|
|
 Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 18, 2005
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti |
| Absent: | Allen |
| Also Present: | Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Chairman Perrotti advised that Commissioner Allen will not be attending this evening’s meeting due to the ill health of his father; and on behalf of the Planning Commission and staff, Chairman Perrotti sent best wishes to the Allen family.
Oral / Written Communications
None.
At this point, Chairman Perrotti advised that staff has requested Item No. 18A, Staff Items -- Annual Review of Conditional Use Permits for Restaurants, be considered at this time. No objection was noted.
Director Blumenfeld stated that pursuant to the Commission’s direction, staff is presenting the annual review of the Downtown businesses with respect to their performance of their conditional use permits and conformance to the Municipal Code; explained that the Commission had directed in January 2004 that staff work with the Downtown businesses to try to deal with some area-wide problems that were observed with respect to noise and on-going police problems that were occurring; that the Commission asked staff to conduct informal meetings with the Downtown businesses, which was done; and pointed out that over the last year, the City has observed good progress with respect to some of the issues of concern from last year’s Downtown business operations, which primarily pertain to noise and nuisance issues. He mentioned that some of the problem businesses have since closed and that they will be replaced with new businesses and new management; that other businesses have changed some of their business practices to improve the monitoring of customers, implementation of dress codes to deal with gang-related problems, for example; and that all the businesses have been aggressively checking I.D.’s in order to prohibit under-aged drinking.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Fire Department has been doing twice monthly occupant load checks to deal with interior over-crowding; however, staff has observed over the last year that there are still problems with respect to the use of outdoor encroachment areas, allowing doors and windows to remain open while there is live entertainment; using outdoor patio areas as lounge areas as opposed to using them for outdoor dining; and loud music and TV’s installed in the encroachment patio areas, which are not permitted. From summer through December, he advised that staff conducted inspections and made the observations, which are attached to staff report (of record); that staff also met with six restaurant owners who were observed to have specific problems; and he mentioned that he and the Police Chief met separately with the business owners to discuss their violations and what was necessary to make improvements for compliance with either their conditional use permit or the Municipal Code. He noted that staff conducted follow-up investigations in November and December and still found there were violations after having had these discussions with the business owners.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission has the authority under the conditional use permit Section 17.70 to revoke or modify a conditional use permit; but explained that the City Attorney has observed that a conditional use permit conveys a property right to the businesses; and that he urged the Commission to carefully weigh any relevant evidence before revoking or modifying a conditional use permit – pointing out that revoking a conditional use permit would also result in repercussions for the business’s alcohol license.
Director Blumenfeld highlighted five options the Commission may consider, noting that staff is recommending the following three with respect to these businesses:
Schedule informal hearings at Planning Commission with each non-compliant business and publicly review violations and necessary actions for compliance;
Revise enforcement procedure policy at City Council to permit ticketing for conditional use permit violations as citable offenses and proceed with issuance of citations for each offense as necessary;
Recommend the City Council revoke or modify encroachment permits where applicable in response to patio encroachment violations after proper notice pursuant to Chapter 12.16 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
With regard to Recommendation No. 1, Director Blumenfeld advised that it would allow the Commission to conduct informal hearings wherein it would give the business owners an opportunity to present what they’re doing to rectify their problems; that it would give the Commission an opportunity to hear testimony from neighbors and/or customers of the businesses and also have the businesses make a public commitment to correct their violations; that the City could then follow up with limited/additional inspections; and that if it became clear the business wasn’t going to fulfill its commitments, then the Commission could proceed with a formal revocation or modification hearing.
With regard to Recommendation No. 2, Director Blumenfeld advised that it would allow the businesses time to correct their violations with continued follow-up and investigation and citations where necessary in order to enforce the Codes; and noted that this option would require procedural changes with City Council with respect to their direction about conditional use permit enforcement.
With regard to Recommendation No. 3, Director Blumenfeld advised this would involve compliance with requirements for the outdoor dining areas along Pier Plaza; that occupant load compliance could be addressed through enforcement of the encroachment permits by authority provided under the Building and Fire Codes; and mentioned that outdoor dining patios are guided by the Municipal Code, which allows the Public Works Director to revoke an encroachment permit when there are violations. He reiterated that during staff’s inspections, TV’s were observed to be installed when they were never permitted in the encroachment areas, that they were installed after encroachment permits were issued; that staff observed loud music, which is prohibited under the Noise Ordinance; and explained that this code provision allows the Public Works Director to notify the owners of a violation, to provide that notice in writing, giving a business owner 10 days in which to make an appeal to City Council.
With regard to Alternative No. 4, Director Blumenfeld advised that in order to allow for additional inspection, which basically requires additional code enforcement manpower, staff could allocate staff in the evening hours – pointing out that because of limited staffing, there would be limited or no daytime code enforcement; and, therefore, staff believes this alternative is not practical unless more staffing is added.
With regard to Alternative No. 5, Director Blumenfeld advised that this is the standard conditional use permit enforcement procedure, which allows for revocation or modification.
In conclusion, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes the problems listed in the memoranda should be addressed at a scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission for the purpose of expressing the Commission’s intent regarding conditional use permit and encroachment permit violation enforcement; and suggested that these meetings be held over two or three months with two or three businesses scheduled each month in order to not negatively impact the Commission Agendas. He indicated that staff also believes a citation program should be implemented as soon as possible for noise and conditional use permit violations and that citations be issued as necessary to control noise and over-crowding of the outdoor dining areas; and that any businesses which are repeatedly cited should be remanded to the Commission for conditional use permit modification or the City Council for encroachment permit review. He noted that at this point, staff is not recommending any particular business be brought up for formal review, but that the review be informal as a way to voice the Commission’s concerns.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Chairman Perrotti that these hearings would be informal; and that the owners would be notified of their prescribed time to present their side of the issue for the Commission, doing the same with respect to the conditional use permit and failure to perform under the conditions.
Director Blumenfeld advised that Police Chief Lavin and Police Captain Eckert was involved in speaking with some of the businesses, that this was a review that involved not only the Community Development Department, but also the Police and Fire Departments. He stated that the observations of these three departments are in the memo provided to the Commission.
With regard to the violations, Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned why no citations were given.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that there has been some improvement by the businesses, but that there’s a lot of room for improvement; explained that City Council expressed its interest in using the Commission to handle egregious CUP problems.
Vice-Chairman Pizer suggested that Council reconsider that policy, believing these businesses would be more likely to comply with code if they knew they would be given a citation.
Police Captain Eckert pointed out that the items listed in the memorandum do not include police citations for such things as under-aged drinking; expressed his belief that things are improving in the Downtown area as a result of enforcing dress codes; and noted that businesses are making an effort to close their doors to cut down on the noise. He added that some of the businesses that have closed down were some with the worst violations.
Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned if dress codes have an effect on gang activity in the Downtown area.
Police Captain Eckert stated that many of the beach communities have found that implementing dress codes has cut down on gang attendance; and that charging a higher cover charge also seems to have an effect on those who patronize these establishments.
Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned if dress codes could be incorporated into conditional use permits.
Director Blumenfeld noted that that would be difficult and that it would be more appropriate for an establishment to voluntarily enforce.
Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that a ticketing procedure allows for a quick and efficient method of dealing with problems that typically wouldn’t be handled by the Police Department; addressed his concern with over-occupancy and people standing in the aisles; and noted his support for the first three recommendations in staff report.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that Recommendation No. 2 is the only viable alternative to give the City both a mechanism to enforce conditional use permits, short of pulling a conditional use permit, or modifying it in a way that has no effect; and stated that if this is to be a meaningful mechanism, there needs to be consistent code enforcement activity, questioning the City’s limited budget to get this accomplished.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Manager recognizes that this program needs consistent enforcement; noted that consideration might be given to having a person dedicated conditional use permit enforcement in the evenings; that the City might have to institute an administrative penalties ordinance that would allow the City to ticket and have the fines from the ticketing go toward compensating the cost for this code enforcement position; and that in order to not forfeit the other code enforcement activities that are routinely undertaken, a temporary or permanent part-time position may become necessary to deal with this activity.
Commissioner Koenig offered the following: He stated it had been reported that on December 11, 2004, he was at one of the nightclubs on the Promenade; that he was accused of using some explanatives and some threats to the manager of that particular nightclub; he advised that those allegations are untrue; that he has no ill-will or bias towards any of the establishments in Hermosa Beach; that he has made observations while walking in the Downtown area; that he has an open mind; and that he is prepared to do the right thing based on the evidence. He added that he will not be recusing himself from this issue and that he will proceed without prejudice. He stated that he would support the three recommendations by staff, noting his concurrence that there is a need for consistent enforcement.
There was consensus among the Commission to concur with the first three recommendations.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff will proceed with scheduling informal hearings.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of December 1, 2004 Minutes..
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE the December 1, 2004, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: Allen -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the February 15, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has paid for re-noticing this matter for the February 15th meeting, wherein staff believes all the necessary studies will be available at that time.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to February 15, 2005 Conditional Use Permit 04-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to an R-1 Planned Development for four single-family homes, to modify the retaining wall and landscaping areas at the rear of the homes at 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941 Power Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to February 15, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the plans prepared in connection with this project had some building code related items that needed to be addressed; that those building code related issues preempted the zoning requirements that were the subject of the Commission’s decision; and that the applicant has paid to re-notice the Commission hearing for February.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. T0here being no input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE to February 15, 2005 CON 04-17/PDP 04-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for a two-unit condominium at 85 15th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this item was continued on October 19th because of an apparent deadlock amongst the four Commissioners that were present at that meeting; and because there is once again not a full Commission, he questioned whether the Commission wants to continue this matter.
It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed this evening with this item.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property contains two detached, two-story structures; noted that the building in question, located on Palm Drive, is much older and contains a small 650-square-foot one-bedroom unit on the second floor and a two-car garage and a very small unit containing 290 square feet on the first floor; and explained that based on the permit records, no evidence exists that building permits were applied for or obtained to allow a kitchen in the downstairs unit, which was approved as a rumpus room in 1958 when after-the-fact permits were granted. He noted these permits were granted contingent upon filing an affidavit that the new rumpus room would not become a separate dwelling unit; and stated that the 1957 Sanborn map also shows the building as two stories and a single dwelling. He advised that this applicant purchased the property in 1971 and understood it had four units altogether, including two units in the subject building; and stated that the applicant submitted documentation to support this argument, including Veteran Administration appraisal reports, rental records from 1971, hazard insurance documents, City records for payment of guest parking passes for two units, and payment of refuse bills and business license fees for four units on the property. He added that these various documents do corroborate the applicant’s argument that the property has continuously been used as four units at least since 1971. In summary, he stated that there clearly is a conflict between the City records and the private records obtained by the applicant; that there are ambiguous and inconclusive documents in the records; pointed out that the strongest evidence shows the building at 1534 Palm was constructed as a single unit and when modified in 1958, with the elimination of the stair, the downstairs was clearly for the purpose of a rumpus room only as agreed to by the owner at that time and was never intended to be a separate rental unit. He explained that sometime later, between 1958 and 1971, a kitchen was added to the unit and it was rented separately; and advised there is no record of a permit for a kitchen or for plumbing of the sink. He reiterated that the current owner purchased the property in 1971, again with the understanding that it was four units, and obtained building permits and final approval for electrical and plumbing upgrades shortly thereafter; and that, therefore, the applicant feels it is unfair for the City to now have a problem with this dwelling unit.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the consequences of making this unit legal is that the City would be authorizing the continued use of a 290-square-foot substandard unit, both substandard to size and substandard to some Building Code requirements; on the other hand, if the Commission denies this request, he noted the most the City could do would be to return to its original approval as a rumpus room with a bathroom affiliated and rented with the upstairs unit even though it has a separate access since the City previously approved the separate access. He noted that the kitchen would have to be removed. He questioned whether there really is any benefit in removing this efficiency kitchen since the City has approved this separate accessible rumpus room.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Joe Bianculli, 213 North Dianthus Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant, stated that it’s clear the building was constructed in 1922 as a two-bedroom, two-bath, two-story, single-family residence; that somewhere between 1958 and 1971, it was used as a rental; that in 1958, it was converted into a unit; and that according to the records, the Building Department discovered it and told the owner to put it back into its original condition or to keep it if they signed an affidavit stating it would not be used for a rental unit. He stated there was nothing in those documents about the kitchen being removed at the time and that the document shows it was converted into a rental unit. In his interpretation of the documentation, he stated this unit was kept in that condition, that the City allowed them to keep it by signing the affidavit that they were to call it a rumpus room. He stated that he was able to obtain a copy of the affidavit from County Recorder’s Office, which says that it cannot be used for a rental unit and that it goes with the property; but he stated that if one looks at the wording on the affidavit, it clearly states that a City inspector changed the terminology or changed the affidavit; and that the revised terminology clearly states that somewhere between 1958 and 1971, it was turned into a rental unit. He mentioned that it is unknown who approved this rental unit, noting that the records are not complete; however, when he purchased this property in 1971, he stated it was clearly a two-unit building.
Mr. Bianculli stated that shortly after purchasing this property, he took out permits for electrical work; stated that he had many discussions with the then Building Director and Senior Building Inspector and that those two gentlemen were very familiar with his property; he stated that the question now becomes was it legalized between 1958 and 1971; and that based on the fact he got his permits, that the Director was involved in both instances, he is led to believe that this is a legalized condition. He added that if the Commission finds otherwise, then he was a victim of fraud by the real estate agent, by the seller, and pointed out that the City unknowingly perpetuated that fraud by allowing these permits to be signed off following site inspections. He stated that he has completely remodeled these units. He added that in 1975, in the midst of a major bootleg crackdown in the City, there was a building inspection report that was filled out by another inspector stating there were no violations on this building, noting that this document also has since been modified by someone at the City. He pointed out that had the City approached him with this condition earlier, he might have had some legal recourse against the seller and the real estate company; and expressed his belief that this is an unfair situation.
Bruce Jaffey noted that he is a tenant of Mr. Bianculli’s; stated that this is a nice unit and that it should not be described as substandard; and advised that he has been living in this unit for the last 8 years and that Mr. Bianculli has never raised the rent – pointing out that he is an excellent landlord who keeps this property in a well-maintained condition. He stated that his unit has a bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and that it is a cozy place to live. Mr. Jaffey stated that this only came to the City’s attention because Mr. Bianculli tried to do the right thing in applying for a visitor’s parking pass. He expressed his belief that it would be a tragedy for the City to shut down this unit and that it would be very unfair to the property owner.
Shelia Ennis, 213 North Dianthus, Manhattan Beach, stated that she has known the applicant for almost 30 years; advised that he does a lot of the improvements himself; and noted that this will be a hardship for the applicant after putting in all this work for the past 30 years. She pointed out that Mr. Bianculli has always being above board and has always attempted to obtain the proper permits for the work he has done on this property; she noted that Mr. Bianculli applied for the visitor’s parking permit for one of the tenants; and added that he has put in hundreds of hours to collect all this evidence to support his case. She added that this unit is important to his financial future.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman stated there is an enormous amount of evidence that was partially summarized in staff report; and that both the applicant and the City have done a tremendous amount of research on this matter. He expressed his belief that the gain to the community is so minimal, that it would be insignificant by changing the ruling – pointing out that he would not hesitate to do that were he persuaded by the evidence that this should be done. In this case, he stated that he has not been persuaded by what doesn’t exist, which is a complete record; and that his position on this matter is to leave the condition as it currently exists.
Vice-Chairman Pizer pointed out that this property has been four units for 33 years; that there have been no violations since 1975; and that he would support giving the owner the benefit of questionable documentation on file.
Commissioner Koenig pointed out that the owner has enjoyed 34 years of rent since he purchased this place; expressed his belief there will be minimal impact to the community if this condition is to continue; but he questioned whether this may set a precedent with properties that don’t comply with the Uniform Building Code. With some reluctance, he noted he would support the applicant’s request.
Chairman Perrotti stated that the owner had mentioned there are conflicting records and a lot of inconsistencies; noted that just because this condition has been going on for a long time, because the City may have overlooked some violations or a City inspector didn’t cite the owner in the past doesn’t make this a legal unit. He expressed his belief that this is an illegal unit.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that building and safety issues are moot because the owner has done many things to maintain this property in good repair and expressed his belief that this will have no impact upon the City.
MOTIONby Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to acknowledge this as a legal, nonconforming unit at 1533 Manhattan Avenue and 1534 Palm Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer NOES: Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from consideration of this matter.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is zoned R-2-B; that it contains 4,283 square feet, which does allow for the development of two condominium units; advised that the site is located on the south side of 20th Street, which is a walk street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue; that the property consists of two detached units containing basements with two stories above; that the front unit located on the walk street has four bedrooms and four and one-quarter bathrooms and is designed with the main living level at ground level to access the encroachment area of the walk street; and that the rear unit is designed with the living area on the top level and contains three bedrooms and three and one-quarter bathrooms and is slightly smaller than the front unit. He stated that the buildings are designed in a Mediterranean style with smooth plaster finish, foam and glass fiber reinforced architectural details, clay tile roofs, and decorative metal guardrails; noted that the project is designed in compliance with all Code requirements; but noted one minor correction, that the concrete steps on the east side yard are over the 4-foot maximum allowed height for uncovered concrete stairs; and that staff believes this can easily be resolved as a condition of approval. He noted that the garage for each unit is accessed from a common driveway and has a centrally located turnaround area; that the required parking is provided in the two, two-car garages with one guest parking space provided at the end of the driveway; and that the driveway access is off the alley and does not result in the loss of any on-street parking. He highlighted another minor correction with the driveway slope, which calculates to be 13 percent; that the plans need to be corrected to make it a maximum of 12.5 percent; advised that the project complies with the storage requirements; and mentioned that the driveway includes color textured concrete and decorative cobble paving stones. He added that this project has a very generous landscape plan.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
George Stout, property owner, stated that he will probably end up selling the back unit to pay for this project; and noted that his architect is working with staff to make the necessary corrections.
Jeff Lenham stated that he lives on the west side of the property; and expressed his belief that his wall may be partially encroaching the applicant’s property – noting his desire to leave the wall as is. He noted his intent to speak with the applicant about this situation.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff met with Mr. Lenham this morning and reviewed his concern about his property line wall; noted that the survey indicates Mr. Lenham’s wall is partially on his property for a portion of his lot and partially on his neighbor’s property on another portion; advised that staff also discussed with Mr. Lenham the possibility of leaving the front portion of his wall in place; and that Mr. Lenham expressed his concern with the front portion and also with the remaining segment of the wall because of some egress concerns relative to his side yard. He advised that one of the things staff and Mr. Lenham discussed was whether the developer could locate his proposed wall slightly inboard of his property line in order to maximize the amount of room Mr. Lenham would have so that he could maintain a clear side yard, believing this is the issue Mr. Lenham wishes to discuss more fully with the property owner.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned if the applicant’s proposal will conform to code if the wall is moved over to the property line.
Director Blumenfeld stated that it would not conform.
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, project architect, explained that no matter what happens at either location, they would need to put some sort of retaining wall because the grade is going to be lower than the neighbor’s grade as the driveway goes forward. He stated it would be beneficial for Mr. Lenham and the applicant to meet to make sure the plans are amenable to everyone involved. He expressed his belief there is a way to make this better for both sides.
Mr. Peha noted for Chairman Perrotti that the conditions, including the minor conditions staff addressed, are acceptable to the applicant.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that this is a nice project; and questioned why there is a separate entry in Unit 1 from the street into the game room/bedrooms – noting concerns for a bootleg condition.
Chairman Perrotti re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peha explained that the applicant will work out of his home and that this entry will make it easier for the applicant to go to and from his home office.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti noted his desire to somehow ensure that this area won’t be used as a separate residence.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could require the owner to provide a covenant to indicate the property will be used pursuant to the requirements of the zone. He added that the stairway leading to that area is open as opposed to a closed stairway, which presents a problem with making it a dwelling unit.
Chairman Perrotti stated that other than the issue with the extra entry, this is an acceptable project; and noted that at a minimum, the Commission should require a covenant as part of the resolution.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CON 05-1/PDP 05-1 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061509 for a two-unit condominium at 58 20th Street; moved that the external entry to Unit 1 be eliminated; and that the applicant work with Mr. Lenham in regard to the driveway/wall issue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a proposal to redevelop what was formerly the BMW dealership site, the southerly portion of the site; stated that the property is located on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) at the middle of the block between Artesia and 30th Street; pointed out that the property is separated from residential uses to the west by a dead-end service alley; and that there are several residential lots that have built substantial block walls which range in height from 8 to 14 feet that serve as a buffer from their residences to the commercial uses along PCH. He noted that the original conditional use permit granted for that project was approved in 1989 and that it was amended subsequently in 1992. He advised that the applicant is proposing a two-phased development program on the property, which will occur on approximately one-third of the former dealership site; explained that the first phase involves the development of a Lotus sports car franchise dealership; stated that there will be a limited number of new cars for sale on the property; that a portion of the property will be used for used car sales and to conduct auto repair for the BMW part of the dealership, as the Lotus dealership and the BMW dealership are held under the common ownership of the applicant. In the first phase, he stated that there will be no substantial renovation of the property; and that the owner would commence with the use of the property as soon as this permit is approved and executed.
Director Blumenfeld stated that in the second phase, the existing sales building would be demolished and replaced with a new 3,977-square-foot showroom and office facility; advised that these uses are consistent with the prior use of the property; stated that phase 2 includes utilization of the existing auto repair bays in the rear of the site; and advised that a conditional use permit is required for this new motor vehicle sales and service repair as permitted in the C-3 zone. He added that a Precise Development Plan is required because of the second phase of the project, which involves the construction of the new auto showroom. Based on the number of parking spaces for the proposed project, he noted the project conforms to the parking requirements; advised that 21 parking spaces are required and that 23 are provided; and that in addition to the showroom, the plans also indicate an area on the site for vehicle storage, which won’t interfere with the required customer parking – pointing out that this had previously been a problem with the original uses on the property.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the existing service bays will remain; that those bays are basically oriented in a south-facing direction; and that the applicant is not proposing to change that orientation – pointing out that this helps with noise mitigation because the building attenuates some of the noise that would affect the properties to the west. He stated that access to the site is from PCH as well as a service alley. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending that the parking areas be striped and used pursuant to submitted plans and that signs be provided designating the customer service parking and employee parking. He noted staff is recommending that all vehicles serviced be conducted inside the business and that no outdoor work on vehicles be allowed. He stated that the display of vehicles for sale should be limited to the designated areas and that the autos not block the exit or entry onto PCH; noted that the public right-of-way should not be used for parking or storing of vehicles that are intended for sale; and that no storage of trucks or any other automobiles be allowed at any other location on the premises except those which are so designated on the plan.
Relative to one of the letters of complaint, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending the parking or stopping on the service alley for delivery of vehicles be prohibited and that deliveries occur on the premises, or in the case of a large delivery truck, that it be parked along the curb within the PCH right-of-way, which should mitigate the concerns of the property owner to the south who expressed concerns about previous use of their property for deliveries. Relative to noise and the properties to the east, he noted that there should not be any outdoor bells or public service announcement systems that are audible beyond the property lines; and that the City’s standard noise restriction be followed. He noted that the primary entry and exit to the site shall be along PCH; that the applicant shall maintain a clear two-way egress and ingress at all times at that entry; that one gated access be permitted in order to minimize the entrance and exit along the alleyway; that the owner is to construct a new 10-foot high decorative block wall along the easterly property line; and that they install a solid rolling gate as opposed to an open gate.
In response to Vice-Chairman Pizer’s inquiry regarding delivery service not parking in the alley, Director Blumenfeld explained that previously, problems were encountered with blocking the alleyway and delivery activities were taking place immediately adjacent to the properties to the west and test driving on local streets via the alley. He noted staff’s intent to mitigate these problems. While it is certainly the intent of the City to encourage the opening of this business, he noted the importance of satisfying the residential concerns; and stated it is staff’s belief the proposed conditions provide a method to minimize noise drifting onto the residential properties to the west.
Addressing Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the existing pole sign, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is permitted to use their existing signs and change out the sign face.
Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned if operating hours include deliveries.
Director Blumenfeld stated that operating hours do include deliveries.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Dennis Flynn, project architect, asked that they be permitted to use the alley, Section 4, No. 3 of the resolution; explained that this project has been dramatically scaled back in contrast to the former BMW dealership; advised that the BMW facility employed approximately150 people; that this facility will have approximately 10 employees; and that the sales volume for this site will be approximately one-fifth of what it would be for the BMW store. He expressed his belief that the impact of this proposed project is right in line and scale with the adjoining neighbors and business community that they share the alley with; and noted that the applicant should be able to enjoy the same privileges and benefits that other business owners enjoy in having access to the alley. He stated that one of the big concerns is traffic on PCH; noted that during rush hour, it is difficult and unsafe to get onto PCH; and asked that during the rush hours, an alternate route – the use of the alley – be permitted for test drives and egress. He pointed out that it is the goal of the ownership to use PCH as the primary entrance onto the site; and that the alley is only a secondary means to facilitate business on the project. He added that it is their goal to take all the deliveries on site; but added that there might be some situations when they will have a transporter arrive and that they will have to unload at the curb on PCH. He expressed his concern that they won’t be able to guarantee that every delivery would come off PCH, that there might be some cases where they might have to use the alley for deliveries, just as the adjacent business owners do.
Jeff Segal, partner in the Round Table Pizza property, directly to the south of this applicant’s property, stated that he provided staff with a letter on January 12, 2005, which goes into detail how the proposed use is a major trespass and liability nuisance to his property; expressed his belief that it is unfair to ask a property owner to provide access for an adjacent property because of its overuse of that property; and noted that since this applicant is only one-quarter of the land of the prior BMW use, there should be no continuation of use or grandfathering consideration. He stated that the environmental assessment which was done on the property did not take into account parking access or turn-around for trucks and that he believes the environmental assessment is inadequate for the Planning Commission to make a decision this evening. He stated that he is happy with the provision that the huge delivery trucks will be parked on PCH. He noted his concerns with completely blocking off access to the alley by the applicant; and stated that it is reasonable to believe tow truck drivers will use the shortest and quickest route possible, cutting through his parking lot. He expressed his belief that approval of this is a taking of his property; and asked that if the Commission approves this project, that a condition be added for a permanent fence to block access to the alley.
Commissioner Koenig asked Mr. Segal if he had made prior complaints to the City regarding this matter.
Mr. Segal stated that complaints were made to the Police Department not Community Development when the BMW dealership was there.
Richard Sullivan, 2954 La Carlita Place, property just to the west of this site, commended staff for being sensitive to the neighbors’ and applicant’s concerns; expressed his belief this is an appropriate use of the property; but noted that it was commonplace for the BMW employees to leave the air compressor cycling throughout the night and to do work at the facility late in the evening – noting that the noise was very disruptive; and he urged the City to limit the noise in the alley. He expressed his belief that unloading cars on the PCH at night is hazardous to the traffic and customers coming in/out of this facility; and stated that having the delivery in the alley is reasonable if they do it during normal business hours.
Craig Cabwallader, 2668 Strand, stated that he is a Lotus owner and that he is happy with the proposed dealership coming into Hermosa Beach; advised that these cars are small and create a low impact upon the neighbors; and expressed his belief that using PCH to load/unload is dangerous for those driving southbound.
Steve Shoemaker, 140 The Village, Redondo Beach, stated that he owns property in Hermosa Beach; expressed his belief that it is unsafe for this business to load/unload on PCH; noted that diesel trucks should be required to shut down their engines when idling for a certain period of time when near a residential area; and noted his belief this is a great use for this property. He suggested unloading the trucks on a nearby road with less traffic.
Peter Boesen, general manager and vice-president of South Bay European, owner of the Lotus dealership, stated that he was not aware of the compressor running all night; and advised that they will have all new compressors, new machines that will be on timers that will shut down at the end of business. He estimated the volume of cars that will be delivered in one month will be between 10 and 20 Lotus vehicles – pointing out they don’t expect any more than 10 cars a month their first year in business; and added that the pre-owned cars, high-end cars will be brought over one at a time from the BMW store. He mentioned that all the parts deliveries will be done at the BMW store and brought over in small pickup trucks; and stated that this business will have a smaller impact than the prior business at this site.
Addressing Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the use of the pizza establishment’s parking lot, Mr. Boesen stated that he will work with his business neighbor to assure that his lot is not being used by his employees and that he will work with the neighbors to address their concerns.
Commissioner Koenig stated that those test driving vehicles in this area create a hazardous condition and urged the applicant to address that problem.
Mr. Boesen noted that those test drives should not be utilizing 30th Street, that they should be using Manhattan Beach Boulevard and coming down PCH. Mr. Boesen stated that deliveries will only be made during operating hours. He stated that he does not have control over the delivery of vehicles by the semi-trucks, but that those drivers will be advised of the operating hours.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Koenig expressed his belief that this dealership is good for the City; and he urged the applicant to work closely with his neighbors in addressing their concerns. He stated that staff has done a good job with respect to conditioning the use of the alley.
Director Blumenfeld noted staff’s hopes of mitigating the noise problems by enforcing the operating hours, making it clear that deliveries have to occur during those operating hours.
Vice-Chairman Pizer pointed out that Section 4, Item 4 should be amended to reflect the “westerly” property line, not the easterly.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that this is improving an existing condition; that this project is dramatically downscaling what was previously on this site; highlighted the improvements to this site that will benefit the City; and stated that the conditions adequately address the concerns raised. He questioned precluding this property owner from the use of an existing public improvement, the alley, stating that this is entirely unrealistic; and suggested that the applicant limit the egress into the alley, exiting and no entering for employees of the business, no customers. He suggested adding language that deliveries be limited to the operating hours.
Chairman Perrotti started that staff has done a thorough job in addressing ways to improve the operation of this dealership and satisfy the neighbors’ concerns; and urged the applicant to maintain a good relationship with his neighbors.
Director Blumenfeld asked for clarification regarding the addition to Condition 12, at the end of the first sentence, “This includes parts delivery and car washing to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residential uses.” He added that Condition 12 should indicate that this represents all the business operating hours and all the business activity that would occur on the site during those hours.
Commissioner Koenig suggested adding language to Condition 12 to include equipment that starts automatically, such as compressors.
Vice-Chairman Pizer suggested to eliminate in Section 4, Item 9, “that are intended for sale,” and to replace with, “The public right-of-way shall not be used for parking or storing of vehicles.” Commissioner Koenig asked if No. 9 should include language for posting of signs to limit alley use.
In response to Commissioner Koenig’s comment, Director Blumenfeld suggested adding, “The alley shall not be used for parking or storing of vehicles and shall be so signed.”
Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Flynn asked that Item 3 substitute the words “limit” or “control” for “prevent”; and stated that it’s their goal to limit but not prevent; and asked that they be permitted to exit in the alley during the rush hours as opposed to exiting onto PCH.
Chairman Perrotti stated that he understands the applicant’s concern, but that it seems to be the intent of this body to restrict the use of the alley for deliveries and test drives.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 04-8/PDP 04-27 -- Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for a new motor vehicle sales and repair business, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2775 Pacific Coast Highway; Section 4, Item 9, delete “that are intended for sale” and to replace with, “The public right-of-way shall not be used for parking or storing of vehicles”; Section 4, Item 4, to change the word “easterly” to “westerly”; Item 12 to amend the language on delivery hours and the operation of automatic machinery. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this property is zoned C-2, Restricted Commercial, which allows this type of use; stated that the restaurant is located in the same building, with the two retail businesses, and shares three existing off-street parking spaces with these uses; noted that the current restaurant tenant, Lee’s Teriyaki & Tofu, has been in business at this location since March 2003; and that the applicant and current restaurant owner are requesting permission for on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with the existing restaurant. He advised that there is no proposal to change the floor or seating plan or provide new tenant improvements with this request, that it is simply a request for beer and wine sales. He advised that staff is proposing to limit the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Monday through Thursday, and to midnight on Friday and Saturday, believing this is appropriate for locations abutting residential uses. He explained that because a previous business with beer and wine sales had closed, there will be no net increase in beer and wine licenses in the Downtown area. He added that there is no outdoor seating or live entertainment being proposed with this project.
Director Blumenfeld explained that there’s no net effect if the original beer and wine license was not put into effect and that that business owner modified their space, which would have required that business owner to apply for a new conditional use permit.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Avenue, representing the applicant, noted his concurrence with the conditions for approval; advised that this is a family-owned business; that the applicant’s clients have been requesting to have a beer while dining at this location; and noted this applicant’s desire to satisfy his customers’ requests. He stated there is no intention of turning this into a bar.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his approval of this project; and he mentioned that the food is very good and is reasonably priced at this restaurant.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that because of the restriction to the operating hours, he would support this request. He pointed out that staff did not make a recommendation, that the decision is in the hands of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Perrotti noted his concurrence with the Commission’s comments.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 04-7 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 1501 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Commissioner Koenig recused himself from consideration of this matter.
Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the original Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment was granted by the Planning Commission in December 2002 and approved as amended under reconsideration by City Council in January 2003; noted that the applicant is requesting approval of the Variance to maintain an existing deck cover and a seasonal tent structure, which is located on the second and third level decks; advised that these structures exceed the height limit and were constructed without benefit of a permit; and noted that this illegal condition surfaced as a code enforcement action in October 2004 when the City’s code enforcement officer discovered the structures. He noted that the owner was advised at that time that the structures were over height and that they must be removed; that the owner inquired about processing a Variance application and requested that the structure be permitted to remain pending review by the Planning Commission. Director Blumenfeld explained that since the owner agreed to immediately commence with processing a Variance application, staff gave the owner the option to have a structural engineer confirm that the roof structure was stable and constructed in compliance with the Building Code, or alternatively, to have the space on the second floor deck posted for no occupancy pending Commission review; and if the Commission approved the Variance application, the owner could then proceed with processing plans to obtain an after-the-fact building permit (similar to permit issuance for legal determinations or other code enforcement actions involving illegal construction). If the owner did not prevail this evening, he noted that he would be required to immediately remove the roof structure and the tent.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the second floor deck cover/trellis was permitted originally for this property when the property contained the Einstein’s business and that it was equipped with a retractable canvas roof; however, that deck cover was issued with a building permit and was below the existing roof line; advised that the newer structure extends above the existing roof line at a higher level and exceeds the height limit by as much as 6 feet at the peak of the sloped roof; and that the proposed seasonal canvas tent, which is located on the upper deck, is between 8 and 9 feet above the height limit. He explained that Variances are needed for both these structures because they exceed the 30-foot height limit in the C-2 zone.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant believes this improvement will better attenuate noise, that it will deal with rain water and allow better use of the patio areas in the winter season; and that he believes the use of the patio area is necessary for the continued success of the business. He commented on meeting the four primary findings for granting a Variance: 1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question; 3) the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and 4) the Variance is consistent with the General Plan.
With regard to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief that the applicant has not demonstrated there are exceptional or unusual conditions that exist with respect to the physical conditions of the property. He stated that this lot is a typical commercial lot, an assemblage of three lots for the premises; that it’s a sloping lot similar to all the other sloping lots on the block; and that it’s a site which clearly accommodates substantial development and that a substantial development was created when the project was originally approved in 1997. He advised that the applicant’s arguments rest on the issue of whether this is a unique nature of the business; and he noted staff’s belief that that has not been demonstrated and isn’t applicable or relevant to the question of whether or not there are conditions that pertain to this property that do not pertain to other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
With regard to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief that the proposed Variances do not appear to be necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right; noted that the development of the property has established a variety of commercial uses that were developed in 1997; that it can clearly accommodate these uses without this addition; and that it is staff’s belief this would be granting a special privilege to this property owner that isn’t available to other properties in the same vicinity.
With regard to Finding No. 3, Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief that this would be materially detrimental, that it would have a potential effect on the vicinity and zone relative to some marginal obstruction of scenic views and that the applicant has not demonstrated there’s any supporting evidence to demonstrate anything to the contrary.
With regard to Finding No. 4, Director Blumenfeld stated there are no issues or concerns relative to any conflict with the General Plan. He mentioned that in order for the Commission to approve this amendment, all four mandatory findings would need to be made.
Chairman Perrotti questioned if the deck cover can be built within the height limit.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the deck cover could probably be reduced in height; explained that the original cover which was approved was within the height limit, but that it was configured differently as opposed to sitting basically at the roof line; and that where the former trellis structure was built, the proposed structure is a shed roof which sticks above the roof line.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Allen Sanford, principal of Union Cattle Company, advised that the patios represent about 60 percent of their seating, 119 seats out of 198 seats; expressed his belief that this project fits within the intended use; advised that they are not trying to do a bar or put a bunch of people onto the decks, but rather it is for restaurant seating and for wintertime banquets; and added that sound mitigation was also a reason for putting up these structures. He stated that the structures were put up without benefit of a permit due to their inexperience in working with the permit process; and reiterated that this is a seasonal tent.
Steve Jones, project architect, explained that the applicant inherited a very unique building, purposely built to house a microbrewery; and advised that one of the unique features is a very large, double high space which still exists and uses up quite a bit of volume. He advised that the brewery is still on the premises, but that it’s been reduced in size quite a bit from when the Einstein’s business operated. He mentioned that if this building were originally built as a more general restaurant use, he does not think this issue would have come up – reiterating that over 60 percent of the seating area is outside on these decks. In addition, he explained that the decks were constructed to the very west side of the property because it was the view at that time that the success of the restaurant would be driven by ocean views, people being outside looking at the scenery; advised that, unfortunately, between the time the building was designed and actually occupied, there was a City parking structure built directly in line with that obstruction and several roof top items that hinder the view. He mentioned that there’s also a hotel on the beach that has 8-foot encroachments into the height allowance; and suggested that if these City plans were known, the decks could have been placed further to the east on the building; and advised that making those major changes to the building are not financially feasible at this time.
With regard to Finding No. 2, Mr. Jones stated that this is a restaurant that is primarily used for dining; advised that the patio cover was originally built under a permit; and stated that what exists now is a safer and more structurally secure version of what was granted at that time for Einstein’s.
With regard to Finding No. 3, Mr. Jones stated that the patio cover is actually 6 inches lower than the screen walls that screen rooftop mechanical equipment, which was required to clean up the views on that side of the building; and that it can be substantiated this patio cover has less of an impact than other items further east on the building. He stated that he is not aware of any complaints to view blockage.
With regard to Finding No. 4, Mr. Jones stated there is no conflict with the General Plan. He expressed his belief that the Commission is permitted to exceed the height limit when warranted.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman commended the applicant for running a good operation; explained that findings for a Variance are not something that exist at the whim of the Commission, but rather it is stipulated very clearly by state law, not by municipal ordinance; and noted that it’s been very clearly determined through legal precedence in the courts what constitutes the findings that are necessary, particularly for Finding No. 1. He stated that he is not able to make any finding for Nos. 1 or 2 and that 3 and 4 become moot at that point.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he is not able to make a finding for Nos. 1 and 2; and questioned if there is a way to get a permit to put up a temporary tent for special events.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City cannot allow anything that violates the development standards in the zone; and noted that there’s nothing in the zone code authorizing a permit for a temporary structure. He mentioned that temporary permits are issued by City Council for special events.
Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing.
Jed Sanford, principal of Union Cattle Company, stated that the entire tent can be taken down in one day, usually in four hours; and advised that the tents are put up in November and taken down late March.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his support for a temporary tent permit.
Director Blumenfeld noted that staff would need to study how that would occur; and mentioned that special event permits are under the purview of City Council.
With regard to the statement of the City’s parking garage and those items piercing the height limit, Chairman Perrotti explained that this encroachment of the City’s parking structure and the mechanical equipment have special designations as to piercing the height limit; he expressed his belief that the tent structure could have been built without exceeding the height limit; and in reviewing the four findings for a Variance, he advised that he cannot make the findings for Nos. 1 and 2; and stated that it is not a good precedent to set a Variance for height limits. He expressed his belief that the tents are not temporary or permanent when they are up for that length of time.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to DENY Conditional Use Permit 05-1/VAR 05-1 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tents for outdoor banquets on the upper level deck, and a Variance for these structures to exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, The Union Cattle Co. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Koenig ABSENT: Allen -
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from this matter.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this request is for a detached two-unit condominium project located at the corner of Monterey Boulevard, 16th Street, and also backed up by Loma Drive; advised that the property is zoned R-2; that the project contains basements with two stories; that each unit contains 4 bedrooms, 4.5 baths and roof deck; that the primary living area on each unit is on the second floor, with the bottom two levels containing the bedrooms; and noted that the units are designed in a contemporary and Mediterranean style with a smooth plaster finish and clay tile mansard roof. He advised that the buildings are designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit at the critical points; and that all required yards are provided, including a 5-foot front yard and 4.5-foot side yards. He noted that the entries are designed to come in from the 16th Street frontage; stated that the required parking is provided in the basement level for each unit; and that one garage is accessed directly from Monterey Boulevard and the other from Loma Drive on the rear. He noted that the project complies with the lot coverage maximum. He mentioned that the qualifying open space for the rear unit is a little bit short of the required 300 square feet, short by 50 square feet short; and advised that this matter was discussed with the applicant and that it is believed this can easily be resolved by providing some ground level open space facing Loma Drive and possibly additional deck space. He pointed out that the landscape plans are very generous for this project.
Chairman Perrotti questioned how many parking spaces will be lost on Monterey.
In response, Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff will get that clarified, but that he believes two parking spaces on Monterey will be lost, but noted that four will be replaced on site.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, advised that only one parking space will be lost on Monterey; stated that they have worked around a way to provide the additional open space in another space and still provide that deck off the master bedroom, believing this won’t be a problem and won’t require any major changes.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Koenig stated that this project is consistent with the neighborhood and that it is a good project.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that this is a beautiful project.
Chairman Perrotti noted that he will concur with this request, noting that the applicant has agreed to comply with the conditions that staff has added to the resolution.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CON 05-2/PDP 05-2 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060182 for a two-unit condominium at 1600 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: Allen -
TEXT 04-4 -- Text amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and uses. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that during 2004, City Council had expressed concerns with the City’s Zoning Code regulations with respect to buildings and land uses which do not conform to current regulations, especially with respect to the need to permit limited expansions when there is added parking provided; advised that staff addressed this issue in its December report to Council as well as other aspects of the nonconformity regulations that some people find ambiguous and difficult to implement; and that the City Council reviewed the information submitted and directed that the issue be referred to the Planning Commission for review of an ordinance amendment to correct these problems. He stated that many properties in the City are nonconforming to one or more regulations in the Zoning Code; and that a homeowner will eventually have to deal with these regulations regarding nonconforming conditions. He advised that there are often cases where the existing rules which set forth how buildings can be expanded or altered, yet these rules may be too restrictive and prevent what otherwise seems as a reasonable way to expand and remodel an existing structure. Also, he noted the rules currently require Planning Commission review when certain thresholds are met, which causes delay and greater uncertainty for a homeowner; advised that these rules can be very complex and difficult to interpret, implement and reasonably enforce and may conflict with Building and Safety Code requirements as well for upgrading older structures. As a result, he indicated that homeowners are often confused with these complex rules with respect to what can be demolished or added and because of this, they often decide either to not improve their property or sell the property to a developer, which may not be encouraging property owners to preserve older homes in the City. He summarized what some of the current rules are, as noted in staff report.
Senior Planner Robertson highlighted staff’s suggestions for simplifying this process and minimizing delays:
Allow up to 100 percent expansion in the floor area without any Planning Commission review or approval if at least two parking spaces per unit are provided; to disregard interior remodeling, decks and garages from this calculation and simply base the 100 percent expansion on the habitable floor area.
Allow up to a 500-square-foot increase in floor area without any Planning Commission review or approval if there is at least one parking space per unit; and that in all these scenarios, staff is recommending that they calculate the amount of expansion based on the square footage of habitable space and omit the confusing calculations which are currently based on valuation.
With respect to nonconforming uses, staff is continuing to recommend that the increase be limited to 50 percent, but similar recommendations that they disregard remodeling of interior space based on footage and not on valuation of the different types of structures that are involved; also for nonconforming uses, staff is recommending up to a 500-square-foot increase if there is at least one parking space per unit.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the proposed changes will eliminate Planning Commission review or approval of these projects that meet certain thresholds; and that it will help to streamline this process. He explained that homeowners sometimes run into structurally unsound walls when going through a renovation and are therefore compelled, through no fault of their own, to remove rotted and damaged framing in violation of approved plans, which causes further delays and frustration. To resolve these problems, he noted that staff is recommending eliminating the percent removal limitation completely; instead, the code is proposed to be amended to indicate that the only part that cannot be removed would be the existing nonconforming part of the structure; and that this would permit removal of studs or other structural framing when necessary without violating the Ordinance.
With regard to parking requirements, Senior Planner Robertson explained that staff is suggesting that the current requirement of only 250 square feet to be added if there is one parking space per unit, suggesting changing that to 500 square feet and also proposing that the homeowner be given some credit if someone adds a parking space to a condition in which they had no current parking; and that the section of the Zoning Code related to the building’s nonconformity to parking be made a part of the nonconforming regulations. He added among the elements being amended is a clarification as to what constitutes a legal parking space on older buildings.
Director Blumenfeld explained that if the nonconforming condition is eliminated, then the home must be brought up to current codes, that the nonconforming condition/substandard condition needs to remain. He explained that staff is suggesting that the City not be in the business of counting studs and trying to require somebody to maintain some substandard framing simply to comport with the nonconforming ordinance; that if they wish to leave that condition, that they must leave the footprint of the building, leave the floor system intact, but remove the walls as necessary so that one can build a standard building that’s consistent with the Building Code. He noted staff’s hope of taking these issues out of the purview of the Commission as long as some restrictions are in place to accommodate compliance.
Vice-Chairman Pizer commended staff for an excellent job on this item; and noted his preference that the bulk and appearance of the structures resulting from expansion be consistent with the current design. He noted his support for considering floor space over valuation.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Steve Shoemaker, Redondo Beach, stated that he owns a house on the corner of 10th and Hermosa; and he questioned if the rules will be relaxed on the deck areas, allowing them to be enclosed one day.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff is proposing that any part of the existing structure, not including decks, which is part of the habitable space can be remodeled and reused.
Mr. Peha noted that with regard to the 50-percent rule, 100-percent rule, if one starts with a small structure, such as a 700-square-foot home, that means one can only go up to 1,400 square feet; but if one starts with a 2,500-square-foot nonconforming structure, that means one can go to 5,000 square feet of nonconforming structure. He suggested that a maximum square footage be established instead of using this percentage calculation.
Jerry Compton expressed his belief that the most difficult issue to deal with in a remodel is figuring out what will be allowed, noting that coming up with a figure takes a while; and he urged the City to simplify this process, not necessarily weaken the standards. He suggested considering a certain amount of square footage based on lot size.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted a consensus among the Commission that using the calculations for valuation has become too difficult and time-consuming; and he questioned the incentive for people to take advantage of the nonconforming ordinance. He questioned whether the effectiveness of this ordinance as proposed would serve to preserve homes in the community that people want to preserve – noting that many times, what the City ends up with is something completely different and the only thing preserved is the nonconformance, a new house twice as big as what existed before with the preserved nonconformance. He noted his opposition to people using the nonconformance rule and eliminating all of the architecturally defining characteristics of the home that the City intended this ordinance to save – noting his discomfort with this part of the proposal. He questioned if the City should relax the standards for nonconforming structures, believing there is no incentive for him to support that idea. He stated that he has no problem with simplifying the ordinance. Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that given the time and cost of coming before the Planning Commission, applicants would tend to make an additional effort to make their project conform; and expressed his belief that applicants might tend to be less serious with submittals to staff.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his concurrence to simplify the process; noted the importance of this ordinance in an attempt to retain architectural interest/character of a building; and expressed his belief there is more work that needs to be done to address this part of the ordinance. He noted his appreciation of staff’s work thus far.
Commissioner Koenig stated that valuation is difficult to calculate; and noted his desire that the ordinance protect the architectural interest of a building or landmark. He agreed that more work is necessary on this point of the ordinance.
Chairman Perrotti stated that using the floor area is preferred over valuation; pointed out that the rules are so complex that there is a tendency for homeowners to give up, sell or not do any improvements to their property; and stated that he’d like to see some movement on this item.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested continuing this item and to direct staff to separate the two items; stated that he’d like to see some hypothetical cases of what’s permissible under the current code versus that of the alternative; and to separate the historic preservation issue. He indicated that for a lot of people in the community, the issue isn’t so much that it’s an historic preservation issue, but that it is more of a preservation of the character of the neighborhood. He noted his preference to encourage preserving the size and bulk of that home as opposed to taking it down and building the maximum allowable condominium or whatever would be permitted.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE TEXT 04-4 -- Text amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and uses, with direction to staff to come back with clarification of the implications for relaxing the standards associated with the architecture. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to December 4, 2005.
Director Blumenfeld noted the applicant’s request to extend by minute order the expiration date of the VTPM by one year.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 02-16/PDP 02-20 -- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map at 310 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
A-14 -- Appeal of Director’s decision regarding the grade used for height measurement at 429 24th Street. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld commented on the method used for determining building height based on the survey corner point elevations of the property; advised that the method for determining building height also allows for consideration of other points on the lot where there are significant variations in grade between adjacent grades at the corner points; and stated that the point of measurement shall be established on the elevation at the nearest public improvement. He advised that the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission consider an alternate point as opposed to the corner point elevations, which is the subject of this appeal. He noted that the project is located at the crest of a hill that slopes slightly up from Park Avenue and then slopes down toward Power Street, that it’s located on the north side of 24th Street between Park Avenue and Power Street; advised that the lot is zoned R-1; explained that along the westerly slope of the property line, the property grade slopes up gradually from the street up to 32 feet to a 3.5-foot tall retaining wall; and from that point, it’s relatively flat and then begins to slope down toward the rear of the property line. On the opposite side of the slope, he indicated that there is a similar condition, a slope for 32 feet to a retaining wall and then a relatively flat spot and then it again slopes down to the rear of the lot.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that in profile, it looks like a convex slope, which is one of the considerations the applicant is asking the Commission to look at. He stated that in looking at the street profile map, the grade along the north side of 34th Street near and after the hill crest, which begins after 105 feet from Park Avenue, one can see the most significant crest of the hill, which represents where the thoroughfare was originally paved. He stated one can see that the grade at the front of the lot appears to have been cut significantly when the street was originally paved and that the grade, both at the top of the retaining wall on the west side of the property and the top of the slope on the east side, appears to represent an altered grade. He stated that the applicant has provided a survey that shows the topographic conditions at 2-foot contour intervals. He noted that the photos reflect a cut condition that exists at the front; and that at the rear of the property, there is some evidence of old retaining walls. He noted that the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to consider this a convex slope and that they consider the cut situation that exists at the front and rear of the lot; and that they’re proposing to use alternative points at the top of the retaining walls as the measuring point at the top of the slope along the easterly property line. He explained that using this alternative height measurement would allow the construction of a single-family home on the flat portion of the lot; and advised that if those points aren’t used, the building would have to be sunk deep into the grade in order to conform to the 25-foot height limit. Given the fact that there are these cut conditions and this appears to be a convex slope, staff stated it would not be inappropriate to consider these alternative measuring points for establishing grade.
Michael Lee, project architect, offered to answer any questions.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this is a convex slope.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to find that this is a convex slope -- A-14, Appeal of Director’s decision regarding the grade used for height measurement at 429 24th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this dwelling unit is in a commercial zone and is considered a nonconforming use; stated that the existing structure was constructed approximately in 1930; that it contains 1,134 square feet and has no parking; noted that the proposed addition is designed in compliance with the 50-percent rule; and explained that the architect has figured out a way to bring this under the 50-percent rule, but that the architect has not been able to figure out a way to do this without removing more than 10 percent of the exterior walls or the floor area – pointing out that one of the reasons that happened is they had to remove so much of the first floor area on the ground floor to put in a 2-car garage to allow for any expansion. He stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition of 462 square feet on the second floor, which will include a deck of 340 square feet on the second floor; and because the project involves removing 479 square feet of the existing livable space on the first floor to put in the 2-car garage, he noted that the actual floor area of the house will slightly decrease from 1,134 square feet to 1,117 square feet. He advised that the project complies with the 30-foot height limit and with all other planning and zoning requirements; noted that this proposal brings the property up to current codes with respect to parking and also provides some open space with the decks; stated that the existing nonconforming use is not unusual for the area given that the lot is fronting on a predominately residentially zoned street; and that there are other existing legal, nonconforming residential uses on this same street.
Mr. Compton, project architect, explained that they have a perimeter in the existing building of 130 square feet; advised that they are only able to remove 10 percent of the perimeter, which allows them 13 feet, noting that they have to put in a 16-foot garage door. He pointed out that they are ending up with less square footage even though they are doing the 50 percent remodel. He noted that it’s not only the parking space that they will be losing, but that they will be losing 479 square feet of existing building.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that he is looking at this issue in the context of the existing ordinance; noted that the nonconformity here is one of use, parking; and stated that it is not the intention of this body to penalize someone for doing this when, in fact, what the City is gaining is four new parking spaces in an existing residential area.
Steve Shoemaker, owner of the property to the east, 70 10th Street, noted his concern with the lack of privacy to his bedroom from those utilizing the glass enclosed stairway; pointed out that this project will take away his view; and he asked that there be a condition that the windows which enclose the stairway be opaque in order to protect his privacy
Lance Libiano, 69 10th Court, owner of the property directly to the south of this subject site, stated that the plans do not reflect the existing Jacuzzi and deck that encroach onto his property, noting that there exists easement and setback issues; stated that on the engineer’s plans, the deck and Jacuzzi in the backyard are encroaching onto his property by 1.5 feet; and noted that he was told by the property owner this condition would remain. He stated that this encroachment blocks the ingress/egress to his property. He asked that this matter be postponed for 30 days in order to allow the applicant and himself to get this matter settled and the plans corrected.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the site plan shows the fencing that extends to the rear of the lot, with the deck extending to the back of the property line; noted that the fence extends over the property line; and stated that this is an issue that needs to be worked out between the applicant and his neighbor. He noted that in the meantime, this project can go proceed because the building is not located over property line in question.
Mr. Compton explained that they have a 5’9” setback at the rear to the property line; and noted that neither property owner was responsible for building this fence. He stated that the property owners are aware that they should come up with an amicable solution to the property line issue.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that the fence was built several years ago by the person who owned the front house.
Vice-Chairman Pizer, echoed by Commissioner Koenig, stated that this is an allowable project given the current regulations.
Mr. Compton stated that opaque glass will be used on the stairway to alleviate Mr. Shoemaker’s concerns with privacy.
Chairman Perrotti pointed out that there will be 4 additional parking spaces in this neighborhood; and noted the architect’s intent to alleviate the privacy issue by installing opaque glass along the stairway.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE NR 05-1 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family residence in a commercial zone resulting in the removal of over 10% of existing floor area and linear feet of existing exterior walls at 64 10th Street.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
STAFF ITEMS
Item a. was considered at the beginning of the meeting.
b. Interpretation of permitted floor area for Element Restaurant at 1320 Hermosa Avenue. (PDF File).
Commissioner Koenig recused himself from consideration of this matter.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request to provide an interpretation of permitted floor area and mezzanine for the Element Restaurant by minute order; advised that on May 20, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit amendment for this restaurant; and noted that the approved plans for that project show the ground floor only, omitting a mezzanine space, which is the subject of this request for interpretation. He highlighted Condition No. 1 of the Resolution, “The continued use of the restaurant shall be substantially consistent with submitted plans. Minor modifications to any of the plans shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director.” Based on the information staff has for Condition No. 1, he noted the mezzanine is not part of the project; stated there is no building permit record indicating the mezzanine was improved as part of the restaurant; however, there is discretionary permit history where there is reference to a mezzanine, though the area is referenced smaller than what the owner maintains has existed. He added that the only use approved with a mezzanine with a plan was apparently the Eco Café, which was over 10 years ago; noted the mezzanine is smaller than the one shown on the architect’s current plan; and advised that the only square footage found in the file pertains to a project with 3,194 square feet, which was Tucci’s that followed Eco Café, which does not have a plan. He advised that staff has a plan for the original project approval that does not correspond with the approved footage; that staff has footage in the following project approval that doesn’t have a plan; and noted that the uses that followed Tucci’s also did not have a plan. He highlighted the series of uses of this space with these businesses. Director Blumenfeld explained that the owner needs this issue resolved before he can commence with his tenant improvements. He added that the mezzanine is not proposed for customer use, that it’s proposed only as an employee area and a storage area; and advised that if the owner is compelled to abandon the mezzanine, he will forfeit significant storage area which he needs for the operation of the business. He noted that the area in question is approximately 120 square feet.
Chairman Perrotti questioned if there is any downside to adding the mezzanine back in.
Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s intent to make sure this is an equitable solution, that staff is not conveying some additional, special consideration to this owner by approving this area. As a practical matter, he noted that if the area is used for storage -- which the owner alleges that it has been used for years -- that there is no downside, it won’t contribute to any additional parking demand, won’t be used for customer service, and won’t create any additional impact to occupant load for the business. He noted that the Commission could approve by minute order whether the mezzanine was intended to be part of the original approval, noting that the applicant wants to incorporate the entire mezzanine and not close it off, and that staff could incorporate that as part of their approved plan and include the Commission’s decision by minute order if so desired.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that he does not remember the original proposal including the mezzanine area.
Vice-Chairman Pizer suggested that this be a minor modification.
Director Blumenfeld explained that a public hearing would have to be scheduled for a minor modification to a conditional use permit. Director Blumenfeld added that the Commission could require a covenant that the upper area will be used for storage use and employees only.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with a covenant possibly precluding the owner of the property from using this space.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner could request the covenant be removed if so desired.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his agreement with Vice-Chairman Pizer to call this a minor modification to the original plan, noting that he does not remember it being part of the 2003 approval.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the other option would be to process an amendment to the conditional use permit; that the owner will need to submit a complete plan that includes the mezzanine; and that the Commission could approve this as a minor amendment. He stated that staff would be willing to recognize this as a minor modification, to deem this was always part of the original approval; and questioned whether the Commission is comfortable that the proposed addition of the mezzanine represents a minor change to the original plans.
Chairman Perrotti and Vice-Chairman Pizer indicated their approval.
Commissioner Hoffman indicated opposition.
By majority vote, the Commission directed by minute order to deem this to be a minor modification to the plan and to direct Director Blumenfeld to proceed with the corresponding process.
Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that this is the most equitable way to handle this matter.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
Public Hearing(s)
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M.
HEARINGS
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at 11:17 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 11:19 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of December 1, 2004.
| Sam Pizer, Vice-Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |