|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Vice-Chairman Allen |
| Absent: | Hoffman |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Alan Strusser, resident, thanked the Commission for its involvement in some minor improvements being enjoyed with the Pavilion activities, stating that a flashing light invites pedestrians to go a block south to the 16th Street crosswalk; and mentioned that the free parking program has had some positive effect on the neighborhood.
Consent Calendar
For the benefit of the audience members, Vice-Chair Allen advised that Item Nos. 9 and 10 will be continued.
-
Approval of July 18, 2006 Minutes .
Commissioner Kersenboom corrected Page Nos. 8 and 9 to reflect “Commissioner Kersenboom” rather than “Vice-Chairman Kersenboom.”
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, toAPPROVE the July 18, 2006, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: Hoffman -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To 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 noted that a lengthy staff report was presented at the previous meeting on the nature of the business and application; he briefly reiterated that this is a proposed parking plan amendment and a conditional use permit for on-sale alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant; advised that the proposed restaurant will occupy approximately 7,038 square feet; that there is an existing café on the first floor of the Pavilion, where this project will be located; and that there is also a retail and wine shop that will occupy 1,535 square feet, as part of the business. He clarified for Vice-Chairman Allen that the actual footprint of the restaurant is 7,038 square feet; and of that, there are other related retail uses that are located within the restaurant -- a wine and cheese shop that occupies 1,535 square feet. He advised that the applicant is requesting a midnight closing for the entire facility; noted the restaurant will be a full-service restaurant; that it provides seating in a bar area, provides a retail area for wine and cheese – noting that this area contains no fixed seating; that the owner is not proposing amplified live entertainment; and that in the future if they were to propose that use, it would require a CUP amendment.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out this restaurant is proposed within an enclosed building that fronts on a commercial corridor; that it’s complimentary to the other uses within the building; advised that staff surveyed the highway and found there are approximately 306 businesses -- about 16 restaurants, 2 of which serve full alcohol, and approximately 3 percent of the businesses within the commercial corridor serve alcohol, or beer and wine. He noted the commercial corridor is not heavily impacted with alcohol related use; pointed out there is approximately 10 percent of floor area in the business for the bar area, stating this is primarily a restaurant; and concluded that the use is appropriate to the zone, to the area, consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, compatible with the zoning and the businesses within the multi-tenant building.
Director Blumenfeld advised that with respect to parking, staff has been monitoring affects of parking in the garage since modification of the building parking plan and found improvement along adjacent streets and along the highway and increased parking in the garage. He reviewed the recommendations for the Commission to consider; stated if the Commission chooses to approve the on-sale alcohol permit, that the CUP for the restaurant be based on conformance with the Pavilion Parking Plan; noted that violations of the Parking Plan are cause for submittal of a report to the Planning Commission, which would automatically initiate a CUP review; and the restaurant use is tied to the operation of the parking facilities within the building. He indicated the operating hours should be noted as 7:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight daily; recommended that the allocation of uses shown in the shared parking analysis attached to staff report should be part of the draft resolution, as indicated in staff report; that the kitchen shall remain open during operating hours; if there are repeat violations of noise or security or nuisance conditions or excessive occupancy of the establishment, he advised that would be grounds for either the police chief or fire chief to report to the Planning Commission, initiating an automatic review by the Planning Commission. He stated that the 2 hour free parking validation program shall be instituted for this business as it has been for the rest of the building; that parking signs indicating these parking arrangements shall be displayed within the restaurant; and that the CUP be subject to Planning Commission review after 6 months based on the date of the business opening.
Each Planning Commissioner present this evening advised they were contacted by Gene Shook and that they met with him and his consultants to discuss this project; and Commissioners Allen and Perrotti advised they had also talked with various residents about this project.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned when the building housed the AMC Theatres, was there a record of any violations from that former business.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff checked the records and found no violations on record.
Vice-Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Gene Shook, applicant, provided a slide presentation of what is proposed for this business, highlighting the ceiling designs, elaborate/high-end materials, exposed kitchen, chandeliers, specialized lighting, wine bottle walls, etc.; stated that with the free 2-hour parking program, he will be losing anywhere from $300,000 to $1 million in lost revenue; stated that he has seen a decrease in on-street parking on the neighboring streets; and that there has been an increase in the number of people parking inside the structure. He advised that he is trying to gain the support of 24 Hour Fitness to get the parking issue out to their clients. He mentioned that he is seeking a midnight closing time for the business, but added that for very special occasions, he would like to stay open later if the need arises, such as a Christmas party. Mr. Shook pointed out that his CUP is one of the most restrictive in the City and that he does not want this business to turn into a bar or nightclub, that he is only interested in providing an upscale restaurant that serves full alcohol. He advised that approximately 8,300 invitations were sent to the City’s residents, inviting them to an open house for this restaurant; stated that a couple hundred people attended the open house; and that an overwhelming majority had positive responses to the proposed restaurant. Mr. Shook urged the Commission to correct the square footage for the allocation of uses.
Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice-Chairman Allen that the allocation of uses which are shown in staff report are also the allocation of uses that were quantified in the parking study by LLG; that if there are to be some other uses considered, they would need to be quantified; advised that he and Mr. Shook had a lengthy discussion regarding this issue earlier today; that he told Mr. Shook he would share Mr. Shook’s concerns with the City Attorney; that they will review what the Commission and City Council had previously reviewed and approved with respect to the business and then make a recommendation; advised that if there is a need to make some change, staff will need to bring that forward to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Shook stated that these items were addressed in the LLG parking report, but that there wasn’t square footage established to go with them, that it was only verbiage; and that he is seeking only to clarify those numbers so that someone does not confront him with any problem regarding those exact numbers in the future. He mentioned that the VIP lockers have already been approved and the health and fitness club have been built exactly to the plans and that he is not seeking additional square footage.
Director Blumenfeld recommended that the Planning Commission not act on the applicant’s request to change the allocation square footage at this time until staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney; stated that the Planning Commission has a resolution which shows 105,000 square feet of approved area related to the original Parking Plan approval; noted that staff has quantified through a parking analysis the uses that are shown in staff report; that the matter Mr. Shook wants to address needs to be taken up by the City Attorney; and that if a change needs to be made, then it can be handled as a separate matter. He added that these other allocations are not the subject of this application; that the only issue under consideration is the restaurant CUP and the restaurant parking demand.
Mr. Shook reiterated he is not going to build the building wider, change the square footage or footprint of the building, but he does not want the Commission to approve something then have a resident come in and say it was built larger than plans allowed.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the allocations shown in the resolution are the operating conditions for the applicant; stated Mr. Shook processed an application and originally received an approval for 105,000 square feet; that increased over the course of Mr. Shook’s approval process, he’s added close to 30,000 square feet of floor area within this building. He added that the Commission’s concern primarily with this business is not so much how it’s modified on the interior, but with how the modifications affect parking and whether the uses within the building are allowed within the zone. He stated it’s important to keep track of the use allocations, and quantify every proposed change. He reiterated that if there is a significant change that will affect parking, then the Commission should review the CUP or Parking Plan because the Commission would want to make sure there is an adequate balance between the supply of parking and parking demand. He reiterated that other allocations are not the application before the Commission this evening.
Mr. Shook urged the Commission to simply change something from 20,300 to 20,400 square feet, to change 9,600 to 10,000 square feet; pointed out that the walls are already up and that there is no increase to be done.
Larry Hospensen, resident, requested this matter be continued until after the Public Works Commission consider how the signal and the parking conditions are working on 16th Street and PCH; and he expressed his belief the input from that meeting may materially adjust how the Planning Commission will make its decision.
Leslie Neff, resident, stated she attended the open house and said everything looked grand; advised that around 6:00 P.M. there was limited parking on all levels; and stated there still remains a big problem with on-street parking.
Ron Newman, resident, expressed his support for the applicant’s proposal; and stated that the restaurant patrons are likely to use the valet parking services.
Lee Grant, resident, expressed belief that the traffic study is incomplete and full of errors; that the proposed restaurant will create too much of a traffic and parking burden; and stated that this City has exceeded the allowable number of alcohol businesses.
Alan Strusser, resident, noted his opposition to this application; stated this application should be put on hold until the City can come up with plans to solve the nuisance problems to the neighbors. He stated he would then welcome this restaurant; and he asked for a parking district.
Eric Riley, resident, stated he would support a nice restaurant, but that he would prefer it be open no later than 11:00 P.M.; and expressed his belief 2 hours of free parking is not enough. He stated that people are starting to use the parking structure more, but stated that more time is necessary to see a large impact.
Elsie Kushner, resident, noted her opposition to more alcohol businesses in this City; stated that the alcohol sales in this community has had a negative impact upon the residents’ serenity and quality of life; and she expressed her belief this restaurant is out of scale with the affordability of this City’s residents.
Ron Miller, resident, stated he lives in the unit closest to the parking garage; advised that he submitted a letter which discusses the issues of cars and traffic affecting the peace and tranquility of the neighbors; advised that he is aware of two times when the lot has placed signs out front indicating the lot was full and that the motorists are continuing to park in the neighborhoods; and he noted his support to continue this matter until the Public Works Commission has dealt with the parking and traffic issues related to this building. He stated the horns honking, loud car music, speeding vehicles, loud voices are negatively impacting the neighbors.
Greg Sampson, resident, asked that this matter be tabled for one month until a full Commission is present to vote on this issue and until the Public Works Commission addresses the traffic and parking issues related to this site.
Mike Borgen, resident, stated he is looking forward to seeing this high-end restaurant built in Hermosa Beach.
Gary Brusshard, project architect, stated that patrons of this restaurant will come from all over Southern California and he offered to answer any questions with regard to the space of this restaurant.
Mindy Brown, resident, stated that she likes the idea of this scale restaurant, but noted that this area is heavily impacted by speeding traffic, loud pedestrians, parking problems, and noted her opposition to this restaurant being placed at this location.
Rosalind Bender, resident, stated that a restaurant of this size should not be permitted this close to a residential area; expressed her concern that taxi businesses will be patrolling the neighborhoods for restaurant customers; and explained that it is currently burdensome to obtain a parking ticket for this facility. She urged the City to take into consideration the residents’ objections.
Alan Tillman, resident, asked that this matter be continued until a full Commission is present to vote on this matter; advised that a traffic and parking problem still exists; and urged the City’s support and help.
Morty Benjamin, resident, stated that too many residents are opposed to this restaurant and additional alcohol sales in this City; and asked that this matter be deferred until after the Public Works Commission meeting.
Carl Newman, resident, noted his opposition to the application for alcohol sales, believing there are too many alcohol permits in this City; and noted his opposition to a restaurant staying open until midnight. He stated that the gym patrons are continuing to park in the neighborhoods and jaywalk on PCH.
Carla Merryman, representing the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, noted the Chamber’s support of this application; and stated that the size of this restaurant is not out of scale with others in the City. She stated that many residents were impressed with the open house and stated that the neighborhood parking has improved.
Bill Hedrick, resident, stated he does not believe this restaurant will compare with The Bottle Inn.
Patty Egerer, resident, stated the City has exceeded its share of alcohol licenses; and noted that Hermosa Beach has a tremendous problem with the proliferation of alcohol outlets and the patrons that disturb and degrade the tranquility and quality of life for the residents.
She pointed out that the summer months are not the peak business period for the gym; and asked if mutual aid will be required.
Gary Davis, resident, urged the City to consider the residents’ concerns before business interests; he noted his concern with traffic and pedestrian safety and limited parking; and noted his opposition to another liquor license in this area.
Mr. Shook stated there are 540 parking spaces; explained that the parking facility has a flow in and out of the building; stated to his knowledge the parking facility has not been full; and he urged the Planning Commission not to delay this matter, noting that work needs to get under way.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief there will be no noise coming from inside the building, this restaurant; stated he would like to see only have one entrance to the restaurant interior; recommended there be no outdoor use of any type, no outside dining, waiting or loitering; and that that the door on the southeast side of the building be an emergency exit only with panic hardware. He stated there are legitimate concerns with the potential for restaurants morphing into bars/clubs, but expressed his belief staff has done a thorough job in drafting a comprehensive resolution; reminded the audience that the CUP is subject to Planning Commission review 6 months after initial operation and every year thereafter; pointed out that some of the traffic problems are motorist behavior issues that Mr. Shook should be not be held accountable for; and he expressed his belief there have been some improvement with parking in the neighborhoods as a result of the free validated parking plan. He expressed his belief patrons of this restaurant will use the parking structure and valet service; stated there is an adequate number of garage parking spaces; urged the City and the applicant to improve getting the word out about the parking garage availability; and he mentioned that residents often complain to him they are tired of leaving the City to go to an upscale restaurant. He mentioned this is a commercial corridor; and stated he will be voting in favor of the resolution with the recommendation that the Commission add a condition concerning no outdoor use and for the southeast door to be an emergency exit only.
Commissioner Pizer stated it is the Commission’s job to be fair to the residents’ desires and the property owners’ rights; expressed his belief the patrons of this restaurant will not be creating a nuisance to the neighbors; and stated this restaurant will have a positive effect in the City.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated this building is beautiful and that it will be an asset to the community; and pointed out that the issue with rude behavior of the building patrons is not the responsibility of Mr. Shook’s.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated that he spent a lot of time speaking with the residents, including those who live next to this facility; and advised that everyone had varying opinions on this restaurant and its approval. He stated he is impressed with the operation of this facility and that it will be an asset to the community; suggested adding the following language: that under no circumstance should there be any cover charge; that no televisions be permitted; and expressed his belief the parking issues will be solved with a parking district.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti 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; approve the resolution with the following modifications: no dining, waiting, or loitering be permitted outside; that the southeast door only be used as an emergency exit and have panic hardware installed; that there be no cover charge; and that no televisions be permitted.
Commissioner Pizer offered a friendly amendment on page 7, Condition of Approval No. 2, to read “the hours for all operations of the restaurant shall be limited between 7:00 A.M. and 12:00 midnight.”
Commissioner Perrotti accepted that friendly amendment to his motion.
Commissioner Pizer seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman RECESS AND RECONVENE
The meeting was recessed at 8:53 P.M. and reconvened at 9:02 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Planning Commission had directed the applicant to either increase on-site parking or to modify the proposed uses in order to minimize the parking deficiency, and to minimize the need for parking in lieu fees; stated that over the last several weeks in response to the Commission’s direction, the applicant has been working on revisions to the project to provide the required parking on site; and that several alternatives were considered. He noted that the applicant has chosen to modify the uses and to slightly modify the buildings, has also modified the parking structure to increase the total capacity of the parking from 34 to 37 parking spaces; noted that the proposed combination of uses has changed and no longer includes a restaurant use; that the revised project includes 5,692 square feet of retail use, 6,097 square feet of office use, a snack shop containing 1,791 square feet and 1,000 square feet of storage; and that the total building size is 14,580 square feet. He pointed out that this change in the allocation of uses has significantly changed the parking requirements of the project, now basing it on the current parking ratio for the Downtown district of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office or retail space. He noted the proposed building requires a total of 40 parking spaces; added that the ancillary storage requires an additional one space for the total requirement of 41 under the code; and stated the applicant is proposing to supply 37 parking spaces in two levels of parking and also one additional tandem space, which the Zoning Ordinance does not recognize as a qualifying parking space. He stated the project is only short 4 of the aggregate parking requirement; noted this aggregate calculation does not take into account the peak parking requirements and hourly variation and parking demand for each use in a multi-use project like this; and that therefore, the applicant is proposing consideration of the “shared parking demand.” He explained that the Planning Commission may allow for a reduction in the number of spaces required and allow the Commission to consider factors such as the peak hours of the proposed uses, sharing the same parking facilities.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant has submitted a revised shared parking analysis based on the methodology of hourly parking adjustment factors developed by the Urban Land Institute; noted that the parking rates used for the calculation in the shared parking analysis for the office and retail uses are based on the reduced parking requirements allowed in the Downtown district of one space per 333 square feet of floor area; that the conclusion of this 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 36 parking spaces; and that the peak on weekends occurs at 7:00 P.M. and is projected at only a 21-space demand. Since the supply of parking is now 37 parking spaces, he noted there is no longer a deficiency on the peak time on weekdays, therefore eliminating the need for any in-lieu parking if the shared parking analysis is agreed with; stated it should be noted that during these peak weekday times where the greatest demand is, there is usually ample public parking, on-street parking available to supplement the onsite parking; and that during the weekend evenings, however, the parking is very limited on the street, and public parking is also limited in the available parking structures. In summary, he noted that the applicant has responded to the concerns both noted by the Commission and nearby residents by eliminating the restaurant use and increasing the supply of onsite parking; stated that while the project is 4 spaces short of code required parking, the parking study indicates that adequate parking is provided to satisfy the peak shared parking demands and, therefore, no spillover parking is anticipated or very limited spillover parking. He mentioned that the elimination of the restaurant minimizes concerns with respect to noise and nuisance issues with respect to loading issues; advised that staff believes the project is consistent with the objectives of the City Council to encourage more daytime uses in the Downtown district and compatible with the existing uses on Upper Pier Avenue; and that the project accomplishes these objectives without causing any parking impacts or any other significant impacts on nearby residential uses. He highlighted some of the additional conditions, as reflected in staff report; and he mentioned that staff did report more thoroughly on the Precise Development Plan and some of the traffic issues two meetings ago; given that the project scope has been reduced in its intensity, he noted the traffic issues are satisfied, as reported last month; and that the modifications to the building are minor and now have a slightly reduced square footage.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that pervious paving be included whenever/wherever possible, allowing the water to percolate into the soil.
Kevin Lindquist, representing the applicant, stated that they revised the project taking into consideration all the comments and concerns from the community and Planning Commission, such as inadequate parking, loading issues, noise; stated they addressed these concerns by obtaining 4 more parking spaces in the garage and eliminating the restaurant uses on the project; and stated the proposal now complies with the requirements. He added they will also be creating two additional parking stalls on the street, which are not counted on the parking analysis; and that they now have 38 stalls in the garage and 3 new public stalls on the street. He stated the plans now conform with the C-2 Zone; advised that the density is .87, which is less than the maximum allowed; stated the shared parking analysis is in conformance with the common parking facilities section of the code; stated all of the parking with the shared parking analysis is provided on site and that they have 3 additional public stalls offsite; that the project complies with the height limits; that all setbacks are met and landscape requirements will be exceeded. He added that a surplus of two parking stalls occurs at 2:00 P.M. during the weekdays; that they have an abundance of parking along Pier, about 38 to 40 parking stalls on average along Pier from Bard to Loma at 2:00 P.M. on weekdays; reiterated they have provided adequate parking on site, but that their peak demand also corresponds with the time of day in the City where there is the least amount of demand for public parking; stated this project will not be in use during the weekday and weekend evenings; that the demand is for 22 stalls in the evenings, a surplus of 16 stalls; and that with the weekend evening peaks, they have a surplus of 17 stalls.
Mr. Lindquist noted for Commissioner Perrotti that there is a 2-foot landscaped area along the front from the sidewalk setback to the building; and stated other architectural treatments can be provided to create some pods where there is more of a concentration in landscaping.
Gene Shook noted his and the Chamber of Commerce support for this project, believing it will be a beautiful addition to the City.
Nancy McKutchen, resident, questioned whether the two extra spots on Loma will be part of the parking district.
Director Blumenfeld indicated they would be part of a parking district in that area.
Ms. McKutchen asked for clarification on the height of the building, expressing her concern the building will be too massive for the neighborhood.
Senior Planner Robertson provided input on the height of the building, noting it is in conformance with the 30-foot height limit; and added that it only approaches that height limit towards the rear of the buildings, where they are proposing a roof deck above the offices.
Ms. McKutchen questioned whether the employees will be parking onsite, believing the parking will not be sufficient.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the parking ordinance includes employee parking.
Erica Zima, resident, stated that she lives on the lot directly behind the southeast corner of the 338 structure; stated this project will negatively impact ocean views; expressed her appreciation in the elimination of the restaurant, but addressed her concern with available parking in the area.
Senior Planner Robertson indicated there is no view protection ordinance in Hermosa Beach, only a maximum height limit.
Stephen Goodel, resident, stated his property is 3 feet south of the 338 building; he reminded everyone there is a pending lawsuit on the prescriptive easement; explained that the plan calls to cut into his carport and patio areas, which has been used by his family for the past 29 years and has existed since 1957; stated a substantial building is being proposed; questioned whether the additional 3 parking places on Pier Avenue will be used for loading and unloading; and he urged the City not to place metered parking at the 3 on-street spaces. He asked for clarification on the definition for sandwich shop.
Rob Seaman, resident, asked for a definition on a snack shop; expressed his concern that this 1,800-square-foot area could be used for a Subway sandwich business, noting that more parking will be necessary; asked for clarification on the size of the delivery trucks; expressed his belief Loma will be negatively impacted if delivery trucks are there often; and asked that patrons exit using a left turn only, turning onto Pier Avenue and not Loma Drive. He added he would not want the employees to park on Loma or Sunset or any of the nearby residential streets.
Director Blumenfeld explained that a snack shop is distinguished from a restaurant by its location, size and other mitigating factors, such as limited service area relative to gross floor area; that if a business has a very small service area, it would be more like a retail use; and have limited seating capacity.
Commissioner Perrotti noted for Mr. Seaman that Condition No. 8 mentions if the allocation of uses change, that it has to come back for Planning Commission review and approval; and that Item 9 indicates the applicant has to apply to the Planning Commission for this snack shop use, which will be reviewed at a subsequent meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this project is approved with a shared parking analysis, so the conditions of approval set out that the uses cannot change; he noted it’s very explicit, that the amount of footage for retail use, office, or snack shop is identified; and noted that if the uses ever change, then the building is in violation of its Parking Plan and the matter can be brought up for Planning Commission review.
Mr. Seaman noted his concern a snack shop could morph into a Subway or Starbucks and that the traffic and parking problems would be generated from those businesses; and he requested that a snack shop also not be permitted on this site.
Robert Hoffman, resident, stated that the project is 25 yards from his property; urged the City to specify those 3 additional parking spaces to be a loading/unloading zone; stated it needs a designated area for this activity, noting it currently is a safety problem; expressed his belief that the rear height of the project will be too high for this area, noting that most of the buildings are one story in this area.
Patricia Howsler, resident, thanked the Planning Commissioners for their efforts in this City; noted her appreciation of the applicant for deleting the restaurant plans; and stated that the loading zone is needed in the front for deliveries during the day, but suggested using these stalls for parking in the evening. She addressed her concern with the parking structure and how it will function after the close of business, believing noisy bar patrons will be improperly using this parking; and questioned if anyone will be monitoring the after-hour activities with the parking structure.
Dave Buckland, resident, representing Hermosa Beach Art Walk, Inc., board of directors, noted support for this project, believing this project will jumpstart the revitalization of Upper Pier Avenue and believe this beautiful plaza will do just that, motivate other retailers and property owners to make improvements to their properties. He pointed out that Upper Pier Avenue is a major gateway to the beach; and stated the City should support projects that make a positive change to the main street where guests arrive. He stated the additional businesses will cause a synergy effect that will bring additional customers to the area; and she mentioned that as far as parking during most weekdays, believe there is adequate parking spaces.
Carla Merryman, representing the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, expressed that groups support of this project; stated that the applicant has scaled down the uses, deleting the restaurants.
Mr. Lindquist noted for Commissioner Perrotti that they do not currently have a snack shop tenant in mind.
Addressing Vice-Chairman Allen’s comment concerning the right-turn-only sign, Mr. Lindquist stated that is a wise suggestion.
Commissioner Pizer reiterated his concern for the security of the parking lot.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Condition No. 5 sets out the Commission will review the operation efficiency of parking operations 6 months after occupancy of the building and at that time, if the owner wants to explore using the parking for other service than the required parking for the building (if it turns out there is surplus parking available during off-peak periods), then the Commission could consider that; and the Parking Plan could include security for the parking.
Commissioner Pizer stated they should be leaving a lot open where one can’t find parking, an important issue, and that it should be a consideration in any of these new projects where they have onsite parking.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could add the words “controlled access,” “gate,” “attendant,” for example, if they want to further secure the parking onsite after hours.
Al Marco, applicant and resident, stated this project will have an airy feel; noted he has widened the street from 20 feet to 40 feet on Loma; that they will be providing an extra tandem space; and he thanked staff for their supportive guidance.
Mr. Marco noted for Commissioner Pizer that he anticipates unloading of supplies approximately once or twice a week, with a short period of time in which to unload these supplies; stated that the deliveries are usually made in the morning.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Public Works Department may want to see metered parking in the street; and pointed out the audience member’s suggestion to have a loading zone in the day, but to allow parking during the evening hours.
Commissioner Pizer stated this is a good project, but indicated his interest in reviewing the parking 6 months after occupancy.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Planning Commission may wish to review the parking management plan.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for Planning Commission review of the Parking Plan; stated that security issues should be included.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for this project, pointing out the applicant has altered the plans per the residents’ and the Planning Commission’s concerns.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out the applicant has chosen to change the type of uses, noting that eliminating the restaurant requires less parking; and that they’re now able to meet their parking requirements. He also highlighted the applicant’s modifications per the suggestions by the nearby residents and the Planning Commission; he suggested that in Section 3, describing the landscape, some language be included for pervious paving or other material that will allow for more ground water discharge, particularly in the rear; and to add the parking management plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in addition to the Community Development Director.
The Commission indicated its desire to see security addressed in the parking management plan.
Vice-Chairman Allen asked that a motion include a right-hand turn only sign leaving Loma and for Public Works to review the loading zone plans.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE 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; to modify the resolution that paragraph 3, add 3D to include language concerning requiring pervious paving or other material that will allow ground water discharge in the rear; paragraph 5, add that the parking management plan will be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission in addition to the Community Development Director; add Condition No. 23, that there be a right turn only exiting the parking garage; and Item 24, that the Commission recommend the Public Works consider a loading zone for the front of the building. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to return with a resolution for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff initiated this CUP amendment based upon a complaint by one of the neighboring property owners; and explained that the original resolution was approved in 1991 for 3 businesses: German Motors, Asenka’s Auto Center, and Les Frame. He noted that the CUP contains standard conditions of approval for an auto use; that based upon the complaint, staff looked at the following issues: parking spaces on the lot that were not properly striped and marked, 5th Street being used for spillover parking, no on-street parking for employees, open past 6:00 P.M., autos being serviced in the lot longer than 15 minutes, vehicles being stored past 72 hours, and display of unpermitted banners. He noted staff is in agreement with the complainant’s assertions, noting that all of these conditions were witnessed; and advised that staff met with the adjacent business owners who indicated their interest in complying with the conditions. He noted that one of the major issues is the 72-hour limitation on vehicles remaining on the lot; stated that arguably, if one has a major auto repair, it could conceivably take more than 72 hours to complete a repair; advised that staff conducted a survey of similar CUP’s in the City and found wide variations, some 72 hours, some longer, some unspecified; and noted that the owners have expressed an interest in a 90-day limit. He stated that the CUP conditions also include issues about not doing repair work with the car hood open for more than 15 minutes and not doing vehicle washing or detailing on the lot. He explained that staff would like to eliminate the provision against test driving on local streets, noting it is an illegal condition. He advised that staff believes the 72-hour limitation is not long enough; expressed staff’s belief the auto vehicle washing and detailing on the lot isn’t necessarily a problem, noting the owner chooses to do that because it is out-sourced. He pointed out that the recommendations are set out in the proposed CUP amendment in staff’s report, but that staff is seeking direction regarding the 72-hour limitation.
Vice-Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Andy Fisher, Vice-President of German Motors, asked to revise the 72-hour limitation, believing it is unreasonable to complete work on all the vehicles in that timeframe; stated that on the average, they service approximately 100 to 150 cars a month; and that out of those vehicles, many require major repair that can last from 6 to 12 weeks, noting they often order hard to find parts. He also added that they sometimes will hold on to a car until they receive payment for the repairs; pointed out that they try to turn the cars around as quickly as possible so they can be paid for their service; and advised that the detailing of cars is done for auto repair patrons only. He explained that their drain is directly connected into a sewer line that runs down 5th Street; advised that they continuously monitor customer and employee parking on 5th Street; and stated that in some cases, some customers will park on the street, but noted that once they determine a customer has parked on the street, they immediately direct them to park on the lot. He noted that the entire parking lot was repaved and restriped to conform with their CUP; and stated that sometimes they do go over the 6:00 P.M. time limit to get the cars completed for the waiting customers.
Asenka Nitzow, owner of Asenka’s Auto Centre, stated that she had never received any complaints regarding her business operations; advised that sometimes she has trouble finding vintage parts for some of the cars being repaired, noting it oftentimes takes more time than the 72-hour limit; and stated that sometimes they have to keep the cars until they receive payment. She added that sometimes there is a need to work on the cars for a few minutes after 6:00 P.M. She mentioned that when she is on vacation, she parks her cars on this lot; and she stated she tries to be a good neighbor.
Beau Rutherford, resident across the street and two lots down from this property, stated his only interest is to see these business follow the conditions of the CUP; stated that the overflow parking on the street is having a negative impact upon the residents; noted that 3 cars on this lot have been there for over a year; and advised that because the lot is full, the employees have been parking on the street. He expressed his belief 5 working days is a reasonable time to get the cars off the lot. He added that there should not be any outdoor activities; advised that the auto detailers are taking up parking spaces and causing overflow parking on the street; and he reiterated that this residential neighborhood is being impacted by the business activities.
Carl Newman, resident, stated that the Fishers have worked on his car for years and stated that they do try their best to get the customers to park on the lot and to be considerate of the neighbors; and added that they work on many classic cars that require hard to find parts.
Bill Hedrick, resident, questioned if this CUP allows for the sale of vehicles from this site.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is auto service only.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld noted the primary issues are the duration of allowing cars to stay on the property; explained that the City wants to aggressively enforce spillover parking in the neighborhood; and clarified that a business can be open past 6:00 P.M., that it just can’t be doing auto repair after 6:00 P.M.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that it is understandable some cars must remain on the lot until hard to find parts are received.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for a 90-day limit for storing vehicles, believing no business would delay repair and payment unnecessarily; and pointed out that the survey indicates a number of repair businesses are permitted to work on cars up to 7:00 P.M., questioning if 6:00 P.M. is too restrictive for this business.
Commissioner Pizer noted his opposition to limiting storage times, stating payment for services should be good enough incentive to getting the cars off the lot; and he reiterated his opposition to limiting lot storage as long as there is no spill-over parking.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Allen that the owners are in agreement with the 5 amendments, but that the complaining party is not in agreement with all 5 amendments; and he advised that if there are regular problems, the City will ticket the repeated CUP violations.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that street parking must be avoided by these businesses.
Commissioner Kersenboom pointed out those cars improperly parked on the street will be ticketed.
It was the consensus of the Commission to removed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2; to keep Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as written; and to change the operating hours to 7:00 P.M. The Commission noted its support for ticketing parking violators.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
The meeting was recessed at 11:01 P.M. and reconvened at 11:05 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 19, 2006 meeting.
Vice-Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this matter to the September 19, 2006 meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 19, 2006 meeting.
Vice-Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this matter to the September 19, 2006 meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is a 30’ x 70’ small lot located in the Shakespeare tract that has recently been the subject of two variances; stated that a variance was granted by the City Council on appeal on October 12, 2004, for open space and lot coverage and to allow a greater than 100-percent increase in valuation while maintaining an existing nonconforming front yard setback of zero feet; noted that when construction did not proceed in accordance with those plans (as the building demolished more than the project allowed), the project was stopped; and advised that another variance was granted by the Planning Commission in December 2005, approving a greater increase in valuation, with the existing foundation and wall within the front yard area as the only portions of the structure to be retained. He stated that the project construction has again proceeded in a manner inconsistent with the plans, noting that the walls and floor framing located in the front yard have been completely removed with only the foundation walls remaining; and advised that the project is no longer an addition or remodel but is essentially a new structure. He noted that in order to proceed in accordance with the approved plans, another variance is needed to allow the complete reconstruction of the first story portion of the structure that encroaches into the front yard setback area. He stated the project is otherwise the same, resulting in a 2,224-square-foot house. He advised that the applicants indicate they never intended to remove the entire wall and that it was a misunderstanding by the builder; and that the applicant also argues that the findings previously made by the Planning Commission and City Council should apply to this modified request because the project is pretty much the same; and stated the applicant notes that several other older homes on the block have similar nonconforming conditions in their front yards.
Senior Planner Robertson highlighted the findings necessary in order to grant a variance, as noted in staff report; stated that Finding Nos. 3 and 4 can easily be made because of the neighboring properties having similar nonconforming setbacks. With respect to Finding No. 1, this finding was made previously and is still generally applicable because the lot is considered a small lot on a walk street with the only garage access off the narrow 10-foot wide alley at the rear of the property; and that because the garage access is limited to the rear of the property, the requirement that 60 percent of the usable open space be located adjacent to primary living areas cannot be provided adjacent to primary living areas on the ground floor without significantly reducing the buildable area of the project. He stated this condition exists for all the lots on this block, and these small lots are already recognized in the code and given exceptions already, so the circumstances are different now that the applicant is asking for this finding to be made for a brand new project; and, in fact, the recent amendments to the code allow the front yard area to count as open space, meaning that if the part of the home that encroaches in the front yard is not reconstructed, it would solve both the setback and open space issues for this property. He stated that the owner argues if he is required to set back his building in the front by 7 feet, that he will have to rework his building plans and reduce the floor area by 123 square feet, believing this to be a hardship in building a reasonably sized structure.
With regard to the other finding exercising property rights possessed by other properties in the neighborhood, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the variance for open space and lot coverage were previously found to be necessary for this dwelling to maintain the primary living area on the ground floor without also being forced to significantly reduce the building footprint and provide parking, which is not currently provided; also it was found that the combined conditions of this small lot and narrow rear alley are an unusual hardship in providing open space directly accessible to the primary living area, yet contiguous with the walk street, so it was felt this property right was denied that other similar walk street properties enjoyed; however, he noted this finding was related to another project that was an addition and remodel and now this has essentially become a new project and is questionable whether this finding still applies under these circumstances. He stated the applicant is now asking to build a new project that encroaches into the front yard rather than maintaining a portion of the existing structure, which is not a right possessed by other properties in the vicinity that might also want to build new structures. He stated the plans can be revised which will result in a smaller front living room with no encroachment into the front yard and still allow for the construction of a decent sized home and resolve the open space issue.
Director Blumenfeld, in response to Commissioner Kersenboom’s inquiry, stated a lot of the homes on this block protrude into the front setback, 72 percent intrude into the front yard setback; and that on the adjoining street, 78 percent protrude into the setback; and added that many of these properties have nonconforming conditions.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated he believes the contractor’s laborers mistakenly tore this wall down and he pointed out that this had previously been granted for the same footprint that exists.
Vice-Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Tom Zondiros, applicant, stated that the entire foundation is still present; explained that everyone was warned not to remove that wall, but stated that due to some miscommunication, the wall was taken down. He added that some of this wall had to come down in order to comply with the new structural engineering requirements.
Director Blumenfeld explained there are various ways the design could have been approached to comply with the new structural engineering requirements; and noted that the design solution should have been driven by the intent to leave the walls up per the variance approval.
Commissioner Kersenboom mentioned he would have opposed this request had the foundations been removed.
Kerry Wallace, resident, stated they have very small lots in this area and that the extra space is a necessity for those who live there; stated it is very unfortunate the builder took down the wall after all the work they have gone through; and stated as a neighbor, she is in support of the applicant’s request.
Bill Hedrick, resident, noted his support for the applicant’s request; and stated the improvements will benefit the area.
Bert Jones, resident, noted his support for the applicant’s request, believing it was not the intent of the applicant to take down the wall.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated it would be hard to prove the intent on leaving the wall up or taking it down, and he questioned how would one define the intent issue.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the foundations have not changed, the footprint is the same, the house will be the same; and noted his belief making the house smaller will be a hardship.
Commissioner Perrotti noted for the record that two letters in opposition were received. He stated the same type structure is going to be built as was previously approved, and that reducing the size of the building would be a hardship for the owners; and stated because this is a small lot, he could make the finding there are exceptional circumstances.
Vice-Chairman Allen mentioned that the red tagging process and delay is punitive and noted his does not believe a developer would intentionally manipulate the system and throw it up to chance.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE VAR 06-3 -- Variance to allow a zero-foot front yard setback rather than the required seven feet at 311 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated this project is a through lot with frontage on Ava Avenue; noted that the property is located within the R-1 zone with a height limit of 25 feet; explained that the lot, like others on this block, slope substantially up from Ardmore up to Ava, and that in this case, the grade change is 10 feet. He advised that the applicant is nearing completion of a new home on this property for which the building height was determined based on a uniform slope calculation; and explained that when the building was surveyed after the roof framing was completed to verify compliance with the height limit, the structure was found to be over the height limit. He stated the grade used for the height measurement is based on the surveyed elevation points at the property corners; and advised that the method for determining building height allows for consideration of other points along the property line for lots with convex contours. He noted that the grade of a lot may be based on alternate points along the property line; and advised that while the Commission has typically approved convex slopes where the condition is fairly obvious, the ordinance does not preclude use of this section for a situation where the convex condition is more subtle. He noted that the applicant is requesting consideration of alternate points along both the north and south property lines where the survey and topographic profile do show there is a slight convex condition toward the westerly portion of the property; noted that the actual property grade compared with the uniform sloping grade shows a differential of a maximum 9 inches where the convex condition exists; and that staff feels the applicant’s request is reasonable, even though it will be a slight adjustment. He added this same condition appears on the neighboring property to the south; stated that preliminary calculations of building height is recalculated based on the convex slope, that the building will probably still be over height, but by a lesser degree, and will give the applicant more feasible and affordable options to correct the over height condition.
Paul Krauss, applicant, explained he had 6 critical points on the structure, noting that 3 of those passed; stated it is his intention to be in full compliance and to make the corrections. He expressed his belief there is a convex condition on this property.
It was the consensus of the Commission to determine this is a convex lot.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to October 26, 2007.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting an extension for each of their permits.
It was the consensus of the Commission to extend the expiration date by one year, to October 26, 2007.
-
STAFF ITEMS
None
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.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 August 15, 2006.
| Kent Allen, Vice-Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |