|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Allen |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner |
Oral / Written Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of of September 19, 2006 minutes.
MOTION to APPROVE the September 19, 2006 Minutes. Motion unanimously carried.
-
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 06-26 approving a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 66165 for a three-lot subdivision at 590 18th Street and 1775 and 1779 Valley Drive.
MOTION to APPROVE Resolution No. P.C. 06-26. Motion unanimously carried.
-
HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to set the matter for revocation/modification hearing.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the fire and police departments have responded to calls in connection with fights and public intoxication, under-aged serving and over-crowding at this business, which is a violation of the Building, Fire and Penal Codes; explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission, when there is cause, to either revoke or modify a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and noted the grounds for doing so are approval obtained by fraud, a use which is not being exercised as approved, a use that ceases to exist and suspended for a year, where a permit has been exercised contrary to the terms of the provisions of the CUP or where there are violations of statute, ordinance or law, or where the use was granted and exercised as to be detrimental to public health or constitute a nuisance. He noted that attached to staff report is a record of those callouts over the last 6 months, and stated these callouts have clearly created a nuisance and as a result, the Planning Commission has authority to recall the CUP for review. Based on the record before the Commission this evening and the testimony of the Police Department, staff is recommending that the Commission set the matter for review at the next Planning Commission meeting. He advised that City staff and Police Department staff met with the business owner.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if this business is for sale.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the business sale came to light with the Police Department’s notification about a proposed change of license from a restaurant to a lounge.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that staff report indicates there is amplified live entertainment, but addressed his concern that no acoustical study was conducted to comply with the CUP; stated that live entertainment has been at this facility for a number of years; and questioned what the protocol is for this study, does it have to be prepared prior to the business having the live entertainment; and expressed his belief this study should be been done prior to providing live entertainment.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his concern that someone should have halted the live entertainment until an acoustical study was submitted.
Director Blumenfeld explained that when a CUP is issued and a new business is established and makes tenant improvements ensuring CUP compliance is generally tied to issuance of the occupancy permit. However an existing use may implement some conditions like live entertainment at any time and may not notify staff when it does. This apparently happened with the prior business operation, which started offering live entertainment without the required city approval or an acoustical study. It is incumbent upon the owner to clear this condition before offering live entertainment.
Director Blumenfeld indicated that generally the city responds to code enforcement complaints, and had not received any for the prior business operations. He stated the owner should have followed up on providing the required study, and added that the condition can be redrafted to specifically indicate it is incumbent upon the owner to supply the necessary study prior to operating the business.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned when the new ownership change takes place.
Director Blumenfeld noted his understanding the business is still for sale.
In response to Commissioner Hoffman’s inquiry regarding the Fire Chief’s letter with respect to dancers, Director Blumenfeld explained that zoning doesn’t regulate it nor does the CUP; noted that the Planning Commission can establish conditions that prohibit such live entertainment or only allow live entertainment specified in the CUP.
Police Chief Gregg Saveli stated this issue came to his attention through Police Lt. Lance Herd’s work at the Police Department; noted that Police Lt. Herd informed him of the transfer of ownership request for this business, noting it is currently in escrow; and stated that the owner is waiting for Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) approval for the transfer of ownership of this business. He stated this originally started out as a Marie Calendars and is now a nightclub and this is the way the new owner plans to operate it, as a nightclub. He stated Police Lt. Herd advised him of all the complaints/issues prior to his new position with this police department; and noted that since his arrival as the new police chief, he has seen a couple calls for improper use of the business and complaints of excessive noise being heard by the neighbors. He pointed out that it’s not the music that is the nuisance, it’s the customers coming and going from this business that are causing the majority of the noise complaints. He advised that they’re using different promoters to bring in different groups for live entertainment; stated that the Police Department can police the problems with under-aged drinking and make recommendations to ABC; but expressed his belief the CUP needs to be firmed up. He advised that they did meet with the owners; that there has been some management issues they’re trying to overcome; and noted that the Police Department met with ABC, which will take into consideration the City’s input in making its decision.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the Police Department believes parking lot security is necessary.
Police Lt. Heard indicated that parking lot security would be preferable, noting that security had been provided with prior businesses at this site and that a fewer number of disturbance calls were made when security was provided in the parking lot. He added that an earlier business had a parking lot attendant who controlled access, that there was a constant presence there; advised that the police officers would patrol nightly and make contact with those attendants; and stated there were no significant issues at that time. He stated that since there no longer are any attendants, this area is starting to experience problems.
Police Captain Saveli explained that the most recent complaints regarding the parking lot involved the partitioning off of a portion of the parking lot, making it into a patio for an art event; noted there were people in an enclosed area behind the business but in the parking lot; and that the sound from that activity was traveling into the neighborhood. He noted the art event was sponsored by this business; that their patrons would view the art exhibit, with patrons going outside with their alcohol, leaving the building to view this art; and noted they were advised to keep the alcohol inside the building. He added they did not consult with the City or the Police Department to block off that private parking lot; and stated the Police Department’s concern was the blockage of fire exits.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this activity is a clear violation of the CUP, that no outdoor activity is authorized except as specified in the CUP.
Chairman Allen pointed out that no representative of this establishment was present this evening.
Commissioner Perrotti mentioned that he and Commissioner Pizer were on the Planning Commission in 1997 when this was approved; stated at that point, the concept of the operation was to be an upscale restaurant; and that the diners of the restaurant would be able to dine and then dance later in the evening, that it was not supposed to be a disco. He noted the activities of this business changed when new owners came aboard; observed that this restaurant has not operated in that manner since last winter; and advised that when the Planning Commission was reviewing this business, it figured that most of the noise would go to the front, near the tennis court, but stated it obviously is creating some problems in the parking lot, which will have to be addressed. He noted his concern that some of the 20 incidents in staff report occurred on weekdays. He mentioned that on Thursday nights, this establishment offers salsa dance classes/instructions, which is well attended; he reiterated his concern with the lack of providing an acoustical study prior to live entertainment and with the lack of security in the parking lot; and stated this issue should be set up for revocation or modification of the CUP.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to set this matter up for a revocation/modification hearing. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Director Blumenfeld advised that this matter will be publicly noticed and returned to the next Planning Commission meeting; and noted that staff will encourage the owner to appear.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the April 17, 2007 meeting as requested by the applicant and re-notice the public hearing.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to April 17, 2007 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. Motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated this project is located at 1429 Hermosa Avenue; that the building is comprised of office, snack shop, and restaurant use; that the office occupies approximately 73 percent of the building; that the snack shop occupies approximately 8 percent of the building; and that the restaurant occupies approximately 19 percent of the building. He noted that the project as proposed will be parked with 34 parking spaces and that 7 parking spaces are proposed in lieu, noting this is based on a shared parking analysis prepared by the applicant’s parking consultant. He explained that the shared parking analysis is a way to analyze parking overtime specific to the proposed uses within a building and its use overtime; pointed out that on Tables 11.2 and 11.3 in the shared parking analysis, it shows that on weekdays, the restaurant parking demand peaks between 7:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M.; that the snack shop parking demand will peak between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and again in the evening at 9:00 P.M.; that the office parking demand peaks from 9:00 A.M. through 4:00 P.M.; and that the highest shared parking analysis is 41 spaces based on the cumulative number of spaces that are required to park those various uses. He noted there are 27 spaces proposed in the below-grade garage and 7 spaces located off 15th Court; and that because of the shared parking demand, there is a 7-space deficiency overall based on the shared parking analysis. He explained that on the weekends, the shared parking situation shifts, that the restaurant tends to have the higher peak than the office; and that the deficiency is 2 to 3 spaces, but overall, there is a deficit of 7 parking spaces based on the shared parking analysis.
Director Blumenfeld reminded the Commission that the City increased the in-lieu parking fees to $28,900 per space, which represents the actual cost to construct structured parking; and that based on this allocation, these in-lieu fees would total $199,500 for this project. He noted that other than the parking, which is provided under the shared parking analysis and through in-lieu parking, the project otherwise meets the requirements of the C-2 zone; that it complies with the 30-foot height limit; that it provides a 5-foot setback of the residential abutting to the west, with a landscape screen provided at that setback; and that it meets all the basic zoning requirements and the goals and objectives for Downtown as being a pedestrian center. He mentioned that the building has open courts, common areas, and attractive design which encourages a pedestrian orientation and downtown goals consistent with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan. He mentioned this project also has to be approved by the Coastal Commission.
Director Blumenfeld noted the traffic report indicates expected trip generation is negligible, with 38 extra trips in the A.M. and 23 extra trips in the P.M.; and that the City’s traffic engineer indicates there is a small effect on traffic. He stated the applicant is requesting that in addition to the in-lieu parking spaces, the Commission should consider what constitutes the gross floor area under the Parking Ordinance; advised that the Zoning Ordinance defines gross floor area for parking purposes to exclude open courts, corridors and open stairways; that the applicant is requesting the Commission’s consideration of these open areas because of the unique design of the building; and that the applicant is also asking the Commission to consider a lobby area to be one of these open areas and not part of the overall programming for the building. He noted this has repercussions for the parking and that it needs careful consideration. He noted that because the applicant is requesting outdoor dining, given the proximity of the business to residential on the west, staff recommends, if the Commission approves this project, that the outdoor dining be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and that there be prohibitions on speakers and televisions in the outdoor dining area. He noted that staff believes the proposed use is fitting for the area; that it is consistent with Council’s goals for providing increased commercial and retail uses in the Downtown area; and advised that any restaurant use proposed in this building would have to process a separate CUP and obtain Planning Commission approval.
With regard to the common area, Commissioner Hoffman noted his understanding the discussion of the calculations are all based on the assumption that the Planning Commission would approve that but not counting the lobby area.
Referring to Page 54 of the Parking Study, Commissioner Perrotti noted that the applicant indicates during the weekdays, the restaurant will be open from 5:00 P.M. to midnight and from 10:00 A.M. to midnight on weekends; but noted that staff report suggests conditions on Item 3, operating hours of 5:00 P.M. to midnight, questioning if this would affect the shared parking concept.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his understanding the restaurant will have a separate hearing on its CUP and questioned if the snack shop would also have its own hearing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the snack shop would also require Planning Commission approval because in this case, there is outdoor dining and because the Planning Commission needs to confirm whether the proposed use qualifies as a snack shop.
Referring to Page 2 of the Parking Plan, Commissioner Perrotti stated this indicates no live entertainment after 10:00 P.M., questioning if this is an issue for this evening’s discussion.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission is not approving a specific restaurant for this location and that specific operating conditions for a restaurant will be developed when a tenant applies for a discretionary permit.
Referring to Page 7, No. 5 of staff report which relates to discussion about different plans for a future parking structure, Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the City has in place plans for the parking structure that will accommodate the in-lieu parking fees.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the in-lieu parking fees are intended to pay for future parking; that the City, under its Coastal permit, is obligated to build that parking structure after 100 in-lieu parking spaces have been purchased. He advised that the City has acquired property in the civic center to eventually build future parking.
Chairman Allen questioned how the Commission is to deal this evening with a restaurant use and the serving of beer and wine at this location.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Allen that this needs to be a business that the Commission is approving a business allocation to parking; that the restaurant issue will be dealt with at a later time; when a restaurant tenant files a discretionary permit application.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Applicant Mike Flaherty provided a power point presentation of this proposal; stated that they have worked hard to meet the goals/objectives for the Downtown area; stated that the existing site was occupied by Classic Burger and a donut shop; and expressed his belief this is an ideal project to help revitalize this area. He stated there is strong demand for office space/use in the Downtown area; noted that many people will be able to walk to this area if they have offices in this building; stated that in the daytime, there is adequate parking; and that there also is adequate parking during the daytime hours along Hermosa Avenue. He noted they are proposing 31 upscale offices; stated the restaurant will serve dinner only in the evening; explained that the courtyard element will be shared by pedestrians, the snack shop, the restaurant, and the office uses; and noted there is a dedicated and secured subterranean parking garage, one of a few sites in the Downtown area that will have its own dedicated parking structure. He stated the peak parking demand is during the weekdays, from 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.; pointed out that the shared parking analysis/parking study is a worst case scenario that was conducted in August; and he expressed his belief this building will serve sole business users, such as architects, financial advisors, attorneys, etc., with one to two employees. He noted that the employees and customers will need to purchase a parking pass to park a block and a half from the existing parking structure and that on-street parking will be available. He stated that with the peak parking demand at 10:00 A.M., there will be adequate parking; and stated that on 2 levels of the parking structure, 50 percent of the parking spaces are available at the peak demand. He stated he understands the concerns of a restaurant becoming a bar, but expressed his belief a club or bar would not succeed at this location; and advised that a quality restaurant will be replacing an existing restaurant use. He clarified the weekend hours of operation are being requested at 8:00 A.M., not 10:00 A.M., noting there is adequate parking in the structure; stated they are proposing fewer outdoor seating than what currently exists for outdoor seating; noted they will comply with the restrictions for restaurants; that it will not be a club; pointed out that the restaurant has adequate parking; and that it’s during the peak time of the day when the offices are open for business.
Susana Dickenson, project architect, stated they have designed this structure for the long-term; noted they were challenged with a design to fit in this specific location; and with the aid of slides, she walked the Planning Commission through the project design. She stated that because there is a lot of residential around this site, the scale of the project was taken into consideration; noted that the street surrounding this site is primarily pedestrian oriented; explained that the implementation of the courtyard is an opportunity to join the businesses; that the building façade is modulated to provide more options with balconies and private spaces and the enjoyment of courtyards; and stated the small offices allow natural light and ventilation to each unit.
Larry Peha, project architect, stated this site is the first substantial commercial project coming from the north; noted that a number of designs have been considered for this site; explained that the proposed design captures the contemporary beach style; and that the design breaks up masses, allowing for the individual units to be easily viewed and limits the scale of this project. He stated this use is needed in the Downtown area; noted that during the weekdays, it is quiet in this area and that more people are needed in this area during the day to help revitalize this area; and stated that parking is always available in this area during the day hours. He stated there are no intentions for a club in this project; that the restaurant is expected to generate a quiet crowd for a good evening meal; and expressed his belief this building is a reflection of the goals set out for this area.
Commissioner Pizer commended the project design team for an excellent building renovation.
Applicant Mike Flaherty expressed his belief this project will help revitalize the Downtown area; that it will help to increase revenues for some of the existing businesses in this area; and he mentioned the second and third floors have a large amount of open space.
Carla Merryman, Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, representing the Executive Board, advised that the Board unanimously approves of this proposal; stated this area has a low traffic volume; and noted this area needs this use to help revitalize this area.
Roy Casey, 15th Street resident, noted his approval with the proposal; stated he is concerned with having adequate parking and controlling the traffic jams; and advised that after 5:00 P.M., there is no parking in this area. He noted the consensus of the neighbors is the restaurant and snack shop will greatly reduce parking availability; addressed his concern with delivery trucks using 15th Street; and urged the City to regulate delivery activities. He stated that parking is critically short in the evenings from Thursdays to Sundays; and expressed his belief the employees and clients of these office uses should be required to have a parking permit, believing the customers of these businesses will greatly impact parking availability during the daytime hours. He suggested that the entrance to the parking structure should be moved so it does not impact traffic flow on 15th Street.
Mr. Deshield, resident, expressed his belief another restaurant such as Marie Calendars or a pancake house is not needed in the City; stated there is no allocation for traffic flow and truck deliveries; and expressed his belief no large truck will be able to stop and serve all these businesses if the restaurant is permitted.
Nelvia Stingley, 15th Street resident, stated this area is not set up for heavy traffic; suggested that the parking entrance be moved to the alley; expressed her concern that the vehicle lights will negatively impact her home; stated that parking on 15th Street is in short supply; and addressed her concern with the smooth flow of traffic and emergency vehicles utilizing 15th and 22nd Streets. She urged the City not to allow this use to have amplified music that will be heard by the residents; and stated the scale is too large for this small street.
Ron Miller, resident, urged the City not to allow live entertainment, stating the City needs to be consistent with its decision making.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out there is no current request for live entertainment.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief the hours should be limited to 11:00 P.M. on the weekends; and suggested that if the applicant cannot market the restaurant with these earlier hours, that they be permitted to have more offices.
Gene Shook, 1601 PCH, expressed his belief this applicant has done a wonderful job in creating something that doesn’t have a dense feel to it; stated that he is in favor of this proposal; and noted that people utilizing this building will be able to walk to this area. He stated that because the restaurant use has a very small footprint, it won’t have a large impact upon this area.
Don Sawyer, resident, noted his support for this project and the need to create a change in this area to generate more revenue for the existing businesses; and stated he does not have any problem with parking in this area during the daytime hours.
Tiffany Moniker, local business owner, stated that her business is next door to this site; expressed her opposition to allowing any restaurants or bars in this area; addressed her concern with the limited parking in this area; and stated this is not a business area, that it’s a retail area which needs more retail businesses. She urged the City to consider the existing businesses in this area when reviewing future projects.
Chris Cordova, resident, noted his support for this project.
Ralph Toliver, resident, stated this project is a good asset for the City.
Helen Lechner, representative of the church located within 300 feet of this site, noted their support for this project, believing it is a good asset for the area; expressed her belief it will enhance property values in this area; and stated she does not believe a restaurant will be a good fit for this site.
Jennifer, resident and business owner, noted her excitement and support of this project; urged the applicant to focus more on food for a restaurant rather than music and alcohol service; and stated it would be reasonable for the restaurant to close at 10:00 P.M. She mentioned that she rarely experiences parking difficulty in this area.
Voc Rigorian, business owner in Hermosa Beach, stated he rarely has parking difficulties in the day, noting they validate their customers for the parking structure; and noted his support for a restaurant.
Greg Morro, resident and local business owner, stated he intends to purchase one of the office condos so he can walk to work; and noted his support for the restaurant.
John Pacolas, previous owner of the donut shop and hamburger stand and Hermosa Beach resident, stated that he lives across the street from this project; noted his support for this project; and advised that he never experienced any parking problems during the day.
Chris Alexander, resident, urged the City to be forward thinking in their planning for the future, expressing his belief this project will impact the parking and traffic in this area and that newer and bigger homes will also impact traffic and parking in this area.
Susan Shower, resident, expressed her concern with the overlap in shared parking, questioning who will be responsible for enforcement and towing away of vehicles.
Director Blumenfeld stated there is no assigned parking.
Chris Kerras, resident, noted his support for this project.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned how the applicant proposes to address delivery truck activities.
Mr. Peha noted that he lives in this area and that the trucks currently servicing the businesses in this area usually park on 14th Street for approximately 10 minutes; stated that in the daytime, there is no traffic on Hermosa Avenue; and stated that 15th Court could be another option for deliveries.
Director Blumenfeld reiterated that live entertainment is not part of this application nor is a restaurant, except as related to parking the project.
Clare Yeager, traffic engineer representative, stated that deliveries could be scheduled in staggering hours; and noted that single unit 30-foot trucks could easily be accommodated in this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his understanding the Planning Commission does not have the ability to regulate parking fees.
Director Blumenfeld explained that if the use creates a nuisance effect in the neighborhood, the City does have the ability to regulate the cost of parking.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned what signage would be permitted on the building, asking if it would be able to go up to the top of the second floor; and noted his concern with signage impacts to the residential area.
Director Blumenfeld stated that code allows signage to be placed up to the top of the second floor level and noted the Planning Commission can request a sign plan and require consistency in the overall signage program.
Responding to Chairman Allen’s request for clarification in not considering a restaurant this evening, Director Blumenfeld explained that the issue goes exclusively to parking, that the hours of operation go to how the building is parked.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for a signage plan; and noted his support for Condition No. 3, the restaurant shall be open from 5:00 P.M. and close every day no later than midnight.
Commissioner Hoffman noted that in his experience, daytime parking is not a major issue at this time; stated this is an attractive building with a use that is exactly what the City should be striving for, more daytime resident friendly businesses in this area; stated this will be an asset to the Downtown area; and noted his support for this project with assurances for opportunities to regulate some of these uses.
Commissioner Kersenboom concurred with Commissioner Hoffman’s comments.
Commissioner Perrotti stated this is a good design; suggested adding a condition that the storage, lobby and locker areas cannot be converted to offices without prior approval of the Planning Commission; that the parking operations plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission 6 months after operations; and that outside dining not be permitted, desiring to see some consistency with the conditions of approval for the Bottle Inn. He concurred that the big issue is parking throughout the City; expressed his belief that parking demands in the daytime will not impact the residents or existing businesses; stated that the parking structure will alleviate the parking problem; and stated a signage plan should be provided.
Chairman Allen stated he is not in favor of a restaurant, believing it will become another late evening bar.
MOTION Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, toAPPROVE the resolution; moved to add a condition that a signage plan be submitted; that the storage, lobby and locker areas cannot be converted to office use without prior Planning Commission approval; that the parking operations plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission 6 months after commencement of project operations; that the hours of restaurant operations be from 5:00 P.M. to midnight Monday through Friday; that the weekend hours be from 7:00 A.M. to midnight; that the condition for outdoor dining be consistent with the Bottle Inn; and that delivery times be staggered so as not to create a negative impact. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that the subject site is located on the north side of 21st Street, between Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Ardmore Avenue; stated the property has a General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential and is zoned SPA-5; that prior to 1985, the property was zoned to R-1 but was later rezoned to C-3 to accommodate a proposed hotel project in the mid-1980’s, which was never built; that in 1989, the property was one of several properties studied as part of the PCH Multi-Use Corridor Study; and that after consideration of maintaining a commercial designation for the property, the General Plan was changed from Multi-Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential in May 1989. He advised that in October 1989, City Council rezoned that property from C-3 to SPA-5 in order to implement the Medium Density General Plan change. He stated that the SPA-5 zone was established with three distinctive provisions, but otherwise, the SPA-5 zone is similar to the R-2; that the distinctive provisions of this zone are a 35-percent maximum of allowable lot coverage, a minimum of 3 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and a limit on the density to 8 units for the entire project site. He noted that under the R-2 standards, the site can be developed for up to 11 units; and stated these provisions were based on a concern of assuring compatibility in regard to density and building bulk with surrounding properties. He mentioned that the SPA provisions reflect similar provisions included in the SPA 3 and 4 zones, which are located on the corner of 1st Street and Ardmore Avenue; noted that both these properties were re-designated from other General Plan categories to Medium Density Residential at about the same time and were rezoned SPA with more restrictive standards in the R-2 zone, including lower than maximum density; and that for these two SPA’s, it was a 32-percent lot coverage, 3 parking spaces per unit, and 10-foot front setbacks off the street. He advised that projects were developed on these sites in 1991 with 10 units and another one with 11 units and because of the 32-percent lot coverage standard, they contain very moderately sized units, with approximately 1,600 square feet each and a substantial open space amenity, as each of those projects now contain a pool and adjacent sun decks. He noted the Planning Commission has expressed some interest in where this 35-percent lot coverage standard came from, and again, he noted it was to reflect these projects that were done on 1st Street and Ardmore Avenue.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant is requesting a text amendment to the 35-percent rule for the SPA-5 zone to increase the lot coverage to 65 percent; noted the applicant asserts that there are no existing neighborhood characteristics that justify a reduced lot coverage standard; and that the 65-percent coverage is more consistent with the development patterns in the surrounding area and with the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones which all have 65-percent lot coverage standards. He stated the applicant is also requesting consideration of development plans for an 8-unit condominium project, contingent upon the approval of the proposed amendment to the lot coverage requirement.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the proposed project consists of four buildings containing two dwelling units each with a basement and two stories above; noted that all the vehicular access to the buildings will be from 2 common driveways accessed from 21st Street; and stated that each unit has 4 bedrooms and 4.5 baths and each contains over 3,000 square feet. He noted that the parking is provided in and adjacent to basement level garages for each unit with direct access to the common driveways; and that the proposed driveway curb cuts will not result in any loss of on-street parking, as on-street parking is prohibited on the north side of 21st Street. He noted that the buildings are attractively designed in an eclectic Prairie style of architecture, with wood shingle siding and ledge stone veneer on the pilasters. He advised that the buildings as designed comply with the Zoning Ordinance with respect to height, setbacks, the proposed 65-percent lot coverage, and private open space requirements, and meets all the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage areas within the basement level garages; and that substantial landscaping is being provided. With respect to parking, he noted the applicant is proposing two enclosed parking spaces per unit, for an overall total of 16 parking spaces and an additional 4 complying guest parking spaces separately accessed from the common driveway adjacent to Unit Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8; and stated that all the plans provide for a total of 20 complying parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing 4 perpendicular range guest parking spaces in front of the garages of Unit Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 that do not comply with the explicit zoning requirements for turning radius or size of spaces; stated these spaces will require multiple turning maneuvers for their use and also blind access to the garages; and therefore noted staff’s interpretation is that these should not be included in the total parking calculation, resulting in a parking space deficiency of 4 parking spaces to the SPA-5 standard of 3 spaces per unit.
With respect to common open space being required at 100 square feet per unit for projects greater than 5 units, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant has provided approximately 1,600 square feet located in the center of the site, about 900 square feet being located in the center courtyard; and explained that this proposed common area at best is described as passive recreation area, as it does not provide any amenities other than landscaping, is somewhat narrow, and will be partially shaded by the buildings. Based on previous Planning Commission concerns with these larger projects, he noted this raises questions as to its functionality and consistency with the intent of the common open space requirements for projects with 5 units or more. In summary, he noted there are two significant issues with the project related to parking and open space: the project being short four parking spaces and the common open space being only a passive landscaped area. He stated that in the past, the Planning Commission has raised concerns on the utility of common open space also serving as primary passages to the dwelling units; and noted that this issue is also related to lot coverage requirement because if the lot coverage were lower, it would be much easier to provide a functional open space area. He noted that if this project is approved this evening, staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Hoffman that these are three separate lots and that the SPA-5 zone basically assumes it’s one development site.
Director Blumenfeld stated these lots will be merged as part of the project.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the lots west of this site are R-1A, the two after that are R-1, across the street is R-3, beyond that is R-3, and across to the west is R-1.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned what the history is of the intent for the 35-percent lot coverage, questioning if this was considered a transitional area between R-1 and the highway.
Senior Planner Robertson indicated the history is not clear, but the history notes this site is similar in size to SPA-3 and 4 sites, which also were being changed from other designations to a Medium Density designation; and stated that at the time, the City Council was trying to develop some development standards on these larger development sites that would not allow such a substantial development, to create more open space.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, stated the applicant believes the proposed project meets the objectives of the General Plan; expressed her belief it is hard to second guess what the City Council had in mind 20 years ago for this site; noted that the particular development that’s been cited as a similar development has no similarity to what is before the Planning Commission this evening, stating it’s isolated and is not influenced by the highway; and that the expectation in 1990 is totally different from what one might expect today in a reasonable, contemporary living environment. She expressed her belief the Commission should examine two major components. As noted in staff report, she indicates that one of the major goals of the SPA zone is to seek compatibility with the single-family residential neighborhood that abuts to the north and the other that exists to the west, as staff has pointed out, that appears to be one of the main goals of this Specific Plan zone, but also has a very important influence on how this is developed, what is happening just to the east; stated that the properties immediately adjacent to highway are commercial; and that it will be influenced by the highway whatever happens on that highway. She noted that in addition, there are two high density residential units/properties immediately adjacent on the north portion of the property; that across the street on the south side of 21st Street, there are over 120 apartment units; and that the whole width of this property is bordered on the south by high density residential, an important consideration when the Planning Commission evaluates what is appropriate for this site. As pointed out by one of the Planning Commissioners this evening, she indicated this site appears to serve as a buffer, helps to make a transition from the more intense highway use and the high density residential to the lower density to the west. She noted that when the property is built out, it will serve as a buffer and pose as a smooth integration as the intensity of uses diminishes as one proceeds west.
Ms. Srour stated that to address the requirements in the SPA zone, No. 1, the number of units - again, seeking compatibility with the residential uses - City Council limited the number of units here to 8; and that the General Plan designation here is Residential Medium Density, which allows 11 units on this site, but advised that the applicant set that aside, in an effort to establish some level of compatibility. She stated that if one compares the lot area for what they propose with the lot area calculation for the single- family area to the north, the proposal is very similar to that lot area calculation; and noted that what they have on the subject site is 2,700 square feet single family. She mentioned that the average lot size is one unit per 2,700 square feet, which is along the entire north border. She advised they are proposing one unit at 2,575 square feet, so the use of the property is very similar to the R-1 single-family immediately adjacent; and stated that as mentioned before, the standards of development, including height, setbacks, etc., all are similar to the R-2 standards for development, but this compatibility is further enhanced by the site layout and the aesthetics of this project.
With regard to other aesthetics of this project which addresses the compatibility issue, Ms. Srour stated that this reduced building height, increased setbacks, and a good deal of building articulation with all the buildings all relates to the lot coverage provisions because if one adheres to the 35-percent standard, it becomes very restrictive, and it eliminates design flexibility, eliminates the ability to break up the building mass.
Ms. Srour stated that when the SPA was adopted, City Council recognized this unique location and they superseded the standard formula and required 3 parking spaces; noted that what they’ve provided for review is a private 2-car enclosed garage for each unit with direct access into each unit; and that in addition, there is a guest space open and accessible and very functional immediately adjacent to that unit. She noted staff is correct in stating the configuration of those spaces do not literally comply with code, but stated this is a unique site; advised that there is only one access point on 21st Street. She advised that they had a neighborhood meeting, with approximately 20 neighbors in attendance; and generally speaking, she indicated there was a positive response to the proposed use of this site. She expressed her belief they have met all the goals and objectives and that they are providing a wonderful opportunity for the community and a great way of integrating a site that needs to be recycled within an existing neighborhood.
Larry Peha, architect, provided a brief history of the SPA-5 zoning, which closely follows R-2 zoning; stated that the 35 percent does not work well for this site and that they are proposing to raise the lot coverage to 61 percent; noted that by raising the lot coverage to 61 percent, they are able to create unique units with floor plans that flow well; and that it also enables them to break up the mass by having a lower site coverage, pushing out all the edges and breaking up the setbacks along all borders of this property. He walked the Commission through the project design, including landscaping, entryways, walkways; stated they were able to create separate motor courts for each unit; pointed out that the topography of this site was challenging, noting that from west to east, it goes up 9 feet; that from south to north, it goes up between 8 and 13 feet, which led them to stagger the buildings. He advised that the buildings to the east are above the buildings to the west; that they wanted to create views out of the easterly buildings; that in order to do this, it created a situation where they depressed the westerly buildings; that those buildings average between 2 and 7 feet below the maximum height, so the westerly buildings are actually depressed and low compared to what the maximum height would typically be; and that this in turn lessened the impact to the neighbors to the north. He noted that the average setback to the building walls on the first floor to the west is 13 feet; that on the second floor to the west is 13 feet; and that the average setback to the building walls to the north are respectively 10.4 feet and 12.5 feet on the first and second floors. In consideration of the neighbors to the north, setbacks and height, he noted they addressed their concern with losing a little bit of their view; and advised that the setback from the rear northwest corner, is 13 feet and from the west, it’s 14 feet, which in turn created a view corridor for those neighbors. He explained this is a passive open space and they think by being a passive open space, it’s going to be used more; that if they put a space at the back of the lot, around the corner, they feel that wouldn’t be used as much as this space (19 x 44 square feet) will be used on a daily basis; and he expressed his belief this is not that narrow of a space. He explained that the roof plan opens up this open space, that the buildings are stepped back and that they believe they have addressed the light issue with regard to this space.
Mr. Peha noted his belief they have complied with parking; explained their interpretation was 3 spaces per unit, which they have complied with that; stated the spaces in question are the 4 interior units; expressed his belief the way they are placing the guest parking space is easier to get out of a typical garage in a two-unit condominium; that it is parked straight in; and that while it may take a 3-point turn to get out of, it’s easier to get out of this space. He stated the code for a parking space behind a garage stipulates it has to be off a street or alley; that the reason for this is one has to back into a street or alley to get out of the space; that they contend this is a better situation because the maneuvering can be done on site and the vehicle can go straight out onto the street instead of backing onto a street or alley. He reiterated this is a better situation than what is required by code, that the code does not address this kind of situation.
Terry Cook, resident, stated he lives on Springfield, which is just off 21st Street; advised that he has 3 apartment complexes behind his home; that all of those tenants and their guests use Springfield for parking; and addressed his concern with adding another 8 units and adding to the existing parking and traffic problem. He stated that 3 single-family homes should be built on this property, believing this proposal will only worsen the parking and traffic in this area.
Mark Tole, local business owner and resident of 24th Street, expressed his concern with the loss of view and sunlight his property will sustain as a result of this project; stated it will negatively impact his property value; asked that the density be lessened; explained that he purchased his property with the understanding this subject property had the 35-percent lot coverage requirement; addressed his concern with losing his privacy in the backyard and bedrooms because of the close setbacks and balconies; and urged the City to maintain the 35-percent lot coverage designation. He pointed out the applicant purchased this property with the knowledge of the 35-percent lot coverage standard.
Herb Abs, 24th Street resident, stated that the City previously required him to downsize his lots from 3 to 2 and stated he is opposed to this applicant providing 8 units behind his lots.
Bob Albert, 24th Street resident, stated that he checked into the zoning of this property prior to his purchase of his property 15 years ago; stated that he knew one day this property would be developed, but that he was comfortable with the 35-percent lot coverage standard; he advised that these lots have extraordinary views; expressed his concern with the balconies being within 5 feet of the property lines and the loss of privacy and the feel of open space because of this proposed project; and he urged the City to maintain the 35-percent lot coverage. He asked that the applicant also be required to provide a more substantial setback; and stated that most of the neighborhood is single family with decent sized backyards that enjoy some privacy.
Michael Bear, 21st Street resident, stated that his main concern is the traffic speed and lack of sidewalk space that the north side has, noting there is not adequate space for pedestrian traffic. He stated this area needs to be slowed down with street humps.
Norm Levin, 24th Street resident, stated that his house backs up to this large, empty lot; noted his concern with the lack of parking; and stated he is opposed to increased density.
Mr. Peha clarified they are not seeking an increase in density, noting it is zoned for the proposed 8 units; explained that the portion of the building containing the balconies is held back to limit the mass to the adjoining neighbors; that the building next to those neighbors is 20 feet above their grade, a full 10 feet below the maximum height limit; and reminded the audience members that Hermosa Beach has limited setbacks and many balconies that do create some privacy issues, that this is part of this beach city environment.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief the parking spaces should conform to code; stated there is enough space to accommodate those required parking spaces, that the deficiency should be corrected; noted that he is not opposed to the proposed open space; pointed out that most of the City has 30- to 40-foot frontages, with little options available; and that this is a larger parcel of land that has an opportunity to do something different. He stated that the rendering would look good on PCH, but not in this location where it’s adjacent to R-1; noted his preference to see 6 detached units, believing the 8 units is too drastic for this neighborhood.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated the prior City Council must have had a good reason to require 35 percent lot coverage for this site; noted he would support a proposal for 6 units on this site, with larger units.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that he would support the proposed open space, but noted his concern that the aesthetics of the open space standards in this case did not accomplish what had been intended for multiple unit developments; expressed his belief there is a reasonable expectation on the neighbors’ parts to expect the City to enforce the density on this development, but cautioned the neighbors that this development would still be permitted to have a house sitting 5 feet from the property line and this problem is not resolved with the density. He stated that the 35-percent lot coverage makes no sense in Hermosa Beach and that he would support 65-percent lot coverage for the entire City.
Commissioner Pizer stated that two of the guest parking spaces are too small; expressed his belief there is no compelling reason to change the zoning; pointed out that the neighbors purchased their properties based on plans for the SPA-5 standards; and stated it is not fair to the neighbors to increase that lot coverage standard without any compelling reason to change the zoning.
Chairman Allen addressed his concern with not providing adequate parking; and stated that no compelling reason has been provided to change the zoning.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman to APPROVE the text amendment. This motion died due to the lack of a second.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to maintain lot coverage at 35 percent. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUEthis matter to the next meeting to allow the applicant to work with staff on meeting code requirements. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To 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 spill-over parking has been resolved; or 2) Approve the subject Conditional Use Permit.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting to install an auto detailing center within the Hermosa Pavilion; stated this proposed auto carwash would occupy four parking stalls at the entry level to the Hermosa Pavilion and be used for detailing cars; and advised that the system used is a waterless cleaning system which does not discharge fluids into the storm drains. He noted that staff is suggesting the Planning Commission consider tabling this item, noting that on October 10th, the City Council reconsidered the decision of the Planning Commission with respect to an amendment to the Hermosa Pavilion parking plan and restaurant use and that the City Council continued the matter for 60 days to allow the owner time to provide evidence that spill- over parking which was creating a nuisance to the neighborhood wasn’t continuing; and since the matter of the parking conditions is still unresolved, the Planning Commission may want to consider tabling this matter until that issue is resolved.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned how they are to calculate the parking load for this business, noting that if it were a separate project, it would have ordinary parking demands.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Gene Shook, property owner, addressed Commissioner Hoffman’s inquiry, explaining that the people who are currently employed in various businesses at the Pavilion regularly have their cars washed with this service, pointing out that their vehicles would already be parked somewhere in this facility and would not be using an additional parking space while working inside this building. He added that where this activity takes place is the furthest east entrance they have, that the 4 parking spaces are the least convenient parking spaces in this facility; and noted that the business operator is able to stack cars when needed in spot 5 and 6. He mentioned that the business operator may do 6 car details in one day and 10 to 15 car washes a day; explained that the steaming system he uses creates no debris or negative environmental impact; and pointed out that for those who work at this facility, they would have to drive to a car wash, which would create more traffic counts in and out of this facility. He advised that since the City Council meeting, they have been taking hourly counts on all cars parked in this facility from 6:00 A.M. to midnight; noted that what they found was their highest peak times are 6:00 P.M. on Monday and Tuesday nights, and 10:00 A.M. on Saturdays. He explained that plenty of parking is always available and that adequate parking will be available for the future retail and restaurant use; and he urged the Commission to approve this request.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned why people keep seeing “Lot Full” signs displayed if there is plenty of parking.
Mr. Shook stated that the “Lot Full” signs are misleading and that those will be replaced with other verbiage to properly indicate additional parking is available on other levels. He explained that as people attend various 24 Hour Fitness classes, they have learned it is more efficient to guide the patrons to park on two different levels to allow the traffic coming in and out from those back-to-back classes to flow smoothly. He added that “Self Parking” and “Handicapped Entrance” signs are being made to make the parking activities run more smoothly.
Steve Reniker, operator of Auto Spa, explained that he does all he can to create more spaces, noting he can fit 6 cars in the allotted space; noted that he uses low pressure steam to clean the cars with a low decibel, noting the loudest piece of equipment he uses is a typical Shop Vac; stated there is no residual water or any product to mess up the ground/floor; stated that he sweeps and mops the floor in this area every day and that he cordons off the area when he is working; and advised that a car can be washed in 15 minutes and a fully detailed job can be done in an hour and a half. He urged the Planning Commission to allow him to provide this service in this facility.
Seeing no interest in further public input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing. The public hearing was re-opened to allow for additional public input.
Ron Miller, Ardmore Avenue resident, distributed photographs of the full parking lots; stated he lives closest to the parking facility; noted that when the parking structure is full, the people pass the parking lot, turn around in the Vons unloading area opposite his unit and then park in the Vons parking lot; and that he has to experience all this noise. He stated that the parking issue has yet to be resolved; stated he is seeing more cars in his neighborhood, experiencing more noise; and addressed his concern with the “Lot Full” signs.
Commissioner Kersenboom explained for Mr. Miller that the applicant is now attempting to direct the traffic to a different level, that they have indicated the parking lot is never full and that the signage will soon be changed to properly indicate the parking condition.
Mr. Miller stated the pictures do not show any parking attendant on site; that people are passing this lot and turning around in the loading area and parking in the Vons parking lot and that this activity is negatively impacting his living condition. He questioned if anyone has conducted a noise impact study of this car wash, stating that he as a resident is most impacted by these operations.
Commissioner Kersenboom urged Mr. Miller to have the car wash operator provide a demonstration of these activities.
Mr. Miller expressed his belief this business will have to park more cars than they have indicated.
Patty Eggerer, resident, questioned how many uses Mr. Shook can introduce to this location, questioning if a pet grooming business is permitted and whether swap meets on the premises will be permitted on certain days of the week; stated that the useable square footage of this building has increased 51 percent since 1986 and that it continues to grow; and that the residents are dealing with what she perceives as mismanaged parking operations which create traffic hazards along 16th Street. She questioned whether Mr. Shook has taken into consideration the floor plan, health code requirements, whether a restroom will be provided or a lobby for the customers and how will he prevent customers using this service who do not intend to be patrons of the Pavilion. She urged the Planning Commission to deny this application.
Mr. Shook stated that the parking attendants (PCR) now wear orange vests; explained that for various reasons, the supervisors who are usually out front have to assist someone in the parking structure; noted there are usually two people directing traffic; and reiterated there is one hour on Mondays and Tuesdays and one hour on Saturdays where they run into peak traffic in and out of the facility.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned if there are any Building Code implications of this use.
Director Blumenfeld indicated the Building Code, does not prohibit the use.
Commissioner Pizer stated this will have a minor impact to parking and that he is in support of this proposal.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that given Council’s actions, he believes this matter is a little premature and not appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider until City Council has made its final decision regarding Mr. Shook’s operations.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated this is a minimal impact to the parking operations and noted there is plenty of parking space in this facility; and that it’s just a matter of better parking organization in filling up the right spots/parking levels.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he is not sure the car wash will intensify the parking lot use; that since City Council has requested the updated parking study, he would prefer to wait for that study to see what that revised study shows; and that he would like to see this matter continued for 60 days.
Chairman Allen noted his concurrence with Commissioner Perrotti’s comments; added that he does not see any problem with the car wash activity, but noted his support to continue this matter until after the City Council has made its decision.
Commissioner Pizer stated this is a minor issue and that it would have no effect on the total parking count plan, that it’s 4 parking places out of an approximate 500, and stated it should be approved.
Chairman Allen questioned if it can be approved, subject to Council approving the parking.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 06-9 -- Conditional Use Permit for a car wash (auto detailing) within the Hermosa Pavilion parking structure at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, AKA 1605 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: Hoffman, Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate regarding the Lot Line Adjustment. If the Lot Line Adjustment is approved, staff recommends approval of the Variance.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject properties in this case are two 30-foot wide lots located at the corner of Hermosa Avenue and 23rd Street, which is a walk street; stated that the lots have alley and street access, with the most narrow frontage on Hermosa Avenue; that the property is currently developed with a 7-unit multi-family structure which covers both lots; and that the lots do not qualify for a merger pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance since more than 80 percent of the lots on the block are already split into 30-foot wide lots. He noted that under the current configuration, the property could be developed by right as two single-family dwellings with frontage on Hermosa Avenue; that if developed this way, they could result in two new curb cuts on Hermosa Avenue. With respect to the Lot Line Adjustment, he noted that the applicant is proposing to realign these properties so that the two lots will front on the walk street; that the lots will have frontages of approximately 31 and 35 feet; and that with this lot realignment, each house can use the encroachment area for a landscaped patio with direct access to the front door. He noted the applicant has submitted conceptual plans to show how each house would include their entryway and game room at the ground floor with direct access to this encroachment area. He noted that the purpose for Planning Commission review is to ensure that the newly created lots meet minimum lot size and frontage requirements, or in the case of substandard lots, are not anymore nonconforming with respect to these requirements; and advised that the review includes whether these newly created lots can accommodate development that will comply with code requirements with respect to setbacks, access, parking or other requirements. He noted that in this case, the lot areas are exactly the same size as the existing lots, and the realignment arguably will be more appropriate for these corner properties to enable frontage on 23rd Street, the walk street. He stated that the lots as they are currently configured, however, have vehicle access to each lot from the alley; that with the change, one of the lots will have to obtain vehicle access from the side, which is Hermosa Avenue, and require one curb cut on Hermosa Avenue and a loss of one metered public parking space. As previously noted, he stated that since there is no requirement to use the alley for access, development of the existing two lots could actually result in two new curb cuts, potentially causing a loss of up to 3 on-street parking spaces. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the newly created lot will not have sufficient depth from Hermosa Avenue to allow for a front loading garage and a 17-foot setback, although a side-loading garage would be possible.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that before considering a variance request, the Planning Commission needs to decide whether these lots should be realigned at all; that while the realignment of the lots may be preferable from the walk street, it does create a problem for access to parking in compliance with the 17-foot setback from Hermosa Avenue. With respect to the variance, he noted that consideration is only necessary if the Commission approves the lot realignment; that if so, the result would be that the only option for vehicle access to each lot will be from the sides; that on the easterly lot, the side access is on Hermosa Avenue where a 17-foot garage setback is required; that the lot only has a 30-foot depth from Hermosa Avenue, making it impossible to provide the standard front-loading garage with a 17-foot setback; and that a side-loading garage is possible, but would essentially require that almost all the ground level be dedicated to garage and turning area. He stated that the applicant has prepared an exhibit for the parking configuration, scheme 2 in the packets, which shows how the parking can be provided with the side-loading garage access to meet the 17-foot setback; however, this would leave approximately a 12-foot deep by 24-foot wide bonus room at the ground floor, which most likely would only accommodate a small entryway and stairway to the floors above. He noted, therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide a 9-foot garage setback rather than the 17 feet and proposing to meet the guest parking requirement with an open parking space to the side of the garage.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in order to grant the variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings:
1) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved;
2) that the variance(s) are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
3) that the granting of the variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
4) that the variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant’s request is based on the premise that the subject lot as realigned has access from the side of the lot only with a substandard distance of 34 feet to accommodate the front-loading garage and driveway, which the applicant argues is really the only reasonable way to provide parking for this site.
With respect to Finding No. 1, Senior Planner Robertson noted that staff agrees that this corner lot on a walk street is uniquely situated with access from the side only; that this situation is arguably exceptional and extraordinary, while there are other corner lots on walk streets that almost all have alleys parallel to the walk street allowing the garage to be located in the rear with alley access; and that the situation here is similar to the half lot at 635 Hermosa Avenue, which was recently granted a variance from the side yard setback to accommodate a front-loading garage on Hermosa Avenue.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson noted that it can be argued that the variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity because the side yard access does not allow the project to meet the requirements for a front-loading garage.
With respect to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the variance for the parking setback is potentially detrimental to surrounding properties because it will reduce the amount of potential guest parking on the site; typically with a 17-foot setback, it provides for 2 guest spaces in addition to a 2-car garage; and that arguably there may be a detrimental impact here; but, however, in this case, the plan alleviates that concern by providing the guest parking to the side of the garage; and to that extent, the concern is mitigated to some degree. He stated that staff is not seeking Commission direction with respect to the Lot Line Adjustment, but believes if the lots are realigned, that there is adequate findings for the variance.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
John Berris, applicant, stated that with regard to the realignment, he purchased the apartment building for the purpose of building two single-family homes; and that after looking at the properties, they determined if they kept them in the current configuration, which is an east/west alignment, the parking on the rear alley doesn’t work very well, believing the alley is too narrow. He stated that the concern of the neighbor just west of the property is if they do put the parking garage on the back alley in an east/west configuration and then have their guest parking behind the garages, that neighbor believes she would not be able to leave exit or enter her garage. He noted that if they were to do it the other way, keeping it in an east/west configuration and then put the garages on Hermosa Avenue, they would have to do two curb cuts, which would take away an extra metered public parking spot; and that they have determined the best use of the property would be to turn both of the lots to a north/south configuration, giving both homes walk street frontages and essentially giving both a front yard. He added that this offers an excellent opportunity for the people living in these homes to have a family room that will have direct access to the yard and to the beach; noted that they determined the interior lot, if kept in an east/west configuration, would have no yard; that in addition, the more northerly east/west lots would have a side yard, but it would also have a 30-foot tall plain wall that they feel would not be of benefit to the neighbors across the street to the east because by orienting the houses in a northwest position, they will be able to modulate the homes so that people across Hermosa Avenue will still have views of the beach. He noted that currently, the apartment building is 30 feet tall and that they will be down to 28 feet; that in addition, the current building is north/south with an east/west flat wall that’s 30-feet tall and cuts off the view for the people across Hermosa Avenue; that they feel it’s beneficial for everyone if they turn this property; that if they turn it in a north/south direction, then the setback would be increased from 3 feet to 5 feet; and noted that the plans indicate this has been pulled back even further, with one of the homes having a 6.5-foot setback and the other having a 7-foot setback with the proposed configuration.
Mr. Berris stated that the reason they are seeking a variance is if they get the north/south realignment, they will need the variance because if they have the 17-foot setback, there is not enough room on the first floor to have anything but an entryway; that in addition, they would have to move the guest parking forward off Hermosa Avenue, which is not safe; and that by having the 9-foot setback, they will be able to put in an additional guest parking spot on the side of the garage. He added that by having the 9-foot setback and having the north/south orientation, they will only have to do one corner cut and only lose one parking space on Hermosa Avenue. He reiterated that they have talked with the neighbor to the west; that her concern was that following the plans they have drawn, they would block her ability to get in/out of her garage; that as a result of that concern, they’ve redrawn their plan and moved the most westerly north/south lot forward and they have put the guest parking space behind it in order to accommodate the concern of the neighbor to the west.
Commissioner Pizer asked for the width calculation of Beach Drive.
Mr. Berris stated it is approximately 10 feet. He added that there are a number of homes on this street that have a 9-foot setback.
Mr. Berris noted for Commissioner Hoffman that scheme 3 is the preferred plan, which alleviates the neighbor’s concern to the west.
Carol Resishank, stated she is the neighbor to the west of this property; noted that the owners have been very cooperative; explained that the alleyway is very difficult to maneuver; stated that in the last four years, the developments have created problems for ease of travel in the alleyway and that the City should address that situation. She advised that the City Manager has indicated the illegal curbs will soon be removed, noting that the illegal curbs create a dangerous condition in the alleyway. She stated that the apartment building is a public hazard; and that she is delighted with this proposed change and that she supports the realignment, noting they have made an effort to alleviate her concerns. She asked that they not be allowed to build this project from the alley, highlighting her frustration with not having the ability to drive out of her garage on many occasions because of construction activities.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated he is supportive of the Lot Line Adjustment and the variance request, pointing out that the applicant has taken into consideration his neighbor’s concerns.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for the Lot Line Adjustment; stated he can make the findings for the variance, noting that without the variance, they will lose the entire ground floor to parking; and stated that it is more preferable to have both homes facing the walk street.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his support for the Lot Line Adjustment and the variance; that in response to one of the letters that was submitted to the Commission regarding the Commission’s allowance of reduced public parking spaces for single-family homes, he explained that if the Commission were to deny this request, they could lose all this parking because they would then build two homes that would open onto Hermosa Avenue, which would be detrimental to the community; and that in reality, the Commission is saving some on-street parking by putting one of the driveways in the alley and to the side on Hermosa Avenue.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if there is any way to guarantee that scheme 3 would be implemented.
Director Blumenfeld explained it is not possible to condition the Lot Line Adjustment or the building permit.
Chairman Allen concurred with the Commission’s comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the Lot Line Adjustment. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVEthe variance, making a finding this is a small sized lot with a unique lot orientation. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a request to consider amending Chapter 17.52, which regulates the 50-percent reconstruction regulations under the Nonconforming Ordinance; and stated that on September 12th, Mayor Edgerton and Councilmember Tucker requested that the matter be referred to Commission to determine if the reconstruction provisions currently applicable to residential buildings should also be applicable to commercial property. He stated that if a non-residential building is damaged by more than 50 percent, the ordinance requires reconstruction of the building to current codes. He stated that the proposed change would allow the residential rebuilding provision to apply to commercial property as follows: nonconforming commercial buildings located in commercial zones may be restored whenever the extent of the damage, if approved by the Planning Commission, provided that the re-built structure is made as conforming as possible in terms of parking standards and other zoning standards, such as setbacks, and further provided there is no increase in nonconformity; stated the second provisions related to residential would remain; and that the height of the building does not exceed 20 percent more than permitted in the zone and that the basic structural features, such as setback, floor area, room size, can be duplicated in compliance with current Building and Safety codes.
Director Blumenfeld noted the Commission should address 3 philosophical and practical issues: the first is the intent of the ordinance, noting that if the ordinance is changed, it will apply to all commercial properties and asked the Commission to consider how the proposed change would impact the other uses; and whether the Commission feels comfortable in allowing nonconforming conditions to remain. He stated the next issue relates to equity, is it fair to allow a property owner to keep a nonconforming use/building or parking conditions, is it fair to require one business to provide parking when virtually no others do in certain areas; and how does the City balance the fairness versus the need to eventually get buildings brought up to code. He stated the next issue relates to the implementation of the proposed change, asking if each case should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He noted that staff will return with a resolution based on the Planning Commission’s determination or if the Commission feels the current text is adequate, it can be approved as drafted. He summarized that the Commission needs to address the issue of discretion for full exemption, whether more guidelines should be set up for rebuilding, or whether to allow rebuilding without limitation and no Planning Commission review.
Chairman Allen stated this is a broader issue than Sharkey’s; and questioned how it can easily be resolved.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Perrotti that the height of the building can be reconstructed if the height of the building doesn’t exceed more than 20 percent permitted in the zone, in other words, to its original condition so long as it does not exceed 20 percent of the existing condition; and he noted that wording could use some clarifying language.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that especially in the Downtown area, it would make it difficult, if not impossible, for many businesses to recover from a disaster; stated that a damaged building should be rebuilt to code, such as updating the electrical, plumbing, construction updates, earthquake codes, but to the same height they originally had, with the same setbacks, without limitation. He noted the necessity to make the structure as safe as possible; and agreed that the Building Code issues should trump the planning issues in this case.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Ron Newman, Starkey’s owner, stated that the City’s restrictive ordinance only adds further frustration to an already miserable process of attempting to repair a building following a disaster; and stated that the City’s restrictive ordinance can break many businesses after a disaster. He noted that he has now been meeting for 5 months with his consultants, attorneys, etc., just to try to get back to the point of being able to build; that instead of the City doing everything it could to help a business get reopened after a disaster, it only makes it harder to open back up for business and that he believes it’s unfair the way the City regulates this circumstance. He urged the City to amend this code not only for his business, but also for other businesses that will suffer a disaster from fire, earthquake, etc.
Mike Lacey, business owner on Hermosa Avenue, stated that one of his businesses suffered a fire due to arson in 1991; noted that if he had to provide in-lieu parking fees at that time, he would not have been able to come up with that funding and he would have had to go out of business. He agrees that the safety and handicap codes should be met, but stated the current code is unfair in a time of crisis for a business owner.
Carla Merryman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, stated that she recently attended a seminar entitled “Emergency Management for Business and Industry” to help both the public and private sectors deal with reconstruction issues facing cities and businesses following a disaster; stated that fire is the number one cause of business interruption; that almost 50 percent of all businesses never reopen following a disaster; and that of those which do, another 29 percent close within the next 2 years, about an 80-percent failure rate in disaster recovery. She noted that 3 factors enter heavily into the fact that only 20 percent of businesses survive after a disaster: first, most businesses are not insured at realistic levels for replacement and rebuilding costs and long-term loss of business; second, the two-year process of insurance reimbursement, redevelopment plans, permits, and actual construction results in a loss of customers to competitors; and third, the cost of building materials has increased 200 percent since Hurricane Katrina. She pointed out that among the long-time owner/operated businesses in Hermosa Beach are some irreplaceable landmarks, such as the Mermaid, SeaSprite, Sharkey’s, El Dorado Body Shop, Comedy and Magic Club, etc.; pointed out that these businesses were erected long before in-lieu parking fees were enacted; and that they all have quirky nonconforming architecture. She stated that to resurrect these businesses from the ashes while meeting the current development standards is an almost impossible investment for the private, sole proprietor; and that with in-lieu parking fees calculated at $29,000 per space, the business owner would do better to sell the land and rebuild in another city that is able to offer tax incentives, fee waivers and business license breaks. She stated that the Planning Commission’s assistance in changing this ordinance to include all businesses damaged more than 50 percent will allow Hermosa Beach business owners to remain in this city; and she encouraged the Planning Commission to support the amendment to Chapter 17.53 and to waive excessive in-lieu parking fees for grandfathered local businesses.
Janice Brittan, resident, noted her support for the amendment, stating she would not like to see the loss of business in this city.
*man (did not give his name; son of Sharkey’s?), business owner with his father, stated that with his business burning down, they have had a hard time rebuilding their business; and urged the City to be fair in its ordinance.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated that his interpretation of the intent of the ordinance is to maintain the current character of the City; pointed out that the destruction of the building had nothing to do with the owner’s decision, that it was an accident; and stated it is not fair to the business owner who could suffer fees in excess of 50 percent of the value of the lot. He stated it is a major problem to provide the in-lieu parking fees for a lot of business owners. He suggested that with the implementation of new Paragraph 2, the commercial exemption should have two other subparagraphs added due to the major cost of parking to the building owner; and he proposed adding that the parking plan in use prior to the destruction will be applicable if the rebuilt structure has a gross floor area of the original structure with an allowed variation of plus or minus 20 percent in gross floor area; that additional parking on site or in-lieu may be required if the rebuilt structure has a gross floor area larger than the original structure; and that the rules will apply for the additional need for parking if they are to expand the building.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that by definition of community character, the buildings that will be nonconforming are going to be older buildings, the buildings that define the character of Downtown, Upper Pier, etc., totally nonconforming by today’s standards; stated that what this is referring to is preserving the structure; he agreed that he does not want to see someone lose their business, but also does not want someone to lose the building that defines the character of Downtown or elsewhere should any of those buildings be damaged. He stated that the equity goes to the property owner, what is fair to all people who have nonconforming buildings, whether it be 49 percent damaged or 51 percent damaged. With regard to implementation, he stated it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis because one of the key elements is the requirement that a building be rebuilt so that the basic structural features are retained; and stated this is something that needs Planning Commission interpretation. He concurred with all 3 points.
Commissioner Perrotti stated this city is fairly unique, with a lot of old, nonconforming structures that provide the city its great character; noted the intent is to maintain the unique character of the City; with regard to equity, he indicated this is the most equitable way to approach it; and noted his agreement that it should be done on a case-by-case basis so the Planning Commission can review the proposed reconstruction.
Chairman Allen noted his concurrence with the Commission’s comments; stated that if a business owner is building more than what previously existed, then in-lieu parking fees should be applied.
Chairman Allen moved to ADOPT the text amendment proposed by staff, to include Commissioner Pizer’s amendments -- that the parking plan in use prior to the destruction will be applicable if the rebuilt structure has a gross floor area of the original structure with an allowed variation of plus or minus 20 percent in gross floor area; that additional parking on site or in-lieu may be required if the rebuilt structure has a gross floor area larger than the original structure; that the rules will apply for the additional need for parking if they are to expand the building; and to direct staff to return with a resolution at the next meeting approving this text amendment with the indicated changes.
Responding to Commissioner Hoffman’s question, Director Blumenfeld confirmed that the suggested amendments would not supersede the original text discussion on nonconformity.
There was unanimous approval of proposed text amendment 04-4.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to October 19, 2007.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is requesting an extension of the Parcel Map, as the map is about to expire; and stated that the project is currently at the demolition stage and that staff is recommending extending the map by one year, to October 19, 2007.
There was no objection to extending the Parcel Map to October 19, 2007.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Interpretation of a minor modification to a Conditional Use Permit in regards to consistency with a previously approved landscape plan at 801-813 20th Street, AKA 2006, 2014 & 2024 Pacific Coast Highway.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in June 2003, the Planning Commission approved a 7-unit condominium project; advised that the project is basically completed and that the property owner is requesting the Certificate of Occupancy for the project; and pointed out that staff has noticed that the landscape design was altered from what was originally approved by the Planning Commission. He advised that the approved landscape plans specified mature palm trees between 10 and 12 feet in height and also 36-box olive trees along 20th Street; and noted that the actual planted trees do not meet this standard. He added that the landscape plan denoted sod for both the required open spaces as well as climbing vines at the trellis structures and noted that both these common open space areas have been paved with concrete. He noted that staff is seeking an interpretation whether the modification to the approved landscape plan is considered a minor modification to the existing CUP. He advised that in the past, staff has administerily approved slight alterations to landscape design when not visible from the public right of way; however, he noted these changes may constitute more material in nature.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the intent of the Planning Commission requirement is to make sure that there is mature landscaping installed when the project is complete so the structure is more fitting in the neighborhood.
Highlighting the developer’s letter that’s included in staff report, Commissioner Perrotti stated it indicates a lot of the changes were made because they were concerned with mold and water intrusion and questioned if that is a reasonable concern.
Director Blumenfeld stated the owner brings up a good point, noting that in this area, there is a waterproofing issue in those areas; and stated it would difficult to retrofit at this point without creating some waterproofing issues.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his understanding the trellis vines can cause damage to the stucco, as indicated in the letter.
Nagy Bakum, project architect, stated that with respect to the space between the buildings, they felt this shady area would not support sod placement; noted they were concerned with moisture problems; and as a result, they decided to change the original plan and provide concrete, which is more expensive than sod. He expressed his belief the concrete provided a more friendly area for patio furniture and social gatherings. He added that this area is not visible from the public right of way. With respect to the trees, he stated that they would propose adding 6 more mature trees to this site. He noted that the olive trees have a tendency to run a bit smaller; and stated it was a landscape design that they continued to develop in the process and that they did not intend to have a shortfall on the trees.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned why they did not contact the City.
Mr. Bakum stated that concreting these areas did not seem like a big issue; with respect to the trees, he provided staff with a copy of the receipts for the trees, but reiterated that the supply of olive trees in the 36-inch boxes were not as big as they expected.
Director Blumenfeld noted for the Commission that it could require the original plan be implemented or that the Commission can modify its original approval, simply noting that a tradeoff is increased landscaping in various areas.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief the conversion from sod to concrete is not a minor change; and stated that given this project is constructed and given its situation, this is more a matter of poor design, that it probably doesn’t make sense to have sod placed directly up against the walls. He stated he has no question the Commission probably would have approved that modification had it come before the Commission. He stated that what needs to be done is some of the key trees need to be put in that gives some sense of what the artist’s rendering reflected along the highway.
Commissioner Pizer indicated that the poor aesthetics is along PCH and that more mature trees should be planted in this area, noting that the project is also short on the number of trees.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concern that the artist’s rendering is deceptive with what ultimately has been done on this property.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he believes the concrete was a good choice given the project design; expressed his belief the placement of concrete was not a minor change and that it should have been addressed by the Planning Commission; and stated they need to put in place the proposed landscaping, adding more trees along the highway.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to allow the concrete to remain, but for the developer to add more mature trees along PCH.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested that rather than going back to the original plan, that the developer work with staff to identify some sites where appropriate sized trees need to be planted, as originally proposed. The Commission concurred.
-
-
STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld advised that there is a Specific Plan workshop next week.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Allen recessed the meeting at 9:45 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:10 P.M.
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Allen recessed the meeting at 11:00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 P.M.
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 October 17, 2006.
| Kent Allen, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |