Loading...
PC MINS 20120612 Approved June 26, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES N 1% REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:12 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance, ATTENDANCE Present- Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Deputy Finance Director Downs. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented, COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their May 29th meeting the City Council adopted the Rules of Procedure and Protocol and that copies of these documents will be distributed to the Commissioners. He also reported that at the June 5th meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing for the 10 Chaparral project to July 17th and discussed the proposed 2012 CIP which is also on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. Director Rojas distributed a revised draft 2012 CIP for discussion as part of agenda item No. 3. Commissioner Nelson noted that today is the three year anniversary of the opening of the Terranea Resort. COMMENTS FRONT THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Revision to Height Variation, Grading, and Site Plan Review Permit (Case No. ZON2010.00252): 30400 Diamonte Lane Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant has recently approached staff requesting that they be allowed to export the cut material from the property rather than putting the material on another parcel that they own. He stated that a fifteen day public notice was sent out, however staff realized that the public notice should have been a thirty day notice. Therefore, staff sent out an additional notice and is recommending this item be continued to June 26th Commissioner Leon questioned why this item is before the Planning Commission and is not a Director's decision. Director Rojas explained that staff did not determine this to be a minor modification because of the amount of export that has to leave the property and the number of truck trips that will be going through a residential neighborhood. Staff wanted to make sure this proposed revision was heard at a public hearing. There being no speakers, Chairman Tetreault did not open the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to June 26, 2012, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved without objection. 2. Height Variation, Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON201 1- 00302): 5863 Ocean Terrace Drive Director Rojas presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the proposed project and the need for the various applications. As noted in the staff report, he explained there was a potential privacy impact to the neighbor immediately adjacent, however staff has proposed conditions to require the windows be translucent and cannot open. Staff felt the project was compatible with the neighborhood, as it was designed in such a way as to minimize the bulk and mass and included articulation in terms of the second story being setback on all sides and centered. The neighbors also raised an issue of view impairment on their sunset view over the existing residence. Staff noted that the code does not protect sky view. He stated staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to explain the neighborhood compatibility analysis, noting the proposed house would be approximately one-third larger than, the next largest home. Director Rojas agreed the proposed home is much larger in square footage than those in the immediate neighborhood, however staff felt that first story additions are all in Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2012 Page 2 different areas of the home, thus no large and bulky addition was being added to the first floor. The second story design is setback from the front fagade and staff felt addressed any bulk and mass issues. Chairman Tetreault asked if there were any public speakers for this item. Director Rojas noted that there were no requests to speak on the item. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Leon stated that in driving by the property his primary concern was the size of the proposed house. However he noted that all of the homes in the neighborhood look quite large, and this house is on a particularly large lot. Chairman Tetreault noted the bulk of the existing house along Highridge seems to be broken up by breezeways and these breezeways do not exist on the new plan. Further, the footprint of the house will increase. He therefore felt there will be quite a bit more mass to the new residence that was is currently there. However, he agreed that quite a few homes in the area were designed to give the appearance of mass. He also noted that the proposed residence will be at 39 percent lot coverage, and wondered what the lot coverage was on other homes in the neighborhood. Director Rojas explained that staff does not perform a lot coverage calculation for the other homes in the neighborhood, but based on a visual assessment of the neighborhood aerial, the lot coverage of the applicant's lot appeared to be more than the other lots in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated that the proposed addition meets the rules of the City, however knowing that bulk and mass assessment is subjective he felt this proposed addition appears to overwhelm the neighborhood. Commissioner Nelson stated he walked the neighborhood with the plans and did not find bulk and mass to be an issue when looking across the street or down the street. He therefore agreed with staff on this issue. The motion to approve the project as recommended by staff was approved and PC Resolution 2012-11 was adopted, (5-2) with Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Chairman Tetreault dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 3. General Plan consistency finding for 2011 CIP Director Rojas presented the staff report, explaining this was a procedural item. He explained the Government Code requires that before the City adopts a Capital Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2012 Page 3 Improvement Plan, the CIP must go to the Planning Commission for a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the CIP and believes it is consistent with the various goals and policies of the General Plan, He noted that at the last City Council meeting the draft CIP was presented, and while the Council did not make any changes to the projects listed, the Council did raise some questions that prompted staff to make some refinements to the draft CIP. These refinements are included in the document that has been distributed to the Commission as late correspondence which is the same document that will be presented to the City Council at their next meeting for their formal adoption. He explained that the Planning Commission's purview is limited to consistency with the General Plan. He concluded by stating that Deputy Finance Director Kathryn Downs is present to answer any questions on the CIP. Deputy Director Downs explained that the document only included projects of$100,000 or more because that is the capitalization threshold for capital improvement projects. She noted that there are two categories for projects, the funded list and the unfunded list, briefly explaining the two categories. She then summarized the changes between the CIP included with the Staff Report and the CIP distributed as late correspondence. Commissioner Leon understood the $100,000 threshold, but asked Deputy Director Downs if she had an estimate of the total cost of all of the projects that don't meet that threshold. Deputy Director Downs estimated $300,000 to $400,000. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked for clarification on the beautification grants for Hawthorne Boulevard as well as the coastal trail project and where they appear in the staff report. Deputy Director Downs referred the Vice Chairman to the appropriate sections in the staff report. Commissioner Lewis recalled a past City Council meeting where the Council voted to, stop all further efforts towards developing a new city hall, however the new city hall is on the list. He asked if the Planning Commission vote is in any way a vote stating that constructing a new city hall is consistent with the General Plan. Director Rojas explained that the projects listed are included because of previous direction and the Council did not take any of the projects out when they reviewed the draft CIP on June 5ti'. However, the City Council did ask for a prioritization of projects. He stated that by voting that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan the Planning Commission is finding the projects that the Council has elected to put on the list are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the Commission is voting on both the funded and unfunded list in terms of consistency with the General Plan. Ranning Cornimission Minutes June 12,2012 Page 4 Director Rojas answered that was correct. Chairman Tetreault asked if the five year CIP was done annually, so it would be a rolling five years. Deputy Director Downs answered that an annual update to the CIP is done, therefore it is a rolling five years. Chairman Tetreault asked how this document compares to last year's document and if there have been any significant changes with respect to the projects, Deputy Director Downs answered there are very few changes between the 2011 and 2012 documents, noting that the few changes that were made are highlighted in the staff report. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation as to the General Plan consistency finding with the draft CIP distributed as late correspondence handout, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2012-11 was approved, (7-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of May 8, 2012 Commission Gerstner did not think the minutes were as detailed as he had requested, primarily the section where the Council went back and forth in regards to the letter from the ex-mayor of Palos Verdes Estates. He did not think that, given the way it all played out, it should be paraphrased. Vice Chairman Emenhiser thought at the last meeting the Commission decided the minutes should be verbatim. Director Rojas explained that the Deputy Director had noted there had been some discussion on the minutes and it was his understanding that the Planning Commission requested more detailed minute for a portion of the discussion. He explained that verbatim minutes were not prepared as it is not the Commissions policy to have verbatim minutes. Furthermore, the direction from the City Manager was to be as consistent as possible with previous Planning Commission direction on how the minutes are to be regularly prepared. Notwithstanding, if the Commission wants to go to verbatim minutes, that can be agenized for discussion. He cautioned that verbatim minutes will cost more to prepare. Commissioner Gerstner clarified that his request was not to have the entirety of the minutes be verbatim but only an appropriate 10-minute section. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,2012 Page 5 Chairman Tetreault asked the Director, since this was a joint session with the City Council, will there basically be two sets of minutes. Director Rojas answered that his understanding was that, in speaking with the City Clerk, once the minutes are adopted by the Commission they will be presented to the City Council for their adoption. Commissioner Gerstner moved to not approve the minutes and request that the section of the meeting where there was primary discussion by the Council with regards to the Traffic Safety Commission and the letter that was sent by the ex- mayor of Palos Verdes Estates letter be verbatim, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Leon stated that he did not think the Commission was asking for verbatim minutes as a general rule, but only for this one section of the meeting to record what happened. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting- on June 26, 2012 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Manning Commission Minutes June 12,2012 Page 6