Loading...
PC MINS 20111011 Approved NovemberA, 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Lewis led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Knight, Leon, Lewis, and Vice Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Chairman Tomblin was excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Mikhail, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their October 4th meeting the City Council introduced an Ordinance that retains the Banner Sign Program with changes to the rules for display as well as the selection of three new locations for the banners. The Director also noted that at the forthcoming October 18th meeting, the City council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a second story addition to a residence on La Garita Drive. Director Rojas distributed one letter for agenda item No. 1 and two letters for agenda item No. 3. Vice Chairman Tetreault disclosed that he responded to an email he received directly from the sender and directed that person to the RPV website to review the video in regards to agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Conditional Use Permit Revision 'A' (Case No. ZON2002-00216): 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he reviewed the minutes from the September 13th meeting and felt he could therefore participate in the discussion. Commissioner Gerstner recused himself from this item and left the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, reviewing the current proposal from the applicant for the property. She reviewed the Planning Commission concerns that were raised at the September 13th meeting. She gave an overview of the Master Sign Program as well as the proposed signage and proposed conditions of approval that were added in response to the Commission's concerns. She reviewed the Planning Commission's concerns in regards to the updated traffic analysis and vehicular movement in and out of the project site and the responses from the City's senior engineer and the city's traffic engineer. She discussed the on-site ATM and staffs research of three ATMs along Hawthorne Boulevard, and discussed the mitigation measure in regards to the ATM. She noted that in regards to site lighting, staff amended some of the existing conditions of approval and added a few more. She explained that staff is recommending approval of Revision 'A' as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight asked if there were turning restrictions added as part of the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the turning restrictions are not part of the conditions of approval, but rather condition No. 18 requires that the applicant submit the plan to the Public Works Department at which time the engineer will review the plan and add appropriate restrictions. Commissioner Knight referred to the traffic study and asked what the assumed use of the building was in preparing the study. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the intended use of the building is a combination bank and office use. She explained the Senior Engineer looked at the actual square footage of a walk-in bank and assessed that square footage in terms of her traffic count. Commissioner Knight asked if the bank would be allowed to sublease out the offices to individual businesses. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 2 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that that type of change would most likely require some type of tenant improvement permit, and at that time she would assess the proposal to determine if the use would require a revision to the Conditional use Permit. Commissioner Knight referred to the lighting, and noted in the past the City has had some problems with certain conditions of approval and having those requirements translated into the actual installation of the lights. He asked staff what is different in these conditions of approval that will prevent this problem. Associate Planner Mikhail responded that the conditions of approval for the lighting come directly from the Development Code. What is different is that staff is asking for a two week inspection of the lighting as opposed to a six-month inspection so that if there are issues they will be handled much quicker. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the conditions of approval include a six-month review of the project. Director Rojas answered that there is no six-month review on the overall Conditional Use Permit however there is a two-week review of the lighting. Commissioner Lewis asked how the City would respond if there is an issue with traffic or any other non-lighting related issue. Director Rojas stated a six-month review can be added if the Commission desires. Associate Planner Mikhail pointed out that under condition No. 18, if in her review the City's senior engineer feels there is a greater issue that affects the design, this issue will come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the applicant agreed to all of the proposed conditions of approval in regards to lighting and the ATM. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the Public Works Department has conducted enough of a review so that they feel the applicant can comply with the traffic conditions without having to do onerous things. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the city engineer felt that, based on the project design submitted and the proposed use, there is enough room under condition No. 18 where the applicant can put these requirements in without them being over burdensome, Director Rojas added that the city engineer's memo in the staff report speaks to the issues and how they would be resolved. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 3 Dan Almquist (applicant) stated he was available for questions, as well as several of his consultants for the project. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Almquist if he was in agreement with all of the conditions set forth by staff. Mr. Almquist answered that he is in agreement with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Almquist if he had an objection to the additional condition that there be a six-month review of the project. Mr, Almquist had no objection to a possible six-month review. Steve Jonas (6510 Oceancrest Drive) stated his unit looks directly over the applicant's property and supports the project, as long as the lighting is off after 10 p.m. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis explained that he has heard quite a bit of concern regarding the traffic issues at the intersection of Crest Road and Hawthorne Boulevard. Therefore, his support of the project would have to be conditioned on a six-month review in terms of traffic and lighting. Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as recommended by staff with the added condition that there be a six-month review to review compliance with the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted there is currently a condition of approval that lighting will be reviewed in two weeks, and was this six month review in addition to the two-week review. Commissioner Lewis clarified that his intent was that the six-month review be in addition to the two-week review and that the six-month review would be inclusive of everything at the site. Director Rojas asked the Commission if they also wanted to add a condition whereby any change of use that increases parking demand requires a CUP revision. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend his motion to add such a condition, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Leon questioned if it was an increase in traffic rather than an increase in parking that would trigger a Conditional Use Permit revision. For example, the addition of a drive through ATM would increase traffic but have no demand on the existing parking. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 4 Director Rojas stated that the condition of approval would be worded so that either a change in parking demand or traffic would trigger the need for a CUP revision. Vice Chairman Tetreault commented that he is in favor of this project, explaining he is very aware of the concerns of the community upon traffic impacts and safety issues. However, he did not think the Planning Commission is the body that does this type of analysis, as there is a Public Works Department and Traffic Engineer who specifically does this type of analysis. He felt the approval is well conditioned so that he has to meet the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Traffic Engineer and with that he feels confident this will be a project that will meet the Commission's expectations for safety in that area. The motion was approved, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-033, (5-0) with Commissioner Gerstner recused. Commissioner Gerstner returned to the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit (Case No. ZON2011-00201): 2 West Pomegranate Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, briefly explaining the history of this Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit and noting this application is a request to extend the permit for an additional five years. She noted there were no issues found and staff has determined they have been in compliance with their permit over the last five years. She stated staff s recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for an additional five years. She added that staff determined Commissioners Knight and Leon are not within the 500 foot radius and therefore can take part and vote on this item. Commissioner Leon disclosed that he was a member of the Portuguese Bend Pony Club and was one of the original drafters of the application for the Conditional Large Animal Permit. However, he has not been a member of the Club for the past four to five years. Director Rojas stated that as long as Commissioner Leon has no financial interest in the Pony Club, that there is no conflict. Commissioner Leon stated he has no financial interest in the Pony Club. Commissioner Leon suggested that, now the Planning Commission is hearing the Domestic Large Animal Permits, the Planning Commission make the final decision on the extension of these permits and that decision is appealable to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 5 Director Rojas clarified that this permit has a condition imposed by the City Council which states the City Council will decide all future extensions. He noted that Conditional Large Animal Permits typically would be acted on by the Planning Commission except for those that involve non-profits, in which case the final decision is made by the City Council. While the approval of this extension request by the Commission is not required, this request is being brought to the Planning Commission to be consistent with past practices. However, because this extension request is before the Commission in an advisory role, the Commission may want to recommend to the City Council whether future extensions should continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Marilyn Bacon (representing Portuguese Bend Pony Club) stated she is available to answer any questions. The Commission had no questions. Richard Bara (1 Peppertree Drive) asked the Commission to support the Pony Club and grant the five year extension of the permit. He stated he is a direct neighbor of the Pony Club and has always had good relations with the Club. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to recommend to the City Council that the five year extension to the Conditional Large Animal Permit be granted, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis moved to amend the motion to direct staff to seek City Council feedback on the review procedure of future extensions, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Commissioner Knight accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. The motion to recommend approval of the five year extension to the Conditional Large Animal Permit, and direct staff to seek City Council feedback on the review procedure of future extensions, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2011-034 was adopted, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. Status update on the proposed Lower Point Vicente parking lot expansion proiec Director Rojas presented the staff report, briefly explaining the parking lot expansion project. He stated the Coast Guard has approved an agreement which formalizes the use of their lot for the parking lot expansion. Staff is currently waiting for the City Attorney's review of the agreement, which should be finalized shortly. In terms of the Planning commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 6 Lower Point Vicente project, he noted that the Annenberg Foundation had agreed to construct the parking lot expansion as a charitable donation, and though there has been no discussion with the Annenberg Foundation about the status of the project, it is staffs opinion that they are no longer going to build the parking lot extension. Staff has discussed the situation with the City Manager's office and it is staffs position that the issue of what, if any, improvements to pursue at Lower Point Vicente be taken to the next City Council to seek direction. He stated this is an approved application, however there currently is no funding for the project. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had considered asking the Annenberg Foundation about their intentions for the parking lot expansion. Director Rojas answered that staff does not have communication with the Annenberg Foundation, but he would discuss it with the City Manager. Commissioner Knight asked if there is a time limitation on when the project must be started. Director Rojas explained the project was approved through a Conditional Use Permit, which is typically valid for one year from approval, which can be extended. Commissioner Lewis noted the approval was given in February 2010, and asked if the Permit has therefore already expired. Director Rojas stated he would look at the approvals, however if the Permit has expired the Code does allow for an expired permit to be re-issued. Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Sharon Yarber stated she would like to know what the time line is for the City Attorney's review of the document from the Coast Guard. She noted that the City Attorney's office has had this seven page document for a year and the review has not yet taken place. She also asked who staff talked to at the National Park Service and/or OGALS when they received the verbal agreement that the revised parking lot project complied with the POU and the deed restrictions. She commented that when a written request for confirmation of this agreement was made it was not forthcoming. She questioned why no written confirmation of that approval was obtained. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight asked staff to comment on Ms. Yarber's questions. Director Rojas responded to the first question, explaining that the document from the Coast Guard was not a high priority with staff or the City Attorney given that it was simply to formalize an agreement that the City already has with the Coast Guard in regards to use of the Coast Guard's overflow lot on an add-needed basis, which has Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 7 been going on for years. The Coast Guard has said they have no problem if it continues without the signed agreement. However, knowing Ms. Yarber had a concern, Director Rojas stated he has talked to the City Attorney and the document will be dealt with shortly. Regarding the issue of deed restrictions, he explained that during two separate meetings with the National Park Service and OGALS staff had asked if the approved parking lot project is consistent with the deed restrictions, at which time they answered it is consistent. Despite asking several times to get this position in writing, neither OGALS nor the National Park Service has provided any written documentation of their position. The Annenberg Foundation was reluctant to start construction of the project until said written documents were received. Commissioner Lewis felt that there have been instances in the past where opportunities have been offered to the City where he did not think staff acted in a timely manner, and the opportunities were lost or almost lost. In this instance the Annenberg Foundation offered an opportunity to finish the parking lot in the form of an unconditional gift, and the opportunity has not been seized in a timely fashion. He felt this will be a good opportunity for the new City Council to look at how this situation was handled and assess whether or not changes in the way future such projects are handled. Commissioner Lewis moved that the handling of the parking lot project be sent to the City Council as its own item, for their review after January 1, 2012, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis explained he wants to raise to the City Council level the way this parking lot issue was handled and see if the City Council has any changes they want to make to City practices in the way future opportunities such as this are handled to better benefit the City. The motion was approved, (6-0). 4. Possible rescheduling of the November 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting Director Rojas stated that if the Commission would like to not have it's regularly scheduled November 8th' meeting, because it is also election night, staff is recommending three options: 1) Rescheduling the meeting to Thursday November 10th or because there is only one item on the agenda, 2) Cancel the November 8th meeting altogether, or 3) Cancel the meeting scheduled for November 22nd, and have any items scheduled for that meeting heard at the November 1 oth meeting, Commissioner Lewis moved to cancel the November 8, 2011 meeting and have the regularly scheduled meeting on November 22nd, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 8 6. Minutes of September 13, 2011 Commissioner Leon moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (4-0-2) with Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner abstaining since they were absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-A-genda for the meeting on October 25, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8.33 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2011 Page 9