Loading...
PC MINS 19980405CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING APRIL 5, 1998 Approved 05/12/9$ A The meeting was called to order at 3 00 P M by Chairman Clark at the site of the proposed Marriott Senior Living Services Center on Crestndge Road ROLL CALL Present Commissioners Alberio, Paris, Slayden, and Chairman Clark (Commissioner Lyon arrived at 3 05 P M ) Absent Commissioner Vannorsdall and Vice Chairman Cartwright (excused) Also present were Acting Director/Secretary Rojas, Associate Planner Pfost, and Recording Secretary Atuatasi PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 195. Tentative Parcel Map No. 24655 Grading Permit No. 1903, Sign Permit No. 842, Site Plan Review No. 7942. and Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 27; Marriott Senior Living Services, North and west of the intersection of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Chairman Clark explained the procedure of the site visit that afternoon. He requested that the Commission, Staff, and members of the public to walk to the project site and that the applicant describe the proposed project Mr. Wayne Sant, (applicant) 3130 Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA displayed the site plan of the proposed project at the subject site and stated that it reflected the four acre parcel acquired from Host Marriott. Mr. Sant stated that the'H' shaped building was the proposed location of the three-story structure and that the entrance was located approximately at the beginning of the dirt driveway at the western portion of the project. Mr Sant stated that the four poles at the subject site represented the proposed structure, the top was the highest point of the proposed building, and the flags represented the approximate location of the roof line. He stated that the yellow' lines on the four poles reflected the finished floors of each floor (2nd floor, 3rd floor) The height of the top of the slope at the rear (north) of the property was at a 1220 foot elevation and would slope down (to the south) to the base of the proposed project at a 1206 5 foot elevation Chairman Clark asked if the Commissioners had any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Slayden asked what was the elevation level of the proposed structure and Mr Sant replied that it was proposed at 1241 5 feet, (1206 5 base elevation +35 building height) Commissioner Alberio asked if air conditioning units would be placed on the roof of the proposed project and Mr Sant replied that the units would be placed on the ground Mr Sant displayed photoboards that showed perspective views of the proposed structure from three locations, Lot No 125 located two doors away from Mr Segretto, Lot No 118 located closely to the subject site, and Lot No 151 located at Seaside Heights The views displayed the building situated on the site, the existing antennae, tower, existing tree line, and the roof Chairman Clark asked the applicant how he came about in selecting the project site for the proposed facility and why a three-story configuration was proposed for the structure Mr Sant replied that the project site was the preferred location based on the topography and that the footprint was a prototype that they were building across the United States He stated that they used to build two-story structures, but after conducting interviews with their residents he felt that a three-story structure is preferable since it would be a shorter walking distance for the residents utilizing walkers, canes, and wheelchairs Commissioner Paris asked if a greater risk would be imposed on the residents due to the configuration of the proposed structure (three-story) and if so, how would they mitigate this matter The applicant's architect, Mr Carl Irwin replied that the building code covered that quite thoroughly and that if a fire occurred smoke barriers would set-off and the residents would move side-to-side on the floor Mr Irwin replied that California has a special building code section for this usage which was designed by the State Fire Agency Planning Commission Minutes April 5,1998 Page 2 u 0 Commissioner Alberio asked if the grading (cut and fill) would be balanced and Mr Sant replied that the site will balance the cut and fill and therefore there will be no export with the project as proposed Chairman Clark asked the applicant why he proposed to utilize only 4.5 acres of the subject site for the proposed project instead of 10 acres Mr Sant replied that there was no need for additional land for the proposed structure and stated that it was consistent with other facilities of this type that have been constructed and completed. Commissioner Slayden asked if the excavation would afford the first level of the proposed structure with a view and Mr Sant replied that only rooms on the third level will have views. Commissioner Paris asked if there should be additional parking requirements for the proposed facility because of its location and Mr Sant replied that it was not necessary for additional parking since they proposed sixty-six spaces for the 120 residents as well as staff There would be eight covered parking spaces and the other spaces would be located across the proposed building Chairman Clark asked why there was a need for eight covered parking spaces and Mr. Sant replied that Associate Host would explain this issue in further detail Associate Planner Pfost stated that since a small number of the residents will have vehicles which would likely remain unmoved for long periods, Staff felt that it would be appropriate to consider eight covered parking spaces in the proposal. Chairman Clark stated that there had been some concerns pertaining to the geology issues at the subject site and asked the applicant to briefly explain their findings to the Commission, Staff, and the public. Mr. Ted Wolfe. (applicant's geologist) stated that their geology report was approved by the City geologist and that three other reports were done by them on the subject site which included drilling six borings and found that there was a bedded deposit (altimira shale) and discovered that the way the bedrock lies indicates the stability of the subject site Mr Wolfe stated that the subject site was on a favorable structural limb, but directly north of the subject site there are geologic stability issues involved. Mr Wolfe stated that there were two ancient landslides that may have some impact on the larger property, but not the project site. One located approximately 1300 feet northeast at Indian Peak was caused by replaced fill on a descending slope in the late 1960's The other ancient lanslide was located above Indian Peak Road approximately 500 feet from the northeast corner of the subject site Mr. Wolf stated that his firm had drilled four borings at a forty foot depth on the ancient landslide in the late 1980's and Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1998 Page 3 discovered that the land was not stable enough for any type of development. Chairman Clark asked if there was any characteristic of the actual construction of the proposed structure that would facilitate stability of the land Mr. Wolfe replied that the proposed structure would help the stability of the land by dividing the lot in half with one side filled up to grade and the other side cut where the slopes are located. By doing this, it would result in a more stable situation. Commissioner Paris asked if the applicant could briefly explain the drainage system review Mr. Sant replied that his was taken care of by surface drainage He said that they were required by code to maintain a minimum of one percent fold line coming from a high point at the rear of the building where water would run down from a slope, and then drain around the proposed structure with the flow lines no less than one percent grade and surface drain into the street. Chairman Clark asked if the members of the public would like to speak at that time Mr. Anthony Se rg etto, 5677 Mistrldge Drive, was concerned about the location of the proposed structure which was near an ancient landslide and asked if the structure would disturb the subject site Mr Wolfe replied that they were removing 26,000 cubic yards of dirt and stated that the weight of the dirt was much heavier than that of the proposed structure He ensured the weight of the proposed structure does not affect the geology. Mrs. Louella Wike, 29172 Oceanridge Drive, asked why the setback was so far and if the proposed project could be relocated closer to Crestridge Road Mr. Sant replied that the reason for the setback being so far was to primarily balance the grading. He stated that the intent was not to export any dirt, but instead to take advantage of all of the dirt on the site. Mr. Sant stated that the pad elevation was set at 1206 5 feet balancing the dirt back and forth and therefore the building has to be set back further If the structure is moved forward the setbacks would be reduced and the export of dirt would begin Planning Commission Minutes April 5,1998 Page 4 Mr. Edward Nakata, 5663 Mistridge Drive, asked if the proposed structure were moved forward would it be in line with the temple (Ner Tamid) and Mr Sant replied yes about 1234 feet in elevation Mrs. Myrna Plost. 29112 Oceanridge Drive, preferred the exporting of the dirt and the proposed project moved forward to be aligned with the existing structures along Crestridge Drive Mrs Richard Lee} 29152 Oceanridge Drive concurred with the last two speakers and inquired if the proposed style of the structure was the type for the elder residents and if it was similar to other senior facilities across the country. Mr Sant replied yes and that their prototype is three and four stories and that they use to construct two story structures. Mr Segretto asked if they had this type of facility in operation with three stories at some location and Mr Sant replied yes, in Denver Colorado. Mr. Marty Plast 29112 Oceanridge, asked how many cubic feet of dirt could a typical truck hold and Mr Sant replied approximately 10 Chairman Clark asked why the applicant did not propose to utilize Alternative No. 1. Mr Sant replied that 1192 feet (base pad elevation) plus 35 feet (building height) would reach the exact maximum height of the hill and it would not penetrate at the height of the hill There would be less landscaping in the front and more of a slope at the rear, the pad would be lowered by approximately fourteen feet, and the exporting of dirt would be approximately 69,000 cubic feet. Mr Glen Steiger, 29146 Oceanridge Drive noted on the maps that no borings were taken under the pads and Mr Sant replied that borings were done at the corners Mr. Jim Foresythei 31 Cypress Way requested to maintain the short cut acces at the subject site and stated that it comes straight out off of the street, through a narrow pathway up the slope, and leading directly to the firestation, stores, and schools He mentioned sidewalks were fine, but the paths of this sort were also fine since a pedestrian is not being threatened by cars Mr Bill Potter, 29126 Oceanridge Drive, stated that the height of trees in the back of the proposed structure would be higher than the building. Mr. Sant stated that there was a condition in the EIR requiring that the landscaping Planning Commission Minutes April 5,1998 Page 5 around the proposed structure not go beyond the height of the building. The Site Visit continued on to Mr Nakata's residence at 5663 Mistridge Drive where the Commission, Staff, and members of the public viewed the proposed project site From there the Site Visit took place at Mr Segretto's residence, 5677 Mistridge Drive where all again viewed the proposed project site. Commissioner Paris was concerned with cumulative traffic at the subject site and moved to refer this issue to the Traffic Committee for further studies. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyon and failed, (2-3) with Commissioner Slayden, Alberio and Chairman Clark dissenting. Chairman Clark moved to continue the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of April 28, 1998 and requested the applicant to return with detailed information, modify the height structure, and discuss the alternative of a single story building. Acting Director/Secretary Rojas informed the Chairman that the items for consideration at the meeting of April 28, 1998 were quiet extensive and suggested moving the Public Hearing of this item to the meeting of May 12, 1998. The maker amended his motion and moved to adjourn the Public Hearing of this item to the May 12, 1998 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slayden and passed, (5-0). At 4.45 P.M. Commissioner Alberio moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Slayden. With no objections, it was so ordered by Chairman Clark. N-\GROUP\PLANNING\PCMIN\MIN04-05.98 Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1998 Page 6