Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_06_16~INUTl:S 01'" TIit VUNNIN6 CO~ISSION ~l:1:TIN6 01'" TIit CITY 01'" 111:l]~OSA 131:ACll 111:LI) ON .JUNI: 1E, 1~~~" AT 7:00 V-~-IN TIit CII'Y IIALL COUNCIL Cll~l31:DS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard and Chmn. Merl None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items with the following changes: Minutes of the May 19, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, Page 9, last paragraph, change "This limitation ... " to "The 30-feet limitation ... " Minutes of the June 2, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, Page 2, Variance 92-2, change " ... 2550 ... " to " ... 250 ... " Resolution P.C. 92-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE LEGAL USE TO BE A FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1150 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AT 1017 AVIATION BOULEVARD, KING-BEAR AUTO CENTER, change "C. The development as conditioned, posses no threat .... " to "C. The development as conditioned, poses no threat ... ", change "8. . .. fro ... " to "8. . .. for ... ", delete the second " ... areas or any other location on the premises shall be ... ", Section III, change each "it's" within this section to "its". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, *Suard and Chmn. Merl None *Comm. Suard abstained on June 2, 1992 Minutes, Resolution P.C. 92-27 and Resolution P.C. 92-30 None 1 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 3 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING VAR 92-2 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 250 SQUARE FEET ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING TRIPLEX AT 336 THE STRAND AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAID VARIANCE AT 336 THE STRAND (continued from June 2, 1992 Meeting). Recommended Action: To deny requested variance. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed addition would maximize view potential, raise that portion of building height to th'e 35-feet maximum and connect with the existing roof deck. He commented the non-conformity is related to density and structural aspects: lot coverage, unit sizes, private open space, front setback, north side setback and parking. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed project com- plied with basic zoning requirements and the non-conforming ordin- ance, noted the one space per unit parking complied with Section 1162 allowing the addition. A variance is necessary, because under current R-3 zoning, the maximum density is 33 units per acre. He stated the Commission must determine if there were grounds for a variance and if the non-conforming use should be allowed any expansion. Mr. Schubach then detailed the findings that must be made in order to qualify for a variance and noted the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance ( surrounding property rights, structure sizes, view and light blockage). Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended denial due to the first finding required for variances, not Staff found nothing about the property's physical characteristics that were exceptional or unique. He noted the second requirement would become moot without the first finding. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:15 p.m. Ken McDonald, project architect, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, pre~ented and discussed project photographs, addressing the variance findings requirement as it relating to the property topography and side-by-side in-filling. He felt a variance was necessary for his client to enjoy the same rights as his neighbors and felt granting the variance would not be detrimental to the neighbors or area or adversel¥ affect the General Plan. He felt the proposed project was within the "spirit" of the General Plan and presented no increase in density beyond that which is 19% over dense or lot coverage while increasing open space and living area. He stated parking is not an issue, the area profile would be maintained (not raised). Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. McDonald the roof area, determining the stora9e area had been deleted, the open deck would have an open trellis with a clear he.:i.ght of 7'6" to 7'9". Comm. Marks noted the 2 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 trash area was too small, to which Mr. McDonald responded that it was an existing condition, but the property owner would be willing to comply with any suggested improvement. Eric Castleman, 336 The Strand, applicant, confirmed the location of the trash area was pre-existing. He compared an analogy between his property and senior citizens he cares for on a daily basis, stating the project would realize the building's full potential and extend its longevity, not alter the building character nor create any new problems and not change density. He felt the building could be enhanced and should not be torn down. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chrnn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. Comm. Di Monda stated the architect had previously discussed this proposed addition. He commented that the 30-feet height limitation being currently considered, the substandard size of the lot and apartments and the lack of parking had not been subjects of that previous discussion. Comm. Di Monda stated his lack of support was due to those three issues, feeling two units on the property would better serve the City, given the lot size. Comm. Ketz felt there were no findings made in support of a variance. Comm. Suard supported remodeling of older units, but felt he could not support a variance due to the view blockage and increase in density. Comm. Marks stated his support of Staff's recommendation. Chmn. Merl stated an affirmative finding was necessary to grant a variance, which was not the case, although he was definitely in favor of the remodeling of older structures. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Marks, to follow Staff's recommendation and DENY the request for a variance to allow 250 square feet addition and an Environmental Negative Declaration for a non-conforming triplex at 336 The Strand. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Chrnn. Merl stated this item was denied, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CON 92-4/PDP 92-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23286 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REVISED PLANS FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. (Referred back to Planning Commission by City Council action to deny "without prejudice"}. Recommended Action: To review revisions and determine if adequate to comply with concerns of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Schubach stated Staff suggested the revisions be reviewed to determine if adequate to comply with previously stated concerns. 3 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 He then discussed the background, recommendations for changes and the actual changes made to this item, as well as previous action taken by the Commission and City Council. Mr. Schubach explained the options available to the Commission. He stated the modifica- tions made to the plan are minor and responded to only the City Council's specific concerns. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed view maintenance provisions. Mr. Schubach stated a corner cut off requirement has been met by the revised plan, with a drive way slope having a longer distance and lesser slope. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:39 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 300, project architect, presented and explained photographs and renderings of the project. He felt the height situation was reviewed and agreed upon by the City Council that there was no problem. He presented an rendering of area structure heights to the Commission, noted the proposed project (due to building slope) would be 20-25 feet at the street level with the back being 35 feet and stated most of the buildings would not have an impact on view. Comm. Di Monda confirmed that the project was at basically 30'5" and the slope then takes it to 31 '3" with Mr. Compton. Mr. Compton then explained the amount of care that had been taken in the development of the building plans and compared this proposed project to the existing ones within the area and previous project plans. He felt this type of development would provide a much safer traffic situation, noting the garage area provided a 28-feet turn radius, allowing any size car to maneuver and "head out" of the driveway. Mr. Compton and Comm. Di Monda discussed internal down spouts and overflows located within and without the structure. Comm. Di Monda suggested the building mass could be visually reduced by different stucco textures and color on the exterior of the building, which Mr. Compton agreed to consider. Comm. Marks and Mr. Compton discussed the planned landscaping, as well as the areas possibly to be landscaped by the owners, and the building footprint determina- tion. Brian Bedall, 930 1st Street, Apt. #4, stated a lot of· work has been completed to meet the stated requirements. He felt the building will be attractive and the area will be improved. No one else wished to speak regarding this i tern, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:01 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt the changes are beneficial, safer, an effort had been made and expressed his changes made. He requested that a Condition planter box be added, as it should have been. the driveway is pleasure with the requiring a 24" MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CON 92-4/PDP 92-4, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #23286 and Precise Development Plan with revised plans for a three-unit condominium project at 1901 Pacific Coast Highway, with a change to Paragraph 4 adding a Condition to require a 24" box tree. 4 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chinn. Merl None None None Chmn. Merl stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CON 92-6/PDP 92-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754. AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 17TH STREET. Recommended Action: To continue to July 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended continuance to allow the applicant to revise plans to comply with the open space Policy Statement and provide a revised landscape plan. He then detailed previous actions taken by the Commission, described the proposed units. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed project complied with all zoning requirements, but is not consistent with the policy requiring substantial open space adjacent to living areas. Mr. Schubach discussed complaints received by the· Building Department; ie: an on-site travel trailer, dumping of dirt on the property. He stated the owner had been contacted and the issues must be resolved prior to a building permit issuance. Comm. Di Monda asked if Staff's word processor had "standard conditions" entered. He stated the Resolutions do not always include the same conditions. Mr. Schubach stated he would assure the "24" planter box requirement" was included in future Resolu- tions. Comm. Marks stated Sheet 7 was incomplete. Comm. Ketz noted the previous C.U.P. had required a 36" planter box, not a 24" one. The 36" planter box should be a requirement. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:07 p.m. Jacob Mierop, 118 6th Street, requested a continuance to July 7, 1992, to which Mr. Schubach responded if the revised plans were received by Staff by June 27, 1992, the July 7th date was possible. Candace Ford, 1002 17th Street, referenced a letter she had written which requested action be taken prior to a permit being granted. They were: clean up the property, remove the dirt and reinstate the natural ground level, fix the fence which was damaged by trucks, removal of vermin, reimbursement for her expense in removing subterranean termites on her facing property, addressing the problem of the swimming pool and a large palm tree which serves as a home for birds and vermin which has damaged adjacent property. She stated four feet of dirt (in piles, but covering the lot) had been brought in and dumped. 5 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Mike Welch, 1004 17th Street, confirmed Ms. Ford's statements. He stated the dirt level is 4 to 6 feet over 2 / 3 's of the ·back yard and the pool has water in it and represents a danger to children. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, property owner of 1007, 1015 and 1017 17th Street properties. He stated 20 to 30 truck loads of dirt had been brought in, the soil has not be compacted and there are no retaining walls. He stated at least two stop-work orders have been put on the property, which have been ineffective. Mr. Gray felt that owners' rights should be reinstated equal to Condominiums by rezoning the properties to allow present property owners to also be able to rebuild or build Condominiums. He felt prior to granting the C.U.P., a retaining wall should be built, house trailer immediately removed and swimming pool filled. He requested that condominiums be painted two different colors and that during construction, the material and dumpsters not be allowed to be parked on the street. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 8:25 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed the dumping of dirt, the pool and the trailer on the property with Mr. Mierop. Mr. Mierop stated the pool did have water, had a fenc •:! around the pool, dirt had been dumped on the property at his orders, but additional dirt had been dumped by others in spite of the fence and lock that he had had installed. He explained how the dirt is to be used to fill the pool and stated the problems would be taken care of. The trailer was being removed the next day. He stated the dirt was piled in the back yard, but was not four feet high, had been there over one year. Comm. Di Monda requested the dirt be removed immediately. Comm. Marks requested the dirt be removed as soon as possible. Mr. Mierop stated he had not received information from Staff and had not been aware of the stated problems. Comm. Di Monda stated he thought July 7, 1992 was too soon to allow for soil removal, the pool being filled, soil compacted and to obtain a geology report. Mr. Lee stated the problems that have been noted are within the scope of the Building Department to resolve. If the matter were continued, the problems could be addressed by the applicant and the Building Department Staff could verify the actions taken. Then a determination as to project merits could be addressed and the C.U.P. could be approved, denied or continued. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Seward, to CONTINUE CON 92-6/PDP 92-5 to the Planning Commission's July 7, 1992 meeting, REQUEST the Building Dept. to respond to the Commiss ion with a report stating opinions, status and problems of thi s issue, including the actions taken to remedy those problems and REQUEST the applicant assure that the soil is removed, the pool filled and the soil compacted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None 6 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 CUP 92-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COFFEE HOUSE r AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 157 PIER AVENUE, JAVA MAN. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to Condi- tions. He explained the Conditions and options available to the Commission. Mr. Schubach then detailed the proposed changes to the existing C.U.P., stating Staff felt the business should be required to provide additional parking to compensate for expansion and mitigate any impact, a low railing or other device be provided to clearly delineate outside seating and stop encroachment into the right-of-way and that private use of public right-of-way is not appropriate as this is a major corner and has heavy pedestrian usage. Mr. Schubach confirmed to Comm. Marks that lot nos. 15 and 22 were under the same ownership. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:40 p.m. Dave Owen, 1233 Hermosa Ave., Ste. 203, project designer, 'felt that the building has been vastly improved, stating the expansion was very simple. He explained the expansion of a deck and additional seating area. He stated the applicant is willing to give up use of the public space and will not pursue use of that area. Mr. Owen stated the deck was being proposed due to the substantial grade change on the lot and the planter would perhaps have a different Rick Hankus, 157 Pier Avenue, stated he has created a non-smoking, non-drinking environment for primarily pedestrians which was of immense benefit to the downtown area, improved the corner and gave residents a place to go instead of driving to other cities. He stated his business was a nice opening to the downtown Hermosa Beach area. Comm. Suard congratulated him on the ambiance created at that corner. Mr. Hankus stated he currently had nine part-time employees, six of • which lived locally and three that parked at least two blocks from the business. Comm. Suard and Mr. Hankus discussed future parking spaces, one of which would be available for $50. per month. Mr. Hankus stated he did not want to accept the liability associated with use of public right-of-ways. Comm. Di Monda suggested a bicycle rack be fitted near the building rather than a parking space, which Mr. Hankus thought was a good idea. Tommy Steel, 726 Palm, felt Java Man offered outdoor seatin9 with a nice environment, helping to turn the City into a walking city. He supported approval of the C.U.P. Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, stated Public Works Dept. completely agreed with Planning Dept. Staff's comments; ie: a low barrier between tables and public right-of-way. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, asked the purpose of the 18" public right-of-way. The Commission responded the right-of-way was 7 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 four feet wide. She thought the area was only 18", which was insignificant. She supported approval of the C.U.P., asking that a condition be added prohibiting the use of paper plates or·cups. Susan McFarland, 25 8th Street, recommended approval of the C.U.P. She felt the business was very specific, catering to a walk-in trade, which was not a tourist-related business which did not offer alcohol. She felt the seven parking space requirement should be removed prior to approval, as parking is available in other areas. Ann Cummings, 930 exactly what was support. 14th Street, felt this needed in the downtown type of business area and stated was her Dick Mccurdy, 1113 Valley Drive, supported C.U.P. approval, noting the impact on other local businesses has been for the better. Rick Linnen, 1727 Monterey, supported approval, stating this type of business was needed within the City of Hermosa Beach. Dave Owen, during rebuttal, asked for Staff's assistance with establishment of an acceptable low railing or other device. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 9:04 p.m. Comm. Di Monda did not view the request as an expansion, but rather providing outside seating. He felt no parking spaces were neces- sary, but again suggested a bike rack be installed and a barrier or low railing be not a part of the conditions. Comms. Ketz and Suard agreed a railing was not necessary. Comm. Suard expressed concern regarding parking, suggesting a total of two parking spaces be required. Chmn. Merl concurred with Comms. Di Monda and Ketz. He felt the business helped the community and was important to the downtown area. He stated he would have no problem in approving use of the right-of-way area and allowing the applicant, at a later time, the ability to pursue that option with the City Council and the Public Works Dept. Comm. Marks felt a bicycle rack should be a requirement. Comm. Di Monda felt the applicant should be able to serve coffee at the outside tables and clean them thereafter, suggesting that restriction be lifted, to which Chmn. Merl agreed. After discussion between Mr. Lee and the Commission, it was determined conditions could not be changed without notice, service could not be given to the outside tables while not allowing the same service at indoor tables; cleaning of the tables is allowed. Asked by Comm. Di Monda, the applicant stated he would like to have table service, as it would help the customer flow and service quality. Comm. Di Monda asked if this issue could be continued· to allow re-noticing and the use of three tables in the outdoor area could be continued during that time. The applicant agreed to this proposal. Mr. Lee stated instruction as to Condition changes would be appropriate at the continued Public Hearing, noting that direction 8 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 was currently needed in order to define for Staff the scope of re-noticing. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz to CONTINUE this item to allow for renotification, DIRECT Staff to revise Section I, Page 6, deleting the third sentence starting with, " ... the boundary between ... " , deleting paragraph 2 , change paragraph 4 to read, "A sign shall be posted in a conspicuous location," and delete Page 7, paragraph 7. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl Comm. Suard None None Comm. Suard noted his disapproval was regarding only the parking situation. Ch.mn. Merl confirmed outside service of tables would continue during this period of continuance. A break was taken from 9:18 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. CUP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH (continued from 2/4, 3/17, 4/21 and 5/19/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating the City Traffic Engineer did not support allowing a right turn out of the driveway. Staff believed closure of the 10th Street driveway was a preferable alternative, with "left-turn only" and "exit only" signs as an alternative. Noise readings had been obtained but were difficult to read due to the high levels of noise caused by traffic. Supple- mental information indicated a violation of the noise ordinance. A compressor and a high-pressure water hose are being used, contri- buting to the noise levels. This violation requires corrective action be taken. Staff recommended the applicant contact Staff to assist in the resolution of this problem. The applicant must assure the noise level is reduced to acceptable levels. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:29 p.m. Peter Paldino, project architect, 215 Pier Avenue, addressed the noise level and drive way issues. He state the noise readings were taken with the blower off, with a 58 to 61 Ob's reading as a result of highway noise, and with the blower on, with a 63 to 69 Db's reading, both over the maximum allowable. He questioned the 55 Db' s requirement, feeling it was a low standard. Mr. Paldino described the efforts made by the applicant, stating he felt the block wall would be expensive to build and not particularly effective. Mr. Schubach explained the basis of the "55 Ob's 9 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 standard", noting the applicant had to reduce the noise level to the ambient {58-61 Ob's), but the noise levels must be reduced to Code required levels. Comm. Di Monda stated the ambient noise level would be dependent upon the time of day the tests were taken. He discussed the current enclosure and noise level reduction with Mr. Paldino, who stated there remained one more internal mechanism can be addressed to reduce sound which would be addressed within 30 days. Mr. Schubach stated another reading could be taken after completion of that correction, if the Commission so desired. Mr. Paldino requested the drive way remain open as the drive way is used only for exiting of detailed cars, with a maximum of 6 to 7 cars per day. He stated if the drive way were closed, the detail- ing portion of the business will also be closed. Richard O'Bryan, 1000 Pacific Coast Highway, stated the equipment is below ground level and is enclosed, with awnings hung to prevent noise from escaping. He stated the noise levels have been reduced by 5 to 7 Ob's. He stated the Police Dept. had "passed" the noise level as being within the ambient sound level and that additional muffling had been accomplished since that time. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had not used the 1990 Police reports, which stated the applicant was in violation, because it was felt they did not take the ambient at a location that Staff was satisfied with. Comm. Di Monda discussed use of a remote vacuum to reduce noise with Mr. O'Bryan. Comm. Marks suggested the two open ends be enclosed with "strip" plastic, to which the applicant expressed concern relating to possible damage to the cars. Comm. Di Monda discussed the number of complaints received by Staff with Mr. Schubach. Although not a large outcry, neighbors up the street stated they heard more of the noise than those adjacent to the establishment because the nois1e traveled upwards. Mr. Lee stated that City Code provided that when commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses, the Dba noise level could be 60 Ob's between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and at 55 Ob's after 10:00 p.m. This should be considered in relationship to the ambient. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 9:50 p.m. Comm. Marks felt another opportunity to lessen the noise level should be given to the applicant. Comm. Di Monda felt a continuance was inappropriate, feeling the Commission should give suggestions for correction, approve the C.U.P. and review the situation in six months' time. He then itemized the· areas of concern which would be reviewed during the six month review. He suggested a noise level reading be conducted at 5:30 p.m. as he did not feel he knew what the ambient noise levels really were and felt Staff should provide additional ambient noise level information. He also felt the actions taken to date were of benefit to the community and the applicant had made an honest effort to resolve the issues. 10 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Comm. Suard stated the applicant would be required to adhere to the Code requirements. He felt a reading of the ambient noise level on a Sunday morning was just as important as a 5:00 p.m. reading, noting residents should have their "quiet time". MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE C.U.P. 91-18, deleting Paragraph 3, Sentence (b) and allowing the drive way to remain open, with a chain and a left-turn only sign, Page 5, Paragraph 11 to be changed to allow the operation of vacuum cleaners as long as the City noise ordinance requirements are met, Page 5, Paragraph 13, delete item (a) and replace with a statement requiring a six-month review and to DIRECT Staff to obtain more Oba information relating to the noise levels at this location at 5 : 0 0-5 : 3 0 p. m. week days and on Sunday mornings, in order to resolve this problem. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chinn. Merl Comm. Marks None None Chmn. Merl stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR CON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL {continued from 2/18, 4/7 and 5/5/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To continue to a specific date. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant still needed to provide additional information which had been delayed, in part, by an illness in the developer's family, necessitating his being out of the country. He stated addition or relocation of a traffic signal has been opposed by the Traffic Engineer and would probably be opposed by Cal Trans, which has approved the proposed plan and submitted traffic study as adequate. Mr. Schubach discussed the responses received from a survey regarding a street closure, of which the majority supported ( 36/20). He noted the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans had indicated no opposition to the street closure, but a public hearing and general agreement by residents and businesses, as well as a General Plan Amendment would be necessary. Mr. Schubach noted records of incidence f rem other adult restaurants is highly variable; similar restaurants have had few incidents. Staff had attempted to float balloons to measure height but the test was affected by turbulence. Staff did find little difference between 35 and 40 feet, in that the view would be obstructed with either height or expansion of an existing building on First Street to the west of this location. Mr. Schubach stated Staff did not believe a wall higher than 6 feet is necessary; the applicant would be advised if the Commission felt a higher wall was needed. Staff also did not believe the hotel would create any 11 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 changes in pedestrian circulation within the cross-walks currently existing. The property notified of the necessity to clean the site and would be taken care of by the end of June, 1992. area, with area owner has been has indicated it Mr. Lee noted a concern that under the permit streamlining act, a set period of time is established in which to approve/deny a project, explaining the amount of time as it related to this project. He explained the difficulties relating to this project, stating the maximum date in which to approve/deny this project would be mid-August 1992 (unless the applicant asked for another time extension). • Comm. Di Monda asked what constituted "general agreement" among residents. Mr. Lee responded residents would have the opportunity to protest either vacation or closure, and the City Council has the right to make the decision. Comm. Di Monda felt this statement in the Staff Report was misleading, to which Mr. Lee offered to further research and present the particulars to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda noted the notice was advertised as "recommended for continuance". Chmn. Merl felt the project had been continued many times and now should be addressed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 10:10 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, 49 So. Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, applicant's representative, explained the delay was due to the applicant's father's d~ath, which necessitated the applicant leaving the Country prior to leaving instructions. Mr. Yeh requested an extension of time until probably July 1992 in order to discuss .the Commission's concerns with the property owner, who is scheduled to return at that time. He felt the property could be best served by the placement of a hotel on it, rather than a shopping center or other purposes. Phil Wagner, 601 5th Street, stated his surprise that a project of this magnitude was being considered so close to his property. He felt other residents were not aware of the proposed project. He then discussed the type of clientele a hotel would generate, the projected increase in traffic which he felt would have a negative impact and explained traffic would have to pass in front of his property if the hotel is built. He requested that heavy trucks be prohibited if construction of the hotel is approved. Mr. Schubach stated a copy of the survey would be given to Mr. Wagner. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, stated a November 1991, which set the height limit at the requirements of a "grandfather clause" should be the height limit on this building. been granted to this project during a public building is "wide open". "vote" had been taken 35 feet. He discussed and stated he felt 35 No special rights had meeting. He noted the Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 10:21 p.m. 12 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 The Commission discussed with Mr. Lee the 35-feet height limit, which did not apply to this particular project due to the City's continued direction given to the developer, and the project should be "grandfathered". Comm. Di Monda discussed his concern regarding the continuances, noting that the "streamlining act" is not being violated if the applicant requested another continuance, which Mr. Lee confirmed. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm.-Di Monda, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to the Planning Commission August 4, 1992 meeting. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Merl suggested Staff convey to the applicant the Gommission probably will not allow further continuances. Comm. Suard noted the applicant was waiting for determinations from the Commission relating to trash enclosure placement and wall height. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had committed to clean up the site. The Commission wished to monitor clean-up progress and completion. HEARINGS CON 90-8 A REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 626 7TH STREET. Recommended Action: To grant six month extension. Mr. Schubach referenced difficulty in construction due to the economy. He discussed previous action taken by the Commission, described the project and property location, stating the proposed project was in the R-2 zone and is consistent with the open space 'policy statement. Staff recommended approval of the requested six-month extension. Mr. Schubach stated State law would limit the amount of further extensions. He wished the applicant to under- stand this limitation on any future extensions. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Staff's recommendation and APPROVE a six-month 90-8. Suard, to extension AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chinn. Merl Co.mm. Marks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None accept of CON CON 90-20 A REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 10TH STREET. 13 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Recommended Action: To grant six month extension. Mr. Schubach referenced difficulty in construction due to the economy. He discussed previous action taken by the Commission, described the project and property location, stating the proposed project was in the R-2 zone and is inconsistent with the open space policy statement as this open space is on the loft level decks. Mr. Schubach commented the Commission must decide between granting the extension based on approved plans or requiring modifications regarding the open space. Staff recommended approval of the requested six-month extension as this was the first request for an extension. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Merl, to accept Staff's recommendation and APPROVE a six-month extension of CON 90-20. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chinn. Merl Comm. Marks None None PS 92-1 POLICY STATEMENT TO DETERMINE THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR A DO-IT-YOURSELF BREWERY. Recommended Action: To classify the proposed do-it-yourself brewery as "hobby supply" and initiate a text amendment to add "do-it-your-self brewery" as a permitted use. Mr. Schubach reiterated Staff's recommendation and noted the Commission's alternatives. The State Alcoholic Beverage Control has ruled this business would not require a license. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stated the business would .not be regulated, but the beer produced must be for personal use only. He stated the applicant requested the Commission declare business to be a hobby supply business, which was within the purview of the Commission, subject to City Council's confirmation. He then explained the determinations to be made by the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated no detailed floor or parking plans had been submitted. He noted the differences between this proposed business and other hobby stores, stated Staff had reservations in stating brewing of beer was a hobby and noted the brewing processes and equipment which could result in emissions and odors being released. Staff supports and encourages businesses an enhancements of downtown business activity, but is not convinced this classifi- cation would be prudent. The recommended definition and policy statement would be an interim measure, permitting the proposed business to operate prior to final adoption of a text amendment. He stated a cautious approach would be consideration of sponsoring an amendment adding this business to the permitted use list with a C.U.P. requirement, which would require the application to submit an application. He referenced a letter from the City Manager in support of this proposed business. 14 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Comm. Di Monda discussed draft Policy Statement, I. (e) with Mr. Schubach, stating I. (a) , (b) , ( c) and ( d) should be deleted, as these paragraphs are covered by I.(e). Mr. Schubach stated removal of those paragraphs would delete any City-level enforcements and control. Mr. Lee stated the Stated and Federal regulations could be adopted by reference as the local regulations, of which para- graph I. ( e) doesn't necessarily apply. After discussion between Messrs. Lee and Schubach and Comm. Di Monda regarding the issue of enforcement, Chmn. Merl suggested "adoption by reference''. Comm. Di Monda suggested the parking requirement be deleted since a major parking lot was located within 50 feet. Messrs. Schubach and Lee suggested a parking code be maintained for this business. Comm. Ketz stated an individual site was not being reviewed, but rather a category, to which the Commission agreed. Comm. Suard discussed his concerns regarding regulation of emissions, to which Mr. Lee responded with information regarding A.Q.M.D. authority and enforcement. Comm. Di Monda felt the parking requirements would be redundant, stating he had a problem listing what is already within the zoning ordinance and referenced general retail and hobby shop current parking requirements. Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. Patricia Spiritus, 115 Longfellow, said she hoped to have judged competitions, but would not have a tasting room. She confirmed the brewing area will have a maximum of 10 kettles of approximately 10 gallons each. The "yeasty" odors will be contained via a hood filtration system. She stated appointments will be made for the two-hour process. Comm. Di Monda felt that the Commission should not be analyzing all businesses and creating bureaucratic paperwork, but should be looking at the businesses to determine which could be put into existing permitted uses. He felt this business qualified as a "hobby" shop. He stated that if Staff was confused regarding what a potential business would be listed as, it should be brought to the attention of the Commission, but saw no need to list what is adopted by reference (which should be sufficient). He felt the parking requirement would be met by the parking lot across the street from the proposed business. Comm. Ketz asked what the City's recourse would be if odor became a problem. Mr. Lee responded a complaint could be filed with the A.Q.M.D., who has specific regulations and personnel for investi- gation. Mr. Lee agreed to present State Regulations which gave authority to the A.Q.M.D. to regulate odors. Comms. Marks and Di Monda discussed the parking issue. Mr. Lee reiterated the Commis- sion's determination during this meeting was only whether or not the do-it-yourself brewery should be classified as a hobby supply/ retain use, with parking being addressed by the applicant at a later date when he/she asked for a variance or presented a parking plan. Mr. Lee referenced "Requirements subsection F", which is not 15 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 specifically called out in the State and Federal regulations. He stated it might be advisable for local purposes to have this as a requirement and recommended additional verbiage, "Do-it-yourself breweries shall be considered the same as hobby shop", subject to the same requirements. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to FIND that a "do-it-yourself brewery" is a "hobby shop", allowing the _applicant to continue the requirement permit process and Staff can bring back a Text Amendment of their concerns at their convenience. AYES: NOES: Conuns. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chinn. Merl None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None P-10 VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE {continued) from May 19., 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To review Staff's report to City Council and confirm Planning Commission recommendation. Comm. Di Monda fe lt the Commission might wish to give alternatives in its recommendation to the City Council. The Commission agreed this item should be continued. Mr. Schubach commented the Council could require this item prior to further review by the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Ketz, that due to the lateness of the hour, this item be CONTINUED to Planning Commission's July 21, 1992 meeting. No objections, so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Correspondence from MultiVision regarding cablecasting Planning Commission meetings. The Commission jointly expressed its incredibility over the letter content. Mr. Schubach stated the implementation had been postponed for a short period to allow City Council review. He stated he would present the Commission's comments and the Commission members could attend the Council meeting. He stated that MultiVision had stated essentially that Manhattan Beach City Council comes first, with this Commission second. The Commission discussed the possibility of changing the meetings to Wednesday evenings, reaching no decision. Comm. Suard felt Hermosa Beach is currently scheduled and Manhattan Beach should reschedule their requested time, unless the reason for change was a valid one. RECEIVE AND FILE 16 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 J ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11:18 p.m. Ho 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 June 16, 1992. Rod Merl; Ch Date 17 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92