Loading...
PC MINS 20020924CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 Approved October 2 , 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cartwright at 7.03 p m at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard FLAG SALUTE Deputy Director Pfost led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present- Commissioners Cote, Duran Reed, Mueller, Tomblin, Chairman Cartwright Vice Chairman Long arrived at 7.15 p m Absent Commissioner Lyon was excused Also present were Deputy Director Pfost, Associate Planner Blumenthal, Assistant Planner Luckert, and Recording Secretary Torres APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Cartwright suggested moving the Consent Calendar items to the end of the agenda The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Pfost reported that at the City Council meeting of September 17 the City Council heard a presentation from the current owners of Ocean Trails, focusing on the improvements to be made on Palos Verdes Drive South The City Council also heard a detailed presentation from Standard Pacific regarding the Crestridge property, and gave Standard Pacific direction to submit applications to the Planning Department for their condominium project. Lastly, the City Council adopted the revised local CERA Guidelines. Mr. Pfost briefly updated the Planning Commission on the appeal of the Long Point project to the Coastal Commission Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she had received a brochure from Marymount College, presumably mailed to all the residents near the school, explaining their plan to build and expand on their property Commissioner Mueller reported on a discussion at a recent School Board meeting regarding the antenna issue and their concern that the Planning Commission may be approving applications without understanding the visual impacts to the property. He stated that he would bring the subject up later in the agenda under future agenda items for a discussion on what guidelines drawings and simulations should adhere to when projects are brought before the Planning Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Heiaht Variation (Case No. ZON2002-001931: 2156 Gni andon Drive Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report. He explained that copies of the plans for the proposed project had not been given to staff for the Planning Commission in a timely manner, and therefore staff was recommending that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 22, 2002. Commissioner Duran Reed moved to continue the Rem to the meeting of October 22, 2002, seconded by Commissioner Tornbfln. Commissioner Mueller suggested amending the motion to continue the item, but not to a date certain Commissioner Duran Reed accepted the amendment. The item was continued, (6-0) Assistant Planner Luckert presented the staff report. He explained the request was for a 99 square foot addition to an existing two-story addition and was before the Planning Commission because the proposed addition was within 25 feet from the property line He stated that when looking at the necessary findings, staff determined the proposed project does not significantly impair views from neighboring properties. He noted that the resident at 31227 Floweridge Drive currently has a view in the direction of the proposed addition, however staff does not feel this view will be significantly obstructed, as the view impairment will be very minimal. In addition, staff feels there will be no significant cumulative view impairments as a result of granting this application Staff also feels this proposal is compatible with the neighborhood, noting that the home with the addition will still be approximately 400 square feet smaller than the largest existing structure in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff felt all findings could be made and was recommending the proposed height variation be approved with conditions. He circulated a photo board to the Planning Commissioners Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 2 Commissioner Mueller noted that while he shares the same last name as the applicant, there is no relation. Commissioner Duran Reed asked staff where the best and most important view from 31222 Flowendge Drive was. Assistant Planner Luckert answered that he had not entered the home to make the determination, however in speaking to the resident she had indicated that most of her view was from the second story, which is the bedroom. He stated that staff does not consider views from the second story of a home when determining the best and most important view, therefore staff determined the resident does not have a best and most important view from the main living area, which is downstairs. Commissioner Duran Reed noted that when visiting the residence at 31222 Floweridge she noted there was no window in the downstairs living area facing towards the development. She asked if, in this type of situation, the primary viewing area could be considered from the second story. Vice Chairman Long stated that the living room and main living area was on the first floor. Commissioner Cote noted that when she visited the home and asked the owner where the most important view was, she was taken outside in the back of the home. Chairman Cartwright noted there was a very large tree on Eaglehaven Drive which he felt was much more of a view impairment than the addition proposed by the applicant, and wondered if it was a City tree. Assistant Planner Luckert noted that the tree was on private property. Vice Chairman Long agreed that the tree did create a view impairment and suggested the residents consider a view restoration permit application. Chairman Cartwright asked if there had been a previous application for a height variation on the applicant's property, specifically for a new chimney at the property. Assistant Planner Luckert answered that there had not been a previous application to his knowledge. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if there were any applications, other than a height variation, to add to the back of the back part of the applicant's home Assistant Planner Luckert stated that to his knowledge there were no applications. He noted that there was an indication that a wall was being constructed in the rear yard, however there was not a permit required for that Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 3 • i • !i • ..���+d�-. Kurt Muller 31304 Floweridge Drive (applicant) stated that the tree on Eaglehaven Drive is on the public right-of-way and will be removed in the near future, as neighbors on Ganado Drive have had a view restoration permit approved by the City Regarding the new chimney on his property, he explained that he recently had an addition done to his home, which was permitted by the City. Mr. Muller felt that the staff recommendation was accurate regarding the minimal, if any, affect on any views Chairman Cartwright asked Mr. Muller if he had discussed and reviewed his proposal and plans with the two neighbors. Mr. Muller answered that he had shown the plans to the two neighbors Rochelle Krieger 31227 Floweridge Drive stated she was concerned about her view of Catalina Island. She stated that even losing a small percentage of the view was too much and would affect her property value. She disagreed with the placement of the silhouette, and was sure that more of her view would be blocked by the proposed addition. She wanted assurances that what she sees in the current silhouette was what would actually be built Vice Chairman Long noted that Ms. Krieger stated that she felt she would be losing more of her view than indicated in the silhouette, and asked what she was basing that feeling on. Ms. Krieger answered that when sitting in her living room she puts her hand in the air and uses her fingers to determine what she will be losing in terms of view. She reminded the Commission that when looking at the silhouette the actual floor coming out of the residence will be solid and not something that can be seen through. Therefore, she felt she would be losing more view than what could be imagined when looking at the boards and slats currently erected on the home. Commissioner Cote asked Ms Krieger if her biggest concern was in respect to the roofline and the extension of the roofline Ms. Krieger stated that was her concern because it partially blocks her view of Catalina Commissioner Cote stated that, when at the site, she had difficulty determining the portion of the sky as compared to the portion of Catalina that would be blocked. Ms. Krieger stated that there had not been many clear days, but she did not want to lose any portion of her view Commissioner Mueller asked Ms Krieger if the primary obstruction was the extension of the roofline and if that extension was not there would most of her view be saved Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 4 Ms Krieger felt that the elimination of the extension of the roofline would help, but could not say for sure without seeing it visually. Chairman Cartwright stated he was at Ms. Krieger's home and had trouble understanding exactly what her concerns were. He noted that staff had presented a photo board to the Planning Commission and asked Ms. Krieger if she had the opportunity to see the photos and asked her to point out to the Planning Commission exactly where her concerns were. Ms. Krieger viewed the photographs and circled her area of concern. Mr Muller noted that there was another tree in Ms. Krieger's view which will be substantially cleared once the tree is removed. Commissioner Mueller asked the applicant if the architect was present, as he had questions that he felt the architect could best answer. Mr. Muller answered that the architect was not present at the meeting. Commissioner Mueller asked the reason for extending the ridgeline beyond the existing balcony. Mr Muller answered that the actual structure would not be extended beyond the existing balcony, however the roof overhang would be extended slightly to accommodate the addition. Commissioner Mueller asked if the bay windows were eliminated, would the overhang still be necessary Mr. Muller felt the overhang would still be necessary, with or without the bay windows Commissioner Mueller asked if the bay windows were necessary and if they were an important part of the design. Mr Muller answered that it was for the sake of the architectural consistency with the slopes of the roof that are already existing on the house. Commissioner Mueller stated that the alternative would be to change the slope slightly, and asked Mr. Muller if he had conferred with his architect regarding that. Mr Muller answered that he had not talked to his architect about that. Chairman Cartwright closed the public heaftg. Commissioner Tomblin stated that he had visited the site, as well as the neighboring properties. While at the site, he noted the existing ridgeline and understood why the Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 5 architect designed the new ridgeline in the manner he did He did not think there was a significant view impairment, and agreed with the staff recommendations Commissioner Duran Reed stated that while at the site it was very difficult for her to determine if there would be any view obstruction because of the weather Therefore, she was relying primarily on the photographs submitted by staff. Unfortunately, she felt it was very difficult for her to see a clear picture of Catalina and the ocean from the pictures and at this point it would be very difficult for her to make any finding on view impairment, as she did not want to make a decision on speculation. She stated that she would prefer to wait for a day when there is a clear view of Catalina so that she could make a fair assessment of the view obstruction. She did not think she could make any findings one way or the other at this point, which would preclude her from accepting the staffs recommendations. Commissioner Mueller felt that from the photographs he could see an outline of Catalina Island and could get a fairly clear idea of the view involved. His concern with the application was that many of the applications to enclose balconies tend to modify the slope of the roof to accommodate the addition to the balcony. He felt that many of the concerns expressed by the neighbor might be addressed by redesigning the roofline of the structure slightly He noted that by doing this the bay window may not be possible, however he did not think the bay window was compatible. He did feel this project created a view impairment. He stated he would like to protect the view from the adjacent property from encroachment and felt the ridgeline was not designed to minimize the view impairment. Commissioner Cote stated that when looking from the neighbor's window at 31227 Floweridge she did not see a significant view impairment of Catalina Island because of the ridgeline extension She felt the view impairment was of the view of the sky rather than Catalina Vice Chairman Long felt there were only two findings that were potentially at issue. if there is a significant view impairment from 31227 Floweridge and is the proposed design one which minimizes any impairment of view. He did not think there was any view impairment from 31222 Floweridge and did not think that the view from 31227 Floweridge was significantly impaired. However, he felt it was unfortunate that the architect was not present to discuss the design and help resolve any doubts regarding the design. It was his feeling that the nature of this proposed addition was one that was designed to enclose a balcony area that will enlarge the master bedroom living space This being the case, he felt that the nature of the minimal addition was such that it was designed in a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of view He agreed with the recommendations of the staff report, however he did agree with some of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Mueller. Chairman Cartwright felt the proposed addition was consistent and compatible with the surrounding properties. He did not think there were any privacy issues and felt the entire issue comes down to view impairment. He did not think there was any significant Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 6 view impairment from 31227 Floweridge Drive He also visited the home at 31222 Floweridge and again saw no significant view impairment. He did not believe that requiring a modification to the roof was justified and would not support that recommendation. He agreed that it would have been helpful to have the architect present at the meeting. Therefore, he agreed with the staff recommendations. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hearMg. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Muller if a bay window was also being added in the front room of the residence. Mr. Muller answered that there was an existing bay window in the front and the bay window on the proposed addition would be consistent with the existing bay window. He stated that there were homes in the neighborhood with bay windows over the garage. Chairman Cartwright closed the public heaftg. Commissioner Mueller asked staff why the tree on the parkway area was not included as part of the foliage analysis for the application. Assistant Planner Luckert answered that staff does not look at whether or not foliage that is not on the applicant's property is blocking a view from neighboring properties, and the view is analyzed as if the tree were not there. Commissioner Tomblin moved to adopt P.C. ftsoPuUon Mo. 2002-28, thamby approving the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2002-00210) as presenqd by staff, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Commissioner Mueller asked to amend the motion to require the bay window not be installed and that the roof design be modified by the applicant to minimize the view impairment, seconded by Vice Chairman Long. Commissioner Tomblin did not accept the amendment to the motion Commissioner Duran Reed felt that the residents at 31227 Floweridge have a view of Catalina Island and she wanted to make sure they maintained that view. Therefore, she offered an amendment to the motion to modify the ridgeline of the proposed addition so that it does not extend out past the structure which would minimize the impairment of the view, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. Commissioner Tomblin did not accept the amendment to the motion, as he felt the ridgeline was consistent with the rest of the ridgelines of the house. He felt that playing around with the proposed ridgeline could throw the architecture of the home out of balance Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 7 Vice Chairman Long asked Commissioner Duran Reed to clarify her motion as to how the ridgeline of the proposed structure should be modified. Commissioner Duran Reed used a set of plans to demonstrate her suggestions and explained that one alternative would be to take the proposed addition and go straight up to the existing ridge The other alternative would be to take the proposed addition and come in at an approximate 90 -degree angle to the existing ridgeline. Commissioner Tomblin, also using the plans, offered an alternative which would keep the proposed ridgeline consistent with the rest of the house. He suggested cutting the ridgeline back approximately two feet from the street, so as to allow neighbors to maintain their views Using the proposed plans, the Planning Commission discussed Several alternatives to the proposed ridgeline of the addition Commissioner Tomblin felt it would be better, rather than the Planning Commission redesign the proposed addition, for staff to work with the applicant and his architect to reduce the ridgeline of the proposed addition He felt that staff was aware of the general feeling of the Commission and could achieve that goal more efficiently. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public heaftg. Vice Chairman Long asked Mr. Muller, given the Planning Commission discussion of possibly changing the ridgeline, if he was willing to change the ridgeline. Mr Muller answered that if the Planning Commission required him to change the ridgeline, he would be willing to do so. However, he was concerned that the requirement to cut back the ridgeline was made to preserve a view that was not being significantly impaired, and was mostly of the sky and not Catalina Island. Vice Chairman Long asked Mr Muller if he felt the request to make reasonable adjustments to his design to minimize the view impairment was unreasonable and why. Mr. Muller answered that he did feel the request was unreasonable, as the view impairment was very minimal and changing the blueprints would be adding costs and delays to the project. Vice Chairman Long asked Mr. Muller if the Commission approved his project with the condition of modifying a single line on the blueprint, to be at a different angle than it currently is shown, did he think that would be unreasonable. Mr. Muller answered that he has not seen the proposed change and could not answer the question Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 8 Vice Chairman Long showed Mr. Muller the blueprint that the Commission had been viewing, which showed the modified ridgeline He explained that the proposal was to change the ridgeline to be the horizontal line straight across. Deputy Director Pfost pointed out that the modification proposed by Commissioner Duran Reed would create an approximate 4 -foot area of flat roof, and wanted to be sure the Commission was aware of that Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she was aware of that Mr. Muller stated that in order to get an approval, he would be willing to accept that amendment. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Chairman Cartwright reviewed that the amendment to the motion was to redesign the proposed addition to cut the ridgeline back, rdhich WoWd create an approximate 4 -foot area of flat roof on the strucWre. The amendment to the motion failed, (2-3-1) with Commissioners Cots, TomNn, and Chairman Cartwright dissenting and Vice Chairman Long absWn6ng. Commissioner Duran Reed suggested an amendment to the original motion to keep the ridgeline at the same angle but push the vertical portion of the roof back some distance, which would reduce the height of the vertical portion and put the slope back further. She felt this would eliminate the need for a portion of the roof to be flat and keep the architectural integrity of the project She demonstrated her amendment on a set of plans for the project. Commissioner Tomblin accepted the amendment to his motion After further discussion and consideration of the amendment, Commissioner Duran Reed did not feel the suggestion would minimize the view impairment and withdrew her amendment to the motion. Commissioner Mueller proposed an amendment to the motion He noted that the bay windows extend 1 -foot, 6 inches from the wall of the house, which therefore extend the overhand that much further He suggested eliminating the bay windows and bringing the overhang back, which would allow the slope of the roof to be maintained. He felt this amendment would eliminate the view impairment. Commissioner Tomblin did not accept the motion, as he felt the bay windows were compatible with the neighborhood. There was no second to the amendment made by Commissioner Mueller. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Duran Reed suggested an amendment to keep the diagonal line on the ridge and move the vertical line back approximately 75 percent. She felt this modification would move the entire ridgeline back while still maintaining the character of the architecture and the bay windows would remain She demonstrated her suggestion on the plan. Deputy Director Pfost suggested moving the vertical line back 50 percent rather than 75 percent to maintain the dutch gable type took Commissioner Duran Reed agreed Commissioner Tomblin supported the amendment to the motion Vice Chairman Cartwright asked staff to initial the plans that had been marked up with the current amendment, which Assistant Planner Luckert then initialed. Vice Chairman Long reviewed the current motion which was to approve the staff recommendation with the modification to establish a condition that the plans will be modified as set forth on the copy of the plans the Chairman asked the staff to initial. Deputy Director Pfost felt language should be added that the vertical line would be moved back approximately 50 percent, or half the distance, to ensure the dutch gable look is maintained throughout the house. He noted that the extension is approximately 4 feet, and reducing that extension 50 percent would cut it back two feet. Commissioner Tomblin modified his motion to approve the staff recommendation with the modifications to establish a condMon that the pDans wffl be modffled as set forth on the copy of the plans that staff WtWed, �wNch reduces the ex2sns6on by two feet, seconded by Commissioner Cate. Approved (4-2) with Commissioner Mueller and Chairman Cart right d6zzanftg. Vice Chairman Long stated that he did not want his "yes" vote to be interpreted as indicating he felt the amendment was necessary or appropriate, and he hoped this would be an exceptional case Commissioner Mueller explained that he voted "no" because he felt there were other alternatives that could have been considered with more information available if the architect had been present at the meeting. Chairman Cartwright explained that he voted "no" because he did not think the amendment was necessary and he did not believe it will have much of an impact on the small view impairment that existed He did not feel it was appropriate to redesign a proposal unless the findings indicate it is necessary. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 10 RECESS AND RECONVENE At 9:00 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9 10 p.m at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) Associate Planner Blumenthal presented the staff report. He gave a brief history of the Conditional Use Permit and explained that the applicant is requesting a modification of the operating hours of the church and Visitor's Center and the ability to allow seminars, workshops, and small meetings within the Visitor's Center He explained that there were six findings that must be made to approve the revisions, and staff has found that the findings can be supported. He stated that staff has noted one discrepancy with the Building Code and explained that with the change of occupancy at the Visitor's Center from a retail use to an assembly use there may be additional emergency exiting required Therefore, staff was recommending Condition No. 6 to accommodate this requirement He stated that staff was recommending approval of the application with conditions. He circulated a photo board for the Planning Commission to review. Commissioner Duran Reed asked what the current use of the Visitor's Center was. Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that it was used primarily for display and sales of gift items as well as an office use by the staff of Wayfarers Chapel Commissioner Duran Reed asked if there was enough room in the Visitor's Center for the expanded use. Associate Planner Blumenthal pointed out the area in question on the photo board and explained that there is an area where there are mobile display racks that can be moved and chairs set up. Commissioner Duran Reed asked if it was currently prohibited to have workshops and meetings in that area. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the current Conditional Use Permit does not allow for that use. Commissioner Duran Reed asked why the original Conditional Use Permit did not allow for that type of use Deputy Director Pfost stated that at the time of the approval of the original Conditional Use Permit there were noise issues brought up by neighboring residents, however Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 11 those noise issues were focused more towards the amphitheater area He explained that there were many public hearings on the Conditional Use Permit and that this was one of the conditions attached to the approval and the Visitor's Center was conditioned along with the amphitheater area. Chairman Cartwright stated that he was on the Planning Commission at the time of the original hearings and his recollection was that the intent of the Commission was to place noise and use restrictions on the amphitheatre area but not necessarily the Visitor's Center Commissioner Mueller asked if the Center on the south side of Palos Verdes Drive South, which has a similar meeting area, was available to the public. Associate Planner Blumenthal did not know and would have to refer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Mueller noted that staff stated the parking demand increased by 20 additional parking spaces for the conversion at the Visitors Center, and asked what this figure was based on. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Municipal Code sets the standard of one space per every 50 square feet of assembly area. He noted that this is derived from the number of people that can be placed in the room. Commissioner Mueller asked if the General Plan had provisions regarding seminars and workshops and if the areas used should be free to the public or any other restrictions on the use. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that, other than the encouragement to create these types of facilities, there are no mention as to how they should be used. Commissioner Mueller asked if there were provisions that the people that apply to use the facility have equal opportunity to use the facility, or if the applicant has the choice of whom they allow to use the facility. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that, like most facilities, it is up to the applicant to determine how they want to use it Commissioner Cote asked for clarification in the staff report with respect to Item No 7 in the new conditions and Item No. 11 in the previously approved conditions She stated that in comparing the two conditions the only changes being recommended by staff was inserting "seminars, workshops, and other similar small meetings only." She was concerned with the wording of seminars and similar small meetings and what would differentiate that from religious services and similar uses Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 12 Associate Planner Blumenthal explained that a seminar would be more of a lecture type event as compared to a religious service where people would come in specifically for that purpose. Deputy Director Pfost added that there was also the difference in the size of the assembly. He felt that religious services or weddings would tend to have a larger crowd than a seminar type situation. Vice Chairman Long asked if Condition No. 7 had been discussed with the City Attorney. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that it had not been discussed with the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Long expressed concern with the condition and felt that staff should define conditions in a way that set the requirements based on something that can be evaluated by the City or whoever enforces the CUP without reference to the content of the things being said at the meeting He asked if the pre-existing conditions of the CUP would carry over. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that Condition No 2 of the Resolution before the Commission states that, unless modified herein, all other conditions do follow through Vice Chairman Long asked, if the Planning Commission concludes an existing condition is not appropriate, but no change is asked for by the applicant, can the Planning Commission modify that condition Associate Planner Blumenthal responded that the public notice included a general request to modify the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit, so the Planning Commission could modify any condition. Chairman Cartwright asked if other churches in the area were allowed to have meetings and if they had extended hours. He asked if what the applicant was requesting was different from what was already being permitted at other facilities, or if they were asking for special privileges. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff did not look at similar hours of operation of the churches in the immediate area. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if the City had received any complaints from the neighbors regarding noise. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that no complaints had been received and there had been no letters or inquiries from the neighbors regarding the public notice. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Duran Reed asked about the hours of operation of the other churches in the area, such as St. Paul's Lutheran and St. Peter's By The Sea She stated that she had made phone calls and discovered that their Visitor's Center is opened until 3.00 p.m. She also noted that many churches in Rancho Palos Verdes do offer midnight services on Christmas Eve, but she did not know of any churches that have hours until 10:00 p M. Commissioner Tomblin noted that St. John Fisher Church parish center closes at 10 p.m. for meetings, seminars, etc Chairman Cartwright stated that the Salvation Army had similar hours for their meetings. He felt most churches hold various types of meetings that typically go until 9.00 or 1000 at night Commissioner Tomblin had a little trouble with the concept of restricting religious services and the constitutionality of that. He asked if the intent of the condition was more towards amplification and music. If that was the case, he suggested structuring the condition to limit the music and amplification. Commissioner Cote added that that type of clarification would also address her concerns. Chairman Cartwright opened the public heaftg. Rev Harvey Tafel 5755 Palos Verdes Drive South (applicant) stated he was very proud of the Visitor's Center, which has filled a void in the visitor's experience at Wayfarers Chapel He stated that he was requesting to extend the hours and the use of the Visitor's Center so that he could hold a Bible study, a seminar, or a workshop, which he felt complimented the ministry of the Wayfarers Chapel. He explained that Wayfarers Chapel, unlike other churches, does not have a membership and therefore does not have the type of things going on at the church in terms of programming He has found, however, that people are interested in the church, the architecture, the theology, etc., and he would like to meet these needs. He felt allowing seminars and discussion groups at the Visitor's Center would be a way for the church to give back to the community. He explained that the church was very conscious of the impact it has on the neighbors and they try to do their very best to lima any kind of exposure to the neighborhoods. He stated that he has not received any complaints or comments regarding the Visitor's Center. Commissioner Duran Reed asked Rev Tafel if the seminars or conferences offered at the Visitor's Center would be open to the public Rev. Tafel answered that they would be open to the public, but a donation would most likely be requested. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Mueller noted that Rev. Tafel had discussed many church uses for the Visitor's Center, and asked if other groups would be allowed to use the facilities. Rev. Tafel answered that the church would want some sense of control of what the area would be used for, however it would be available for community use. Commissioner Mueller asked Rev. Tafel if he would accept a condition that would restrict the number of people at the meetings, conferences, etc, and if so, what would that number be. Rev. Tafel answered that the church will abide by any condition the Planning Commission deems appropriate, however he did not think the building could hold any more than 75 people and did not think there would ever be a situation where there would be more than 75 people in the building. He did want to have the flexibility to respond to different events with varying anticipated attendance Commissioner Mueller asked if the proposed modification to the CUP would involve any structural changes to the building which would make the inside of the building more open Rev. Tafel answered that he was asking for absolutely no structural modifications to the building. Chairman Cartwright asked if there were any restrictions to the types of meetings held at the old Visitor's Center. Rev Tafel responded that, to his knowledge, there were no restrictions Chairman Cartwright asked if there was a maximum number who could park at the present Visitor's Center Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the Building Code and Fire Code set a limit of one person per every seven square feet for an assembly type of use, which is 178 people in the display area of the Visitor's Center. He added that the number is reduced with the addition of chairs and tables to the area, so that there is a limit of 83 people in the area. Dean Andrews 1064 Upland Ave , San Pedro, stated that he was the architect for the Visitor's Center and was available to answer any questions. Chairman Cartwright asked if the Visitor's Center and Chapel will still be able to be used for the current uses by visitors while a meeting or seminar is being held Mr. Andrews did not think a meeting could be held in the Visitor's Center while the public was wandering about Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 15 "N 3 Chairman Cartwright asked if there were many visitors using the Visitor's Center Rev. Tafel answered that once it starts to get dark early the traffic is greatly reduced. He felt that expanding the operating hours would help accommodate the visitor's during the summer hours. Chairman Cartwright closed the public hearing. Commissioner Duran Reed did not feel there would be any additional Impact in granting the application, however she felt that there should be a three-month review rather than a six-month review. She would also like to see the emergency exiting plan submitted to staff for review within 30 days prior to conducting the first seminar so that there is ample time for review and implementation of the plan She was initially concerned about the request for extended hours at the Visitor's Center and Chapel, however since other churches in the area have extended hours she did not want to prejudice this applicant from having those same hours Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they had concerns regarding Commissioner Duran Reed's two suggestions. Associate Planner Blumenthal did have a concern, as he did not think there would be enough activity in three months to properly evaluate the situation. Commissioner Cote noted that a three-month review would happen during the winter months when activity may be slower, and felt that a six-month review would allow the neighbors and staff to observe activities during the busier spring and summer months. Chairman Cartwright agreed there may not be much going on during the first three months, and agreed that there would be much more activity after six months He suggested a six-month review and an additional review at some point after that. Commissioner Tomblin felt that language regarding religious services should be eliminated from the Conditions of Approval, and language added that there be a limit to or no outside amplification Chairman Cartwright asked staff if they would have a concern with limiting the outside amplification to 75 decibels. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff would not have a concern with a limit to 75 decibels for the outside amplification. Commissioner Mueller felt that Condition No 7 of the Conditional Use Permit needed to be modified. Vice Chairman Long asked staff if any condition of the Conditional Use Permit could be modified Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 16 Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that any condition could be modified Vice Chairman Long agreed that Condition No 7 was clearly a violation of the Constitution and under no circumstances would he vote for proposal unless that condition was modified. Commissioner Mueller was also concerned with parking and did not think the proposed parking was sufficient for the anticipated increase in the number of people at the Visitor's Center. Associate Planner Blumenthal stated that the minimum parking requirement was set in the Municipal Code, however the Planning Commission could limit the number of people to the Visitor's Center to reduce the parking demand on the site. Deputy Director Pfost added that the six month review would allow staff and the Planning Commission to establish whether or not there would be a parking problem and at that time the Planning Commission could add additional conditions or revise the existing conditions Vice Chairman Long suggested language that stated the Visitor's Center would be allowed to have more people when the chapel and/or amphitheater are not in use and their parking spaces are therefore available for visitors at the Visitor's Center. Deputy Director Pfost stated that this could be done and added that this is what staff had looked at and why staff did not think there would be a parking issue, as usually these uses are not occupied at the same time. Chairman Cartwright asked what formula was used to determine the number of additional parking spaces needed Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that staff used the 1,250 square foot display area which is being proposed for assembly use. He explained that the number was converted from 1 parking space per 250 square feet to one parking space per 50 square feet Vice Chairman Long asked if a condition could be added that at the six-month review the entire CUP could be reviewed, if necessary. Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that the entire CUP could be reviewed, however he felt that as the condition was worded, it was designed so that the entire CUP could be reviewed. Vice Chairman Long moved to adopt the staff recornmandaUon wKh the modification of Condition No. 7 to read that the VWtor's Center shafl he used oMy for office, information, display, gift shop, zemtnars, workshops, and other Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 17 meetings. Such seminars, workshops, and other smaii meetings shall involve no more than 75 people where both the chapel and amphitheater are not in use, no more than 50 people when either the chapel or amphitheater are in use, no more than 25 people when both the chapel and amphKheater are in use, and such meetings shall not make use of exterior ampflficagon of sound or any amplification greater than 65 decibels. Chairman Cartwright asked if this modification excludes weddings. Vice Chairman Long answered that the proposal does not exclude weddings because he felt that what distinguishes weddings from something else of the same size that doesn't have amplification greater than 65 decibels, is simply the religious nature of the service Commissioner Duran Reed suggested an amendment to the motion that Condition No. 6 should have language added that plans shall be submitted 30 days prior to the commencement of the first event. Vice Chairman Long accepted the amendment to his motion Commissioner Cote agreed with Vice Chairman Long's changes and felt it addressed the neighbors concerns regarding noise and parking Commissioner Mueller was concerned not with the noise, but with the frequency of weddings that may now occur at the Visitor's Center. Chairman Cartwright asked staff if there was a limit placed on the number of weddings allowed at Wayfarer's Chapel Associate Planner Blumenthal answered that there was not a limit placed on the number of weddings allowed at Wayfarer's Chapel Chairman Cartwright was also concerned with the number of weddings allowed and noted that the building is in an Institutional Zone, and with 5 or 6 weddings held per day one could begin to question the major use of the building. He felt that when converting a building that has traditionally been used for display purposes to then allow weddings, there could be a problem with the zoning. He felt that the motion should somehow restrict the number of weddings allowed at the Visitor's Center He felt the City Attorney should look at language restricting the number weddings allowed Commissioner Duran Reed felt the Planning Commission could suggest conditions and then have the City Attorney review the suggested conditions. Vice Chairman Long felt the Planning Commission should make the decision, and the City Attorney's opinion would not affect his decision, as he felt the answer was clear that a distinction could not be made based on the religious nature of the service. He felt that Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 18 if the objection to weddings at the Visitor's Center was the frequency of weddings, then a condition should not be written that would permit 20 seminars in one day but would forbid any weddings. He stated that he would agree to an amendment saying that no such meetings shall occur more than a certain number of times per day, but he would want to question the applicant on what he felt was a reasonable limitation on frequency. He felt that the Chairman's concern was one of frequency and intensification of use. He did not think the intensity of the use was governed by whether or not the meeting held in the Visitor's Center was religious in nature, but rather the number of meetings and the number of people Chairman Cartwright was concerned that Condition No. 3 did not specifically address the issue of the intensity of the use of the Visitor's Center. Vice Chairman Long stated that he would accept an amendment to his motion to say that Condition No. 3 would include the review of parking and restrictions on use of the Visitor's Center. Chairman Cartwright re -opened the public hea(dng0 Vice Chairman Long asked Rev Tafel what he would expect would be a reasonable number of meetings that he would expect to be held in the Visitor's Center such that if the Planning Commission set a limit on the number it would not restrict him Rev. Tafel felt that a limit of no more than four per day would be acceptable. Chairman Cartwright asked how many weddings were currently being held in the chapel Rev. Tafel responded that there were currently up to six weddings a day at the chapel, and in the year 2002 there were approximately 550 to 560 weddings. Chairman Cartwright asked if any weddings have ever been held in the Visitor's Center Rev. Tafel answered that to his knowledge, that since 1972 there has never been a wedding held at the Visitor's Center Commissioner Tomblin asked if the CUP was binding on subsequent purchasers of the property. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the CUP would be binding on a subsequent purchaser, as the CUP goes with the property. Chairman Cartwright closed the public heaftg. Commissioner Mueller noted the large number of weddings already being performed in the Chapel on this site and was concerned about the additional use of the Visitor's Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 19 { Center for weddings He noted that the CUP goes with the property and he was concerned that there might at some future time be another building at the site that could be used for the same type of use. He was comfortable that the City Attorney has reviewed the conditions of the previous CUP and he asked to amend the motion to retain the language which states the Visitor's Center shall not be used to conduct weddings. Vice Chairman Long did not accept the amendment. Chairman Cartwright seconded the amendment stating that there was a real concern regarding the commercialization of the facility. He felt the Planning Commission would be remiss if they did not make certain that what they were doing did not add to the commercialization Vice Chairman Long felt that the amendment would require whoever is enforcing the CUP to evaluate whether what is happening is a wedding or not, which he felt was determining whether or not a religious ceremony was taking place He also was concerned that if the Planning Commission was attempting to restrict the intensification of use, he did not think it was legitimate to consider whether the use is a for profit use, a non-profit use, or whether it does or does not generate revenue. He felt that if the concern was the use, the Planning Commission should define their objections to the use in objective terms. He stated that by eliminating the phrase "and similar uses" from Condition No 7 violates the First Amendment, as it discriminates between different uses based on the religious purpose Commissioner Duran Reed understood the concerns regarding allowing weddings at the Visitor's Center. She felt that there was a legitimate concern with the possibility of increased noise and intensity of use. However, she agreed with the Vice Chairman's concerns that limiting uses to any type of religious service does infringe on the constitutional right to freedom of religion. She felt that the way the motion is phrased would take care of the concerns of intensity of use and noise. She also noted that there would be a six-month review of the CUP, but she cautioned the Commission to be careful in suggesting any limitations to religious uses at the Visitor's Center Commissioner Mueller stated that this was a property zoned Institutional and he felt that restricting the use of weddings on this institutional piece of property was reasonable. Commissioner Cote stated that she would appreciate the City Attorney's opinion on the issue of not allowing weddings at the Visitor's Center Commissioner Mueller agreed and stated he would not go along with any motion to change the condition without guidance from the City Attorney Chairman Cartwright agreed, and felt that the City Attorney was paid to make these types of judgments and would like to see an opinion from her Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 20 Commissioner Cote suggested an amendment to the motion, that the approval would be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. Commissioner Mueller accepted the amendment to his amendment Deputy Director Pfost was concerned with the amendment and felt that the CUP would have to be re-amended to remove the language if the City Attorney were to have a problem with the language He suggested either continuing the matter to have the City Attorney comment on this specific issue or the Planning Commission could make a decision on the motion. Commissioner Mueller repeated his amendment to the motion to retain the following language in the conditions: "The Visitor's Center shO not be used to conduct weddings." Chairman Cartwright asked staff if the City Attorney were to say that it is permissible to restrict weddings, would that satisfy Commissioner Duran Reed and Vice Chairman Long's concerns. Vice Chairman Long answered that he would have to review the authority for the opinion and would give great weight to it Commissioner Duran Reed agreed that she would have to see what basis the City Attorney relied on before the meeting so that she could read it. The amendment to the motion failed (2-4) with Commizsiionevs Cote, TombNn, Duran Reed, and Vice Chairman Long dissenting. As there was no second to his motion, Vice Chairman Long wXhdvew No moVon. Commissioner Duran Reed moved to continue the Kam to a future meeting so that the City Attorney can review the language regardng restrIcUng wedd&ngs at the Visitor's Center and give an opinion, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Approved, (6-0). CONSENT CALENDAR At 1100 p.m Commissioner Duran Reed stated that she had to excuse herself from the meeting. She stated that she had no comments on the minutes nor did she have comments on the remaining items on the agenda. Minutes of August 27, 2002 Vice Chairman Long noted that on page 15 it should read Commissioner Lyon agreed to the amendment rather than Vice Chairman Long. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 21 Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the m6nutss as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Approved, (5-0). 2 Minutes of September 10, 2002 Commissioner Tomblin moved to approve the minuttez as presented, seconded by Commissioner Cote. Approved, (3-0-2) wKh Mace Ch&man Long and Commissioner Mueller abstaining since they dere absent from that mesUng. NEW BUSINESS 6 Commissioner comments on minutes Chairman Cartwright explained that this item was before the Commission to clarify the procedures for approving minutes on the Consent Calendar and whether the minutes should be continued to a following meeting if all of the Commissioners were not present Commissioner Cote stated that it had been previously agreed that Planning Commissioners should provide e-mail comments to the staff regarding changes to the minutes, and she wanted to reconfirm that this was the policy and the Planning Commission wanted to continue with that understanding Vice Chairman Gong added that it was important to approve the minutes promptly, as they may contain a discussion of an item that has been continued. He felt it was very important to have official minutes that can be distributed to the Planning Commissioners, City Council, and staff in a timely manner Therefore, when he is absent, he assumes that he should review the minutes and get his comments to staff beforehand Commissioner Mueller agreed, and noted that the Planning Commission had agreed some time ago to provide changes to the staff by e-mail. He clarified that at the previous meeting, which he had not attended, he had read the minutes that were on the Consent Calendar and had no comments, which was why he had not sent an e-mail or contacted the staff regarding the minutes. Chairman Cartwright stated that adoption of the minutes has become longer and longer and he encourage the Planning Commission to use e-mail or to call the recording secretary to discuss changes and, if necessary, have her review the tape of the meeting to clarify any concerns. The Planning Commission agreed. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 22 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Vice Chairman Long requested an item be added to a future agenda regarding the possibility of receiving the Planning Commission packets at an earlier date than they are currently being delivered Commissioner Mueller requested an item be added to a future agenda regarding the current procedures on how antenna applications are handled by the City, including what type of drawings and photo simulations are required ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11.22 p m Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 23