Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_10_06MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1992, AT 7:01 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, C,hmn. Merl Comm. Suard Michael Schubach; Planning Directory Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Comm. Marks requested that Staff investigate and report back to the Commi ssion the status of the parking study being conducted by the Public Works Dept. MOTION by Comm. of Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks,. to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of September 15, 1992, Resolution P.C. 92-52, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 13-7 (b) TO ADD GREATER THAN 50% ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 433 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 92-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ELIMIN- ATE SECTION 7.2-27 REGARDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDO CONVERSIONS. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Cbmn. M~rl None Comm. Suard None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wi shed to speak regarding an item not included on the meet i ng agenda. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 92-12 & PARK 92-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TH STREET, LA PLAYITA 1 P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 Recommended Aotio111 To approve the request. Mr. Schubach stated this application is to allow the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with _an existing restaurant and additional dance floor area for a restroom without additional P.arking. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He then presented an alternative to approval. Mr. Schubach stated service of beer and wine would be cons i stent with the restaurant service, explain- ing it had not been previously obtained due to the Health Department's requirement for separate male/female bath- rooms. Outside bathrooms and indoor storage space are proposed. Mr. Schubach discussed Staff's concerns regarding the restaurant's location in an "impacted area," but noted this was an existing restaurant within that area, with the change having limited impact on the existing operation. Therefore, it was felt that no additional parking was needed.Staff recommended the restaurant be allowed to stay open until 11:00 p.m. due to the operation being a restaurant and in a residential area. An alternative to listing the conditions was discussed, which would allow future Section 10-7 amendments to apply. Mr. Schubach then outlined the improvements made by the applicant and noted no complaints or other problems had been experienced since the outside dining area had been opened. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:10 p.m. June Williama, Manhattan Avenue, stated the restaurant would be helped if windows were allowed along the alley way and requested the Com.mission approve allowance of the windows. Chmn. Merl stated such approval was outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, to which Ms. Williams agreed, but thought such a declaration would ferhaps influence the Board of Housing Appeals. CoIOJne. D Monda and Oakes reiterated such appr oval would be outside the authority of the Commission. Ms. Williams stated the applicant would be arriving at about 7:30 p.m. After discussion, at 7:15 p.m., the Commission agreed to CONTINUE this item to the end df the Public Hearings in order allow the applicant the opportunity to testify. CUP 92-13 & PDP 92-8 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Action1 To approve the request. 2 1)\\'' ·::'>S (~. P.c. Minutes 10-6-92 • . : -·--. s~ ~: -~ Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He highlighted the minor changes noted in the "supplemental" received by the Commission, noting the front door access proposal should include two steps rather than using a handicapped access ramp. He described the pro~osed construction, business operation and facilities, not1.ng a C.U.P. is required to authorize the automotive uses and a P.D.P. amendment is required since a small portion of the building height exceeded the f iret tier limit. Staff did not see this building as causing significant view impacts, given the height of existing buildings nearby, and the number of parking spaces was more than adequate. He discussed a condition to mitigate potential traffic intrusion concerns, the proposal that a 6-feet high block wall be constructed which would include landscaping, as well as landscaping at the front of the ·property, proposed decorative base/pole cover for the sign and sign specifications. He stated the project was con- sistent with ~lanning and zoning standards and satisfied design guidelines, while noting doubt that the storage capacity was adequate . Comm. Di Monda recommended the block wall finish be the same as the building (Page 7.3), to which the Commission agreed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7126 p.m. Alan Glaser, 1414 Pacific Coast Highway, project developer, stated the structure would appear to be a retail building while being used for automotive uses and requested approval of the application. He felt .the proposed uses and building design would be an asset to the city, the building would serve as a noise buffer. Comm. Marks commented Mr. Glaser on the building design. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Glaser handicap design require- ments as they related to this building and landscaping of the site. He stated the tenants wished the sign as tall as possible and requested approval of a 10-feet monument- style sign. He also wish to lower the planter walls to allow banking of dirt in the front landscaping area. • Comm Di Monda discussed with Mr. Glaser usinq the original design of a 42-inch wall, the 18-inch curb and allowing the sign to be higher. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Glaser the building signs, which would be back-lighted metal cans with plastic-front le~ters. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. 3 P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 Comm. Di Monda requested Staff assure the landscaping is ample and the block wall be the same finish as the build- ing. Comm. Oakes suggested landscaping continue across the front and be planted with a specific "bushy" plant. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE application CUP 92-13 and PDP 92-8 with the changes to the rear block wall and landscaping. AYESs NOES1 ABSENTS ABSTAIN: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakea, Chinn. Merl None Comm. Suard Hone Chmn. Merl stated this application had been a\>proved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92-12 & PARK 92-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN SNVIRON- MENA/U, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TB STREET. LA PLAYITA At 7:41 p.m., Chmn. Merl reopened the Public Hearing. Harold Cohen, applicant, apologized for being late. Comm. Di Monda suggested a licensed person sign the drawing, to which Mr. Cohen agreed. Comm. Marks expressed concern regarding the open area leading to the bathrooms. Mr. Cohen responded he had no other option and had a five-feet high fence for security purposes. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. MO'l'IOH by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE CUP 92-12 & PARK 92-8 with the condition the drawings must be signed by a licensed professional·.· AYES& HOESs ABSEHTs ABS'l'AINs Comm. Di Honda, Harks, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard Nona Chmn. Merl stated this application had been a~proved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. • Due to the number of audience ~articipants, Items 9 and 10 were switched on the agenda, with Commission consent. CUP 91-26 & PPP 91-5 CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 70-ROOM HOTEL TO RECONSIDER THE HEIGH'l' OF A BUFFER WAI,1, AND BUILDING HEIGHT AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, , ~ i -f t:.\~-.... _:-=~~-{4 _ --·· P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 -.... ~ .... .. Recommended Actions approval. 'l'o sustain Planning Commiaaion Mr. Schubach discussed the background of this item, including the applicant's notification that he wished outdoor seating in conjunction with the piano bar be considered and the Commission's decision to require a 12-feet wall on the property. He discussed •the alternatives available and the City Council's and Commissions' s previous actions, He stated if a tall, free-standing wall were to be installed, it would impact the appearance of the hotel; an 18-foot high wall would be e9uivalent to a two-story buildin~ at the property line, with a wide base, substantial footings or support columns. Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, the Commission had allowed the proposed height to be grandfathered. He stated if the design were decreased to a height of 35 feet, the roof would have a lower pitch or be flat. Also, the applicant had relocated the bar due to the noise factor and had identified the outdoor seating area. Mr. Schubach noted that Staff did not see a problem with the outdoor seating area, but the Commission might wish the area enclosed. Chmn. Merl clarified that the wall and building heights were being considered at this meeting. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:56 p.rn. Jeremr Yeh, 49 So. Catalina Ave., Pasadena, presented a build ng elevation drawing, stated the design was an excellent one and the status structure would draw "high- class" customers. He felt it was illogical to invest the necessary large amount of money in a badly designed building, which would result if the roof were lowered. His investors would not invest in such a project. He stated the economy and real estate market is poor, explaining the hotel business would be only a projected 60% occupancy and the other on-site businesses were nec- essary for success. Mr. Jeh felt views would · not · be blocked and stated if the wall were required to be taller, the business would fail, since hotel occupants did not come to look at a wall. Comm. Marks noted the rooms did not face the ocean. Mr.-Yeh stated a view was available to the rooms. Pam McHew, 718 1st Place, stated the Commission should not allow the project, noting many excellent hotels already exist within the City. She supported the higher wall to assure privacy for the neighbors, decrease noise levels and maintain property values. She discussed the applic- able ordinance and a petition signed by 49 people, stating she and others would stop the project as their neighbor- P.C. Minutes 10-6~92 hood would be •iwrecked" if the project goes through. Comm. Oakes confirmed with Me. McHew that Ms. McHew had purchased three of her four properties while knowing they were adjacent to commercial properties. Ms. McHew discussed with Comm. Oakes the existing separation wall, proposed business, the possibility of other commercial businesses and their impacts. Comm. Oakes noted the structural requirements of an 18-feet high wall and stated her preference for landscaping rather than such a wall. Comm. Di Monda stated Ms. McHew was requesting the Commission deny the project based upon discretionary power. He a .eked what he • reaction • would be if the Commission exercised discretionary power relating to her properties. She stated this had already happened ·to her. Comm. Di Monda stated her property could be impacted in the future if the Commission chose to use "its discretion- ary power. " • Jerry Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, stated he lost property rights through down zoning, noting it was unique to have commercial and residential properties side-by-side. He stated residents were vocal and acted as "de factortt for the Zoning Board or Planning Commission, noting it was not a~propriate for residents to try to stop development within the commercial area. He supported Staff 'e recom- mendation, opposed Ms. McHew's statements and urged approval by the Commission. Gary Waylon, property owner within Hermosa Beach, stated his approval of the Commission's actions and the City of Commerce's endorsement of the project. He stated business will listen to the community through the dollar vote. Rick Learned, 1727 Monterey, stated the business community supported this project, stated satisfaction with the Comm- ission's previous actions and noted support of the project. .. _. John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Avenue, Chairman of Hermosa Beach Restaurant and Tavern Owners Assoc., commended the Commis- sion on the thoroughness and thought that had went into the project and thanked the Commission for its change in the manner of handling of business within the City. He stated new businesses should be welcomed. Patricia Spiritus, 115 Longfellow, stated her support of the project. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8129 p.m. Comm. Di Monda addressed the issues requested by the City Council relating to (1) the City Attorney's position, (2) P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 height limit (noting the applicant had lowered the hei~ht limit resulting in Comm. Di Manda's dissatisfaction with the building's appearance), (3) 18-feet high wall (of which he was not convinced was necessary and would not use discretionary power to impose that requirement) and { 4) stated he d.1.d not feel the Commission should act as an economic Board as the success or failure of a business did not relate to Planning Commission decisions. He supported Staff's recommendation. Comma. Marks and Oakes also sup- ported Sta-ff' s recommendation. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. APPROVE Sta££' s recommendation to sustain Commission approval. Oakes,• to Planning AYES1 NOES: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None ABSENT: ABSTAIN1 Comm. Suard Nona Chmn, Merl stated the Commission's action reconfirmed its original decision on the items sent for reconsideration. SS 92-8 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEX? AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10 REGARDING STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS AND REVISE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Recommended Actions To recommend approval of text amend- ment. Mr. Schubach stated this study was to consider amendment to Section 10-7 and 10-8 and to change mandated conditions within Article 10. He discussed the background and the proposed draft relating to the alcohol amendment; .with a distance of 100 feet from residents as the minimum requirement, prohibition of alcohol sales with gasoline sales, and the Commission's approval being necessary prior to the Police Chief's requirement of a doorman at establishments. Staff recommended minimum standard pro- visions for other conditionally permitted uses be changed to recommended conditions. Comm. Oakes discussed the Police Chief's response to the suggested amendment change relating to his authority with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda noted that this change would allow the City to review C.U.P. revocation based upon problems brought forth by the necessity of a doorman being reg_uired. Comm. Di Monda noted the way the amendment was written, the busin- ess owner would be deprived of procedural due process, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. . · Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:42 p.m. P.c. Minutes 10-6-92 Jim Listener, 2715 ELLOESTY, noted a 25,000 sq. ft. shopping center was exempt from the 100-feet minimum requirement. He discussed the possibility of loophQles bein<1 found, resulting in alcoholic sales and customer parking next to residents. He requested the amendment be rewritten. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, did not want the distance changed, or if it is, it be changed to 200 feet. She did not want more liquor stores within the City, feeling the impact upon residents was not offset by the taxes received. The existence of liquor stores is not conducive to the entrance of quality retail stores. John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Beach Avenue, said that Ms. Williams was imagining problems and there was no reason to assume problems are caused b,Y sale to adults with no back-up history. He stated nice restaurants have liquor licenses. He urged the Commission this item carefully. Many liquor stores also supply -bread, milk, etc., to the neig}:lborhood and function as part of that neighborhood. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8151 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the allowances and restrictions of "grandfathered" liquor stores, estab- lishing the restrictions and that the c.U.P. "runs with the land." Comm. Di Monda suqgested the Commission review retail operation requirements and close those require- ments, which would make it difficult small closed businesses without parking to reopen. Comm. Oakes felt the parking impositions, alone, would wipe out many of the small neighborhood markets regardless of the sales of liquor, while encouraging the "7-11" type of store. The Commission discussed with Mr ., Schubach the exempt_ion from 100 feet distance allowed to the large shopping centers. MOTIOH by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oak~s, to recommend APPROVAL of the text amendment with the deletion of Section I and to change Zoning Code, Section 10-7, Sub- section 8 to read, in essence, " ... the Police Chief can authorize and require a doorman and then must submit a report of his concerns regarding the problems which required a doorman to the Planning Commission, automati- cally initiating a C.U.P. review by the Commission. The owner must expeditiously appear before the Planning Commission to submit resolution to the stated problem." AYES1 NOE81 ABSENT1 ABSTAIN& Comm. Di Monda, Mark•, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard None -. P.c. ~inutes 10-6-92 HEARINGS RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO PROHIBIT OR ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS PURSUANT TO STATE GOVERN- MENT COOE SECTION 65852.2. Recommended Actions To adopt proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had examined State Code and discovered a provision requiring cities to allow second units in the R-1 Zone or to (1) create an ordin~nce setting certain standards, (2) all conditions must be met as stated in the State Law, (3) applicable Health, Safety and Welfare reasons must be cited as to the prohibition or (4) a certain area within the City must be set aside which allows the second units. After discussion wi th the City Attorney, it was decided to examine two options. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:17 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. James Listener, 1015 4th Street, felt this item would apply only to large lots which would be able to supply acceptable parking. He stated it was restrictive, had not be used during the past 10 years, the City has an ordi nance and suggested that no action be taken at this time. Mr. Schubach responded the City was not covered, as the State has adopted a new law which the City must address. No one else wished to speak relating to this item. Comm. Di Monda noted the numerous revision dates (including 1983) and requested that the City Attorney be made aware and answer how the City handled this item during the recent past. Mr. Schubach not~d the amendments, which were being discussed during this meeting, were recent, with the subject item being added in 1990. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to ADOPT a Resolution of Intent to study a text amendment regarding the creation of second units. AYE81 NOES1 ABSENT1 ABS1'AIN1 Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard None REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXPIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUMS. Mr. Schubach stated S tate law in clear regarding extension of tentative. maps,, bu t no~.c.u.P.'s. The applicant felt • "' :•: ~ .... ~ ,·, -•' . • ·:l ~ ':. -g P.C .. Minutes 10-6-92 his situation was uni9ue as his only remaining step was to pay the building permit fees. The City Attorney felt the grandfather clause did not apply in this case, also the applicant felt it did. The Commission could grant the extension, and, if so, the grandfather clause would apply . The Commission could take a straw vote to approve or the Commission could decide to require a re-submittal for project review under current ordinances. There were_no questions of Staff, and at 9:25 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. Jerry Olquin, 1235 2nd Street, distributed and described photographs of tall buildings located near the 1;>roposed site area and presented a plot plan to the Commission. He stated he would have paid the fees necessary to avoid the c.u.P. expiration if he had been aware of the requirement. He stated confidence that the project could now move for- ward and would be in conformation with adjacent properties and comply with the most current building requirements. He explained that by the time he had been able to put the project financing together, the C. U .P. had expired and requested an extension be granted. Ne stated he had over $500,000 already sunk into the project and would probably have to declare bankruptcy if the project did not 90 forward. He stated his deadline was the middle of this month. Mr. Olquin explained to Comm. Marks that he used to, but no longer processed plans, himself. He hired this done in order to utilize his time in other ways. Comm. Di Monda explained the Planning Commission's intent was not to hurt developers or business people. He felt this reaction was hysterical and led by a local architect who felt the Commission was "out to get" everyone. He reminded everyone this was definitely not the acti on of the Commission. He reviewed the built-up area ver11Jus the proposed plan, r ecommending a finding be made that this proposal met the intent of the new ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated Staff would return with a report withi_n a two week period. Chmn. Merl concurred with Comm. Di Manda's suggestion, feeling this item was brought to the Commission based upon a technicality. Comm. Oakes also concurred, expressed the wish that an example was .not being set, but felt this item had simply been an oversight and the project would comply with the current ordinance. MO'l'ION by the Commission to make the finding that this request for extension met the intent of the new ordinance and APPROVE the extension of the expired c.u.P. for four two-unit condominiums. No objections, so ordered. P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 ---j .. STAFF ITEMS a. ~entative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Request from City Treasurer to hold public hearing regarding decreased commercial sales tax revenue. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:55 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited testimony. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, felt the Planning Commission did not have the authority to expend public hearing funds unless authorized by the City Council and that .the memo should have been directed to the Council. The audit was an ongoing practice, with the same audit firm having been used. She stated the Chamber had already met with the City Manager to discuss ways to improve the business license process. - She stated it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to relay the memo to the Council, feeling this was not the proper time, nor place. Comm. Di Monda responded that during this meeting, the Commission was asked to step outside its jurisdiction, and now it was being told this item was not within its authority. He did know whl the City Treasurer thought this was necessary, but fe t that appointed commissions did have a responsibility to elected officials. He supported the re9uest by the City Treasurer, as other elected officials, when in the interest of the City, the Commission was re9uested to perform certain actions. If the City Council directed the Commission not to move forward with this item, it would be within their right. Mr. Schubach stat~d . funding was available for public notice in Easy • Reader. Comm. Di Monda felt the request was to come in front of the Commission and hear public testimony about the City can do to assist business. Public noticing would not be necessary, as people could speak not the "Communications" section of the agenda. After discussion among the Commission members, the Commission felt the City Treasurer should be notified the Commission felt it would be more appropriate that a ~resentation be made under agenda Section 5. No objections, so ordered. c. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for October 13, 1992 meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE P,C. Minutes 10-6-92 . . d. Memo regarding Planning Commission meeting date change on 11/3/92 due to the election. •• The Commission agreed to meet on November 4, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE Planning Department activity report of August 1992 . RECEIVE AND FILE f. Memo regarding R/UDAT meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE g. City Council minutes of September 8, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER I'l'EMS a. Sub-committee for municipal pier design. Comm. Di Monda expressed interest in holding a competition for the design of the ~ier project. He felt this would cost nothing, new ideas would be obtained and, perhaps, this would help formulate what the community wished for the pier area. The winner might receive the designation of Associate Architect. The Commission requested that Mary Rooney report as to the Coastal Commission's response to this concept. Comm. Marks was requested to review the outline he had previous!¥ presented, add any new ideas or concepts and distribute the revised outline to the other members of the Commission, to which he agreed~.-.. Comm. Di Monda asked for addition definition as to 24-inch and 36-inch box trees, to include size, .. height, cost, burden to developer, etc. Mr. Schubach agreed that Staff would supply this information. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern regarding the La Playita design, handicapped requirements and City liability in commercial projects. He suggested an agenda item to discuss a requirement that commercial projects are to be signed off by a licensed profes- sional who is knowledgeable so that the burden is not completely upon the Building Dept. 12 P.c. Minutes 10-6-92 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Commission to adjourn at 10: 17 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission· of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of October 6, 1992. Michael Schubach, Secretary /0-20-?2- Date 13 P.C. Minutes 10-6-92