|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Hoffman |
| Absent: | Pizer |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, suggested that City staff be responsible for placing the orange public hearing placards on the subject sites; stated that when a matter is continued, that the site placard should be amended to reflect the new hearing date and/or amended proposal, when appropriate.
Alan Stresser, resident, stated that the vehicular activities for the 24 Hour Fitness are increasingly becoming a major nuisance and ruining the quality of life for the residents living nearby; and he urged the City to be proactive in its traffic enforcement and to implement a parking district in this area as soon as possible.
Chairman Hoffman mentioned that the residents will have another opportunity to address their concerns with the building parking problems at the first City Council meeting in July.
Lee Grant, resident, expressed his opposition to continuing Agenda Item 8 because of the applicant not putting an orange public hearing placard on site; and stated that this continuance will inconvenience the residents who are present this evening and that they should be able to speak on this matter.
Because of inadequate posting on site, Chairman Hoffman explained that there will be no public hearing this evening on Agenda Item No. 8; and he encouraged everyone to express their concerns at the next meeting when proper site notice has been made.
Director Blumenfeld explained that because of the applicant’s posting error, the City Attorney has recommended that the hearing on Agenda Item No. 8 not go forward this evening because public notice requirements were not complied with, noting that the applicant failed to post a notice on site; and he added that the Planning Commission must act on whether to continue this matter based on the City Attorney’s recommendation. He reiterated that it is the applicant’s responsibility to post the site; that the owner failed to post the site; and at this point, the applicant needs to post the site to comply with the public noticing requirements before this item can be considered.
Responding to the audience members, Chairman Hoffman explained that no one is happy with this posting failure and that it was an oversight on the part of the applicant.
Jim Lissner, resident, stated that the parking requirements for restaurants in this City should be more stringent; and expressed his belief this City needs to seriously address its high police liability expenses.
Ron Miller, resident, stated that the parking and customer usage of the 24 Hour Fitness business has become a nuisance for those residents living nearby, noting that the noise is out of control in the evening and early morning hours; and he urged the City to immediately address/solve this noise nuisance.
Patty Eggerer, resident, asked for an explanation for the site placard not being posted for Agenda Item No. 8.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of May 16, 2006 Minutes .
Mr. Lonacre stated that when the Planning Commission minutes are revised, that revision should also be updated on the City’s website.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, toAPPROVE the May 16, 2006, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None
-
Staff Recommended Action: Project withdrawn by the applicant.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has withdrawn this application at this time.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to WITHDRAW L-5 -- Legal Determination for two dwelling units at 2108 Loma Drive from the agenda, as requested by the applicant. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer -
TEXT 05-3 -- Text amendment regarding small lot exception (continued from May 16, 2006 meeting).(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend amendment to the R-1 small lot exception standards to: 1) Allow the required front yard to contribute to the open space requirement; and 2) Increase lot coverage from 65% to 70%.
Commissioner Perrotti recused himself from consideration of this matter because his property is considered a small lot.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a text amendment which originated because of City Council’s concern about a significant number of variances that had been granted for the Shakespeare tract for small lots, and consequently, staff was directed to amend the code to address the problem. He stated there are 440 small lots in the City, lots that qualify for the small lot exception; explained that the maximum size home on a small lot with a conventional floor plan is approximately 1,800 square feet; that a conventional floor plan basically has the bedrooms on the upper floor and the living room, kitchen and dining areas on the lower floor – noting this is the generally preferred method for designing a house. He stated that the less desired option is to have an unconventional floor plan where the bedrooms are below and the living room, kitchen and dining rooms are on the second floor; and advised that when this is done, it’s possible to maximize the developable area of the lot. He stated that the maximum size home on a small lot with a nonconventional floor plan is approximately 2,000 square feet; that when a homeowner wants to get more developable area on a lot, they pursue a nontraditional floor plan to get more developable area; and that if they want a conventional plan, their only other option is to obtain a variance.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is recommending the Commission consider allowing an increase in lot coverage from 65 percent to 70 percent, noting this would apply only to small lots of 2,100 square feet or lots up to 2,310 square feet if deemed to be a small lot; and that if lot coverage were increased, an additional 105 square feet of developable area would be possible on a small lot. With respect to front yard setback, he noted that staff is recommending counting the front yard toward the open space requirement, which would contribute another 180 square feet at grade or 360 square feet total to the amount of developable area; and that in total, approximately 460 square feet of floor area is added under these two recommended amendments. He stated that if these changes are enacted, the look of the buildings is going to change, basically bulkier buildings on small lots; and that if the intent is simply to get more developable area, the buildings will be pushed closer to the front yard setback with more coverage on the lot. He advised there are approximately 70 half lots out of the 440 small lots that exist in the City; that if the Commission approves these recommendations, it would have a marginal effect on half lots, mostly because half lots take access off the street side, unless there is a corner lot; and that there won’t be a major benefit to half-lot properties with these two recommendations. He highlighted the exhibits that show how these changes could appear on various lots.
Addressing Vice-Chairman Allen’s inquiry, Director Blumenfeld explained that many properties currently intrude into the front yard setbacks; and that many of the properties currently are nonconforming and will not gain much change.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Janice Brittan, resident of the Shakespeare tract, expressed her understanding that this meeting was to be a community meeting for the residents of the Shakespeare tract to discuss this issue; and she asked that the Commission hold off on its consideration until the residents of this tract have time to meet and confer on this item.
Mike Flaherty, resident, expressed his belief that adequate notice was given to the residents in his neighborhood and noted that those residents did take the opportunity to address this proposal and alleviate any concerns.
Mr. Zondiros, resident, noted his support of this proposed text amendment.
Robert Crottie, resident of the Shakespeare tract, encouraged the Commission to support this text amendment; and urged the City to address the height limit, noting his support for an increase in height.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld noted that staff will meet with the residents to address any questions they have regarding the draft code amendment.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Kersenboom that this text amendment does not change the height, only lot coverage; and that it allows one to build a more conventional home because there is more flexibility with open space requirements.
Chairman Hoffman encouraged the residents to contact staff with their questions; noted that staff has adequately addressed his concern with respect to half-lot properties; that he is now persuaded this will have no negative impact on half lots; that this will provide an opportunity for people that live on smaller lots/homes to have an opportunity to expand in a modest manner; and noted his approval and intent to move this matter onto Council for final approval. He added that the City Council meeting will give the residents another opportunity to address this issue.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, toRECOMMEND APPROVAL of TEXT 05-3 -- Text amendment regarding small lot exception, allowing the required front yard to contribute to the open space requirement and increase lot coverage from 65 percent to 70 percent. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti, Pizer Director Blumenfeld advised that staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the property owner was issued a public notice that was to be posted on this site pursuant to the City’s requirements for legally posting a property and noticing it for public hearing; and stated that the applicant neglected to post this placard on site; explained that when staff discovered this omission on Monday, they communicated with the City Attorney, who has advised that since one of the required methods for public noticing was not followed, it’s necessary to make sure it is properly posted as required and that the matter not be heard this evening so that the proper notice can be given; and he stated that staff is recommending this matter be continued to the July Planning Commission meeting. He advised that all residents living within a 300-foot radius should have received notice of this meeting; and stated that any resident who did not receive notice should contact staff to make sure they are within that radius; and he suggested that any resident wishing to address this matter either write or email staff, noting that any written communication will be attached to the next staff report.
Chairman Hoffman noted that the Planning Commission is being advised by the City Attorney not to proceed with this item this evening because of the posting oversight; and stated that this delay is upsetting to this Commission, but that the Commission’s hands are tied in taking action on this matter this evening. He pointed out that no one wins in delaying this hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to the July Planning Commission meeting CUP 06-4 -- Conditional Use Permit for on-sale alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant, Still Water Contemporary American Bistro, and Parking Plan amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavilion at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway #170, AKA 1605 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Mr. Lonacre asked that a public hearing notice be placed in the Easy Reader; and reiterated the desire for the residents to speak on this matter this evening.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff will do another mailing, making sure that every resident within a 300-foot radius gets a notice; stated that the mailing will be updated where necessary; that staff will place another newspaper ad regarding this hearing; but pointed out that it will be up to the owner to post the site with a notice, as required by the City.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue the hearing, and advise the applicant that shared parking as a measure of the parking requirement will only be accepted if the parking is actually provided, and direct the applicant to develop an alternative plan to provide the needed parking on site by increasing parking and/or reducing the scope or changing the proposed uses within the project.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is located on two sites: on the south side of Pier Avenue, at the east and west corners of its intersection with Loma Drive; advised that the property is zoned C-2, restricted commercial and designated for general commercial uses in the General Plan; stated that the property slopes up from Pier Avenue with a grade change of approximately 6 to 10 feet from front to back; and noted that the property has historically been used as a mortuary/funeral home, with 338 Pier Avenue containing the building and 400 Pier Avenue being the surface parking lot and a garage. He mentioned that recently, the Planning Commission approved a remodel and reuse of the 5,000-square-foot mortuary building at 338 Pier Avenue for office and retail uses utilizing the existing surface parking at 400 Pier Avenue; and explained that the Staff Environmental Review Committee had recommended a Mitigated Environmental Negative Declaration, with recommendation that the project’s parking deficiency be mitigated with the payment of parking in-lieu fees and also that onsite parking for customers and employees be free on a first-come-first-served basis.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project involves the demolition of all existing improvements and the construction of two-story buildings on each site, containing retail uses on the ground floor and offices on the second floor; noted it includes a two-level parking garage to the rear of the building at 400 Pier Avenue with 34 parking spaces; advised that each level of the garage will be accessed directly from Loma Drive, using the sloped condition of Loma Drive to access each level; stated that retail and restaurant uses are located on the ground floor, containing approximately 7,456 square feet, divided into a coffee house at 400 Pier Avenue and a restaurant and two separate retail spaces at 338 Pier Avenue; that office space is provided on the second floor of each building, containing a total of 6,398 square feet divided into eight separate office spaces; and noted that a basement storage area is also included for the restaurant use. He noted that the project is designed in a contemporary style, with a stucco exterior, flat roof with decorative stucco band, wrought iron railings and a stone veneer to compliment the glass store fronts.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project meets the basic zoning requirements of the C-2 zone, as the buildings are designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit along the street and will be well below the potential maximum height towards the rear of the lot; and stated that the buildings provide the minimum required 5-foot setback where it abuts the residential property to the south and provides the required landscaping and screening with evergreen trees. He noted that beyond these basic standards, the project plans show a substantial improvement that will help revitalize this portion of Pier Avenue and provide uses that are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the property and are more compatible with adjacent residential and commercial uses than the historic use of the property. He stated that the proposed restaurant, retail and office mix and moderately scaled building are also appropriate for this portion of the Downtown district; and that the offices will likely provide a daytime use to balance the peak evening use of the restaurant.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that overall, the design positively reflects the pedestrian nature of the Downtown area, since the parking structure will be tucked behind the building at 400 Pier Avenue and the entire retail frontage is along Pier Avenue. He noted that the biggest issue with this project is the parking, and that the applicant is requesting a parking plan for a reduced parking requirement, based on the current parking ratio for the Downtown district of 3 spaces per 1,000 feet of office or retail use and 1 space for every 100 square feet of restaurant or snack shop uses, requiring a total of 70 parking spaces. He noted that the applicant, instead, is proposing 34 spaces and two levels of parking; stated that this parking calculation is based on the gross aggregate floor area for the restaurant, retail, and office uses and equates to a deficiency of 36 parking spaces; pointed out that this calculation, however, does not take into account the peak parking requirements and hourly variations in parking demand for each individual use in a mixed use project as this; and, therefore, he noted the applicant is proposing consideration of the shared parking demand pursuant to Section 17.44.210 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows the Planning Commission to consider a reduction in the number of spaces required and allows the Planning Commission to consider factors such as the peak hours of the proposed uses sharing the same parking. He advised that the applicant has submitted a shared parking analysis based on this methodology and the hourly parking adjustment factors developed by the Urban Land Institute; stated that the parking rates used for the calculations in the shared parking analysis for the office and retail uses are based on the general parking requirements of 1 space per 250 square feet to better reflect actual demand and, therefore, not based on the reduced parking requirement for retail and office uses that are currently allowed in the Downtown when calculating overall off-street parking requirements.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the conclusion of the shared parking analysis for the project is that the highest shared parking demand occurs weekdays at 2:00 P.M. for the combination of uses and is projected at a demand of 50 spaces; that the peak on weekends occurs at 7:00 P.M., with a peak projected demand of 47 spaces; that since the supply of parking is 34 spaces, the deficiency on the peak time on weekdays is therefore 16 spaces; and that the shared parking analysis assumes a worst case that all customers will drive to the site and does not consider that a certain percentage of customers will arrive at the building by foot, bicycle or in conjunction with other trips in the Downtown area. He added that during the peak weekday times, there is usually ample public on-street parking available to supplement the on-site parking; but that during the peak weekend evenings there is limited street and public parking available in the area.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant may pay in-lieu fees for all required spaces; however, the applicant is proposing a combination of on-site parking and payment of fees in-lieu of parking; and that the applicant is proposing to pay for the deficiency of 16 spaces relative to the shared parking demand rather than the deficiency as compared to code required parking. He advised that this will require a payment of $12,500 for each required parking space not provided; and if based on the 16-space deficiency, that equates to $200,000; and that if the in-lieu fees are based on the deficiency to aggregate code required parking, the amount would increase to $450,000. He explained that the City has not previously approved in-lieu fees based on a deficiency as this compared to a shared parking demand; and explained that basically, the fees must be provided prior to occupancy of the building and deposited in the City’s Parking Improvement Fund, which is set aside for the City to construct public parking in the future when the number of in-lieu parking spaces reaches 100. He noted that currently, the City has approved parking in-lieu fees for 44 parking spaces, therefore, leaving a balance of 56 spaces before that threshold is met, requiring construction of public parking facilities; advised that the applicant also notes the changes to the proposed site, including the elimination of a curb cut on Pier Avenue, which will result in up to 6 new on-street metered spaces; and noted that these spaces cannot be included in the required off-street parking calculations, which should help mitigate the parking concerns of this project.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that alternatives to using the in-lieu fee parking would be possible, such as the applicant providing all required parking on site, as was done for 200 Pier Avenue, by providing either subterranean parking or decreasing the scale of the project; stated that staff believes it would be possible to construct additional parking below grade on the property at 338 Pier Avenue in a manner to meet the projected shared parking demand of 50 spaces; also, that the project scope and mix of uses could be changed to reduce the parking requirement; and explained that staff believes rather than having the property owner invest in such a substantial in-lieu fee, the applicant could instead invest the money in providing parking on site to meet the calculated share of parking demand. He noted that the applicant so far has indicated that they prefer the plan as submitted, which requires paying in-lieu fees, noting that subterranean parking or multiple level parking structures are inefficient on small properties as these and would change the scope and character of the project from a neighborhood compatible scale to something much larger; and stated that the applicant notes their intent to enhance the pedestrian nature of this district.
With respect to traffic, Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis which concludes that the project generated traffic will not have a significant impact on the level of service of any of the intersections studied; noted that the City’s traffic engineer has reviewed the report and concurs that no project specific traffic mitigation measures are necessary; and advised that the traffic analysis and trip generation figures did not include/compare with the previous use of the site or the approved use of the existing building for an office and retail use, so the traffic impacts will most likely be less than before. He summarized that staff believes the use of the shared parking analysis for this type of project is appropriate for the proposed mix which has different peak demand times during the day; however, staff also believes the project can be modified to accommodate the shared parking demand on site by using the property at 338 Pier Avenue for an additional structure or subterranean parking. He stated that the only precedent to using shared parking demand in the City is where the shared demand equated to parking provided on this site and not as the number for calculating an in-lieu fee; that in this case, if the in-lieu fee is based on an aggregate code parking requirement, it may make more sense for the owner to put that investment into providing the parking on site to meet the demands for the project; and that staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue the hearing on this matter and advise the applicant that shared parking is a measure of the parking requirement, while it is okay, will only be accepted in this case if the parking is provided on site and, therefore, direct the applicant to develop an alternative plan to provide this parking or to reduce the scope or change the proposed uses within the project.
Addressing Commissioner Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the affidavit to make sure these two sites will permanently remain together, Senior Planner Robertson explained that it is a requirement of the Parking Code that when one is using parking on sites that are not connected, that they have common ownership.
Director Blumenfeld added that the conditions of approval are recorded with respect to the approved use; and noted that a condition could also be added to make it more difficult to divide the property.
In response to Chairman Hoffman’s inquiry with regard to Page 3 of staff report, Senior Planner Robertson clarified that the storage should correctly reflect 1 per 1,000 square feet.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Kevin Lindquist, representing the developer, stated that the property owner owns other properties in the City and that they are interested in remaining in this community for a long time; and noted their intent to improve the character of this area. He pointed out that they did not max out the FAR of this site, that they have attempted to create an airy and pleasing project; and expressed his belief this is the best suited project for this site. He advised that they did all they could to provide as much on-site parking as possible; stated that this property will serve the neighborhood and community; that it will bring in well needed office uses to this area; he emphasized their attempts to max out the parking on this site, noting this site is constrained with respect to the depth and width; and explained that the architects have creatively used Loma Drive as a ramp to get up and down between the two-level garage. He stated that putting in a 3-level parking structure will bump the height beyond what is permitted and that they will have to start ramping internally, which will eliminate 50 to 60 percent of the parking stalls on the second level and some on the third level; and he noted that this will also happen with subterranean parking on this site because of this narrow site. He added that 6 additional public stalls will be added -- 3 along Loma and 3 additional on Pier, noting these are not counted in their analysis.
Chris Ketz, applicant’s planning consultant, commented on the 6 new parking stalls on Loma and Pier; advised that the applicant’s traffic engineer used very conservative numbers in doing this parking study, with 3 stalls per 1,000 for both the retail and office; that the coffee shop was taken at 1 per 100; and that in reality, the coffee shop is going to be a snack bar where beverages are served, possibly bagels/muffins, and noted that using 1 space per 250 would be more appropriate, pointing out that would reduce the parking requirement by 15 spaces, requiring a maximum of 55 instead of 70. She reiterated that the shared parking analysis was done even more conservatively because the requirement for retail was calculated at 4 stalls per 1,000, noting that Hermosa Beach only requires 3 stalls per 1,000. She mentioned that this was done as a result of the City’s request to do the study at 4 stalls per 1,000. She highlighted the parking demands at various hours and days of the week and noted the parking deficiencies/surplus. She mentioned that there are only 4 to 7 businesses out of those 30 businesses that are open past 7:00 P.M. on Fridays/Saturdays. She summarized the alternative shared parking demand analysis, stating that the restaurant in reality will have 34 parking spaces available in the evening hours; that the offices and retail uses will be closed and the majority of the coffee shop’s business will result in walk-in patrons; that the restaurant requires 18 parking spaces, so there will be another 16 available; that the coffee shop will not be a restaurant, that it will only sell beverages and snacks; and noted that the applicant will consider a condition limiting the use to a coffee shop/snack bar, which reduces the total parking spaces by 55, bringing the peak shared parking demand to approximately 45 stalls at 2:00 P.M. during weekdays with no evening shortage; and that in summary of all these parking issues, she noted there should be no impact upon the residents on Sunset or Loma because there is no on-street parking there due to the condo construction. She pointed out that Hermosa’s parking requirements assume that all the uses in the buildings are operating at the same time and that in this case, they won’t be; and she noted that other beach cities have less restrictive parking requirements than this City.
Ms. Ketz noted that it was suggested they put a parking garage at 338 Pier Avenue; explained that this may not be feasible due to the small size of the lot and noted this will create parking inefficiencies; and stated that this will also add height at the rear portion of 338 in order to accommodate the parking garage. She added that if a retail, restaurant had to be eliminated on one of the lots, then the street frontage on Pier would be negatively impacted by the view of the parking garage rather than a pedestrian friendly retail or coffee shop and that it may not be financially feasible to build a parking garage, especially if retail space is reduced. She pointed out that the retail space at 400 Pier is very small; mentioned that the applicant has also studied the feasibility of remodeling the existing building as an alternative to the project; and highlighted the benefits of the project, such as preserving the pedestrian oriented design of the street, bringing in new development to the area, sparking further investment and economic development along upper Pier and in Downtown Hermosa Beach, bringing offices in to the downtown area, and replacement of an old structure that has become a nuisance. She advised that the developer plans to build and own the buildings; that it meets the livable communities ideals; and that it will be a catalyst to inspire other redevelopment on Upper Pier Avenue.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for input on why subterranean parking cannot be placed at 338.
Ms. Ketz explained that it may be difficult because the site is only 100 feet deep; stated that the applicant would have to reduce some of the retail space to have any parking there; that the building would have to be raised to come in through the back.
Mr. Lindquist stated that in order to gain access to that site, if they did subterranean at 338 Pier, one would have to enter in off Loma; that it would take out the 3 additional public parking stalls; that in order to go down 11 or 12 feet, they would need approximately a 60-foot run to get down to that depth and still provide an adequate turning radius to get the cars safely in/out; that they would basically have to create a tunnel which will encroach greatly into the leasable building area; that they would have to push the entire building back to the rear of the site, creating other site line issues, view issues and creating an inefficient leasable project with split level and not functional retail. He added that this would only gain a handful of parking stalls going down to that level and that this would not be financially feasible.
Chairman Hoffman questioned the location for service loading/unloading.
Mr. Lindquist stated that loading/unloading activities would be accessed off Loma; and noted that loading/unloading could be restricted to certain hours so as not to lose a parking space.
Vice-Chairman Allen asked for clarification on how many parking spaces this project is deficient as proposed.
Ms. Ketz stated that if they are allowed to count the coffee shop as a snack bar, it would be 16 spaces short at peak hours, not counting the additional 6 public stalls.
Charles Zinger, attorney for the residents who live to the rear of this location, advised that currently, a lawsuit has been filed for acquiring title on the rear of the property, which could affect the building plans; and stated that having the plans approved at this point in time is premature. He advised that staff had been given a copy of the lawsuit; explained that this building was originally built in 1927; that in 1942, it was extended to the rear; that walls were placed; that there’s a difference of approximately 4 feet between the land behind the building and the building itself; that in 1954, they refurbished and altered the building; that in 1957, the property was sold, the land was split behind the property, and two houses were built; and advised that the houses which were built there since 1957 have enjoyed the land behind the building and taken it for their own use by adverse possession, using it openly and continuously for some 50 years. He stated that this builder now is coming in and threatens to cut the property down at the property line, go down 12 feet, leaving a 12-foot gap and half of the backyard, which the owners have enjoyed; that in one case, this has been the driveway for the property on Sunset Drive. He stated that it appears this project is short 36 parking spaces; and stated this will have a great impact on the local residents. He reiterated that they have a pending lawsuit and that until this lawsuit is resolved, he does not see how the applicant can get plans to determine what they’re going to build because they don’t know exactly where the property line is and what the court is going to say about this property line. He advised that if the applicant starts construction, he will have to obtain an injunction to stop the building.
Mr. Zinger clarified that he is representing the property owners at 1322 Sunset and 1325 Loma.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this is a civil matter; and that the City Attorney has indicated the Commission is not precluded from making a determination about this discretionary permit based on the evidence they have this evening; and noted that if something regarding the approved plan changes, then the permit is voided if it doesn’t comport with the approval by Commission.
Nancy McCutchen, resident, stated that she lives near this project; that she has only one parking spot; and expressed her concern with the lack of street parking. She noted her opposition to granting in-lieu parking.
Robert Hoffman, resident, expressed his belief that delivery trucks will need more than one parking space for deliveries; and he questioned where these activities will take place. He noted his concern with the lack of parking in this area.
Robert Kerr, adjacent restaurant owner, commented on the lack of parking and noted that the lack of parking is the main limiting factor on the growth of his business; and stated that he would welcome this project as long as it provides adequate parking.
Alan Tillman, resident, addressed his concern with the lack of parking in this community; and stated that this project should provide adequate parking on site.
Bill McCutchen, resident, stated it is only fair that everyone provide the required number of parking spaces on their properties.
Valerie Elliot, resident, stated that she lives directly behind the mortuary property; noted that there is a lot of noise where she lives; and addressed her concern with having another multilevel parking structure to add to this nuisance. She suggested that the adjacent residents be issued parking permits. She stated that the car alarms, radios and horns are a nuisance in these parking structures.
Ed Hard, owner of Maximus, addressed his concern with the parking deficiencies, noting it is only getting worse; and expressed his belief that adequate parking is not being provided for this project.
Erica Zima, resident, stated that she lives directly south of 338; commented on the safety issue of having to be forced to walk a long distance to park in the evening when there is no parking available in front of her house; and she noted her opposition to allowing in-lieu parking fees, believing it only increases the parking shortages throughout the City.
Mark Maniscalco, Mark of Excellence on Pier Avenue, addressed the parking problems in this area, but stated that people will walk to the businesses they wish to visit.
Rob Siemen, resident, stated that parking on Loma Drive has increasingly become worse and that it is difficult to find a parking space in this area; and stated that no business should be allowed to skimp on parking. He suggested that this project be reduced in size, stating they are trying to cram too much onto this small area. He questioned where the trash will be picked up and questioned where the loading dock will be located.
Patty Eggerer, resident, urged the City to maintain the charming character on Pier Avenue.
Mr. Condron, resident, noted his support for the proposed project, believing it will also spur new development.
Howard Lonacre, resident, expressed his belief that a restaurant use on this site could eventually morph into another unnecessary bar in this community, stating that this City does not need another restaurant; and expressed his belief that these small businesses are very limited sales tax generators. He addressed his concern with policing nuisance businesses, believing they will eventually bankrupt the City; and he suggested that restaurant parking standards be more restrictive, such as 1 space per 60 square feet of area. He stated that the proposed project is too large for this site.
Mr. Lissner, resident, noted his opposition to accepting in-lieu parking fees.
Patricia Hausler, resident behind this project, noted her opposition to this large project on this small site; and she commented on the noise in this area and addressed her concern with the bars and the noise; and noted her opposition to in-lieu parking spaces.
Stephen Goodell, resident, distributed copies of a letter from a resident who was not able to attend this evening’s meeting; he commented on the lack of parking in this area; and he stated that the required parking should be provided on site and that no in-lieu parking spaces be permitted.
Mr. Lindquist stated that the current parking lot is not secure and that they are attempting to secure this environment and provide a pleasing development; and with regard to loading issues on Loma Drive, he noted that part of Loma Drive will be widened to accommodate the entire setback all the way down and that there will be ample room for loading activities; and he commented on the character of this community and its wide use of pedestrian traffic, noting that he believes adequate parking will be available.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the renderings are attractive; expressed his belief these two sites are of adequate size for a viable building; stated that he would support more parking over providing storage area; noted his support for staff recommendation to obtain more parking on the 338 site, providing an alternative plan; and stated that the applicant should either add subterranean parking at 338, reduce the size of the structure, or modify the allocation of uses. He stated that in the past, the Commission has voted for some in-lieu spaces, but only one or two spaces at the most; and that requesting 14 in-lieu parking spaces is unreasonable. He stated this item should be continued to the next meeting, having the applicant work with staff to increase onsite parking, reduce the size of the structure, or change the allocation of uses to reduce the parking that’s needed.
Commissioner Kersenboom pointed out that anyone coming to the City to build a house needs to provide parking and stated that this project should also be required to provide the same required parking, suggesting the project be reduced in size.
Vice-Chairman Allen concurred with Commissioner Perrotti’s statements, but mentioned that some consideration should be given to the applicant for making more on-street parking.
Chairman Hoffman stated this is an attractive development; but noted that this project should be reduced in size in order to accommodate all parking on site.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to the July Planning Commission meeting PDP 06-4/PARK 06-1 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a new 14,688-square-foot commercial building containing office and retail uses using a combination of on-site parking and parking in-lieu fees to meet parking requirements, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 338 and 400 Pier Avenue; that the applicant develop an alternative plan to provide either the needed parking on site, reduce the size of the buildings, or change the proposed uses which would change the allocation of parking. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:27 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:34 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located on the southeast corner of Pine and 6th Streets; that the proposed project consists of two detached units, each unit containing a basement with two stories above; that each unit contains 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; that the primary living areas are located on the second floor with the first floor containing a basement and bedrooms; and that the units have similar floor plans and exterior appearance, except that the corner unit has more architectural relief where it faces 6th Street. He noted that the buildings are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style with architectural relief shown with cobblestone at the entryways, smooth stucco finishes, tile roofs, wrought iron deck railings and wrought iron planter boxes; noted that the project complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height, lot coverage, yards/open space, storage, landscaping, parking; and stated that no on-street parking will be affected on 6th Street since no parking is allowed on the south side of 6th Street. He stated that the proposed new curb cuts on Pine Street will result in the loss of one on-street parking space and will be compensated by the proposed four off-street guest parking spaces. He added that the prevailing setback on 6th Street has a mix of front yard setbacks, ranging from the minimum required of 5 feet to as much as 12 feet and concluded that there is no prevailing setback on this street.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the property owners, stated that this is a smaller lot for this area, and yet the lot coverage is kept down to 57 percent as opposed to the 65 percent that’s permitted; noted this allows for some useable yard area between the two buildings; advised that the buildings are detached, which is beneficial for the property immediately to the east because they have a view corridor from a portion of their living area and that this also helps to break up the mass. She noted there is a great deal of detail on both Pine Street and 6th Street elevations; and that there are decks which are accessed both from the living rooms as well as the master bedrooms. She noted her concurrence with the conditions of approval.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that these units are identical and that he would like to see some variation in design.
Commissioner Allen stated this is a nice design.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he likes the architectural style and noted it meets all the requirements.
Chairman Hoffman stated this project meets/exceeds the setbacks.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 06-8/PDP 06-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 66986 for a 2-unit condominium at 930 6th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer -
Staff Recommended Action: Direct staff to return with a resolution for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending this item be continued; noted this CUP amendment is driven by a neighboring property owner complaint; and noticed that the property owner is not in the audience and that staff would like to continue this matter to a meeting wherein the property owner is present.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to the July Planning Commission meeting CUP 91-24 -- Conditional Use Permit review and modification for automobile repair and office businesses: German Motors, Asenka’s Auto Center and Les Frame at 725 5th Street, AKA 715 5th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer -
Staff Recommended Action: To declare as small lot by minute order.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request for the Planning Commission to confirm that this property qualifies for small lot consideration; that the request is made because the property is 2,237 square feet, noting that a small lot is considered a 2,100 square-foot lot or less -- except that the code allows for a 10 percent consideration, which means that a lot up to 2,310 square feet could qualify for a small lot; and noted that the R-1 Zone requires 400 square feet of open space on grade, but if the owner is considered to have a small lot, that open space can be provided on decks which substantially provides more flexibility and somewhat increases the amount of developable area on the lot. He stated that according to the open space requirements, lots of 2,100 square feet are considered small lots, noting this property is 2,237 square feet; that in order for the Commission to consider this lot to meet the small lot requirements, the Commission will need to make one of the following findings: to determine that the property with this exception is necessary to achieve consistent and comparable amount of indoor living space with existing dwelling units in the immediate neighborhood; need to find that it will allow design flexibility in the application of open space standards in conjunction with the remodeling and expansion of the existing structures; need to find that it will allow innovative design consistent with the goals and intent of the open space and development standards in the R-1 Zone; and that it will address unusual lot configurations/topography as compared with surrounding lots in the area. He stated that the proposed project meets these criterias; advised that the lot coverage is below the maximum 65 percent and all required yards are provided; stated that it’s not unusually large or out of scale with the existing dwelling units in the immediate neighborhood; and that given the unusual lot configuration, the indoor habitable space will be substantially reduced in order to meet the required 300 square feet of open space on the ground level. He added that the ground level open space requirement will not adversely affect the amount of habitable area on the second level, reducing the overall buildable area and making this consistent with the small lot problems that exist elsewhere in the City. He added that the abutting lot has a structure that encroaches into the subject property, but is not an issue under the zone code because it doesn’t affect the required yard; and that it’s not an issue under the building code because the property still comports with Chapter 503 of the UBC, which requires a minimum 3-foot clearance requirement. He stated that the proposed project consists of 479 square feet of open space on 3 decks on the first- and second-floor levels and a roof deck, but the dimension and location of these areas is insufficient to meet the R-1 standards; and based on that, staff is recommending to declare by Minute Order that this property is consistent with the small lot standards and designate this property to be a small lot.
Ryan Molten, representing of the owner, asked for the Commission’s approval of this request.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for Standard No. 4, stating this seems to be small in comparison to the other lots in the neighborhood.
It was the consensus of the Commission to qualify this property for the small lot exception, 4-0.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To declare as small lot by minute order.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that this is the same issue previously discussed for Item No. 12; noted that this lot is 3 lots up from the other property; pointed out that the difference here is this is an existing duplex in which they plan to remodel, modifying it from a duplex to a single-family residence; stated that the square footage will be increased by 234 square feet, to 1,916 square feet; advised that the applicant is requesting this lot be considered a small lot because it is within 10 percent of 2,100 square feet; explained that since they are not building a new home, they’re facing issues with this modest expansion that causes problems with open space. He advised that the No. 1 criteria is to achieve a consistent and comparable amount of indoor living space with existing dwelling units in the immediate neighborhood; 2) to allow design flexibility in the application of the open space standard in conjunction with the remodeling and expansion of existing structures; and advised that staff believes this project meets the first two criteria found in the Ordinance. He noted that the proposed lot coverage will still be under the maximum allowed, at 59.1 percent; that all required yards will be provided and that the front yard area will still be 15 feet; that given the narrow lot width, in order to provide the required 300 square feet of open space on the ground, the indoor habitable space would be substantially reduced which would adversely affect the availability of habitable space on the second floor since the open space must be free of obstruction from the ground to sky.
Steven Vidalich, project architect, pointed out that they are taking an existing nonconforming duplex in the R-1 zone and making this a single-family residence.
Chairman Hoffman noted this will be a positive change for the neighborhood and stated he supports Standard No. 2.
It was the consensus of the Commission to qualify this property for the small lot exception, 4-0.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to June 15, 2007.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the Planning Commission approved the development of a condominium on this property at the June 15, 2004 meeting; and stated that the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map has expired and that the applicant has submitted a request to extend this map to allow time for the County engineer to finish final recordation of the map.
It was the consensus of the Commission to extend the expiration date to June 15, 2007, 4-0.
-
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To determine that the subject property can be developed with a commercial use pursuant to Section 17.38.300(D), because of the historical use of the property as storage for an automobile dealership. 2) To allow reduced turning radius for wider parking stalls on a proposed office project using the dimensional standards that apply to residential projects.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request for a determination to confirm the turning radius proposed for this commercial project because the code does not actually provide a commercial turning radius standard; that staff is proposing to use the residential standard for designation of this property to confirm that it is a commercial use consistent with the prior use on this site; advised that the SPA-7 Zone requires that a property that has been vacant can only be converted to commercial use if the property fronts on PCH; however, properties that do not front on PCH with existing commercial uses or nonresidential uses can only be developed if the commercially developed use’s existing access is maintained. He noted that while this property had been vacant, it historically had been used for commercial purposes and has an existing curb cut which helps validate that use; therefore, it would seem reasonable to allow that commercial use to remain; he advised that this is similar to the determination made for a former car storage lot located between 2nd and 3rd Streets, which was recently approved for an office condominium development. In addition, he noted that the City’s residential parking code allows for an increase in the width of the stall where there is a reduced backup area, which is the case on this property; and explained that this is a relatively narrow lot and there is a planted edge that further exacerbates the narrowness of the lot and that the planted edge is a function of the code requirement for parking abutting residential. He explained that the applicant is proposing to trade off the stall width as opposed to it being 8.5 feet minimum stall width and proposing to provide a 10-foot minimum stall width; and that in response to that, to allow a reduced isle width of 20 feet as opposed to the minimum 25-foot width. He noted that staff is recommending that the Commission determine the subject property can be developed with a commercial use pursuant to Section 17.38.300(D) and to allow the reduced turning radius for wider parking stalls.
Gary Lane, proposed purchaser of this property, stated it is his intent to build an office building; and noted that this property does have enough parking spots for the size of this building. He explained that the parking spots need to be a little wider; noted that the lot is narrow and the required 5-foot hedge area reduces the turning radius; and stated that if he can provide 8 parking spots that are 10 feet wide, it would still meet all the criteria for parking, that he is only asking for wider stalls and shorter turning radius distance.
Commissioner Allen stated that the widening of the stalls will help with maneuverability at this site.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his concurrence with staff recommendation.
It was the consensus of the Commission to adopt staff recommendation, 4-0.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Aviation Corridor Specific Plan Status Report
Director Blumenfeld explained that this item will be addressed in tomorrow’s joint meeting with the Public Works Commission; advised that staff is making progress and hoping to start obtaining community input after the Public Works joint meeting, returning to the next Planning Commission meeting with a schedule for a community meeting.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARING(S)
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 20, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |