Loading...
09-19-17.pdf REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIQN CITY OF ROLLING HII,LS 6:3U PM TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,2017 ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD,ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A xegular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:34 p.m. an Tuesday, September 19, 2017 in the City Council Chamber, at City Ha�l, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califarnia. RQ�LL CALL Commissianers Present: Cooley, Kirkpatrick, Seaburn and Chairman Chelf. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Cardenas (excused). Others Present: Raymond Cruz, City Manager. Yalanta Schwartz,Planning Director. Natali�Karpeles,Assistant City Attorney. J�ia Stewart,Assistant Planner. Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk. Larty Hall,Attomey. Vince DiBiasi,Architect. John Resich, 8 Dutrider Road. Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect. Tavisha Ales, Bolton Engineering. Emily Cipolla, 1 Middleridge Lane Nortli. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road. Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering. Charles Belak-Berger, Architect. Elliott Brunner, 26 Cinchring Road. Mitzi Nakamura, 2�Cinchring Road. Toshi�o Nakamura 24 Cinchring Road. Takashi Nakamura 24 Cinchring Raad. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August S, 2017 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Cooley moved that the Planning Cornmission approve #he minutes of the special �— meeting of the Planning Commission held an August S, 2017 as presented. Commissioner Seaburn seconded the motion, which carried without ob�ec�ion. August 15, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Cammission Commissioner Cooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutEs of the regular meeting af the Planning Commission held on August 15, 2017 as presented. Commissioner Seaburn seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes -1 Planning Commission Meeting 09-19-17 August 15, 2017 Adjaurned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Coaley moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on Aug�.ist 15, 2017 as presented. Commissioner Seaburn seconded the motion,which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS ZQNING CASE NO. 931. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-16. RESOLUTION �F THE PLANNING CONIlVIISSION OF 'IT� CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW ANn CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTI�N OF RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ADDTI'I4N AND NEW STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE N�. 931 AT 7 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SDUTH, LOT 249-A-UR, (MCCARTHY/CHENG). CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CLASS 3, SECTION 15303 �F CEQA GUIDELINES. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comnaents. Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 931 at 7 Middleridge Lane South. She stated that two Commissioners were absent from fihe field visit on August 15, 2017; however, both Commissioners attended a special field visit with Assistant Planner Stewart this morning at the site and are eligible to vote. She stated that she canducted a previous review of this project and compared previous staff reports with the current staff report and found some of the project's nuxnbers had been altered. She stated that she reviewed all of the project's ntxmbers with Yhe architect to confirm them and that the confirmed numbers were reflected in Resolution No. 2017-16. She reviewed the proposed project, which include a stable, corral and garage addition. She indicated that the stable and corral require a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that the proposed stable is 1,608 square feet and includes a loft on the second story; and daes not include 520 square feet of covered porches. She stated the corral is proposed to be 2,875 square feet. She stated that a garage addition is proposed�xnder a Site Plan Review of 475 square feet to an existing 472 square foot garage. Assis�ant Planner Stewart indicated that this project typically cauld be signed off over the counter; however, there were two previous residential additions on this site that exceeded the amount of square footage that can be approved over the counter. She further stated that the project is categorically exernpt from CEQA and the cri#e�ria for reviewing the Resalution of Approval were provided in�he s�aff report. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none,he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Seaburn moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2017-16 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 931 at 7 Middleridge Lane South as presented. Vice Chai�man Kirkpatrick seconded the motion,which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON iTEMS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 923. Request ta modify a previously approved project and request for a Site Plan Review for grading to reshape the previously approved swimming pool building pad and Variances to allow the use of non-permitted imported dirt,ta reconstruct a slope to steeper than 2:1 gradient and to export dirt, in Zoning Case Na. 923 at 38 Portuguese Bend Road, (Lot 118-RH), Rolling Hills, CA. (Wheeler). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California En�ironmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. Chairman Che1f intraduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz indicated this project is a continued public hearing. She reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 923 at 38 Portuguese Bend Raad. She stated that the request is to modify a previously approved project for a covered porch and grading area. She indicated there were two building pads, the house building pad and the pool building pad. She stated the pool building pad contained an $48 square foot pool and a 653 square foot guest hause. She stated the proposed project is an 8b0 square foot covered patio on the pool pad. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the code enforcement case related to dirt and small rocks that were placed on the property and on the side of the canyon. She stated that after the City completed the code enforcement process, the applicants removed much of the dirt from the sides of the canyon, piled it up in another azea, and submitted an application for Planning Commission consideration. Planning Director Schwartz stated that corresponder�ce was received from Mr. Steve Wheeler and telephone inquiries frorn one resident who expressed concern o�er the project being an eyesore. -2- Minutes Planning Cammission Meeting 09-19-17 Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Dan Boltan, Bolton Engineering, commented on behalf of the applicant. He sta.ted that he fe�t the applicatzon that was submitted was responsive and goes back to the previous pad size and pad geometry. He stated that the covered patio was moved back and daes not go back any further north than the previously approved lirnits. In response ,to Commissioner Seaburn's question, Mr. Bolton stated that the Wheeler's went back ta the ariginal alignment under the new proposa�. He provided clarif cation on the Wheeler's desire to �" hade the aiignments of the �ario�s improvements line up with each other. He indicated that the building pad as approved, was increased in the northwest corner to allaw the cabana to slide north approximately two-thirds of the length of the covered patio. Mr. Bo1�on discussed the o1d pad alignment, setback and septic tank location. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Chelf closed the public hearing. Commissioner Seaburn commented#hat the Planning Commission wanted the project to ga back to the original slope in fairness to all the neighbors. He stated the applicants were rec}uested to change back to�vhat was previouslq approved and indicated their proposal appears reasonable. Vice Chairman Kirkpatrick concurred, in general, with Commissioner Seaburn's comments as long as the applicant followed the requfrements. Coflnmissioner Cooley agreed that the app�icant complied with the Planning Commission's request to change the project back to the pre�ious approval. She nated that the applicant rnodified the pool patio canfiguration slightly and expressed support of the propased project. FoFlowing pnblic comment and discussion, Vice Chairman Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Comrnission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case 923 at 38 Portuguese Bend Road with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cootey seconded the motion whicl�carried withou�objection. ZONING CASE NO. 930, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new approximateIy 1,500 square foot residential addition and 520 square foot garage addidan, conversion of a 422 square foot garage to a new residential space, 855 square feet o�new covered porches, and a new 200 square foot trellis. The subject praperty is lacated at 52 Portuguese Bend Road (Lat 4-FT) Rolling Hilis, CA, (Frey Survivor Trust/Francesca Wachs}. CEQA Categorical Exemption under Class 1, Section 15301. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Assistant Planner Stewart stated the proposed project is a residential addition of 1,464 square feet, a garage addition of 518 square feet, and covered porches. She indicated that the app�icants are also proposing an attached trellis. She stated that the lot coverage is well within the acceptable limits of the code and that the disturbance does exceed 4Q%; hawever, the disturbance is exisfing and no other additions are proposed outside of tl�e previously disturbed areas. Assistant PIanner Stewart indicated there is no grading proposed for the project unless the Fire Department requires a widened driveway, which wi11 not generate any additional disturbance. She further stated that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and the criteria for reviewir�g the Reso�ution of Approval were provided in the staff report. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. John Resich, $ Outrider Road, s�oke on behalf of the applicant. He commented that he felt the pZans �"�- were self explanatory. He discussed the proposed additions as foilows: 1) Add a covered patio to the fron�t of the house which overlooks the canyon; 2} Remove the garage and replace the garage with a new gaxage and a master bedroom, laundry room and closets in the bathroom; 3) Add a small amount of square footage to the interior of the courtyard for a hallway that runs from the family room area, which will be the kitchen; and 4) Extend the width of the family room out into the patio. Comrnissianer Seaburn stated that he supports the proposed praject. Commissioner Cooley, Vice Chairtnan Kirkpatrick and Chairmati Chelf concurred with Commissioner Seaburn's comment. Following pubIic comment and discussion, Vice Chairman Kirlcpatrick maved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a ResoIution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning -3- Minutes Planning Cammission Meeting 09-t9-17 Case 930 at 52 Portuguese Bend Road with the standard findings of fact and conditions of appraval. Commissioner Caoley seconded the mation, which carried without objection. ZONiNG CASE NO. 925, Request for a Site Plan Re�iew ta construct a new approxima#ely 938 square foot residential addition and 9$2 square foot basement, conversion of a 484 square foot garage to a new residential entty, new spa and 5 foot retaining wall; and Conditianal Use Permit for an appra�.mately 352 square foot addition to an existing �43� square foot pool hause; and Variance ta exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot to up to 45.7%. The subject property is located at 16 Pine Tree Lane (Lot 81-�-RH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Bharadia}. CEQA Categorical Exemption under Class 1, Section 15301. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Assistant Planner Stewart stated the proposed project requires a Site Plan Review, a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance. She sta.ted that the applicant is proposing a 938 square foot residential addition, which is a conversion of the existing garage, a new 484 square foot garage with a basement located below, a 5 foot retaining wall and a spa addition. She stated that for the Conditianal Use Permit they are propasing a 325 square faot addition and the Variance is for disturbance on the lot. Assistant Planner indicated that supplemental information was provided to the Planning Commission in their agenda packets regarding a new wall and a relocated service area;howe�er,because these items were not publicly noticed this portian.of the project cannot be discussed this ��ening. She further stated that the project proposes a different driveway locanon that was reviewed by the Traffic Comrnission and recommended for approval. In response to Councilmember Cooley's and Vice Chair Kirkpatrick's questions, Assistant Planner Stewart clarified the Variance for the retaining wall and new wall. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Bizhan Khaleeli, Architect, commented on the existing impro�ements of the project and discussed the motor court wall. Mr. Khaleeli stated that he would like to bring to �he Planning Commission's attention a similar praject that was approved by the City in 2011. Discussion followed concerning the retaining walls, the four-car garage, height of the garage, driveway, side of the garage, and the height of the walls. Following Planning Coanmission deliberation, the Planning Cammission directed staff ta bring a Resolution of Approval with the fallowing guidelines: 1) No more than a 3 foot retaining wall exposed; and 2)No more than a 2:1 slope. Following public comment and discussion, Commissioner Seaburn moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution grandng approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 925 at 16 Pine Tree Lane with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval including the two conditions to the Resolution per the Planning Commission's directian. Vice Chairman Kirkpatrick seconded the motion,which carried without objection. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles noted that �he new walls will be publicly no�iced for the Planning Commission's further review. ZONING CASE NO. 918, Request for a Site Plan Re�iew, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance to construct a new 9,155 square foot residence, 2,250 square foot basement, new 900 squaxe foot four-car garage, new 3,575 square foot stable, 9,200 square foot carra�, 11,360 square foot riding ring, widened access road leading to the corral, and various outdoor amenities. A variance is requested to exceed the ma7cimum permitted disturbance of the lot to up to 81.3%. This new construction will require the demolition of the existing residence, two small accessory structures, and the exis�ing stable on the subject property located at 2Q Upper Blackwater Canyon Road {Lot 101-RH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Dominic Tannitti). CEQA Categorical Exemption under Class 3, Section 15303. Chauman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staf�s comments. Assistant Planner Stewart stated that the proposed project includes both demolition and new construction. She indicated that the improvements require a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance. She stated that the applicant is proposing to widen the driveway apron. Assistant Planner Stewart noted that the Traffic Commission has not made a recommendation on the driveway apron yet; however, the Traffic -�- Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 09-19-17 Engineer has recommended approval of the driveway apron. She stated that two residents submitted concerns regarding the propased project. She fixrther stated that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and the cri�eria for reviewing tHe Resolutian of Approval were provided in the staff xeport. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Ales, Bolton Engineering. spoke on behalf of the applicant and discussed the changes that she said she heard the Planning Commission'to require, which include: 1) Massing of the structures on the lot� 2) Locafion, height and imposing na.t�xre of the stable; 3) Minimizing the disturbance; 4) Lowering r� the stable; and 5) Adjust how everything sits on the lot. She indicated the applicant is requesting to continue this matter to a future meeting. At the rec�uest of the applicant, consideration of this matter was continued to a future date. No action was ta.ken and the public hearing was continued. NEW PUBL�C HEARINGS ZQrTING CASE NO. 928. Request for a Site Plan Review, Cor�ditional Use Permit and a Variance to construct a 2,200 sq. ft, stable footprint with 950 sq. ft. loft, (3,150 sq.ft. total), a 3,100 sq. ft. corral and an 800 sq.ft. guest house; grading of 1,890 cubic yards of dirt for the improvements and to I�galize previous�y graded path; to construct several over 3' high reta,ining wa11s (5' max.) and a pool and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot to up to 52.5%, at a property located at 1 Middleridge Lane Nortl�, (Lot 15, 16, 17-NIR), Rolling Hills, CA. {Cxpoila). CEQA Categorical Exemptian under Class 3, Section 15303. Chairman Che1f introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. PIat�ing Director Schwartz stated that the proposed project is ta construct a stable with a �oft, carral and access to the stable, retaining wal�, a guest hause, swimming pool and related grading for these improvements. She stated thaY tl�e applicants were requesting a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance. _.-_ Platuling Director Schwartz stated that#wo inc�uiries were received concerning ponding and mosquitos on the property. She stated that she con�tacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corp af Engirieers to determine if any of the upgrading would affect any matters under their purview. She stated that a letter was received from the aforementioned agencies indicating that the proposed upgrades would nat affect the flow line and that no permit was required for the projec�. Chauman Chelf called for public corriment. Tavisha Ales, Baiton Engineering, cammented that she believed the new application met the concems of the neighbars while meeting the applicant's reguests. She stated that changes were made ta the project and no responses were received from the neighbors. Emily Cipolla, 1 Middleridge Lane North, commented that she contacted her neighbors and did not receive any responses. She indicated that she would like to take their concerns into consideration. Consideration of this matter was continued to a field trip to be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2Q17 beg�nning at 7:30 a.m. at 1 Middleridge Lane North. The public hearing was continued. ZONING CASE NO. 932. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct higher t1�an previously approved ridge line for a project consisting of an addition and major reno�ation. The "as built" cnndition has been built not per the approved plans, at 24 Cinchring Road (Lot 18-3-CH), Rolling Hills, CA, (Nakamura). CEQA Categorical ~" Exemption under Class 3, Section 153Q3. Chairn3an Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's cornrnen�s. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this is a new public hearing before the Planning Commission. She stated that the project is to madify a project that was previously approved by tla.e Planning Commission as a whale, however; staff adniinistratively approved 850 square foot additian to the residence. She stated that the Planning Commission approved a garage for this project and placed a"no further development without Planning Commission review and approval" candition on the project. She sta.ted that the property is located at the �nd of Cinchring Road and is zoned RAS-1. Planning Director Schwartz re�iewed the history of the project from 2007. She indicated that the applicants came several times to the Planning Commission with several versions of how they wau�d like to accommodate a two-car garage and a -5- M inutes Planning Commission Meeting 09-19-17 i,�400 square foot mixed use structure was approved to the rear of the residence. She stated that in 2013 the City issued a dernolition permit for the interior work and a building permit for the residence modification addition was pulled in June 2014. She sta.ted that a pxe-construction meeting was held with the applicants, their engineers, architects, County building department and City staff, to review the rules, regulations and conditions prior to the start of the project. She s#a#ed that a complaint was received in June of 2015 from the neighbors regarding a possible tall structure, possibly taller than what was approved so staff initiated a code enforcement case and warked with the applicant and eventually issued a stop work order in October 2015. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the applicants were informed that they needed to conform or come to the Planning Commission for consideration of approval of the modifications. She indicated that the applicants sent a letter stating that they would like to keep what is there and came and modify their project before the Planning Commission. She stated that because the modification involved the plate height and a different roaf, staff encouraged the applicants to work with the Rolling Hills Community Assaciation (RHCA) to determine whether they would review the project in concept because of the plate height being so high. Planning Director Schwartz indicated they wen# to the RHCA several rimes and proposed se�eral different projects. She stated that the applicants eventually requested to come before the Planning Commission seeking approval of whaf has been built but they are willing to remove one foot of what has been buflt. She indicted that a field trip wauld be necessary to understand the project. She stated the applicant built a structure, put a temporary rroof on it because it was for winterization and the structure was built to be approximately three feet higlier than what was approved. She indicated that there is also a discrepancy on the plans versus what was approved. She indicated the appiicant believes that the ridge height that was approved was 917.25 feet. She discussed the Site Plan that wa� originally appro�ed and that this was from the approved plans that went to the County Building Department and were approved by the County Building Department after the RHCA and City approved them. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the additions and the massing and the bulk of the project. She discussed the roaf plan that was being proposed, the Dutch gable raof, the floor plan, the basement and mezzanine. She indicated that tl�e City does not regulate floor plans as long as it is a one story single family residence. She reviewed the new proposed plans. She reviewed the discrepancy af the ridge height and stated the applicants would like to bring it down to 919 feet even if 917.25 feet was the approved ridge�ine. �n response to Chairman Chelf's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the plans submitted ta the County Building Departsnent include an elevation plan showing the ridgeline at about 915 feet; whereas the raof plan shows the ridge height as 9i7.25 feet. She further stated that the front looks like it is 2Q feet and the rear taller because of the elevation drop; however, this would be screened by tiered walls required by the Architectural Comrnittee. Planning Director Schwartz summarized that before the Planning Commissian's consideration was the mass and the bulk and the fact that the project has not been built to approved plans and whether the Planning Commissian feels that it is compatibie with the General Plan, the Site Plan Review criteria and if it adds bulk and massing ta the structure. She indicated that no other elements ha�e changed in respect to the deve�opment of the proposal for coverages and footprints, and that all other elements that were pre�iously approved will stay the same. In response to Chairman Chel�s inquiry, Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the ridge height that was approved by the RHCA is the same as was submitted to the Building Department and approved by them. She stated that a 3:12 roof slope was approved and the applicants are asking for 4:12 roof slope. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that staff received additional information, which is attached to the staff report, from ttie complaining party that explained the project, the complaint, as well as an excerpt frorn a depasitian of the previous architect for the project. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Charles Belak-Berger, Architect for 24 Cinchring Road, coinmented that the structure a�most exists and that his clien�s are requesting an increase in the height of the project,which would rnake it possible for thern to use a mezzanine. He stated his clients are working hard ta get the p�ate line issue resolved and that he believed it was under control. Mr. Belak-Berger stated that the plans speak for�hemseives. He indicated that his clients are requestiuig something that is relatively benign although he believed that sorne of the n�ighbors do not ag�ree with the project. He discussed the impact of raising the roof by two or tlu�ee £eet and that his clients believe it is two feet because they did use the approved set af plans which specifically and clearly established the maximum heights of the last proposal to be 917.25 feet. He stated that his clients thought fihey were going up two feet above what had been previously proposed, at worst it could be three feet, depending on which numbers are looked at. He stated this might be a discrepancy that would have to be addressed. Mr, Belak-Berger stated that he felt the -6- Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 09-19-17 proposal was good and had more mass because of the roof and the eIimination of a small amount of the hips which does take off the ends of the building. He stated that he did not believe that the location of the building, distance from the adjacent praperties, and the fact that the pad elevations were substantially lower than the neighbors, was impacting any neighbors in texms of the roof height and additional bulk. He stated that his clients have alleviated some of the new poteritial issues by putting in�he Dutch gable and might be open to increasing the Dutch gables by moving the vertical line at the �ar end of the building. Chairman Chelf commented that it was clearly shown on the architectural plans that the maximum raof height was 917 fe�t and that the contractor did not follow this. In response to Vice Chairman Kirkpatrick's inquiry, Planning Director Schwartz indicated the main reason far the ridgeline is for the mezzanine inside the house. Mr. Belak-Berg�:r responded ai�irmatively and further c�arified the proposed gable roof. Commissioner Seaburn inquired why the appiicants did not come back for approval a few years ago. In response, Mr. Beiak-Berger stated that the owners would have to respond to Commissioner Seaburn's question directly. Co�nrnissioner Cooley inquired if the building af the higher roof came about because of the winterization of the buildinig and that the roof was built two or three feet higher than the final proposed height. In respanse,Mr. Belak-Berger responded a.ffirmatively. Planning Director Schwartz £urther clarified that the win�erization added a small amount to the raof height; therefore, by the tame the stop work order was issued the height was already higher than 917 fee�. In response to Chair Chelfs inquiry, Mr. Belak-Berger stated that the highest point of the proposed mezzanine is approximately eight feet and tt�e floor plate height is approximately ten feet and varies. Vice Chauman Kirkpatrick indicated that he would like to see the currerit floor of the house, where the �_ proposed height of the ceiling would be for the first flaor, floor plate and the mezzanine. Larry Hall, Attorney representing Drs. Bt�unner and Korzennik, stated that he submitted a detailed package on September 14, 2017,which included coior photographs. Mr. Hail stated his architect made measurements and went out for a site inspection on February 2, 2017. Mr. Hall stated that he took the deposition of the original architect and spoke to the contractor who was hired to work on this project. Mr. Hall stated the contractar was never provided the approved plans and kep# requesting them; however, the plans were never provided. He indicated his clients rnade an initial re�ort in June 2015. Mr. Hall iridicated that numerous communications wer�t forth from the City, RHCA and the County and the applicants continued const�uction after they were advised to stop. He referred to Tab 9 of his package that included an October 2015 photograph after the stop work order was issued by the County. Mr. Ha11 stated that three workers were told ta winterize the property and that it was only temparary; however, the workers built out the full roof. Mr. Hall stated that a photograph of the roaf, located in Tab 2, looks nothing like anything in the City. Mr. Hall stated this is the reason his clients are here. He stated that the Nakamuras used a structural engineer to build the roof and never had their architect or a general contractor review the appmved p�ans. Mr. Hall indicated that the Nakamuras did what they wanted to do and when they were caught they kept pushing the City, RHCA and the County to approve what they built. Mr. Ha11 stated this is what his clients are objecting to and if the Nakamuras do what they say they are going to do, it will no�address the problem In response to Commissioner Seaburn's inquiry, Mr. Hall stated that he £elt the house as built was in the view of the Brunners. Vznce DiBiasi, Architect representing Drs. Bmm�er and Korzennik, commented on the submitted plans by the applicants and explained why they do not add up mathematically. Mr. DiBiasi indicated that a high structure was put in place, and through the winterization process, a much higher roof ranging fro� 9 feet to 16 feet on one side now exists. He s#ated this was a significant �roject and that the Nakami�ras did not folIow the approved plans. NIr. D�Biasi discussed the structures that are not shown in any plans and indicated that he felt the construction was deliberate. Mr. DiBiasi provided additional documents to the Planning Commission. Dr. Elliot Brurmer, 26 Cinchring Raad, commented that he purchased his k�ome in Apri1 2013 and began remodeling his home. Dr. Brunner indicated that the Nakamuras started their construction when -7- Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 09-19-17 he was in the middle of his construction. Ih. Brunner stated that he became concerned in the Fa11 of 2015 as the Nakamuras were building a massive sh'ucture which stood considerably higher than #he original structure. He indicated that he never saw silhouette flags outlining their constxuction and never received any notice regarding the Nakamuras project. Dr. Brunner indicated that steel posts were erected with saddles an top. He inquired with Mrs. Nakamura regarding the steel posts and Mrs. Nakamura said they would be trimmed down, which did not happen. Dr. Brunner indicated that Lucas Brothers Cons�uction was the original contractor an the project and that Dan Martinez was the builder. He s#ated that Mr. Martinez was not allowed to view the approved plans and Mr. Martinez objected to another contractor installing the steel beams. Dr. Bruruier indicated t1�at the steel beams were detailed on plans that were n�ver shown to Mr. Martinez or approved by the City. Dr. Brunner stated that he notified the City of his concerns approximately on September 29, 2015 and a stop work order was issued the by the County Inspector. He stated the County Inspector placed a red tag on the project and a letter frorn the RHCA was sent to the Nakamuras, which was not cornplied with. Dr. Bnuuler indicated that the Nakamuras fmished the entire roof in violation of the stop work order and that this structure irnpacts his surroundings to a substantial degree. Dr. Brunner stated he would not have purchased his property had he l�awn this would happen. He stated tl�e building is rnassive, unsightly and does not fit in harmoniousiy with the suiroundings. Dr. Bnulner felt that the regulations were meant to protect the homeowners from massi�e dwellings as well as to establish a uniform architectural aesthetic for the City. Dr. Brunner stat�d that if this project is allowed to be built tlien the regulations will mean little and a precedent wilt be set. Dr. Brunner further stated that the Nakamuras have shown a disregard for the regulations of the City and he would like them to build what was approved. Mitzi Nakamura, 24 Cinchring Road, co�nmented that she was unaware of the documents that were sent as attachments to her parents and provided documents to the Planning Commission. She provided the background on the issues with the awners of 26 Cinchring Road. She stated that her parex�ts purchased the home in 2000 and indicated there was a fire in 2009. Ms. Nakamura stated that they had approved plans from Bizhan Khaleeli, Architect, and that Dr. Brunner was not aware of the approved plans. She indicated that Dr. Brunner's wife, Dr. Korzennik, has been harassing her family. Ms. Nakamura discussed photagraphs of 24 Cinchring Road. She stated �hat she felt the Brunner's view was not obstructed. Ms. Nakamura discussed the winterization of the roof a.xid the barn look acc�xsed by Dr. Brunner. In response to Chair Chelf s inquiry, Ms. Nakamura stated that she could nat respond with a reason why her parents did na�follow the plans. Takashi Nakamura, 24 Cinchring Road, commented that he stapped conshuction after he received a sto� work order frorn the County. Mr.Nakamura indicated that the roof is temporary and nat final. He stated that the temporary mof would be taken aut when construction begins and that it was installed to protect the building from rain. Toshiko Nakamura, 24 Cinchring Raad, stated that Dr. Brunner's worker broke her waterline and she received payment from Dr. Bz�unner for the broken waterline. She stated that the project is only two feet higher. Consideration of this matter was continued to a field trip to be he�d on Tuesday, Octaber 17, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. at 24 Cinchring Road. The public hearing was continued. MARIJUANA REGULATIONS RESOLUTION _ N�. 2017-17 CONSIDERATIDN OF A RESOLVTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI4N OF THE CTTY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE C�I'Y COUNCYL AMEND SECTFONS 17.08.Q50 AND 17.16.020 AND ADD A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TTTLE 17 OF THE ROLLING H�LLS MUNICIPAL C�DE IN 4RDER TO PROHIBIT C4MMERCIAL (MEDICAL AND NON-MEDICAL) MARTJUANA ACTIVTTIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY 4F MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTNATION OF MART]UANA FOR PERS�NAL USE WITHIN THE CTTY, IlV ZONING CASE N�. 933 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTIONS 15Q31(B){3), 15060{C)(3), AND 15061(B}{3). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles presented the staff report and pravided the background and history of the Medical Marijua.na Regulation and Safety Act {MMRSA). She stated that in 2016 the City Council discussed this issue, -8- Minutes Planning Commission Meet�ng 09-19-17 and the City Attorney's Office prepazed a draft Resolution which was approved by the Planning Comrnission, and then was presented to the City Council. She sta.ted that at that time the City Council was deliberating on the NIl1�IItSA ordinance when Proposition 64 was being introduced for the November election. She stated the City Council determined it would postpone any discussion regarding a marijuana ordinance until the outcome of the Novernber election. She indicated that Proposition 64 passed. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles indicated that staff has naw drafted language for consideration by the Planning Commission in light of Propositian 64 and prior discussions regaxding medical marijuana. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the amendments to the proposed ordinance as presented in the °�-� staff report. She highlighted the following items in the propased ordinance: 1) Delivery of inedical marijuana is allowed; however, delivery is not allowed by a mobile marijuana dispensary; 2) Adclition of a new title to the Zoning Code to specifically address the marijuana ordinance; 3} Intent and Purpase Section— This section stat�s that the iritent is to prohibit certain marijuana uses; however, the City must keep in alignment with the State 1aw; therefore, the City must allow anything that has been minimalIy approved by the State; 4) Added defmitzons taken from the MMRSA; 5) Prohibited Uses and Activities Section — There are specific uses that would be prohibited such as commerciat activity whether for profit or nonprofit, a property orvner may not lease or conduct commerciai business within the property; 6) No delivery for commercial marijuana use is allowed; however, transporting from within the City to outside City limits is permitted; 7) Exceptions section describes activities that are permitted; S) State�aw aliows persons 21 years of age or older to be able fa possess, process, cultivate, hold, and smoke up ta 28.5 grams of non-concentrated marijuana and up to $ grams of concentrated marijuana; 9) No more than 6 mat7ijuana plants are permitted inside and outside of a structure. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that in tl�e previous discussions the Planning Commissian recommended the allowance of indoor cultivation to the City Council; howev�, 4 of the 5 City Cauncilmembers also favored the allawance of outdoor cultivation. She stated that the proposed Resolution includes the allowance of outdoor cultivation; and 10} Registration Section — This section will require that residents register with the City. In response to questioz�s froFn the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles clarified that residents have to register per the State law only if they are going to pmvide a commercial marijuana service or engage in one of the activities that would require registration and permitting. She stated that registration under the State law only applies to commercial activity. City Attorney Karpeles fizrther clarified that because the City is not aYlowing comrnercial activity and zequiring its own :registration process, residents would not have to register with the State. Discussion ensued among the Planning Commissioners and Assistant City Attorney Karpeles concerning registration requirements, the State law's recommendation of pmviding the three S�ate agencies respansible with overseeing the Medicirial and Adult-Use Regulation and Safety Act with a copy of the City's adapted ordinance so they are aware of what activities are allowed and not allowed by the City. Planning Director Schwartz continued discussion of the following items of the proposed ordinance: 1) Ma�ijuana cultivanon is only allowed on a developed parcel with a residential unit; 2) Registrant must reside on property; and 3) Cultivatxon can take place inside a residence, garage, fully enciosed detached accessory structure, or a fully fenced and lockable outdoor area and may not be visible from any street,public easement, designated trail or neighboring praperry. Discussion ensued concerning enforcement and simplifying the praposed ordinance; tkie registration. process; the number of marijuana plants allowed; personal marijuana cultivation conditions as they relate to health and safety; coznmercial use; and making future amendments to the ordinance if nec�ssary, `�` C�aarman Chelf calle�for public comrnent. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road, cornmented that the City Council found it challenging to review the ordinance since it was required by State law. She further stated that sometimes there are s�bject matters that need to be addressed eve� though the City Council and Planning Commission may not have an interest in them. Assistant City Attorney KarpeIes indicated that on January 1, 201$ it is anticipated that the State will begiri to issue Iicenses; therefore, i� would be in #he best interest of the City to have an ardinance in place prior to that date. -9- Minutes Planning Commission Mee�ing 09-19-17 Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred to add the following amendment to the proposed Resolution No. 2017-17: 1) Section 17.24.050 Personal Marijuana Cultivation—Remo�e the entire section. Follawing public comment and discussion, Commissioner Seaburn moved that Resolutaon No. 2Q17- 17 be adopted as amended per the Planning Commission's direction and forward the matter to the City Council for consideration at a future City Council Meeting. Vice Chairman Kirkpatrick seconded the motion,which carried without objection. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TR�PS {October 17,2417) The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 24 Cinchring 1 Middleridge Lane North OLD BUSINESS None. ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz informed the Planning Comrnission that the praposed View Ordinance will be considered by the City Council at their meeting of September 25, 201.7. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMNIISSION Chairman Chelf requested a future discu�sion on the following items: 1) Driveways subject to Fire Department requixements; and 2) Adding equestrian information to staff reports in relation to additional grading and disturbance. ADJOURNMENT Hearing na further business before �he Planning Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 24 Cinchring Road and 1 Middleridge Lane North. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held an Tuesday, October 17, 2017 beginxiing at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,Ralling Hil�s City Hall, 2 Fortuguese Bend Road,Ralling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, `� i� Yv e Hall Interim City Clerk �� Approved, �`:� !''°� r% I _� � � � Brad Chel��� Chairman -10- Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 09-19-17