Loading...
05-16-17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING CONIMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MAY 16, 2017 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chazzr�nan Che1f at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May i6, 2017 iri the City Council Charnber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CaZifornia. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Seaburn snd Chaiz�man Chelf. Commissioners Absent: Kirkpatrick{excused}. Others Present: Rayfnand Cruz, City Manager. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Directar. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Julia Stewart,Assistant Pla.nner. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Shawn DeMiranda, 5 El Concho Lane. David McKinnie, 3 EI Concho Lane. Dan Bolton,Bolton Engineering. Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East. Reggie Dooin, 2 Passum Ridge Road. Michael Schoettle,24 Eastfield Drive. Tina Gr��nberg, 32 PorEuguese Bend Road. --- Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Marcia Schoettle,24 Eastf eld Drive. S�encer Karpf, 8 Maverick La�e. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South. Sne Breiholz, 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. Beatte Kirmse, 2 Chuckwagon Road. APPROVAL QF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC C4MMENTS 4N NIINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 1$, 2017 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Seaburn moved that the Planning Cornmission approve the rnin�tes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on April 18, 2017 as presented. Commissioner ,� Cardenas second�d the motion,which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2017-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANIVING COMMISSION OF THE CZTY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTiNG APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING OF PATHWAYS ON A PROPERTY WITH A RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION IMPOSED THROUGH A PRIOR PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 924 AT 37 CAUCKWAGON ROAD. (LOT 19-CF) ROLLING HTLLS, CA. (VAN NORTWXCK}. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT{CEQA). Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting QS-16-17 - 1 - Chauman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Plarining Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 924 at 37 Chuckwagon Road sta.ting that at its last meeting the Planning Carnmission directed staff to prepare a Resolutian granting approval of the applicant's reqnest to retain the as graded paths. She stated that the Planning Commission also asked the applicant prepare a drainage and grading plan for submittal to Los Angeles County Building and Safety in response to the concerns raised by the neighbors at the Iast meeting to ensure that there are no drainage impacts on the neighboring properties which has been cornpleted. She stated tha�t the Resolution also contains a condition that there be no further development on the property without Planning Commissian review which was carried over from a previous approvai. Chairman Cl�elf called for public comxnent. Heazing none, he asked for comments or a motion from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cardenas moved that tl�e Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2017-07 granting approval of the applican�'s request in Zoning Case No. 920 at 37 Chuckwagon Road. Commissianer Cooley seconded the motion,which carried withaut objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-08. A RESQLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI� CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING TO RETAIN AS BUILT PATHS, RETAINIlVG W.ALLS, PARITALLY OR ENTIIZELY IN SETBACKS AND WHICH AVERAGE OUT TO MORE THAN 2.5' IN HEIGHT, TO REPAIlZ RUPTURED STORM DRAIN PIPE AND TO REMEDIATE FAILING SLOPE; TO C�NSTRUCT A BASEMENT A PORTION OF WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO REMOVE A BARBEQUE AREA WITH A RETAIIVING WALL AND RETURN 'IT� SLOPE TO TI� ORIGINAL CONDITION AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE ON THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 916 AT 5 EL CONCHO LANE (LOT 10-GF), ROLLING HILLS CA, {DE MIItANDA}. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO TI� CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Planning Director reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 916 at 5 El Concho Lane and stated that at its last meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of portions of the appIicant's request subjec� to several conditions. She stated that the applicarrt has asked to adc�ress the Planning Commission to request that he be allowed to retain the patio and wa�l but remove the unpermitted structures on the patio. She stated that the Resolution is presented for consideration reflecting the planning Commission's direcdon to approve all of the components requested except the extended patio and barbeque subject to the drainpipe and failed slope being repaired first. Chairman Chelf called�or public comment. Sean DeMiranda, 5 El Concho Lane addressed the Planning Commission ta request that he be allowed to retain tl�e patio and wali. He indicated that k�e wauld be willing to rernove the bbq, but the patia he�ps provide support to the area around the house. Dave McKinnie, 3 Ei Concho Lane addressed the P�anning Commission ta ask if the Planning Commission approves the project wo�xld it be subject to county engineering approval. Planning Director Schwartz confurned it would be required to be submitted to Los Angeles County Bui�ding and Safety for review and approval. Dan Bolton,Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission statuig they were recently hired by the applica�t and will be addressing the drainage, grading,underpinning matters. Hearing no further comments form the public, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Ir� response to Commissioner Cardenas, Planning Dixector Schwartz stated that there are no permits on file witl� the City or County for the patio area. Discussian ensued concerning the applicant's request to retain the patio. Chairman Chelf cornmented that if the applicant would like to have the patio and walls, Minutes- Planning Commission Regular Meeting OS-16-17 -2 - there is likely a better way it can be proposed and suggested that the applicant returr� at �-�later date with a new application for the patia. The Planning Commission concurred. Following further discussian, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Cammission adopt Resolution No. 2017-08 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 916 at 5 El Concho Lane as presented. Commissioner Seaburn seconded the motion, which cartied without obj ection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 897-MODIFICATION. Request for a modification to a previously approved pro�ect. The Modification entails a CUP to construct an 80U square foot recreation room, whereas 705 squa.re foot recreation room was previously approved and to construct a water slide, in Zonxng Case No. 897-Modification at 2 Hillside Lane, (Lot 60-RH), Roll�ing Hills, CA (E1kin). No changes are proposed to remaining previously approved ent.it�ements, such as Site Plan, Variances and Stable Use Permit. The praject has been determi,ned to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act{CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staf�s camments. Planning Directar Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request far modification to a previously approved pmject in Zoning Case No. $97 at 2 Hillside Lane. She stated that the applicant proposes to increase the size of the recreation room to 8Q0 sq. ft. and to canstiuct a water slide fea#,ure in the pool area as well as to modify the location of some of the other amenities on the building pad. Planning Di�ector Schwartz further stated that the Planning Cornmission visited the site earlier in the day and directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897-Modification at 2 Hillside Lane wi.th the standard fmdings of fact and conditions of approval. Recognizing that this matter was before the P�anning Commission as a noticed public hearing, Chairman Che1f called for public camment. Hearing none and with no further direction to staff, co�sideratian of � this matter was continued. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 923. Request to modify a previously approved project and request for a Site Plan Review far grading and Variances to allow irnport o£dart and to construct slopes that would be steeper than 2:1 gradient, in Zoning Case No. 923 at 38 Portuguese Bend Ro�d, (Lot i 18-RH), Rolling HilZs, CA. (Wheeler}. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant ta the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for sta£�s comments. Planning Director Schvcrartz reviewed the applicant's request to modify a previously approved project, to allow the impart of dirt and ta construct slopes steeper that 2:1 in Zoning Case No. 923 at 38 Portuguese Bend Road. She further reviewed the previously approved project commenting that the applicant proposes to enlarge the swimming pool building pad. Planning Director Schwar�z p:rovided further history on the project stating that this matter came to the City's attentian through a code enforcement compliant that dirt was observed being imported #o the property. During the code enforcement process, the property owner indicated that they were aut of town and unaware of the dirt being imported to the property. The property owner alsa informed staff that when the plans for the previous�y approved project were submitted to the building department, it was — Iearned that the septic tank and seepage pit is located in the area where the covered patio was proposed resulting in a need to reiocate the cavered patio and they wauld like to use the dirt to expand the pad so that the patio can be moved away from the septic tank and seepage pit. Follawing lengthy code enfarcement on tl�e matter, the item was taken to �e City Council as a nuisance abatement and the City Council directed the applicant to remo�e the imported dirt form the sloped areas and place it in piles on the pad and to submit an application to the Planning Commission for consideration of the revised proposal which includes an expanded building pad. Planning Director Schwartz firrther reported #hat there is one additional concern related to the imported dirt that the dirt rnay have redirected the water flow ar�d the na.tura� drainage caurse will need to be restored when the dirt is moved and redistributed. She further reviewed tl�e details of the applicant's current pxoposal which includes an S00 sq. ft. covered Minutes- Planning Commission Regular Meeting OS-i6-17 -3 - patio to be located 20 ft. further to the north on an 11,185 sq. ft. pool building pad (9,300 sq. ft. previously approved), elimination of the previausly appxaved spa and disturbance at 39% (35% previously approved). She stated that the applicant also proposes to eliminate the previously approved walls around the pad and to create 1.5:1 slopes where 2:1 slopes were previously approved and is requesting a variance for the imported dirt and to export any extra dirt which is currently estirnated to be approximately 170 cu. yds. Chairman Chelf called for public coinment. Dan Bo�ton, Bolton Engineer�ng addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant offering to answer any questions regarding the project. In response to Commissioner Cardenas, Mr. Bolton commented that he does not know the condition of the imported soil but it would be a good idea ta have an assessment to determine if the soil is sizitable to be used for backfill. Following stafPs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Comrnission determined t.l�at a site visit should be scheduled to provide the mernbers of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Cas� No. 923 at 38 Portuguese Bend Road. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Cammission scheduled a field trip to the fallowing properties to be held on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 beginning at 7:34 a.m. 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. 26 Eastfield Drive OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC FORLTM REGARDING VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked far staff eomments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the informatian contained in the staff report including new correspondence received since the last meeting frorr� Lynn Gill pertaining to how to prune trees and a summary of his comments from the previous meeting including his recommendation that the proposed ordinance include a provision that the decisions be advisory and non-biding recommendations. She stated that before the Planning Commission for discussion tonight is to decide what roie the City should play in tb.e decision making process; what restorative actions shoutd be utldertaken, as well should there be a hierarchy to the restorative actions; and to address whether or nat the miscellaneous items shown in the DRAFT ordinance prepared by Mr. Karpf shau�d be incorporated into the proposed ardinance. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles re�iewed the information she was asked at the last meeting to research including whether the degree of City involvement in the process had any effect on the likelihaod of litigation and litigation costs. She stated that her research incXuded existing case law, contacting various cities in the area as well as the Town of Tiburon. She commentec�that she found that potential litigation has less to do with the rnethod af dispute resolution as shown in the staff report in the cornparison between the Town of Tiburon process and the Rancho Palas Verdes process where both wer� equally challenged by the court for various reasons. She further commented that historically in Rolling Hills, resident have been inclined to accept the City's determination possibly attributable to the fact that the City goes to great lengths to ensure that its process is as thorough and fair as possible. With regard to the litigation costs, Ms. Karpeles commented that the majority of the costs are fram processing and considering view impaument compiaints rather than from litigation. She stated that the staff report alsa provides a summary of processes in Torrance and Rolling Hills Estates which present a hybrid method to dispute reso�ution and briefly reviewed those processes wl�ere the City renders and advisory opinion while maintainfng minimal involvement in the dispute resolutian process. Ms. Karpeles stated that at this point, the Planning Commissian has three unresolved issues to consider— whether the City wi11 be involved in the dispute resolution process and what that process will loak like; what restorative action wi11 be included in the ordinance and how that action will be implemented; and third, whether the ordinance will include any of the misceZlaneous provisions suggested by Mr. Karpf Minutes - Planning Comrnission Regular Meeting OS-16-17 -4- She sta.ted that it was previously suggested by Councilmember Mirsch that the discussion continue with the miscellaneous items and come back later to the issue regarding City degree and level of in�olvement but it is at the Planning Commission's discretion where to begin. In response to Commissioner Cardenas, Ms. Karpeles further explained the City of Torrance process, the Town of Tiburon pracess and the City of Rolling Hills Estates process. Brief discussion ensued concernir�g the various processes and who ar what bady is responsible for render.ing the advisory opinion. The Planning Cammissian began discussion regarding the tlu�ee items yet to be considered, .�. City Role in Process Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that before the Planning Commission is ta determine if the City wiIl be invalved in the dispute resolution process and to determine what steps the process will take. She stated that the ad hoc committee expressed an interest in including a provision for arbitration but amongst the ad hoc committee, some members felt that the City should mainta.in its quasi judicial role and others felt that the City should provide only an advisory opinion and any decisions shauld be nan-binding. Ms. Karpeles fitrther explained the options before the Pianning Commission. P�anning Director Schwartz explained the City's current process which requires mediation before the matter is put before the Committee on Trees and Views. She reviewed the disposition of the cases that have been considered since the ordinance was adopted in 198$ and stated that two cases involving t,�ie city were taken to court. Chairman Chelf called�or public comment on the City roie in the process. Michael Shexman, 33 Crest Road East addressed the Planning Commission to expla,in his negative experience when a neighbor filed a view complaint against trees located on his property. He suggested that the City provide an advisory,non-binding role rather than being involved. Reggie Dooin, 2 Possum Ridge Road addressed the Plamning Commission suggesting that the City not be involved in the pmcess to save tax.payers money. Michael Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Dri�e addressed the Planning Commissian suggesting tha# the Planning Commission consider the community's values and work in a way to improve the sense of community in the City where the City's role is to bring people together not make decisian. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the Planning Commission to explain her negative experience when a neighbor fil�d a view complaint against �rees located on her property where she believes they were crea�ing a view that did not exist when they purchased their property. She expressed support for a process that involves a legal mediator or binding arbitration. She suggested that the City should limit its exposure to litigation and the Ciry should not be responsible for all of the view seekers Iega� costs. Lynn Gil�, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the Planning Co�nmission suggesting the existing process allows the weak to be bullied by the view seeker and urging the City not to maintain a quasi judicial role in the process but rather provide an advisory role only. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the Planning ComFnission in agreement with Mr. Schoettle's comments and suggesting that the City not be involved in the process. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the Plann�ng Commission stating the previous ordinance favored the view seeker because that is the way it was drafted and it was enfarced as such. He stated�hat going forward in amending the ordinance the objective is to find a way to balance the rights of both the view seeker and the vegetation owner and he believes that so far this body has done a good job in finding compromise. With regard to the issue of the City's role in the process, he commented that again compromise should be the objective and his DRAFT ordinance attempts to achieve that objective. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the Plaxu�.ing Commission �o suggest tha.t City help facilitate a resolution but not be invol�ed in the final decision process to reduce the City's liability. Hearing no further public comments, Chairtnan Chelf asked for comments from the Pianning Commission. Minutes- Planning Commission Regular Meeting OS-1G-17 - 5 - Commissianer Cardenas commen�ed that he appreciates all of the comments ar�d agrees that the Planning Commission would like to create an environment where neighbors are rno:re neighborly. He cammented that he likes the idea of the City allocating funds towarc� binding arbitration as a potential stop in �he process and he believes that i�' the City is going to have an ordinance, it should stand behind the ordinance. He further commented that his fear is that ezther party could be bullied and he is supportive of a hybrid approach where the City would at least give an advisory opinion; and he wonld be in favor of incenti�vizing bin.dir�g arbitration. Discussion ensued conceming what the process would look like if the City w�re to take a hybrid approach where the City issues an advisory opinion and encourage binding arbi�ation. Following discussion, the PlaEuzing Commission concurred on the following steps in the process: {1) Neighbor to neighbor to contact; (2} Initial reconciliation (docurnented); (3) Request for mediation (provide list of certified mediators); (4) Advisory Opinion (issued by Commitkee on Trees & Views); {5) Arbitration {preference - or incentive-for binding arbitration funded by City); and(6) Litigation Restarative Action Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the options for restarative action including the "remedy categories" as presented in the staff report beginning an circ�e page 27. She commented that another option would be to create a hierarchy of remedies and define those remedies in the ordinance as shown on circle page 31 of the staff report. Brief discussion ensued conceming the options for required restoxative action. At 9:12 p.m., Cha.irman Chelf called a brief recess. The meeting was called back to order at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Che�f calied for pub�ic comment on this matter. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Raad addressed the Planning Commission to suggest that there should be something in the process to allow for views to be restored but not created. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the Planning Commission to suggest that the defmitions related to the restorative actions be very clear and detailed anc� urging the Planning Cammission to eiiminate the term "topping." Hearing na further public comment, Chariman Ch�lf asked for comments from the Planning Cammission. Fallowing brief discussion, the Planning Commission concuared to use the hierarchy provided on circle page 31 of the staff report to �it�clude: (1) Lacing; (2) Crown Raising; {3) Crown Reduction; (4)Heading Back; (5)Topping; and{6)Removal. Miscellaneous Items Disc�ssion ensued concerning the miscellaneous ordinance provisions proposed in the DRAFT ordinance prepared by Mr. Karpf as provided on circle page 31-32 of�he sta�'f report. Following discussion, the Pianning Commission concurred not to include any of the miscel�aneous provision in the ordinance. However, th� Planning Commission suggested for the last two items regarding providing resi�ents and members of the Real Estate community with resaurce information regarding the rights and duties under the view preservation ordina.nce; and maintaining a record, if provided by the property owner, of agreemen#s ar;d decisions reached pursuant to the ordinance, that staff be responsible for doing facilitating those two items. Chaurnan Chelf calied for p�blic comment. Sue Breiho�z, 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road addressed the PIanning Commission in objection to the comment during the previous discussion that trees be limited to the ridgeheight of the house on new development projects and suggested that this matter be discussed further in anather fourm. Beatte Kirmse, 2 Chuckwagon Road addressed the Planning Commission in agreement with previous speaker's carnments. She commented that trees have a purpose to provide shade and to help save energy. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. Minutes • PIanning Commission Regular Meeting 05-16-17 • 6 - ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Che�f adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be heid on Tuesday, � June 20, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 38 Poriuguese Bend Road and 26 Eastfield Drive. The next z�egular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Cauncil ChaFnber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, Califorr�ia. RespectfulJ,y submitted, 4� ��r�` Heidi Luce ` " 5 City Clerk Ap�roved, � � � �,, Brad elf Chairman Minutes- Planning Commission Regular Meeting OS-16-17 -7 -