Loading...
PC MINS 19781212M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting December 12, 1978 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes. PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes ABSENT: None Also present were Gary Weber, Associate Planner and Keith Turner, Assistant Planner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion -of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1978, were approved with the following amendments: page 2, paragraph 2, should read "Carlton Miller..."; page 4, 3rd full, paragraph, should read "John Arand..."; page 4, 4th full paragraph, should read "Mrs. Arand..."; page 4, 11th full paragraph, should read "Joan Friedman..." On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded,by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of November 21, 1978, were approved as presented. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the minutes of November 28, 1978, were approved as presented. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, -seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the minutes of November 29, 1978, were approved as presented. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 41 Mr. Turner said topics of discussion VARIANCE NO. 34 remaining from the last meeting were Crestridge Road view obstruction, residency require- Landowner/Applicant: Episcopal Home ments, parking, lighting, landscaping, and visual appearance. He said veri- fication of the topography map had been done and a corrected survey had been submitted; he presented new photographs and said, in staff's opinion, no significant view obstruction would occur. He reviewed the applicant's proposal for residency priorities and said the applicant had proposed a 33 percent residency requirement which staff felt was adequate. He said the applicant had proposed to limit resident auto ownership to 100 cars, but that staff recommended a slightly reduced figure. Re visual appearance, he referred to the list of criteria for lighting, landscaping, and exterior building materials. He said as a result of the topography plan being corrected and an effort to reduce the amount of re- quired grading, the differential between units 3 and 4 was --now two feet instead of ten feet. Re density, he referred to the table attached to the staff report giving a comparison of various projects and their impacts. He said because there were so many variables it was difficult to arrive at exact information for a direct comparison; that this should be used as a guide only. He referred to some suggested changes to Exhibit "A", copies of which were submitted to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the recommended conditions. Mr. McTaggart asked where staff obtained the figures used in the density table. Mr. Turner said the figures were obtained from the Los Angeles City En- vironmental Impact Report Handbook. He said input re fire and police ser- vices was obtained from the Fire and Police Departments. He said those figures relate to emergency calls. Mr. Hughes said this was a continued public hearing, he explained the pub- lic hearing procedures, and opened the public hearing. Claude Senefeld, 3312 Rosehedge Drive, Fullerton, architect, said they were satisfied with the conditions except for #15. He said they would pre- fer the limit on resident automobiles to be 100 cars. Re visitors, he said a lot of them come to pick up their relatives rather than stay there and visit, and that the peak load for visitors was never during the work week. Mr. Turner -said at the last meeting it was indicated there would be 25 day- time employees. With 100 spaces for resident cars, that would only leave 25 guest spaces. Mr. Senefeld said the employees were not all full-time, that some were there only certain hours during the day, i.e. the kitchen help. He re- viewed the plans, indicating where the floor had been lowered. Marilyn Slater, 6540 Madelyn Cove, felt the times of peak traffic for the facility would not interfere with the times people would be going to and from work. She felt this type facility was very much needed in Rancho Palos Verdes. Florence Irwin, 23724 Coastsite Drive, spoke in favor of the proposal. Mrs. L. D. Welch, 30676 Via La Cresta, felt this type facility would make the City more of a small town and that the City needed different types of facilities like this. Barr Ruston, 30009 Avenida Elegante, felt the facility was needed for the residents of the Peninsula. He did not feel there would be view obstruc- tion. He did not feel the facility would cause an impact on the traffic, considering the habits of people residing in such a facility. He also did not feel the hours kept by those residents could have a negative impact on neighboring residents. Nova Kiergan, 6109 Armaga Springs Road, was in favor of the facility and said visitors to facilities of this type ate usually infrequent. Marilyn Ruston, 30009 Avenida Elegante, said her father has lived in two such facilities and that there was nothing in the South Bay area which was suitable at this time. She said she experienced no parking problems at either of the two facilities. She felt this facility was needed in this area. William Parker, 28018 Santona, spoke in favor of the facility and said many old people like his mother are restricted on their driver's license to day -time driving or to certain days of the week. Joseph Ragozino, 5725 Mistridge, presented photographs which he took and said they varied considerably from the staff photos. He felt there would be a great deal of obstruction of this view. John Arand, 5731 Mistridge, was concerned about the density factor and -that this project would set a precedence for other projects in the community. He felt the view obstruction would be significant. He felt the structures could be moved to eliminate view obstruction and submitted drawings which he had prepared. Georgalee Works, 5717 Mistridge, expressed concern about view obstruction and lighting. George Cummings, 1410 Blackstone Road, San Marino, applicant, said in the future they plan to have one-third of the facility available for subsidy. He said this was not feasible at the present time but was the plan for. later. As suggested by Mrs. Bacharach, Mr. Cummings agreed to add priorities for area residents after Episcopalians on the residency priority agreement. As suggested by Mr. Hinchliffe, he agreed to change the agreement to read "...priority for admission into a minimum of one-third of the living units..." He said they would be satisfied with 80 resident parking spaces. Re the drawings submitted by Mr. Arand, Mr. was the location of the Edison and the sewer the administrative building should be close tional standpoint. Senefeld said the difficulty easements. He said they felt to the entrance from an opera - 12/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. McTaggart asked if they had investigated moving the sewer. Mr. Senefeld said no. Re private open space, he said each unit would have either an 81x121 ground floor patio or a 75 square foot balcony. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. -Mmm At 9:40 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. with the same members present. Commission discussion ensued, taking one issue at a time. View Obstruction Mr. McTaggart felt relocating the sewer and the buildings should be explored to eliminate view blockage. He did not feel all alternatives had yet been look at. Mr. Hinchliffe felt any view obstruction would not be considered significant but felt adjustment to the building causing the most concern should be ex- plored. Dr. Brown concurred with Mr. McTaggart and felt all possibilities which would mitigate the view obstruction should be explored. Mrs. Bacharach felt the view obstruction would not be significant but that it would be interesting to know if the sewer could be moved and if the buildings could be relocated. Mr. Hughes felt the difference between the staff photos and those presented by Mr. Ragozino was that the staff photos represented where the structures would be built and the others were taken of the areas which had the most significant view but not necessarily where the structures would be. He said he would not be opposed to asking the applicant to look again at lowering the ridgeline which would have the most potential view obstruction. Mr. Senefeld said they would prefer moving the sewer if possible rather than changing the buildings around. Mr. Hinchliffe suggested relocating the sewer and moving the buildings back rather than changing the buildings around. It was the consensus of the Commission to instruct the applicant to move buildings 3 and 4 down towards the road and move the sewer easement to accommodate relocating the buildings to mitigate view obstruction. Residency Requirement Dr. Brown said he would prefer a 50 percent residency priority. Mr. McTaggart felt he would like to see 20 percent for residents or rela- tives of residents living in Rancho Palos Verdes. He felt since the faci- lity would be in the City and any impacts would affect the City, that the City should be assured of the greatest benefit. Mrs. Bacharach said she had trouble requiring minimums since she had no idea of the number of Episcopalians living in the City. Mr. Hughes said he was not uncomfortable with the 33 percent figure. He felt there might be problems with trying to limit the first priority to Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Hinchliffe felt 33 percent was reasonable. He said he would feel un- comfortable breaking it down to preferential treatment of Rancho Palos Verdes. He felt this defeated the purpose of treating the Peninsula as a community. He felt the City Attorney should review the agreement. 12/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- Mrs. Bacharach concurred with Mr. Hinchliffe. It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the proposal as written, with the suggested changes previously agreed to by the applicant. Parking Dr. Brown said he would agree to 80 resident spaces as suggested by the applicant. Mr. McTaggart suggested granting 80 spaces for the first year and,'if-it is shown that there would be no problems, raising -the figure to 100 after- wards. It was the consensus of'the Commission that the residency parking be 80 spaces with a trial period, after which it would be reviewed by the Director of Planning and, if reasonable, increased to 100. The length of the trial period was left to the discretion of the Directorof Planning. Visual Appearance - Lighting and Landscaping Mr. Hughes felt the lighting should be directed in such a manner so as to be shielded from view of the residents above. Mr. Senefeld said they were just proposing lighting along the walkway, not on the buildings. Mr. Hinchliffe said screening should be tempered with practicality. Mr. Hughes expressed concern with the height of the landscaping and suggested • condition limiting the height to the ridgeline height or lower. He felt • condition of approval could be for on-going maintenance. Mr. Turner pointed out there may be trees on the site which would not affect views. Mr. Hughes directed staff to identify sensitive areas on the landscaping plan and to write an appropriate condition limiting the height in those areas. Density Mr. McTaggart felt 300 beds was to high a figure. Mr. Turner said the intent of that condition was to limit the number of beds and to insure that the complex was only used as a community care faci- lity. He said the wording could be changed to require that it be licensed and operated as a community care facility. Mr. Cummings said they wanted to be able to accommodate couples. He said a comfortable density for a facility of this type was 1.2 persons per unit, which would be 180 people for this facility. Dr. Brown was opposed to 300 and suggested a maximum of 150 people. He also felt there should be more grass areas for people to walk on. Mrs. Bacharach had no problem with the density. She pointed out the amount of green space at the Alhambra facility and that it was not used very much. She was comfortable with the amount of green area proposed. Mr. Hinchliffe felt there was a lot of open space and did not understand the density concern. He had no -problem with 300 people. Mr. McTaggart said he would rather limit the people to 200 which would allow some flexibility. Mr. Senefeld said they would be satisfied with 225 beds. Mr. Cummings said they would hate to refuse admittance to someone because they were married. He pointed out that this condition would determine the licensed capacity and that there would be no way to exceed it. 12/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Brown felt the more people, the more impact. Mr. Hughes said 200 beds seemed reasonable and consistent with what the applicant had indicated was typical with this type facility. It was the consensus of the Commission to limit the number of beds to 200. Van Mr. Cummings said the State regulations do not require them to have a van, only that they provide transportation which could include a taxi. He said they do plan to provide a vehicle but would prefer it not be limited to a van. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to draft a condition requiring a vehicle for private, not public, transportation. Mr. Hughes felt since this was a public facility, there should be a re- quirement for the conditions of residency to be posted in a conspicuous location at the facility. Mrs. Bacharach suggested it be on the application also. Mr. Cummings said the State requires that a facility's policy for admit- tance be in a conspicuous place. Mr. McTaggart requested that the site plan be part of the conditional use permit. It was the consensus of the Commission to amend condition #9 by adding that the plans showing the location of the building with the sewer moved and the resultant elevations be part of the document. Mr. Weber suggested giving conceptual approval and having the resolution and conditions back at the next meeting, so that the changes could be made and the City Attorney could review the agreement. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to grant concep- tual approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 41 and Variance No. 34, as revised. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None Mrs. Bacharach requested that the landscape -lighting criteria be revised and brought back at the same time. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 47 Mr. Turner suggested a change in the Lots 16 & 17, Tract 28750 (NE side wording of condition #8 of the draft of Peacock Ridge Road) resolution to -allow minor changes to Landowner/Applicant: The Whitestone occur at a staff level. He said major changes would still come back before the Commission. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt Resolution No. 78-52 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 47 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", as modified this evening. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, McTaggart, Hughes NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday, December 26, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. 12/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5-