Loading...
PC MINS 20130226 App edl CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:06 p.m, at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Gerstner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Absent: Commissioner Lewis was excused Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Deputy Director Pfost, and Associate Planner Mikhail, APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at the upcoming March 5th meeting the City Council will hear the Commission's recommendation on the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project. Director Rojas distributed one item of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 1 and four items of late correspondence related to agenda item No. 3. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Height Variation, Grading Permit, Extreme Slope Permit, Site Plan Review (Case No. ,ZON2012-00172): 5345 Bayridge Road Commissioner Gerstner stated he would recuse himself from this item due to the proximity of the property to his residence. He then left the dais. Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining the current proposed project. She noted the applicant was proposing to demolish the existing 1,989 square foot single story residence and build a new 4,7410 square foot, two-story home, She discussed the proposed floor plan and staff's concerns as discussed in the staff report. She discussed the concerns of the neighbor on Birchfield, the Holchers, noting that staff visited the property on two occasions. Staff did not feel the view impact was significant, and with the redesign of the project the Holchers agreed, Another neighbor, the Bradleys, also had a concern with view impairment and privacy. She displayed photos taken from the Bradley residence and explained that staff did not feel there was a significant view impact nor were there unreasonable infringements to privacy. She stated that, overall, staff felt the applicant has met most of the concerns that were relayed to them, however noted staff's recommendations for modifications that would help with staff's concerns while allowing the applicant to achieve their desired residence, Commissioner Leon asked if there is an HOA in this community. Associate Planner Mikhail did not believe there was an active HOA in this neighborhood. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they had received any correspondence from a neighborhood organization about either keeping the scale and scope of the neighborhood versus increasing the size of the housing stock in the neighborhood. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that she has not received any such correspondence, only communications from the neighbors. Commissioner Nelson discussed structure size in the neighborhood, noting most are in the 1,600 to 1,700 square foot range. He asked staff when the last time a house of this size was approved in the City. Director Rojas answered that he doesn't have that information as the City does not keep data on the sizes of houses approved citywide. Commissioner Nelson stated that he could not recall approving a house of only 1,600 or 1,700 square feet during the time he has been on the Planning Commission. He noted that these homes are included in neighborhood compatibility analysis and he wasn't sure they should be, as the size is out of date. He didn't think anyone would build a house of this size today. Director Rojas confirmed that proposals are not received for new 1,600 to 1,700 square foot houses, however he explained that the city's neighborhood compatibility review Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 2 process requires staff to look at proposed projects in the context of the twenty closest homes, which may contain houses in the 1,600 to 1,700 square foot range. Chairman Tetreault noted that the staff report recommends the Planning Commission not approve the project as presently proposed and that it instead be reduced in size to 4,324 square feet. He noted the uniqueness of staff citing an exact number and asked staff to explain the recommendation, Director Rojas acknowledge that staff typically does not identify a square footage number, however staff felt there was a unique situation in this neighborhood, in that the City Council dealt with the issue of acceptable square footage fairly recently in approving a house of a certain square footage on the street on appeal. Therefore, staff felt this was a good target in terms of square footage that the applicant could build to. Chairman Tetreault asked if this number is a ballpark number, as one 4,300 square foot home can look very different from another 4,300 square foot home depending on articulation and design. Director Rojas answered that it would be considered a ballpark number. Commissioner Tomblin recalled the previous house that was approved by the City Council and the concerns the Planning Commission had when denying the project. He asked staff to explain why the City Council chose to overturn the Commission's recommendation and approve the neighboring project, Director Rojas stated he had not read the minutes from the City Council meeting, but recalled that the applicant successfully made a point to the City Council that the house was designed in a way that minimized bulk and mass and that two-story homes are not automatically prohibited in a predominately one-story neighborhood. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Domingo Ottolia (architect) explained this home is a product of a process of nine months' worth of work and many changes. He discussed the original project and the many changes that have been made over time. He discussed how he felt square footage should be a balance between neighborhood compatibility, the owner's needs, and the construction budget. He also looked at the housing stock in the neighborhood, noting that almost all of the houses in the neighborhood are over 50 years old. He felt this neighborhood is in transition, with a lot of new younger families moving in. He understood staff's desire to reduce the square footage of the house, but asked that the Commission consider the proposed 4,500 square foot home, Steve Stigng (owner) stated he loves his neighborhood and has lived in his home for over ten years. He stated he has been very conscientious and sensitive of the neighbors and very proactive in addressing their concerns. In discussing the bulk and mass and square footage that staff was concerned with, he explained that in comparing Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 3 his design with the home under construction at 5329 Bayridge, he noted his lot is larger and the house will be used as a family home rather than one for entertainment purposes. He felt that the bulk and mass of the home has been hidden quite well and the house is compatible with the neighborhood. He asked the Planning Commission to approve the submitted design, Yogi Matharu stated the previous owner of this house was nervous about building a house on this lot that fit his needs, so he moved. He stated he has seen this pattern in the neighborhood for quite a while, and felt that was a bad direction. He did not think the size of a house should be limited, as that was already built into lot coverage and setback restrictions. He also felt that a two-story house, by definition, would have more open space on the lot. He felt money should be put into the neighborhood to improve the houses, as the neighborhood is so old. He felt it was important to allow good construction with quality efforts, while respecting views and hillsides. He felt that has been done with this proposed house. Jarrod Koch stated this is an unusual neighborhood as it is surrounded by hills and by Palos Verdes Estates. In addition, the housing stock is very old. He also noted that the property values are not as high in this neighborhood as he feels they should be because of the location of the neighborhood. He felt that this neighborhood has a group of elderly residents that have fought the development of this community. He felt that is a shame, because it is such a nice community. However, this neighborhood is now changing, as new younger families are moving in. He did not think it was a good comparison to compare an older 1950s type house with the houses that are being built today. He encouraged the Commission to approve the proposed residence. John Bradley stated he too is very pleased to see the growth, expansion, and development in this neighborhood. He stated he supports the project to a point, however he noted his privacy concern and pointed out the area of concern on the elevations. He requested that the glass on the second story be made some type of obscure glass, as those windows will look directly into his main living space. He noted that he does not want the applicant to change the design of the house or any other features, only the second floor windows. He felt the windows, as currently proposed, will cause a degradation of privacy and quality of life, as they will have to keep their windows covered with no natural light. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr. Bradley how many of the windows and doors on the second floor he would request to be made translucent. Mr. Bradley referred to the elevations and pointed to four specific windows and a door on the south elevations. Commissioner Leon asked the applicant if he would be willing to make the windows and door pointed out by Mr. Bradley translucent. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 4 Domingo Oftolia answered that he spoke to the owner and explained that they did not feel they are taking away any more privacy than already exists. He noted the front of the Bradley's house is open to the street and: sidewalk. He also explained they wanted to present a project that doesn't look like a fortress. He noted that the owner has been very sensitive to the privacy of the neighbors on either side and to the rear of the residence. Commissioner Nelson asked if the owners will be putting up blinds or some type of window covering to ensure their own privacy. Mr. Ottolia answered that privacy works both ways, and the owners will have some type of window coverings. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there is precedence in terms of privacy issues from homes across the street or from non-abutting properties. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that staff typically does not look at privacy concerns from the front of a home because it's reasonable to assume that both properties will be looking at each other from the front and any motorist or pedestrian will be able to look into a home. Director Rojas responded to an earlier question from Commissioner Tomblin about why the Planning Commission denied approval of another house on the street. He stated he was able to locate the staff report, and explained that the Planning Commission had concerns with bulk and mass, the size of the project not being compatible with the neighborhood, some privacy impacts, and view impairment concerns. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council where the architect presented a very detailed computer presentation to demonstrate what the house would look like. In addition, there were twelve speakers in favor of the project at the City Council meeting. Vice Chairman Emenhiser realized this is a very difficult situation in that it is an older neighborhood that is trying to evolve. He felt the applicant and architect have made changes based on the concerns of the neighbors. He also noted that three of the eight homes along this stretch of Bayridge Road are already two-story homes or are in the process of trying to be a two-story home. He therefore was inclined to approve the project as presented by the applicant. Commissioner Nelson moved that the Planning Commission approve the project as requested by the applicant which is alternative No. 2 of the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Chairman Tetreault did not think an older neighborhood in transition is a unique situation in the City. He felt the idea behind neighborhood compatibility is to temper or Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 5 slow down a rapid turnover of the housing stock so that something completely out of place would not show up and cause distress to the neighborhood. He noted that most of the applications heard by the Commission are for homes above the average size in the neighborhood. In this particular home he was a bit concerned about the side yard setbacks, noting the proposed setbacks are within code but are very close to the minimum allowed set back. He noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood have a five to six foot setback on one side and a ten foot or more setback on the other side, which gives some space between homes, Therefore, this proposed home is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of size. He was concerned with the side yard setbacks, the U shaped entrance, and the bulk and mass of the house. He felt that quite a bit of work has been done on the design of this house, however he felt more design work could still be done, and for those reasons he would oppose the motion. The motion to approve the project as requested by the applicant and to return at the next meeting with a Resolution for adoption was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Leon and Chairman Tetreault dissenting, and Commissioner Gerstner recused. Commissioner Gerstner returned to the dais, 2. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00356): 30687 Ganado Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She briefly discussed neighborhood compatibility, noting staff could find no compatibility issues, privacy impacts, or view issues. With that, staff was recommending the Planning Commission approve the project as presented. Commissioner Leon moved to approve the project as recommended and conditioned by staff, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2013-06 was approved, (6-0). 3. General Plan Update — Direction regarding changes to Open Space Hillside (Hazard) areas Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, giving a recap of the proposed changes and the Planning Commission's direction on the subject to this point. He showed aerials of the areas discussed at the January 22nd Planning Commission meeting, and how the Commission's vote affected those areas. He explained that since the Planning Commission's original direction to staff at the end of 2012 occurred through a public hearing, and now it appears the Commission is moving in a different direction based upon its last decision, he felt it was imperative to take this public hearing tonight to review that new direction. He explained that in the staff report he has identified three options, noting option No. 2 is the direction the Commission gave in September 2012 and option No. 3 is an option that the Commission moved forward with Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 6 at the January 22nd meeting. He stated that option No. 3A is the same as option 3, only it changes the designation for the hillside areas from Hazard to Hillside. He noted that staff is still in favor of option No. 2, as staff feels it is more in line with the intent and purpose of the original General Plan. However, considering the Commission's actions on January 22nd concerning the 260 properties, staff is now seeking the Commission's direction on perhaps an alternative option. Commissioner Nelson referred to the minutes from the previous meeting where he noted that if the line is removed from a property the County Assessor may increase the property taxes, however if the line is added to the property he did not feel the Assessor would lower the property taxes. He stated this is one of the major points he wanted to make in bringing option No. 3 into action. Commissioner Leon stated the Commission has received a few letters indicating that if the Commission is recommending making changes to the General Plan that they go through the entire process for a General Plan amendment. It was his understanding that the Commission is currently going through the process for a General Plan amendment through these series of meetings that have been going on through the past two years. Deputy Director Pfost answered that was correct, noting the General Plan amendment process always starts with the Planning Commission through public hearings, The Planning Commission then makes a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will review that recommendation. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Jeanne Lacombe stated she is the president of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association on the east side of the City. She pointed out two Open Space Hazard areas on staff's map stating those areas are not connected with the rest of Rancho Palos Verdes. She stated it is her recommendation, and it is the recommendation she has had for the past several years, to remove the Open Space Hazard area from the Eastview area. She stated all of the lots are currently developed and there are building codes and processes in place to prevent people from building on an extreme slope. She felt it would be unfair to many residents to add Open Space Hazard areas to their lots, Pete Lacombe questioned the need for an Open Space Hazard zoning. He stated that in Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code there is a requirement that the Building Official cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy or a building permit when the Building Official finds the proposed work could activate or accelerate a geological or geotechnical hazard that could damage property. He questioned what the current proposal will provide that the Building Code and Municipal Code do not currently provide. He stated his recommendation is to eliminate the Open Space Hazard designation as he felt it is redundant and unnecessary. Planning Cornrnisslon Minutes February 26,2012 Page 7 John McCowan (2064 Galerita) stated his property is right off the canyon Ms. Lacombe spoke of. He stated he agrees with both Jeanne and Pete Lacombe and their comments. Richard Buchholz (27067 Silver Moon Ln) stated there is absolutely no movement at his house and did not understand where the hazard designation comes in and who determined there is a hazard. He stated he has a concrete patio at the side of his house that is adjacent to the slope and it has only moved one inch in forty years. He stated that he has no problem with calling the area Open Space Hillside, but has issues with calling the area Open Space Hazard. Robert Fisher stated he was in favor of staff recommendation 3 or 3A, but preferred 3A. He explained that the map shows his home entirely within Open Space Hazard, but the map was done some time before his house was built in 1963, When they built the house they spent quite a bit of money on the grading of the lot, and therefore the grade is very different now than when the map was drawn. Maury Williams (2152 VanKarajan) stated his entire property is currently zoned Open Space Hazard. He noted the city geologist has proposed to move the line to the edge of the canyon, which he agreed with, and rezone the entire canyon as Open Space Hillside. He thought that the direction had once again changed, and the current direction is to remove that Open Space Hillside from the canyon above him and keep his property as Open Space Hillside. He questioned what criteria is being used to determine what is Open Space Hillside, noting this is not following the geologist's recommendation and there appears to be no uniformity involved. He felt that in any zoning that is going to be applied to properties there must be criteria to do so and it must be uniform throughout the area. He agreed with Mr. Lacombe that the Open Space Hazard designation should be eliminated. Commissioner Gerstner addressed staff, stating that it was his understanding that what staff and the Commission was attempting to do was to apply a consistent standard, because the way Open Space Hazard was originally determined when the City was incorporated appears to lack a consistent standard. Director Rojas stated that was correct, noting on Mr. Williams's property how the existing situation on his property makes no sense. Staff is attempting to apply a standard based primarily on topography and extreme slopes. Commissioner Gerstner then asked staff to clarify the difference between Open Space Hazard and Open Space Hillside, noting he understood the two to be the same with the exception that Open Space Hillside will allow for a Variance application to allow certain structures on an extreme slope. He recalled the main reason for changing the name to Open Space Hillside was to remove the word "hazard" from people's property. Deputy Director Pfost stated that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 8 Janet Schoenfeld (6 Coach Rd) noted her property on the staff's aerial and stated that she does not now, nor will she ever, have any intention of building in the cross-hatched area of her property. Her concern is mainly the label that will be put on her property. She noted that at the previous meeting she voiced her objections, and won't reiterate them. She stated she very much concurs with the statements of the prior speakers, noting there is a robust process in place to preserve land use and curb improper development. She did not feel that adding this type of parcel level specificity adds anything of large value to the overall process. She recommended, the Commission adopt item No. 3 or 3A in terms of its recommendations. Rein Kuhr (39 Oceanaire Dr) stated he was not sure of the status of his property. He stated he went to City Hall but did not feel he received any real answer and has not attended any of the Planning Commission meetings. He felt that if any of his property is in the Hazard area he would be in favor of calling it Open Space, He noted that the areas are not buildable, but if ever wanted to sell the property he would have to disclose that part of his property is designated as Hazard, and felt that was ridiculous and unfair. Chairman Tetreault explained that part of the proposal before the Commission is to change the name from Hazard to Hillside, and asked Mr. Kuhr if he was in favor of doing that. Mr. Kuhr answered he would be in favor of that name change. Gerard Melling (26600 Menominee PI) explained he came to the meeting to see how this proposal would affect his property, with the understanding that the only real change would be the change from Hazard to Hillside. Director Rojas displayed the aerial showing Mr. Melling's property and the current OH Boundary lines on the property, noting the current proposal is to move the line back away from the house and down the canyon. William Fain (3000 Via Campesina) felt this was a difficult situation, as on one hand there are various provisions in the Code to deal with this issue, and on the other hand this is a way of creating some predictability as to what the problem areas are. He felt it does have to do with slope, but it also has to do with geology. He noted the peninsula has some variation, as the side facing Catalina Island has different conditions than that facing the north. He felt the mapping is needed, but should be applied in a certain way so as to create some consistency. He felt the solution may come in the terminology, as Hazard conveys an onerous condition. He thought the idea of hillside restricted areas may be a bit friendlier, with the provision that it has the ability to have a Variance process that can be applied for. He added that a Variance should only be granted in very extreme and unusual conditions. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 9 Chairman Tetreault stated that at almost every public hearing the question has come up as to why the City is doing this and how this all came about. He asked staff to explain what this General Plan hazard designation does and how it differs from the zoning ordinances. Deputy Director Pfost explained the General Plan is the goal and policy document for the City, as opposed to the Zoning Code which implements the General Plan. He stated the General Plan provides the initial context of policy direction. He noted in the staff report the section which discusses the creation of the General Plan Hazard designation and states that the purpose of this district is to regulate use, development, and alteration of land in extreme slope areas so essential natural characteristics such as land form, vegetation, wildlife communities, scenic qualities, and open space can be substantially maintained. He explained the original General Plan had an intent to try to preserve these special areas that it noted as Hazard designation. The Zoning Code came in with even more specific information for other areas that didn't necessarily include the hazard designation, Chairman Tetreault noted that what is currently before the Commission is changes to the General Plan and not to the Zoning Code. Deputy Director Pfost answered that was correct. Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated there have been approximately ten Commission meetings on this topic, and at every meeting there are public speakers with the same concerns in regards to the impact on their property values, increases in their insurance, the effect on their property taxes, and a general confusion about the process. He stated he has heard the message and feels the process needs to be stopped. He hoped that the other four Commissioners will remember their vote from last month and reconfirm option No. 3, He noted that option No. 3A was an even better option than option No. 3. Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to adopt option No. 3A, as noted in the staff report, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Commissioner Gerstner explained his concerns, explaining that in adopting option 3 or 3A the City is not applying a consistent standard, and could actually end up with a less consistent standard than the current one. He stated the lines won't follow any reasonable topography and will be a combination of something that was done without aerial maps and topography combined current technology. He did not think this would make any sense to anyone. He felt the current question as to why the lines are the way they are, what standards were applied, and why it isn't consistent will actually get worse. He explained that the reason the lines are there, in some regards, is to provide some level of certainty to the people who own those properties and to the people who will own those properties in years to come. He felt the lines provide some guidance to people as to what exists there. In addition, in the General Plan there is a broader understanding as to why those areas are Open Space Hazard, because it maintains the character of the community, they are areas where we want natural vegetation, and Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 10 natural wildlife. However, by adopting option 3 or 3A there will be no designation on the property and a homeowner may go to staff and go through a process in finding out what can and cannot be built and what can and cannot be developed on the property. He felt most people would not want to find that out three months after they bought the property, rather than knowing it before they bought the property. He therefore stated he disagrees with option Nos. 3 and 3A, and felt option No. 2 was a better option. He noted that even though more explanation was needed to the community, it seemed that as people came to understand what was trying to be done there was acceptance and understanding of it. Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt that Commissioner Gerstner's comments made a case for adopting option 3A. He noted that at every meeting there have been residents speaking that state the new boundary goes through their house or through their swimming pool or garage. He stated that every time a resident gets a notice that affects their property they're troubled. He felt option No. 3A reduces the impact to the residents, changes the name so that there is no Hazard designation on a property, and reinforces the previous vote by the Commission at the previous meeting. Commissioner Gerstner stated the designation is on a property to provide people who are looking to develop, and people who want to guide the City in a certain consistent way some understanding of what they can do and what the community wants to have done. He felt that having the lines not have any consistency to them makes them almost worthless. He didn't think this would help accomplish anything. He stated that this will keep the property owners comfortable with the way their property is, but haven't provided any benefit to anyone in the future who might want to develop these properties, or more importantly, as the City works to not develop the hillside areas of these properties. Chairman Tetreault stated the lines means something, as they create land use restrictions, He felt they were originally drafted in a rather inaccurate and unscientific method. The new lines, while prepared by the geologist, were not scientifically drawn. He noted a better job may have been done with the new lines because of better technology, however they are not the result of an in-depth geological study done parcel to parcel. To that extent, he felt these lines are somewhat arbitrary as well. He stated that it has been confirmed that the original General Plan and zoning is inaccurate and several properties are unjustly restricted in their use, and the geologist has recommended those restrictions be removed or reduced. With that recommendation, he felt the City was obligated to do so, as it would be unfair to those property owners to do otherwise. However, he questioned the properties where the line further burdens that property. He felt the best solution was to go to every property and have a geologic analysis done of each property, but understood that was not possible. He felt that option No. 3A was a good compromise. He felt this was a political decision, but could not justify imposing land use restrictions on property owners that is not based upon a scientific process. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 11 Commissioner Leon recalled the Commission had agreed that the Open Space Hillside should allow for a variance process as part of the General Plan, whereas currently Open Space Hazard does not. Deputy Director Pfost responded that the Commission did not make that determination, clarifying that Open Space Hillside would be a land use designation and therefore one could not vary from that. However, the Commission was moving in the direction to allow some improvements in the Open Space Hillside, such as a cantilevered deck over a slope. Commissioner Leon stated that was not his understanding when it was being discussed at the previous meeting. He recalled that the he had suggested having a variance process associated with the designation because there are unique situations associated with many of the properties and the City should be able to deal with them on a case by case basis. Director Rojas explained that a variance process would have to be written into the zoning to allow that, as legally the City cannot issue a variance for a land use restriction. Commissioner Leon stated he theoretically agrees with Commission Gerstner that it is better to use option No. 2 where there will be a consistent basis of boundaries drawn on a map that match the slopes and geology, so that you end up with a shape that makes sense on the ground. However, from a practical standpoint the City will be adding on an encumbrance where there was not one before. He stated the Development Code protects the City and the community from development on the lot that doesn't have the encumbrance on it, as building will not occur on a slope of 35 percent whether it has an Open Space Hazard designation or not. He felt it comes down to whether you want to be theoretically correct or practically correct and he felt option No. 3A meets the practical goals and did not think it was necessary to be theoretically accurate in this instance. Commissioner Nelson stated that he felt the Commission is trying to move towards simplicity, and felt that option No. 4, eliminating the hazard designation entirely, would be the best solution. However, he was in favor of option No. 3A. However, should option No. 3A fail, he will support option No. 4, Vice Chairman Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Leon's comments that this is a discussion between the practical and the theoretical. He felt that for the 250 properties that are going to get an immediate improvement with this action, he will choose the practical. The motion to adopt option No. 3A for the purpose of updating the General Plan's Hazard Land Use designation was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 12 Chairman Tetreault asked staff if this decision only affects the properties that were being discussed this evening, or if it applies to all affected properties in the City. Deputy Director Pfost explained that this decision affects all hazard areas in the City. He stated that the 260 properties the Commission dealt with in January will be modified per option No. 3A and the remaining properties will come before the City with the modifications made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. February 12, 2013 Minutes Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Nelson recused since he was absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-agenda for the meeting on March 12,2013 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved as presented, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10,-08 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2012 Page 13