|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Chairman Pizer requested that staff provide a status report on the City’s tsunami warning system.
Director Blumenfeld stated he would provide a status report at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of May 17, 2005 Minutes..
There was no objection to the approval of the May 17, 2005, Minutes as presented. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
- Resolution P.C. 05-31 to deny a request to validate the legality of third unit at 3212 Hermosa Avenue.
- Resolution P.C. 05-32 validating the legality of detached accessory living quarters on the property at 1236 3rd Street.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Resolutions received in the Agenda packet incorrectly show the voting for Chairman Pizer and noted that the corrected Resolutions will reflect his absence at the meeting wherein these matters were decided.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chair Hoffman, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 05-31 and Resolution P.C. 05-32, as amended. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
Chairman Pizer asked that Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 15 be considered as the first order of business, noting that those matters will be continued to another meeting. He added that the applicant for Agenda Item No. 16 asked that his item be considered early because of a conflicting appointment this evening.
There was no opposition to amending the order of the Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 11 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 - 674 4th Street. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to July 19, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting this matter be continued to August 16, 2005, in order to have more time to complete the necessary information that’s required to support their case.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Chairman Pizer noted there was no input.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to August 16, 2005 L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 - 674 4th Street. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Agenda Item No. 15 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to July 19, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is requesting to continue this matter to the July meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to correct the deficiencies and bring this project under 100 percent valuation so it can be considered as a nonconforming remodel.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to July 19, 2005 NR 05-10 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 1532 Prospect Avenue. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Agenda Item No. 16 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Hermosa Beach Historical Society is requesting the Planning Commission to approve the proposed wall sign for the Hermosa Beach Museum; explained that the non-illuminated sign consists of acrylic channel letters; and advised that the proposed sign in combination with existing signs on site do not exceed the signage limitation for this site.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Rick Koenig, 1825 Manhattan Avenue, representing the Hermosa Beach Historical Society, noted his appreciation for moving this item up in the Agenda order; expressed the Historical Society’s belief that this sign is an important component of the museum; and added they believe this is the most appropriate location for this sign.
Addressing Commissioner Kersenboom’s inquiry regarding the funding for this sign, Mr. Koenig advised that the Hermosa Beach Historical Society has raised approximately $24,000 on its own; and that City Council appropriated $8,000 two years ago for signage/cabinets. Mr. Koenig reiterated that the group feels this is the most appropriate and visible place to place this sign, noting it can be clearly seen down Pier Avenue.
Chairman Pizer questioned if the proposed font size is consistent and comparable with the building’s architecture.
Mr. Koenig explained that the font is a historic font and is indicative of the Art Deco era, noting this building was built in 1939, at the very end of the Art Deco era. He added that this same font is used on the Hermosa Beach Historical Society letterheads, catalogs, and other publications.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief there should be some museum signage on the north side of the building on Pier Avenue so people coming west on Pier Avenue can see a identifying marker; and added that people traveling east on Pier Avenue will see the sign as they are leaving town.
Vice-Chair Hoffman questioned the status on the consideration of a marquee sign at the front, suggesting that the museum signage could be placed on a marquee.
Director Blumenfeld stated he will have to obtain further information from the Public Works Department and report back to the Commission.
Vice-Chair Hoffman expressed his belief the proposed location for this sign is fine, but noted his concern with signage font consistency for this building.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned whether the proposed placement for this sign is the best location and stated it may be more prudent to wait for Public Works to complete its consideration of signage for this building before this sign is approved.
Commissioner Kent noted his support for the placement of this sign.
Responding to Chairman Pizer’s inquiries, Director Blumenfeld stated that at this point, there is no overall design theme for public signage for the City; and suggested that the Planning Commission could condition its approval on the applicant coordinating the final font design with Public Works.
Chairman Pizer stated that it would be a good idea to have a meeting to obtain some coordination with signage consistency for this property and to start coordinating some form of Urban Design Element or identity for the City.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concern with every sign looking the same throughout the City.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he would not want to delay this proposal to conduct meetings and studies and ultimately end up with something similar to what is being proposed at this time; and noted his support of the suggestion for the applicant to meet with Public Works to gain some signage consistency with this building.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE S-3 – the proposed sign for the Hermosa Beach Museum at the Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue; and that the applicant work with the Public Works Department to make sure this sign is consistent with the other signs/marquee plan Public Works is developing for this structure. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this project is located on the south side of 26th Street, between Myrtle Avenue and Morningside Drive; that it consists of two detached units containing a basement with two stories above; advised that the project complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; that it is consistent with the 30-foot height limit; that lot coverage is consistent with the 65-percent coverage standard; and that all required yards are provided. He stated that required parking is provided in the basements; that one space is located in a common driveway with access from 26th Street; and that the proposed guest parking is located at the rear of this driveway. He noted that each unit contains a deck with over 100 square feet of open space directly accessible from the primary living area; stated that the front unit has a total of 313 square feet of open space; that the rear unit has 367 square feet of open space; and added that the project complies with the Condominium Ordinance requirements.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
David Watson, project architect, stated that the project is designed in a contemporary style, with clean lines, and that the massing has been organized in a pleasing manner to fit well on the site.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this proposal conforms to all requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 0512/PDP 05-14 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62754 for a two-unit condominium at 338 26th Street. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this project is located on the northwest corner of Monterey Boulevard and Lyndon Street; that it consists of two detached units containing basements with two stories above; that Unit A contains four bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, a roof deck; and that Unit B contains three bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a roof deck. He stated that the project complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; that it is consistent with the 30-foot height limit; that it conforms to the lot coverage requirements; and that all required yards are provided. Director Blumenfeld stated that each unit has its own dedicated guest parking: one space located off Lyndon Street, the other located in front of the garage on First Court. He stated that all open space is provided; noted that Unit A has 362 square feet of open space; that Unit B has 348 feet of open space; and that each has a minimum of 100 square feet directly accessible to primary living areas. He mentioned that the project conforms to the Condominium Ordinance.
Responding to Chairman Pizer’s inquiry regarding the encroachment area, Director Blumenfeld stated that the project takes access off Monterey Boulevard; that Monterey has an excessive right of way; and that the use is allowed to utilize that encroachment as part of the project parking.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Fran Urelman, Srour & Associates, representing the applicant, stated that this project conforms to all requirements; and with regard to Monterey Boulevard, she noted they have eliminated one curb cut, which may provide for an additional parking space.
Ms. Urelman explained for Vice-Chair Hoffman that the only parking for the project on Monterey will be off First Court and Lyndon Street.
Ms. Flood, project architect, stated that they are proposing to close off the driveway apron and develop the public encroachment area; advised that there will be no parking on the encroachment area; and that this hardscaped area will be a patio, with the addition of some soft-scape and further hardscaping materials. She added that there will be a large amount of landscaping.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief the west and north elevations are too plain.
With regard to the west elevation, Ms. Flood highlighted their attempt to provide some privacy for the condominium residents next door, that they are not placing a lot of windows on that west elevation; and with regard to the north side, she noted that concrete moldings will be added and that a trellis will be placed over the deck area on the second floor.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted staff report with regard to keeping the two eucalyptus trees along the street.
Ms. Flood advised that there are currently three eucalyptus trees on site: two on the northeast corner on the public encroachment and one large tree close to the house; and she noted their plans to replace those trees with king palms.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that staff report indicates an attempt to save those trees if at all possible.
Ms. Flood stated it may be possible to maintain the two eucalyptus trees on the northeast corner, but noted that the large tree on the southern part is too close to the building and will have to be removed.
Ms. Flood noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that she will talk with the landscape architect to consider more landscaping consistency with the existing eucalyptus trees.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that this project meets all requirements; reiterated his desire to save the two existing eucalyptus trees; and stated that more articulation should be placed on the west elevation.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 0513/PDP 05-15 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62866 for a two-unit condominium at 43 Monterey Boulevard; and that the architect work with staff to increase articulation on the west elevation. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request and confirm that the property has a convex slope relative to height determination.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that there are two parts to this project: approval of the two-unit condominium and also a confirmation that the property has a convex slope relative to height determination. He advised that the subject property is located on the east side of Bard Street, north of the intersection with 8th Street; stated that the site is one of three contiguous properties currently developed with duplexes that share a parking lot to the rear; noted that the applicant plans to develop each of these properties with two-unit condominium projects – with the other two to be submitted at a later date; and advised that the properties abut the public parking lot located along Valley Drive to the east and slope down substantially from Bard towards Valley Drive. He stated that the project consists of two detached units, with the front unit containing a basement and two stories above; that the rear unit contains a basement with three stories above; advised that the front unit has four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a roof deck; and that the rear unit contains four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a recreation room at the basement level below the garage level, and a second living room at the garage level. He stated that parking is provided for each unit at the ground floor level garages with access from a common driveway along the north side of the property; and that guest parking is provided at the end of the shared driveway. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the proposed driveway access on Bard Street will impact existing on-street parking; noted that the plans show how the spaces will be relocated as part of the three-unit project, which will not cause a loss in the number of on-street parking spaces; and noted that the proposed driveway is steep, but that it does comply with the driveway slope transition requirements. He stated that lot coverage is 64.8 percent; and that there is sufficient open space provided for each unit, with at least 100 square feet directly accessible to the second story primary living areas.
With respect to the convex slope determination, which basically this project has been designed assuming this is a convex slope, Senior Planner Robertson explained that the method for determining building height also allows consideration of other points for lots with convex contours; and explained that in these situations, the grade of a lot may be based on a detailed survey and that points along the property line may be used to establish grade elevations in addition to the corner points. He noted that in the plans, the applicant has provided a topographical profile to show how the property does slope; stated that the applicant’s request appears to be reasonable given the existing relatively flat terrain for the top third of the lot, which then changes to a gradual slope in the middle portion of the lot, and then to a steeper slope at the lower portion – all supported by the survey information and the topographical profile included in the Commission’s packet. He added that the applicant is requesting to use two additional break points along the property lines as the basis for determining building height.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief the evidence supports the applicant’s claim of a convex slope.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chair Hoffman, to consider this property a convex slope. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
David Watson, project architect, stated that he has been able to create a pleasing rear elevation on Unit B – pointing out that there will basically be two front elevations.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposal meets all requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 0514/PDP 05-16 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62912 for a two-unit condominium at 836 Bard Street. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject site is located on the south side of 7th Street, between Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Prospect Avenue, in the R2-B2 Zone; and pointed out that the property is 4,793 square feet. He noted that the project consists of two detached units, each containing a basement with two stories above; that each unit contains four bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a roof deck; that the project complies with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; that the building is designed to comply with the 30-foot maximum height limit; that lot coverage calculates to be 61 percent; and that all required yards are provided. He noted that the front yard setback of 10 feet exceeds the minimum required 5 feet in order to be consistent with prevailing setbacks on this portion of 7th Street; advised that parking is provided in the basement level of each unit with shared driveway access from 7th Street, with a shared guest parking stall at the end of the driveway; and noted that no on-street parking will be lost as a result of this project. He added that a comparable size driveway will replace the existing driveway. He stated that sufficient open space is provided for each unit; that each unit contains a deck over 100 square feet directly accessible to the second story primary living area; and that the project complies with all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. Senior Planner Robertson noted that the basement levels of each unit, which contain a bedroom adjacent to the garages, do provide full bathrooms; that the rear unit has separate exterior access; and noted that since the Commission has expressed concern about this type of design in the past, staff is seeking direction as to whether the Commission would like to include a condition of approval with respect to the full bath or whether the Commission wants to prohibit separate exterior access to the bedroom in the rear unit.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that there is no code requirement concerning separate exterior access if a building gets to a certain size; and that the only requirement in the code is that all rooms comprising the unit need to be connected through the interior with an open stairway.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned whether a deed restriction could be imposed, noting his concern with the potential for a bootleg unit.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a deed restriction or covenant would be possible if the Commission so desired.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Jeff Dahl, project architect, pointed out that this is one of the larger lots in the City; stated that the building front is 20 feet back from the front of the lot, which will accommodate a lot of landscaping; and he explained that with the lot sloping down about 9 feet, it also helps to bring the building down to scale. He added that this project well exceeds the open space requirements.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom reiterated his preference that the applicant obtain a deed restriction for the door in the back unit.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kent, to APPROVE CON 0515/PDP 05-17 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063034 for a two-unit condominium at 1002 7th Street; and that the applicant obtain a covenant to restrict the use of the back room at the basement level as a rental. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a request to add a dance floor to an existing restaurant; noted that the subject restaurant is located on the second floor level of Loreto Plaza, which is comprised of two buildings that are connected by two pedestrian bridges that span the pedestrian right of way, which is City-owned property; stated that the restaurant is split into two sections, with two customer service areas that are separated by a kitchen and a preparation area. He advised that the proposed location for the dance floor is in the northerly section of the restaurant; and stated that no prior approved plans identified a dance floor when the restaurant was originally approved, that this area was to be used for dining purposes only.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the project was approved in 1999 on appeal, with the latest CUP amendment; and that it allowed expansion of the restaurant to the south end of Loreto Plaza and outdoor patio seating on the southerly bridge. He stated that this new seating plan proposes a dance floor in the northerly side of the restaurant and also includes minor changes to the floor plan and seating arrangements that aren’t consistent with the original Commission approval in 1998. He stated that the area proposed for the dance floor was identified as seating for dining purposes; that the applicant is now requesting to alter the interior floor plan both for the purpose of setting aside a specific area for dancing and to recalculate the occupant load to increase the occupancy, which is allowed under the Building Code. He explained that a dance floor is considered an assembly use that is calculated at a higher occupant load than the general multiplier for a drinking and dining establishment. He advised that the change in the floor plan requires an amendment to the CUP because the Commission must approve the interior layout related to operation of the business. He stated that the applicant is also required to obtain approval for this change from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) in order to allow dancing in conjunction with their on-sale alcohol license.
Director Blumenfeld explained that based on the currently approved plan, the sit-down restaurant comprises about 75 percent of the northerly section of the restaurant; and that with the proposed change, the ratio will be closer to 50 percent for the customer area, a significant change with the dance floor area relative to dining. He added that the rest of the customer service area includes a bar and bar seating; advised that the proposed occupancy changes will impact the exit discharge from the building; and that staff believes this will need to be evaluated by a qualified/licensed design professional. He stated that both the Fire Department and Community Development Department have concerns with the new seating and occupancy plan with respect to exit discharge from the second floor and a potential problem with respect to the exiting configuration; and that staff would like to see this matter addressed. He expressed staff’s belief that the applicant needs to provide more detailed plans delineating the assembly area for dancing and indicating the current exiting configuration for the building in order to determine whether there is adequate egress relative to the proposed change. He added that staff has included as a condition of approval for final detailed seating plans to include an exit discharge plan for the second floor; and noted that the condition states this approval for the dance floor will be contingent upon approval of the plan and any required upgrades to the exiting to be made in conjunction with this proposed change to the CUP.
Director Blumenfeld stated that since the proposed restaurant, as modified, will continue to provide live entertainment, staff is recommending the Commission include a condition for standard noise attenuation conditions and that an acoustical study be prepared by the applicant to evaluate the proposed use utilizing the standard of review used for other restaurants, which is a worst-case scenario for noise generation. He added that the acoustical study must be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer and should address both live entertainment and noise associated with recorded music. He mentioned that in 1999, the CUP, Condition No. 5, required that if amplified live entertainment is provided, that an acoustical study should be prepared; however, no such study was prepared and that staff believes the new plan is necessary in order to evaluate the conditions of this new project.
Director Blumenfeld stated that since August 2004, staff has been involved in evaluating business performance relative to their CUP’s in the Pier Plaza area and noted that this business has received one citation for loud music with doors open; and that on two other occasions, a Code Enforcement Officer noted that loud music was heard from this business – pointing out that in these instances, it was noted that a live band was playing within the restaurant and that part of the dining area was being used for dancing, which is also a violation of their CUP. He stated that in 2000, this business had constructed bar tabletops along the railings on the pedestrian walkways and that these areas were being used for customer service, which is a violation of their CUP, the encroachment regulations, the ABC regulations, and a violation of the Building Code.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the exit discharge plan/study will be evaluated for the entire building.
Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice-Chair Hoffman that the applicant submitted an application for the railing, which was approved at that time; but explained that this area is not designated for customer service, that it’s meant to be a railing only; and stated that as history and use has demonstrated, this area has been used for customer service in a way that was not originally permitted or intended by the Commission. He stated that the customer service area is within the restaurant, not along those corridors.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if this area would be considered a service area if customers went to this area to smoke even though they’re not being served there.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff considers it a service area if somebody takes their drink out there and stands in the exit corridor – noting that restaurant management does not discourage that activity.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Gary Vincent, applicant, stated that the primary reason he is before the Commission this evening is to correct an oversight which occurred in January 1998 when the original CUP was granted to this business; and advised that this business was granted at that time entertainment and dancing and that as an oversight, due to some changes to the floor plan, they never designated an area specifically for dancing. He advised that he worked with a professional architect, taking into consideration all of the issues staff has mentioned, such as emergency egress. He stated that when they applied for their license in March 2000, they did apply with the current CUP for the location, which approved entertainment and dancing; and stated that they have already obtained approval from ABC for dancing. He stated that this part of the restaurant is approximately 877 square feet; that they are proposing to convert 285 square feet for this mixed use, which is roughly a 33-percent change; and stated that if one takes into consideration the entire footprint of the restaurant, which encompasses not only the north half of the building but also the south half of the building, this would reflect less than a 20-percent change/reduction in overall seating. He noted his concurrence in providing an acoustical study.
Mr. Vincent submitted a copy of a 2001 letter written by Chief Lavin relative to the only citation they have received for noise; advised that he has mitigated the problem and done everything possible to be compliant with the noise issues – pointing out that he installed dual paned windows, heavy acoustical blankets over the windows, and hung heavy curtain material to further absorb the noise. He stated that since making those improvements, no other complaints have been received. He pointed out that his business is not one that is causing problems in the Downtown area. With regard to the railing, he indicated that they do not encourage service in this area but that this area is occasionally used as a smoking area.
Pat Love, 531 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that Mr. Vincent is an outstanding business neighbor and noted her full support of this request.
Kurt Smoltz, Standford Avenue, Redondo Beach, noted his support for the applicant’s request, stating that he runs his business very well; and stated his fine dining establishment is an asset to this community.
Seth Berg, Goodman Avenue, Redondo Beach, noted his support for the applicant’s request; stated that he feels comfortable in bringing his family and business associates to this establishment; and noted that the food and service is excellent.
Carla Merriman, Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, noted her support for the applicant’s request, stating that it is an outstanding restaurant, one that hosts many nonprofit groups for their dinners; and stated that Fenners is not one of the businesses causing problems in the Downtown area.
Steve Welch, 2817 May Avenue, Redondo Beach, noted his support for the applicant’s request; and stated that he likes visiting this establishment with his family and business associates.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom urged the applicant to pull permits when displaying any banners; and suggested angling the bar/railing to keep people from using it and keeping people from hanging out in that hallway.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for the dancing, stating that it can have a positive effect on drinking activities; and noted his support for the applicant providing an acoustical study and an exit discharge plan.
Vice-Chair Hoffman stated that he is conflicted in his decision because this is an outstanding establishment, but noted his concern with expanding bar functions, reducing restaurant functions; and pointed out that once this CUP is changed, it runs with the land, note the operation of this business.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for the dance floor as long as an exit discharge plan is provided.
Chairman Pizer highlighted the importance of providing a professional exit discharge plan for this second story business prior to the implementation of a dance floor being installed.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 05-5 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to alter the floor plan to allow a dance floor for an existing restaurant with on sale alcohol at 53 Pier Avenue, Fat Face Fenners Fishack; and that an exit discharge plan and an acoustical study be provided before the CUP takes effect. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: Hoffman, Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval a portion of said text amendment.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this proposed text amendment is a continuation of the work the Commission started at the beginning of the year; explained that earlier, City Council expressed concerns about the Nonconforming Ordinance; stated that the Commission had studied several draft recommendations to change the Ordinance; and that what staff is recommending this evening is to approach the proposed changes in two stages: first stage, to examine the aspects for nonconforming buildings; and the second, consider nonconforming uses and parking.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the recommendations have slightly changed and are proposed as follows:
1) Allow up to 100-percent expansion in floor area without Planning Commission approval when two parking spaces per unit are provided for nonconforming structures. Disregard interior remodeling, decks and garages or other accessory structures from allowable footage;
2) Allow up to 500-square-foot increase in floor area without Planning Commission approval required for nonconforming structures when there’s one parking space per unit or when parking is added to an existing building with no parking. Disregard interior remodeling, decks, garages or other accessory structures in the allowable footage; and
3) Recommending eliminating the calculation of expansion based on footage and omitting the confusion calculation based on valuation.
Director Blumenfeld stated that there were some other approaches discussed relative to providing a fixed amount of footage that would be allowed: either 1,000 or 2,000 square feet, or a 1:1 ratio of floor area to lot area ratio; and noted they also investigated recent text amendment changes within Manhattan Beach where they have set some restrictions based on maximum allowable footage. He explained that with regard to structural removal allowed, presently, when a nonconforming structure is allowed to expand under the existing regulations, the amount of structural removal is limited; advised that the Code states one can take out 30 percent of the existing linear feet of exterior walls and 30 percent of existing floor area; and that these numbers can be exceeded with Planning Commission approval. He explained that when one goes to do demolition, they may encounter dry rot or termite damage and may be required by the Building Inspector to do additional framing for safety purposes; and that the net result is the builder, through no fault of their own, winds up violating this limitation restriction. He noted that because these limitations can be troublesome, staff is recommending this be changed. He clarified for Chairman Pizer that if one has to remove that last nonconforming wall, one no longer has a nonconforming building.
Chairman Pizer stated there should be something to require uniform architectural design when making modifications, some type of design consistency.
Vice-Chair Hoffman clarified this has nothing to do with historic preservation, only nonconformity.
Director Blumenfeld added that the Commission could apply a factor to limit the maximum amount of square footage, which would address concern for excessive expansions; and suggested a limitation of 3,000 square feet – noting that anything larger would need Planning Commission approval. He stated that if one is going to do a nonconforming remodel, the new portions of the home have to comply, and the existing nonconformities are allowed to remain.
Tom Smalley, Manhattan Beach, briefly commented on the difficulty with limiting continuity of design/aesthetics.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Allen that anyone currently in the submittal stage would be permitted to proceed without taking these changes into consideration.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chair Hoffman, to APPROVE the noted recommendations above, 1 through 3, and the 3,000-square-foot limitation. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
HEARING(S)
Commissioners Allen and Perrotti recused themselves from consideration of Item No. 13 because they live within 300 feet of this project.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the existing two-story building was constructed in 1970; that a second story addition of 280 square feet was completed in 2000, which was a 14-percent increase in valuation – noting it was allowed by right because it was less than 50 percent; advised that the dwelling is nonconforming to guest parking requirements; that the side yard is 2.8 feet rather than the required 3 feet; and that to exceed 50 percent, it requires Commission approval. He added that pursuant to Code, the calculation of the increased valuation is cumulative of all expansion/remodels that have occurred since 1989; advised that the applicant is currently proposing to add another 381 square feet of livable area on the first floor and 163 square feet of deck on the second floor, to completely remodel the existing livable area on the first floor; and that this cumulatively results in a 56.8-percent increase in valuation, bringing the structure up to 2,475 square feet. He advised that the project cumulatively removes 29 percent of the exterior walls; that the project conforms to all other Planning and Zoning requirements; that the proposed garage addition will increase the available parking on the property from two spaces (with one in tandem) with two garage spaces and two guest spaces in tandem; so, in effect, they are bringing the parking into conformance. He advised that the only nonconformity remaining is the 2.8-foot side yard setback, which is not unusual or severe given that it is within 10 percent of the minimum required side yard; and noted that the scope of the project is reasonable, allowing the owner to add a master suite on the first floor with a covered second floor deck. He stated that staff believes this project is consistent with the goals of the Ordinance and that staff is recommending approval.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the only nonconforming condition is within 10 percent of the required side yard; advised that the Code allows extension of nonconforming side yards that are within 10 percent of the side yard requirement, implying that such a condition is, in effect, conforming; however, he noted that the Code is not explicit as to whether a side yard within 10 percent should be deemed conforming; and that staff believes in cases such as this, where the side yard is within 10 percent and is the only nonconforming condition, that the building should essentially be considered conforming and should not be subject to this nonconforming expansion rule. He noted staff is seeking confirmation of this interpretation and that if the Commission is supportive, staff will incorporate that language into new text.
Senior Planner Robertson clarified that this only relates to nonconforming conditions and only to side yards.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated he is supportive of this request, noting it is adding parking and that it conforms to the rest of the neighborhood.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 05-8 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 1540 Golden Avenue. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Allen, Perrotti ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located on the east side of Hillcrest Drive, between 18th and 21st Streets; noted that the existing structure was constructed in 1962; that the Planning Commission approved an addition of approximately 1,000 square feet in 1999, which resulted in a 59-percent increase in valuation; and noted that the building continues to be nonconforming with regard to garage setback requirements, guest parking, and side yard requirements. He explained that the calculation of increased valuation is cumulative of all expansion/remodels that have occurred since 1989; and noted that the applicant is currently requesting to add 305 square feet of livable area, adding a media room and expanding the existing dining room, and adding a 382-square-foot deck on the second floor. He stated that this expansion, along with the 1999 expansion, will increase the living area of the house to over 3,151 square feet; and that the current project, in addition to the 1999 project, cumulatively results in a 78-percent increase in valuation. He noted that the proposed expansion areas conform to Planning and Zoning requirements; advised that the new second floor livable area and deck area comply with yard requirements; that adequate open space is provided in the rear yard; that lot coverage is 54 percent; and noted that the garage setback is not an unusual condition on this block because the majority of properties on the east side of Hillcrest Drive have similar garage setbacks. He explained that the stairwell, while it encroaches into the minimum 5-foot side yard, is set back 3 feet from the south property line, which is in conformance with the Uniform Building Code; and stated that staff finds the amount of expansion and remodel is reasonable.
Commissioner Kersenboom pointed out that this item is a good example of what will be coming before this Commission when the new text amendment is in place, given the new 3,000-square-foot limitation.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 05-9 -- Addition to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1910 Hillcrest Drive. The MOTION carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
Memorandum regarding compliance with condition regarding the parking access - 598 First Street.(PDF File).
Senior Planner Robertson explained this item relates to complying with a condition that the Planning Commission imposed on a 4-unit condominium project in August 2004 for this property; stated that at the time, the Commission was concerned with the parking layout, even though it met the dimensional turning requirements of the Code; noted that the Commission’s concern was the placement of support columns in the driveway turning area in front of the parking stalls; and stated that the Commission added the following condition: An independent traffic parking engineer shall evaluate the proposed parking layout to determine if maneuvering room for cars backing out of the parking spaces near the columns is adequate, and if not, the plans shall be revised accordingly. He advised that the project applicant has now submitted an access study, prepared by an engineering firm, to comply with this condition. He stated that the engineer evaluated each of the 10 parking spaces individually by using a turning template to determine if a design vehicle could move in and out of the parking spaces; advised that the design vehicle represents a passenger car that is 19 feet by 7 feet, with a wheel base of 11 feet and turning radius of 24 feet; and stated that the design vehicle is typically used for designing roadways and parking lots, but that the dimensions are greater than the majority of private automobiles, SUV’s, and pickup trucks. He mentioned that the report concludes the majority of the parking spaces at this site could be readily accessed without impediments; however, as many as five of these spaces are constrained by the positioning of the columns and require entry or exiting movements with 3-point turns. He added that the report concludes, however, that because of the low traffic volumes, these constraints are acceptable. He indicated that the report concludes since the analysis is based on the design vehicle, most private vehicles in general use could readily access these parking spaces without impediment; and added that staff is seeking the Commission’s confirmation that this report provides the maneuvering room adequate for this project and that the report addresses the Commission’s concerns.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the need for 3-point turns is not necessarily unique to projects, as turning radius requirements of the City do not necessarily guarantee unimpeded access for all possible parking scenarios; and that 3-point turns are commonly needed for 2-unit projects that contain tuck-under parking which use the U-turn design.
By way of Minute Order, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed design and condition has been adequately met relative to this study.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti noted that $151,000 has been allocated from the Capital Improvement Budget to make some improvements to Aviation Boulevard, between Harper Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); stated that Public Works will be repairing/replacing the sidewalk irrigation system and taking out unhealthy trees and adding 69 queen palm trees; and that part of that project will include landscaping on Parker Avenue and a new gateway sign.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman highlighted the importance of revising/updating the Urban Design Element of the General Plan, questioning the effect of incremental improvements. He noted that urban design consistency issues should be addressed in a public forum.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the Committee has worked on these issues for approximately four years; that community participants were widely represented on this Committee and that the Committee decided from a financial standpoint to look at Aviation as a pilot program.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the original plan for the Downtown Improvement Plan called for queen palms along Hermosa Avenue and Mexican fan palms around the greenbelt.
Chairman Pizer expressed his desire to see more formalized plans for updating the City’s Urban Design Element and for the Commission to get involved with this element.
Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Commission is interested in pursuing design standards, the Commission could proceed with a study and specific plan in the Aviation area, coordinating private property design standards with public space design standards; and he noted that staff would need to program that activity into the Commission’s work plan for the next fiscal year. He reminded the Commission that it typically takes about nine months to do that study and specific plan and that staff’s time would have to be programmed into that plan to accomplish that effort.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for Public Works to provide the Commission with a status report, more detailed information on the design plans for City gateways and signs.
Director Blumenfeld stated that he will make that request to the Public Works Director.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his displeasure with the change to the center lane direction where Pier Avenue hits PCH, noting that motorists used to be able to go left or right from that center lane, but now are required to only go left, which creates a traffic backup; and he questioned whether there is any way to get this situation reversed.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this change was the product of a traffic study that was done in 1997 in conjunction with the Beach House Hotel and North Pier Parking Structure EIR; and that one of the EIR mitigation recommendations for increased traffic at that intersection was to establish the two left-turning movements and the one right-turning movement onto Pacific Coast Highway.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the trash dumpsters behind the Lighthouse near the parking lot corner are very odorous and questioned if those containers could be swapped with clean containers.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City took on the responsibility of establishing a common trash area years ago because most of the buildings occupy 100% of the lot and there is very little room on the lot for dumpsters. He added that the Public Works Department is considering several improvements for those trash areas; and stated that they need to be covered and weather-proofed. He mentioned that the City has just embarked on a commercial toter recycling program; and stated that with proactive participation, a lot of waste can be diverted from the trash cans. He noted that the businesses are paying for recycling activities.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the City look into large trash compactors for this area.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
STAFF ITEMS
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 June 21, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |