Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_02_05MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 5, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Marks. ROIL CAIL Present: Absent: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz Comms. Aleks, Rue Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney: Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve as submitted the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of January 15, 1991; Resolution P.C. 91-6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, PICASSO'S ITALIAN CAFE, LEASE SPACE LOCATED IN THE NORfHEASTERN PORfION OF THE PAVILION AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORI'ION OF LOT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A PORTION OF Wf 14, BWCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH: Resolution P.C. 91-7, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A GAME ARCADE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEASE SPACE NO 112, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORrION OF WT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A PORfION OF LOT 14, BWCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH: Resolution P.C. 91-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A DAY NURSERY /PRESCHOOL WITH A MAXIMUM OF THIR1Y-FOUR (34) CHILDREN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 44 HERMOSA AVENUE, BEACH SHORES PRESCHOOL, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LITTS 2 AND 3, BWCK 41, FIRST ADDmON TO HERMOSA BEACH: Resolution P.C. 91-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALWW THE SALES OF MOTORCYCLES AND PARTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH MINOR MOTORCYCLE REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, DESCRIBED AS Wf 18 AND PORfION OF Wf 19, WILSON AND LIND'S TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue 1 P.C. Mlnutes 2/5/91 3 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-34 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 101 HERMOSA AVENUE. MICKEY'S LIQUOR AND DELI Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 17, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 2600 square feet; building size is 24 70 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store, market, and delicatessen. There are no parking spaces. Mickey's Deli is located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at 1st Street. It is a two-story building with a second floor area of about 896 square feet which is used for storage. The deli/liquor store is open from 7:00 AM. until 11 :00 P .M. weekdays, with extended hours to 2:00 AM. on Friday and Saturday nights only. Mickey's Deli 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 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to place the trash dumpster inside an enclosure and to alleviate the parking on the public right-of-way on the south side of the building. The police department has requested that Mickey's participate in the EASY program and also that they package single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that the contents are easily visible. The Public Works Department has requested that Mickey's employees cease parking on the public right-of-way on the south side of the building where illegal public phones have been installed; and that on the east side, the paper racks, if on public property, be removed. The requested CUP would authorize continued general alcohol sales at this location. Staffs concerns relative to this location are minor in nature. The proposed use of a liquor store/deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage, as it has operated there for more than twenty-five years . Since this is an existing business with no history of police problems according to the patrol division, staff believes 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 relating to trash and parking. It appears that the trash enclosure could be located along the west wall of the building on Beach Drive right at the property line; a survey may be necessary to determine the property line. Regarding the parking on public property and telephones on pubiic property, this problem is not limited only to this site. As such, these issues are being addressed by the Public Works Department through staff reports to the City Council and Planning Commission, with the ultimate policy and enforcement procedure yet to be determined. • • 2 P.C . Minutes 2/5/91 Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mike Mance, 29256 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he had read the conditions and agrees to comply with them. Comm. Marks questioned whether it would be appropriate to impose a condition specifying a date by which all conditions should be in compliance. Mr. Schubach explained that such a condition could be added; however, he had no concerns over this business or the applicant's intention to comply with all conditions. Public Hearing closed at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C . 91-11, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-35 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ENCLOSE OUTDOOR DINING AREA AT 49 AND 53 PIER AVENUE, CASABLANCA RESTAURANT IN LORETO PLAZA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 24, 1991, and recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. The approximate size of the existing restaurant is 2500 square feet inside and 380 square feet outside. The restaurant is currently operating with a Type 41 alcohol license, which allows for beer and wine in an eating establishment. • On September 4, 1990, the owners of Loreto Plaza requested that the City consider a lease/license agreement to enclose the aerial walkway /bridge which crosses City property for additional seating space for the Casablanca Restaurant within Loreto Plaza. The walkway area has already been approved for outside dining pursuant to a CUP granted on January 10, 1977. The Planning Commission also approved an amendment to the CUP in 1978 to allow service of general alcohol; however, the business has never obtained a full service alcohol license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control. Thus, the CUP has not been executed and is now null and void. The recent request was forwarded to the Council for consideration, and the Council on October 23, 1990, directed that the request be processed as a CUP amendment prior to taking action on the lease agreement. Two aerial walkways connect the second floors of the western and eastern portions of Loreto Plaza. The northerly walkway connects Casablanca's banquet facilities and restrooms with the main portion of the restaurant. The walkway is currently partially enclosed with windows on the north and a canvas awning on top. The applicant would like to completely enclose this area with a predominantly glass enclosure. The submitted plans also show the use of the entire area for tables. 3 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 The CUP granted in 1977 contains a condition that at least a five-foot walkway be provided ) along the walkway. This walkway is clearly necessary so that customers and employees can conveniently travel to the banquet room and restroom from the main portion of the restaurant and back. Otherwise, it would be necessary to use the southerly aerial walkway. As such, staff felt that the use of this enclosed area for seating should only be permitted if an adequate walkway is maintained. Staff therefore recommended a condition that a five-foot aisle be clearly marked to perpetually maintain access. The applicant has indicated that this is not a problem and stated that the plans incorrectly show tables filling the whole space and blocking the access. Otherwise, staff had no further concerns and recommended only that the CUP conditions be upgraded to include all currently applicable standard conditions for restaurants with beer and wine service and to include conditions that require the City to be insured from any liability because of the use of City property for outside dining purposes. These types of conditions requiring insurance are typical of the CUPs previously granted for other outside dining a r eas on City property. • Obtaining the CUP amendment is only the first step prior to approval for outside dining. Since the walkway is located on City property, approval is also necessary from the City Council for the appropriate lease agreement for use of City property. Public Hearing opened at 7: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jerry Newton, 2041 Circle Drive. Hermosa Beach, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that he does not propose to enclose a bridge that is owned by the City; (2) said that. pursuant to a written agreement in 1975, the property owner was given the right to construct the bridge between the two adjoining buildings; (3) continued by explaining that the bridgeways themselves are not owned by the City, and the proposal is to enclose a bridge which is privately owned but which is in City airspace; (4) continued by discussing the configuration of the building and walkway. Mr. Newton continued and: (1) explained that he is not proposing to change any use of the walkway; (2) noted that the restaurant has been in existence since 1976, and the bridge is already three-quarters enclosed; (3) stated that he is now proposing to completely enclose the area: (4) said that he has no problems with the staff-imposed conditions. other than Condition No. 2 pertaining to hours of operation: (5) explained that he would someday like to have a breakfast service; therefore, he asked for approval to open at 6:30 A.M. in order to accommodate breakfast service; (6) stated that he did not feel a breakfast service will have a negative impact on the surrounding area. noting that the restaurant is quite a distance from any residential areas. Mr. Newton, in response to questions from Comm; Marks, stated that no additional parking is proposed, explaining that patrons use the parking lot behind the plaza. Shirley Castle. Monterey. Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and opposed approval of the request, stating that the proposed use would take away from the public open space area. She stressed that the bridge is covering an area which should be returned to a public parklet. She also opposed approval because there is not adequate parking for the site. She urged denial of the project based on the negative impacts it will create. Public Hearing closed at 7:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach, in response to question from Comm. Peirce, explained that this business is in the Vehicle Parking District. and the parking area behind the building is intended to provide parking for the surrounding businesses. He stated that this use has already been approved; the request is now to enclose the area. He explained that no additional square footage is being proposed. 4 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Comm. Marks asked questions related to why this business does not need to provide additional parking, to which Mr. Schubach explained that since the proposal does not increase square footage, additional parking is not required. Comm. Marks noted concern that the enclosed dining area might draw more customers, thereby creating an impact because of the increased usage. He therefore questioned whether additional parking should be required. Mr. Lee explained that the use of the balcony area has already been approved for outdoor dining. Enclosure of the area will not increase the square footage: therefore, there is no legal requirement to require additional parking. Comm. Marks felt that the enclosure would allow for year-round use even in bad weather, as opposed to partial use, such as during the summer months only. Mr. Schubach explained that in Southern California, w e ather conditions are not normally taken into account, since heaters can be installed in uncovered patio areas. Mr. Schubach stressed, in response to Comm. Marks' concerns, that no increased square footage would be allowed unless all required parking is provided. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91 -15, with one modification: that Condition No. 2 be amended to read: 'The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:30 AM. and 1:00 AM. daily." AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Rue, Aleks Chmn. Ketz noted that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-31 --MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR OUTSIDE DINING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. HERMOSA PAVILION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 15. 1991) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 17, 1991, and recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. • At their meeting of January 15, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this request for advertisement as a master CUP for all outside dining at the Pavilion. The parking plan which governs the use of the Pavilion originally allowed up to 19,450 square feet of restaurant space including outside dining. Staff has calculated that, based on the approved plans and the agreement to reduce outside dining by 1000 square feet, the final amount of outside dining is approximately 3530 square feet. The original plans show all the outside dining located along the southerly end of the upper floor. The current operators, however, have agreed to lease the balcony facing Pacific Coast Highway to Picasso's for outside dining. This area is approximately 500 square feet . In addition, the outside dining area adjacent to the area approved for Monkee's restaurant is approximately 1230 square feet. As a result, only 1800 square feet is left for the large outdoor dining area located toward the southwest comer of the upper floor, about 1100 square feet less than what is shown on the original plans. • • 5 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 The applicant would like this area to be available to Mrs. Garcia's and perhaps to other restaurants which might locate on the upper floor. ) Given that the outside dining areas have been rearranged, staff proposed that the CUP for outside dining specifically limit the distribution of outside dining as follows: balcony facing P.C.H. (Picasso's). 500 square feet ; south end, ease of aisle (Monkee's). 1230 square feet ; and southwest comer (Mrs. Garcia's and common), 1800 square feet, for a total of 3530 square feet. Any future changes to the total would require Planning Commission approval through an amendment to the parking plan and CUP . A minor modification of the distribution of the outside dining may be approved by the Planning Director so long as the total is not increased. The only other emphasis of the master CUP. in stafrs opinion, should control how these outdoor dining areas are separated from other outside public areas, and to control the hours to prevent late night noise which would impact nearby residential areas. As such, staff recommended a condition that all outside dining areas be clearly separated from other public areas and other outside dining areas by barriers to prevent the pass-through of alcohol, and to control the movement of people between these areas. Staff also recommended that outside dining areas be closed by 9:00 P.M. on weekdays, and by 10:00 P.M. on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays. This will ensure that noise generated from concentrations of people will not impact nearby residents late at night. Otherwise, the outside dining areas are subject to the conditions in the CUP corresponding to the subject restaurant. As such, if the restaurant were granted a general alcohol CUP, the conditions of the CUP would apply to all areas, inside and outside, in addition to the conditions of the master outside dining conditional use permit. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, property manager, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that all three restaurants which will be used for outdoor dining have obtained approval for alcohol; (2) passed out drawings depicting the project site; (3) pointed out the locations of the proposed outdoor areas; (4) explained that stainless steel walls with glass inserts will be placed near Monkee's and at the perimeter of the general outdoor dining area, and there will be double doors for entering and exiting; (5) explained that planters will be used to divide the general outdoor dining space. Ms. Harris continued and: (1) stated that there is 24-hour security and parking facilities; (2) noted that she has read and agrees with all of the staff-recommended conditions with the exception of the condition relating to hours of operation: (3) requested permission to have outdoor food sezvice until 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and 11:00 P.M. on weekends; (4) explained, in response to questions from the Commission, that there will be waitresses stationed at the outdoor dining areas to sezvice all customers; (5) discussed the almost 1000 square-foot area which faces the residential area, stating that that area is not approved for restaurant use and noted that planters will be placed to discourage people from going to that area, and security will also ensure that people will not go there . Ms. Harris continued and: (1) stated that she hopes to lease some space to an exercise club and to use the 1000 square-foot area (which is not allocated for outdoor dining) for exercise bikes, if possible; (2) said that the 1000 square-foot space is not currently used for anything; (3) noted that signs will be posted advising that there shall be no loitering; (4) said that adequate signage will also be provided to guide customers to the outdoor dining areas. Public Hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. 6 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-14, with one modification: that Condition No. 3 be amended to read: "Service of food and beverage to customers in the outside dining areas shall cease at 10:00 P.M. on Sunday through Thursday, and at 11 :00 P.M. on Fridays, Saturdays, and National Holidays. All customers shall be cleared from the outside areas by no later than 30 minutes after the end of food and beverage service." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-25 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HABASH AUTO DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 1991) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1991. Staff recommended denial of the requested CUP based on insufficient parking for the combination of the proposed auto sales lot and detailing business. As an alternative, the Commission could approve a master CUP for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing businesses. Since the first of the 1991, several spot checks have been made at this business. The code enforcement officer has noted on several occasions that two or more vehicles were being worked on outside in the driveway area in front of the two bays which are allotted to Mr. Habash for cleaning. This is clearly in violation of proposed Condition No. 2 which strictly prohibits work outside of the bays. On January 30, 1991, an inspector from the Building Department made an inspection and discovered an illegal wall being built inside one of the bays. No permit has been obtained, and the plans have not been approved by either the Building or Planning Departments. This wall has been "red tagged" by the Building Department. On January 31, 1991, the Planning Department received a hand-delivered letter of complaint from two nearby residents. The substance of the complaint is that Habash Detailing has been: washing cars outside; dumping alleged illegal substances into the gutters; and causing major parking problems with the vehicles being cleaned, since the vehicles are parking on the street in the residential neighborhood. The letter also detailed at length instances of employees from the shop racing up and down their residential street in cars that are there to be cleaned. It would appear that Habash Detailing has knowingly ignored most of the dictates of the Planning Commission and has alienated some of the neighbors. Both planning and building staff have observed work taking place outdoors, in violation of the City requirements. It seems clear that the business is not operating as proposed. The combined violations of City zoning ordinances, the proposed CUP. and the parking problems caused by this business leave serious concerns that this business will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, which is already impacted. It should be noted that one of the City Council's goals is to reduce commercial/residential conflict, and staff felt that approval of this CUP would therefore be counterproductive. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. 7 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Jay Habash. 683 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the parking, stating that there is ample parking on 8th Place: (2) stated that cars are not being washed outside at any time; (3) stressed that he is complying with all City-imposed requirements: (4) explained how the cars are picked up for detailing, noting that they are not parking on the public street: (5) noted that there are problems with littering caused by the Tender Box, and he cleans up the trash and washes down the sidewalk; (6) said that the cars are washed at the car wash, not on-site. Mr. Habash continued and: (1) stated that at no time do his employees race up and down the streets: (2) said that he has had no driving accidents; (3) noted that he knows his neighbors, and they get along fine, and there are no problems or complaints; (4) explained that he intends to comply so that his insurance premium goes down, and he noted that his million-dollar policy is quite expensive: (5) said that no hazardous materials are being used; (6) noted that he is a long-term resident, and he is trying to have a successful business. Mr. Habash continued and: (1) discussed the free-standing partition which has been put up; (2) stated that cars are taken to the car wash and brought back to be buffed; (3) was given copies of the photographs taken by the code enforcement officer, to which he explained that he had not seen them before. Mr. Habash and the Commissioners discussed the photos and plans and: ( 1) Mr. Habash explained that the photo of the "abandoned" auto is not on his space; (2) in response to a request from Comm. Marks, Mr. Habash outlined on the plans the exact location of his business; (3) discussed the wall, to which Mr. Habash explained that the wall is in one of the bays; (4) Mr. Habash explained that his customers do not park at the site, noting that the cars are picked up for work from the dealerships and then returned by one of his employees. Mr. Habash went on and: (1) said that he has two employees; (2) stated that he and the employees park on the inside parking lot, which is perpendicular to 8th Place: (3) • said that only one person actually parks, however, since the others ride their bikes; (4) said that the hours are from 8:00 until 5:00 Monday through Friday and 8:00 until 3:00 on Saturday; (5) stated that no power tools are used outside at this business; (6) in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that he is unaware of any parking limitation signs on 8th Place. Ken Haas, landlord of 825 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the lot is kept clean and cars are kept off the residential streets; (2) stated that he is unaware of any signs indicating parking limitations on 8th Place; (3) noted that Mr. Habash has been a good tenant, and he has had no complaints from anyone about Mr. Habash; (4) said that he owns the property, including the used car lot. Comm. Peirce ref erred to the plot plan and asked questions related to the parkL11.g, to which Mr. Haas replied that there are at least 12 parking spaces which are used by both the car lot and the auto detailing shop. Mr. Haas explained that he drew the plot plan: however. he noted that it is not to scale. Mr. Haas explained that Mr. Habash has made an agreement with the operator of the used car lot to use some of their parking. Comm. Marks asked questions related to the space at the rear of the property, to which Mr. Schubach explained that that area is a required setback used as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses. It was further noted that that area cannot be used for trash enclosures. Comm. Peirce noted that there is a possibility that a shared parking arrangement is being discussed between Mr. Habash and the operator of the used car lot. He stated that the parking issue is a main factor in this decision. 8 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Mr. Haas agreed that parking is an important issue, but the situation is not as bad as it appears on the drawing. Public Hearing closed at 8: 10 P.M . by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. &hubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that this is a request for a master conditional use permit. He explained that staff recommended denial of the proposed use: however, the alternative is to approve the master CUP for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing businesses. Mr. Schubach explained that the auto detailing use would require three parking spaces. He stated, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, that the parking spaces depicted on the plot plan are not legal, since they meet neither the size requirements nor the turning radius requirements. He stated that it has been noted in the past that that area has been used for displaying cars for sale. Comm. Peirce noted that it is admirable that the applicant is making an effort to have a successful business, and he commented on the manner in which cars are brought to the business. He noted, however, that there is not even adequate employee parking; therefore, he found it difficult to support approval of the request. Chmn. Ketz was not convinced that the available on-site parking would support both businesses as well as customers. She noted that this is a heavily impacted area. and she questioned whether parking would always be available on the streets. Comm. Marks discussed the plot plan and asked questions about the dimensions of the areas depicted. He stated that it is important to have plans which are drawrl to scale. He felt that there is a possibility that the area in the rear could be used for additional parking; however, it would first be necessary to have the plans drawn to scale in order to ascertain the proper sizes. Mr. Habash explained that the lease agreement has not yet been finalized. He stated, however, that he would have a scale drawing prepared. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the meeting of March 5, 1991, for the purpose of allowing the applicant time to have a scale drawing prepared. The drawing shall also depict all buildings, walls. fences, parking spaces, and tenant space. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue VAR 90-5 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 12-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND TO ALLOW A PARALLEL GUEST PARKING SPACE BEHIND THE GARAGE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1010 OWOSSO AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 17, 1991, and recommended denial of the requested variance. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a lot size of 3200 square feet . The building size is 2700 square feet. The subject property is a comer lot located at the southeast comer of Owosso Avenue and 10th Street, and it fronts on 10th Street. It is a rectangular-shaped lot of a typical size for the area, and it downslopes away from the front of the lot. • • 9 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 ,\ The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of September 20, 1990, recommended a negative declaration, but recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request because of the request for variances from the height limit and the open space requirement. Since that time, the applicant has modified the plans to limit the needed variances to parking setback and to allow parallel guest parking. This was accomplished by providing open space behind what was previously a third garage space, resulting in a shortage of parking unless the parallel space is counted as a guest space. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling which would contain about 2700 square feet of living area within three levels. A variance has been requested to allow the garage to access from the side of the lot. Owosso Avenue , rather than from 10th Street. because the applicant states that the slope renders a 10th Street garage impossible. The applicant has also indicated that the access from the side would be beneficial since it is the lower side of the lot, and this way he will be able to maximize building square footage. The problem arises, however, because the lot is 40 feet wide which does not allow for a 20-foot deep garage and the required 17-foot setback in addition to the 5 -foot setback requirement. Staff disagreed with the applicant that garage access from 10th Street is impossible. In fact, it would be a rather simple design solution and would meet the code requirements. Accessing via 10th Street is the only option for most of the adjacent lots on 10th Street. and evidence that it is not possible. In addition, another alternative is available whereby the Owosso Street. access could be used if the garage is oriented to face in a northerly direction rather than directly facing the street and the 17-foot setback would not be applicable. In this way, cars would enter a driveway area and tum right into the garage stalls, and three stalls could easily be provided, either three inside or two inside and one outside. Under this scenario, the applicant could meet code requirements and would also meet his objective of accessing the property from Owosso. The only drawback is that most of the ground-floor level would have to be used for driveway area for turning radius and the garage itself, leaving a smaller basement area. Nonetheless, a house of over 2500 square feet could easily be constructed. Staff further noted concern over the proposed 12-foot setback, as it may result in cars parking straight-in and thus cars might overhang onto the sidewalk. Avoiding this situation was the primary reason for adopting the 17-foot setback requirement. The code only recently was amended to allow for parallel guest parking, btit only for garages on an alley where blocking sidewalks is not a concern. Given that this reques t in volve s completely new construction and, further,· that options are clearly available to meet code requirement and build a functional house, staff did not believe a variance is justified. Further, there is nothing unusual, unique, or extraordinary about the physical characteristics of the subject lot. Public Hearing opened at 8 :26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Robert Citelli, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that remodeling is prohibitive in cost, and new construction seems more feasible; (2) stated that impacts to the neighbors and the neighborhood were taken into account when this project was designed; (3) commented that this lot is unique in that this is a comer lot, and large setbacks will be implemented in the project; (4) discussed parking and stated that there is a nine-foot setback, and the garages proposed are similar to the current garages; (5) said that cars do not currently park in the drive and hang out onto the sidewalk, therefore, he did not foresee that happening with the new project. Mr. Citelli continued and: (1) said that the proposed plan makes good use of the lot, which is sloped and is on a comer; (2) explained that a wall and commercial property abuts one side of P .C. Minutes 2/5/91 his property: (3) said that his neighbors are in support of this project and the plans as designed, as well as the parking on Owosso: (4) submitted to the Commission five letters of support from his neighbors: (5) said that the neighbors are in agreement that this plan will not adversely impact the views, parking, or noise in the area. Mr. Citelli went on and: ( 1) again stated that this lot is not common. in that it is on a corner and it has a slope; (2) felt that denial of this project would deny him a property right enjoyed by others in the area; (3) discussed the option of the garage on 10th Street, explaining that the neighbors are concerned over that option for reasons of noise. parking, and safety of children; (4) said that the neighbors favor parking on Owosso; (5) said, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, that a third garage cannot be built because there would not be adequate open space; (6) to which Comm. Peirce countered that the house itself could be smaller to accommodate a third garage. Larry Harris, 1200 Aviation Boulevard, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) responded to questions from Comm. Marks related to the location of the garage, and explained that the garage is outside of the footprint of the basement; (2) continued by discussing the location of the proposed garage; (3) discussed with Comm. Marks the plans as related to open space and the location of the garage; (4) displayed renderings of the project. Mr. Harris continued and: (1) discussed the staff-proposed alternatives, explaining that those alternatives did not take into account the neighborhood itself: (2) discussed the alternative of the garage facing 10th Street. stating that no one favors that placement, since the living area would be displaced and thereby would push the walls out into the setback area: (3) stated that Owosso is considered a sideyard. not a front setback; (4) said that a garage on 10th Street would have an adverse impact the Owosso side, because the building would need to be relocated; (5) discussed the various setbacks for this project. Mr. Harris went on and: (1) stressed that this is a unique lot because it is on a comer; (2) said that corner lots have more sunlight and ventilation than inside lots; (3) said t}:lat he has been sensitive to the area. and the building has been stepped back; (4) said that the Owosso setback is larger than is required; (5) commented that this is a very nice design. and approval of the variance would enable living space on the two upper levels. rather than having living space on the basement level. • Mr. Harris continued and: ( 1) urged the Commission to look favorably on this plan: (2) said that the 12-foot setback is not as big an issue as it appears on first glance; (3) noted that other homes on Owosso have the same situation as this project, and those projects have 11-foot garage setbacks: (4) said that this project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood; (5) did not feel that cars will park in the drive and hang out over on the sidewalk, noting that he has not seen anyone else in the area doing that; (6) stated that there is no proof ·that cars hanging out on the sidewalk have been a problem in this neighborhood. Mr. Harris went on and: (1) noted that neighbors have submitted letters of approval for this project; (2) stated that other property owners in this area are enjoying property rights which this owner would be denied if the variance is denied: (3) said that relocation of the garage would necessitate a rearrangement of living space, sunlight, and ventilation; (4) noted that neither the applicant nor the neighbors favor this project being built with the minimum setbacks; (5) discussed the staff report, and stated that it would be impossible to have the garage on 10th Street and retain the living space arrangement. Mr. Harris continued and: (1) explained that the minimum sideyard is four feet, not five feet as stated by staff; (2) stated that the staff proposed parking would increase the mass of the project. since the building would have to be built to the minimum setbacks; (3) discussed the drawings he had on display depicting the project and potential mass: (4) said that other property owners in this area enjoy rights which this owner would be denied, to which Comm. Peirce countered that those properties were constructed under a different set of code requirements; (5) said that 11 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 he was unaware of any other similar variances granted for projects such as this in the R-1 zone on a corner lot. Mr. Harris continued and: (1) again stressed that this is a unique lot with good potential; (2) urged the Commission to entertain approval of this request. Kevin Epstein, 1070 10th Street, Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets the code requirements; (2) stated that the applicants are not trying to maximize the project: (3) felt that this is a good proposal which will benefit the neighborhood: (4) stated that approval of the variance will be good for the area. Jeff Greene, 922 10th Street. Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that it is important that the City guidelines be adhered to so that developers have guidelines under which to work: (2) did not feel that there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances in this case: (3) said that the 17 -foot setback is a requirement which must be dealt with in the design of projects: (4) urged the Commission to uphold the requirements of the City. Public Hearing closed at 8:58 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce asked how the Commission would know what will be built on this lot if this variance is approved. Mr. Schubach explained that a variance runs with the land: therefore, another project could be built unless a condition were imposed requiring that the submitted plans be built. Mr. Lee explained that the variance would be granted based upon the representation of the submitted plans. If another set of plans were submitted through the building permit process, it is possible that the mitigation measures of this project would not be included in new plans: therefore, it is important that the plans be consistent so that the representations made here are consistent. Comm. Peirce noted that the applicant does not desire to build garages on 10th Street, and he felt that another garage could be added on the side street. He could see nothing unique or extraordinary about this lot. In response to the applicant's assertions that others in the neighborhood are enjoying certain property rights. he noted that those projects were built under different code requirements. He noted that this project must conform to the current code requirements, as would the other properties if they were built or remodeled now. Chmn. Ketz could see no unique or extraordinary circumstances related to this lot. She said that there are many corner lots. and if they were that unique, the code would need to be amended to accommodate them. She commented that this project might be too large for the lot, and it should be redesigned. She could not support approval of the variance request, explaining that she cannot make the findings as required by law. MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve stafrs recommendation, Resolution P .C. 91-12, denying a variance to allow a 12-foot garage setback rather than the required 17-foot setback and to allow a parallel guest parking space behind the garage at 1010 Owosso Avenue . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks. Peirce. Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks. Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 9:03 P.M. until 9:08 P.M. 12 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 NR 90-5 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARDAT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28. 1991, and recommended approval of the request. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-1 zone. with a general plan designation of low density. The lot size is 9270 square feet, and the existing building size is 1916 square feet. The proposed addition is 996 square feet, or a 49 percent increase in valuation. There are two parking spaces. At their meeting of July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission denied the same request for an exception by a 3 to 1 vote, based on the fact that the proposal did not meet the then current terms of the ordinance which allowed an exception only when 75 percent of the block has similar or lesser nonconforming sideyards. Since that time Section 13-7(b) (3) has been amended to give the Planning Commission the authority to grant exceptions when: "the Planning Commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required setback is minor and necessary for the logical extension of a wall and that the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards in the block as defined by the zoning ordinance." This amendment was adopted by the City Council on November 27, 1990. At the,meeting of July 3, 1990, the Planning Commission approved the request for a variance to allow the addition with a slightly deficient parking stall of 17 feet. 3 inches. rather than the required 18 feet. The applicant is proposing a second-story addition to the existing ohe-story single-family dwelling which would increase the floor area of the house from 1916 square feet to a total of 2912 square feet. The portion of this project under consideration involves a second-story addition above the existing den's south wall which has a nonconforming side yard which ranges from 3.21 feet to 3.28 feet. The length of the encroaching wall is only about 22 feet. Allowing the second story to also encroach into the otherwise required side yard of 4.5 feet will allow the construction of a second story flush with the first-story wall. Staff previously has field checked and measured side yard setbacks on the subject lot and found that 50 percent of the lots on the block have similar or lesser conforming side yards. Under the previously applicable requirement that at least 75 percent have similar or lesser side yards, there was no choice but to recommend denial. The current ordinance, however. gives the Planning Commission the authority to grant an exception when the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards of the block. Staff felt that such a finding can be made. Staff also felt that the proposed continuation of the south wall only for the length of the existing encroachment is minor and is also necessary for the logical extension of the wall. Hearing opened at 9:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Peggy Kersulis. 1781 Valley Park Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and requested approval of the request so that they build their project straight up, rather than having to dip in as was previously suggested. Hearing closed at 9: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz. seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-16, as written. 13 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 AYES: NOES : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Peirce None Comms. Aleks , Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CON 90-20/PDP 90-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409. AND PRECISE DEVEWPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 6 19 10TH STREET (REFERRED BACK FROM JANUARY 8 1 1991, CITY COUNCIL MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 29, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council base their decision on satisfying the neighbor to the east and to provide the setback to a point which would minimize view blockage. Staff estimated this to be approximately a seven-foot minimum. As an alternative, the Commission could recommend by minute order that the Council sustain Condition No. 2, requiring an average front setback of 10 feet, with a minimum of 7 feet. Staff noted that they had received word from the neighbor to the east that the neighbor has no objection to a seven-foot setback, if the waterfall feature remains as shown, and the corner of the building is set back seven feet . Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that the Commission can either make a new recommendation, or they can stand by their initial recommendation on this matter. Hearing opened at 9: 16 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jeff Greene , 922 10th Street. Manhattan Beach, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he would be happy to mention the original submittal, however, he preferred to discuss only the issue at hand ; (2) stated that he designed with the five-foot setback in mind; (3) stated that Council directed that talks take place with the neighbor in an attempt to minimize any impact to the view; (4) stated that they have met with the neighbor to discuss the project. and he continued by discussing the footprint of the project in relation to the setbacks; (5) said that adjustments have been made to the project in order to preserve the view. Mr. Greene continued and: (1) said that the arc of the front of the building was reduced by six inches, effectively pulling the building back six inches, however three -inches were s till impinging on the neighbors' view; (2) explained, therefore, that the arc was pulled back another three inches. allowing for an almost 90-degree view for the neighbor; (3) continued by explaining what would happen if the building were pulled back ten feet; (4) displayed a drawing of the proposed project; (5) discussed the windows and the building itself as they relate to the neighbors' view. Mr. Greene continued and: ( 1) said that the neighbor agrees with the current plan; (2) stated that this project now meets with the intent of the Council to meet with the neighbor to work out an agreement; (3) discussed the waterfall, stating that it is easier to install the water feature now rather than having to install it later, and noted that if so desired it can be used for landscaping rather than a waterfall at the current time . Carl Janssen, 625 10th Street, neighbor of the proposed project, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the issue of the ten-foot setback is important on this street; (2) stated that he would prefer a ten-foot setback on the proposed project so that his view is not lost; (3) noted concern over the proposed waterfall, noting that the State is in a severe qrought; (4) noted that water features are troublesome to maintain; (5) said that the applicants have made an attempt 14 P.C . Minutes 2/5/91 to meet with him to resolve this problem; (6) in response to questions from Comm Marks, discussed the location and configuration of his house and the street. Hearing closed at 9:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach stated that the staff recommendation is to recommend that the Council base its decision on the fact that the neighbor to the east is now satisfied with the setback and the fact that his view will be preserved by use of the 6 foot, six inch setback. He explained that the Commission is only being asked to comment on the waterfall protrusion, not any of the other setbacks. Jeff Greene explained that the waterfall portion was redrawn and brought back; nothing else has been changed. He noted that the plans have already been approved, and the only issue in question is the waterfall feature protrusion which has been pulled back to satisfy the concerns of the neighbor. Comm. Peirce stated that he has not changed his mind on his original recommendation of the ten-foot setback. He stated that it is commendable that the applicant has met with the neighbor; however, he did not feel it would be appropriate to set a precedent with this case. He felt that the rules and regulations must be adhered to. Chmn. Ketz stated that she would support approval of the compromise of seven feet, noting that the neighbor to the east has been satisfied. She noted, however, that approval of the compromise would unfortunately mean that other setbacks on the street could be less than ten feet. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Marks, to recommend that the 10-foot setback be retained, as originally recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce Chmn. Ketz None Comms. Aleks, Rue CUP 90-5 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE. GOLDEN LION LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1991, and recommended that the Commission direct staff to continue to strictly enforce the provisions of the conditional use permit which was adopted on November 26, 1990. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 2. 1990, several Commissioners expressed concern regarding the lack of progress at this project, and a condition to report back as to the progress by January 1991 was added to the conditions of approval. Mr. Schubach stated that it appears that the owner of the property and the owner of the business are now working together to comply with all statutes of the conditional use permit. He stated that the applicants have until March 1, 1991, to comply with all conditions. If compliance is not met by that time, a citation can be issued. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. 15 P.C . Minutes 2/5/91 FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1990, and stated that it is time to schedule general plan amendments. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission or City Council may request general plan amendments. At this time, no private projects have been submitted, and staff had no suggestions for areas to be considered. If the Planning Commission desires to discuss potential amendments, staff should be directed to start the process at this time. Chmn. Ketz stated that there were no recommendation from the Commission at this time. STAFF ITEMS a) Setback Interpret ation at 501 and 517 Hermosa Avenue Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 5, 1991, and recommended that the alley side of the lot be interpreted as the front yard, the Hermosa Avenue side as the side yard, and to use the alley setback requirements for the front yard dimension. This issue has arisen in response to a request to the Building Department to construct two separate single-family dwellings on Lot 22 (parcels 24 and 25). The setback requirements in the R-3 zone are not clear for the rear half-lot. Pursuant to Section 11 -1 of the zoning ordinance, when an ambiguity exists with respect to yard requirements, it is the Planning Commission's duty to set forth findings and interpretation by resolution. Said resolution must ultimately be adopted by the City Council. The subject lot is a half lot with frontage on Hermosa Avenue and the alley known as 6th Court in the R-3 zone. Section 603 pertaining to front yards in the R-3 zone requires a setback as shown on the zoning map. Neither the Hermosa Avenue nor the 6th Court frontages have such a number on the map due to the fact that they are normally rear and side yards . Pursuant to Section 233, the definition of "front lot line" is the line separating the lot from the street, which would mean that Hermosa Avenue would be considered the front. However, it also states that in the case of a corner lot, the front lot line shall be the line separating the narrowest street frontage from the street. Therefore, if 6th Court were considered to be a street, it would be the front . Because of these ambiguities, staff is unable to make a legal determination. -Nonetheless. staff felt that the most logical interpretation, in order to be consistent with other lots on the block, would be to consider the 6th Court side the front and require the same setback required for the alley side on the other lots on the block (three feet on the ground floor, and one foot on the second floor) and to consider Hermosa Avenue the side yard, resulting in a setback of 10 percent of the width, or 3.36 feet . Mr. Lee concurred with staffs interpretation and recommendation on this issue. He noted that this recommendation pertains to this project only, explaining that these matters are addressed on a case-by-case basis. MOTION by Comm. Peirce , seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-16, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue 16 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 b) P~ Department Activity Report for December 1990 Comm. Peirce asked questions about MAX ridership and subsidies. to which Mr. Schubach gave a brief update. Comm. Peirce wanted to know how many riders are from Hermosa Beach. c) Tentative Future Plannlnlf Commission Menda No action taken. d) List of Completed Projects for Inspection Mr. Schubach explained that Commissioners can make arrangement to see the interiors of completed projects if they so desire. e) City Council Minutes of Januruy s. 1991 No action taken. COMMISSION ITEMS Comm. Peirce commented on the League of California Cities meeting, to which Mr. Schubach noted that funds are available for Commissioners who wish to attend. Chmn. Ketz asked about HIP (Housing Improvement Plan) nominations, to which Mr. Schubach gave a brief update. Comm. Peirce asked about the joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop which was to take place, to which Mr. Schubach _explained that the Council has requested that the meeting be postponed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded byChmn. Ketz, to adjourn at 9:54 P.M. No objei:;tions: 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 February 5, 1991. •• ~.., / / ~ ~ ----------7 ~ #--~ ---------==:c..._ _____ _ Christine Ketz. Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary ~ I 'J. /j<\ 1 Date 17 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91