Loading...
PC MINS 20070710 Approved July 24, 2007 RANCHO PALOS VERDESQ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Gerstner at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight 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, Senior Planner Alvarez, and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear Agenda Item No. 3 before Agenda Item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas distributed three items of correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00105): 29000 Western Avenue Commissioner Karp asked staff if the applicant was representing AT&T, Cingulair, or T- Mobile, explaining that there would then be a possible conflict of interest for him in hearing this item. Staff confirmed that the carrier is Metro PCS, which is not associated with AT&T, Cingulair, or T-Mobile. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings to recommend approval and has received no public comments regarding the project. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked if everything proposed will be installed behind the existing parapet screen on the building. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that all new installations would be located behind the existing parapet screen. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Jerry Ambrose (representing Royal Street Communications) stated that this is a new, separate service, and is not affiliated with any of the other carriers using the building. He stated that he was available for any questions. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Ambrose if he has read the conditions of approval, and if agrees with these conditions. Mr. Ambrose answered that he has read and agrees to all of the conditions of approval. Chairman Gerstner noted that there is an RF box mounted to the outside of the parapet and asked why it is being located outside of the parapet. Mr. Ambrose explained that there is a need for an antenna facing north and there is no parapet structure on that side of the building. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-46 thereby approving the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (7-0). .CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Miscellaneous Code Amendments (Case No. ZON2007-00076) Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that at the June 12th meeting the Planning Commission had given staff direction to do additional research on three of the four proposals, and staff is presenting that additional information. He explained the additional information that was provided in the staff report. He stated that staff has presented a draft resolution that would forward a recommendation of approval of the miscellaneous code amendments to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2007 Page 2 Commissioner Karp asked staff to explain the proposed silhouette guidelines for non- residential projects. Associate Planner Fox explained that staff tried to acknowledge that in non-residential structures there is a good likelihood they will be larger than a typical single family home. Further, the building may be open to the public and a silhouette structure could possibly interfere with the public's ability to use the building. Therefore, while it will be helpful for staff and the public to have a silhouette available for some period of time, there is a need for a little more flexibility in how and how long a silhouette is constructed for a proposed non-residential structure. Commissioner Karp noted that this proposed amendment would give the director the discretion as to how long the silhouette would have to remain in place and how much of the structure in a non-residential project would have to be included, and asked if this decision would be appealable, and who the applicant would appeal this requirement to. Director Rojas explained that his decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Karp questioned if one year, as referenced in the staff report, was a long enough period to allow before commencement of work. Associate Planner Fox stated that in staff's experience, one year has been more than enough time. Commissioner Karp was also very concerned with the language regarding the lessee being listed along with the owner, and did not feel that was appropriate. Associate Planner Fox noted that this is not new language, but rather language that is already in the code. Director Rojas added that the City Attorney helped craft the language when it was added to the Code in 1997. Commissioner Knight referred to the section in the staff report regarding the proposed fee waiver. He asked if the intent of the fee waiver was waive the fees on reconstruction of a home after a fire, and if so, does that also include any additional square footage the applicant may want to add. He noted that someone may lose their home to a fire and decide that in rebuilding it would be a good time to add a second story, and questioned if the fee would also be waived for that large second story addition. Director Rojas explained that the intent is to expedite the process to rebuild what was lost due to a fire. He added that as proposed, the application and permit fees for the process would also be waived, including any fees associated with any additional square Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2007 Page 3 footage. He stated that the Planning Commission could set a limit to the amount of square footage added to qualify for the fee waiver if they felt it was necessary. Chairman Gerstner stated that when a resident loses a home due to a fire and fees are waived for the City process of approvals, that money is coming out of the tax base and the fees are being subsidized by the public. He felt that the question is, what are the residents of the City willing to contribute. He explained that in rebuilding what was already in place it would be a simple review, however if many changes are proposed and a significant addition is proposed, neighborhood compatibility and view issues may come into play and questioned if the residents of the City should subsidize the review process at this point. He felt some type of threshold should be established for additional square footage. Discussing the language regarding the "lessor" and "lessee", Chairman Gerstner did not feel it was appropriate to have the language "or lessee" and that language should be removed. Associate Planner Fox stated that staff would have to discuss that change with the City Attorney, as he felt there were much broader implications as it deals with any non- conforming structure. Chairman Gerstner discussed the need for a silhouette in non-residential development, and stated that he did not see the need to require a silhouette for a non-residential project. Commissioner Karp strong disagreed, stating that proposed non-residential development should most definitely have some type of flagging or silhouette. Commissioner Lewis felt a silhouette should be required, however the Director should have some discretion with the requirement if silhouetting is not feasible. Commissioner Knight agreed that the requirement should be left in for non-residential projects to be silhouetted, and agreed that it could be left to the discretion of the Director on the larger, more difficult projects. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that, in reading the language, there no explicit language that allows the flexibility for the Director to use discretion in regards to erecting silhouettes on non-residential projects. He suggested adding language to the statement on the non-residential silhouette guidelines which states that "in which case the Director may modify the requirements consistent with the intent of this provision." Regarding the fee waiver, Commissioner Lewis felt that if a resident loses a home due to fire and decides to take advantage of a tragic situation to then add on to the home, the City should show some compassion and waive all fees involved. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2007 Page 4 Commissioner Knight disagreed. He explained that of course there is great compassion for anyone who loses their home, however when they then decide to build something substantially larger than what was lost, he did not think it was substantially different than someone proposing demolition of their home to build something larger. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed. He felt that the intent is to expedite a procedure where there is a loss due to a fire. He did not think it was a good idea for the City to subsidize building a larger residence to replace what was lost. He stated that the general purpose is to allow someone to expedite the procedure to rebuild their home, with the same non-conforming use if that is what they want to do. He felt that if they want to do more, they have the choice of taking advantage of this proposed provision or not. Vice Chairman Perestam agreed, adding that there should be a way to waive the fees for the replacement square footage and calculate and charge fees for any additional square footage proposed. Chairman Gerstner suggested developing a ratio of existing square footage to new square footage and adjusting all of the fees accordingly. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that the fees paid to the City for Planning Department approval and building permits are a relatively small percentage of the cost of building a new house, or even a minor addition. He felt the purpose of this proposal was to allow homeowners who have lost their home to be able to rebuild that home through an expedited process and waiver of fees. However, once the homeowner decides to add additional square footage they shouldn't be worried about the permit fees, as they are a small percentage of the overall cost to building that addition. He felt that if the same home is proposed to be rebuilt, the fees should be waived. Otherwise, by a resident saying they want to increase the size of their home they're saying they have the money to do it and they don't need the residents of the City to subsidize their building a bigger home. Commissioner Karp agreed, but suggested allowing the homeowner to add up to 250 square feet. Commissioner Knight agreed that adding up to 250 square feet would be acceptable When waiving fees, however he questioned whether the process should then be expedited through the neighborhood compatibility process. He noted that the additional square footage may be added to a second story of a residence that will then block a view that was not previously blocked. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt PC Resolution 2007-47 thereby forwarding a recommendation of approval of the proposed miscellaneous code amendments to the City Council as recommended by staff with the following modifications: 1) to strike "or lessee" in the language regarding voluntary and involuntary acts; 2) to add language to the draft Guidelines in regards to erecting Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2007 Page 5 silhouettes on non-residential projects which states that the Director may modify the requirements consistent with the intent of the provision; and 3) In regards to the fee waiver, to leave it as written but add language to provide for a 250 square foot adjustment in the size. Seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. 2. Amendments to the Planning Commission Rules & Procedures Director Rojas presented a brief staff report, explaining that what is before the Planning Commission are the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures as modified as discussed and modified by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of speakers donating their time to other speakers. Commissioner Karp felt that the Planning Commission should have the discretion to allow speakers more time if they feel it's needed. Commissioner Ruttenberg pointed out that once a speaker has used their allotted time, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to ask questions, and one of the questions can always be, do you have anything more you want to say. He felt that speakers should be given more time if they haven't had adequate time to make their point, however that amount of time should be controlled by the Planning Commission. Director Rojas noted that the language in Section 2.12(11) should cover the concerns regarding additional speaking time and the ability of the Chairman to grant more time if needed. Commissioner Tetreault was concerned that allowing speakers to assign their time to other speakers favors the popular. He noted that the person who might be most affected by a particular project may be in the distinct minority and cannot get a neighbor to come to the meeting and assign enough time for them to speak. He explained that the popular opinion will get more speakers to donate time and then will have the louder voice, which he did not feel was fair. Chairman Gerstner noted that the proposed modification to the rules still allows for the speakers to have adequate time to make their presentation, it just puts control of the amount of time in the hands of the Planning Commission and Chairman. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned the language in the Resolution which states that Planning Commissioners who live or own property within 500 feet of an application are presumed to be ineligible rather than are not eligible. He asked if that presumption could be rebutted, and if so, how does one go about it. He felt the language of presumption was ambiguous. Director Rojas explained that this change in language was made by the City Attorney to reflect the language of the most current version of the Fair Political Practices Act. He explained it is not an automatic ineligibility, and a Commissioner can try to convince the Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2007 Page 6 City Attorney that he is not eligible by explaining the reasons he feels there is no conflict of interest and discuss the issue with the City Attorney. Commissioner Ruttenberg referenced the language in the Resolution which states that speakers will be discouraged from repetition of comments. He felt this language was harsh and that it should be changed to speakers are discouraged from making repetitious comments. Commissioner Lewis suggested putting a period after "avoided" and strike the rest of the sentence. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to the wording of Number 10 in the Resolution, and felt that the way it was worded almost leaves it to the discretion of the speaker to decide if they need to immediately clarify a point when someone else is speaking. He it should just say that no person shall be allowed to speak a second time except at the discretion of the Chairman. The Planning Commission agreed. Finally, Commissioner Ruttenberg referred to Section 2.7 regarding questioning of the speakers, he didn't feel the last sentence was needed and suggested deleting that sentence. Commissioner Lewis questioned if there was a reason the staff reports to the Planning Commission are not circle paged, and requested that be done. The Commission agreed, as they thought it would be helpful, and staff agreed to do this for future staff reports. Commissioner Knight referred to Section 2.1 regarding the public recording of the meeting. He was concerned that there were no restrictions on where the recording equipment is located so as to not be disruptive to the meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg suggested wording that members of the public may record without permission of the chairperson subject to reasonable restrictions on location and manner. Commissioner Karp questioned how the Planning Commission could verify that a speaker stating that he is representing someone else is truly speaking and representing that person. He also questioned how the Commission should deal with a speaker who is not truthfully stating the facts in a case. The Commission discussed this at length and Director Rojas noted that there is a section in the Code which states that any decision that is made on a Planning Commission that is based on wrong or misleading information, the body has the ability to rescind that decision. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2007 Page 7 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to adopt staff's recommendations on the four items in the staff report, as well as the modifications to paragraph 2.1 to add the language "subject to reasonable restrictions on location and manner"; modify paragraph 2.6 number 10 to read "No person shall be allowed to speak a second time except at the discretion of the Chairperson"; modify paragraph 2.7 to delete the final sentence; and modify paragraph 2.68 to state that "repetition of comments should be avoided." Seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Director Rojas noted that this item will return on the next Consent Calendar for approval. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of June 26, 2007 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis abstaining since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of July 24, 2007 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved. Commissioner Knight noted that he would not be present for the July 24, 2007 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2007 Page 8