Loading...
PC MINS 20110809 proved September 1 , 2011 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:09 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner arrived after agenda item No. 1. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their August 2nd meeting the City Council approved the clean-up zone change related to a lot on Maritime Drive. He also reported that the City Council conducted an interpretation review of the Marymount College conditions of approval and affirmed which conditions apply now versus later. He also noted that an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a second story addition on LaGarita Drive is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at its August 16th meeting. Director Rojas distributed three letters and one map for agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Knight reported that he received an email related to agenda item No. 3 which was distributed to the Planning Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7:09 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Knight led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Vice Chairman Tetreault, and Chairman Tomblin. Commissioner Gerstner arrived after agenda item No. 1. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Associate Planner Fox. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their August 2nd meeting the City Council approved the clean-up zone change related to a lot on Maritime Drive. He also reported that the City Council conducted an interpretation review of the Marymount College conditions of approval and affirmed which conditions apply now versus later. He also noted that an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a second story addition on LaGarita Drive is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at its August 16th meeting. Director Rojas distributed three letters and one map for agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Knight reported that he received an email related to agenda item No. 3 which was distributed to the Planning Commission. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00293): Director Rojas explained that this item is a Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission decision from a previous meeting. He stated that pursuant to the Planning Commission rules, the City Attorney has noted that the Planning Commission can change their decision before adopting the Resolution. He also explained that if a Commissioner wants their vote reflected as a "no" vote, then he should vote "no" on the Consent Calendar. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon stated that he has re-thought his position on this particular item, explaining he.believes 42 inches is too restrictive as an absolute limit and will change his vote to "no". The Consent Calendar was approved, (3-2) with Commissioners Leon and Knight dissenting. Commissioner Gerstner arrived shortly after the vote, expressing his apology for being late. He noted that he had wanted to take part in the vote for this item and asked staff if that was possible. Director Rojas explained that a vote was taken, however if a Commissioner who voted in the affirmative wants to reopen the item for reconsideration, he may do so. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to reopen the item for reconsideration, seconded by Chairman Tomblin. The motion was approved, (6-0). Commissioner Gerstner explained that he had made statements at the previous meeting that he felt the hedges could be higher, but felt the City was proposing to significantly increase staff's requirements and did not think that expansion of City involvement was necessary. He therefore intended to vote "no" on the Consent Calendar item. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the Consent Calendar to a meeting where all seven Commissioners are in attendance, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight explained that he made the second on the motion since the vote with Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different result than if the vote were made at this meeting. He felt it was important that all of the Commissioner's vote be reflected. Planning Commission Minutes August 9,2011 Page 2 The motion to continue the Consent Calendar to a meeting where all seven Commissioners are in attendance was approved, (7-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2011-00083): 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining the item is a request for roof equipment at Marymount College. He noted that at a previous hearing the Commission raised several questions, and staff has received a request from the applicant requesting more time to adequately address those issues. Therefore, staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the September 13, 2011 meeting. Chairman Tomblin asked the Director if there is now clear direction from the City Council as to whether or not the roof equipment is allowed under the Conditional Use Permit. Director Rojas responded that the City Council has determined that Marymount is operating under the Conditional Use Permit that the City Council approved last year, and the City Council further clarified which conditions of approval apply now versus later. Therefore, there is no issue that this proposal is inconsistent with the Conditional Use Permit or that it needs a CUP revision. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to September 13, 2011 as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (6-0). NEW BUSINESS 3. General Plan Consistency Finding (Case No. ZON2010-00210): Cherry Hill Lane Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the City Council had recently agreed to purchase a tax defaulted property on Cherry Hill Lane for public purposes, specifically landslide abatement and storm water management. As noted in the staff report, the Government Code requires the planning agency of the City to make a determination of consistency with the General Plan when a City acquires property. He stated that staff believes that acquisition of the property is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and therefore staff has prepared a Resolution of adoption. Chairman Tomblin noted that the Commission's discussion should not be whether or not it was a wise decision for the City to purchase the property, but rather if the purchase would conform with the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes August 9,2011 Page 3 Director Rojas agreed, noting that last week the City Council gave the direction to purchase the process, and determining if the purchase is in conformance with the General Plan is a procedural step that must be followed. Commissioner Leon commented that the City Council is saying the land will be used for trails and open space, and the land is zoned Open Space Hazard. He felt this could allow the Planning Commission to say trails and open space is consistent with the General Plan, but questioned if the City Council can then later do something different with the land that may not be consistent with the General Plan. Associate Planner Fox clarified that the stated potential purpose for acquiring the land is for landslide abatement and storm water management, and that is the basis under which the analysis in the staff report was based. Director Rojas added that the action before the Commission is related only to the acquisition of the land. What the City ultimately does with the property will be determined by the City Council. Commissioner Knight shared with the Commission that he used to go to tax sales himself, and there are a lot of investors that are willing to take high risks at these tax sales with distressed properties. He felt that if this property goes to a private party they will most likely push hard to try to develop the property and could end up costing the City much more than the purchase price of the property. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt staff's recommendation that the City's purchase is consistent with the General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-28 was approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of July 26, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of August 23, 2011 The Commission reviewed and accepted the pre-agenda. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that he will not be at the August 23rd meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 9,2011 Page 4