Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07.05.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 5, 1989, AT 7:00 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Rue stated that the minutes for the meeting of June 20, 1989, would be available for approval at the next meeting. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-46, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP //20876 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 612 10TH STREET, DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 38 FEET OF THE _WESTERLY 76 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 78, 2ND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 89-47, Condit ion No. 1: " ... minimum of 65 percent food and a maximum of 35% beer and/or wine sal es .... 11 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-47, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CHANGE THE ALLOW ABLE HOURS OF OPERATION TO INCLUDE THE MORNING HOURS 7:00 A.M. TO 11:00 A.M. AND TO EXTEND OUTDOOR PATIO HOURS FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 837 HERMOSA AVENUE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 17, BLOCK 9, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121234 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 444 11 TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 27, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a cond itional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a three-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. l P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 This project is in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 4701 square feet, or 36.64 by 125 feet. The current use is as a single-family residence. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-unit attached condominium. The three proposed units contain 2821, 2668, and 2609 square feet; three bedrooms; and two and a half baths. The proposed structures have two stories and a mezzanine level above a partially subterranean garage. Proposed architectural features include an exterior plaster finish, clay m1ss1on tile roofing, stucco trim, aluminum fr u me windows, canvas awnings, and accent color railings. This mix of features gives the building a Mediterranean appearance. The project provides the minimum front yard setback required along 11th Street of ten feet. This is consistent with the setbacks of seven other three-unit condominiums on this block approved in the last three years. Private open space is provided on second-level and mezzanine-level decks. A total of 302 square feet of countable private open space is proposed for Units 1 and 3, including 159 square feet on the second level and 143 square feet on the mezzanine level. Staff calculates a total of 215 square feet of private open space for Unit 2, including 143 square feet at the mezzanine level, and 72 square feet on the second level. Only 72 square feet of the 196 square-foot balcony on the second level can be counted because the area is enclosed on three sides. Staff cc,unts 115 square feet of common open space at grade in the form of landscaped excess yard areas which provides the balance of required open space for the project. The plans conform to or exceed all other planning and zon-ing cequirements. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Six parking spaces will be provided in enclosed garages, and three guest parking spaces are provided: one at the end of the driveway and two in the 17-foot setback behind the garage facing the street. One existing on-street parking space will be lost due to curb cuts. The surrounding residential area consists of a mix of older single-family and multi-family residential uses with several new three-unit condominiums constructed in the last three years. The subject property contains one of the few remaining single-family residences. Under current zoning and general plan designations, staff would anticipate a continuing transition to primarily three-unit condominiums. As such, staff believes that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing and potential future character of this neighborhood. Public Hearing opened at 7:07 P.M. by Chrnn. Rue. Chris Carbone!, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, applicant, stated that the staff report was clear and concise. He clarified that there are no plumbing fixtures in the lower level studio/den of Unit 1. Public Hearing closed at 7:10 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue stated that these plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. He noted, however, that the Commission had received a letter from Lucille Springer, 500 11th Street, opposing this project. 2 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-51. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121269 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 705 1ST STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 27, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4600 square feet, or 40 by 115 feet. The lot is currently vacant. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit detached condominium. The two proposed units contain 2692 and 2622 square feet; three bedrooms; and two and a half baths. The proposed structures have two stories above a partially subterranean garage. Proposed architectural features include a stucco exterior, red tile roofing, stucco trim, and aluminum windows. This mix of features gives the building a Mediterranean appearance. The building design is a mirror image of the proposed project located behind this parcel at 704 1st Place. The project provides the minimum front yard setback of five feet. However, the average setback along 1st Street averages about 11 feet. Pursuant to Section 7-2.J(a) of the zoning ordinance, staff believes a ten-foot setback should be required for this project to make it consistent with the established character of the street~ Therefore, staff has included a condition to that effect. If the increased setback results in a significant modification to the project as determined by staff, it would be returned to the Commission for additional review. Private open space is provided on first and second level decks. A total of 237 square feet is proposed for Unit 1, and 262 square feet for Unit 2. The plans show 108 square feet of common open space to be provided at the entryway to Unit 2 which provides the balance of required open space. However, staff does not think this should be counted as it is enclosed on three sides, including a six and a half foot wall on the west. Although the space could be made countable if railing or perhaps a three to four foot wall replaced the six foot wall, staff is concerned that the proposed common open space is oriented exclusively to Unit 2. Therefore, staff has included a condition that open space be provided on revised plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. The plans conform to or exceed all other planning and zoning requirements. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Four parking spaces will be provided in enclosed garages, and one guest parking space is provided at the end of the driveway. No existing on-street parking will be lost due to curb cuts. 3 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 As the Commission is aware, this parcel is one of the parcels recently auctioned by the City. The surrounding area consists of a mix of single-family, two-family, and multi­ family residential uses, which is representative of the various periods of building in the area and of previous zoning of R-3, which was only recently changed to R-2. Under current zoning and general plan designations, staff would anticipate a gradual transition to primarily a two-family character. As such, staff belleves that the proposed project as conditioned will be compatible with the existing and potential future character of this neighborhood. Public Hearing opened at 7:17 P.M. By Chmn. Rue. Richard Laraba, 2428 W. 250th Street, Lomita, applicant, requested that he be allowed to add a roof deck of approximately 250 square feet to the two units. He stated that the deck would help break up the bulk of the building and to improve the appearance of the project. He explained that the stairwell as depicted on the plans will just continue up so that there will be access to the roof deck. He stated that the stairway will not pierce the height limit. Mr. Laraba stated that there will be a railing around the deck, the same type being used on the rest of the building. Public Hearing closed at 7:19 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell asked whether staff had any concerns over the proposed roof deck. Mr. Schubach stated that he could foresee no problems. He continued by discussing the required access for roof decks, stating that there must be two exits. If the plans are changed substantially, this matter would have to come before the Commission again. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, discussed the code requirements regarding access to roof decks. He noted that that issue is within the purview of the Building Department; therefore, the Building Department will ensure that the project complies to the code. Paul Wilson, partner in the project, addressed the Commission and discussed the roof deck, stating that the roof appearance will not be changed dramatically. He continued by explaining his point by referencing the west side elevations. He said that the railing will actually be higher than the roof; however, the actual height of the roof will be lowered by approximately one foot. MOTION by Comm. IngeU, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-50, with the addition of a condition stating that the roof decks must conform to the height limit, and any significant changes will be allowed subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Chmn. Rue stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 4 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121270 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 704 1ST PLACE Mr. Schubach explained that this project is an exact mirror image of the project located at 705 1st Street, with the exception that staff is recommending a nine-foot setback for this particular project. Public Hearing opened at 7:26 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Richard Laraba, 2428 W. 250th Street, Lomita, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that this project will be exactly as shown on the plans, and there will be no roof deck at this project. Public Hearing closed at 7:27 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-31. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 415 PIER AVENUE Comm. Ingell stated that he had been called by the applicant, who requested that this matter be continued until 8:30 this evening so that he could be present. Mr. Lee stated that the public hearing could be opened and continued, as requested by the applicant. Heather Johnston, citizen, stated that she would be unable to stay until 8:30 and would like to testify at the public hearing. Chmn. Rue, noting no objections, stated that the Commission would now hear the staff report. The public hearing would then be opened for input and continued until 8:30 P .M. as requested by the applicant. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1989. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the proposed variance. This proj ect is lo c ate d in the C-2 z one , with a gener al plan designation of general co mmerc ial. The present use is as a on e-st ory me dica l office. The floor area is 1600 s qu a r e fe et, a nd the pro pos ed addition is 11 45 squa r e feet . The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the variance because of the impact of add itional square footage without additional parking with the added statement that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared which addresses the cumulative impact of similar additions without the provision of parking. 5 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 The applicant is requesting to construct a second-story addition to an existing medical office building to provide space for a personal office and additional storage. The subject property contains a 1600 square foot building on a 3240 square-foot lot. The commercial structure is currently non-conforming as to the number of parking spaces. Four standard size parking spaces are available accessed via the rear alley. Under current parking requirements, eight parking spaces would be required. The applicant indicates that as many as ten cars can actually be parked behind the office if parked in tandem, assuming a parking space size of eight feet by fifteen feet. The proposed addition of 1145 square feet resu1lts in the need for an additional six parking spaces, for a total requirement of fourteen. The applicant is not proposing any additional parking. The applicant's representative, Triad Associates, notes that the addition is for the purpose of providing a personal office for the doctor and for providing additional storage area and, therefore, argues that it will not inc rease park ing demand. In response, staff believes that by adding space upstairs, some addi tion al space will be freed up downstairs. Also, the use or tenant of the building may eventually change. Additionally, the plans show separate stairway access to the top floor which would potentially allow an owner of the building to lease it to a separate tenant. In staff's judgment, the applicant has clearly not provided any justification for the granting of the variance. There is nothing about the property in question which is unusual or unique relative to the surrounding properties. The subject lot is one of eleven lots located between Bard Street and Loma Drive on the north side of Pier Avenue which have alley access, 40 feet of street frontage, and depths of about 80 feet, and containing primarily one-story buildings. As a result, the granting of a variance wo.uld .conceivably set a strong precedent, thereby making it extremely difficult to deny future variance requests for these other similar properties along Pier Avenue to add square footage without any additional parking. The expansion of businesses in the Hermosa Beach downtown area is a critical issue for Hermosa Beach. Staff intends to study the issue in detail in the upcoming general plan review and will investigate the possibility of prov iding additional parking in the area to accommodate commercial improvements like those proposed. Until that time, however, staff believes that allowing a parking variance would worsen t he current parking problem in the area and certainly would not contribute towards a viable solution to parking in the downtown area. Chmn. Rue asked what would be required for_ the applicant to obtain an environmental impact report. Mr. Schubach stated that the EIR would be a cumulative impact of all the structures along both sides of the street; i.e., air quality, trip generation, parking, and traffic. There would also be mitigation measures included. Staff felt, however, that this project would never gain approval from the Coastal Commission, noting that they do not grant parking variances as a rule. Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Heather Johnston, 405 Pier Avenue, stated that she works in the office right next door to the applicant's off ice. She noted that they are constantly being hounded by Dr. David's patients, employees, and interns to park in their lot. Parking and traffic is already very 6 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 bad in this area, especially with the new condos in the area. She stated that approval of this variance request would be ridiculous, especially since this owner could sell the building. She felt it would be inappropriate to add to the City's already horrendous parking problem. She strongly opposed approval of the variance. Public Hearing continued at 7:36 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. (Continued on Page 12.) ZONE CHANGE FROM THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF MULTI-USE CORRIDOR AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION -(1) FROM R-2 TO R-1 (a) NORTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET, 141 FEET TO 291 FEET EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; (b) SOUTH SIDE OF 15TH STREET, 126 FEET TO 290 FEET EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (2) FROM R-2 TO R-2B FOR NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF 15TH STREETz 126 FEET TO 290 FEET EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1989. Staff recommended rezoning Area NE-1 from R-2 to R-1; Area NE-2 from R-2 to R-2B; and Area NE-3 from R-2 to R-1. The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the general plan amendments for the multi-use corridor. As the Commission is aware, the subject areas were general plan amended from multi-use corridor to low density and medium density residential. This is the first of three residential rezonings to carry out the general plan amendments approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989. The rezoning of commercial areas along Pacific Coast Highway will be considered after the residential rezonings. Area NE-1 The proposed rezoning of the three lots located along the north side of 14th Street from R-2 to R-1 is necessary to bring the zoning into consistency with the recently amended general plan and will make it consistent with the zoning up the slope directly to the east. The three subject lots are large enough (3750 square feet) for two-unit projects under current R-2 zoning. If combined, the lots would also yield a maximum of six units. The proposed change to R-1 zoning would reduce the potential number of units to three, a density reduction of 50 percent. Area NE-2 The proposed rezoning of the .eight lots . located along both the north and south side of 15th Street from R-2 to R-2B will make the zoning consistent with the zoning up the slope directly to the east. The eight subject lots are large enough (5670 square feet) for individual three -unit projects under current R-2 zoning, allowing a potential of 24 units. The proposed change to R-2B zoning would reduce the potential number of units to 16, a density reduction of 33 percent. Area NE-3 The proposed rezoning of the three lots located along the south side of 15th Place from R-2 to R-1 is necessary to bring the zoning into consistency with the recent general plan amendment to low density and will make the zoning consistent with the zoning up the 7 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 slope directly to the east. The three lots are large enough (5073, 5180, 5180 square feet) only for individual two­ unit projects under current R-2 zoning, allowing a potential of six units. If combined, however, the lots would yield a maximum of eight units. The proposed change to R-1 zoning would reduce the potential number of units to three, a density reduction of 62 percent. Comm. Ingell noted that these recommendations are exactly the same recommendations that the Commission made when they discussed the multi-use corridor. Mr. Schubach displayed view-graphs on the overhead projector depicting the areas m question. Public Hearing opened at 7:42 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. No one appeared to speak on either Area NE-1 or NE-2. Chris McConnell, 960 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, discussed area NE-3, stating that he favored rezoning from R-2 to R-1 because it would reduce parking problems on 15th Place. Paul Berrin, 840-842 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, discussed area NE-3 and requested that the Commission consider changing the zoning from R-2 to R-2B. He felt that R-2B would be appropriate since the area is already surrounded by high density development. He continued by discussing what is currently in the area. He stated that the lots in NE-3 are much larger than most other R-1 lots in the City. He stated that medium density would be the most appropriate designation for this area, not low density. Mr. Berrin stated that there is ample parking where his properties are located. He stated that this rezoning will affect eight lots; however, on two of those lots, condominiums have already been approved. Comm. Peirce stated that this property is actually surrounded by R-1, not high density development. Mr. Berrin explained, however, that the lots on 15th Place are actually much larger than most R-1 lots, and condominiums have been approved. Also, major development could occur on . the large lots already there. Comm. Peirce and Mr. Berrin discussed the zoning of various properties in this area. Mr. Berrin continued by discussing what is currently on the various lots in Area NE-3. Chris McConnell, 960 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that there are unique differences between the lots located on 15th Street and those on 15th Place. He said that the access on 15th Street is affected by a major thoroughfare; whereas, access on 15th Place is mainly from alleyways. He felt that making the lots R-2B would increase the traffic flow on many of the surrounding streets. He noted that congestion would be increased dramatically on Ocean Drive. He favored R-1 zoning. Public Hearing closed at 7:54 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ketz asked how many lots would be made nonconforming by these changes. 8 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Mr. Schubach did not know the exact number; however, he said that the number would not be great. Comm. Ketz noted an error in the staff report, stating that in Area NE-3 there is a potential of six units with R-2B zoning. MOTION by Comm. Ing ell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area NE-1 from R-2 to R-1. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone area NE-2 from R-2 to R-2B. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area NE-3 from R-2 to R-1. Comm. Ingell noted that the Commission had previously discussed this area, and the main reason they had decided it would be appropriate to zone it R-1 is based on the access. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Mr. Schubach stated that this matter would be heard by the City Council in August. REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA SALOON (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 6/20/89) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 29, 1989. He recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to observe the Hermosa Saloon for 60 days prior to setting the matter for a revocation public hearing. At the June 20, 1989, meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional information. As requested, additional data has been collected. The staff contacted the Police Department to obtain more information concerning complaint files and discovered there were more complaints concerning noise from the Hermosa Saloon. Apparently, there was some miscommunication the first time staff had called; complaints are maintained by the police for a period of five years. 9 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 The City Attorney has provided additional information concerning parking easement agreements (letter dated June 29, 1989). In addition to the data collected by staff, several additional letters from Mr. Sullivan have been attached to the staff report. Mr. Schubach noted that copies of the actual police dispatch log are attached to the staff report. He and the Commissioners discussed each individual complaint received, as they went through the staff report. Comm. Ingell stated that he would prefer to see copies of the actual reports, since they would have more details than the dispatch logs. He stated that the reports would also contain the final outcome on each call. Mr. Schubach stated that he would try to get copies of the reports in the future. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that the City now has the noise meter, which they will be using to ensure that businesses are complying with the City's noise ordinance. If an establishment is not in compliance, they will be issued a citation; if the citations are ignored, they will be charged with a misdemeanor. The police will be handling the noise enforcement issue in the City. The police will then send copies of reports to the Planning Department who will advise the establishment that they are not in compliance with their conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell asked that staff send a letter to the police chief requesting that all reports filed in regard to violation of the noise ordinance be forwarded to the Planning Department, who will then forward copies to the Planning Commission. In this way, the Commission can follow up on noise violations in CUPs. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the procedure followed by the police when they go out to investigate a noise complaint. Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to have copies of the police reports regarding violations. Mr. Schubach noted that in the past, the police have advised that they had no complaints on file; however, after further investigation, several matters were discovered and those items were forwarded to the Commission. Hearing opened at 8:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Jim Brisson, 211 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the staff report was complete. He stated that he has contracted to have air conditioning installed at this establishment, and it will be very expensive. The system should be installed by the third week of July. He stated that he has been in compliance with the CUP. The doors and windows have been shut during times that the band is playing. The doors are opened during intermissions, but he makes sure that the juke box is not even playing. Mr. Brisson noted, however, that during intermissions over the past weekend, the doors were opened because it was so hot inside the establishment. Mr. Brisson discussed the police dispatch log, stating that some of the calls were placed by the establishment itself in an attempt to avoid problems, especially on summer 10 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 weekends. He stated that they never hesitate to call the police if they foresee problems of any type. Mr. Brisson stated that the Hermosa Saloon has been at this location for 15 years, and they have had a conditional use permit. There has been live entertainment for the past six years. He said that there have never been problems in the past, and all of a sudden someone keeps complaining about the noise. He said he is getting upset over this matter. Mr. Brisson stated that he has had to appear before the Commission four times regarding this matter. He felt that he is now being singled out by the City. He stressed that he has been at this location for 15 years. He stated that he is installing air conditioning in an attempt to reduce the noise. He has even gone to the police department to discuss the noise problem. Mr. Brisson stated that there will be no problem whatsoever with keeping the doors and windows closed once the air conditioning is insta1led. He stated that he will be happy to comply with anything the City desires, so long as he can afford it. Richard Sullivan 224 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over several issues: (1) noise emanating from the business when the doors and windows are left open during live entertainment; (2) the front "cowboy-type" door which s t ops no noise at all. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would be happy if two things were done at the Hermosa Saloon: (1) air conditioning is installed, and (2) a new, full front door is installed. Mr. Sullivan requested that the CUP specify that air conditioning is required. Mr. Sullivan stated that he has a letter from Mr. Northcraft, ad'lising that the police have informed him that there was dancing at the Hermosa Saloon several weeks ago. Mr. Schubach noted that he had not received a copy of the letter; however, if he does, he will forward copies to the Planning Commissioners and take the appropriate action in regard to conditional use permit enforcement. Mr. Sullivan noted concern over people on the patio during the evening hours, which is not permitted according to the CUP. Mr. Sullivan stated that the front door has been closed on very few occasions. He stressed that it must be kept closed in order to mitigate the noise. Mr. Sullivan showed a flyer picturing one of the musical groups which plays at the Hermosa Saloon. Mr. Sullivan read portions of the letter he had received from Mr. Northcraft dated June 27, 1989. Mr. Sullivan stressed that dancing is taking place at the Hermosa Saloon. He insisted that action be taken. Mr. Brisson discussed the front door, explaining that there is a fire door which is closed as well as the swinging-type saloon door. He stated that the saloon door always appears to be open; but there is a foyer and right inside the swinging door is the breakaway fire door. Mr. Brisson stressed the air conditioning is being installed this month. 11 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Hearing closed at 8:31 by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue was pleased that air conditioning is now being installed at the Hermosa Saloon. He stressed that the fire door must remain closed, noting that the saloon-type door will do nothing to reduce the noise. Hearing reopened at 8:32 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Slawson, the attorney, was unaware that the patio was not to be used. He stated that the use of the patio would require additional parking. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that there is a condition specifying that the patio shall not be used after 10:00 P .M. Mr. Sullivan stated that he discussed this matter with the planning director and he requested that the planning director investigate the issue further as to whether additional parking will be required since the patio adds additional square footage to the establishment. Mr. Brisson stated that the pa tio has been there ever since he purchased the Hermosa Saloon 15 years ago. He said he is unaware of how long the patio has been there, noting that this is a very old building; however, he guessed t hat the patio was added in the l 940's. He said he has made no structural changes to the building since he has owned it. Hearing closed at 8:34 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce felt that the applicant should be given an opportunity to install air conditioning. He noted that the City now has the noise meter which can be used to determine the noise level at this establishment. The police department can be required to investigate the establishment on Fri day and Saturday evenings to ensure that they are in compliance. He also felt that the applicant should be given adequate opportunity to comply and to install the air conditioning. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter for 60 days (to the first meeting in September) in order to give the applicant time to comply. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Peirce stated that noise is a serious problem in an area as dense as this one. He felt that homeowners have a right to expect businesses to keep noise to a minimum, especially in the evenings. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 415 PIER AVENUE (This item continued from earlier in tonight's meeting; see Page 5) Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He questioned whether anything could actually be done at this tjme to facilitate the granting of this variance, noting that there seems to be a question regarding the environmental impact report. He said that he was surprised when he was informed that it would be necessary to first obtain the EIR because he had been under the impression that staff saw no problems. He first became aware of staff's recommendation that an EIR should be performed when he read the staff report. 12 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Mr. Schubach clarified that the staff environmental review committee denied an environmental negative declaration for this project; therefore, an EIR has been recommended if the applicant wishes to proceed. Mr. Wood stated that it is not within the purview of the staff environmental review board to pass judgment on variance requests. Mr. Wood discussed the variance, stating that he is not sure whether it is possible to convince the Commission of the four required findings necessary for approval at this time. He noted that staff has prepared no findings; consequently, he felt that this matter is at an impasse and that the applicant has been unfairly put upon. He could think of no more than three projects in the entire City which have been required to submit an EIR, and those have all been very large projects. This request is to add a second story to an existing building on Pier Avenue. Mr. Wood noted that the City is almost completely developed, and the impact of a project of this size is relatively small. He said that it is rare for a project of this type to be turned down. He said that the project site does not represent a typical stretch of Hermosa Beach, noting that there is very little development behind the site, and it is almost an exclusively commercial enclave. Mr. Wood stated that it has been the contention of staff that any project in the City must provide the required parking. However, when one thinks of the history of the City, parking problems are usually in residential areas and are caused by beach goers during the summer months. He sta t ed that there are no parking problems in the City during the other nine months of the year, nor on most weekdays on Pier Avenue. Mr. Wood stated that this is the type of business that the City needs and which should be encouraged. Dr. David is a world-famous dermatologist and has been in the City for a long time. His practice does not generate a great deal of traffic. Mr. Wood noted that businesses under conditional use permits are those which the City feels need to be under a great deal of control. He did not feel that a doctor's office falls into this category. He stated that this is a very benign use, which takes place only during the hours of 9:00 and 5:00. The doctor has only a few employees, and they can park in the back of the office. Ten cars can physically be parked in that area, even though the City does not acknowledge them as ten legal sized parking spaces. Mr. Wood stated that most of the customers park in front and enter through the front door; the doctor has not received any complaints from patients regarding parking problems. He stated that this type of use is prime for variance approval, noting that it is not desirable for this type of use to leave town. Mr. Wood discussed the unique quality of Pier Avenue in this area. He stated that the building is worth more than a tear down, and if this applicant leaves town, another less desirable use might take its place. Mr. Wood stated that the doctor merely wants to add storage room and office space, which will not generate additional traffic. He stated that the applicant is even willing to stipulate to a condition which says the addition can be used only for storage and office space. He stated that the applicant is willing to attempt to work this out with the City. However, he felt that a focused EIR for Pier Avenue would be more appropriate than requiring a full EIR for an expanded area. He also noted that traffic studies have been prepared and those studies could be utilized. 13 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Mr. Wood stated that the buildings in this area are not to a point of deterioration, and it would not be feasible to tear them down. He felt that the City should help businesses in this area. Mr. Wood suggested that the Commission send this matter back to the staff environmental review committee for a rehearing with a recommendation that this project will not adversely impact the area, if that is the desire of the Commission at this time. He stressed that a full EIR would not be appropriate for this project, noting that the request is only for a 1000 square foot addition. Chmn. Rue noted that other businesses in the area have provided the Commission with data indicating why they do not need additional parking, such as a large portion of walk­ in traffic or people riding bikes to the business. He stated that those people do surveys to back up their positions. He noted that the Commission had earlier heard testimony from Ms. Johnston that there are in fact parking problems in this area. Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission has no basis upon which to make a decision at this time. He noted that it is up to the applicant to provide reasons for approval. Mr. Wood noted, however, that he had been under the impression that the staff environmental review committee was going to approve the environmental negative declaration for this project. Mr. Wood stated that even if the Commission moved to approve this variance, there is still no environmental clearance for the project to go forward. Mr. Schubach explained that the Planning Commission is the ultimate decision maker in this instance; if the Commission desires to do so, they can grant this project a negative declaration with no mitigation measures. The variance could then be approved tonight with the negative declaration. Or, the Commission could tentatively approve the project and request an environmental assessment with mitigation measures, to consist of a focused EIR with cumulative impacts. After the study is complete and mitigation measures have been determined, this project can begin to go through the necessary process for approval. Chmn. Rue suggested that the applicant either present more information at this time or request a continuance. Mr. Wood did not feel that a continuance would accomplish much, explaining that a plan has been presented showing what the applicant would like to do and where the parking would be. City Attorney Lee stated that the Commission must first determine whether or not there are sufficient findings upon which to grant this variance. He continued by outlining the four findings. If the Commission believes it can make the findings to grant the variance, the Commission must then decide whether it can accept the staff environmental review com mittee 's recomm endation, either to do a full EIR or to accept a negative declaration for this particular application. Mr. Wood disagreed with the attorney's method of procedure. He stated that the thing to do is clear all environmental hurdles prior to the hearing, so that the only remaining question is whether or not to approve the variance. He felt that if the environmental issue is not first resolved, the ability to make the findings for the variance would not be possible. 14 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Mr. Wood stated that if this project truly hinges on a focused EIR being done, then it should be done; or, this matter should be sent back to the environmental review committee on the environmental issue alone asking that this matter be resolved so that the applicant can proceed with the hearing process. Mr. Wood discussed past projects and how those were handled in regard to environmental issues. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Wood in terms of making the environmental finding for this project prior to exercising the discretion for approval; however, if the Commission feels there is a basis for approva l, they should first determine whether a full EIR must be done or whether the matter should be sent back to the staff environmental review committee for a negative declaration. The Commission can then make a decision as to whether or not the variance should be granted. Mr. Wood stated that if this variance is denied and appealed to the City Council before the environmental issue has been resolved, the Council will probably refer it back to the Commission. He stated that there is no sense in discussing the variance until this issue is resolved. He continued by discussing other projects in the City and the impacts they have created. He said that only the very large projects create a great impact and thus require full EIRs. He did not feel a project of this small size should require such a report to be prepared. He said that the question is one of six parking spaces. Mr. Wood suggested that the Commission first resolve the environmental issue either by granting a negative declaration and proceeding on the variance request, or by referring the matter back to the staff environmental review committee with a recommendation that a focused EIR be prepared. Mr. Wood stated that if a focused EIR is recommended, he would like to make a presentation regarding the necessary findings. Hearing left open at 9:00 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. lngell felt that this is the type of business that the City would like to have in the area, noting that it is not an intense use or one creating additional density. He also noted that t he traffic is very low for this type of use. He felt that the project would qualify for a variance if it is possible to tie the variance to the use. He felt that the findings could be made; however, he felt that the environmental questions regarding the parking need to be addressed. Comm. Ketz noted that staff is currently studying the parking requirements for the downtown area. She questioned how high on the priority list that study is. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue will be addressed along with the general plan review; so it will be discussed within six months to a year. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that the ten parking spaces in the rear of this business are not legal size, either in width or length; therefore, they cannot be counted as ten spaces. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the size requirements for parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated that the correct size for a compact tandem space is seven and a half feet by fifteen and a half feet, none of which these spaces are. He said that the spaces are a half foot short. 15 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Mr. Wood stated that there are four legally-sized spaces. Comm. Peirce stated that this is not a question of how many spaces are there now, but rather how many will be required under the code for this addition, noting that fourteen spaces w ill be required. Even though he felt the environmental issue is interesting, he questioned whether the four findings could be made to grant the variance. He stated that if the applicant feels he can provide mitigation measures, he can ask for a continuance of this hearing. Comm. Peirce stated that this is not a question of environmental issues, but whether the applicant can meet the City requirements. Mr. Schubach explained that the environmental review committee felt that this variance would be denied, and they were attempting to save the applicant the expense of having an EIR done only to find that the variance would be denied; therefore, they proceeded by recommending a focused EIR, in the event the Commission recommended that the variance be approved. Comm. Peirce suggested that the applicant provide a parking plan with mitigation measures. He felt that unless it can be proved that all the patients walk to the office, there is no way to provide the required 14 parking spaces. He did not feel that Findings 1 and 2 can be made in any case. He further noted that testimony was given that there are parking problems in that area. Comm. Ketz agreed with the comments made by Comm. Peirce. She stated that even though the City wants to encourage certain types of businesses, there must be some place for the people to park. Comm. Peirce cautioned that the variance runs with the land; therefore, this business would be able to operate without the required number of parking spaces; but that would also mean that some future, more intense use would be able to continue operating with less than the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Schubach agreed that a variance is permanent and runs with the land, not with the structure or use. Comm. Ingell asked whether a deed restriction could be placed on the property. Mr. Lee explained that a variance runs with the property, and any future use would be able to use the property without having to comply with the parking requirements. If the building is demolished totally, the variance can be reconsidered. But so long as there is an existing structure, the variance runs with that structure. Mr. Lee, in response to a question by Chmn. Rue, stated that a conditional use permit cannot be used to tie this use to the variance, explaining that that is not covered under the conditional use permit procedures. He stated that the question remains whether this business can provide the code-required parking. If the variance is approved, this and all future uses will not have to provide the code-required parking. Mr. Lee stated that the Commission must make the findings based on facts which can be legally substantiated. Mr. Wood disagreed with the comments given by Mr. Lee, stating that the variance goes with the structure, not the land. He stated that a building cannot be structurally altered 16 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 without first addressing the parking issue. If the building is demolished, then the new parking requirements must be met. He continued by discussing the issue of conditional use permits as related to such uses. Mr. Lee and Mr. Wood discussed the issue of variances and adhering to code requirements. Mr. Wood stated that it is possible to condition variances and to add a covenant to the land if the City desires to approve this project. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, stated that the parking code standards are based on gross floor area, including storage area. Comm. Ingell noted that the business does not now comply with the parking, nor would another use coming in. Mr. Lee explained that it is very difficult to enforce a use mandated by a covenant. It could also place a burden on the City to have to enforce those types of covenants. He continued by discussing parking requirements based on use. Chmn. Rue stated that if there were alternative parking plans to mitigate the parking problems, the Commission would try to accommodate this business. Mr. Wood stated that such an alternative is possible. He noted that there are only four legal parking spaces now, and by today's standards he needs ten. With the addition, he would need fourteen spaces. He noted that t he patients will not park in the rear in any event, preferring instead to park in the front and enter the front door. By parking in the rear, it is also inconvenient to walk around the block to get to the front door. The customers, therefore, will continue to park in the front regardless of any rules the City imposes . The real issue, then, is that of the employee parking. He stated that there is currently enough space for the employee parking. Mr. Wood sta ted that the applicant could buy spaces in the parking district, even though he is not in the VPD, if the City allows him to do so. The applicant could also purchase parking spaces elsewhere. He discussed other areas which could be used for parking. Mr. Wood also noted that a covenant could be added to this property, specifying the amount of area which can be used for storage. Mr. Wood discussed parking concepts in the City, stating that in reality street parking is for businesses, not residents. Mr. Wood stated that he is more than willing to work with the City on this matter; however, he needs direction from the City. Comm. Ingell stated that he would have no problem with the project if there was a parking plan. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that staff can work with the applicant to work out a parking plan and to mitigate the parking problems. Mr. Wood asked that it be recognized that there are ten parking spaces; they can then proceed to obtain the additional four required spaces for employee parking. 17 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 Comm. Peirce stated that to call those spaces ten spaces would require a variance. He stressed that they are not ten legal spaces. He noted, however, that he would be willing to listen to alternatives. He noted that if this variance is approved, then a flood of people would be requesting the same type of variance. He noted that it is important to adhere to the code. If a parking arrangement is proposed, it must be one which will work. Comm. Ingell stated that cars have gotten smaller, and he would have no problem with approving a variance to allow the parking in the rear for eight or ten cars. That, coupled with a parking plan to provide the additional spaces, m ight be a solution. He felt that if the use could be tied into the property, there would not be a problem. Comm. Ketz stated that she would like to see a parking plan. Comm. Peirce stated that even if ten cars can park there, they are still not legal parking spaces. Comm. Ingell felt that it is up to staff to study flexible alternatives if it is desired to see the downtown grow. He felt that no new businesses will want to come to town if there is no parking. He felt that alternatives must be addressed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to continue this matter two weeks in order to give the applicant and staff time to work out a solution in regard to the parking. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has applied for a variance, and deals cannot be made on variances. A parking plan is an entirely different issue, and that is what should have been applied for. Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission is attempting to find a mitigation for the parking problem. Comm. Peirce asked whether this application can be converted into a parking plan so that the applicant does not have to reapply and submit new paperwork. Mr. Schubach stated that they can begin to go through the process and not charge the applicant again if he wishes to change the application. Comm. Ingell questioned whether it will be necessary to have both a variance and a parking plan. He questioned whether two weeks would be enough time to study this matter. Mr. Lee stated that if a parking plan is desired, it should be noticed so that there is a proper public hearing as required by law. Mr. Wood stated he had no objection to renoticing this matter as a parking plan hearing; however, he felt that even if a parking plan is approved, a variance will still be necessary once the environmental issue is resolved with the parking plan. He stated that this issue is definitely one of a variance. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce as maker and agreed to by Comm. lngell as second, to continue this matter to the meeting of September 5, 1989. 18 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None SPECIAL STUDY TO ADD GYMNASIUM TO C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a text amendment to permit gymnasium in the C-2 zone with a conditional use permit and add "gymnasium," one space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area to the parking section of the ordinance. At the April 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, a letter from Shane McColgan requesting adding "gymnasium" to the permitted use list was discussed, and the Planning Commission directed staff to study the issue. The staff has investigated the proposed use and has found that a gymnasium would not be any more intrusive than other uses found in the C-2 zone such as dancing academy, pool hall, or tanning salon. However, it should be noted that in the past gymnasiums have been an attraction for unsavory characters similar to the old "pool hall" clientele, and more recently there has been some connection between the illicit sale of steroids and gymnasiums. More recently gymnasiums have become family-oriented health spas. A survey of other cities in the area indicates that the parking for a gymnasium should be one space for each fifty square feet of gross floor area. Significant parking problems have been noted in cases where adequate parking has not been provided. Lakewood and Torrance have both in the past allowed gymnasiums to be located in sbopp.ing centers with one space for each 250 square feet of floor area and found that the parking was seriously inadequate. The gymnasium utilized almost all of the parking. Mr. McColgan indicated to staff that he intended to locate at 1106 Hermosa Avenue and that his clientele would be limited and would utilize the facility generally only in the early morning hours. Staff could not recommend the noted location for a gymnasium since there is inadequate parking at that location. However, it may be possible to permit a gymnasium at the proposed location if there was control on the hours of operation and the number of members via a conditional use permit; although staff believes that enforcement would be difficult. Hearing opened and closed at 9:36 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this matter. Chmn. Rue noted that the downtown area has a real parking problem, and it is very difficult for businesses to get started in the City. He felt that this particular operation with a CUP and parking plan would be good in the downtown area; however, he felt that the entire downtown area parking situation needs to be addressed in an attempt to mitigate the problem. Comm. Peirce favored a text amendment for gymnasiums; however, he did not feel that this applicant would ever be able to obtain enough parking for this business in the downtown area. He felt that the applicant is being misled if he is being told his business can go in at that location. He noted that the applicant will have to provide 20 parking spaces to comply with the parking requirements . He noted that complicated parking plans just do not work in the City. 19 P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed parking in the downtown area and possible solutions. Comm. Peirce stressed that, with rare exception, parking plans just do not work in the City. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to direct staff to prepare at the earliest possible time a text amendment to allow gymnasiums in the C-2 zone with a parking requirement of one space per fifty feet. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a) Calif omia Court Ruling on First English Case Mr. Lee gave background information on the First English case. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. b) Planning Department Activity Report for May 1989 No comments. No action. c) City Council Minutes of June 13, 1989 No comments. No action. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce asked whether the traffic study was completed on June 23. Mr. Schubach replied that the traffic study has been completed; however, it will not be distributed until the public works director has had an opportunity to study and review it. He stated that the final corrected version should be distributed soon. Comm. Ketz discussed the issue of downzoning and stated that she would like staff in the future · to provide information as to the age of the units and how many will be nonconforming under the new zoning. Chmn. Rue commented on the American Planning Association, stating that information was included in the packets. He commented on workshops held by the Association. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to adjourn at 9:55 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 20 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89 ( 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 July 5, 1989. ----J ~ Date/ 21 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/89