|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer |
| Absent: | Allen |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Commissioner Hoffman invited everyone in the community to attend the Upper Pier Avenue Committee (UPAC) public workshop on Saturday, 10:00 A.M., in Council Chambers; and he encouraged attendance by those especially who have business interests or live close to Pier Avenue to attend this workshop and provide input on proposed improvements (traffic, land use, streetscapes, redevelopment, etc.) to Upper Pier Avenue.
Commissioner Pizer urged the public to contact Time Warner and express their concern with that company not tracking its programming.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Pizer requested pulling 5C from the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Hoffman requested pulling 5B from the Consent Calendar.
Jim Lissner requested pulling 5A and B from the Consent Calendar.
Approval of February 20, 2007 Minutes .
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, toAPPROVEthe February 20, 2007, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
| AYES: | Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer |
| NOES: | None |
| ABSTAIN: | None |
| ABSENT: | None |
Consent Calendar
-
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 07-8approving a Variance to allow a 1,074-square-foot addition to an existing 2,458-square-foot non-conforming single-family residence for a total of 3,532 square feet as opposed to the maximum 3,000 square feet permitted by the non-conforming ordinance at the property addressed as 136 Hill Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-8. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen
-
Resolution P.C. 07-5 to recommend amending the Zoning Ordinance to exempt Pier Plaza building sites from providing a percentage of parking spaces on site when in-lieu parking fees are paid.
Director Blumenfeld stated this resolution codifies the Commission decision recommending approval of the text amendment to exempt Pier Plaza building sites from providing a percentage of parking spaces on site as part of the in-lieu parking program. Staff is bringing back this text amendment resolution for confirmation. He pointed out the Commission’s review involves confirming whether the resolution accurately reflects the Commission’s decision at the prior meeting.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if Council changed the verbiage from how it appeared before the Planning Commission.
Director Blumenfeld stated the text amendment was approved as it was originally presented to the Commission.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief this resolution should not be before the Commission because City Council has already approved its second reading. He expressed his belief this issue was not properly noticed for Planning Commission consideration, stating the notification only reflected 52 Pier Avenue, not the entire Plaza area.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-5. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution P.C. 07-6 approving a Precise Development Plan to reconstruct and expand a two-story building damaged by fire for an existing restaurant with on-sale alcohol; a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor seating in addition to the patio within the Pier Plaza encroachment area; and a Parking Plan to allow said expansion (an increase from approximately 3,600 square feet to 5,600 square feet, including outdoor seating areas) with the payment of parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site, on the property at 52 Pier Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is bringing back this resolution for final approval based on prior Commission decision.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Hoffman this resolution incorporates the Commission direction at the prior hearing; and noted that the applicant has submitted an exhibit which demonstrates they can close the upper floor at midnight without disrupting the rest of business operations.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if there is a revised plan for the retractable skylight.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a plan has been submitted; noted that the applicant also removed a stair tower, which was part of stair access to the roof; and stated that now there is a roof hatch, noting they’ve modified the plan to comply.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-6. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution P.C. 07-7 denying a Precise Development Plan to construct a new 9,500- square-foot three-story commercial office building with basement parking; a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial condominium and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67748 to divide the building into 21 condominium units; and, a Parking Plan to pay parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site, located on the property at 906 and 910 Hermosa Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld stated after denying this application, the Commission, upon reflection, indicated its desire to continue the matter, but stated the decision of the Commission stands. He stated the Commission has the option at this point to reject the denial resolution and continue this item so the application remains active and that it can then be heard at a subsequent meeting. He stated the applicant’s architect has prepared a revised plan.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to REJECT Resolution P.C. 07 and to continue this matter to the April 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a request to allow beer and wine in conjunction with the Glen Ivy Day Spa, which is a 13,000-square-foot facility located in the Hermosa Pavilion; noted that the property has been the subject of discretionary permits and Commission reviews for most of last year in connection with a Parking Plan for the building and a CUP for the Stillwater Bistro restaurant; advised that the neighborhood has expressed concerns about parking, noise, land use issues around the building during these hearings and in connection with the operation of the building; that over the last several months, many of these issues have been resolved, such as the parking; and he noted that since Stillwater Bistro is not yet open, staff cannot evaluate if there are any problems with its alcohol related CUP, noting the business won’t be in operation for another 6 to 8 months. He stated that since the community has expressed concerns about the restaurant operations with a full alcohol permit, staff has concerns about the Commission approving another alcohol related CUP at this time.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a CUP runs with the land; and that Glen Ivy indicates they want to use this CUP as part of its day spa operation; that they would offer wine sales from $6 to $11 in five lounge/waiting areas; stated these areas range in size from 120 to 300 square feet; that the wine would be served by employees and kept in locked storage; and that the wine sales would be available concurrently with the operation of the business, which operates from 9:30 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, 10:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Sunday, and on holidays from 8:30 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, and from 9:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Sunday. He reiterated staff’s belief it’s premature at this point to approve a new CUP application within the Pavilion that may potentially create a nuisance problem, and stated staff is therefore recommending a denial of this application. Responding to Commissioner Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld noted that the only establishments allowed to serve wine or beer on the premises are restaurants and one wine sales business with wine tasting.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Ereakey, Director of Day Spas for Glen Ivy, stated this business has been a spa social setting for 30 years; that it is a branch of Glen Ivy Hot Springs Spa; noted that people come to Glen Ivy to spend quality time with friends or by themselves; advised that they offer massages, facials, body treatments, manicures, pedicures, etc.; and explained that Glen Ivy is different from other day spas because they cater to people who want more of a social experience. She noted that oftentimes, people come to the spa as a treat to mark an engagement, anniversary, holiday and they would like to offer wine to their existing guests, noting many guests have requested a glass of wine after their massage. She added it wouldn’t be much of a revenue generator but more of an amenity for their guests; and stated they would only be offering wine to their guests.
Mary Markel, Director of Sales and Marketing for Glen Ivy, stated the wine sales at one of their locations has netted $493 dollars over the last 12 months, noting it is not a big sales generator; advised that they don’t mention alcohol in any of their marketing brochures or website, except under Policies and Information; and stated a glass of wine or beer in the context of a health spa setting helps their guests to relax, escape and rejuvenate in a social setting, noting this is a small value added service. She noted that Glen Ivy is involved in the community, attending local events and sponsoring events and that they intend to stay involved in this community; that they provide a healthy approach to living; and she noted they are adamant about maintaining a stellar reputation.
Ann Fees, Special Projects Manager for Glen Ivy, stated they are already regulated by the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control; that their license is for Glen Ivy Hot Springs, two licenses -- one in Brea and one in Corona; and noted their license travels with their business. She pointed out there is no special category for this type of social drinking in a spa atmosphere and that they are unfairly under the scrutiny as if they were a regular alcohol business; she stated they don’t anticipate people roaming around with their drinks outside the business; advised they are careful to train their staff; and added that their risk management program is well maintained. She asked that Glen Ivy not be considered as part of Shook Development, pointing out they only lease from this company.
Commissioner Pizer advised Ms. Fees that the CUP runs with the land and that it is not transferable to a different location wherein Glen Ivy relocates.
Director Blumenfeld stated if the Commission chose to approve this application, staff would come back with a resolution that would relate to a floor plan, the specific conditions on the property; and noted that if any other business came into this site and varied markedly from what was approved, the CUP would be void and that new business would have to apply for their own CUP, but if someone wanted to operate in exactly the same manner, they could do so.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that approving this would only create a precedent for similar businesses to request alcohol services; and stated that because it is not a major revenue generator, it should not negatively impact their business.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that given the utilization of this space, it’s almost inevitable that someone would get a glass of wine in one place and wander to the next area inside the Pavilion, noting this could become an enforcement impossibility.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that approving this would create a precedent for similar businesses to request alcohol services.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom agreed with the Commission’s comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to DENYCUP 07-4 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a day spa at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway #280, Glen Ivy Day Spa. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from this matter because the applicant’s representative is currently working on a project for him.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the subject site is located on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) at the northeast corner of PCH and 21st Street; and the site is vacant and undeveloped but is seasonally used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales, which use the existing curb cuts on 21st Street for access. He stated the applicant is requesting 21 office units and 5 units for storage; noted the project involves a two-story building with two levels of basement parking; that the building will contain 11 office suites and a conference room on the first floor level; that the remaining suites are on the second floor; that the office suites range in size from 337 to 508 square feet; and that the plans include open courtyards on the office floors, common elevator lobbies at each floor and at the parking levels, common bathrooms, and open balconies for several of the suites. He noted the building is designed in a contemporary style of architecture with a mix of exterior finishes; stated the building is well modulated to provide architectural relief on both the PCH and 21st Street elevations; that there is a fair amount of relief on the western elevation; and that the plans include an open courtyard as the common corridor access to the office suites, which further modulates the building, creating an open air feel on the upper floors. He stated the two parking levels are accessed by separate driveways on 21st Street, using the slope of 21st Street to separately access the upper and lower parking levels; that the two parking levels contain a total of 34 parking spaces to provide parking for the net office floor area; and noted that the upper floor also contains five storage units. He advised that no on-street parking will be affected since parking is not allowed on the north side of 21st Street.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the building provides ample setbacks where it abuts residential property in order to comply with the minimum setback from residentially zoned property; that there is an 8-foot setback at the exposed portion of the subterranean parking level on the west, 10 feet at the second parking level, and a 12-foot setback at the first and second stories of the office building; and stated that no setback is provided along the north property line even though the property to the north is a residential apartment building, pointing out it is a nonconforming use in the SPA-8 commercial zone and the code only requires setbacks to residentially zoned properties.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the project is subject to the requirements of the Specific Plan Area Zone, which provides two tiers of development standards; in this case, the project is subject to the second tier standards since it exceeds first tier standards with respect to height, it being greater than 30 feet; that it also is greater than a 1:1 floor area to lot area ratio; that it is greater than 10,000 square feet and has less than the minimum landscape coverage of five percent; noted that since the project is subject to these second tier standards, the standard of review is a set of guidelines regarding the overall quality and appearance of the project; and noted that staff has generally found the project to be consistent with these guidelines with respect to building height, bulk, size and landscaping. He stated the building does not exceed the second tier height maximum of 35 feet; and that it provides the minimum second tier standard in regard to landscape coverage.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that using the language of the guidelines, the exterior of the building is designed with stepping roof lines and stepped features to avoid a massive flat building face and is enhanced with architectural features and materials to improve its appearance, function and includes building modulation, varying roof lines, and a two-story appearance on the PCH frontage; and, therefore, the project will generally be compatible with neighboring projects and compatible with surrounding residential uses. He stated the north elevation, which is a large cement wall abutting the nonconforming residential apartment, only contains minimal architectural relief with some architectural reglets; and advised that the building code gives limited options for building modulation or windows when buildings are located at the property line, since it is a common property line where no setback is required. However, he noted that staff believes options are available to improve this elevation by using different finishes and building materials which would be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code.
With respect to landscaping, Senior Planner Robertson stated that while the project provides only the minimum 2 percent coverage, it does use the excess right-of-way along PCH and 21st Street between the sidewalk and the property line to enhance the landscaping; that the landscaping is consistent with the second tier guidelines in that the plan shows mature trees and compensates for the less than 5 percent on site by providing ample landscaping in this excess right-of-way; however, he noted in the past, the Commission has indicated interest in providing additional landscaped areas along the highway and thus may want to require a greater depth for this project along PCH. He added that the landscaping on PCH should be in a stepped/raised planter to help modulate the east elevation where a portion of this subterranean level is exposed. He mentioned that Caltrans has not been contacted by the applicant regarding the use of the right-of-way for landscaping and/or the planter walls in the Caltrans right-of-way and, therefore, compliance with landscaping requirements is contingent upon their final approval. To ensure consistency with the SPA guidelines, he noted that staff is recommending conditions of approval that the applicant work with staff to enhance the north elevation and enhance the landscaping along PCH.
Senior Planner Robertson stated with respect to the parking issues for the project, based on the proposed 10,124-square-foot building, 40 parking spaces are required for the general office use; that the applicant is proposing to provide less than that, 34 spaces; that the applicant is requesting consideration of a reduced parking requirement based on the net office area rather than gross floor area; advised that pursuant to the code which defines gross floor area, the office floor area does not include open courts, corridors and open stairways; however, he noted the applicant is also requesting the common lobby areas, conference room, common bathrooms, and storage for office condominiums be excluded from the parking calculation; and stated the applicant is willing to incorporate a restriction in the CC&R’s to specifically restrict these areas for common use, only precluding their use as private office space. He advised that the Commission has recently made a similar determination to exclude the common areas from the parking requirements for a project at 1429 Hermosa Avenue, so the principle is the same for this project, as these common areas arguably do not directly contribute to parking demand; advised that staff is recommending a condition the parking not be assigned to any tenants or owners and be available free of charge; and that staff is recommending a parking management plan be submitted prior to occupancy to address security, parking signage, parking validation, tandem parking and short-term delivery parking.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that vehicle access from this site will be from two separate driveways, accessing each level of the parking structure; that these access points are near existing curb cuts that will have to be relocated as part of the project; explained that entering this site from 21st Street rather than PCH is better for traffic safety and eliminates the need for a curb cut on PCH, which is controlled by Caltrans; stated that all parking is accessed through these two separate driveways which allows for the parking access without an internal ramp in the parking structure; and noted that the applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis which concluded the development and the full occupancy of the project will not cause any significant traffic impacts for the nearby study intersections and will not cause any significant cumulative traffic impacts. He noted that the contract City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and agreed with this analysis, but the City’s Traffic Engineer had comments regarding the driveway location near PCH and inadequate turning area for one of the parking stalls.
With respect to the driveway location on 21st Street, Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff has discussed this issue with the Public Works Director who agrees the proposed design is not ideal, but given the low volumes of traffic generated by this use and the parking restrictions that currently exist on the north side of this street, a major redesign regarding access is not necessary; and that instead, it is recommended the applicant work with staff to maximize the distance from PCH to the first driveway access point. He noted staff agrees the parking space adjacent to the storage areas as designed does not provide adequate backup area for a vehicle to turn around and egress in a forward manner without excessive maneuvering; therefore, staff is including a condition this also be corrected by either eliminating storage areas on that floor or the parking level or finding alternative locations for the storage; and mentioned this could also create an additional short-term parking space for delivery purposes. He added that ideally, any storage should be located appurtenant to individual units and used for office supplies and not used separately for private storage purposes. He stated the applicant is also requesting the tract map include up to five additional for sale condominium storage areas; and given that storage is a standalone use not permitted in the SPA Zone, he noted staff has included a condition that the condominiums be limited to 21 office units and that any storage will have to be sold in conjunction with and tied to a specific unit or set aside as common where the storage access and use is determined by the condominium association.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted his concern with the driveway’s close placement to PCH.
Senior Planner Robertson noted the City does not have a code provision or rule of thumb that makes it an automatic 25 or 30 feet, so it is a function of the use and design constraints of the site; and advised there will be some opportunities to make slight adjustments, such as painting the curb red between PCH and the project.
Director Blumenfeld added that driveway lights and signage can also be used to deal with the issues relative to ingress/egress from the building.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if there will be visibility problems with vehicles coming out of the garage.
Senior Planner Robertson stated there are sight distance issues, which can create some conflict at the stop light intersection.
Director Blumenfeld stated that signing will be included to mitigate some of the concerns, such as indicating a specific area to keep clear relative to the intersection, painted crosswalks and other areas around driveways; and explained there are ways to manage the distance to the intersection issue that don’t necessarily affect the location of the driveway. He noted that Public Works staff will be working with the applicant on this issue.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Brad Scott, representing the property owner, highlighted the design of the project; advised that they own the property to the west of this site; that they recently had 8 town homes approved for that development; and it is important to them that this commercial property on the corner be consistent with the design of the residential property currently being built, noting their desire for a smooth transition between the commercial properties along PCH into that residential community. He stated this is a contemporary style with a lot of soft elements that are typically used in residential construction; stated there is a large center courtyard; and noted all the stairways/hallways are open hallways. He advised they are limiting the use to general office, which they believe is a less intensive use than what they could have placed on this property. He noted the typical office use will be from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. during the week and closed on the weekends. He stated that out of the 15 conditions staff has recommended, they are in concurrence with all but the requirement to redesign the parking space that is adjacent to the storage units; explained there is a compact spot that is adjacent to storage lockers; and stated those storage lockers are important because the types of businesses they expect will be buying these units are typically going to be small businesses that are going to be using the offices with primarily a desk, telephone, and computer, but they won’t have a lot of space to store files. He stated most businesses need a large amount of dead file storage; and stated this is an important attribute to this project. He added they have agreed not to sell these storage facilities to someone who does not own, that they will simply deed it to someone who buys a condominium unit; and added that these storage units will make it more attractive to potential buyers.
Mr. Scott explained that the ease of maneuvering in this area should not create any concern, believing it will take a typical 3-point maneuver in this one compact space. He stated this is a relatively small space, 330 square feet, for the 21 office users that will be using this space.
Larry Peha, project architect, stated this building has a lot of articulation; that the building will have several open courtyards; and that the landscaping will be provided at varying depths, elevations, and pockets along PCH of landscaping. With regard to the driveway, he stated they have provided 26 feet from PCH, noting they conferred with Public Works staff during the design of this entryway; and he pointed out that the compact space will have a smaller car and that a 3-point turn should not be a problem.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his concern with the traffic safety and cars making a right turn off PCH; and he stated he does not want to see a landscaped concrete planter at eye level.
Mr. Scott pointed out there is 16 feet of clear driveway that will enhance visibility for all.
Mr. Scott noted for Commissioner Pizer that the lower level of the garage is 19 feet wide and that they don’t anticipate any problem with egress/ingress. He highlighted the low number of cars that will be using this facility and stated that the ingress/egress will be minimal at this structure.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out there is a condition that the applicant’s traffic engineer meet with staff to resolve the issue with parking level one relative to the circulation and the storage, advising whether it’s a workable plan.
Norm Levin, 24th Street resident, noted his concern with vehicles coming off PCH and safely making that right turn going west on 21st Street when a car is entering/exiting from level one of the parking structure. He stated he is in favor of this development but that he is only concerned with the traffic turning off PCH.
Michael Bear, 21st Street resident, stated he is in support of this development, but noted his concern with the parking structure entrance and traffic and pedestrian safety; he noted there is also a bus stop at this area; and stated the parking entrance should be relocated.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief that more parking should be required for this project.
Mr. Peha pointed out there is a 16-foot area before one even starts going into the garage; stated there is only a 7 ½ percent slope at that point and that motorists will have good visibility into the parking structure; and reiterated this is a low volume parking structure.
Christopher Barmen, 21st Street resident, addressed his concern with the parking problems that already exist in this area and expressed his belief that more parking should be provided.
Mr. Scott stated they are providing more parking spaces in this development than what most cities require for this type of use; and expressed his belief the users will not be using their offices on a daily basis, that the intensity will be low.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated this is a good project and expressed his belief the parking near the lockers is not that significant.
Director Blumenfeld suggested an additional condition with respect to the overall circulation issues in the garage: “The applicant’s traffic engineer shall review circulation in level one of the parking garage, the east driveway sight distance, and provide mitigation recommendations which shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer.”
Commissioner Perrotti noted the applicant’s willingness to work with staff on the circulation issues and expressed his belief the proposed resolution covers the issues of concern.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom echoed the Commission’s comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 07-2 / PDP 07-2 / PARK 07 -2 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67877 for a new 10,000-square-foot two-story general office building with two levels of basement parking divided into up to 26 commercial condominium units and a Parking Plan to base parking requirements on the net office floor area. (i.e., excluding common lobbies, restrooms and conference areas), and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2101 Pacific Coast Highway; and to add the condition that the applicant’s traffic engineer shall review circulation in level one of the parking garage, the east driveway sight distance, and provide mitigation recommendations which shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman RECESS AND RECONVENE
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom recessed the meeting at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this project is located on the west side of PCH at 30th Street, formerly part of the BMW dealership site; that the proposed building will contain 16 offices with 10 office suites on the first level and 6 on the second; that the offices range in size from 350 square feet to 690 square feet; that the building is expected to have peak use on weekdays between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.; and noted that the building is attractively designed with a stepped façade on the west and south faces which vary from 8 ½ feet to 20 feet, far exceeding the minimum requirement in this zone. He advised that the upper floor level has an attractive building colonnade that is designed with a clay tile roof, wood corbels, smooth plaster and precast trim and wrought iron railing; noted that the corner stair towers of the building are designed with turrets and domed elements and also finished with precast trim; that the lower level is finished in natural stone and includes decorative wrought iron and stone pilasters; and pointed out that the building will be constructed with very high quality materials. He stated that the building is landscaped along every building elevation with on-grade and elevated planters; and that the west side of the building is planted with a continuous screen of 24-inch box trees that will entirely screen the west elevation when the landscape is matured. He noted the Parking Ordinance requires one space per 250 square feet of building area for general office use; that the building fully complies with that requirement, providing 35 parking spaces; that the driveway access is provided at 30th Street and one short-term delivery loading space is located immediately south of that driveway; and that this area is paved with a pervious paving material that provides the opportunity for both planting and surface parking and is intended to satisfy the required setback requirement in the C-3 Zone.
Director Blumenfeld stated the project trip generation for general office is not significant and provides less impact than the prior use; and that the project does not require a traffic study since it is exempt under CEQA requirements and complies with all other requirements in the zone. He noted that the subterranean parking eliminates potential noise impacts to the neighborhood and is fully screened from view and provides a location for trash and service recycling in the lower level; and stated that staff believes this is a well designed building that will be an asset to the commercial community and abutting residential neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant/owner, stated this project is an attractive professional office complex; pointed out there has been a great deal of financial investment in the exterior design and interior, which has open space and open courtyards; she noted the driveway is off PCH, so there is no interference with the traffic on the highway; that it is located on the down slope portion of the lot, which allows it to be used for parking; advised that there are two levels of parking, both accessed from the same driveway, so all the parking and access is internal to the site; and she noted that all the development standards for this C-3 Zone have been met, noting there are four extra parking spaces than what is required. She stated there is also a temporary short-term parking space. She noted the conditions of approval are all acceptable to the applicant.
Patrick Cunningham, applicant, stated his business will occupy approximately a quarter of this building, which is a design/build business.
Director Blumenfeld stated the building is well designed, but noted that the turret and dome elements are topped with a spire and unfortunately is not permitted by code, since those elements cannot exceed the height requirements.
Ken Hartley, 30th Street resident, noted his concern that the people using this development will negatively impact the parking in this area; and he addressed his concerns with the lack of traffic safety in this area during the rush hour.
Jim Lissner, resident, stated that more parking should be provided.
Sandra Shostag, resident, asked for input on the vacated alley portion.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the alley was vacated when the BMW dealership owned the property; that half of the alley is now owned by the applicant under the provisions of the alley vacation; and that the other half of the alley should have been deeded over to the property owner to the north. He noted this is a continuous alley up until the property and then at this property it’s vacated.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for this project, noting that 39 parking spaces for 16 units is a generous amount for this community.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested that a non-smooth broom surface be incorporated to reduce noise in the parking structure; and stated that the signage should be explicit for the delivery space.
Commissioner Perrotti stated this applicant complies with code and has added an additional four parking spaces plus a loading space; and noted the applicant has agreed with the conditions of approval.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom stated this will be a nicely designed project near the entryway to this City; and noted the applicant has met all the requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, toAPPROVECON 07-3 / PDP 07-4 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68769 for a new 8,750-square-foot two-story general office building with two levels of basement parking divided into up to 16 commercial condominium units at 3001 Pacific Coast Highway; and that Item No. 12 indicate a requirement that the surface of the parking structure/area be a non-smooth broom finish. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated this property is located on the north side of Gould Avenue; that the lot like others on the block between Valley Drive and Morningside Drive has a dedicated alley to the rear and is not improved for vehicle access; that the alley is only accessible to four lots west of 413 Gould Avenue; that the subject lot has the typical size of the properties to the north zoned R-2, having an 80-foot depth and a 30-foot width; and that the subject block is the only one between Gould Avenue and 30th Street in the neighborhood which is zoned R-1. He stated the existing one-story dwelling was constructed in 1958 with significant upgrades to electrical and plumbing in 2003; that the dwelling is nonconforming to parking, as only one qualifying parking space is available; that it’s nonconforming to the garage setback, being at 10 feet rather than the required 17 feet; that the side yard is set back 2.75 feet rather than the 3 feet; and with respect to open space, there is 330 square feet of open space provided in the open patio area adjacent to the one-car garage while a total of 400 square feet is required. He noted that the unused alley behind the rear yard provides 225 square feet of open area at the ground level, but does not count towards the required open space since it is within the dedicated public right of way; and noted that the alley area is also used as a yard area for other properties east of 413 Gould Avenue.
Senior Planner Robertson noted the applicant is requesting a Variance in order to allow the expansion of the first floor entryway and a second story addition; that the proposed expansion will increase the structure from 1,525 square feet to 2,396 square feet; that there currently is no sidewalk, curb or gutter on the subject block; and that the Public Works staff has indicated they will not require the applicant to construct a sidewalk or curb and gutter on this block. He noted the applicant is requesting the existing open parking area, which is parallel to the street in front of the existing garage door, be considered a parking space in order to comply with the parking requirements and is also requesting a Variance from open space resulting from the second story projection which covers the existing patio. He stated the second parking space is necessary to allow the proposed expansion to exceed 500 square feet; noted the Nonconforming Ordinance limits expansions to 500 square feet when only one parking space exists; while open parking in tandem is allowed, he stated a Variance is needed to allow the parking space to be located parallel to the garage door; and stated there are exceptions for existing parking that do not meet the parking setback requirement. He stated, however, that tandem parking is defined as parking aligned in a lengthwise fashion and, therefore, a Variance is required for this parking space in a parallel alignment. He stated that the second story cantilevers over a portion of the existing open space on the ground level located in the front patio area, thereby reducing the open space area dimension clear to the sky from 12 feet in width to 7 feet, causing this area to no longer qualify as open space per code. He stated that given the narrow width of the narrow lot and the location of its entryway, it is difficult to provide the required ground level open space and pursue a second story addition and provide a functional width on the second story without partially covering this ground level. He noted the applicant wants to retain the existing structure and floor plan, which has recently been remodeled, rather than moving the garage back from the street to provide a 17-foot setback, which would be required to add a second space to the side of the existing garage; and that given the location of the existing building with the living area on the first floor and the narrow width of the lot, providing a 17-foot garage setback would require removing a substantial portion of the existing first floor and significantly change the floor plan.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that in order to grant these requested Variances, there are four required findings that must be made:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) 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) 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) The Variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
With respect to Finding No. 1, Senior Planner Robertson stated that it could be argued the narrow width of the lot and its current entryway creates a hardship with providing a second parking space, garage setback and the required open space without significantly compromising the floor plan and the size of the house; and it could be argued that the lack of alley access to a garage in combination with the smaller sized R-1 zoned lot, which is essentially surrounded by R-2 zoned properties in other nearby blocks, does make this property unique and creates an exceptional and extraordinary condition.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson stated the Variance may arguably be necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right, as varying from this requirement is necessary for the property to enjoy a property right possessed by neighboring properties and to retain existing usable floor area on the ground floor; and stated the owners wish to exercise a property right possessed by others in the neighborhood to use the existing driveway as a second parking space. He noted the Variance from open space is arguably necessary to enjoy a property right to build a functional second story addition that because of its width will partially cover the existing open space on the ground level; and the unique situation here that open space is otherwise available in the unused right of way behind the property.
With respect to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated the Variance would not be materially detrimental to neighboring properties and would appear to be consistent with the General Plan. He stated that in order for the applicant to achieve parity with neighboring properties and given the unique conditions of this neighborhood, staff believes findings can be made to support a variance in this case.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the alley is not paved and noted there is a barrier present which prevents access.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if this area is still City owned property.
Senior Planner Robertson stated yes, unless it’s vacated to the adjacent property owners, which requires further action through the neighbors requesting a vacation; and stated it’s still City right of way and that’s why they need the Variance for the open space.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Linsey Miller, applicant, displayed photographs to support her request for the Variance; stated they need the variance to increase the size of their home to accommodate her growing family; noted they are trying to maintain the parking as they currently use it, parking one car in the garage and one at the front of the garage or along the park; and advised they want to add a master bedroom, bathroom, laundry area, and office addition but maintaining a beach cottage feel and consistent look in this neighborhood. She stated the patio will remain the same dimensions on the ground level, noting the patio is an appealing aspect of their house; explained that the patio and wall enclosure is a safety measure from the street; and she noted that letters of support from the neighbors have been given to staff.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he can make the findings to support the Variance, citing the uniqueness of this small lot, the narrow width of the lot, the current entryway, and the lack of an alley in the back.
Commissioner Hoffman stated he can make the findings to support the Variance, citing the unusual alley condition and the long-time parking condition.
Commissioner Pizer noted he can make all four findings.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE VAR 07-2 -- Variance to allow an existing driveway used for parallel parking located in front of a one-car garage to be considered a second parking space and for less than required open space in order to allow an addition of 884 square feet to the existing dwelling, rather than the 500 square foot addition otherwise allowed for sites with only one parking space at 429 Gould Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from this item because he lives within the notification area of the project.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a request for a project that is currently under construction; explained that the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map expired on December 1, 2006, and that the applicant had not requested an extension in time; and as a consequence, he is now processing a new map because the original has expired.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Vice-Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVECON 07-4 -- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061900 for a two-unit condominium project at 708 Monterey Boulevard and 709 Sunset Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a request to consider a slight change in the operation of Starbucks; noted the property was originally approved for a CUP and a Parking Plan to operate a snack shop business; that the business currently serves coffee, drinks, desserts, and packaged sandwiches and salads; and that the business now wants to incorporate warming ovens and to increase the menu to include warm desserts and sandwiches. He stated it is important to note how a business operates relative to a snack shop because it has bearing on the parking requirement; explained that if the business is considered to be a snack shop, it’s parked at the retail parking requirement, which is currently 1 per 333 square feet of floor area; and that if it’s parked as a restaurant, it’s parked at 1 per 100 square feet. He noted if this is approved by minute order, the applicant will make the necessary changes and obtain whatever building permits are necessary and immediately go forward with their proposed change. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff wants to confirm whether the Commission is in agreement that the business hasn’t changed so much that it’s not affecting its parking.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Keith Glassman, representing the applicant, stated the warming oven is a table top convection microwave oven; that the types of food to be warmed will be bagels, desserts, breakfast sandwiches and other sandwiches that are prepared and fully cooked offsite but just need to be warmed; that they are not proposing any food preparation; and stated these are offerings that are incidental to the core coffee business, believing they still meet the snack shop definition in the code.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this is a snack shop and they agreed to approve a minute order.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Director Blumenfeld stated a standard is a request that the Commission consider adopting sustainable development standards as conditions of approval for new residential projects that are subject to discretionary review; stated that staff has been attempting to focus on issues with respect to cost and applicability; noted that staff is proposing at least six areas to focus on initially and providing a menu of sustainability conditions. A project designer can incorporate these conditions in their project based on the particular needs or the conditions of the site; and he mentioned they are divided into heating and cooling, plumbing, lighting, appliances, landscaping, and pervious concrete. He noted under each one of the subheadings, staff addresses the potential costs, benefits, and applications. He stated the condition would indicate the applicant shall comply with one or more of the conditions outlined in the City’s guidelines for sustainable design standards; and that staff would work with the applicant to pick one or more to apply to the project. He highlighted some of the costs and paybacks of these applications, such as programmable thermostats, cool roof barriers, solar water heaters, tankless water heaters, high efficiency appliances, xeroscaping, and pervious concrete. He noted staff’s interest to incorporate these on discretionary projects as soon as possible.
Commissioner Pizer suggested a meeting be held with local architects to get their input on these issues.
Director Blumenfeld noted staff meets on a quarterly basis with design professionals and contractors who do work in the community; and stated that staff is suggesting those professionals choose from this menu, proposing a series of guidelines from which a design professional could choose to incorporate in a project; pointed out these would be conditions of approval and would be mandatory for discretionary residential projects; explained that the design professional would choose from the list to incorporate in the project; and suggested that a general condition of approval would require that the applicant shall select from this approved list and incorporate these working with staff, selecting from this sustainable design guidelines, providing one or more on the project plans. He stated the applicant is then compelled under their conditions of approval to implement the requirement.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested staff prepare a standard condition of approval that applicants for discretionary residential projects be required to work with staff to integrate reasonable sustainable design standards in their project. There was Commission consensus to support this direction.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the standards proposed by staff are reasonable and noted the proposed menu is flexible.
Commissioner Hoffman stated the menu should evolve over time.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the standards can be updated annually.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARING(S)
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of March 20, 2007.
| Langley Kersenboom, Vice-Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |