Loading...
PC MINS 20111122 .�pproved December CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomblin at 7-12 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 (arrived after agenda item No. 1), and Chairman Tomblin, Absent- Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis were excused. Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Kim, and Associate Planner Mikhail. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their November 15 ffi meeting the City Council extended the Pony Club's CUP for an additional five years, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and also agreed that the Planning Commission review any future extension requests in an advisory capacity. Director Rojas distributed the correct plans and a revised photographic simulation for agenda item No. 2. The Commissioners congratulated Commissioner Knight on his recent election to the City Council and Commissioner Knight thanked the Planning Commission and staff for his time on the Commission and expressed his appreciation of the great working relationship and respect he has for his fellow Commissioners. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS I. Code Amendment (Case No, ZON2010-00293): Director Rojas noted that the Commission has had a policy that this item be heard when all seven of the Commissioners are present, and given that two Commissioners are absent, he recommended the Commission continue this public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the December 13th meeting, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2011-00262): 6507 Ocean ;Crest Drive Commissioner Emenhiser recused himself from items 2 and 3 and left the dais. Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and pointing out which antennas will be replaced and where the new antennas will be added. She stated that because the antennas are integrated so well and are painted to match the exterior color of the building, staff was able to make all required findings and recommend approval of the project, Chairman Tomblin asked if this project required any type of mock-up. Associate Planner Kim explained that staff did not require a mock-up since the antennas could not be seen or their appearance will be extremely subtle, Chairman Tomblin asked if there will be new cabinets installed at street level. Associate Planner Kim answered that there is currently an equipment cabinet at street level that was approved by the City. AT&T is proposing another cabinet next to the existing cabinet, noting that the cabinet will be screened by foliage, Commissioner Knight referred to condition No. 19. He noted the permit is good for a 10 year period, at which time the applicant can apply for a renewal of the permit. He felt that the condition was vague in regards to the review and approval process for the requested renewal. Director Rojas explained that the code requires the extension request go before the body that approved the original permit. However, the Commission may want to put more specific review criteria for this extension into the condition of approval, Planning Commission Mutes November 22,2011 Page 2 Commissioner Knight suggested adding language to the condition of approval that simply states the applicant may request an extension of the approval from the body who granted that approval. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff with the amendment to condition No. 19 that the extension request will go before the body that approved the original application, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-36 was approved, (4-0) with Commissioner Emenhiser recused. Chairman Tomblin re-opened the public hearing in order to ask staff about the diagram of the new GPS antenna mounted to the existing building. He noted that on the plans it appears there will be cable dropped down the side of the building and asked for clarification, Marilynn Warren (representing AT&T) stated that any coaxial cable on the building will be screened and the antenna can also be screened behind some type of screening material. Chairman Tomblin felt a condition of approval should be added that the applicant work with staff to provide appropriate screening to this GPS antenna and the associated cable, Director Rojas noted the antenna is rather small and that by adding screening it may actually make it stand out more. He therefore suggested adding a condition that the antenna be painted to match the building color and add screening to hide the piping and cable. Ms. Warren stated that AT&T will work with staff as much as possible to eliminate any visual problems. Director Rojas clarified that a condition will be added that requires the GPS antenna and any related infrastructure to be screened as much as possible to minimize the visual impact. Commissioner Knight moved to amend the original motion to add the condition that the GPS antenna be configured to minimize the visual impact, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (4-0) with Commissioner Emenhiser recused. 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No. ZON2011-00042): 29000 Western Avenue Planning Commission Minutes November 22,2011 Page 3 Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report explaining the scope of the project, including the location of the new antennas and how these antennas will be Screened. She stated that staff felt the visual impact of the project will be minimal and all findings can be made to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the project as conditioned by staff with the amendment to the conditions that the extension request will go before the body that approved the original application, seconded by Commissioner Knight. PC Resolution 2011-37 was approved:, (4-0) with Commissioner Emenhiser recused, 4. Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit fCase No. ZON2011-00292: 50 rcissa Drive Commissioner Emenhiser returned to the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report giving a brief history of the Permit for Ride to Fly and explaining this extension application is before the Planning Commission in an advisory role prior to going before the City Council for a final decision as to whether or not to extend the permit an additional five years. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings in order to approve the Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit. She pointed out an amendment to condition No. 2, as noted in the staff report, which states future applications will come before the Planning Commission in an advisory role before going to the City Council. There is also a change in the date from December 16th to December 19th'. With that, she stated that staff is recommending the adoption of the Resolution thereby forwarding the matter to the City Council, Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Gail Grove stated she is the Executive Director of Ride to Fly and was available to answer any questions the Commission may have about the program, Susan Inclan explained that parents like herself with disabled children are challenged to find an activity that a child can participate in and benefit from. She explained how Ride to Fly has helped her son and how the program makes a difference for the kids who are involved. Kim Sinclair also discussed how Ride to Fly has helped her disabled child and the benefits he has gained from the program. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 22,2011 Page 4 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the request as recommended by staff with the change to Condition No. 2 as noted by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-38 was adopted without objection. 5. FAR Code Amendment Case No. ZON2010-00332) Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that at the September 27th meeting several alternatives had been discussed in regards to the FAR and the Commission had directed staff to conduct additional analysis. He explained that staff looked at FAR based on neighborhood districts as well as establishing the FAR at the 00th percentile for each zoning district, and discussed staffs findings as noted in the staff report. He stated that staff was asking the Planning Commission to consider whether or not an FAR at the 90t' percentile is appropriate and/or fair, if there were other alternatives that the Commission would like to pursue, and if any additional information was needed from staff. He also reminded the Commission that a newly elected Council will be seated and asked the Commission to consider whether or not the Commission and staff should bring this item back to the City Council for their direction. Commissioner Knight asked staff to walk the Commission through an example using the FAR 90th percentile chart in the staff report, with an acre sized RS2 lot somewhere in the Colt Road area, He asked what the maximum structure size would be using this example. Senior Planner Schonborn calculated the maximum structure size would be approximately 11,000 square feet. Commissioner Knight stated that many of these lots have open space hazard zoning and therefore only one half to one quarter of the lot is buildable. He asked if the full 11,000 square foot structure be allowed on the buildable area as a result of applying the FAR, Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the full 11,000 square foot structure would be allowed as long as it fits onto the buildable area. Commissioner Knight questioned how the city would interplay the FAR with neighborhood compatibility in situations such as this. He was concerned that with an FAR an applicant may have a sense of entitlement when its very impractical to apply the FAR in certain situations. Director Rojas agreed, noting staff has been trying to reconcile how this will work. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt the City Council charge to the Planning Commission, with respect to developing some type of an FAR, was an expression of concern over the future of how creeping home sizes could impact the community and to put some upper limits on how large homes could get. He didn't sense from the City Council a concern Planning Commission Minutes November 22,2011 Page 5 that the Planning Commission or the city was allowing mansionization to take over, but rather this would be something that would be beneficial to put a limit on how big a home could get in a specific neighborhood. However, he did not see how the various types of FAR formulas that have been developed and proposed by staff actually accomplish that goal. He questioned' if adding some type of FAR category into the neighborhood compatibility findings would be helpful. Since there will be a new City Council seated, he would also be in favor of this new Council being apprised of the work that has been done by staff and the Planning Commission in regards to the FAR and see if they are still of the mind that this is something that is beneficial to the community. Commissioner Emenhiser asked for some clarifications to the tables in the staff report, and agreed with the Vice Chairman in that the charge to this Commission was given by a City Council that won't exist in a couple of weeks. Therefore he agreed that the Commission may want to consider seeking guidance from the new City Council on the FAR issue. Commissioner Leon explained that in the City of Los Angeles applicants are required to get the setbacks of all of the properties on their block and submit them to staff, who will then determine the applicant's required setback. He therefore felt the City could have a process which allows for an objective standard of the immediate neighborhood with respect to a FAR and put a burden of the work on the applicant as opposed to staff. He agreed that this issue should go before the next City Council for guidance and that the Commission should categorically state that using a FAR with our zoning districts doesn't make any sense. He also felt that if the City wants to use a FAR and create a more objective standard, then something else needs to be used such as looking at the nearest homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Knight felt alternatives to the FAR should be explored, noting that the Mayor's original intent in this was to set some type of upper limit to structure size on lots. He felt that is quite possible that our current Code has the mechanisms by which the City can control the size of homes to a maximum, and it may only be a matter of modifying some of the elements such as lot coverage and setbacks. Chairman Tomblin discussed his issues with the FAR and his feeling that neighborhood compatibility works so well because of the willingness of staff and the Commission to work with applicants and the neighborhood to approve an acceptable project. He agreed that it would be beneficial to bring these issues before the new City Council to see if this new Council wants to continue with finding an FAR or if they have other directions for the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt a number of the Planning Commissioners were in favor of getting a sense of the new City Council in terms of the FAR. However, he felt the new City Council might want to hear the Planning Commission's opinion on the FAR and how it will work. He stated that he cannot see a FAR working as the definition as the definition of floor to area ratio in regards to square footage of a lot and limiting the square footage of the home because of all of the reasons the Commission has Planning Commission Minutes November 22,2011 Page 6 discussed. He felt that the message to City Council should be , that as hard as the Commission has tried, there are so many variables and such varied neighborhoods, that the FAR doesn't work. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the new City Council to review the concept of an FAR; that in light of staff's analysis of the FAR proposals and the alternative ways of calculating the FAR, the Planning Commission has serious difficulties with applying the FAR equitably based upon the lot size in regards to tying the home size maximums to the lot size; there is difficulty in applying the FAR across the City; and seeks direction from the City Council on how to proceed, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. 'Minutes of October 11, 2011 Commissioner Ernenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Approved, (4-0-1) with Chairman Tomblin recused because he was absent from that meeting. 7. Minutes of October 25, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved (3-0-2) with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioner Leon recused since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chairman Tomblin asked that staff give the Commission an update on the Annenberg project at the next meeting, as well as an update on the exterior lighting at the new Point Vicente Animal Hospital. 8. Pro-Aqenda for the meeting on December 13, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and accepted. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 22,2011 Page 7