|
|
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
None
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of August 16, 2005 Minutes.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Minutes will need to be amended to reflect Commissioner Allen’s absence on each vote tabulation; and stated that on Page 12, Vice-Chairman Hoffman should be listed as absent and not as abstaining.
With regard to Page 9, Commissioner Perrotti noted that the vote tabulation lists the same Commissioner for the first and second.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the August 16, 2005, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
a. Resolution P.C. 05-50 merging two contiguous lots on property commonly known as 550 21st Street.
Betty Arndt, resident, questioned why this property does not fall under Code Section 1620.120.
Director Blumenfeld explained that at the prior hearing wherein this matter was considered, this portion of the code, as it was reviewed by the City Attorney, pertains to a piece of property under consideration for the Lot Merger Ordinance; and that it’s not meant to suggest someone can never divide or sell the property, but they can only do that when the property is not being processed by the City under the Lot Merger Ordinance. He explained that the City Attorney’s response is that this section of the code only pertains to properties which are under consideration with the Lot Merger Ordinance; that the provisions for sale or division of land only apply during that period of time, during the processing of the application. He stated that the Ordinance has a lot of ambiguity in it and this is why the City Attorney provided an opinion, which was explained and reviewed at the previous hearing wherein this matter was addressed.
Chairman Pizer advised that the Commission delayed its decision because of this ambiguity.
Director Blumenfeld advised that he will provide Ms. Arndt a copy of the City Attorney’s opinion and he highlighted the points of that opinion.
Renee Wright, 576 21st Street, questioned if this matter can be appealed to City Council.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the matter is appealable within a certain timeframe; advised that this matter has already been appealed to City Council, noting that any resident will have an opportunity to address this matter before Council at that hearing. He summarized the history of this case coming before the City, noting that it had been thoroughly discussed at the prior meeting wherein this matter was considered.
Albro Lundy, representing the applicant, stated that a decision has been made to make this three equal lots; and he urged the Commission to approve the Resolution presented this evening.
Susan Sullivan, Power Street resident, questioned who the legal owner is of this property, noting that the property has been sold.
It was the consensus of the Commission that legal ownership is not relevant.
Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 05-50, merging two contiguous lots on property commonly known as 550 21st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 18, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is requesting to continue this matter to the October 18th meeting in order to give the applicant more time to provide the necessary information to demonstrate their application is complete and that it can be processed under the requirements of the Zone Code.
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 October 18, 2005, L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 - 674 4th Street (continued from June 21st and August 16, 2005 meetings). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 18, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is requesting this matter be continued to the October 18th meeting to allow the applicant more time to study the requirements under Section 1746.240 to determine whether they can pursue this proposal to install a wireless communication facility on City-owned property.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to October 18, 2005, CUP 05-4 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the City parking structure at 1301 Hermosa Avenue (continued from July 19th and August 16, 2005 meetings). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vice-Chairman Hoffman recused himself from consideration of Item No. 8 because he lives across the street from this property.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To declare subject vacation of the unused portion of right-of-way is not in conflict with the City’s General Plan.
Director Blumenfeld stated that on July 20, 2004, the Commission approved a second story addition to an existing residence at 760 Loma Drive, with the condition that the owner obtain Public Works Department approval for the portions of the existing structure which encroach into the public right-of-way – 1.13 feet on the east side of Loma Drive and 1.7 feet on the south side of 8th Street; noted that the property has been conditioned to construct a new curb, gutter and sidewalk on Loma Drive and 8th Street; stated that these improvements are being constructed pursuant to the Master Plan location for both these streets; stated that the area proposed to be vacated is outside of these improvements; and that this area is therefore considered excess public right-of-way and unnecessary for present or prospective public use. He advised that the Public Works Department therefore recommends to the Planning Commission and Council that this area be vacated to the underlying property owner; and explained that the property is currently under construction and that the vacation is necessary in order to allow construction to be completed as approved on the project plans. He added that the City’s General Plan objectives and policies do not conflict with the subject vacation, that it is not shown on the General Plan Circulation Element map for future use and that the City does not have a fee interest in the right-of-way. He added that, therefore, the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed vacation and will, as a condition of approval, require a general utility easement with respect to this proposed vacation; and noted that staff is recommending that, by way of Minute Order, the Commission declare the vacation of this unused portion of the right-of-way not being in conflict with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element or any other element of the General Plan.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Mark Hanna, property owner, urged the Commission’s approval of this vacation.
Jim Schroeder, 745 Loma Drive, expressed his approval of this applicant’s proposal, noting this property owner is enhancing this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief Public Works has worked out this issue and considers this excess public right-of-way.
Chairman Pizer noted that this meets all requirements.
It was the consensus of the Commission to, by way of Minute Order, declare this an unused right-of-way and that the proposed vacation is in conformance with the City’s General Plan. No objection was noted, absent Vice-Chairman Hoffman.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this project is located at the intersection of Pier
Avenue and Manhattan Avenue on the southeast corner; stated that at the May 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a CUP to allow Nextel Communications to install four antennas as part of a wireless communication facility site; and noted that the applicants are in the process of constructing a new 18,648-square-foot building on this property with 54 commercial condominium units, which was approved by the Planning Commission at that meeting and approved on appeal by the City Council on October 26, 2004. He explained that this proposed application is a 2-phase program and an amendment to the original permit that was issued on May 21, 2002; noted that there’s a proposed temporary mobile antenna tower (cell on wheels), which would be in place during construction of the new commercial condominium project; and added that then, a proposed reinstallation of four antennas and an equipment vault would take place as part of the new Nextel Communication facility site, which is part of Phase 2. He stated that the applicant is proposing to locate the mobile antenna tower near the northeast corner of the property; noted that the permanent antennas will be mounted on the north and south face of Unit B; explained that the applicant indicates the mobile antenna towers are necessary to provide service to the western portion of the City while the commercial condominium complex is under construction; and stated that once the construction is completed, the permanent installation will occur. He explained that code requires any antenna or such device shall be allowed to exceed the height limit only to the extent that the surface area of the device on its widest side shall not exceed 12 square feet of surface area over the height limit; stated that the proposed temporary antenna is 40.5 feet tall, with 8.7 square feet of surface area above the 30-foot height limit within the C-2 Zone, which is consistent with the requirements of the code.
Once the construction of the building has occurred, Director Blumenfeld noted that the permanent antennas will be affixed to the building face; and that the attachment will be below the roof line of the building and within conformance of the height limit. He added that the City is permitted to consider the extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged when such facilities are installed, either by use of topography, vegetation, building or other structures; and noted that the applicant proposes the permanent antennas to be installed below the building parapet and painted to match the building; however, he advised that Council resolution which was approved on appeal for this project required that the location of the wireless communication facility be shown on the plan and integrated into the building design. He stated that the Commission may want to consider additional screening given what’s been submitted in Phase 2 of the plans; that the Commission may also want to pursue other temporary screening or camouflaging for the mobile portion of the facility, either a construction screened wall or landscaping. He mentioned that staff has included that as a condition of approval. In addition, he stated that the Commission may want to consider notification to some of the surrounding property owners because the temporary facility is quite tall, 40.5 feet in height, and that it is in a prominent location on this site, suggesting that a courtesy notification go out to everyone living within 300 feet of this site.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff included one additional condition because the plans show a Cingular Wireless equipment facility in addition to the Nextel Communication facility, noting that each facility must be subject to its own application; and he advised that Cingular was not part of this application process and that it will need to submit an application as part of this approval.
Commissioner Allen questioned if there is a time limit on this temporary facility.
Director Blumenfeld explained that there is a built-in incentive to get the mobile facility off this site as quickly as soon as the building is completed.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned why the temporary antenna has to be 10 feet taller than the permanent antenna.
Director Blumenfeld noted his understanding that the plans show it at 41 feet in height and typically the height is determined by the location on the site and the topography.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that signage be erected near the temporary antenna to indicate the temporary facility will be taken down upon project completion.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Nick Schaar, applicant, stated that the tower will be 30 feet tall; and it is incorrectly shown on the plans, explained that there are two companies that will share the 30-foot tall tower: two antennas being used by Cingular/T-Mobile and two antennas being used by Nextel Communications. He estimated this project will take a year and a half to complete. Mr. Schaar noted his concern with planting vegetation to help with screening, explaining that hedges will be in the way of the heavy machinery. He suggested the use of lattice covered screening around the project site.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that the applicant has agreed to erect the temporary screening and has agreed to abide by the conditions in the resolution.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that attempting to camouflage the site may draw more attention to the permanent facility; and he suggested that the design element for the permanent facility be brought back for consideration.
Chairman Pizer noted his concurrence to review the permanent facility screening.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CUP 05-7 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a temporary tower for a wireless communication facility during construction, and to install permanent wireless communication facilities on the roof top after completion of the new office building at 200 Pier Avenue; and moved to amend the proposed Resolution, bringing back to the Commission Item 2 in Section 5 – Commission to review the final design; and under Section 5, Item 3, to indicate the mobile antenna tower will not exceed 30 feet in height. 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.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the restaurant is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of PCH and 5th Street, in the same building as the former Togo’s Sandwiches; advised that it has an existing parking lot with 24 spaces; noted that the applicant is requesting permission for on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with this existing restaurant; and that they are proposing to change the existing kitchen service area to prepare sushi and other Japanese cuisine and to replace the existing area used for sandwich preparation. He advised that the remodel does not involve changing any parts of the existing floor plan, nor will any changes be made to the existing seating plan; and noted that no exterior improvements to the building façade are indicated by the applicant, although there will be some changes in signage. He advised that staff is recommending the hours of operation be limited between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., Monday through Thursday, and to 11:00 P.M. Fridays and Saturdays. He added that staff is recommending no outdoor seating or live entertainment area as part of this project, and since the occupancy of the building will continue to be used for restaurant purposes, there is no intensification of use and no requirement for additional parking. He advised that one of the recommended conditions of approval relates to the final determination of the occupant load; and noted that staff is therefore recommending a standard condition that they submit a detailed seating and occupancy plan by a licensed design professional.
Commissioner Allen asked if the Police Department had been consulted on its position regarding this request.
Director Blumenfeld indicated they were not. He stated that this matter was reviewed by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC) and advised that the board had no concern related to this proposal. He stated if a business becomes a nuisance, the matter would be referred to the Police Chief; and reiterated that staff has not solicited the Police Department about this proposal.
Commissioner Allen noted his preference to hear from the Police Department if there are any problems in this vicinity with beer and wine sales.
Director Blumenfeld noted staff can submit a written request that the Police Chief provide his comments and then to bring those comments back to the Commission.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Charles Kim, interpreting for the applicant, Sun Kim, explained that the owner is seeking to serve sake with the sushi meals, believing it is a complimentary drink to these meals; advised that the applicant does not expect the beer/wine sales to exceed 5 percent of his total sales; and stated that this applicant has other successful businesses and that he is a responsible business owner. He mentioned that ABC thoroughly investigates businesses seeking alcohol licenses; and that this business has been approved at the ABC level. He added that the applicant concurs with the conditions of approval.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that he will support this proposal because of the limitation placed on the hours of operation and because this is a small establishment.
Commissioner Allen stated that he is not opposed to the beer/wine sales as long as the Police Department is amenable with this proposal.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE CUP 05-6 -- Conditional Use Permit for on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant at 429 Pacific Coast Highway, California Sushi & Teriyaki. 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.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Mediterraneo restaurant is located on the north side of Pier Plaza, the former location of Brewski’s; and noted that it has been operating as Mediterraneo, a sit-down restaurant, since early 2004. When the Planning Commission approved this conditional use permit (CUP) in October 2003, he noted that the hours were limited to 2:00 A.M. and that live entertainment would cease at 1:15 A.M.; however, he advised that in December 2003, City Council sustained the Planning Commission’s decision to allow on-sale alcohol, but imposed a more restrictive closing time of midnight. He stated that the applicant is now seeking authorization to close at the 2:00 A.M. hour, as previously recommended by the Planning Commission; and pointed out that this is the only change being requested this evening. Senior Planner Robertson explained that the midnight restriction was based, in part, on Council’s feelings that an upscale, sit-down restaurant did not need later hours – believing it would create more of a bar or nightclub atmosphere and that the business operation hours could be reviewed after six months of operation. He pointed out that since the opening of the Mediterraneo restaurant, there have been no reported problems with respect to noise or other violations with its CUP. He added that the Commission has been provided a list of the restricted hours for other restaurants on Pier Plaza, many which have bars operating from 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. He stated that staff is seeking the Commission’s direction on this proposal.
Commissioner Kersenboom recalled that the Commission’s prior concern was that this establishment not turn into another nuisance party spot.
Director Blumenfeld noted that some of the Commission’s prior deliberations pertained to whether this was going to be a sit-down restaurant that offered a full menu; noted staff’s opinion that this is a dining establishment; and pointed out that over the period of time it’s been in operation, the business has demonstrated it is a full service restaurant and has not had any Conditional Use Permit violations.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned if the applicant is proposing any change in the seating plan or a dance floor.
Director Blumenfeld advised that a seating plan has been prepared at staff’s request and that the area layout is the same and no dance floor is being proposed.
The Commission reviewed the seating plan at this time.
Director Blumenfeld confirmed for Commissioner Perrotti that there have been no citations with this business; and explained that when the City commenced its code enforcement activity in this area at the end of last year and beginning of this year, no violations were observed.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Albro Lundy, attorney representing the applicant, stated that two years ago, in 2003, there was an approval for a 2:00 A.M. closing hour, which was an important decision to help this business become financially viable; and stated that Mediterraneo is a European, upscale restaurant with exceptional food and wine. He advised that Tommy Short owned Brewski’s for 10 years without any issuance of a single citation; and added that two years ago, Mr. Short turned this facility into this upscale restaurant known as Mediterraneo. He stated that this restaurant needs the extended hours to financially sustain itself; advised that it’s been operating since November 2003; that the business has successfully undergone the 6-month review process; and expressed his belief that after two years of operation, this business has proven it is an enhancement to this area and the City. Mr. Lundy explained that businesses in this area make their profits after hours when the Plaza area is alive with business; and advised that they are not planning on having a bar or dance floor, but that they intend to improve the quality of Hermosa Beach and the quality of its night life. He mentioned that one of the arguments at the City Council level was to allow this restaurant to compete with the other restaurants in this area; that Council directed the midnight restriction be imposed for six months and then following with a review process; and he stated that this business has proved it can operate under the conditions imposed and he urged the City to allow this business to stay open until 2:00 A.M. daily.
Mr. Lundy noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that the CUP has a provision which states no live entertainment will be permitted, with the exception of special occasions like New Year’s Eve. He stated they would probably either have a non-amplified acoustic guitar, a trio, piano, or violin. He reiterated that there is no interest in turning this business into a bar.
Matt Houston, general manager of Mediterraneo and resident of Hermosa Beach, expressed his belief this business has proven it is an upstanding business in this community; stated that they are committed to maintaining a classic environment, with excellent food and drink; and he urged support of this request so they can continue to provide an upscale dining environment for Hermosa Beach.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if any type of food would be served after the kitchen closes.
Mr. Houston stated that the kitchen currently closes at 11:30 P.M. and that they are interested in being able to serve food a half hour to an hour later, noting that simple cuisine will be served at the later hour, such as desserts and finger foods.
Chairman Pizer questioned if this restaurant is currently profitable.
Mr. Houston noted for Chairman Pizer that the first year was a big challenge, but that this second year, he feels they are becoming more successful, establishing much more of a regular clientele.
Chairman Pizer questioned if the applicant believes he cannot make an acceptable profit based upon the current hours of operation.
Responding to Chairman Pizer’s inquiry, Mr. Houston stated that the additional two hours of business, when Hermosa Beach is at its busiest, would create a more acceptable profit margin than what the restaurant currently enjoys.
Chairman Pizer questioned if the business is open for lunch.
Mr. Houston stated that the restaurant is open for lunch 3 days a week: Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
In response to Commissioner Kersenboom’s inquiry regarding the later hours, Mr. Houston explained that it is their intent to offer food at a later hour, an alternative to fast food or pizza, for instance.
Brad Adams, 5th Street resident, expressed his support of the applicant’s request, stating that this is a good, quiet place to sit down and talk with his friends while enjoying something to eat and drink.
Jim Lissner, Hermosa Beach resident, expressed his belief that a lot of restaurants have promised the same success, only to later become problem businesses in the Plaza area; stated that there are successful restaurants which do well with limited hours; and questioned whether this restaurant can improve things on Pier Avenue. He noted his opposition to adding to the concentration of alcohol licenses in this area and noted his opposition to this request.
Amber Coddle, executive chef at Mediterraneo and Hermosa Beach resident, stated that this restaurant serves great food; that the restaurant strives to maintain a quiet and relaxed atmosphere; and echoed the owner’s comments that they do not intend for this business to become a bar or club.
Mr. Lundy pointed out that this establishment already has an alcohol license, that they are only seeking the extended hours to serve food and the alcohol to go along with the food late in the evening; and advised that this establishment has continually conformed to all imposed conditions.
Shirley Castle, Hermosa Beach resident, expressed her opposition to this request; commented on the noise, litter and other nuisance problems in this area because of the late hours; and suggested that all bars/clubs in the City be closed two hours earlier.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom expressed his belief that this establishment has proven it can abide by the conditions of approval and that it is not one of the establishments causing problems in this area.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted his vision of the Pier Plaza becoming a restaurant row instead of what it has evolved into – more of a sports bar row; and stated that there are problems in this area, but pointed out that this establishment is not one that has caused any of the problems. He stated that when he has been on the Plaza, he has noticed there are still people in this restaurant eating later in the evening, that these people are not there only to drink alcohol; and stated that action should be taken against those establishments that have been cited for violations, not those that abide by the rules imposed by the City. He stated that this establishment should not be punished for the actions of those violating establishments; that this business should be given equal opportunity as those like businesses in this area; and suggested possibly limiting the hour to 1:00 A.M.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that while there have been no problems with this establishment, he is concerned that extending the hours would change their clientele, whether they want it or not, because the people wandering around the Pier Plaza area at 1:00 A.M. or 1:30 A.M. aren’t necessarily looking for a fine dining experience, but perhaps are looking to change their drinking venue; and that this may not be something the owner, regardless of his intentions, can necessarily control. He noted his concern that if this establishment should close down, the alcohol permit would run with the property, not the establishment, thereby allowing another establishment to occupy this space with a full liquor license and a 2:00 A.M. closing time. He suggested that the owner consider amending the lunch hour; and he mentioned that financial issues are not supposed to influence the Commission’s decision.
Commissioner Allen recognized that the owner of the Mediterraneo has been an excellent citizen for Hermosa Beach and he thanked him for his past involvement with this City. He echoed Vice-Chairman Hoffman’s concerns with the potential for transference of the liquor license and late closure; and stated he would consider going with a 1:00 A.M. hour instead of 2:00 A.M.
Highlighting the concern with the potential for transference of the liquor license and closing hour, Commissioner Kersenboom suggested placing a condition upon the CUP, requiring that the establishment be reviewed every year or two; and stated that if there are violations, this would give the City leverage in pulling the CUP. He suggested that this be done with all liquor license businesses.
Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that this business has escaped problems because it has an earlier closing hour; stated that successful upscale restaurants do not need late hours to be profitable; and echoed the concerns with the potential for transference of a liquor license if this establishment fails. He added that it has been Council’s policy to be more restrictive.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to DENY CUP 05-8 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment for a restaurant with on-sale alcohol to change the closing time from 12:00 midnight to 2:00 A.M. daily at 73 Pier Avenue, Mediterraneo. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer NOES: Kersenboom, Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the requested garage setback and rear yard, and direct staff as deemed appropriate regarding the requested relief from the guest parking and open space requirements.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is zoned R-2; that it contains 1,350 square feet; that it is a substandard sized half lot, with frontage on the street and no alley access; and stated that the lot is currently developed with a single-family dwelling that contains approximately 1,400 square feet, which is nonconforming to parking, as it contains only a substandard one-car garage. He advised that the applicant is requesting these Variances in order to allow the construction of a house containing 1,828 square feet, with two bedrooms, a family room, 3 bathrooms and a roof deck. He noted that the applicant is requesting variances from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; advised that the first Variance deals with parking setback; stated that the proposed setback from the sidewalk is 5 feet rather than the required 17 feet; and explained that the applicant states if required to provide the 17-foot setback, the entire ground floor would essentially be devoted to parking and that this would significantly reduce the useable floor area for the dwelling.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the second part of the Variance is from guest parking; noted that the applicant is proposing no guest parking rather than the one required pursuant to the Zoning Code; explained that this Variance is related to the parking setback issue, as the 17-foot setback normally provides a location for at least one guest space; however, he noted it is possible with garage and floor plan modifications to provide an outdoor guest space on either side of the two-car garage. He stated that a guest space to the side of the garage would help relieve neighborhood parking concerns and could be included as part of the Variance from the parking setback requirement of 17 feet.
With regard to the rear yard, Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant is requesting to allow a stairway access to the upper floors to encroach within 3 feet of the rear property line at the ground floor, that this would only impact a portion of the rear yard at the ground; stated that the remaining 17-foot section of the building complies with the 5-foot setback; and that the upper floors are set back 3 feet at the rear, which is consistent with the requirement for the R-2 Zone.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that the fourth part of the Variance relates to open space; stated that the applicant is proposing to use 150 square feet of the 492-square-foot deck area towards the open space requirement; and noted that the other 150 square feet is provided on a second floor deck adjacent to the second floor living area. He stated that the Zoning Code limits the amount of open space counted on a roof deck to 100 square feet; and that the plans as submitted provide 250 square feet of qualifying open space. The project is currently 50 square feet short of the total required open space.
In order to grant these variances, Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Commission must make the following findings:
- There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved;
- The Variances are 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;
- The granting of the Variances 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
- The Variances are consistent with the General Plan.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that staff believes the findings can be made in order for the applicant to achieve some parity with neighboring properties; that findings can be made to support the Variances related to the parking setback and the rear yard; however, he indicated that staff does not feel as comfortable with the findings for relief from the guest parking requirement or from the open space requirement because the plan could be modified to meet those standards without significantly compromising the design or the effort to achieve parity.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Jim Fasola, project architect, expressed his belief these Variances are necessary because the lot is half the size of all the lots in the neighborhood; and without the setback variance, he explained that the garage and parking would take up all but 2 feet of the buildable area on the bottom floor. He stated that almost all the houses on this street have a 5-foot setback for the garage. He explained that putting the guest parking space on the side of the entry or the side opposite the entry would set up an illegal condition because the width of the garage plus the side yard would cause a vehicle to block the only entry into the house. He stated the only way this would work is by putting it on the opposite side, ending up with basically a 3-foot wide walkway, about 30 feet long, to the door in the back. He added that the entire front area of the lot would be paved with concrete; and added that the guest space would be the minimum size in width. He stated that the plans currently allow for a pretty substantial storage area in the garage and that if they were to provide the guest parking space, there would not be any storage space inside the garage, believing this may cause a car to be parked on the street or in the guest parking space. In addition, he stated they would end up with a curb cut that is 26 feet wide and almost the entire width of the park area. He expressed his belief that there is adequate parking on 26th Street.
With regard to the open space, Mr. Fasola stated they are proposing 150 square feet off the main living areas and a 500-square-foot roof deck, believing this is just the buildable size of the lot; stated that if they were to provide 200 square feet, it would take up an enormous part of the buildable area of the house, which is modestly proposed at 1,800 square feet. He expressed his belief the open space, the parking, and setback requirements were set up for a full sized lot; advised that he studied 10 similar sized lots in the area and found that every single one has substandard parking and substandard open space. He distributed photographs of those properties to the Commission; and added that most of those only have one parking space. He reiterated that every single half lot developed in the last 30 years has had a variance for parking and that none of these meet the current open space requirement. He mentioned the only new house that has been built on a half lot in this area had 300 square feet of open space on the roof and zero off the main living spaces; and expressed his belief that what they are proposing is far and above what any other house in the area has been able to achieve on a half lot. He added that he believes this proposal is in parity with what other neighbors have in this area. He advised that there are two other lots that received Variances on lots significantly bigger, noting that a variance was granted in 2000 for 3 tandem spaces.
Carleen Beste, applicant, explained that in order to remain in this community, it is essential to provide a larger living area for her family; stated that in designing this house, they have attempted to develop a plan that kept within the spirit of the code set up for full lots; and advised that they are proposing a modest 2-bedroom house. She stated that all the variances are important to help make this a functional place for her family.
Allen Carter, 252 27th Court, stated that his house sits on the other half of this half lot, the house behind the subject house; expressed his belief that granting these Variances will have a negative impact upon his privacy and the peace and tranquility he currently enjoys. He questioned if granting the 3-foot back easement will provide adequate space for emergency services to access his home and property. He stated that when he added the 99-square-foot addition to his house, he purposely proposed what was allowed by code, believing it is an equitable decision for all involved; and he urged the Commission to deny the Variances. He stated that these half lots are not designed to accommodate larger homes. He addressed his concern with losing his privacy because of the roof deck and addressed his concern with the noise coming from the spa equipment.
John Nesbit, resident, stated that parking is limited on this street; noted that there are approximately 12 houses on 26th Street; and stated that one house recently constructed meets the City’s codes for parking. He expressed his belief three Variances for a half lot is excessive; noted his concern with the open space on the roof and the noise coming from the roof deck; and he stated that the third parking space should be required.
Marie Rice, 301 25th Street, one block south of this residence, stated that parking on 26th Street is problematic and that ingress/egress on 26th Street is very difficult; and expressed her belief guest parking should be provided for this project.
Mr. Fasola pointed out that the applicant is not seeking anything special on the roof deck; clarified that the half lots he studied were those fronting on the streets; and stated that there is a much different setback restriction criteria for those homes off the alley than there is with homes facing the front streets.
Ms. Beste advised that directly across the street from her home is the north lot of the school; explained that there’s no residential housing on half of that block going east and almost the entire block headed south from her house down Myrtle, noting that parking is adequately available in this area. She added that currently, the fence of the neighbor sharing this lot is 2 feet from the back of her house; and pointed out that this request creates a bit of an improvement to the conditions that currently exist.
Mr. Fasola expressed his belief the most they will be able to get in parking on a lot this size is for two full-sized cars.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he could make the findings for the parking and rear yard setback; but stated that he could not make the findings for the guest parking or the open space, noting staff’s explanation that the guest parking can be created without significant modification to the plan.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief lot size is not an unusual characteristic and that it should not qualify for a Variance nor can he make any of the required findings to support the other variance requests; and explained that this City has a small lot ordinance that gives certain exemptions to property owners trying to develop on a smaller lot like this, providing parity with other small lot developments in the area and in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Allen stated that he could support the Variance for a parking setback, but expressed his belief too many Variances are being requested for this small lot.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that he is able to make the findings to support the Variances because of the small lot, noting that the applicant is attempting to make this a livable house for the family.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff has received a City Attorney interpretation with respect to a Subdivision Ordinance, which interpretation reflects an ability for the City to grant a variance based upon the size of a lot; and he noted for Vice-Chairman Hoffman that this interpretation is based upon existing case law.
Given the City Attorney’s interpretation and the size of this lot, Chairman Pizer stated that he could support the Variances for the garage and rear yard setback.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Pizer recessed the meeting at 9:17 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 P.M.
Chairman Pizer reiterated that he can make the findings for the garage setback, the rear yard setback, and the guest parking; and stated that there should be some consideration for a variance on the open space.
Commissioner Allen revised his comments, stating that he could support the Variance for the parking setback and the guest parking.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the draft resolution, approving the Variances for the parking setback and rear yard requirements; and to DENY the Variances for the guest parking and open space. The motion died due to the lack of a second.
MOTION by Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the Variances for the garage setback, rear yard setback, guest parking, and to modify the open space per the applicant’s request. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: Hoffman, Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vice-Chairman Hoffman recused himself from consideration of Item No. 13 because the project architect is working on a project for him.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is Zoned R-3; that the lot size is 3,998 square feet, which has the potential to allow three units, but indicated the applicant is proposing a 2-unit project; and noted that the site is located on the east side of Cypress Avenue, between Pier Avenue and 11th Street. He stated that the project consists of two attached, two-story units with a shared driveway, with each unit containing a basement with a garage, two stories and a roof deck above; advised that the front unit contains 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths; that the rear unit contains 3 bedrooms, 2 full baths and 2 half baths; noted that the primary living areas are on the second floor, with the first floor containing the bedrooms; and noted that both units contain an elevator. He noted that the building is designed in a contemporary Craftsman style with wood siding, stone tile veneer finishes and metal guardrails for the decks. He advised that the project complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; that the lot coverage is approximately 64 percent; stated that the required parking is provided in the basement level garage of each unit, with common driveway access directly from Cypress Avenue; and added that the driveway is in compliance with the slope requirements.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the front unit contains a deck with 200 square feet of open space directly accessible to a primary living space, with the balance of open space provided on the roof deck; that the rear unit contains a deck with 162 square feet accessible to the primary living area and 100 square feet on the roof deck, which is deficient 38 square feet of the open space requirement; and stated that staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this shortage. He advised that the project meets the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage, trash containers, although the trash containers need to be enclosed on all sides by suitable screening; and that staff is recommending a condition of approval to address that issue. He advised that staff is recommending one additional full sized 36-inch box tree be provided for the project. He pointed out that the applicant has not provided the typical 3-dimentional rendering.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, explained that the two deficiencies can easily be accommodated and worked out during the plan check phase without compromising this project; and she explained that there was a problem in producing a colored rendering for this evening’s meeting. She explained that both the front and rear units have a lot of articulation; stated that the street presence will be very attractive; and mentioned that front setback is 6 feet rather than the required 5 feet.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the applicant’s willingness to correct the deficiencies.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CON 05-23/PDP 05-25 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063523 for a two-unit condominium at 1212 Cypress Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman
HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the Zone Code is specific about what is allowed in the R-1 Zone with respect to accessory buildings; stated that it provides for patio covers, bathhouses or greenhouses, swimming pools, spas, tool sheds, garages, and storage rooms; noted that a bathhouse is not defined in the City’s Zone Code, but is defined in the dictionary as a building equipped for bathing or a building containing dressing rooms for bathers; and based on that definition, he noted an accessory building or structure would be one that would typically provide those kinds of uses as allowed in the R-1 Zone. He noted that the appellant is proposing to construct a pool with an adjacent 557-square-foot building with three rooms that would contain a bathroom, a gym and a music studio; stated that the building is identified as a pool house on the submitted plans; and explained that each of the three rooms has a separate exterior doorway that is accessed through a shared entryway. He added that this property is one of four lots; that it is a very large lot; explained that based on an interpretation of bathhouse, one would assume it would be limited to a changing area and a bathroom; that in this case, the bathhouse has a music studio and a gym and, therefore, staff is seeking direction on this matter. He mentioned that the appellant has provided a letter explaining that a similarly large lot was not subject to review even though it had a similarly sized pool house; but indicated that the uses listed in this pool house were not the uses that were listed in this project. He stated that until the City adopt a clearer definition for pool house, staff will continue to refer these matters to the Planning Commission because the code is not specific about what constitutes a bathhouse.
Director Blumenfeld noted that if the Commission agrees that the proposed use is consistent with the definition of bathhouse, staff recommends conditions to would noise attenuation so the music studio does not create a nuisance for the neighbors; and noted staff’s recommendation for a deed restriction limiting the detached structure to the uses approved by the Commission; and suggested that the Commission also direct staff to study the definition sections of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to this issue.
Chairman Pizer questioned if staff had studied any other definitions for bathhouses in other cities.
Director Blumenfeld stated no, but indicated staff could undertake a study and do some comparative analysis of zone codes in other cities related to this topic.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief this is a bathhouse; and stated he would support staff and the Commission addressing the use list at some point in the future.
Chairman Pizer stated that the City needs to revise the permitted uses in the R-1 Zone; expressed his belief recreation room should be added to the list; and that it should include a definition of bathhouse and recreation room.
Jeff Bronchick, 1921 Power Street, stated that this is a small building next to the pool that will be solely used by his family; stated there is no separate bathroom or kitchen in this building; and stated that it will not be used as a guest house. He explained that he plans on playing his guitar in this building, noting that he uses headphones; and that it will be used for exercising and to store some of his collectables. He stated his children also play music and will be using the studio. He added that there will not be any sauna.
Mr. Bronchick stated that the music studio will be used for his family, not a band.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his appreciation with the use of headphones to limit any disturbance to the neighbors; and indicated his support for the covenant to limit its use. He suggested that the music studio area have additional noise attenuation materials. Commissioner Perrotti stated that until the list of uses is further refined, he would consider this a bathhouse.
Commissioner Kersenboom expressed his belief this is a bathhouse.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman pointed out that the City does not require additional sound attenuation materials for garages when bands are playing and stated that he does not think additional sound attenuation materials are necessary in this case; and stated that this can be considered a bathhouse.
Commissioner Allen concurred that this is a bathhouse.
Chairman Pizer stated that this is a recreation room, and reiterated his desire for staff and the Commission to review the City’s codes and to clearly define recreation and bathhouse uses. He stated that he would agree this is a bathhouse until the code is better defined.
By way of a Minute Order, Commissioner Kersenboom recommended that the building be called a bathhouse and that the owner execute a covenant restricting its use. No objection was noted.
-
STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld stated that at the previous meeting, staff advised that it was working on the Aviation Boulevard Specific Plan draft work program for the Commission to review, a copy which has been provided to the Commission for review; and noted that at the next meeting, it can be discussed in greater detail. He stated that staff will prepare a detailed schedule based upon the Commission’s input and that staff will return with that detailed schedule at the next meeting; and he mentioned that staff envisions the Specific Plan taking approximately a year to complete, from data collection through adoption. If the Commission is satisfied with this work program, he noted that staff will commence with the project, noting they already have quite a bit of base data/information to start on this process.
Chairman Pizer recommended that Commissioners Allen and Perrotti be the permanent subcommittee members because of their close proximity to this area of study.
Both Commissioners Allen and Perrotti agreed to remain on the subcommittee.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the subcommittee will be included. He commented on the plans for community outreach in the area with community meetings; and mentioned that staff has already been approached by some of the business owners who are very interested in seeing a plan for this area.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti asked if a status report is available regarding the number of citations that were issued over the July 4th weekend.
Director Blumenfeld stated that he will provide the Commission a record of that activity.
Commissioner Perrotti commented on the rumors being circulated about various over-crowding citations being issued and he noted his interest in seeing how many citations were issued and to what establishments.
Director Blumenfeld commented on the heavy work program provided at the beginning of this fiscal year and the limited staff to handle these matters. He stated that staff will add to this work program a study to amend the accessory building text.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 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 September 20, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |