Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_11_20MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 1BE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. byChmn. Ketz. Pledge of .Allegiance led by Comm. Aleks. Chmn. Ketz introduced and welcomed the new commissioner, Robert Marks. ROILCAIL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as submitted the minutes of September 18, 1990. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Aleks and Marks, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as submitted the minutes of November 6, 1990. Noting the abstention of Comm. Marks, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve the following resolutions: Resolution P.C. 90-88, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE Cl1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #22653, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 817-823 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16, 16, AND 17, BLOCK A, 1RACTNO. 860; Resolution P.C. 90-94, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM TO ELIMINATE CONDITION 12(A), AT 952 EIGHTII STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, WILSON AND LIND'S mACT; Resolution P.C. 90-95, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE Cl'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1712 TIIE S1RAND BE1WEEN LOTS 1, 2, AND TIIE SOUTIIEAST 20 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 18, HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Marks, and there being no objection to approval of the above resolutions, so ordered. Chmn. Ketz pulled for discussiorl Resolution P.C. 90-93, Condition No. 17: "Individual containers of alcohol shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible." She asked whether that condition should have been included. Mr. Schubach stated that that condition is included as recommended by the Commission. He continued by explaining that the item which was not allowed was a condition prohibiting single-container sales of alcoholic beverages. 1 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to Chmn. Ketz's questions related to Condition No. 19 ("The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/ or security personnel paid by the business."). explained that that is a standard condition for any establishment selling alcoholic beverages, including grocery stores. Comm. Rue discussed Condition No. 15: "The use of the residential portion of the subject property including the garage areas and storage rooms, and/ or closets in connection with the business for storage, shall revert back to use for residential parking and storage when this business changes." He questioned that particular wording and asked questions related to the currently existing storage area. He then suggested wording to clarify the condition. Discussion ensued related to when the storage space should revert back to parking. Mr. Lee recommended that the wording in Condition No. 15 be replaced with the following: "The existing use of the garage area within the residential portion of the subject property in connection with the existing business shall revert back to use for residential parking and storage when there is a substantial alteration, modification. or termination of the existing use." Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, explained what would constitute a "substantial" change in use. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-93, with the Mr. Lee's recommendation to replace the wording in Condition No. 15 as stated above. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM TIIE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. F-4 -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FARMER'S MARKET AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND 13TB STREET ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach recommended that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that the Public Works Department will have additional time to complete the traffic study. Chmn. Ketz stated that no one in the audience came forward to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this item to the meeting of December 4, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Cbmn. Ketz None None None CUP 90-23 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS TIT.I, DARK AT 200 LONGFEI,T.QW AVENUE, LA PENITA #2 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF <>C10Jir.;K 16. 199Ql Mr. Schubach recommended that this item be continued, explaining that proper noticing was not accomplished because the notices were not mailed out in time. Comm. Aleks asked whether this item would need to be renoticed. 2 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Lee explained that the item can be continued to a date certain without having to renotice; however, it can be published in the newspaper so that people are aware of the new hearing date. Mary Orozco, 200 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and asked questions related to whether or not this item needs to be renoticed. She said that a notice is not posted on the property at this time, explaining that she received nothing from the City to post. Mr. Lee suggested that this entire matter be renoticed in compliance with applicable requirements. He recommended that a notice be mailed, the item be republished in the newspaper, and a sign be posted at the property itself. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the date to which this item should be continued. Ms. Orozco stated that she has no objection to a continuance to the first meeting in January, noting that the request relates to summertime hours. Chmn. Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 1991. She advised the applicant to call the Planning Department for instructions related to the proper noticing. CON 90-16 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22634 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138:142 MANHATIAN AVENUE CON 90-17 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHATIAN AVENUE CON 90-18 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 150-154 MANHATIAN AVENUE CON 90-19 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637 FOR A 'IWQ-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 158:160 MANHATTAN AVENUE (FOUR ABOVE BEARINGS CQNTJNUED FROM MEE'IING OF NOVEMBER 6, 19901 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission continue this request to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that the applicant can consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive design which would improve the project is several ways: provide alley-only access; provide adequate common recreation space to meet the requirements for projects of five units or more; and to attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize the usable open space. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative recommendation to approve the proposed design by approving the CUPs and tentative parcel maps, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolutions, which also include a condition specifying that the existing palm trees be retained on site. Mr. Schubach, noting that there is a new Commissioner, stated that Commissioner Marks has read all of the minutes related to this project and is therefore able to participate in the discussion and voting of this item. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) for the benefit of the new commissioner, gave background on his experience in the area and other projects he has designed; (2) said that he is aware of the parking problems in the area, and this 3 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 was taken into account when this project was designed; (3) discussed the 17-foot setback requirement; (4) said that this project will provide ample parking; (5) said that even though City requirements allow a nine-foot setback on an alley, he decided against that so that more parking could be provided. Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) said that the parking has been integrated into the overall project: (2) noted that. even though the units could have been built larger, he elected to keep them smaller, in conformance with the surrounding area: (3) discussed the fact that parking meters were installed in front of this property which resulted in additional problems for this project; (4) explained that only one on-street parking space will be lost as a result of this project; (5) said that the trees on site will be preserved. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) discussed access from Bayview: (2) commented on the suggestion of using subterranean parking, explaining that such parking would not be feasible; (3) for the benefit of the new commissioner, discussed the plans and parking layout of the proposed project; {4) explained that each of the four building facades will be different in an effort to avoid a "cookie-cutter" appearance: (5) explained that the parking and access will be fifty-fifty, half from Manhattan Avenue and half from Bayview; (6) felt that the design elements of this project will be an asset to the community. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) discussed the plot plan as related to the parking and driveways: (2) explained the layout of the units; (3) commented that he is aware of the impacts in the area, and these concerns were taken into account when the project was designed; (4) pointed out on the plans the difficulties which would be encountered with subterranean parking because of the seven-foot drop-off on the lot; (5) stated that a subterranean garage would require a gate, which would create problems for guest parking; (6) noted that there are also security problems with subterranean parking; (7) said that such parking would be very expensive to build and to landscape. Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) said that the proposed project will create more of a single-family feeling; (2) stated that the bulk of a combined project as recommended by staff is not desirable: (3) noted that during his meetings with staff on this project, no mention was ever made that he would have to integrate these four separate lots into one project; (4) stated that another project in this vicinity was approved as submitted, with no requirement that they be integrated; (5) stressed that his concept is better suited for the area than one integrated project would be. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) said that the units will be owner-occupied; (2) felt that a consolidated project would be conducive to renters, which is not desirable for the City; (3) stated that people will use their garages for parking as intended; (4) commented on the letter he sent to the Commission dated November 15, 1990; (5) in response to questions from Comm. Marks. explained how they arrived at the cost of subterranean parking for this project ($400,000) and what would be involved: (6) reminded the Commissioners of the goals of the City, stating that home ownership is something to be desired. Glenn Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on behalf of the Coral Terrace Homeowners Association; (2) reiterated the points be made at the last public hearing on this matter: (3) said that eight more units would greatly impact Bayview Drive, therefore, the association objects to access from Bayview; {4) said that they also opposed one integrated project, feeling that it would look like an apartment building with subterranean parking; (5) said that a precedent has already been set at 128 Manhattan Avenue by approval of that project which has half of its access off of Bayview: (6) said that this project does not fit in with the City's vision: (7) displayed photos depicting the surrounding area of the proposed project; (8) favored a project which will have the least impact on Bayview. Mr. Schubach explained that staff never said a subterranean garage would be required; that was merely one possibility which was suggested as an alternative. He continued by explaining why the other project was approved with access from both Bayview and Manhattan Avenue, noting that there were different circumstances related to that project. 4 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he owns Lot No. 4 which has been discussed, and he continued by explaining why the access was done as it was; (2) noted that the proposed project consists of four separate lots; (3) said that he supports the project as submitted; (4) felt that the project will benefit the neighborhood; (5) said that 28 households in the area support this project as proposed and they do not want all access on Bayview; (6) felt that single-family residences are much more desirable in the City than an apartment-like structure; (7) commented on the problems associated with subterranean garages and the fact that people do not like them; (8) read a definition of "alleys"; (9) urged the Commission to approve the project as submitted. June WiJ1iams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that Bayview is very congested now, especially because people park there illegally; (2) supported the project as submitted: (3) said that the project could not be any better; (4) stressed that people do not like to use subterranean parking garages. Jim Shirk, 446 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) described the many problems associated with subterranean parking; (2) commented on open space in condo projects, stating that it is not useful and it creates many problems: (3) said that it is desirable to have owner/ occupied units, not renters, which are undesirable; (4) said that an integrated project as recommended by staff would not be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Olguin, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the landscaping will be as depicted on the plot plan. He said that additional landscaping will enhance the overall project. He said that he would be able to provide an overall landscape plan, if so desired. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. CoIIllll. Peirce stated that approval of condominium projects is a discretionary act. He stated that there are few pieces of property in the City which can be tied together. Even though he felt the applicant brought up good points regarding one large project, he felt that the proposed project does not utilize the land to its best advantage. if one considers all four projects together. In regard to subterranean parking, he stated that in order to avoid the downslope from the alley to the parking lot, one driveway from the street would be more pleasant than driving down the alley. He also noted concern over loss of on-street parking. Comm. Rue discussed various parking configurations which could be utilized. He noted concern over loss of open space and the creation of a concrete sea in order to accommodate parking. He agreed that subterranean parking would be totally inappropriate, based on safety concerns and economic realities. Comm. Aleks stated that he favored this project the last time it was heard. He felt that single- family type units are much more desirable than apartment-like structures. In this particular area. he did not feel one large integrated project is appropriate. He noted that these are four legal lots and they should not be required to be tied together. Even though he admired staff's intentions, in this case he favored approval of the project as submitted. Comm. Marks commented that a project of this size would impact the area. Chmn. Ketz stated that she opposed the proposed project based on the fact that she feels there is a better design than having four driveways on both Bayview and Manhattan Avenue. She also noted concern over the possibility of having so many curb cuts along the streets. which results in a loss of landscaping. She concluded by stating that she feels a better design is available for this project. Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant had an opinion related to whether this hearing should be continued so that he could prepare and present a new design. 5 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Olguin stated that the would prefer to have the Commission vote on the project as submitted at this time. Comm. Rue commented that he felt the proposal as submitted is a good project; however, he also felt that there could be other good designs as well. Mr. Olguin explained that other parking and driveway configurations were considered; however, it was determined that this proposal is the best design for the project. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolutions 90-89 through 92, with the inclusion of additional wording to Condition No. 4B specifying that if palm trees are lost, similar-sized specimen trees shall take their place; further, that other trees shall be encouraged to be maintained at the discretion of the Planning Director. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Aleks, Marks, Rue Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Chmn. Ketz stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Comm. Rue requested that the Commission receive copies of the final landscape plot plan. CON 90-20/PDP 90-8 -CONDmQNAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING 1ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 TENTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the CUP and vesting tentative map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4109 square feet, with an existing use as a single-family unit. The proposed density is 21 units per acre. Five parking spaces will be provided, and 980 square feet of open space will be included. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes from side to side towards the west. The proposed units contain approximately 3000 square feet each and consist of three bedrooms, a loft, four bathrooms, and a roof deck. The project consists of two separate detached structures with two floors and a meuanine level above a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations exhibit a smooth cement plaster exterior, steel railings, architectural regl.ets, an architectural trellis, glass block, and a waterfall on sheet glass. The proposed waterfall would fall into a small pond in front of the building. This combination of features gives the building somewhat of a contemporary appearance. The landscape plan depicts several trees and bushes to provide visual relief from the otherwise large and bulky structure. The design also features a rounded stairway protrusion, exterior balconies, and glass block to provide further visual relief. The proposed front yard setback is variable, ranging from 5.5 feet to 7 feet, which conforms with the minimum requirement of 5 feet. A balcony encroaches to within 4 feet, which also falls within the requirements for balcony encroachments into the front yard. The average front yard setback along this portion of 10th Street is about 13 feet. This particular street has recently been the subject of three other condominium projects for which the front yard setback has been an issue. Most recently, the project across the street, 612 10th Street, was allowed a protrusion to no closer than 8 feet. while 620 10th Street was 6 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 required to provide 10 feet. The adjacent project at 625 10th Street was allowed a setback of 7 feet (with a protrusion to 5.5 feet) in July of 1988. The architect was advised to be sensitive to nearby front setbacks in the design of this project to be consistent with the character of the block but has instead chosen this variable setback with the inclusion of the waterfall feature. Staff felt that the appropriate setback for this block is 10 feet, perhaps with an allowance for minor protrusions. As such, staff recommended that the average setback of 10 feet be required for this project, but allowing for protrusions to a minimum of 7 feet since the project immediately to the east is at 7 feet. Parking is provided in two. two-car garages oriented to the center of the lot and accessed by a 9'6" wide driveway. One guest space is provided, and no on-street spaces are lost as a result of curb cuts. One correction to the plans is necessary. The chimney encroachments into the required six- foot building separation between buildings is not allowed; however, the balcony encroachment into the rear yard is permitted in the R-2 zone. Staff therefore recommended the deletion of Condition No. 12(a) related to that issue. The project complies with all other planning ~d zoning requirements. Lot coverage calculates to be 63 percent. Adequate open space is provided in the two roof decks, and adequate storage space is provided. Although the proposed project is larger than the typical single-family home in the area, it is consistent with the standards of the R-2 zone and with three other newer projects located nearby. Public Rea.ring opened at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Fran Baker, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets or exceeds all of the zoning requirements, including parking; (2) said that the project exceeds the open space requirement; (3) felt that this project would be an asset to the neighborhood and is one which meets the goals of the City; (4) urged the Commission to approve the project as submitted. Larry Peha. 67 14th Street. Hermosa Beach, project architect. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the main issue appears to be that of the front yard setback; (2) said that in this area of the City, the code allows a five-foot setback; (3) noted that the Planning Department seems to have no clear-cut answer as to what the setback requirement is; (4) gave examples of setbacks for neighboring projects which have recently been approved; (5) stated that there has been no definite standard. related to front yard setbacks in the City. Mr. Peha continued and: (1) said he was informed by staff that the setback is left to the discretion of the Commission; (2) stated that the point of the project which has a five and a half foot front setback is the location of the pools for the waterfalls; (3) said that the setbacks for this project were based on those of the neighbors, which are five and a half feet and seven feet; (4) said that the setbacks are therefore in conformance; (5) noted that the property is under the allowable lot coverage. Mr. Schubach explained that staff takes into consideration the various setbacks on a street before making i.ts recommendation. He noted that blocks have varying setbacks, and older homes are generally set back much further than newer developments. Staff therefore averages the setbacks so that projects conform to the existing neighborhood. 7 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Peha continued by stating various setback measurements of other surrounding properties. He went on, at the request of Comm. Rue, to describe the project setbacks as depicted on the color rendering. He also described the curved waterfall enclosure. Mr. Peha explained that the waterfall cascades into an inside pool at the stairwell landing, at which point it then goes to the exterior. Jeff Green, 922 10th Street, Manhattan Beach, project developer, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that existing neighborhoods are taken into account when he designs projects; (2) discussed the setbacks, stating that other developers he has talked to assert that the City has no clear-cut requirement for the front yard setback; (3) discussed the five-foot requirement, stating that additional square footage can be utilized in the structure because of the smaller setback; (4) said that a larger setback would not be feasible because an additional bedroom could not be built; (5) said that this is a high-quality project; (6) commented that he would like approval of the project as submitted. Mr. Green continued and: (1) stated that there is an unusual situation at this property, in that from the property line to the sidewalk there is an extra two feet which is an encroachment area and is basically dead space; (2) stated that he could find no reference in the code related to whether or not chimneys can protrude into the required building separation; (3) stated that the chimneys could be staggered to give more space between them; (4) said that staggering would create a more open area. Mr. Schubach stated that the matter of the chimneys is a zoning code issue which is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Public Hearing closed at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that this is a very attractive project with unique features. He noted that over the past several years, the City has been making ~ attempt to have new projects blend in with the older units, especially in the older neighborhoods which are in transition. He felt that the five-foot setback requirement was not well thought-out when it was implemented a number of years ago. He felt that the averaging method has been working out well in the City; however, he noted concern over the front setback of this project, stating that he could not support a five- foot front setback. He felt that a setback between eight to ten feet would be appropriate, considering that the neighboring property has a setback of seven feet. Comm. Aleks noted that the applicant was aware of the setback requirement; therefore, he favored staff's recommendation of a ten-foot front setback. Comm. Rue discussed the reason why the City began the averaging method for setbacks. He discussed the project and stated that it is very attractive with some unique features. He could not support a five-foot front setback, stating that he would prefer to see it be a little larger. Chmn. Ketz stated that this is a beautiful project; however, it is important to adhere to the front setback requirements. She felt that the larger setback also helps reduce the bui1ding bulk. Mr. Green approached the Commission and stated that the homes with the larger front setbacks are very small and very old, and will be tom down soon and replaced with newer projects. He therefore felt that it is not appropriate to say the average setback is 13 feet, especially when almost all of the newer projects have five feet. He stated that if a larger front setback is required, he will have to redesign the entire project. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-97, including the deletion of Condition No. 12(a). Comm. Peirce asked whether the Commission will see these plans again if they are redesigned for the ten-foot front setback. 8 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Schubach explained that minor revisions are approved at the discretion of the Planning Director. Substantial changes, however, are sent back to the Commission for their review and approval. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Aleks, Marks,Peirce,Cbinn.Ketz Comm.Rue None None Comm. Rue explained that he voted against the motion based on the fact that he feels Condition No. 2 requiring a ten-foot front yard setback is excessive; he favored a compromise of seven feet, noting that the building next door is at five and a half feet. He also noted that a mitigation measure is the two-foot encroachment between the property line and the sidewalk. He felt that the larger setback would have a detrimental effect on both the front facade and on the square footage of the unit. Cbinn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 9:00 P.M. until 9:08 P.M. CUP 90-12 -CONDl11ONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL AND ADOP'.llON OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2510 PACIFIC COAST WGHWAY. LUCKY STORE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. 'Ibis project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is approximately 46,000 square feet. and the building size is 32,656 square feet. The current use is as a grocery store with off-sale liquor. There are 166 parking spaces. The Lucky Market is located on the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway at Artesia Boulevard. It shares the east lot with adjacent small businesses that also have additional parking space. The combined lot is approximately 100,000 square feet. The store is a 24-hour operated combination market and off-sale liquor store. The Lucky Store is one of the rP.maining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a CUP subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance. At their meeting of October 18, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to maintain parking lot landscaping. The requested CUP would authorize the continued off-sale alcohol from the premises. Staffs concerns are minor in nature. On the east parking lot. repairs obviously had been completed previously; however, minor blemishes and medium-sized cracks still exist in the middle driveways of the east parking lot. It also appears that when those repairs were completed this summer, no slurring occurred at that time. It is otherwise obvious that Lucky Stores has accepted the spirit of cooperation regarding the landscaping. Automatic watering has been provided at all islands, and plants and bushes have recently been rejuvenated. 9 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Tilis store has been in operation since 1982 and has been a 24-hour operation for over three years. They have a "no delivery" policy prior to 8:00 A.M. or after 6:00 P.M. to accommodate the neighbors. They are open seven days a week including most holidays. The adjoining residential area that abuts the east parking lot is 300 feet from the market. Since this is an existing grocery market/ off-sale liquor location, staff felt that the sale of general alcohol should be allowed to continue. subject to the proposed conditions of the zoning ordinance, and those conditions related to the site and the exterior premises. Also, the market is a considerable distance from residential development and is located at the intersection of two major arterials. The 24-hour operation is therefore not deemed to be detrimental. Public Hearing opened at 9: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jim Vivonia. 21966 Annette Avenue, El Toro, district supervisor for Lucky Markets, addressed the Commission and: (1) clarified that the hours they have been using for deliveries are between 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M., and he asked that they be allowed to continue with those hours; (2) discussed Condition No. 5 related to the posting of signs regarding purchases of alcoholic beverages; (3) noted that the larger signs will be posted at the exits, and he therefore requested that the signs at the check-out stands be smaller in size than 12" x 14" as required in the condition; (4) discussed Condition No. 17 and stated that Lucky Markets do not use clear packaging, and he therefore questioned whether that requirement could be deleted; (5) noted that a translucent. recyclable bag is used at the store. Ann Grassie, 6565 Knott Avenue, Buena Park, administrative assistant for Lucky Market, asked whether any protests from the public were received related to this request, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. Public Hearing closed at 9: 16 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-96, with the following changes: Condition No. 3 to be corrected to allow loading and unloading between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M.; Condition No. 5 to be amended to allow signs of 5" x 7" to be placed at the check-out stands; and Condition No. 17 to be deleted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. PDP 90-1 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-STORY. 13.675 SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ADOPI'ION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1414 PACIFIC COAST MGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 13, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed precise development plan and environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in S.P.A. 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The lot size is 16, 980 square feet; building size is 13,675 square feet. The floor area/lot area ratio is 0.80. Required parking is 55 spaces, and 55 (with 30 percent compact spaces) are provided. The building height will be 35 feet. Landscaping coverage is 1450 square feet, or 8.5 percent. The current use is as an abandoned service station. P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 The applicant is proposing to construct a new building on a lot which was previously a gasoline/service station. The project contains 13,625 square feet of retail space and a two-level parking area with 55 parking spaces. The parking is provided behind the building and would not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. The initial proposal submitted by the applicant provided a driveway access from P.C. H. and from 15th Street. Upon review of this proposal, the City's traffic engineer noted several safety concerns. Staff suggested the installation of a "No Right Turn" sign so that people do not travel up into the neighborhood on 15th Street; instead, cars will be directed onto Pacific Coast Highway. The change to 15th Street only access also benefits the street appearance of the building and maximizes store frontage viSibility. The project's height of 35 feet and the total square footage exceed the first-tier limits of 25 feet high and 10,000 square feet established by the specific plan area zone. Therefore. the project is subject to the requirements for a precise development plan and to the guidelines of the ordinance. Staff reviewed the project for consistency with the guidelines for review of precise development plans in Specific Plan Area No. 8 and made several findings. The project is designed in scale with the surrounding commercial buildings and nearby residential uses. The overall square footage does not appear to be excessive for a lot of this size, and the intensity of the use would be compatible with the surroundings. The Mediterranean style architectural features are in character with the surrounding commercial buildings, and stepping architectural features are utilized to give the building a three-dimensional quality. Although the proposed project exceeds the first-tier height limit of 25 feet and extends to the maximum height at the P.C.H. frontage, the building is only 35 feet high where the two sloping roof features peak. The rest of the building ranges from 20 feet high from grade at the rear to 30 feet. As such, it clearly meets the criteria that the portion which exceeds the first-tier limits is compensated for by a proportional area which is at or less than 25 feet. The design incorporates features to avoid a flat roof appearance, and relief is provided to the building to avoid the appearance of flat vertical walls. Although the building's upper levels are not tiered back or set back more than the first floor, the use of balconies and slightly depressed window fronts provides visual relief. In regard to the proposed height and its impact on ocean views, staff felt that the impact will be minima]. First, the building is placed all the way to the front and lowest part of the lot to minimize impact. Second, although this building will definitely obstruct views to the west for the nearest residential units, these views are primarily of buildings across P.C.H. and of the bill to the west, not the ocean. Further up the steep slope where ocean views become visible, this building will only obstruct views of P.C.H. and not the ocean. The proposed landscaping in front of the building meets the requirements for a three-foot landscape strip by providing a three-to four-foot wide strip with proposed trees and shrubs which serve to enhance the streetscape. The overall landscape coverage calculates to about 8.5 percent, which meets the first-tier standards of S.P.A. 8. An eight-foot landscape strip is proposed along the rear property line consisting of low-level shrubs. Staff recommended a condition to enhance this landscaping for the purposes of buffering the residential uses to the east. 11 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Section 1207 of the zoning ordinance regarding vision clearance for corner lots requires that a triangular area at the comer of the property remain clear for safety vision purposes. This triangular clear area with 10-foot legs is only required up to eight feet high. Staff included a condition that the revised plans provide this clearance. The plans show an eight-foot wide landscaped area along the rear of the upper floor parking area adjacent to the property line. The landscaping shown consists of smaller shrubs. Staff felt that a decorative fence or wall should also be provided. complemented with trees or larger shrubs in the planting area, since the upper floor parking level is almost at an equal elevation to the adjacent property to the east. Staff recommended a condition that a decorative block wall, a maximum of six feet high, be provided along the rear property line in conjunction with dense landscaping on the project side of the wall. with specific wall and landscaping types and materials to be reviewed and approved by the planning director. The site plan shows the locations for eight-foot high light poles along the east side of the property. These light fixtures are within five feet of the residential property to the east. Staff felt that in order to effectively PJiroinate glare from the adjacent residential property, light fixtures should be located below the level of the top of the property line wall. Staff also recommended a condition requiring a revised lighting scheme for the upper-level parking area such that fixtures are located below the top level of the property line wall or other hidden location, subject to the approval of the planning director. The applicant has provided a typical plan for an internally illnrninated sign and indicates that channel letters will be used at a maximum 24 inches high. Staff recommended a condition that approved signs must be consistent with this typical plan. Additionally. staff recommended a condition that any signs facing the rear of the property shall not be illuminated. Staff also recommended conditions consistent with the recommendations of the staff environmental review committee that the parking lots be closed to access after closing hours and that signage be provided indicating that parking is available off of 15th Street. Staff felt that the project is appropriate for the location, compatible with surroundings, reasonable scale, and is designed in a manner consistent with the guidelines of S.P .A. 8. It will clearly be an improvement over the current and previous use of the site and will enhance the Paci.fie Coast Highway corridor. Public Hearing opened at 9:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Alan Glaser, 241 Via Buenaventura, Redondo Beach, applicant. ~ddressed the Commission and: (1) said he has read the staff recommendations, which he feels can be worked out with staff; (2) stated that he would like to reserve the right to speak on comments given at the public hearing; (3) stated that his architect is present, in the event there are questions from the Commission. JimLissner. 2715 El Oeste, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project should have been subject to the entire Em process; (2) stated that the mitigations achieved through the staff review process are minimal: (3) felt that the building is boxy and will be right on the highway: (4) felt that the project should be set back from P.C.H; (5) said that the project will have minimal parking; (6) said that no traffic mitigation measures were proposed. and this project will have an impact on the traffic; (7) discussed the fact that other cities require mitigation measures, and he outlined some of the requirements in effect in other cities. Mr. Glaser approached the Commission and: (1) said that they have attempted to create a nice neighborhood shopping center; (2) said that all of the requirements have been met; (3) said there is adequate parking; (4) explained that this will be an upscale shopping center; (5) said that a traffic study was done and it was found that there will be no adverse impact on the 12 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 surrounding area; (6) said that the previous use as a gas station generated more traffic than the proposed project. Mr. Glaser went on and: (1) explained that his business, Trader Al's, will locate in the new project; (2) said that he wants tenants who will be complementary to his business, such as those in the home fashion and furnishing areas; (3) stated that he does not intend to have convenience stores or doughnut shops. Public Hearing closed at 9:31 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. .Aleks noted that he resides within 300 feet of the proposed project; therefore, he stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-102, with the addition of a condition requiring that a "No Right Turn" sign be placed at the exit on 15th Street, so that people do not travel up the hill into the residential neighborhood. Comm. Peirce stated that this is an attractive project. He felt that the developer has taken into account the City and the neighbors in the design. He stated that this shopping center will be an asset to the City. Chmn. Ketz concurred that this is an attractive project. She also felt it is beneficial for the neighbors that this project is closer to the highway than to the residential neighborhood. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Comm. .Aleks None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. VEWCLE PARKING ON PEDES'llUAN WALK S'.J'REJIT Mr. Schubach explained that staff has altered its recommendation on this item; therefore, he suggested that it be continued to a future meeting. Mr. Schubach stated that staff will be preparing a revised report which will be much more elaborate and which will contain additional recommendations. Jim Lissner, approached the Commission with a point of order. stating that since this item will affect the general plan and over 100 parking spaces in the City. it should be noticed and set for a public hearing. Mr. Antich, Director of Public Works, explained that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may, if so desired, address this matter at a public hearing, depending upon the recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Lee suggested that Mr. Lissner be advised of the meeting date when this item will be heard. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to continue this item to an unspecified meeting date. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms . .Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None 13 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Comm. Peirce asked whether action on this matter will resolve the problem of the illegal use of encroachments in the Shakespeare tract, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. STAFF ITEMS a) Res»onse to '.lraffic Engineer -Policy Regarding Curb Cuts on ''Dual-Unit" Projects Attem,pt;iIJ,g to Save On-Street fwking Mr. Schubach gave staff report and recommended that staff be directed to continue to pursue alternative driveway arrangements toward the goal of preserving on-street parking and to require the project at 834-840 Monterey to correct curb cuts to be consistent with the approved plans. In a memorandum from the City's traffic engineer, problems were noted with the use of curb cuts which attempt to maximize on-street parking because of the potential impact on sight distance and thus traffic safety. The traffic engineer requested a formal Planning Commission policy on this issue. On February 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a four-unit condo project at 834-840 Monterey, subject to a condition that "the applicant shall work with the Planning and Public Works Departments to attempt to minimize the loss of on-street parking on Monterey Boulevard." Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant worked with staff and came up with a revised plan which arranged the two driveways so that the gap separating the driveways was wide enough to park a car. The proposed dimensions for the driveway width and the gap were verified to be adequate with the Public Works Department and were correctly depicted on the final working drawings. Unfortunately, however, the Public Works Department issued a driveway permit to allow the driveway to be constructed in the originally proposed manner (straight back from the garages) which eliminated all on-street parking. The traffic engineer feels that the decision of saving on-street parking with this type of driveway arrangement is a choice between safety concerns and the need for additional parking spaces. Although staff would agree that sight distance and vision is not ideal with the proposed driveway design, the sight distance problems already noted exist throughout the City where parking is allowed on the street. Further. in the subject case where on1y a straight entrance drive is used to the parking garages. the sight distance and safety problem would still exist, especially for the southern-most driveway and only improves marginally for the northern driveway. Also, these driveways are each access for one two-car garage; therefore, the newly generated traffic ingressing and egressing from the driveways is negligible. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing various alternatives to the parking problem and the preservation of on-street parking. He explained that staff will continue to work with the Public Works Department on this issue. Comm. Rue felt that if this goal can be safely accomplished, it would be very worthwhile. Mr. Antich stated that the driveway at 840 Monterey is already installed. The contractor was unaware of the condition, and the driveway was installed straight on. The problem was not 14 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 discovered until the site was inspected by someone from the Planning Department. He stated that the project is already completed. Mr. Antich stated that this was the first project which had been approved requiring a change in the driveway configuration. Unfortunately, this project slipped through the cracks, and the driveway was built as originally proposed. Comm. Aleks noted that accidents do occur; Comm. Rue concurred, stating that the applicant was told by the Public Works Department that the driveway could be constructed as it was. Chmn. Ketz noted, however, that the developer was aware of the conditions imposed at the public hearing. Comm. Rue agreed; however, he noted that circumstances can arise on a job site which dictate that certain methods be used which are logical He also noted that the applicant was given the go-ahead by the City. He stated that it would be inconvenient and costly to tear out the existing driveway and replace it. He pointed out that this is the :first project which had the requirement; therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to let this project stand. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to direct staff to continue to pursue alternative driveway arrangements toward the goal of preserving on-street parking; further, to take no action against the project at 834-840 Monterey Boulevard. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoIIllllS. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue Chmn. Ketz None None b) Existing Auto Bocly and Repair Shop Investigation Mr. Schubach stated that this report was prepared at the direction of the Planning Commission. He explained that the main problems relate to odor, noting that there seems to be no equipment available to completely remove the offensive odors. He said that certain types of paints must be used: if they are not. a complaint check can result in a citation by the Fire Department. He noted. however. that most of the shops are adhering to the requirements. Chmn. Ketz asked how establishments can be encouraged to rectify their violations, to which Mr. Schubach responded that the shops have been notified either to comply or to be cited by the City. He noted that several laws are in place related to this use. c) s1gn,1 Warrant Review-2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue Comm. Peirce stated that this particular signal was surreptitiously installed. He maintained that the traffic at that location is much higher than in other areas where there are stop signs in the north end of town. He felt that the signal is a hazard. Comm. Rue concurred, stating that the location is quite hazardous. He felt that a stop sign would be more appropriate. He felt that the signal encourages faster traffic. Mr. Antich clarified that that particular section of Hermosa Avenue is designated as an arterial, based on the traffic volume. Discussion ensued related to the traffic volumes at various times and on certain days. Mr. Antich explained that the City Council is the body that determines where stop signs shall be placed. He stated that the proper procedure would be for the Planning Commission to make their recommendation to the Council related to this issue. 15 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Antich discussed a speed survey which was conducted in August 1988, explaining how, when, and where the speed was measured. Comm. Peirce and Mr. Antich discussed the speed as specified in the survey results. Comm. PeiTce felt that the survey was conducted at the wrong time of day, stating that it should have been conducted during rush hour. Mr. Antich explained that surveys of this nature normally are not done during rush hour. Comm. Peirce stressed the importance of obtaining the correct data, which he felt to be measurements during rush hour. He felt that the data is necessary before proceeding further to ascertain whether a stop sign or signal is appropriate at 2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Antich stated that such a survey would require the expenditure of public funds. Mr. Schubach explained that Council approval would be necessary to spend any funds on this issue. Comm. Peirce's motivation for requesting additional data is the fact that traffic is too fast at that location. Mr. Antich stated that he could discuss the matter with the police department, in an attempt to enforce the speed limit, to which Comm. Peirce countered that enforcement would not be a pennanent solution. He felt that there would be better control with a stop sign. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to request the Director of Public Works to conduct northbound speed measurements beg;:ooing ~t 3rd or 4th Street at busier times of day, i.e., between 7:30 A.M. and 8:30 A.M., on a non-Govenunent holiday weekday when school is in session. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Marks,Peirce,Rue Chmn. Ketz Comm. Aleks None d) Memorandum R.egarclmg Joint Meeting of Planning Commission and Staff Comm. Peirce asked about the egress at the Pavilion, to which Mr. Schubach replied that action is now being taken to redesign the egress for better use. e) Memorandum Rf:gardlng f'laoning Commission Liaison for November 27. 1990. Meeting No one will attend as liaison. f) 'feptsative Future Planning Commi$Slon Agenda No action taken. gJ City Connell Minutes of October 23 and October 00. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER I'.IBMS None MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Chmn. Ketz. to adjourn at 10:21 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 16 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 CER11FICATION 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 November 20, 1990. 2 / 1 ,/ {lfd -d~~ Micha.el chubach, Secretary 17 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90