|
|
Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2003
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
MAY 20, 2003, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoffman at 7:00 P.M.
Commissioner Perrotti led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker, and Chairman Hoffman
Absent: Commissioner Kersenboom
Also Present: Sol Director Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Ken Robertson, Senior Planner
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE the April 15, 2003, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld explained that as directed by the Planning Commission, the applicant has provided evidence to verify the sale of the business to California Restaurant Endeavors and has submitted a floor plan and accurate seating plan - pointing out that the seating plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the Building Division. He stated that the applicant has also submitted an acoustical study prepared by an acoustical engineer, which stated that as long as the business does not exceed the DBA level of 85, the business will comply with the City's noise ordinance - noting the necessity to close the windows and doors during peak noise hours as part of the study recommendations. He stated that there are several conditions that require clarification, some which are obsolete and some which need revisions relative to the current CUP conditions that are typically applied to new projects (Condition Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 11). Director Blumenfeld stated that while the applicant has submitted an acoustical study, which is consistent with the current requirements, there are several conditions which are not in the current CUP that the Planning Commission may want to consider; and noted that staff believes Condition Nos. 4 and 5 in Section 5 are grounds to modify the CUP, conditions which relate to noise and public safety.
In response to Commissioner Pizer's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant has submitted a plan that reflects 88 square feet of additional floor area, area that was formerly dedicated for a bike rack; stated that if the 88 square feet is added to the floor area, it would require additional parking; that the applicant would need to process a Parking Plan in addition to a CUP amendment; and that this matter would have to be noticed for public hearing following the application of a Parking Plan.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Daniel Miller, owner of Dano's Beach Grill, commented on his discomfort with this lengthy process; and addressed his concern that continued hearings may negatively affect the sale of this business.
Chris Markakis, 101 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, new business owner, stated that the new restaurant will be called Element; advised that the applicants have complied with this body's requests; and that they are in full compliance with the existing CUP. He explained that they will enhance the restaurant space to increase the kitchen area and comply with ADA requirements in the restrooms; and that at this time, he is withdrawing his proposal to alter the wall on the front of the building. He urged the Planning Commission to allow the current CUP to apply to this new business.
Mr. Markakis noted for Chairman Hoffman that Southern California Restaurant Endeavors is an LLC partnership comprised of himself and another partner.
Mr. Markakis clarified for Vice-Chairman Tucker that he is proposing at this time to maintain the patio in its current configuration.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti addressed the necessity to keep the noise of the live entertainment contained to this facility; and expressed his belief there are grounds to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted that this business is not being asked to do anything more than similar businesses which have come before this body in the past year; suggested that a 6-month review of this business be included in the conditions; and noted that he would support granting a new CUP for this business.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted his understanding of staff's suggestion to include additional conditions that relate to an acoustical study, outdoor seating, management responsibilities, live entertainment, self-closing doors, closure of windows, air conditioning and amplified patio music.
Director Blumenfeld highlighted the following requested changes to the conditions: Section 5, No. 4, "...adequate staffing and management...of the patrons both inside and outside...;" No. 6, "The Police Chief shall determine that a continuing police problem exists, and may authorize the presence of a police doorman and/or security personnel to eliminate the problem and/or shall submit a report to the Planning Commission..."; with regard to noise attenuation, the acoustical study condition would replace Condition 13; delete Condition 14 and 15. Director Blumenfeld stated that a new seating plan will have to be submitted, which can be reviewed/approved by the Building Division.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE the modification to CUP 00-1 for Dano's Beach Grill at 1320 Hermosa Avenue; moved to include the suggested changes as mentioned above and to include a 6-month review of this business following its opening for business. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this property is located on the west side of Monterey Boulevard; that it is a half lot that contains 1,500 square feet; that the lot currently contains a duplex on the property; explained that the applicant is requesting to construct a single-family home; and that the applicant is requesting a height exception to allow this development to go above the standard maximum height limit of 30 feet, exceeding the limit by 3.4 feet. He noted that this calculation is based upon the architect's calculation and that staff has not been able to verify these numbers because the survey is incomplete. He explained that the Planning Commission can approve the height exception as long as the following 4 criteria are met:
- An extension above the height limit is necessary to take advantage of a scenic view over surrounding structures that are already constructed above 30 feet in height;
- The proposed development is located between and adjacent to 2 or more contiguous lots with buildings constructed in excess of 30 feet;
- The structural extension above the 30 feet will not adversely impact the available views and access to sunlight and air of adjacent and surrounding properties; and
- If all the above conditions are satisfied, the following design features of the portion of the building above 30 feet shall also be considered by the Planning Commission to determine if an exception should be granted:
- The style and pitch of the roof;
- The mass and bulk of the proposed structure above 30 feet;
- The architectural appearance.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant has submitted various materials/information, including surveys of adjacent building heights, that reflect his assertion that the project satisfies the above criteria; and noted that staff has evaluated the applicant's submittals relative to the 4 criteria.
With respect to Criteria No. 1, Senior Planner Robertson noted that the issue relates primarily to views to the west over the building and toward the back of the subject building at 324 Bayview; stated that the applicant claims without this height exception, he would not be able to have his view of the ocean to the west; that his views would be seen from the top floor through windows to the dining room and kitchen and from the roof-top deck. He advised that because of this view orientation, in order to afford the desired views, the height exception should only be necessary for the rear half of the new residence; and that the top floor's front pitched roof portion does not need to extend above the 35-foot height limit in order to take advantage of the scenic views described in this criteria.
With regard to Criteria No. 2, the height of the adjacent building, Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff believes this criteria has been met because the adjacent buildings do exceed the 30-foot limitation, extending up to 35 and 40 feet.
With regard to Criteria No. 3, the impact on available views from surrounding properties, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the apartment building across the street at 306 Fourth Street presently has a view corridor of the water over the existing two-story building on site; noted that this view would be obstructed by any new building up to 30 feet, which could be built by right without a height exception, but stated that the obstruction with this proposal would be marginally greater if this proposed height exception is granted.
With regard to Criteria No. 4, design considerations, Senior Planner Robertson explained that the front of this building is an attractive design; and that there is quite a bit of relief above the 30-foot height limit with the pitched roof.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that over all, there is sufficient evidence to support this applicant's request as well as some evidence that may give the Planning Commission reason to not approve this request. He stated that positions in favor of the exception is some increase over the height limit, at least for the rear half of the residence, may be needed to capture scenic views of the ocean from the top floor and the roof deck; noted that adjacent, existing buildings are clearly above the 30-foot height limit; and that the proposed design provides good variation when viewed from the street, with reduced building mass on the top floor. Senior Planner Robertson noted that positions against the exception include this exception is only needed for the rear half of the building; that except for some nearby buildings, most of the buildings on the block do not extend above the height limit and that, therefore, approval of the exception will tend to perpetuate over-height buildings in residential areas and extend the precedent for height exceptions; and that the height exception would marginally increase the obstruction of ocean views from residences across the street.
In view of the above-mentioned considerations, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission may consider the following alternatives:
- Approve the height exception as submitted;
- Approve the height exception to allow the roof deck to extend to a height of 33 feet at its critical point, but deny the exception for the remainder of the building;
- Deny the height exception in its entirety.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that a resolution would be drafted for adoption at the Planning Commission's next meeting.
Director Blumenfeld explained that it is difficult at this time to tell exactly how much over the 30 feet the building is proposed to be built because of the uncertainty of critical points the measurements were taken from without a property survey.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the difference is expected to be no more than a foot; and he noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that this is a legally split lot.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Dennis Nivens, 321 Monterey Avenue, property owner, stated that at the time he purchased this house, the height limit was 35 feet; noted that the houses surrounding his home are 35 feet or higher; that the houses to the west and south were built to the 35-foot limit; that the house to the east is 38 feet high; that the house to the north is 40 feet high; and stated that because the houses that surround him are taller buildings, he should be allowed to be at the same level as his surrounding neighbors in order to get his view. Mr. Nivens clarified that the only ocean view from his home will be from the roof-top deck; explained that that the proposal for the higher pitched/gable section is to allow light and air into the living room; and that in order to get this light and air, the pitch will have to be above the 30-foot height limit. With respect to Criteria No. 3, impact of available views from surrounding properties, Mr. Nivens distributed to the Planning Commission photographs taken of his property from the roof-top deck across the street at 306 Fourth Street - noting that the photos depict a minimal impact to the neighbor's ocean view. He expressed his belief that his property is the perfect example of why this exception had been placed in the Municipal Code.
Andy Clifton, 244 Monterey Avenue, stated that he submitted to staff his letter of opposition to this applicant's proposal, urging the Planning Commission to strictly enforce the 30-foot height limit so that the increased height does not degrade his view of the ocean.
Mr. Burdict, project architect, commented on the ambiguity of the survey measurements for the surrounding properties, but stated that he did his calculations for this project based upon the worst case scenario that were applied to the maximum height that the applicant is requesting; stated that the applicant is impacted with some quality of life issues with the surrounding structures that are over the 35-foot height limit; noted that the applicant is trying to get his view of the ocean from the roof-top deck; and stated that the highest point of this building, whether it be the deck or pitch of the roof, will be within line or a few inches below the maximum height allowed. He noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the roof-top deck would be 3 feet below the railing.
Chairman Hoffman commended the applicant and the architect for providing the photographs and other materials for this project.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that the applicant is fully compliant with the code and that he believes the obstruction of view to the neighbors is a minor issue.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that when the construction is completed, the view will be minimally decreased; and stated that he can make the four findings to support the applicant's request.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he is not able to support Finding No. 3, stating that the project can be lowered and still obtain an ocean view from the roof-top deck; noted that approximately 8 new projects have been approved along Monterey Avenue that conform with the 30-foot height limit; and stated that he would like to adhere to the 30-foot height limit.
Chairman Hoffman stated that he is not able to support Finding No. 3.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE HLE 03-1 -- a Height Limit Exception, pursuant to Section 17.16.020, to allow a 35' building height for a proposed single-family residence at 321 Monterey Boulevard. The motion failed as follows:
AYES: Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Hoffman, Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Chairman Hoffman, to DENY HLE 03-1 -- a Height Limit Exception, pursuant to Section 17.16.020, to allow a 35' building height for a proposed single-family residence at 321 Monterey Boulevard. The motion failed as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Tucker
NOES: Perrotti, Pizer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
Brief discussion ensued with regard to the applicant filing a new application.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE HLE 03-1 -- a Height Limit Exception, pursuant to Section 17.16.020, to allow a 35' building height for a proposed single-family residence at 321 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this business is located on the bottom floor of a multi-story building; explained that the previous CUP for this project required an acoustical study that recommended dual paned windows for noise attenuation, specific orientation of speakers, insulation of an alcove for double entry doors to serve as a vestibule for noise; and noted that only some of the recommended improvements had been implemented. He advised that the new owner is proposing to operate under new management; stated that the applicant is requesting alterations to the building interior, such as changes to the wall areas, change to elevation, new slab areas that will be poured, and upgrades to the kitchen area. He indicated that most of the improvements are minor, with the exception of the addition of an ADA compliant restroom. With respect to the building exterior, he addressed the proposal for a new awning treatment and double paned glass doors. Director Blumenfeld stated that the original CUP allowed live entertainment, and that standard conditions for such entertainment has been included in the conditions. He stated that with the new acoustical study and the proposed improvements, staff believes the project will conform to the City's noise ordinance; and noted staff's recommendation to limit the live entertainment from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M., Thursday through Sunday.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the french doors will be replaced with two sets of double paned glass doors; and that the applicant's seating plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Division, noting that it appears to conform to the Building Code. He noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the loft area will be used for storage.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Mark Cosgrove, 15 Outrigger, Marina Del Rey, general contractor, commented on the proposal to upgrade this facility and the addition of an ADA compliant restroom; explained that the kitchen will be rearranged and increased in size; and noted that the front fa栤e will include a miniature pagoda and 3-foot permanent awning. He stated that consideration is being given to making the entrance doors solid; and stated that the doors will be closed during live entertainment. He stated that the seating plan included more permanent and efficient seating.
Mr. Cosgrove noted for Commissioner Perrotti that this restaurant will serve American-Asian food; that the intent is to be a full service restaurant with a formal style it; and stated that the kitchen will continue to serve food during operating hours, but that the menu may be limited after midnight.
Mr. Cosgrove noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the front railing will be painted to match the style of this building.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Tucker requested that a condition be included to address door closures for sound attenuation purposes.
Chairman Hoffman requested that Condition Nos. 8 and 9 be modified as follows: Section 5, No. 8, "...adequate staffing and management....of the patrons both inside and outside...;" No. 9, "The Police Chief shall determine that a continuing police problem exists, and may authorize the presence of a police doorman and/or security personnel to eliminate the problem and/or shall submit a report to the Planning Commission..."
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 03-4 -- Conditional User Permit amendment for interior and exterior alterations to an existing restaurant with on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment at 22 Pier Avenue, including the change to Condition Nos. 5, 8 and 9; and that the owner ensure that the outdoor dining area is being operated consistent with the requirements of the encroachment permit. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this request is to permit used motor vehicle sales of luxury vehicles; explained that the existing building on site will not be modified; and stated that the parking required for this operation is 18 spaces - noting the potential to provide up to 24 parking spaces, with one handicapped space. He noted that there are some deficiencies in the applicant's plan relative to stall dimension and turning radius which need to be revised; advised that the property is located on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) between 9th and 10th Streets and sits adjacent to residential properties to the east, behind the building. He added that the proposed project is consistent with the C-3 Zone and General Plan; and that under the Zone Code and current land use designations, this proposed use requires a CUP. Director Blumenfeld advised that the proposed hours of operation for the business are from 8:00 A.M. to 9 P.M., 7 days a week, which is consistent with the hours of operation of other motor vehicle sales establishments along PCH in the commercial corridor.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this proposed business is a low trip generation; stated that there is only one means of ingress/egress on 9th Street, and noted the applicant's intent to block the access on 10th Street and along PCH; and stated that if the Planning Commission approves this proposal, staff would recommend a number of mitigating conditions to lessen the impacts to the residential areas, such as directional signing to limit access onto 9th Street, prohibiting auto repair, prohibition of a public address system, controlling exterior lighting that could impact the residential properties. He noted that a new car business generally creates 37 trips per day and highlighted the acceptable businesses that can be placed on this site and the average trip generations of those types of businesses is significantly higher.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Pizer that the applicant is proposing to abandon the driveways along PCH and along 10th Street and to by blocking these driveways.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the business is currently located at 303 PCH; that no accidents have been reported as a result of the business operations; commented on the necessity to further address landscaping maintenance at this site; and he noted that PCH is a State highway under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Arik Benson, 919 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that no test driving will be done on the residential streets; advised that he will close the driveway to 9th Street and use PCH as the sole means of egress/ingress; noted that he has been operating this same business at 303 PCH since 1998 without incident; and that he is looking to expand and completely relocate this business. He stated that the only change made to the existing building will be its contents, such as the addition of desks and computers.
Mr. Benson noted for Chairman Hoffman that there are no peak business hours, that business fluctuates throughout the day; and stated that this business will generate less than 37 trips a day - noting his expectation that this new site will generate 6 to 8 visitors each day.
Mr. Benson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that he will be submitting revised plans to close off the driveway at 9th Street and to allow access only off PCH, on the southerly driveway.
In response to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiries, Mr. Benson stated that these entrance points will be blocked off with the use of chains or landscaping containers; noted that the cars are individually driven to this business for sale; and stated that the landscaping will be adequately addressed.
Vice-Chairman Tucker requested that the pine trees be trimmed, not removed; and that the lighting not negatively impact the neighbors.
Commissioner Pizer suggested that some consideration be given to placing a monument sign on this property.
Denny Greer, 902 10th Street, commented on his concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety in this area; addressed the increasing use of the residential streets by the Hermosa Car Wash business, and addressed his concerns with the lighting and its impact upon the residents.
Martha Graham, 918 9th Street, concurred with Mr. Greer's statements concerning traffic and pedestrian safety; and requested that the landscaping be enhanced on this site if this project is approved.
Dick McCurdy, 1004 9th Street, addressed his concern with traffic and safety on the adjoining streets; and urged the City not to allow test drives in the residential areas.
Audrey Wang, 915 9th Street, addressed her concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety; and noted her support for closing off ingress/egress on 9th Street.
Mark Saxonberg, 919 9th Street, addressed his concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety, limited parking in the area, lack of landscaping maintenance, and the increase in traffic congestion; and he requested that this business's clients park on site.
David Hills, 911 10th Street, noted his concern with traffic and pedestrian safety.
Betty Ravino, 940 10th Street, noted her concern with traffic and pedestrian safety, air and noise pollution, and the use of residential streets for test driving.
Gail Acosta, 840 9th Street, addressed her concern with the dangerous traffic conditions in the area and urged the City to prohibit test driving on these neighborhood streets.
Steve Tawney, 844 9th Street, requested that the abandoned driveways not be blocked by vehicles; and urged the applicant to adhere to the conditions of approval.
Beacher Anderson, 25 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, trustee of this property, commented on the history and lack of success of various businesses at this site; stated that he is in the process of cleaning this site up; and commented on the limited business opportunities for this site. He stated that this business will not create a lot of traffic and that it will be a nice and clean business. He commented on his interactions with Caltrans related to the landscaping along PCH - noting Caltrans has requested that some of the landscaping be removed and Caltrans' recommendation that the landscaping along PCH be no higher than 36 inches.
Steven Accosta, 849 9th Street, stated that he lives four lots from this site and urged the property owner to find a better use for this site.
Doug Holtzinger, 940 10th Street, concurred with the suggestion to find a better use of this property; and requested that the employees park on site and not on the crowded neighborhood streets.
Donna Mariano, 905 10th Street, requested that 10th Street be completely blocked off to traffic.
Steve Gach, 906 9th Street, noted his concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety on these streets.
Mr. Benson advised that employees will accompany those on test drives and that these employees will ensure that the cars will be test driven on the main thoroughfares, away from 9th and 10th Streets. He stated that the lot will be cleaned up; that landscaping will be improved and well maintained; and that the lot will be resurfaced.
Mr. Benson stated for Commissioner Pizer that this business will employee approximately 5 employees; and explained that there is more than adequate parking on site for the customers and employees.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer requested that staff investigate how many trips are being generated each day by the car wash. He pointed out that there are traffic issues in this area with or without this business and suggested that these residents communicate these issues to the Public Works Department. He expressed his belief that this business will have a minimal impact upon the area.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his delight that the applicant has agreed to block the driveway on 9th Street; stated that Paragraph 2b in the proposed resolution should delete the wording for a "no left turn" sign on 9th Street; urged the residents to communicate with the Public Works Department their concerns of traffic safety; and requested that staff work with the applicant to provide landscaping in a timely manner.
Vice-Chairman Tucker asked that staff investigate if the car wash business is improperly accessing the residential streets; requested that some type of landscaping or planter boxes be placed in front of the driveway on 9th Street and 10th Street; and suggested that the applicant submit possible test driving routes that do not include the residential areas. He suggested that signing be placed on site to identify the entrance and parking area; and requested that the applicant submit a new landscaping plan, building/floor plan, and lighting plan.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that additional language should be added for washing of vehicles, requiring consistency with Chapter 8.44 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that this is a low-impact business in terms of trip generation for this site; expressed his belief that traffic, parking, lighting have been adequately addressed; and noted his support for a 6-month review of this business.
Vice-Chairman Tucker requested that the hours of operation on Sundays start no earlier than 10:00 A.M.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the property shall be in conformance with the revised/approved site plan, that the revised site plan shall be submitted, incorporating the following revisions: Section 4, new 2a) to be rewritten, One driveway on PCH. Driveway access shall be blocked off at 9th and 10th Streets; new 2b) Required parking spaces, with all dimensions shown (including turning radius) and vehicle storage and display areas shall be clearly noted; 2c) "A right-turn only sign shall be posted at the driveway on PCH; 3), The parking areas shall be striped as per plans reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director; 9) add "mature plants shall also be maintained on the property, planters to block street access on 9th and 10th Streets, all subject to Public Works approval"; 10) Corner vision clearance; 11) add a) the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 8.44 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; 12) Sundays shall be limited to 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on Sundays; add 22), "The project shall be reviewed 6 months after approval by the Planning Commission."
Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the City could not make the applicant adhere to a routing schedule on public streets.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales at 900 Pacific Coast Highway, deleting Section 4, 2b, and including the above-mentioned changes. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this site had formerly been used as a jetski repair and sales business, with an approved CUP issued in 1993; and explained that this motorcycle repair business subsequently relocated to this site and operated without review and approval of a new CUP. He indicated that this use is appropriate to the zone and consistent with the General Plan as long as the appropriate operating permits are obtained; and noted the applicant's desire to obtain the proper permits to legally establish a motorcycle repair and sales business on the subject site. Director Blumenfeld advised that this site is zoned SP-7; stated that there are 4 on-street parking spaces; noted that the existing building is 2,700 square feet; and commented on the similarity between the jetski repair and motorcycle repair businesses relative to noise and loading/unloading issues. He stated that the existing building is nonconforming to parking requirements on site; explained that this is not an intensification of use and that no additional parking is required. Director Blumenfeld advised that some of the neighbors had voiced their concern that a motorcycle repair business will create noise and disruption in this area; and that staff would suggest an additional condition to require the installation of air handling and exhaust system to alleviate those concerns. He stated that this system would allow the applicant to work on these vehicles inside the building with the doors closed; and suggested that the word "filtration" on page 4, Condition 2a, and 3, be replaced with "handling system" and that a 6-month review of this business be included in the conditions.
Commissioner Perrotti addressed the letters of concern with the parking of the business truck in the alley, blocking access.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner has a business truck that can't be parked in the customer parking spaces during operating hours because it eliminates customer parking and noted the limited room on this site for truck parking.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Manfred Handel, 422 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant/owner, noted his intent to be a good neighbor to the surrounding properties; noted that the neighbors had asked that he not park his work truck on the street following the close of business, suggesting that during the day he park on the street; and that when his business closes at 6:30 P.M., that he park his work truck very close to the fence along the alley - noting that this also acts as an extra security measure for his business. He stated that he keeps his property in a well maintained condition; mentioned that this business is closed on Sundays and Mondays and that he takes the truck home when he can. He stated that he is willing to purchase the pricey air handling system, but that he believes it is not necessary, that it won't make that much of an impact.
Mr. Handel noted for Commissioner Pizer that the truck is legally parked on his property at the back of this building.
Mr. Handel explained for Commissioner Perrotti that the motorcycle repair is minimal and that he does not use the alley for testing purposes; and stated that while is will abide by the conditions in the resolution, he does not know of any other small engine repair business being required to install this type of expensive air handling system. Mr. Handel explained that all motorcycles are started and worked on inside the shop.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE CUP 03-6 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to change use from jetski repair and sales to motorcycle repair and sales at 422 Pacific Coast Highway, altering Paragraph 2 as noted above, and adding a 6-month review of this business. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 10:12 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at
10:21 P.M.
HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this request is to extend an existing Precise Development and Parking Plan; stated that the project involves developing an existing commercial building with a total of 108,430 square feet; that the primary use will be a fitness club, which would occupy approximately 68,000 square feet; that office space would occupy approximately 25,380; and that retail space would occupy approximately 15,050 square feet. He indicated that the applicant is requesting the extension because on-going litigation has prevented him from executing the project permits that expire in June 2003; and noted that the applicant anticipates the litigation to be resolved within the next 6 months. Director Blumenfeld advised that the main tenant involved in litigation with the applicant supports the applicant's request for an extension. He explained that if the Planning Commission chooses not to extend the permit, this body would have to make findings for denial; and indicated that a draft resolution of denial has been submitted as a supplementary item.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that the project was originally approved in 1986; and he briefly commented on the six iterations to this project and the permit history.
Gene Shook, 27941 Suffolk Lane, San Juan Capistrano, applicant, commented on the litigation and his request for an extension of this permit; and noted his expectation that this litigation will soon be resolved.
Mr. Shook noted for Chairman Hoffman that the litigation is with 24 Hour Fitness; stated that 24 Hour Fitness brought the litigation against him and placed a liz pendens on the property - noting that with this liz pendens on the property, no lender will lend any money, no construction loans can be obtained, and no sale or transfer of title can be made. He added that both parties to this action want to continue to work on this project and see it move forward; and mentioned that 24 Hour Fitness has been granted another extension to November of 2003, but stated that he believes a resolution may take place before that date. He stated that demolition plans are ready for submission.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Shook explained that the exterior will remain basically as is.
Kevin McGuire, 1709 Galatea Terrace, Corona Del Mar, representing 24 Hour Fitness, expressed his strong interest that this request be extended; and noted his anticipation in locating this business to this City.
Michael Stewart, 650 Towne Center Drive, Fourth Floor, Costa Mesa, attorney representing Shook Development Corporation, noted his expectation that the liz pendens will be settled within the next week, believing that this will set the tone for litigation.
Commissioner Perrotti addressed the community's interest in the development of this site and noted his approval of the applicant's request.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that this matter has gone on too long and that he would not support the applicant's request for an extension.
Director Blumenfeld stated that findings would have to be made if this body is to deny this request.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to DENY PDP 01-19/PARK 01-4/VAR 01-4 -- Request to extend a Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Variance for the Hermosa Pavilion, Resolution No. 02-6201, at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway; and moved to adopt the resolution of denial, citing lack of reasonable performance of the permit and the uncertainty of resolution to the litigation process. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: Perrotti
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
Chairman Hoffman advised that all actions of the Planning Commission can be appealed to City Council.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant is requesting a minor addition to his existing home by adding 434 square feet; stated that the house was originally constructed in 1953; that a variance was granted in 1981 to allow the second-story addition with continuation of the existing substandard side yards that exist on the west and east sides of the property - noting that the side yard on the west measures 2'5" and 3'4" on the east side rather than meeting the 5-foot requirement. He stated that the applicant is proposing an extension of the first floor in conjunction with the addition of an elevator to the second floor; that the remodel and addition will increase the size of the existing dining room, breakfast nook and family room; and that the applicant is proposing to add onto the first floor under the cantilevered second floor and to extend the dwelling 5'6" further into the rear yard. He noted that other than the proposed extension of the walls, the proposal generally conforms to planning/zoning requirements - noting that the large lot provides substantial front and rear yards for open space and setback requirements. He stated that the two-car garage measures 16'4" wide rather than the required 17 feet; advised that code allows expansion of nonconforming properties that have at least two existing parking spaces; and noted that the Planning Commission can make this determination because there are additional open parking spaces available at the front of the garage. While the side yard setbacks represent a fairly unusual condition, as they are deficient on both sides, Mr. Robertson explained that a variance had already been granted in 1981 to allow substantial extension of these walls; and explained that staff believes the proposed new extension is relatively minor and that it would not substantially worsen the existing condition.
Ed Beeles, 553 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is requesting the expansion due to his failing health and impending need for a wheelchair and an elevator to get him to the second floor level and the need for additional room around the house to adequately maneuver a wheelchair. He advised that his neighbors have expressed their support of this proposal.
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted his support of the applicant due to the parking requirements being satisfied and noted that no windows are located in the side yard area.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE NR 03-3 -- Nonconforming Remodel to allow the extension of existing nonconforming side yards at 553 24th Place. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to April 17, 2004 .
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is requesting to extend the expiration date by one year, noting that it has taken some time to resolve the survey error.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 00-24/PDP 00-26 -- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26219 for a two-unit condominium at 222 Culper Court. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker -
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is requesting to enlarge his property in order to meet setback and lot coverage requirements, which are currently in violation due to a survey error; advised that the applicant is proposing to adjust the lot line slightly to the east to follow the existing block wall that separates the subject property from the driveway to the Pacific Villas Condominium project; noted that both properties are substantially larger than the minimum lot size, which allows each to exchange property in this manner; and that this adjustment will allow the building to comply with the minimum 5-foot rear yard setback on the ground floor, the 3-foot minimum requirement on the upper floors, and the 65 percent maximum lot coverage requirement pursuant to the original approved plans. He advised that this adjustment of the common area will not affect any of the individual condominium units and that the overall project area of the Pacific Villas property will only be decreased by 143 square feet and will comply with density requirements. Mr. Robertson expressed staff's belief that this is as a good resolution to the prior problem caused by the survey error and highlighted the applicant's successful negotiation with the condominium property.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the extra property will be usable space for the applicant, that it will be adequately landscaped; and stated that instead of redoing the approved tentative map, the applicant will file the lot line adjustment in conjunction with the older map.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE LLA 03-1 -- Lot line adjustment between 222 Culper Court and the Pacific Villas at 401-449 2nd Street and 201-223 Valley Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this project involves a substantial remodel to an existing single-family home in the R-1 zone; that the existing house is approximately 2,000 square feet and that the applicant is proposing approximately 1,500 additional square feet; noted that the existing two-story dwelling was constructed in 1941 and is nonconforming to side yard requirements; that the side yard on the west measures 2.92 feet and 2.75 feet on the east rather than the required 4 feet; and explained that the Nonconforming Ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for expansion and remodel of a nonconforming building which exceeds 50 percent and/or requires removal of more than 30 percent. He noted that in this case, the applicant is exceeding both standards, as the remodel /addition is over 50 percent; that the expansion results in a 76.4 percent increase; and that the amount of demolition requires removing 35 percent of existing walls. He stated that the applicant is also proposing to have the second-story addition match the existing nonconforming side setbacks of the first floor. He indicated that the Planning Commission may approve extension of existing nonconforming side yards; stated that in this case, the extensions are 10 feet on the east side and 38.5 feet on the west side above the existing first floor. He stated that the rest of the proposal conforms to planning and zoning requirements; that the applicant proposes to enlarge the garage to comply with current parking space size requirements; noted staff's belief that the side yards in this case are not severe or unusual conditions; and that the amount of expansion and extension of the nonconforming side yards are reasonable given the lot size, the age, size and condition of the existing structure.
Ron Nelson, 840 20th Street, applicant/owner, stated that there was an original exception for the second story being added over the garage in 1979, which was not part of the 1941 plans.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE NR 03-4 -- Remodel and Addition to an existing single-family dwelling with nonconforming side yards resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 840 20th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project in located in the R-1 zone; explained that in this case, the applicant proposes to double the size of the existing home, from 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet -- an increase in valuation of 98.7 percent; explained that the existing one-story dwelling was originally constructed in 1952; that it is nonconforming to current side yard, guest parking and garage setback requirements; and noted that the side yard is 2.9 feet on the west and 3.6 feet on the east rather than the required 5 feet. He indicated that no guest parking is provided and that the garage setback from the nearest public improvement is 7.5 feet rather than the required 17 feet. He stated that the applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the building to the rear of the lot by adding a great room and dining room on the first floor, a master bedroom and bath on a new second floor; and noted that the expansion will result in a 98.7 percent increase in valuation, which can be accomplished by removing less than 30 percent of existing exterior walls. Mr. Robertson indicated that the proposal conforms to planning and zoning requirements. He stated that the plans do not specify the internal dimensions of the existing garage; that in order to meet the parking requirement of 2 parking spaces for a greater than 50-percent expansion, the interior dimensions of the garage must be a minimum of 17 feet wide by 18 feet deep; and he mentioned that the plans do not scale to an adequate dimension for these two spaces. Senior Planner Robertson added that staff has included a condition of approval, stating that the interior dimensions of the garage shall be clearly noted on the plans and that the garage shall be enlarged if it does not meet the minimum size required by code. In conclusion, he noted that staff believes the side yard and garage setbacks are not severe or unusual conditions in this case; and that the garage dimensions can be resolved as a condition of approval.
Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, project architect, stated that the interior width of the garage is 16 feet; advised that the wall between the living room and the garage is a main load bearing wall; that the garage is lower than the living room; and explained that any attempt to move this load bearing wall would create a major project. He mentioned that the stairs out front would also have to be reconfigured in order to get the additional footage in the garage and stated that this requirement may put an end to the plans for remodel and expansion. He noted that the measurements were calculated at the lowest points and that there will be no height issue.
Michael Lipscombe, property owner, stated that he had received a demo permit for the pool; advised that a formal compaction report was provided to the City by the soils engineer who did the work; and noted that this permit was signed off by the City. Mr. Lipscombe stated that the small shed will house the lawn furniture in the off season; and commented on his concern with moving the load bearing wall between the living room and the garage.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant may wish to consider requesting a variance to construct additional garage space into the side yard or for limited garage width - noting that findings would have to be made to support a variance; but questioned whether the architect would be able to make the grades work with the finished slab elevation intruding into the yard area. He added that these findings to support a variance would have to be based on site, such as issues that relate to the topography, size and slope of the lot to allow a reduced garage width.
Mr. Lipscombe mentioned that the garage is 3 feet lower than the house.
Mr. Compton noted that the grade issue would present a problem.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE NR 03-2 -- Remodel and expansion of an existing Nonconforming Single-Family Residence resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 845 14th Street, but that the issue concerning the garage setback/width be returned to the Planning Commission for resolution. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Director Blumenfeld commented on the Planning Commission's prior approval of this project and the condition that the sound attenuation wall shall be between 7 and 8 feet around the outdoor seating area; advised that an acoustical study was a requirement of this project permit relative to the Precise Development Plan for this project; and that the acoustical study that was conducted stated that a 4-foot high wall could be constructed and still meet the requirements for noise attenuation. Because of problems constructing the 7- to 8-foot wall, he indicated that the applicant is requesting that they be permitted to reduce the height of this wall to 4 feet.
Director Blumenfeld confirmed that the acoustical engineer has completed the process and that he's amended his report to reflect a lower height wall will meet the sound attenuation requirements. He indicated that this wall will also act as railing.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to approve this change by minute order.
-
Director Blumenfeld commented on the Planning Commission's annual approval of the City's Fiscal Year CIP.
Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the City's Fiscal Year 2003-2004 CIP.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti noted his concern with the inequity of some restaurants having numerous televisions and amplified music in the outside eating areas.
Vice-Chairman Tucker reiterated his request that staff investigate Hermosa Car Wash's utilization of residential streets for its business.
Commissioner Pizer distributed an outline of the plan to be approved with regard to the General Plan Update, requesting the Planning Commission's input and recommended modifications -- text which requests permission from the City Council to allow the Planning Commission to create a proposal to the General Plan Update, which included the following: "Outline the key items or issues for each of the elements of the General Plan specified by staff. List currently available information that can be used for the General Plan Update. Obtain staff, Commissions', and public input during the creation of the proposal. Provide estimated cost and timeline for each element. Provide recommended priority for completion of the project elements. The goal is to provide City Council with a clear plan to start and complete the General Plan Update. This will be part of the Planning Commission's regular meetings and will not incur additional expenses. The process to create this proposal could take a year to complete. City Council feedback will be used during this process to revise the proposal to comply with their future vision of our City."
In response to Chairman Hoffman's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld advised that City Council had directed staff to come back with some precise figures on what it would cost for a qualified consultant to prepare 3 elements of the General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, and Urban Design; and to discuss potential funding sources. He indicated that staff is in the process of investigating these points and looking at possibly using Block Grant funding. He noted that he anticipates returning to City Council with the requested information in approximately a month. He explained that Commissioner Pizer's letter could be helpful when dealing with the consultants.
Chairman Hoffman suggested that he and Commissioner Pizer form a subcommittee, meet with staff between now and the next Planning Commission meeting in order to take this activity to the next level. Commissioner Pizer was in agreement with this suggestion.
Chairman Hoffman questioned when the City Council would make its appointments for this body.
Director Blumenfeld noted his belief that Council will consider the appointments in June.
-
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:48 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned.
|
