PIanning Corrimission with regard to Measure B interpretatian is what is considered acquisition of property for use in determining what�iew is protected. Assistant City Attorney Coates reviewed the options before the Planning Commission with regard to p;roperty acquisitian based on the previo�xs discussior� by the ad hoc cammittee as well as the Planning Commission. She stated that the goal of these administrative regulations interpreting Measure B with regard to both rnature and acquisition is to create some level af certainty for complainants and those subject to camp�aints so they know what #ype of evidenc� needs to be presented. With respect to acquisition of property, she stated that there are three common types of transfers to consider: inheritance; sales ta third properties; and husts, both revocable and irrevocable. She further explained with regard to trusts, that Property Tax Law treats a revocable trust as thought there is no acquisition b�xt -�� if a property is placed in an irre�ocable trust, the transfer occurs thus there is an acquisition and staff recornmends that the Planning Commission adopt that interpreta.tian for trusts. She further stated that the Planning Cammissian wiZl need to discuss inheritance and tnzsts to determine which type af transactions will be considered a change in ownership as well as the defmition of mature vs. maturing. Chauman Chelf caIled for public comrnent. Ti;na Greenberg, 32 Poriuguese Bend Road addressed the Planning Cammission stating that she feels it is being overanalyzed. She stated that the intent of mature trees was to indicate that the tree had already grown to its full species height. She farther explained that the intent was ta have the evidence be the determining �actor as to whether a view existed ar not and that she feels fnheritance should be like if a car is inherited. It should be valued at today's value not the original value. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the Planning Commissian concurring with Mrs. Greenberg and stating that she also feels Measure B is being overanalyzed. Discussion ensued concerning the issue of change in ownership/acquisition af properiy. Chairman Chelf commented that he feels that the City should follow the County ta.x laws and interpret a transfer the way they do. Commissioner Cardenas expressed a similar sentiment but expressed concern that it could potentially be retroacdve o�er multiple generations. Further discussion ensued considering the inheritance issue specifically. Chaixman Chelf painted out that a party seeking view restaration wou�d _ still be botmd by the other restrictions of Measure B which include requirement to provide praof that tl�e view existed and anly being eligible for view corridors. Vice Chairman Gray expressed concem that residents that had trees fox many years could be forced to trim or remove them if inheritance doesn't qualify as a change in ownership. He further stated that he feels that fhe clock (for a view) shauld start again when a property is inherited. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he feels using the tax code as a guideline for change in ownership makes sense. Commissioner Cardenas commented that there is no perfect answer but there shauld be a strict guide�ine and tl�e Caunty tax code �nakes sense. Commissioner Smith concurred. Following brief discussion the Planning Commission concurred that the guidelines set forth in the County tax should be used to make decisions with regard to acquisition of Minutes Planning Commission ReguIar Meeting 11-17-15 _ 5 _ property, specifically regarding inheritance and trusts. Vice Chairtnan Gray noted for the record that he was not in favor of that recornmendation. Discussion ensued concerning the matter rela�ed to mature vs. maturing. Chairman Chelf commented that the term "mature" has caused a great deal af trouble in resolving the view cases since Measure B was adopted and it is very important to detennine a concrete definition. He suggested using the maximum height as specified far the specific tree species in Sunset Western Garden Book as the standard to be applied to the Ordinance. Commissioner Cardenas cammented that he agrees and doing so wauld set a specific, defensible guideline. He further commented regarding the defini�ion of mature trees, that the arborist report from Kevin Eckert references the ISA "Glossary of Arboriculture Terms" which defines a mature tree relati�e to its "�nature height," and he �eels that such a definitior� should be incorporated into the guidelines. Commissioner Gray commented that he agrees, but feels that a caveat should be added that if during 1Ghe period o£a tree's life it has been altered for a view and may not have reach its full height, it should not be exempted from the ordinance as a mature tree. The Planning Commission concutxed. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission concur�red that the defmition of mature for the purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B is that a tree tkat has reached its mature height as defined as 100% of the maximum potential height as set forth in Sunset Western Garden Book per species and trees that show e�idence of previous trimming shauld be exempt qualifying as mature trees that would otherwise be exempt from restorative action. The Planning C�14�i4ission also concurred that the d�finition of"rnature height" from the ISA Glossary of ArboricuTture terms should be incorporated into the guidelines for the interpretatian af Measure B. Following further discussion, Cornmissioner Srnith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to finalize the Administrative Regulations as discussed and return the final draft ta the Planning Commission for approval at its next meeting. Camrnissioner Kirkpatrick secanded the motion�which carried without objection. Upon Planning Commission approval, the Administrative Regulations will be forwarded to the City Council for approval and implernentation. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reported that the previous view case heard by fhe Committee on Trees and Views {Hassoldt/Nuccion)was appealed to the City Council by both parties and the case will be heaz�d on November 23, 2015. Planning Director Schwartz also reported that a stop work arder was issued for the project at 24 Cinchring Road because construction was being done not per plan and the project will probably come back before the Planning Commission for revisions to the previously approved plan. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. to an adjaurned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 beginning at 8:00 a.m. far the purpose of canducting a field trip to b6 Eastfield Drive. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on T�esday, December 15, 2015 beginning at 6:30 p.rn. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Ha11, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, � � Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, � Brad C 1 Cha' an Minutes Planning Commissian Regular Meeting 11-17-15 - 6 -