Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_01_02MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 2, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Paul Yoshinaga, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 1990; Resolution P .C. 90-98, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALWW A GARAGE SETBACK OF 16 FEET RATIIER TI-IAN TIIE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND TO ALLOW TIIE SUBSTANDARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET TO BE COUNTED AS A GUEST PARKING SPACE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1734 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, ANGELA HEIGHT TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-101, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALWW OFF- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITII A CONVENIENCE MARKET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 828 HERMOSA AVENUE, JAY'S MARKET, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS WTS 19 AND 20, TRACT 1564. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Comm. Rue discussed Resolution P .C. 90-103, Condition No. 5, stating that the intention of the Planning Commission was to require landscaping whether or not the newspaper racks are relocated. Chmn. Ketz directed staff to modify the wording in C0ndition No. 5 of Resolution P.C . 90-103 to clarify that landscaping is indeed required whether the newspaper racks are relocated or not. MOTION by Comm. Rue. secorided by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 90- 103, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 2 HERMOSA AVENUE, MARINA LIQUOR. AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BWCK 42, FIRST ADDffiON TO HERMOSA BEACH. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None 1 P .C. Minutes 1/2/91 3 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-25 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HABASH AUI'O DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested conditional use permit, based on insufficient parking for the combination of the proposed auto sales lot and the detailing business. As an alternative, staff recommended approval of a master conditional use permit for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing businesses. At the meeting of December 4, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request for consideration of a master CUP for the property in question and also based on the fact that neither the applicant nor the landowner was present for the hearing. Staff does not feel that the site can support these two distinct businesses because of the lack of customer and employee parking. However, if the Planning Commission is comfortable making a finding, in consideration of the detailing business' proposed use of a service to pick up and deliver all customer vehicles, and that the auto bays should count toward the parking requirement, then adoption of the proposed master CUP resolution would be appropriate. The proposed master resolution incorporates all conditions from the existing CUP for auto sales as well as suggested additional conditions for mitigating the impacts from the proposed auto detailing business. Mr . Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce related to the use of a valet service at this business, explained that even though the City does have a code enforcement officer, strict enforcement of a valet service would be difficult to monitor over a long period of time. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant was sent a notice informing him of the date and time of this hearing. He stated that the applicant has not contacted the Planning Department regarding this matter, and he was unaware of the reason for the applicant's absence. Public Hearing closed at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. ·Rue recalled that the reason this hearing was continued from the last meeting was to allow the applicant and the landowner an opportunity to be present to discuss this matter; however, he noted that they did not appear and he therefore felt denial would be appropriate. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to deny the request to allow the operation of an auto detailing business in conjunction with an existing auto sales business at 825 Pacific Coast Highway, Habash Auto Detailing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None (The applicant arrived later in the meeting, and the public hearing on this item was reopened. See Page 16 of the minutes.) 2 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 CUP 90-23 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS UNTil, DARK AT 200 LONGFELLOW AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 16 AND NOVEMBER 20, 1990) Mr. Schubach stated that as of Thursday. December 27, 1990, staff had not received an affidavit of noticing from the applicant. The applicant was contacted by staff who was told that the letters had been sent out; however, no proof of mailing has been received. He further noted that he saw no one in the audience to speak on this issue. Mr. Schubach suggested, therefore, that this matter be continued. He explainedthat staff has implemented a new policy whereby the proper mailings will now be done by staff, upon payment by the applicant for postage and paper. Comm. Aleks noted concern that this matter will again be continued, and he felt such a practice is a waste of staff's time. Mr. Schubach explained that staff is hoping to avoid these problems in the future, since staff will now be doing the mailings. Public Hearing opened at 7: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 19, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 90-21 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22666, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 36 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 18, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission continue this request to the meeting of February 5, 1991, to require the applicant to re-design the project so that access is provided from the alley only. This project is located in the R -3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3692 square feet. . The existing use is as a single-family dwelling. The proposed density is 23.6 units per acre . Seven parking spaces are provided, and two on- street parking spaces will be lost. 880 square feet of open space will be provided . The environmental determination is categorically exempt. } The subject property is located immediately to the east of parking lot "F" which is part of the Biltmore Site. The lot width tapers from 41 feet at the street frontage to 35 feet along the alley, and it is basically flat. The proposed structure consists of two units containing approximately 2100 square feet each, and each unit has four bedrooms and three and a half baths. These units are three levels and include a roof deck. The side yard areas are proposed to be raised four feet above grade so that the bottom level can qualify as a basement pursuant to the building code. The advantage of qualifying as a basement is that only one exit is required to all levels, rather than the two exits that would be required for a three-story structure. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, pipe railings. glass block, and dark anodized aluminum windows. The design mixes rounded comers with standard square 3 .· P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 corners which will somewhat soften the impact of the bulky structure. The combination of features gives the building a contemporary art deco appearance. Parking is provided in two, two-car garages oriented to both the alley and the street. The proposed street access results in a curb cut that would eliminate two existing on-street metered parking spaces. Three guest spaces are provided in the setback areas behind the garages to provide required guest parking and to replace the two lost on-street spaces. As the Commission is aware, the adopted Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element of the General Plan, implement policy 4.9 states: "Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front on both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on-street curb cuts and preserve available parking." Also, the condominium section of the zoning ordinance, under "Purpose," states that the ordinance is to promote certain standards including: "(d) A layout of structures and other facilities to effect consetvation in street, driveway, curb cut and other public or quasi-public improvements .... " Given these established policies, the Planning Commission clearly has the authority to require alley-only access. In stafrs judgment, it definitely should be required in this case, given that two public parking spaces would be lost. Further, these two spaces are very close to the beach on a street which does not have very much available parking. Also, since it is a flat lot with adequate width, providing parking with access from the alley can be accomplished rather easily and can be done so in a manner that provides as much off-street parking as is being proposed. Recently, the Planning Commission has allowed projects to access from both an alley and a street. However, in those cases an ovezwhelming factor in making that determination was that the alley sides of the lots were at a much higher grade than the street side, thus making it difficult to provide access via a driveway because of the slope involved. Also, in both of those cases the lots were only 30 feet wide. Staff also noted that the project architect was 'notified of these City policies regarding access on December 11, 1990, to give him adequate time to revise plans to meet staffs concerns prior to the scheduled hearing date. The applicant, however, has chosen to take this proposed design to the Commission. The project complies with most other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage calculates to be 65 percent: adequate open space is provided in private decks; and the height is right at the 35-foot limit. However, plans need to indicate the ground-floor storage. Another. staff concern relates to the proposed ground-floor family rooms, which could easily be converted to bootleg units since a bathroom and doozway exit are located at that level. Since the parking lt::vel design needs to be completely changed to bring in access from the alley only, the plans should be revised and returned to the Planning Commission at a later date. I Mr. Schubach stated that, if so desired by the Commission as an alternative, the requested project may be approved by adoption of the proposed resolution of approval, which includes a condition to require that doozway access to the ground-floor bedrooms be eliminated. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained the setback requirements, stating that there must be a 17-foot setback from a street; however, alleys are not required to have the 17-foot setback. Public Hearing opened at 7:23 P.M . by Chmn. Ketz. 4 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 1 Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that when he discussed this project with City staff last summer. no mention was made of the fact that there was a problem with the access for this project: (2) stated that, so far as he is aware, there is no City ordinance in place requiring alley-only access: (3) explained that he has no objection to the alley-only access concept, however, he does object to such a requirement when it is not actually a law: (4) said that he had no idea that such a requirement would be imposed on new projects. and he noted that others will have difficulty in determining what is and what is not required for projects in the City; (5) discussed the parking problems in the City, especially as they relate to parking for small single-lot projects which will ultimately have too much concrete in order to provide for the parking. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) discussed his project, stating that one entire side is landscaped: (2) discussed the lower-level access, stating that he was attempting to provide patio access: (3) said that the parking requirement was placed on this project without his prior knowledge, and he did not feel this was an appropriate condition; (4) felt that if the alley-only access is to be a requirement in the City, public hearings should be held at the Planning Commission and City Council levels, and it should be fully discussed and analyzed. Mr. Compton went on and: (1) stated that he has worked on many other projects that have a single access, and he noted that it is difficult to make tum-arounds on such projects: (2) stressed that the staff-proposed parking would result in a sea of concrete: (3) said that the proposed project will be quite nice, noting that the west side has a ten-foot setback due to the large lot size; (4) felt that the design is quite interesting; (5) commented that the two units have been separated in the middle so that there is a single-family feeling to the units. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) discussed the existing street parking and handed out a parking analysis prepared by his staff; (2) stated that. with a slight modification to the plans, the project could be built with the loss of only one on-street parking space: (3) noted that the project was initially reviewed by staff with no comment made about the alley-only access: (4) noted that staff made no mention of the problem until early December, which did not allow the applicant time to revise the plans: (5) commented that the alley-only access requirement has been implemented without benefit of public hearings, and there is no ordinance currently in place related to .that requirement. • Mr. Compton continued and: ( 1) suggested that there be a zoning code revision if the City decides to implement the alley-only access requirement on projects: (2) stated that he very closely monitors City Council and Planning Commission actions so that he is well informed as to City requirements: (3) said that it is very difficult to work in this City because there are so many requirements: (4) commented that the Circulation Element is very comprehensive and has too many requirements which have not been incorporated into the City codes: (5) discussed how changes are made in this City. and he stated that it is not reasonable to expect people to keep abreast of all the new requirements. Mr. Compton concluded by discussing the on-street parking which will be lost, and he stated he would be willing to accept a condition requiring that no more than one on-street parking space be removed. Public Hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue discussed general plan implementation policies. He stated that he was unaware of how the alley-only access requirement evolved, noting that that requirement is only a policy, not an ordinance. He felt that if such a requirement is to be imposed, it should go through public hearings. Chmn. Ketz pointed out, however, that the general plan amendments were addressed during public hearings, and the plan was adopted . She did not feel it would be appropriate to have every single element of the general plan adopted as ordinances. 5 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Comm. Rue stated that it is difficult for people to begin projects when they are not aware of all the requirements. He felt that a city should not be run by its general plan; rather, the code should be the guiding document. If it is desired to implement general plan items, he felt that l they should be addressed in public hearings first and then adopted as ordinances. Comm. Aleks noted concern that the applicant was unaware of the alley-only access requirement, commenting that the applicant was informed only on December 11 that there was a problem with the parking. He therefore agreed that a public hearing should be held to address the alley-only access requirement. noting that it would be difficult to apply such a requirement in all cases. Comm. Peirce felt that this project should have alley-only access. He continued by discussing the bootleg potential of this particular project, noting that it would be a prime candidate for a bootleg conversion even if the outside door were removed. He noted that the "family room" is quite large, almost 500 square feet, has a full bathroom at that level, and there is a large closet. He stated that he could not support approval of the project, based on its bootleg potential and based on the proposed parking. Comm. Peirce, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that even if the door w ere removed from the lower level, he would still oppose the project, explaining that the interior entryway could be modified, and the area would still be completely self-contained. He could not be convinced that a family room needs a full bathroom, stating that the only reason for a full bath would be the desire to use the room as a bedroom. -Comm. Peirce stated that even if the lower level were modified, he could not support this project, based on the proposed parking. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained the enforcement procedures and penalties for bootleg use. Comm. Aleks noted concern over the potential bootleg use, stating that the possibility could be reduced by requiring the size of the bathroom to be reduced and by requiring the shower to be removed from the bathroom. Public Hearing reopened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Compton explained that the owner will occupy one of the units, and the lower level was designed to accommodate the owner's mother. It was then decided to have the same configuration in the other unit. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission, the bathtubs can be removed from the lower-level bathrooms. Mr. Compton shared the Commissions' concerns related to bootleg conversions in the City, noting that such uses benefit no one. Public Hearing closed at 7:55 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Chmn. Ketz stated that she could not support this project, based on the fact that she strongly favors the alley-only access. She felt that there should be better communications between architects and City staff, and she suggested that mandatory preliminary meetings be held so that staff can let their concerns be known before detailed plans are prepared. Mr. Schubach explained that such meetings are held; however, he suggested that written concerns can be provided to applicants, and copies can be maintained on file by staff. Mr. Compton stated that it is very difficult for people to understand the requirements of the City. 6 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Comm. Rue suggested that written handouts be provided to applicants so that they are fully informed of the requirements. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolution P.C. 91-1, with the following modifications: (1) that the downstairs bathtub be eliminated, and the size of the bathroom be reduced to include only a toilet and sink: and (2) that only one on-street parking space shall be removed, and the applicant shall be required to pay for any realignment of parking spaces. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Rue Comm.Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None None Comm. Rue hoped that as much on-street parking as possible can be retained in the City. Chmn. Ketz agreed and suggested that that item be discussed by the Commission. PARK 90-7 -PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 415 PIER AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested parking plan. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 3239 square feet. The current use is as a one-story medical office. The floor area is 1600 square feet. There are four legal parking spaces. The proposed addition is 1145 square feet, which results in a requirement of 14 parking spaces. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 5, 1989, denied a similar request for a parking plan and variance to allow the second-story addition. On October 10, 1989, the City Council sustained the Planning Commission decision on appeal. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of September 20, 1990, recommended denial of the request and recommended that approval only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepai:ed to address cumulative impacts of any further similar projects. The applicant is requesting to construct a second-story addition to an existing medical office building. Instead of requesting a variance, the applicant has revised the request as a parking plan oajy. The suggestion is that the parking deficiency of ten spaces (14 required versus 4 available) can be justified by the use of a combination of ride sharing, public transit, and the leasing of parking for employees at Plaza Hermosa. The commercial building is currently nonconforming to parking. Four standard-sized parking spaces are available off the alley. Under current requirements for the existing structure, eight spaces would be required. The applicant indicates that as many as ten cars can actually be parked behind the office if parking in tandem, assuming a parking space size of eight feet by fifteen feet. The concerns previously noted by staff and the Planning Commission are still valid: How can the City effectively enforce the ride-sharing/public transit/off-site parking proposal? What happens when the business changes? How can the City legally stop the use of the second story or enforce the ride-sharing program to the new business? What about the precedent that would be set? Can the downtown area support additional building square footage without parking? Will it have a negative impact on other existing businesses that depend on an available supply of parking? 7 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Further, in staffs judgement, this proposal does not fit within the scope of the provisions of Section 1169 pertaining to parking plans for the following reasons: (1) The proposal does not \ address the issue of the impact of additional customer parking. Even if this addition is for l personal office space and storage only, it will free up additional space downstairs and potentially increase the number of customers; (2) The feasibility and continued use of the ride- sharing program is questionable for an employee staff this small; (3) The amount of the requested deficiency is rather severe (four spaces instead of fourteen) and as such, the immediate impact on adjacent businesses could be severe; and (4) the suggestion to use some of the public parking at Plaza Hermosa is not feasible, as that parking was provided for public use as part of the development agreement with the City. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the legal requirement for a compact parking space is seven and a half feet by fifteen and a half feet. Public Hearing opened at 8:06 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has appeared before the Commission previously on this item; (2) stated that the applicant is a pioneer and wishes to propose an alternative; (3) said that the City is not willing to face the severe parking problem; (4) discussed the basic precepts of parking in the City, stating that the parking is for people visiting the City's business areas. Mr. Wood continued and: (1) said that there are ways to solve the parking problems in the City; (2) said that the way to reduce density is to zone more areas commercial; (3) discussed the configuration of the City's commercial areas; (4) noted that most of the lots in the City are very small; (5) explained that the applicant is a very well-known doctor who has many patients from out of state, who do not even drive to the office; rather, they are picked up and driven to the office. Mr. Wood went on and: (1) stated that the applicant needs additional room for record storage; (2) noted that the applicant has no desire to expand his business, and he is willing to sign a document attesting to that fact; (3) commented that the applicant and several of his employees do not drive to work; (4) stated that the applicant is willing to do anything to have this project approved; (5) said that the automobile rules everyone's lives in this day and age; (6) said that the applicant will help the City solve its parking problem. Mr. Wood went on and: (1) asked that the Planning Commission designate a subcommittee to discuss the options with himself and the applicant; (2) said that the applicant will be in business for another 15 years, and he is sincerely attempting to solve his problem as well as help the City's parking problem; (3) stressed that Hermosa Beach businesses cannot provide 'parking _ on-site and be competitive with other local businesses; (4) stressed that parking must be provided without the use of conventional methods; (5) noted that there are parking problems only on the weekends and in the summer. Mr. Wood continued and: (1) suggested that flexible methods be implemented to attack the parking problems; (2) said that if the City wants to improve the parking, parking districts should be provided throughout the commercial areas on lots as they become available; (3) discussed the concept of buying lots for use as parking; (4) again raised the issue of his meeting with a Planning Commission subcommittee to tackle the parking problem. Comm. Marks asked what proposals have been submitted related to the parking for this proposed project. Mr. Wood stated that: (1) the applicant will guarantee that a specified number of his employees will not drive to the site; (2) it is impossible to expect patients to park in the rear of this site; (3) all four of the existing parking spaces will be left for patient use, and the spaces will be 8 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 patrolled: (4) every step will be taken to ensure that patients will not park on the street: (5) the applicant is very interested in reaching a compromise as to the parking. Mr. Wood went on and: (1) stated that patients could be picked up and shuttled to the business: (2) said people could be required to sign affidavits stating that they will not drive to the office. Comm. Marks noted that the area is already very congested, and the proposed expansion without the required additional parking would exacerbate the problem. Mr. Wood stated that if clients do park in the other business' parking spaces, the other property owner will complain, and tickets could then be issued to violators. Comm. Marks suggested that Mr. Wood contact a parking specialist to address the parking problem for this business. to which Mr. Wood countered that the solution is to provide remote parking for the business. Mr. Wood stated that the applicant can control his employees: therefore, enforcement is somewhat easier. He stated that covenants can be placed on the property to ensure compliance. He stressed that innovative solutions must be implemented in the City. Comm. Marks again urged Mr. Wood to consult a parking consultant to address the problem of having a certain amount of space and only a certain amount of parking space. He felt that a request for a 70 percent expansion without providing additional parking is not appropriate. Mr. Wood stated that many other businesses in town do not have the required parking. He said that in order for businesses to succeed in the City, innovative parking arrangements must be considered. He felt that the answer lies in providing remote parking. Mr. Wood, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that, for whatever reasons, patients will simply not park in the rear. Dr. Johnston, owner of the property next to the proposed project site, addressed the Commission an<;l: ( 1) explained that. contrary to Mr. Wood's assertion, there is no professional jealousy between him and the applicant, stating that on occasion he has even loaned medical equipment to Dr. David; (2) stated that the proposed second-story addition would have a serious financial impact on his business: (3) said that Dr. David's practice has grown tremendously over the years: (4) explained that his is the only building on the street with a sideyard; (5) stated that for some reason people do not want to travel down the sideyard to park in the rear. Dr. Johnston continued and: (1) noted that Dr. David's property has no sideyard, therefore, people will not drive around to the back and then walk to the front of the building: (2) stressed that there is no jealously here; his main objection relates to the financial impacts to his business; (3) said that many of his patients are elderly and in pain and are not able to park a distance away and walk to the office; (4) noted concern over enforcement of innovative parking arrangements. such as valet service and/or shuttle service to the office; (5) noted concern over the fact that the business could be sold, and the new owner may not want to utilize valet parking; (6) said that he was contemplating selling his business to another doctor, however. the other doctor decided against the purchase due to the lack of parking in the area: (7) stressed that parking is a problem all the time in this area. Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that even in the evening there is a parking shortage in the area of the proposed project; (2) concurred with staffs recommendation to deny this request; (3) urged the Commission to use the same reasoning that was used when this project was previously denied; (4) stated that there is nothing wrong with trying to improve one's property. however. the required parking should be provided, possibly underground: (5) noted that the proper parking is not available for the proposed project. 9 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) questioned what will happen if this project were approved and the current owner sold the property: (2) stressed that the proper parking must be provided, either through the use of car stackers or through the demolition of the ground floor of the building so that it could be used for parking. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue , Hermos a Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) agreed that innovative parking methods must be utilized to mitigate the severe parking problems in the City: (2) stated that it might make sense to try an innovation in this case: (3) stressed the importance of making the commercial areas viable , noting that businesses provide most of the taxes that maintain the infrastructure of the City: (4) discussed various methods by which the parking problems could be addressed: (5) discussed the project at hand, stating that the applicant might reduce the size of t he proposed addition, or he might consider the use of triple stackers. Mr . Wood stated that there is a back door at the applicant's office, and people could use that entrance if so desired. He encouraged the Commission to form a subcommittee to meet with him to address the parking problem for this proposed project. He stressed that he is trying to take positive steps in regard to this project. Public Hearing closed at 8:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . Comm. Rue agreed that there are severe parking problems in this City. He addressed Mr. Wood's suggestion that the Commission designate a subcommittee to find a solution for this project's parking problems and stated that the Chamber of Commerce has formed a committee to address parking concerns and the VPD is taking steps also. He stated that he does not have the time to sit on another committee to address this applicant's problems. He did agree, however, that something must be done about the problem. Comm. Rue stated that the purpose of the Commission is not to serve as deal brokers: rather, they are a planning body. He wanted to see parking improvements and stated that he would lend his support: however, he felt it is inappropriate for the applicant to ask the Commissioners to spend additional time on this project. He suggested that the applicant present a concrete proposal which can be addressed by the Commission. Comm. Peirce felt it would not be appropriate to allow businesses to expand without providing parking. He stated that most "innovative" solutions are only short-term remedies. He felt that long-term parking solutions must be accomplished by the City. He stated that maintaining a parking plan over a number of years is not feasible. Comm. Aleks stated that it is not appropriate to allow this business to expand without providing additional parking, noting that there is already a severe parking problem in this area. He felt that a parking plan would be difficult to enforce. Therefore, he could not support approval of this project. Chmn. Ketz felt that long-term specific solutions are necessary for this area, ,u1d she did not feel that the proposed parking plan would be a long-term solution. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91 -3, denying the parking plan request at 415 Pier Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks , Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct staff to send a letter to the VPD and Chamber of Commerce requesting that parking updates be sent to the Commission. The letter should also indicate the Commission's concerns and interest in this matter, and the fact 10 P.C . Minutes 1/2/91 r that the Commission lends its support to the program. The Commissions' interest relates specifically to the downtown area, Pacific Coast Highway, Pier Avenue, and Hermosa Avenue. No objections; so ordered. Recess taken from 8:59 P.M. until 9:08 P.M. CUP 90-24 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY THE A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 400 PIER AVENUE, COAST LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in a SPA zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 10,324 square feet. The building size is 4085 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store and mini convenience store. There are 14 parking spaces (shared with the 'The Laundry Basket" laundromat). Coast Liquor is located on the northeast comer of Pacific Coast Highway and 4th Street. It shares the building with one other business, a laundromat, occupying 60 percent of the building space. The liquor store is open from 7:30 AM. until 12:00 AM. during the week and until 2:00 AM. on the weekends. Coast Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a conditional use permit subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance. At their meeting of November 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to place the refuse cans inside an enclosure and to reduce window signage to the maximum of 20 percent. They also advised the owner that hard core pornography would not be allowed and because of past AB.C. violations, it was requested that the owner participate in the EASY Program. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales, and if approved would allow the sale of adult videos and magazines. Staffs concerns relative to the video sales are major in nature. The proposed use of a liquor store/video sales could be a dangerous trend for wholesale opening of these types of businesses to mixed usage in establishments that service neighborhoods. Because of the proximity to residences, within one hundred feet, and the possible availability to minors for sale, it is felt by staff that this is not a proper mix of businesses. Also, Section 10-5 of the zoning ordinance states the sale of adult videos should be greater than 100 feet from residential property. Staff has no intention of infringing on first amendment rights, but feels such usage is inappropriate. According to the City Attorney, since the proposed video sales are only a small portion of the business, incidental to alcohol sales, the City does not have the authority to deny the sales. As such. staff recommended that the video sales must remain incidental to the liquor store/convenience store and should not represent more than 10 percent of the sales. Since this is an existing mini market/ general alcohol sale business, staff felt that the sale of alcohol should be allowed to continue. subject to the proposed conditions which are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions related to the trash and the signage. The standard conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. Also, the Police Department has requested that an additional standard condition be included to require alcohol sale establishments to participate in the EASY 11 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Program. Finally, staff did not endorse the mixed usage and felt that video sales in a liquor store is inappropriate. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained that this business is within 100 feet of residential usage: however, according to State law, the p r oposed sale of videos does not constitute an "adult" use, which is prohibited within 100 feet of residential areas. He explained that an "adult" business devotes most of its sales to "adult" materials; this business does not. The City, therefore, cannot condition this business as an "adult" establishment. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce related to the signage, stated that some of the signs have been removed at Coast Liquor. • Comm. Peirce noted concern over excessive signage at other businesses, and he hoped that the code will be enforced in regard to signs at this business. Public Hearing opened at 9 :14 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Patterson, 400 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission and stated that he has read the conditions and has no objection to them. He also noted that the signage is now in compliance with the City's requirements. He further stated that he will comply with the EASY Program requirements. Debbie Lube, 843 3rd Street. Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the proliferation of adult uses along Pacific Coast Highway. She felt that it is not appropriate to allow adult materials to be sold in areas which are so close to residential areas. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, suggested that the Commission regulate the hours of businesses of this type in order to discourage such use. He felt that adult businesses are not in the best interests of the City. Public Hearing closed at 9:18 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Yoshinaga, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce related to regulation of the hours of operation, stated that the hours of operation for a business of this type can be regulated. Comm. Rue, noting that he is not an advocate of X-rated movies, stated that it is important. however, to acknowledge first amendment rights. He stated that the proposed conditions address the concerns of staff: therefore, he could support approval of the request. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's -recommendation, Resolut~on P .C. 91-2, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-26 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MONKEE'S RESTAURANT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. 12 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 This project is located in SPA 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The lease space size is 3600 square feet inside and 1438 square feet outside. The current use is as a restaurant under construction. The proposed restaurant is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the second level, which is the same level as the theaters. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject to a parking plan. This space was originally identified for restaurant purposes. At their meeting of August 9, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and further recommended that a condition be included to require that the outside dining area be clearly separated from the outdoor public areas to prevent pass-through of alcoholic beverages. The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine and spirits for consumption on the premises. subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will also apply to the State A.B.C. Department for a license. The floor plans show that a small bar area is included for seating of patrons waiting for a table and would also allow for non-dining customers to purchase a beverage. Staff has no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of CUP. Those conditions include the restriction that at least 50 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods (a maximum of 50 percent for alcohol sales). Staff also recommended a condition that a permanent structure be installed to separate the outside dining area from the public area. The business is contained inside the existing mall, and the applicant has indicated that the hours of operation would be from 11:00 A.M. to midnight on weekdays, and until 1:00 A.M. on weekends. Staff further recommended a condition to limit the operation to these requested hours. Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area. is not considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments, and adequate parking is available. Also, the primary function of the business would be as a restaurant which fits in with the original designation for this floor within the Pavilion. Additionally. the mall maintains its own security patrol during its operating hours: therefore, additional police patrol should not be necessary. Comm. Aleks, explaining that he lives within 300 feet of the project site, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item. Public Hearing opened at 9:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Dee Harris, property manager of the Pavilion, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the Pavilion has its own security and parking area on site; (2) stated that, at the request of the City, a plexiglass wall will be built around the patio dining area: (3) noted that signs will be posted advising that the patio area is only for use by Monkee's patrons: (4) explained that Monkee's is a four-star Chinese restaurant with two other locations in Southern California; (5) stated that patrons must enter through the restaurant itself in order to get to the patio dining area; (6) explained that the door shown on the plans is for exit purposes only on the patio; (7) commented on the bar area, noting that the applicant has not stated that the bar is absolutely necessary, however, the other locations have a bar so that people can have a drink while waiting for their table. Public Hearing closed at 9:28 P.M. by Chmn Ketz. 13 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Comm. Peirce favored a quality restaurant corning in to the City: however, he noted concern over the separate bar area and questioned whether the City really needs another bar as part of a restaurant. He stated that he would have no opposition if the bar served only beer and wine; however, he objected to a bar with a substantial number of seats selling hard liquor. He did not feel such a use would be appropriate at the Pavilion. Comm. Rue noted that many other restaurants in mall areas have general alcohol sales. He did not feel that the bar area is that large, and he noted that the applicant has restaurant experience at other locations. He said that most upscale restaurants do have bars, and he could therefore support approval of the request. He felt that it is important to make this center a success. Comm. Marks noted that bars are an integral part of a restaurant's business: he therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to manipulate this business. He stated that he has been to another Monkee's, and it is a very nice establishment. Chmn. Ketz agreed that a bar is an integral part of a nice restaurant, especially when people are waiting to be seated at a table. Comm. Peirce pointed out that the resolution allows 50 percent alcohol sales. He felt that for an occasional use, 50 percent seems to be a high percentage. Mr. Schubach explained that 50 percent is a standard condition for hard liquor: beer and wine sales are allowed to be a maximum of 35 percent of the total sales. He stated that the percentages were suggested by the AB.C. Comm. Peirce felt that 50 percent is excessive. Comm. Rue stated that this establishment could not be construed as a full-scale bar. Comm. Peirce noted the long hours of operation, and he did not feel most people would be dining after 10:00 P.M. He noted concern that people would be corning in late and ordering only drinks. Comm. Rue shared Comm. Peirce's concerns: however, he stated that this is an upscale restaurant, and he did not feel it constitutes a full-scale bar. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-4, as written. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Peirce Comm. Aleks None CUP 90-27 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1559 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BROOKLYN BRICK OVEN PIZZA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in SPA 8, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lease space size is 1500 square feet, and its current use is as a restaurant. 14 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 The restaurant is located within Plaza Hermosa in building "C" on the first level below the Warehouse. The restaurant occupies the space that was initially Bagel Buddies, which was allowed because the center has more than adequate parking for the mix of uses. At their meeting of November 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration. The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine and/ or consumption on the premises, subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will also need to apply to the State AB.C. Department for a license. Staff had no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of CUP. Those conditions include the restriction that at least 65 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods, and a maximum of 35 percent from the sale of beer and wine. The location is part of an existing shopping center, and the applicant has indicated that the hours will be from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and until 11:00 P.M. on weekends. Staff also recommended a condition to limit the hours of operation to these requested times. Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area, is not considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments. Also, plenty of adequate parking is available. Additionally, the primary function of the business would still be as a restaurant, which fits in with the original plans for Plaza Hermosa. Staff noticed that the restaurant occasionally places tables up on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant. This would not be permitted, as it blocks the sidewalk which is necessary for pedestrian access. As such, staff included a condition prohibiting outside seating and/or outside service of alcoholic beverages. Comm. Aleks, explaining that he lives within 300 feet of the project site, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item. Public Hearing opened at 9:39 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Robert Udovich, 535 Gravely Court, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he has no opposition to the proposed conditions as recommended by staff. Public Hearing closed at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue noted that this business has been in operation for more than a year, and he wished the app),icant success. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-5, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None • Comm. Aleks None Chmn. Ketz noted that Mr. Habash (applicant for Agenda Item 6) was now present in the audience at this time. 15 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 CUP 90-25 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST IIlGHWAY, HABASH AUTO DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1990) (This matter was heard earlier in the meeting. See Page 2.) MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to reconsider the public hearing held on this matter. Comm. Aleks expressed concern that this matter is being reopened at this time, noting that someone had left council chambers after the item was voted upon earlier in the meeting. He stated that it is possible that public testimony would have been given had the person known that the matter was going to be reopened. Mr. Yoshinaga stated that this matter can be continued to a future date and renoticed so that interested citizens can be available to provide public testimony. As an alternative, the Commission can stand on the decision made earlier in the meeting. Mr. Schubach stated that, if the Commission decides to reopen and continue this hearing, the applicant would have to pay for postage and paper for the renoticing. The applicant would not, however, have to pay another hearing fee. (VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER:) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 5, 1991, with the matter to be renoticed (costs for postage and paper to be paid by the applicant). No objections: so ordered. • MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AT 555 PACIFIC COAST IIlGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 27, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to strictly enforce the conditions of the subject conditional use permit. Between August 15, 1989, a.-id December 14, 1989, the Plannh,g Commission considered this CUP. One of the 29 conditions imposed by the Commission specified that there be an annual and a mid-year review. Staff continued by outlining the findings of the inspection. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to direct £taff to strictly enforce the conditions of the subject conditional use permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None a) Memorandum Re2ardln2 City Council/Plannln4 Commission Workshop The dates of February 21 and February 28 were suggested for the workshop. 16 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Topics suggested for discussion included downtown business parking; an update on RUDAT activities: and where people in the City are going, as related to the transportation issue. b) P~ Department Activity Report for November 1990 No action taken. c) Memorandum Regarding Plannlm! Commission Liaison for January 8. 1991. Meetlru! No one will attend as liaison. d) Tentative Future Plannlru! Commission Agenda No action taken. e) City Council Minutes of November 27. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue suggested that a letter be sent to the City Council advising them of the poor sound quality over the cable transmissions. Comm. Rue asked for an update on the City's recycling activities, to which Mr. Schubach responded. He also explained that the recycling program is overseen by the Building Department. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue. to adjourn at 10:05 P.M . No objections: so ordered. • CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record ·of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of January 2, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairman ~/ .. /ht;:-/ / / /7 f_,_.k:J7/? ///4(!-J✓--~ Michael Schubach, Secretary 17 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91