|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer, Chairman Hoffman |
| Absent: | Perrotti |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, expressed his belief there are too many restaurants in this city, noting that the operations of these restaurants do not cover public safety costs provided by City; stated that two-thirds of the City’s General Funds now go to public safety services; and expressed his concern that at this rate, the City will soon be in financial trouble. He stated that the taxes received from restaurants do not come close to covering the cost for public safety services; and urged the City to consider its financial well being when considering the approval of restaurants and bars, stating the City is too lenient on restaurant approvals, such as allowing too much square footage. He pointed out that there is no SPA defined for Upper Pier Avenue or for the Downtown area and stated that the City needs more stringent guidelines in approving these projects.
Neil Barbaros, resident, stated that 8th Street is in need of street improvements along with many other streets in this City.
Chairman Hoffman invited the residents to visit City Hall to look at the upcoming Capital Improvement Projects, noting that for the upcoming year, a number of street pavings are anticipated.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of June 20, 2006 minutes .
There was no objection to the approval of the June 20, 2006 Minutes as presented.
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: Perrotti -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 06-18recommending amending the development standards of the R-1 zone, pertaining to the exceptions for small lots.
MOTION by Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 06-18, amending the development standards of the R-1 zone, pertaining to the exceptions for small lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: Perrotti
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: Direct staff as deemed appropriate from the following alternatives: 1) Approve the request subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached resolution; or 2) Consider the building parking problems that have occurred over the last six months and advise the applicant to resubmit the project permit application once it has been demonstrated that building spillover parking has been resolved.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting a CUP for on-sale alcohol in conjunction with a full-service restaurant, which is located in the Hermosa Pavilion; and that the applicant is also requesting an amendment to the Parking Plan that controls the operation of the building. He noted that the restaurant contains 7,038 square feet; in addition, with approximately 1,500 square feet of appurtenant wine and cheese retail shop – noting that the overall net restaurant area is 5,503 square feet; and advised that the plan shows 35 tables with seating for 178 people. He stated that the owner is requesting restaurant operating hours from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., with the lounge area closing at 2:00 A.M.; and stated that consistent with the recent Planning Commission and City Council action, staff is recommending if this item is approved, that the Commission restrict the business hours to 12:00 midnight. He advised that there is no proposed live entertainment and mentioned that any request for live entertainment would require an amendment to the CUP; advised that the wine shop is permitted by right in this zone so long as it closes by 11:00 P.M., which is what the owner is proposing to do.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the restaurant is part of a multi-tenant building - the Hermosa Pavilion - which was approved for renovation and reuse under a shared parking analysis; advised that last week, the City Council amended the Hermosa Pavilion Parking Plan to require 2 hours of free validated parking for building customers in order to resolve inefficiencies in parking operation that were creating spill-over parking in the neighborhoods; and noted that the effects of this recent amendment will be evaluated in 6 months to determine whether any other measures are required to deal with this spill-over parking issue. Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner has also started to implement some of these requirements under the amendment by posting permanent signs at the main building entries and within the building garage, indicating the availability of this free validated parking. He mentioned that the 24-hour Fitness management has indicated they will promote the free validation parking program for their clients; and he mentioned that staff visited the parking garage and was able to confirm that the parking validation program is in effect and operating; and he expressed his belief the owner is making a clear attempt to implement the requirements of the parking amendment.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed restaurant use is located in a secured building, which has access from the garage and from a central lobby that fronts on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); explained that the proposed business is an upscale, full-service restaurant with no live entertainment; and that the use and the proposed business operations are consistent with the goals of the General Plan in the C-3 Zone, which affirms the need for a full range of office, retail, and services, businesses which are appropriate for the highway. He stated that this full-service restaurant compliments the other uses in the building, both from a parking demand and a use standpoint; and advised that the shared parking analysis indicates that during peak periods, there are between 235 and 397 surplus parking spaces available in the garage. He mentioned that in terms of the commercial area compatibility, there are 306 businesses that are located along the commercial corridor – 9 restaurants that offer beer/wine and 2 that offer full alcohol, representing 3 percent of the highway businesses, and that from a land use standpoint, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, with the zone, that it is compatible with other uses in the building and in the commercial area.
Chairman Hoffman questioned if the automobile spa issue has been resolved.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has been in discussions with the operator of that use to advise a CUP is required; that the business has indicated intent to apply for a CUP; and that the business will stop operations until the proper permits are issued.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Eddie Benton, restaurant project designer, highlighted a number of high quality restaurant projects his firm has designed in the South Bay area; stated that the owners are committed to spending approximately $3 to 4 million in making this a world-class operation; and with the aid of a power point presentation, he addressed the proposed floor plan and restaurant design. He advised that the entry into the restaurant will be through the existing Pavilion; stated there will be a private wine room and dining room; and that the bar area will be approximately 10 to 15 percent of the overall restaurant area.
Raymond McBermer, executive architect with SAA, stated that Mr. Shook will be developing the front space into a men’s and women’s retail store and a high-end salon; stated that the design will compliment the City’s environment and that the design will be vibrant and unique, but elegant.
Chef Chauchereau, partner with Mr. Shook, distributed to the Commission menus from one of his restaurants; stated that this restaurant will serve high quality, organic food and merchandise; commented on his experience in the 4-star restaurant business; and reiterated that he will be bringing to this community a fine dining experience. He mentioned that he regularly participates in community events.
Gene Shook, property owner, highlighted his attempts to put in place quality tenants that work well in this environment; commented on the large expensive to build this type of space, noting that approximately $4 million will be invested in this project; and mentioned that this restaurant will house over 100,000 bottles of wine in a temperature controlled storage area. He stated that because of this large expense, he would like to have better language in the proposed CUP so that the City cannot shut down these operations due to events beyond his control; and noted his concern with the 6-month review process, pointing out that it will take at least 7 months to construct this project. He addressed his concern with Condition No. 17 in that it is too restrictive of the square footage – noting that it is easy in a building of this size to miscalculate the square footage and that it is easy to be up or down a bit in square footage. He stated that this building was approved for 100,005 square feet plus 11,000 square feet in storage area, but that this approval is showing 100,000 plus 10,600 on the storage; reiterated his concern that sometime down the road another Commission or City Council will say he’s over by a very minute amount and shut the operation down; and he urged the City to provide him with a workable CUP. He stated that everything is in place and that he is ready to start construction and that he is opposed to waiting 6 months to determine if parking is still a problem.
Mr. Shook explained that the auto spa business uses steam to clean the cars and that this information was placed in the February report; and stated that he gains one parking space with this use because of its ability to stack the cars in a triangle and its service to mostly people already patronizing the building.
Ron Miller, resident, noted that he lives adjacent to the parking structure; he passed out photographs taken from his balcony of the parking lot activities; and stated that he does not yet see any change in the problems concerning spill-over parking and speeding and noisy traffic and pedestrians. He addressed his concern and opposition to serving alcohol until 2:00 A.M.; and stated that the noise has become a huge nuisance for the residents.
Lee Grant, resident, stated that the people who patronize this building have flooded his neighborhood with parking, increased traffic, speeding and noise; and that it has ruined the tranquility of his neighborhood. He noted his opposition to this establishment serving alcohol and opposition to the large square footage of this restaurant; stated this area is above the license limit for alcohol service in this City, according to ABC’s guidelines; and he asked the City to discontinue issuance of liquor licenses.
Jim Lissner, resident, recommended that the hours for alcohol sales be restricted during the weekdays.
Larry Hopkins, resident, stated that Friday and Saturday nights are the most problematic and require more policing and he questioned if this area will assigned additional public safety service if this project is approved. He stated that the noise has become a big nuisance for the residents; and expressed his belief the 2 hours of free validated parking is ineffective; and he stated that the restaurant activities should be restricted to no later than 10:00 P.M.
Leslie Neff, resident, suggested placing speed bumps on 16th Street to slow the traffic; she thanked Mr. Shook for the big improvement to what was previously a blighted building; noted her support for a high-end restaurant, but that she is not supportive of a lounge because of the nuisance to the neighbors when the patrons leave the establishment.
Carla Merryman, representing the Chamber of Commerce, expressed the Executive Committee’s support for the upscale StillWater Café in the Hermosa Pavilion; noted that other restaurants with food in this price range and upscale quality in the City close at midnight and have perfect police records – noting that those other restaurants do not provide free parking; and stated that all 3 of these upscale restaurants are geared for young professionals, older residents and family dining and that she believes the type of customers who will patronize this business will be of the caliber this City needs. She stated it is important to recognize that the sales and property tax generated by the local businesses accounts for a major portion of the City’s General Fund, which is spent by the City on street lights, street repairs, sanitation and signage for the residents; and stated that the more upscale businesses are approved, the more attractive this City will become to other neighborhood friendly companies looking to relocate and that this will bring positive changes to this community.
Carl Niven, resident, stated he is opposed to any alcohol sales because of the on-going noise problem from the current patrons of this facility – noting he has made numerous calls to the police regarding the noise nuisance; stated that the City is well over the limit for ABC licenses in this area; and that these sales are negatively impacting many neighborhoods in this City. He commented on the problems with parking, noise, hazardous traffic, garage exhaust; expressed his belief the free parking is not working; and noted his belief this business will turn into a late night club.
Howard Longacre, resident, reiterated his concern that policing activities of restaurant/bar businesses is draining the City’s funds, noting these businesses are very small tax revenue generators for the City; and stated that many times, restaurants eventually fail and morph into night clubs and bars. He stated that the City needs to develop an SPA for this area; and noted his opposition to granting another alcohol license in this community.
Alan Thomen, resident, highlighted the large percentage of restaurants that have failed in this community; and stated that the patrons who use this building create huge impacts to the quality of life to the residents, such as speeding traffic, lack of parking and noise. He expressed his belief that if alcohol is served at this location, it will create the need for taxi service; that the taxis will be cruising the neighborhood for drunken patrons; stated there is currently inadequate policing in this area; and noted his opposition to more alcohol sales in this community.
Patty Egerer, resident, stated that research indicates the high concentration of alcohol outlets in a location can hamper the economic development; that while such businesses can be heavily patronized, they add very little intrinsic value to the community as a whole and they make the area less attractive to other types of retail business; and she stated there are too many bars and night clubs in this community. She stated that more police service is needed in this community and stated that according to ABC standards, this community is over-saturated with alcohol outlets. She stated that the entry to the restaurant appears to be located off PCH, noting this will create a traffic hazard; and advised that she provided staff with some correspondence, asking that the issues outlined in this correspondence be addressed.
Linda Miller, resident, stated that policing in this area is already too limited and noted her opposition to approving another alcohol license. She stated that the Pavilion traffic has had a huge impact on the residents.
Nathan Koher, administrative assistant to Mr. Shook, highlighted some of the neighboring communities which compare to the Hermosa Pavilion and the close proximity to residential areas, pointing out that these successful locations don’t provide free parking.
Ms. Lesiow, resident, addressed her concerns with the noise and speeding traffic coming from this facility; and noted her opposition to approving alcohol sales.
Karen Carr, project director for the South Bay Coalition, a substance prevention collaborative, commented on the abundance of alcohol establishments in Hermosa Beach, believing this can send the wrong message to kids that alcohol is essential and necessary to having a good time; and advised that research shows if youth start drinking before the age of 14, they are 4 times more likely to become alcoholics later in life; and noted her opposition to more alcohol sales/business in Hermosa Beach.
Gregg Sampson, resident, noted his frustration with having to continually attend meetings and piecemealing together some resolve for the residents who are negatively impacted by the Pavilion business; and stated he would support for alcohol sales up to 10:00 P.M., no later.
Eric Riley, resident, stated that alcohol is not necessary at this facility, but that if it is approved, they should not be permitted to sell alcohol past 10:00 P.M.; expressed his belief the two-hour parking has not curbed the parking problem on 16th Street; and stated that this project should be put on hold until the parking and traffic issues are solved in this area.
Rosalind Bender-Thomen, resident, stated that the residents’ safety and satisfaction should take priority in this community; addressed the growing problems with traffic safety, parking and noise in this area; and noted her opposition to more bars in this community.
Mark Hopkins, resident, stated that he and his neighbors have had their vehicles and property struck by drunk drivers; and noted his concern with bringing in more bars to this community.
Mr. Shook asked that this business be permitted to operate the same hours as other restaurants in the area, noting that midnight is an acceptable hour; clarified that the substantial amount of wine inventory is for patrons wishing to purchase bottles that will not be consumed in the restaurant, noting that by right, these sales are permitted without a CUP; and stated that the restaurant occupies less than 5,500 square feet. With regard to the noise level, he advised that Schaffer Acoustics conducted testing and provided a noise report, after which he replaced all of the parking lot exhaust fans and spent a substantial amount on acoustic noise dampeners. He stated that the doors to the restaurant off PCH is a front fire exit and is legally required by the Fire Department. He added that this restaurant will be offering vehicles to transport its patrons.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hoffman requested staff to provide clarification on the square foot allocation as in the ordinance versus the various approvals.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the condition in this resolution is the same condition originally approved in 2003 and which Mr. Shook agreed to abide by. The wording in it is identical to the wording in the original Precise Development Parking Plan. He stated that Mr. Shook committed to that condition by affidavit; that the condition has not changed except for the allocation numbers. He noted that because staff recognizes it’s difficult to track the various uses as they come and go, the condition has some latitude. It says “the allocation of uses shall be substantially consistent or less than the following allocations,” which gives room for interpretation; also at the end of Condition No. 17, it says, “any material changes to this allocation will require an amendment,” which means a substantial change. He reiterated that this wording has always been in place; and stated that if there is an issue relative to allocation, Mr. Shook can always petition the Commission for a change, as he has previously done.
Vice-Chairman Allen questioned if ABC would consider this area over-concentrated in terms of alcohol licenses.
In response to Vice-Chairman Allen’s inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated he is not sure how ABC would characterize the area; explained that staff simply looked at the number of uses on the highway, the area most affected; that based on the over 300 businesses along the highway, approximately 3 percent of the businesses, are restaurants serving alcohol, noting there is not evidence to indicate these businesses along the highway create any nuisance.
Vice-Chairman Allen questioned if the police are consulted on all projects.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff does not consult with the police department on all new projects; that staff will consult with the police and fire department when dealing with specific security and safety issues; and mentioned that staff is involved on an intradepartmental basis in looking at all the Downtown businesses and all the bars and restaurants, that the City is working on a multi-agency review of these uses in the City. With regard to the net effect to the City and the cost benefit, he explained that as a practical matter, food service has helped make up for some of the loss in City revenue with the relocation along the highway of major auto dealerships; stated that auto dealerships were the larger sales tax producers; and noted that hotels have come to replace these businesses, which have provided substantial increases in transient occupancy taxes (TOT) over the last 10 years, starting with the opening of The Beach House. He stated the City does not do a cost benefit analysis on every project, that one has not been done that for this business; noted that staff believes there will be an economic benefit; and pointed out that the City has already enjoyed the benefit of eliminating a blighted building that existed along this highway for almost 15 years. He pointed out that staff has been working with the owner to get solid uses in this building.
Commissioner Pizer asked for clarification on the spa car wash business.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the similar use provision says that if the use is no more intensive than a use that’s already identified on the permitted use list, then that use can be approved through a consent review by the City Council; in the case of the car wash, he noted that this use clearly, as defined by the City, is a car wash, but using different technology. He stated the owner would need to process a CUP. He pointed out that the auto spa is a collateral issue, but that the resolution, if approved, reflects the fact the use must be addressed.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated the design of the restaurant is nice; questioned whether its use will further complicate the parking problems in this area; and expressed his belief the City is going in the right direction to solve the parking problems and that it’s unreasonable to expect it would be solved over night by putting up placards in the last two days, that’s it’s going to take some time to get the word out. He stated that if the restaurant were to be approved, there would be a lot of conditions these residents would want to see, believing the 2-hour validated parking for a lounge is not enough; and noted his concern that if this restaurant were to fail, it may become another nightclub, suggesting that a condition be added that no cover charge be permitted. He noted his preference to solve the parking problem before adding in this business; and stated he is generally opposed to another alcohol license in this City; however, people should be permitted to enjoy wine with an expensive meal.
Commissioner Pizer highlighted the blighted condition of this site for many years, noting that Mr. Shook has invested a lot of time and energy into making this an asset to the community; pointed out that Mr. Shook is bringing in quality businesses to this location; but noted his concern with granting an alcohol license and the possible future use of the restaurant as a bar/nightclub; and he suggested that the conditions limit the operating hour to 12:00 midnight, no amplified music, live entertainment, or dance floors. He expressed his belief the customers of this restaurant will use the parking structure, that the type of clientele will not be looking to save a couple dollars on parking; he recognized the impact on the residents’ daily lives is a major concern, but stated he does not think the impacts from this project will be serious. He suggested amending Condition 5, limiting the hours of operation and no outdoor dining, adding that “...no outdoor dining or drinking allowed.”
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that Mr. Shook is doing all he can to make this venture a success; pointed out that the problems are from those using the gym; and expressed his belief this upscale restaurant will only impact the City by improving the quality of food service in this community. He stated that Public Works and City Council need to become more involved in dealing with proactive and effective policing of the city streets, with the issue of people improperly parking on the streets and racing up and down the streets; stated he would expect a fine dining establishment to offer wine; suggested putting more teeth into the conditions to keep control of this if it changes ownership in the future; and expressed his belief this restaurant will be a good asset for the City and that he does not believe this business will compound those problems.
Commissioner Pizer reiterated his suggestion for a 12:00 midnight closing time in the conditions, believing this time limit assures future night club control.
Commissioner Kersenboom mentioned that Mr. Shook’s letter indicates he does not want the CUP reviewed annually.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission always has the authority to review and modify a CUP; however, it is correct that a CUP runs with the land, not with the business. He added that Condition No. 1 says, “the interior and building alterations in the continued use and operation of the restaurant with appurtenant uses shall be substantially consistent with the plans submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission”; noted that if a use presented is substantially changed or the layout of the business is substantially changed, it is subject to Commission review; and similarly, if the function changes, then the parking may change, which also causes a review of the parking. He added that the Commission always has the ability to review relative to conformance with a project approval; and stated that the Commission must be satisfied that the approval gives the Commission enough latitude to adequately regulate the business.
Chairman Hoffman stated that the seating plan calls out approximately 175 seats, questioning what the occupancy load would be; and asked for further clarification on the waiting area requirement.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner is required to submit an occupant load and seating plan; stated that code allows 3 square feet per person for waiting; otherwise, the area is occupied based on the number of seats; noted that the Building Code indicates the waiting area must be used for that purpose; that if it’s a retail area, it’s a general occupancy load of 1 person per 15 square feet of floor area and it’s seating or the use classification that dictates the occupant load number.
Chairman Hoffman pointed out that Mr. Shook has created a project that is too successful, having created too much traffic, noise and parking impacts; stated he is not yet convinced the validated parking will solve the problem; and stated the Commission cannot consider this application in isolation of the rest of the businesses in this building. He noted that a lot of fine dining establishments have failed in this town which have morphed into bars; expressed his belief the City has created a business environment in parts of this community where fine dining restaurants cannot succeed because the clientele is not willing to come to that location, and stated there are valid concerns for the potential of a future bar. He noted his support for restricting the hours and not allowing entertainment; expressed his belief that the square footage of this restaurant should be decreased; and stated that even an upscale restaurant will create some impacts to this neighborhood, questioning how many cabs/cars will be circulating that building to serve the clientele. He stated he will be voting against this project because the scale of the proposed establishment is too large.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Allen to DENY the proposal and moved to monitor the parking problems.
Chairman Hoffman seconded the motion, with a clarification that the parking problems will be monitored for the next 6 months regardless of this motion.
The motion failed as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman NOES: Kersenboom, Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti MOTION by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE CUP 06-4 -- Conditional Use Permit for on-sale general 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. This motion failed due to the lack of a second.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom to CONTINUE this case for six months following a parking report to determine if the 2-hour free validated parking has had a positive impact. This motion failed due to the lack of a second.
MOTION by Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to DENY the proposal as submitted and that it be revised prior to re-submittal, and that the applicant work with staff to address the issues presented to the Commission this evening. This motion was ultimately rescinded.
Chairman Hoffman stated that he will not be present at the next Commission meeting and that a full quorum will not be possible for August.
Commissioner Pizer pointed out that the 8,000 square feet includes space for retail and stated it’s not out of scale.
Director Blumenfeld stated that while there still is some disagreement in the calculation of the square footage, staff believes the restaurant is approximately 5,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted that the free validated parking should be given a chance to see if it solves the parking issues before this project is approved; and suggested consideration of a continuance.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a case can be continued for 3 consecutive meetings before a new notice is required.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Chairman Hoffman, to CONTINUE this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti Director Blumenfeld noted that the City website will be updated and the onsite posting will be updated to reflect the continuance.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 15, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has requested this matter be continued; and that responding to prior deliberations of the Commission, they’ve decided to revise their parking program.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to the August 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. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from consideration of this matter due to the close proximity of this project to his residence.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the purpose of the request is to adjust the lot lines for 3 existing lots that front on Prospect Avenue and thereby create 3 lots fronting on 8th Street; and advised that both properties are occupied by single-family dwellings, although the property at 726 also contains a garage apartment unit. He noted that the two existing lots on Prospect Avenue were the subject of a lot merger hearing in January wherein the Commission decided not to merge these lots based on neighborhood compatibility issues; and advised that a neighbor is currently appealing the Commission decision but has indicated agreement with this proposed reconfiguration and has indicated he will withdraw his appeal based upon the outcome of this evening’s hearing. Following the Commission hearing, he noted the owner worked with the City and the appellant to develop a compromise; stated that the new lot layout basically creates 3 lots, each over 35 feet in width and varying from 3,500 square feet to over 4,400 square feet; and noted that the new configuration as proposed is more consistent with the current development requirements, which are minimum 40-foot wide lots and 4,000 square feet. He pointed out that lot line adjustments are established under the Subdivision Map Act, which allows these kinds of alterations of lot lines so long as one is not creating a greater number of parcels originally in place; that staff believes the proposed adjustment is a more logical realignment of the parcels, allowing for the development of single-family homes with safer access and creating more attractive frontage along 8th Street; and he distributed an exhibit which shows the existing condition and the proposed condition.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Charles Heitman, one of the property owners, stated that he has worked with the City on this compromise and that he approves of what is being presented this evening.
Howard Longacre, resident, stated he would have preferred to see two 52-foot wide properties facing 8th Street, but that he is supportive of this compromise; and mentioned that only City Council can remove the appeal, which is moot at this point.
Neil Barbaros, resident, stated that the parking problems on 8th Street are severe; noted his concern with losing more parking spaces; and stated that the homes should front Prospect Avenue.
Greg Ebberhart, appellant, stated that having spoken with the majority of petitioners for the merger of 726, consensus is this is a win-win compromise for both the residents and the developer; and advised that contrary to some of the letters recently published in local newspapers, not one of the signers of the petition for lot merger had any interest at all in this property beyond preserving the current quality of life by not allowing the development of more homes in the same amount of space. He recognized Commissioner Pizer’s original vote against not merging these lots in January as well as the efforts of the City Manager, Sol Blumenfeld and Ken Robertson for their roles in addressing this issue to the satisfaction of all involved.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to APPROVE LLA 06-1 -- Lot line adjustment to reconfigure the properties at 726 Prospect Avenue and 1120 8th Street into three parcels fronting on 8th Street. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom, Perrotti Chairman Hoffman stated this is a good compromise and commended those residents involved for their efforts in this matter.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:33 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:39 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 15, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is requesting this matter be continued to the next meeting; advised that this is an issue initiated by staff to deal with a problem of a usage complaint; and that because the complainant has not been in town, staff is requesting a continuance. He stated the owner is aware this matter is proposed to be continued.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to the August 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. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration.
Senior Planner Robertson stated this property is zoned C-3, General Commercial; advised that the property contains two parcels and is located on the north side of Aviation Boulevard, between Bonnie Brae Boulevard and Ocean Drive; noted that the existing one-story auto repair business occupies the easterly portion of the property; that the southerly portion is currently occupied by two older single-story residential dwellings, noting that the original permits date back to 1920; stated that the adjacent properties to the north are designated R-1 and developed predominately with single-family residences; that the easterly portion of the property has been used as a vehicle repair business since the 1960’s; and that a CUP was granted in 1992 for general motor vehicle repair, which was part of the program to amortize existing long-standing uses subject to CUP requirements. He noted that the existing building is nonconforming to the 8-foot required setback adjacent to residential properties, as it is currently set back only 4 feet from the property to the rear; advised that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing nonconforming residences at 1001 Aviation Boulevard and remodel and expand the existing automotive repair business, which includes tire sales and installation; noted that the applicant wants to expand this business to include the adjacent property to the west; and that the project includes expanding the automotive service building by approximately 1,250 square feet, extending all the way to the west property line, and includes remodeling the existing portion of the building into a higher profile building to provide a mezzanine level storage area for tires and tools and involves site alterations, including new paving, grading, landscaping, and re-striping the existing parking area. He stated that the project increases the number of service bays from 3 to 7, increases the on-site surface parking to 8 spaces; noted that the applicant’s business includes tire sales and installation and general auto repair on-site for jobs that can typically be done in a day or two; and that the applicant has indicated if the repair job includes major work, that work is contracted out to other shops.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that the parking requirement for this project is 11 spaces; that the project is proposing a total of 15 spaces on site, noting that 8 of those spaces are in the service parking lot, 7 being the service bays; and noted that the Planning Commission has previously considered service bays as contributing to the parking requirements. He stated that the project otherwise complies with the requirements of the C-3 zone with respect to building height, setbacks and buffers from residential property; and he noted that an 8-foot rear yard setback is being provided, with landscaping to buffer the adjacent residential property. He noted that a portion of the existing building will remain as an existing setback of only 4 feet, but this nonconforming section of the building is allowed to be maintained since the expansion is less than 100 percent; stated that the plan provides for a substantial landscaped setback area in front of the property along Aviation Boulevard sloping up to the parking area; that landscaping is also proposed along the north property line; and that the applicant is proposing a 10-foot high block wall along the north property line adjacent to the residential use.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the City established the CUP requirement for auto repair businesses to alleviate conflicts associated with these businesses when located near residential areas; and advised that compatibility issues are addressed through standard conditions, such as restricting operating hours, compliance with noise codes, prohibition of outdoor work, prohibition of storing vehicles for repair on public streets, providing proper storage and disposal of hazardous waste, etc. He advised that staff has not received any complaints concerning the current operations on site; noted that some residents after receiving notice of this hearing have commented on customer vehicles being parked in the neighborhood and complaints regarding outdoor storage of tires; and he noted that the proposed expansion is intended to help resolve the lack of on-site parking and tire storage.
Senior Planner Robertson commented on pending plans for the Aviation Corridor Specific Plan and the permitted uses; but indicated that the applicant is submitting for approval under the current provisions of the C-3 Zone and is proposing to replace a nonconforming use with a conditionally permitted use and will be improving the appearance and functionality of the use. He highlighted the building elevation plans; and noted that staff believes additional architectural elements/features should be added to the project, including the use of eaves or banding along the roofline. He highlighted the additional standard conditions for auto repair, as noted in staff report on page nos. 3 and 4.
Chairman Hoffman stated that automatic irrigation should be addressed in Condition 4.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Jose Larco, project designer, provided an updated property survey; stated that storage for the tires is necessary; stated this business will not be open on Sundays; and mentioned that the local residents currently use this property to park their vehicles when the business is closed. He noted his concurrence with the conditions of approval and stated he will work with staff on providing additional architectural features.
Manuel Alvarez, resident, stated that his house is adjacent to this business; noted that the tire dust constantly migrates onto his property; stated that Ocean Drive is narrow and that motorists have difficulty entering and exiting this business; stated that he has already placed landscaping on his property line; and stated that parking is very limited in this area. He noted his concern with this business being so close to residential.
Fay Feney, resident, urged the Commission to not allow the expansion to take place, noting that the residents are severely impacted by parking, traffic, and building expansions on Ocean Drive. She stated that the employees park on their street and that the cars are test driven along this street.
Henry Hymes, resident, commented on the noise that is generated by this business; stated that there is an oil slick on this street when it rains; and noted his opposition to this business expanding. He stated that parking is limited on this street and that this will have a negative impact on property values.
Patty Egerer, resident, stated this project will intensify traffic on Ocean Drive and will negatively impact the residents in this area.
Carl Newman, resident, stated this project should be delayed until the impacts can be evaluated following the completion of the Aviation Corridor study.
Mr. Larco stated that he is being required to provide a landscape buffer; and briefly addressed the difficulty with parking in this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom commented, echoed by Commissioner Pizer, on the need to keep commercial in this area, pointing out that this business will be the best looking automotive repair business in this city; advised that his home also receives black dust, expressing his belief this dust is caused from traffic on the main street; and noted his support of this project, stating they have done a nice job in planning.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated that the owner will be required to adhere to the water quality restrictions, thereby removing any oil leakage concerns; and questioned if the employees can be conditioned to park on the lot.
Director Blumenfeld stated that if there is enough room, employees should have an area designated for parking their vehicles.
Vice-Chairman Allen questioned what the alternative is to this proposal, stating this business can stay as is for another number of years.
Chairman Hoffman pointed out there are inevitable issues when living next to a business; and he noted his support for providing additional architectural features within a reasonable budget.
Based on the Commission’s comments, Director Blumenfeld suggested the following amendments: Condition No. 4A, “Automatic irrigation system shall be installed in the landscaped areas.” Condition No. 4B, “A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a landscape plan to complement landscaping along the commercial corridor.”
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 06-5/PDP 06-6 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment and Precise Development Plan to allow an expansion to an existing motor vehicle repair business, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1001 and 1017 Aviation Boulevard, Ocean Service and Tires and to include Condition No. 4A and B, “Automatic irrigation system shall be installed in the landscaped areas”; “A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a landscape plan to make sure this will be an attractive element along the corridor.” This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Rocky Cola Café has been in operation at this location since 1994; noted that the building and parking areas are situated on two properties; stated that the building has 19 parking spaces located on the southerly property and 20 parking spaces are provided on the northerly portion; and noted there is currently no legal tie to these properties. He advised that the restaurant was originally constructed in 1971, with 20 spaces at 1045 PCH being surplus parking. He noted that the proposed CUP for outdoor dining in conjunction with Rocky Cola Café would legitimize an existing outdoor seating area which contains approximately 271 square feet; that with the approximate 271 square feet of outdoor dining area, the total area of the restaurant increases to 3,823 square feet; and advised that the existing parking lots provide 39 parking spaces, which is adequate for the restaurant floor area. He noted that staff does not believe the outdoor dining area will cause any significant adverse conditions to the nearby buildings; and stated that staff is recommending the outdoor dining activity be closed at 10:00 P.M. He mentioned there are four banners that are illegally displayed and that only one banner is allowed for up to 90 days a calendar year.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Peter Paldino, project architect, noted his concurrence with the conditions of approval.
Patty Egerer, resident, expressed her opposition to this area being permitted for alcohol consumption.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer noted this area is already in use.
Chairman Hoffman noted this is a long-standing establishment and a good corporate citizen in the community.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to APPROVE CUP 06-6 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow outside dining in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 1025 Pacific Coast Highway, Rocky Cola Cafe. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the applicant has requested this matter be continued to the next meeting in order to explore the possibility of not pursuing the parking in-lieu fees.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Steve Jones, project architect, stated that the applicant would like additional time to explore other parking options.
Jim Lissner, resident, asked that if this item is to be continued, that it be continued to a meeting wherein a full quorum of the Commission is present.
Howard Longacre, resident, reiterated his concern that the policing of restaurants and its alcohol sales in this City are exhausting the City’s funds, noting that public safety costs account for two-thirds of the City’s General Fund. He stated that the sales taxes received from restaurants are far out of sync with the cost to police these alcohol serving businesses.
Patty Egerer, resident, stated she does not support a larger bar district.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to CONTINUE to September CUP 06-7/PARK 06-3 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to add 180 square feet to an existing restaurant with on-sale alcohol and Parking Plan to pay in lieu fees for the required parking at 1320 Hermosa Avenue, The Shore. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to June 14, 2007.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this approval would allow extension of the tentative map, noting that the application was filed in a timely manner.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to APPROVE CON 04-11/PDP 04-12 -- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 61318 for a 2-unit condominium at 315 - 317 Hopkins Avenue. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Bi-annual review of the acoustical study for The Pitcher House at 142 Pacific Coast Highway.
Director Blumenfeld briefly highlighted the 6-month review process of various businesses; and explained that this is a moot point for The Pitcher House at this time because it is being vacated in the near future.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chairman Hoffman reiterated that he will not be present at the August meeting.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 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 July 18, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |