|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 09-15-98MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 18, 1998, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tucker at 7:10 p.m.
Vice-Chair Merl led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Perrotti, Merl, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker Absent: None. Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
4I-Commissioner Perrotti asked if the plans had been updated. Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant did not bring in plans to present to Commission and the item would need to be continued.
MOTION by Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE the minutes and the resolutions with the exception of Item 4I.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Merl and Pizer
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PDP 98-6 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO A DUPLEX AND TO ADD 534 SQUARE FEET AT 1734 PROSPECT AVENUE. (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 21, MAY 19, JUNE 16, and JULY 21, 1998 MEETINGS).
Staff Recommended Action: Project withdrawn by the applicant.
Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant was advised to withdraw his application in order to have sufficient time to submit corrected plans prepared by an architect and to file a new application for Commission consideration in October.
8. VAR 98-3--VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD, LOT COVERAGE, AND GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND ADD 320 SQUARE FEET TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 2512 HERMOSA AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16 AND JULY 21, 1998 MEETINGS).
Staff Recommended Action: Project withdrawn by the applicant.
Director Blumenfeld stated this project was withdrawn because there were so many unresolved building code and zoning issues that the City Attorney advised that it was not possible to grant another discretionary permit. The City Attorney is currently looking at the project to establish a method to make the property a legal lot in order to proceed with the project.
9. ZON 98-2/CUP 98-4/PDP 98-14 -ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO SPA6, SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 6, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN EIGHTY (80) UNIT ASSISTED LIVING SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1837 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated the zone change is required because Parcel 18 needs an SPA6 designation in order to accommodate the current use. The current zoning is R-3. The SPA zone designation permits an R-3 residential density and also provides special provision for senior housing facilities to exceed the maximum 33 dwelling units per acre with a CUP. In addition, a Precise Development Plan is required because this is a new development.
The project is defined by the applicant as senior housing requiring less support for an individual than a nursing home, but more assistance than independent living for seniors. The applicant is proposing to exceed the allowable density under the R-3 zone and provide 80 bedroom suites, 33 single units and 47 double bed units. These units have no kitchen facilities and there's a central kitchen, common laundry area, common courtyard and activity rooms. The elderly are ambulatory but require para-transit and food preparation services.
The site is currently unimproved. It is owned by the Beach Cities Health District which proposes to ground lease the property to the applicant in order to construct the proposed project. The project is designed to fit within the City's 30 foot height limit on a sloping lot. Because of the sloping lot, the project is well within the height limit on the PCH frontage where the building is 18-20 feet on the easterly side and then approaches the maximum height limit of 30 feet moving toward the west. The design is described as a "Craftsman" style building with gabled roofs with sections of flat roofs with siding and divided light windows. All the parking is provided on grade below the living area on the easterly side of the property with 40 parking spaces. There's a common driveway and a turnaround area and guest parking located toward the front of the site.
Staff believes there are three issues the Commission needs to look at -- parking, drainage on the site and the overall density issue relative to the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant submitted a parking study and it tends to support that even though there are 80 units with a parking ratio provided at about half a space per bed, seniors tend to not drive and use para-transit in an assisted living facility. He noted however, that an update traffic study citing specific facilities had not been submitted. He also noted that there are 22 more units than would be allowed under the R-3 zone and the permit should only be granted providing the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has recommended the addition of some turf block as a paving material to provide some additional green space and there is a generous 20 to 25 foot setback on the perimeter of the site created by the driveway area. The applicant proposes to use a detention system located on site and would contain storm water and then release it after a peak flow into the County storm drain system. He noted that hydraulic calculations have not been provided for Public Works review.
Commissioner Tucker opened the public hearing.
Marian DeMeire, representing Sunrise Assisted Living, at 11620 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90025 gave an overview of the project. This company was started 17 years ago by Paul and Terry Clausin in Virginia. The company has grown to the point where they have 75 residences in 15 states. They pride themselves in providing a very residential atmosphere. Their typical resident is a woman at 85 years who needs help with activities of daily living. All the meals, dining services, a bistro area opened 24 hours a day, interaction and activities are all provided. They are a low traffic generator and are bringing a benefit to the community. They have also had several meetings with the neighborhood and some of the issues that were heard are environmental and architectural issues, including view obstruction. They have made some changes to the landscape plan based on the neighbors' input. They will be maintaining the site and when it is finished, it will look as if it has been in the community for many years and will make sure trees won't grow too tall. Ms. DeMeire gave to staff a sample maintenance agreement and wishes them to be incorporated into their Conditions of Approval. There will be a 25 foot setback with landscape screening along the western edge for the privacy of the neighbors. Also, the updated traffic study will be given to staff as soon as it is available.
The architect of the project presented a rendering to the Commission. There will be heavy landscaping with color and variety. The height is consistent with the edge of PCH. The previous buildings in the area were higher and were not setback from PCH as contrasted by the proposed project with a setback of over 30 feet.
Robert Sunstrum of Hewitt Zolars at 15101 Redhill Avenue, Tustin apologized to the Commission and staff for the late traffic report. Their client is concerned with access to the site and the no parking on the frontage of the property. They feel they should be treated equitably with all the other property owners in the area and would like to leave this condition open so it can be discussed with Cal Trans and the City. Regarding the emergency access drive on the north side, they are open to an alternative along this with a double bend concrete bands for the access and allowing this to go into some type of turf.
Carl Taylor of Hewitt Zolars is a professional civil engineer and has been working on this project for most of the year. He appreciates the time spent with Public Works and staff. They have looked at a number of alternatives regarding drainage such as pumping the storm drainage discharge into the County drain on the east side of PCH. The solution that they are at presently, would be to drain the site to the west end of the site and create an on-site retarding system with closed underground conduits utilizing pre-manufactured concrete or heavy duty plastic pipe or some sort of chambers or vessels that would store the water underneath the driveway that parallels the westerly property line. With outlet control, this would regulate the amount of discharge that then exits the site through the existing drainpipe in the easement to the west that goes down to Springfield. He is concerned about a number of safety issues including not flooding the building, and not flooding the people downstream. As of now, he feels it will be on-site retarding, detaining and then release. They are looking at the percolation issue presently.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the plans showed the proposed detention system was just west of PCH in the driveway. Is it now being proposed that it be on the westerly portion of the property? Mr. Taylor stated because of the grade situation and to stay within the height envelope for the building causes the first floor elevation of the building to be below the grade of PCH. They will get down an acceptable gradient and are proposing a catch basin in the low spots. The retarding system will be down on the west property line. The water will be gravity released and the size of the outlet will be regulated. Right now the pipe goes through an easement in one of the homeowners lots and it goes through a couple of outlet pipes through the curb and onto the street on Springfield. They are still discussing this with Public Works.
Commissioner Pizer asked if a hydrology analysis has been done? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Pizer stated he is concerned about emergency pumping. Mr. Taylor stated they will be looking at what are the calculated amounts and what additional factors of safety will be needed. He would like to look at how much storage would be needed and adding a factor of safety to this.
Chairman Tucker asked if once the water gets to Springfield, does it then dump onto Ardmore to the surface street? Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant does have a plan that takes them beyond the site yet. They need a whole plan indicating what they will be connecting to and Public Works will have to review the plan.
Kathy Macurdy, of 1004 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that whatever that is going to be built on the site will have to address the needs of the drainage issue. She was looking for assisted living for her grandmother last year and there is a great need in the community for this and loves the idea of this facility going in. There were waiting lists wherever she went.
Neal O'Brien, of Springfield Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated as the drainage exists, they have drainage pipes coming from the site to the cul-de-sac and last winter they were not working. They are plugged and Public Works ran cameras up in them and they are dead ending. Last year they had a flood. The streets flood, the drains overflow, the water goes to Ava, then to Ardmore, and down to the school. Public Works stated they have to do everything underground from the site going through quite a few properties. Are there easements there? Chairman Tucker stated there is an easement there from the site to Springfield. Mr. O'Brien stated two 5 inch pipes are coming out of the curb now. If a huge reservoir is put behind two 5 inch pipes, this seems like quite a bit of water coming out to an area that is already flooded with a 6 inch curb anytime it rains.
Chairman Tucker stated as far as giving easements, if the pipes are needed to be run under properties, this would be up to each individual property owner to grant them.
Marv Crosin, of 826 19th Street, Hermosa Beach, is just east of the proposed property. He asked how many parking spaces will be available? Chairman Tucker stated there are 40 proposed. Mr. Crosin asked how many staff members will be working at the facility? Chairman Tucker stated six per shift and as the shift changes there will be 15. Mr. Crosin stated this should be considered when looking at the parking. He is also concerned with the idea of not being able to make a left hand turn into the property and this may direct traffic up his street.
Elton Holman, of 218 The Strand, Hermosa Beach stated he and his wife bought a duplex 28 years ago for a little under $100,000 and they have invested some of their profits from renting out part of the duplex to buy long-term care insurance. They have between them $550,000 and would support his wife for six years at $135 a day and will need it since she has been diagnosed as having dementia due to Alzheimer's. The proposal at Sunrise will provide them an opportunity to have a place for his wife to go and himself possibly. They urge the Commission to approve the Sunrise plans which would make an excellent assisted living care facility available to Hermosa Beach residents and neighbors.
Roxanne Hash, of 1843 Rhodes, Hermosa Beach, is concerned because from her balcony, she can look down and see what's going on below and if the applicant has taken into consideration that there is no obstruction on the in and out driveways . Not all of these people will be under assisted care and will be driving.
Brian Rever, of 1860 PCH, Hermosa Beach, lives directly across from the proposed project. He takes exception to their left hand only turn policy. This would prohibit him from entering his condominium facility coming from the south. He proposes having it as is, where people can make their right hand turn heading north and then he would also be able to make his left hand turn heading south.
Jack Andrian of Hermosa Beach stated he has rental property across the street from the project. He has no problems with it except for the landscaping aspect. There is an envelope of 30 feet for the building but the landscaping is not addressed in any CUP. He would like some language establishing landscaping to be no higher than the envelope of the building but beyond that, to be no higher than 18 feet above PCH. He is concerned about view obstruction.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that during the applicant's presentation, they submitted a maintenance agreement. It is detailed as to pruning and trimming and the height restrictions were 25 feet. There is a periodic maintenance agreement spelled out.
George Hash of 1843 Rhodes Street, Hermosa Beach is east of the project. He commends the Sunrise Assisted Living concern with the use of the property in every respect. He feels it would be an asset to the City. He shares with his neighbors the view issue and it seems it has been addressed pretty well, especially the height of trees. He asked about the limitation on the height of chimneys.
Director Blumenfeld stated the height limit for chimneys is that you are allowed to exceed the height limit by the amount allowed to meet the building code. The building code requires that a chimney be 2 feet above the nearest roof within 10 feet.
Susan Osbeorinson of 1825 19th Street, Hermosa Beach addressed the parking situation again. There will be 40 spaces with 80 people living there. There will be medical staff, cooks, gardeners, cleaners, and people on staff and this is a low figure for parking.
Mr. Hash stated in the tree agreement, there is nothing about heights, tree selection, nothing at all.
Rebuttal
Robert Sunstrum stated there is an existing pipe and an easement that goes westerly from the property. If there is any blockage in the pipe, they haven't been maintaining them up until now. This pipe will have to be cleared, and they will be working with Public Works to come up with the best solution as far as drainage is concerned. That includes the undergrounding to the storm drain system catch basin at Springfield. They have been assured by City staff that the rest of this system is a public system. It is a public easement and goes through an easement and is existing at the present time. Also, they checked and they have the right of the easement through there.
Ms. De Meire stated they will be providing 40 parking spaces as stated and most of the residences are extremely frail and have stopped driving long before they move into a Sunrise Home. Transportation will be provided with a 22 passenger bus. There will also be a clear line of site on PCH and the landscaping won't be obstructing any view for turning in or out of the driveway. They will also be working with staff and Public Works closely on the drainage issue. With the concern about the landscape maintenance agreement, they will be happy to have that part of the conditions of approval for the CUP and to work with staff on the verbiage and what needs to be included in the document so the neighbors can be assured that the landscaping will be maintained and not grow above certain heights. There will be a maximum number of employees on site at any one time could be up to 20. They have the full time staff and an RN who is there 24 hours a day. The 24 hour care is done by care managers and they would be coming in staggered shifts and may be utilizing public transportation. They feel they have adequate parking for staff and visitors.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the residents may have individual care providers coming in? Ms. De Meire stated they provide enough care that is personalized that meets the needs of the residents. Perhaps physical therapists, dentists, and podiatrists, etc. may be coming in.
Chairman Tucker asked what the minimum age is to enter the facility? Ms. De Meire stated they don't have a minimum age and most of the individuals are quite elderly and frail. Chairman Tucker stated a lot of people in their 60's and 70's may still be driving. Also, is there any kind of agreement with the Beach Cities Health District that the residents of the South Bay have a first right to rent the facilities? Ms. De Meire stated there is no criteria based on geographic homeownership. Part of their lease agreement is to provide a yearly grant to the Beach Cities Health District to run programs for older adults. The applicant likes the site because it is centrally located for the South Bay.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated this is not senior housing. It is an assisted care facility. His mother had Parkinson's Disease and the last few years of her life were spent in assisted care and nursing homes. He said 90% of the people were using walkers, wheelchairs and very little mobility. The great majority of the parking was used by visitors. He doesn't have a problem with the parking issue. Concerning the proposed Resolution, paragraph 7, mentioning on site detention of storm water, he would like the word "study" or "plan" entered after storm water. He also could not find anything in the Resolution concerning the surface of the road. The landscaping maintenance agreement should be added as a condition of approval. Concerning the access in and out of the site, Cal Trans has been restricting a lot of left turns on PCH and their recommendations will carry a lot of weight.
The Commission received some correspondence from Tron Zimmermann who was concerned about the hours of construction. Also, a letter from Maryann Carroll-Guthrie who was in favor of the facility.
With density, the impact would be less intensive than the typical apartment building. Regarding the water detention system, Commissioner Perrotti feels the proposal that's in the Resolution is adequate.
Vice-Chair Merl stated there is a certain commitment to this kind of use already existing in the Ordinances and is the kind of use that the City has long voiced a commitment to and has to fulfill to a certain degree. Staff as well as the presentation clearly defines some of the issues. The size of the units is very clear. They aren't a traditional apartment house or condo so the density issue is offset both by purpose and scale of the operation. The kind of intensity of the land use by the fact that it's less than 50% lot coverage actually makes it a plus and a much less intense use of the site than had been used. His greatest concerns are with the drainage. They have to depend on the Public Works Department and the applicant needs to get all the data together to do the study. He feels this is a very positive project. The landscaping and design of the building is a real asset socially as well as physically to the community.
Commissioner Schwartz agrees with Commissioner Perrotti and Vice-Chair Merl regarding density, parking and drainage. She feels it is a very nice looking project and will be an asset to the community physically and does not look institutional. The City does not have a view ordinance and she is not in favor of putting in restrictions as to the heights of plants that could be put on. This would set a precedent and she encourages lush, vibrant plantings to maintain more of a home feeling.
Commissioner Pizer agrees with the comments of the Commission. This will be a good use and balances the City. He wishes to emphasize the safety in exiting on PCH. There will be older people living there and older people visiting.
Chairman Tucker feels the project needs approximately 10 more parking spaces, perhaps somewhere around the parameter. He also would like the mechanical equipment screened in some way. He feels the turf block on the driveway is a good idea and may help the ground water problem. He is disappointed with the architecture of the building. Instead of vinyl siding, he would like to see some wood shingles. Also, some balconies would be nice for some of the units for ocean views.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the more parking spaces that are added, the less landscaping would be available.
Chairman Tucker asked if property line walls will be required around the project? Director Blumenfeld said there will be a property line wall due to a huge difference in elevation from properties to the west. There is an existing property line wall on the south. Also, there won't be any parking on PCH. The Health Department will have to approve the central kitchen and the State will have to approve the facility as an assisted living dwelling.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chair Merl to APPROVE the Resolution for the zoning change as proposed.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Merl, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
MOTION by Comm. Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chair Merl to APPROVE the Resolution with the following modifications: Screening for the equipment on the roof, the word change in paragraph 7 "storm water study", add a provision concerning the impervious surface on the road, add a provision for the landscape maintenance agreement worded so it can be modified by staff, and add a provision that staff work with the applicant to see if more wood siding can be added.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Merl, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
The Commission took a 10 minute break.
10. CON 98-14/PDP 98-19 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25159 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 117 AND 119 LYNDON STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated this project is very similar to the projects currently being built just to the east that were just recently approved by the Commission. Everything is right to Code. It is just a bit over height at .2 of a foot and is easily resolved. The project has all the open space and is under lot coverage. Parking has one additional parking space also. There is a ¾ bath at the basement level and there is adequate landscaping providing 36" box trees. There is decorative paving on the driveway also.
Commissioner Perrotti could not find the wording concerning the decorative paving. When they approve the Resolution, it could be added in. Director Blumenfeld stated they will add Condition #3 that decorative paving be used.
Chairman Tucker requested that the acronyms such as FAU be spelled out. He also asked why there is a ¾ bath at the basement level?
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo at 5147 Rosecrans is representing the applicant. This is the westerly property just to the other side of the five 2-unit condos that are being built and has the same developer. The design of this project will be compatible but has a different architectural style. The ¾ bath is desirable because of being close to the beach, it would be convenient for showering. The issue of the height and setback have been resolved and the plans have been submitted for review.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz is encouraged with the rendering but based on the what has been seen in the packet, the buildings are ugly. There needs to be some articulation. She would like to see the detailing that is being shown and the boxy buildings need to be relieved. Commissioner Perrotti and Chairman Tucker agreed. If an applicant can't meet all the criteria on the list, don't submit the plans. The westerly wall on the alley is too high at 6 feet and should come down to 42".
Director Blumenfeld stated if there is a corner lot, the requirements change for what an allowable wall height can be. On a corner lot, you are only allowed a 42" height wall where you're fronting on two streets. In this case, Palm is not a street. It is an alley and that's why this project wasn't subject to the requirements relative to corner lots. Perhaps the wall height can vary with the egress issue.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to ADOPT the Resolution with the following modifications: 1) staff will add the decorative concrete, 2) the applicant work with staff to modify the elevations so that at minimum, the detailing will be added as shown in the rendering and include some changes of plane so the building is not boxy, and 3) the side wall be changed from 6' to not exceeding 4.5' and any fencing above would be open construction.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
11. CON 98-15/PDP 98-20--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25226 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE .
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated the most unique features is that this project is a very large unit and a small unit. The larger unit has seven bathrooms, two sun rooms, two exercise rooms, patio, etc. There have been some safeguard conditions put in regarding bootleg units because there are some entryways that have the bootleg potential. The project overall meets the zoning requirements concerning the lot coverage open space and parking, etc.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo is representing the applicant. This project as indicated is different with one unit at over 4500 square feet and the other unit at 1500 square feet. The site is a little larger than some of the typical lots and provides for a bigger building foot envelope. There are two sisters who are planning to live in these units and each intends to have a floor for their own purposes. Because the property is zoned for two units, another small unit was built in the back. The issue of the garage came up after it was in the review stage. There was a curb cut at one time and the project then was not required to provide the additional parking space as this project is requiring. They feel the additional parking space is not needed because the unit in the back is small. The parking space would have to be put in tandem and take out the exercise room on the first floor. They could work with Public Works and have them stripe for parking spaces on the street. The architect does not have a problem closing off the entry way at the drive in the front unit and all the other changes that staff has suggested have been made.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated this a highly unusual project and legally it is a condo project. He sees no objections.
Commissioner Schwartz has a problem with the project and it encourages bootlegging.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for clarification on the parking. Director Blumenfeld stated the only issue is if there should be a space replaced with respect to the curb cut.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the plans they reviewed in the staff report had almost five items that didn't comply with the Commissioner's standards and haven't seen the revised plans. He feels they need to review the plans when the Resolution is adopted at the next meeting. He agrees with staff on the parking space issue. Chairman Tucker agreed. Also, the building is way out of character with the neighborhood and is too large and bulky.
Commissioner Pizer asked if this project would be acceptable if it was a single family residence? Director Blumenfeld stated there wouldn't be any discretionary review.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested staff to work with the applicant to reduce the bulkiness of the project and to continue this to the next meeting rather than just rejecting it.
The applicant stated they wanted to do something different and not put in a cookie cutter. It is intended for them to live in it.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to CONTINUE the Item to the next meeting and have staff work with the applicant in modifying the units to reduce the possibility of being three units and that the size of the larger unit be not as bulky and the other outstanding issues be checked and in compliance.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
12. CON 98-16/PDP 98-21--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25176 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 702 10TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated this project is not unique and the front and rear yards are the main concern. They both seem to be showing encroachments of the steps, retaining walls and the balcony is covered. The rear unit has the same thing occurring in the rear yard and is prohibited.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
The representative of Widman Development at 912 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 addressed some of the concerns of staff. The two detached condos have a geometric configuration and is not parallel to the property lines on the west side. The buildings fit comfortably on the site. A section in the garage will house the trash since the garage will be 19 feet wide. They eliminated the balcony extending off and holding it flush with the face of the building on the lower level. There is an area over the front door which is an architectural element and is encroaching. If they need to go to six feet for the front yard, they can. The side area down the west side on the south side of the property is intended to be a landscape area. They are also proposing a modulation of different patterns of larger squares ranging in colors from a buff to a gray for the driveway. The texture of the building will have a combination of steel plaster finish and sand finish. He was not aware there was not a landscape plan submitted and will follow with more than just two 36" box trees. They are proposing to put two large palm trees on the front and then some running down the west side off of the rear property. They are well below the lot minimum as far as lot coverage and their open space is quite a bit over.
Chairman Tucker asked if the upper balcony will be glass or stucco? The applicant stated it will be a stucco undulating rail.
Gloria Kolesar of 714 10th Street, Hermosa Beach reviewed her letter she submitted. After seeing the projects on 9th, 10th and 11th, she can see how their home may be impacted. She sees shoring on two projects on 9th Street. Shoring is jarring and noisy but it has its benefits too if you're close to the property line. They have already seen cracks in their home and one door doesn't close. They have lived in their home for 30 years and the neighborhood was mostly single family with one level. Their home in the back of the property has a section that is 26 feet long and sits three feet off the property line to the adjacent development. Their property sits 1.5 feet higher than the grade right next to their property and their house is on footings, sitting 3 feet above the 1.5 feet on the 26 foot section. Looking at the plans, there is a natural drop of grade of about 3-4 feet from the east to the west and the project is going to drop grade to go into a basement area. They will stand probably about 7.5 feet above that where their property is. She is concerned since they are only 3 feet with their footings, their side setback is only 4.5 feet and they will be dropping about 6-7 feet. They have a retaining wall that goes down the length of the property with fencing and there is a walkway that is elevated to go up to the side doors because their foundation is raised. There is also the neighbor's garage that is existing and sits exactly on the property line in the southeast corner. When the project goes to demolish, how will this impact their retaining wall? They also have a very huge Tea Tree in the far southwest corner adjacent to the garage with a base of 4.5 feet in diameter and would hate to see it impacted. Their home is only single level with a nice view.
Rebuttal
They feel there won't be any shoring. Dave Forrest does the field supervision for Widman Development and will walk the site and address the issues. There will be a new property line wall built.
Chairman Tucker stated the neighbors have to be notified of shoring and is in the Resolution.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer likes the project and hopes there will be adequate notice made to the neighbors regarding the shoring.
Commissioner Schwartz stated it is a nicely designed project. They are setting a precedent with requiring the setback to be 6 feet and this project also be pushed back to allow for a 6 foot setback. The encroachment issues have been addressed and landscaping will be provided more extensively. The baths must be ¾ downstairs.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the proposed Resolution covers all the issues of staff's concerns of the original plans. He feels paragraph 1 with subparagraphs a-e will be resolved when staff gets the new set of plans. The development is unique looking and is not online parallel to the lot lines.
Chairman Tucker has no problem with it but has a problem with the site plan that was submitted. He assured the resident that the City has mechanisms in place to mitigate the shoring issues and the development company is willing to work with them.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the Resolution with revisions noted by staff.
AYES: Commissioner Schwartz, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
13. CUP 98-5--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW TWENTY-FOUR HOUR OPERATION OF A MARKET AT 715 PIER AVENUE, VONS MARKET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated their only real concern is that the rear of the market not be opened up for truck activity because there is a large condominium project across the street and noise from deliveries would disturb residents. Staff has added standard conditions for all the CUP's of this type for on-sale liquor sales.
Commissioner Schwartz stated currently the hours of operation are from 7 a.m. Staff is recommending that deliveries be prohibited before 8 a.m. and asked if there any kind of restriction or complaints currently? Mr. Schubach stated the market is controlling their deliveries due to complaints from the neighbors from the condominiums in the rear. There is currently no control from the City because it wasn't in the previous CUP.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Mara Tolitsen works with Urban Solutions and is an agent for Vons. Their office is at 1049 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, California 92014. She thanked Mr. Ornoff who is a resident of Hermosa Beach who had sent a personal and very supportive letter. Her client is willing to accept the conditions but questions the hours of delivery. They would like to keep 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Also, there is a two hour limit on parking and where do the employees park?
Chairman Tucker stated the parking upstairs is for the patrons and downstairs is for the employees. Director Blumenfeld stated the City Attorney is reviewing the issue as to whether it is public parking.
Chairman Tucker asked if Vons really needs to go to 2 a.m. for alcohol sales? Ms. Tolitsen stated it is Vons policy when they go to 24 hours.
Nichole Willis at 1600 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach which is north of Vons is concerned about the noise level due to the increased hours of operation. Occasionally it is noisy at night due to construction. She doesn't feel it is necessary to sell alcohol until 2 a.m. which may encourage loitering and the store is close to a residential neighborhood. Will there be a security guard present? There have been delivery trucks going in at 4 a.m. and she feels 8 a.m. on the weekends is more reasonable.
Commissioner Pizer stated that part of the Resolution states that the business shall prevent loitering and littering of patrons on the premises at all times.
Rebuttal
Ms. Tolitsen apologized for the construction noise and they do have security guards.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he has seen a number of security personnel in the parking lot. There hasn't been a problem in the past with loitering. He doesn't have a problem with the alcohol hours until 8 a.m. The market is set back and not right out on the street. In the past, the management of Vons has shown they can police the area. He is concerned with the delivery hours. He agrees with the staff report with the trucks arriving at 8 a.m.
Commissioner Schwartz doesn't have a problem with extending the hours for the sale of liquor until 2 a.m. given that the store will be open 24 hours. There will be more security and traffic and won't be an attractive place to loiter. She feels they are being unfair with restricting the hours of delivery from 8 a.m. Starting at 7 a.m. on the weekdays and 8 a.m. on the weekends is more reasonable. Commissioner Pizer and Chairman Tucker agreed.
Chairman Tucker feels the sale of alcohol until midnight is more than adequate.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE the Resolution with the modification that the loading and unloading deliveries during the week will commence at 7 a.m. and cease at 10 p.m. and weekends commencing at 8 a.m. and cease at 10 p.m. Also a condition be added concerning employee parking as to where they are allowed to park.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
14. CUP 98-6--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE ALCOHOL AT 50A PIER AVENUE, PATRICK MOLLOY'S.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this site currently has a CUP for on-sale alcohol which was granted in 1996. The restaurant is part of a multi-tenant building with other restaurants and a retail shop adjacent. There are no interior modifications for the proposed project. It is a request to provide live entertainment maintaining the existing space. The Resolution attached to the staff report recommending approval contains the standard conditions for live entertainment. There will be an acoustical study prepared and sound proofing measures recommended.
Commissioner Perrotti was concerned that most of the establishments that have live entertainment generally have exterior type walls enclosing the establishment. Patrick Molloy's is kind of unique in that it is one big building and interior walls. Director Blumenfeld stated there is a common wall condition. If the study identifies a problem with the transmission of sound, then the owner will have to deal with that issue. This is the way the CUP is set up with Condition #13.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Fred Hahn of Patrick Molloy's stated the age group that they cater to is 28 to 42. The type of music will not be loud rock and is more of a folk type music. They do have air conditioning and the windows do not open. They look forward to having music to increase their business.
Bill Rob from the Treasure Chest, 50 Pier wishes Patrick Molloy's all the luck. He is concerned with the noise level and hopes it will be looked at.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated when the acoustical study is done that particular attention be made to the common walls to make sure there will be adequate separation.
Commissioner Perrotti stated currently the recorded music in the area can be heard. He doesn't know if the live entertainment will be quieter. He recommended a condition should be added so that when an acoustical study is made, they can determine if sound proofing is necessary.
Commissioner Tucker has no problem with granting this. The windows will have to be double paned. He says when you go down in that area, everybody's doors are open and people are playing in the street. He hopes the windows and doors stay shut.
Commissioner Pizer asked if there is a standard procedure for the measurement of sound compatibility? Director Blumenfeld stated what is required is that the applicant retain an acoustical engineer who can prepare a study based on the standards for sound transmission to adjoining structures. What the engineer builds into their model for sound transmission is based on typical construction conditions and what is located on site.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to ADOPT the Resolution as written with an amendment that the impact on the adjoining uses be addressed.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
15. CON 98-17/PDP 98-22--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25252 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 AND 1020 FIRST STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this site is zoned SPA2 which is different from most condominium projects reviewed by Commission. It is located on a through lot between Meyer and Barney Courts at 1st Street. The zoning is R2 use but because of the SPA Zone overlay, the project is limited to the R1 development standards. This means that there is a requirement for 400 square feet of open space per unit and 50% lot coverage which is more restrictive than the typical R2 type development. The project consists of two units. One is a little over 2600 square feet and the other is about 2700 square feet. They are standard 4 bedroom, 3 ½ bath type projects except they are limited to the 25 foot height limit under the SPA Zone. The project conforms to all the zoning requirements. The lot is located on a convex slope and the Zoning Ordinance provides a method for measuring height along convex slopes which is slightly different than on a uniform sloping lot. The Ordinance provides the ability to take a detailed topographic survey along the convex slope along the property line and then use those as datum to establish the point at which to measure building height. This is the method that staff used to make a determination about establishing grade for the project. The grades are shown on the survey and in the calculations on the last page of the staff report for corner point elevations. On one point, there's about a 6 foot difference in elevation. Overall, even with the contribution of the convex slope, the building height will be substantially lower than the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood at 25 feet tall. The Commission has the option to use the standard corner point number or split the difference if it believes these methods are justified.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
David Boyd, the architect for the project at 24050 Madison Street, #202, Torrance, CA 90505 stated this is an R2 with an SPA overlay and they are trying to develop two units that look and feel as much as single family homes. They each have their own separate entrances, driveways, nothing in common, private backyards and the only common thing is the wall dividing the two backyards. They have also changed the detailing slightly from building to building. They are maintaining all the street trees and using one of the existing curb cuts and introducing a second onto 1st Street. They are using the R1 standards with a two story building, no roof decks, and 25 feet height. The building next door is 30 feet high and will tower over them. They are also 50% lot coverage. Regarding the convex lot, they pulled the street profiles on 1st Street and Barney Court and saw the streets were cut down about 4 feet on Barney Court. Their lot was left as a level lot and streets were cut down.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the project is nice looking and appreciates the distinctions between the two buildings. She feels this is a case to use the convex measurements.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the project looks good and resembles single family residence. He agrees with the conditions that staff has put in the Resolution.
Commissioner Pizer and Chairman Tucker agreed.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed by staff.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
HEARINGS
Commissioner Schwartz left the dais.
16. S-4--REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW A MURAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENTS AND TO ALLOW A COMMODITY IDENTIFICATION SIGN WITHIN SAID MURAL AT 2 HERMOSA AVENUE, DAWN TO DUSK (CONTINUED FROM JULY 21, 1998 MEETING).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated the mural is proposed for the building facing Hermosa Avenue and is 7 feet x 13 feet wide. The issue that was discussed previously was whether or not the mural was pictorial or identification. It does contain the words Mountain Dew on two places and is not consistent with the definition of a mural as pictorial. The Commission has two options. It can be interpreted as the entire mural as commodity identification or isolate the wording within the mural and make a determination that it qualified as a mural.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Michael Dark at 24881 Georgia Drive, Laguna Hills, California 92653 is representing Pepsi Cola. Pepsi feels this would be a great advantage for the City to help beautify the building as a kind of gateway to Hermosa Beach from Redondo Beach. Chairman Tucker had an idea of putting up "welcome to Hermosa Beach" along with a tag of the airplane instead of the second logo. Pepsi thought this was a great idea.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer feels this is definitely a commodity ID and not a mural and can't be combined. Commissioner Perrotti agreed stating it is more like an advertising sign.
Chairman Tucker stated even with the "welcome to Hermosa Beach" taking the place of the second logo, there is still the other Mountain Dew logo present. It will still be a commodity sign.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, that this Item be considered commodity identification and is not a mural.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schwartz, Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
17. S-4--REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW A MURAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENTS AT 55 14TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Schwartz returned to the dais.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is similar to the previous request as to being a pictorial representation versus advertising. There is a mural on the south side of the building, but on the east face there is some business identification signing that would be replaced as part of this proposal. The Commission needs to interpret whether the existing identification sign makes the entire mural on the east side a business identification sign or if the mural can be considered a background and separate from the sign.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the awning is existing. Is the Grandview Motor Hotel the way it reads existing? Director Blumenfeld stated there is currently a business identification sign. As a stand alone sign, it doesn't exceed the maximum allowable sign area.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Ms. Chang, the general manager for the Grandview Motor Hotel is in charge of the project. The sign is an existing sign and the new hotel next to it has no sign. In the beginning, she just wanted to paint the building with no sign and make it fun. The sign lights up in the evening and if she paints it, she needs to put neon lights on it. If it is not permitted, then she will leave the existing sign and just paint the mural behind. The sign has been on over twenty years and does not look clean. She would like to clean it up.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti asked about the existing sign on the side and if it is a non-conforming sign now? Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant is referring to the fact that you can't have a sign above the second floor level.
Commissioner Pizer asked if the applicant would be allowed to take the existing sign down and replace it with a new sign that is identical to it? Director Blumenfeld said not on the east side where it would be over the height.
Commissioner Schwartz feels it is a sign and not a mural. She says they need to be consistent saying it is a sign. The sign there is old, but if the applicant wants to upgrade and modernize, then new signage would have to be done.
Commissioner Perrotti asked about the existing neon sign on the east elevation. If that remained in place and put the mural around it, could this be allowed? Director Blumenfeld stated if a mural is to be provided, then the Commission's authority is to hear relative to Sign Ordinances to approve it. There are two issues. Under the Sign Ordinance whether or not a mural is approved is subject to the Commission's decision. In addition, there is a special issue about whether or not it is pictorial or product ID.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, that the south elevation mural is allowable.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Tucker doesn't really like how it looks. He thinks something needs to be done with the colors of the building. He feels the mural is too busy. The applicant stated she is going to repaint the building light beige with blue trim. The artist wanted it painted quiet before the mural goes on.
Commissioner Perrotti stated Chairman Tucker would prefer to see some of the colors that are in the mural be used in the trim. The applicant agreed. The blues will match. The landscaping will also be redone.
Commissioner Pizer feels without the curtains it looks better. Chairman Tucker thought the curtains could match.
The applicant feels she is not going to do the other mural at this time. The building will be repainted.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, so ordered by Chairman Tucker, that the mural on the east side has been withdrawn.
18. S-4--REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FROM COCA COLA CO. TO ALLOW MURALS AS AN EXCEPTION TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENTS AND TO ALLOW COMMODITY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS WITHIN SAID MURALS AT 2 HERMOSA AVENUE AND 74 PIER AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is the same issue interpretation of a mural pictorial area versus commodity identification. There is a photo rendering on the site showing the existing condition and what's proposed. If the project commodity ID area is included in the mural, then the project would not conform with the sign ordinance.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
The applicant of Coca Cola Co. at 19875 Pacific Gateway in Torrance, Ca 90502 stated every year Coca-Cola holds a regional mural contest in different parts of the United States. High school students draw the murals and that is how they came up with their murals on the two locations. At Roberts, the mural will go below the Pepsi sign which is no longer there. It will be from the ground to not all the way up to just above the doorway. At Dawn to Dusk there are two walls on the west side.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated they are both clearly product identifications. If they want to go ahead on Roberts without the product ID, that would be fine but the whole vision on Dawn to Dusk needs to be seen.
Commissioner Perrotti agrees. He isn't sure if the one on Roberts is in compliance because it has the name of the liquor store in the mural.
Commissioner Pizer and Chairman Tucker agrees. Chairman Tucker would like to see the mural on Roberts Liquor to depict old time Hermosa Beach.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to DENY the murals unless the Coca-Cola references and the identification of Roberts Liquor are removed on the Roberts location and not to allow anything on Dawn to Dusk until a totality of what is going to be there is seen.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice-Chair Merl ABSTAIN: None
19. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld stated staff is looking for direction with respect to code interpretation of the Nonconforming Uses and Buildings Ordinances. Specifically, often what is shown on the plans is not built in the field as a consequence of the age of a building and often what is shown on the plans is not clear with respect to what is going to be removed and what will remain. Staff is looking for specific direction with respect to what is considered an existing wall and what isn't. Often times, after a project commences we will end up with a wall that is part of a non-conforming remodel where a window header is replaced and then there are some new studs, and then the rest of the wall is all existing. Sometimes there will be a condition where there will be some new studs required because of dry rot or some structural reason or some structural component that winds up landing in that wall. So there is a mixture of old and new. The problem with respect to this Ordinance is that it tends to over simplify the construction conditions in the field. After you get past a certain threshold, then you need to come before the Commission. One obvious solution is to send all of the projects before the Commission. Staff has basically been using the assumption that if there some existing studs remaining in the wall and footage is not being added, then that wall can be considered an existing wall. Basically, some direction, clarification and confirmation is needed, and then when staff comes back with a new draft relative to the Ordinance, the wording can be incorporated in the revision.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the way it has been proceeding makes sense. Trying to define anything that's a midway point becomes hairsplitting. If there is anything old in it, it is an existing wall and the rest of the Commission concurred.
Director Blumenfeld is suggesting making this a plan check issue. If the architect has to change something such as a window, there may be new framing and there may be some existing wall there and it would be counted as existing wall. He noted there may be permutations on this such as leaving the plates in but there will need to be new studs and it gets difficult to plan check a project. Staff's sense is that if there's existing work in the wall, it is an existing wall and if the footage doesn't change, there is no change in gross floor area.
Staff will come back with some revisions that will go before the Commission and then the Council containing wording to this effect.
20. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
No objections, so ordered.
Agendas / Minutes Menu | Top of Page | Back to Agenda
|
|
|
|