Loading...
PC MINS 20070612 Ap oved June 26, 7 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerstner at 7:02 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, and Chairman Gerstner. Absent: None Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Associate Planner Fox, Assistant Planner Kim, and Assistant Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2 and one item for Agenda Item No. 4. He also reported that at the June 5, 200 City Council meeting, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision on the proposed new residence on Grandpoint Lane. Commissioner Lewis noted that he made a site visit on Agenda Item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Height Variation Permit, Grading Permit, Variance, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00522): 3444 Gulfcrest Drive Director Rojas explained that this is the Resolution memorializing the decision made by the Planning Commission at the last meeting to approve the request. P.C. Resolution 2007-41 was adopted, thereby conditionally approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit, Variance Permit and Site Plan review, (4-2-1) with Commissioners Knight and Lewis dissenting and Commissioner Tetreault recused since he was not at that meting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00549): 2049 Jaybrook Drive Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report. She explained the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings, adding that there are other properties within the 20 closest that also have non-conforming side yard setbacks and the applicant is not proposing to extend the existing non-conforming setback. Therefore staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp felt that approving this proposed project would be compounding a non-conforming use. He did not think the project was compatible with the neighborhood, and there are just too many things wrong with the project. He felt the application should be denied. Commissioner Knight stated that, although he had no objection to the project, he was not able to make the necessary findings to approve the Variance request. He felt that a small redesign of the project could possibly mitigate some of his concerns. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the applicant is not going past his current setback in the side yard and that the Planning Commission has, many times in the past, approved projects with existing legal non-conformities on the property. He therefore did not see that as an impediment to the approval of this application. He noted that the current home is only 1,000 square feet, which he did not feel was even competitive in the real estate market. He felt that this is a modest proposal, most of which is not going to be visible from the street. He was therefore in support of the project. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that even after the proposed addition the residence will still be smaller than the average of the twenty nearest homes. He agreed with Commissioner Tetreault's comments and also stated he could support the project. Commissioner Lewis stated that this is a very modest proposal and could support the project. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-42 thereby conditionally approving the height Variation Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved,(5-2) with Commissioners Karp and Knight dissenting. 3. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00085): 28445 Lomo Drive Assistant Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the requested Height Variation. She stated that staff concluded the proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood and therefore recommends the Planning Commission deny without prejudice the current proposal. She noted that the architect is present and has requested the opportunity to redesign the project. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. John Wu stated he is the architect for the project. He explained that when he reported staff's findings and recommendations to the owner, the owner decided he would like to redesign the proposed project to try to address staffs concerns. He was therefore requesting the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to allow him time to redesign the project. Chairman Gerstner noted the Permit Streamlining Act deadline of July 10th, and asked Mr. Wu if he would grant the City a one-time 90 day extension on the project. Mr. Wu answered that he would grant the extension. Director Rojas noted that the next available meeting would be July 10th, however it would be difficult to get a redesign in to staff in time, and suggested the July 24th meeting. Able Torres stated that he was concerned about the two-story addition, as it would block quite a bit of the light coming into the house, and would much prefer a single story addition. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to July 24, 2007 to allow the Applicant to address Staff's concerns, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). 4. Miscellaneous Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2007-00076) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the different proposed code amendments and the reasons for these amendments. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2007 Page 3 The Commissioners had a brief discussion regarding allowing construction of non- conforming homes because of fire or other disaster and whether the rebuilt homes need to be built to existing codes. Director Rojas clarified that the language is intended to allow property owners to rebuild destroyed homes with non-conforming zoning conditions to be rebuilt with the same non-conforming conditions. However, the homes must be rebuilt to meet all current building codes. Commissioner Karp discussed the proposed revisions to the sound ratings and stated that the numbers presented are abstract and questioned what these numbers mean in the real world and what kinds of sounds can be heard from inside a unit at the different ratings. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, adding that if the Planning Commission is going to recommend a code change to the City Council he would like to feel he has information upon which he can make a decision. He stated that he would like more information to help quantify the subject so he can make a more informed decision. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the proposed requirement for silhouettes for non- residential structures, and questioned how some of the larger projects, such as Terranea, would be able to logistically silhouette a building that large. Director Rojas agreed it could be difficult. He explained that staff has asked non- residential applicants to not do the full silhouette the Commission is accustomed to seeing on residential projects, but rather some type of simple basic outline of the proposed structure or structures. He suggested separate guidelines for non-residential buildings with the possibility of some type of waiver for a very large building. The Commissioners discussed the proposed language regarding waiving of penalty fees, and agreed that there should be no distinction made as to whether or not the insurance company is covering an Applicant's loss in regards to what fees are paid to the City. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the discussion to July 10, 2007, directing Staff to provide additional quantitative information regarding noise and vibration attenuation, provide more detailed information on the proposed silhouette requirements, and modify the proposed fee waiver language to eliminate the insurance coverage requirements, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). NEW BUSINESS 5. Review of Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2007 Page 4 Director Rojas explained that this agenda item was prompted by a session at the Planning Conference attended by Commission Tetreault where there were some good suggestions as to how to improve the running of Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Tetreault added that these were the major points brought up at the seminar, and felt they were worth sharing with the Commission and staff, noting however that he may not necessarily agree with all of the points. He began by explaining that the majority of the Planning Commissioners in attendance at the session he attended noted that their City Attorney was present at their Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission discussed this, and Director Rojas stated that the City Attorney is always willing to come to a meeting when requested, however if the Planning Commission would like the City Attorney to attend all meetings, it would be a budget issue that would have to be discussed with the City Council. The Commissioners agreed that the current system is working and to have the City Attorney present at all meetings would be expensive and most likely add to the length of the meetings. Commissioner Tetreault stated that another topic of conversation was how to deal with accepting written materials and up to what point those materials would be accepted prior to the hearing. He stated that personally he likes to accept material right up to the time of the hearing, with the caveat that his main focus of attention will be on the proceedings going on and not the written correspondence submitted. Commissioner Lewis agreed, adding that he felt very strongly that any item of late correspondence should be accepted by the Commission, with the comment from the Chairman that the Commission may not be able to read or review the correspondence submitted. Commissioner Karp disagreed, feeling that accepting late correspondence infers that the correspondence will be read and digested, which he felt is misleading. Commissioner Ruttenberg understood Commissioner Karp's concerns but noted that this may be many of the residents' only experience before the City government, and that .the experience should be a positive one. He felt that the rules should be changed to remove all of the deadlines regarding late correspondence. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to direct Staff to amend the current rules to eliminate the existing restrictions regarding acceptance of late correspondence, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Karp dissenting. Commissioner Tetreault explained the next point was encouraging the suppression of audience applause after a public speaker, and explained the concerns expressed in the Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2007 Page 5 seminar that such applause could be intimidating to certain speakers. The Commissioners felt that it might be an issue at certain meetings and the Chairman would, at that time, discourage applause after speakers. Commissioner Tetreault continued, stating the next subject was adhering to a strict time limit for speakers. Commissioner Knight mentioned the practice of speakers donating their time to other speakers, and asked how the Commission felt that should be handled. He noted that the current mayor does not allow speakers to give their time to others. Commissioner Lewis moved to direct Staff to amend the current rules to eliminate the ability for speakers to give their time to other speakers, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Karp dissenting. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the next topic, which was disclosure of site visits. The Commission had a discussion on when, and if, they should disclose site visits. They agreed that Commissioners should disclose site visits when they have visited the site and discover something about the project that may not have been discussed in the staff report and could make a difference in their decision on the project. A discussion followed on a law discussed at the seminar which states that Planning Commissioners, who elect to recuse themselves from a particular item, but not because of an economic interest, may not then speak on the item during the public hearing. The Commissioners asked staff to discuss this with the City.Attorney and have the exact language available for the Commissioners to review. Commissioner Knight moved to request that staff research and return to the Planning Commission with a clear definition of "abstention" and "recusal" and the differences between the two and how such definitions affect Planning Commission "quorum" seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of May $ 2007 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioner Karp and Chairman Gerstner abstaining since they were absent from that meeting. 7. Minutes of May 22, 2007 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2007 Page 6 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-agenda for the meetinq of June 26, 2007 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2007 Page 7