Loading...
PC MINS 19761228M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 28, 1976 The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairperson Shaw. PRESENT: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Rosenberg, Shaw ABSENT: None Also present was Associate Planner Gary Weber. MINUTES APPROVAL Mrs. Shaw proposed the following correction to the minutes: page 6, under Commission Reports, last line, should read "....78 people." On motion by Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of December 13, 1976, were approved as corrected above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 20 Mr. Weber reviewed the background GRADING NO. 111 of the request, noting that this 30804 Hawthorned Boulevard was the third hearing for this item. Applicant: William Roberts for He said the revised plans include Salvation Army the widening of the access road and the elimination of created slopes of 1-1/2:1. Staff recommendation is for approval based on these revisions, and subject to the conditions which are included in the staff report. Per Mr. Rosenberg's request at the last meeting, Mr. Weber said that the master plan had been submitted. In answer to a question by Mr. McTaggart, Mr. Weber said he understood that the single residences were to be used by families, and the multi- unit section would be used by single persons. Mr. McTaggart expressed concern over the impact on the public school system and wondered if staff had taken this into consideration. Mr. Weber explained that Staff felt that this project was of minor scope and the impact would be insignificant. Mr. McTaggart felt some assessment should have been made to indicate the size of the impact, and pointed out that this institution does not pay taxes and may represent a financial burden. The public hearing was declared open. Colonel Lawrence Smith, Chief Secretary, Salvation Army, 28660 Vista Madera, San Pedro, discussed why and when the organization located at this site. He said as the Western Territorial Headquarters, they were responsible for thirteen states. He said the officers receive spiritual, social and emergency disaster training, and have a contribution to make to the community. In aswer to questions of the Commission, Colonel Smith said the staff is currently living at the site, the proposal is for staff quarters, and that when the staff members move into the new quarters, their current housing can be used for more cadets. He further explained that the parents of most of the children on the premises are the cadets, who are there for a two-year period; and because of the young age of the cadets, most of these children are pre-school. Lieutenant Colonel Donald Barry, Secretary of Personnel, Santa Ana, ex- plained that they will be equipped to serve should a disaster occur in the area. He said at present there are approximately 110 adult cadets, 50 children, and perhaps another 10 members of staff. Based on the present occupancy, it is anticipated that with the addition of the new facilities, the occupancy would be about 180, certainly not over 200. Regarding the subject of property taxes, Tom Davis, Attorney, Pacific Palisades, said that the institution does not pay taxes, but reiterated that the number of school age children is very nominal. Bill Roberts, representing the Salvation Army discussed the master plan, showed photographs (indicating where the residences would be built), showed the revisions as requested last meeting, discussed the materials to be used, showed floor plans, elevations, landscape plan, and renderings of the development from different views. He pointed out that the roofs will be dark brown rather than the red shown in the renderings, and said the distance between the homes would be 20 feet. He further said that the master plan has been submitted to the City as part of the record. The public hearing was declared closed. During Commission discussion, the following concerns were expressed: no financial contribution by the organization for any of the services including schools, police, fire, etc.; the resultant financial impact to the community; and possible requests for future further expansion. It was pointed out that this proposal for expansion would not have that great an impact considering that this is a small addition to the already existing 170 people. The Commission also had questions about the Negative Declaration, the grading, etc. Mr. Weber explained that any further grading (not considered to be minor in scope) would require additional approval, that the Negative Declaration was dated September 17, 1976, and that under the Development Code people may reside in an Institutional zone (either temporarily or permanently) if it is an educational facility. Dr. Roberts said that the teaching personnel, those directly related to the educational portion of the facility, will be living in the new housing units, not the administrative staff. Mr. McTaggart said he would feel uncomfortable making a decision without knowing the impact, and he requested a breakdown of the current impact to the school system and the impact that the proposed increase would create. Mr. Rosenberg requested some figures regarding the impact of the cost to the city for other services. He further requested the opinion of the City Attorney as to whether the development is within the intent of the zoning ordinance or the legal ramifications thereof, what was commonly accepted and also the legality of the construction of multi -family struc- tures on this site. On motion by Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Mr. Rosenberg, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled until the requested information was obtained. Staff felt this should be ready by the next meeting, January 11, 1976. The Commission expressed appreciation to the applicant for the renderings, and Mr. Hughes (who had requested them) said he found no objections with them. RECESS At 8:50 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconveded at 8:55 p.m. with the same members present. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 21 Mr. Hughes said that he was present 30727 Palos Verdes Drive East at the original Planning Commission Applicant: Howard Hildreth meeting when this matter was heard, but not as a member. However, he did hear the testimony, has reviewed all the material, read the minutes, and inspected the site, and felt qualified to participate and vote on this item. Mr. Weber gave the background of the request, explaining that the applicant proposes a 500 square foot addition above the existing detached garage, with a height of 3ust above 19 feet. He said the original staff denial was based on the criteria of incompatability with other structures in the neighborhood; that, on appeal, the Planning Commission also denied the request; and'that at the last meeting, the Commission moved to reconsider this item. He pointed out that if the Commission approves this request, it must make the appropriate findings; and he reviewed these findings. Planning Commission -2- 12-28-76 Mr. Blue said the garage is no longer a detached structure, as the applicant has connected it to the house. There were no speakers from the audience, and Mrs. Shaw explained that she brought up this item for reconsideration based on the City Attorney's interpretation of the criteria for evaluation, particularly from what he said at the Council meeting. Mr. Rosenberg expressed concern because he did not attend the meeting and the minutes do not reflect what the City Attorney said. Mr. McTaggart and Mrs. Shaw explained that according to the City Attorney's interpretation, this ordinance is strictly a view ordinance, and that the compatibility referred to in the ordinance is concerning views only. Mr. Blue proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to grant Height Variation No. 21 on reconsideration with the findings that: 1. The proposed structure is compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood because there are existing two-story structures. 2. There is no obstruction of view to the surrounding neighbors or others concerned. 14_�" 3. There is no/cumulative effect of the proposed structure or exist- ing structures of this type. 4. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. 5. The structure will not interfere with the neighborhood vista, as it is situated on the hillside in such a way that surrounding views are not affected. During Commission discussion, Mr. Rosenberg said he could not agree that the compatibility with the existing structures in the neighborhood will not be affected or that there will be no cumulative impact of the proposed or future similar construction in the neighborhood. Mr. Hughes felt the Planning Commission should have the legal opinion of the City Attorney (re his interpretation of the criteria used to evaluate height variation applications) in writing, so as to prevent future misunderstandings. The other commissioners concurred, and Mrs. Shaw requested that Staff request that the City Attorney provide the Commission with a written copy of his interpretation as stated above. The vote on the above motion was as follows: AYES: Blue, Hughes, McTaggart, Shaw NOES: Rosenberg ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21 Mr. Weber gave the staff report, VARIANCE NO. 12 explaining that the conditional use GRADING NO. 116 permit is required to allow the 5640 West Crestridge Road construction of a religious facility Applicant: Otto Korver in an institutional district; that Peninsula Baptist Church the variance is requested to allow encroachment into the rear yard setback, a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, and an increase in the maximum allowable building height; and that grading approval is required by the Commission because the grading involves more than 500 cubic yards of earth. He described the location, the surrounding proper- ties, the existing facilities and the proposed structures, and reviewed the code requirements analysis (the chart is included in the staff report). Re parking, Mr. Weber explained that the Code allows for joint parking agreements for reciprocal parking, that all facilities would not be used simultaneously, the non-residential nature of Crestridge would allow for a certain amount of on -street parking, and a significant portion of the lot is undevelopable. He said Staff feels the grading plan is appropriate, but is concerned about the proposed 12 -foot retaining wall. Staff recom- mendation is that public hearing be held, major issues be discussed, and the item be continued to allow the applicant to make required changes and/or Staff to draft the appropriate resolution, findings, and conditions. Planning Commission -3- 12-28-76 410 411 Public Hearing was declared open. Otto Korver, agent for the applicant, described the project and discussed the proposed grading, landscaping, etc. Re height, he said due to the size of the sanctuary the height was needed for acoustical reasons as well as visual. He showed renderings, elevations and plot plan, and said the retaining wall could be eliminated by sloping and landscaping instead, but this would cause a loss of parking spaces. Re parking, he said there was no provision for compact cars, that only one facility would be used at a time, and that existing spaces are larger than the code requires. Due to Commission concern, the applicant said the parking spaces could be restriped. He also submitted a letter from the Congregation Ner Tamid re sharing parking facilities. Wayne Frase, Pastor, 28424 Quailhill Drive, said they have attemped to keep the height of the structures as low as possible to avoid blocking any views; they anticipate approximately 600 people at one service; and the seating capacity in the existing facility is 375-400 maximum. Re the variance request, he felt concerning the height--the request was in keep- ing with a similar application which was recently granted; concerning the setback--the encroachment was not substantial, and concerning the parking-- that provided would be adequate. Ed Pierce, 2121 Deladier, chairman of the building committee, said he was responsible for the architectural design of the proposal, that the requests were not unreasonable, and that they are willing to conform to the code in every way possible. Speaking in opposition were Clinton Robertson, 5623 Mistridge Drive; Marsha Graham, 5643 Mistridge Drive; Mr. McCalty, 5635 Mistridge Drive; John Williams, 5609 Mistridge Drive; Martin Gravey, 5649 Mistridge Drive; Edward Nikada, 5663 Mistridge Drive; and Ed Koch, 5671 Mistridge Drive. Their main concern was the proposed height of both the sanctuary and the tower, as they felt their views would be affected and did not feel that every attempt has been made to keep the structures as low as possible. They also expressed concern about the parking and felt that there was an existing serious safety problem due to speeding cars in that area, and that on-street parking would be dangerous and should not be encouraged. There was some question raised as to the accuracy of the elevations as indicated on the topographic map. The public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Weber said that based on the newly acquired topographic maps, which staff feels are accurate, the church level is at about 1160 feet and the lowest pad elevation of any of the affected lots is 1220 feet. Mrs. Shaw explained that the code allows a 30-foot height in this zone without a variance, and that the tower does not come under the 30-foot height limit but can be approved or disapproved under the conditional use permit. The Commission briefly discussed the parking and felt that staff could work with the applicant to maximize the amount of parking by restriping and including some compact parking spaces, but the consensus was that they did not wish to discuss the item any further until they have viewed the site from the Mistridge homes. On motion of Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, this item was tabled until the next meeting of January 11, 1977 . Mrs. Robertson gave her phone number to the Commission so that they could contact her and arrange to view the site from various homes in the area. COMMISSION ITEMS In answer to Mr. McTaggart' s question, Mr. Weber said he might have the revised draft of the grading ordinance prior to the Commission' s next meeting. The Commission decided to regularly schedule for work sessions on alternate Thursdays and work on one ordinance or another. Mr. Hughes said that the Palos Verdes News published an article about the City Council ' s work session of December 20, and referred to it as a Planning Commission -4- 12-28-76 point meeting between the Commission and the Council. He said he would write a letter to the Editor pointing out the error. ADJOURNMENT At 11:20 p.m. it was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, January 6, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission -5- 12-28-76