Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.03.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 3, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve the minutes of December 6, 1988, with the modification that Paragraph 7, Page 20, be deleted for the purpose of clarification. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-99, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR AREA 3 AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 100, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR AREA 8A AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-102, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE. Comm. Ingell stated that he would vote in opposition to the motion, explaining that he feels the wording in the resolution should contain the wording found in the Zoning Code in regard to "adult videos" versus "videos" and should state: "Video Sales, No Adult." Mr. Lough noted, however, that the wording in the resolution is that which was voted upon at the previous meeting. l P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ingell Comm. Rue None MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 103, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST-FLOOR BEDROOM ADDITION WHICH WOULD ENCROACH TO WITHIN THREE FEET, TWO INCHES OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET, AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1309 REGARDING ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 576 21ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 25 FEET OF LOT 43 AND THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 44, TRACT 1868. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ing ell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-104, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 1344 AND 1348 MANHATTAN AVENUE, 1428 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, AND 1346 BAYVIEW DRIVE AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 105, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET NEAR LOMA DRIVE AND RECOMMENDING. DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY DELETING THAT PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET AND TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT AREA TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 106, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE OF THE WEST SIDE OF MYRTLE AVENUE BETWEEN 24TH STREET AND 25TH STREET FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, TO LOW DENSITY, R-1, AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Roger Bacon, property owner of 1107 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the recent changes made by CalTrans at the intersection of Pier A venue and Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that the left-turn pocket from Pacific Coast Highway onto 11th street has been removed. He said that he had contacted CalTrans about this matter and had requested a meeting to discuss this change, since he and others in the area feel that the removal of the left-hand turn pocket could be detrimental to the businesses. He expressed concern that none of the business owners were advised of the changes prior to their being made. 2 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Chmn. Peirce explained that the City has no purview over that intersection, noting that it is within the CalTrans region. He asked staff, however, to request from Ca IT rans a report outlining what was done, and why the left-turn pockets were removed. He also requested that Mr. Schubach attend any meetings held on this matter in order to obtain additional information. Mr. Bacon explained that the plans presented by Cal Trans depicted no changes in regard to the left-turn pockets being removed from Pacific Coast Highway. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY-EL POLLO LOCO Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 13, 1988. The zoning for Lots 1, 2, and 3 is C-3, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The three lots total 9700.2 square feet. Lot 4 is zoned R-2, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. Total size of Lot 4 is 3877.56 square feet. The site is presently used as a Der Wienerschnitzel restaurant. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of November 3, 1988, recommended a negative declaration and requested some revisions to the original plans; revised plans have been received. The applicant is requesting a parking plan and conditional use permit to demolish or relocate an existing restaurant, Der Wienerschnitzel, and construct a new restaurant, El Pollo Loco. The proposed restaurant will be approximately 2250 square feet and will have drive-thru service. The site is comprised of four lots, three of which front onto Pacific Coast Highway. The fourth lot fronts onto 11th Street. The site also has a public alley which bisects the site. The alley will serve as access to the parking area and will provide some of the required turning radius. The alley is being used similarly by Der Wienerschnitzel. After reviewing the project, it has been determined that the three lots which front onto Pacific Coast Highway are zoned C-3, and the lot fronting onto 11th Street is zoned R- 2. The lots have general plan designations of general commercial and medium density residential, respectively. The zoning code does not allow for commercial parking lots within any R-2 zoned lot. This lot is presently being utilized as a parking area by Der Wienerschnitzel. The two lots west of the site are also presently being utilized as a church parking lot. Since these lots are presently being used for parking, the general plan and zoning should be amended to general commercial to bring these parking lots into conformance. Therefore, staff is recommending that a condition of approval for the parking plan and conditional use permit is to require the applicant to request a zone change and general plan amendment to bring the parking lots into conformance. The proposed development will provide 23 parking spaces. The required parking for a restaurant is one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the proposed floor area, 23 parking spaces are required. As part of the proposed parking plan, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider allowing five 3 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 . - parking spaces within the drive-thru area to be counted as part of the total required parking. The applicant states that a large portion of the total gross sales of food is through drive­ thru service. Based on observation of similar restaurants in neighboring cities, staff agrees that this business does indeed cater to large drive-thru clientele. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider counting the proposed stacked parking. The applicants have designed the restaurant and drive-thru facilities with menu boards fronting onto Pacific Coast Highway. The menu board will also provide noise reducers. The site is also surrounded by commercial developments or parking lots; therefore, the noise from the menu board should have no impact on adjacent residents. The proposed design will also provide an attractive landscaped planter along Pacific Coast Highway and a landscaped planter buffer to the rear of the development. Several trash cans will also be provided to minimize any potential trash problems. Overall, the proposed development will be an attractive addition to the community. Staff also suggested a condition regarding landscaping to buffer any problems resulting from headlight glare. Because of the nature of the proposed restaurant, that is, popular drive-thru foods, staff believes that the proposed stacked parking will not create any significant parking problems. However, should the Planning Commission not want to consider all or part of the stacked parking, the Planning Commission may consider the option to require the proposed restaurant to be reduced in size. A reduction in the size of the restaurant would require less parking. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit, parking plan, and environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Roger Bacon, property owner of 1107 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has worked long and hard on this proposal. He stressed that an attempt was being made to relocate the current Der Wienerschnitzel building, possibly to a location in Signal Hill, since there is an approximate time of seven to eight years remaining on the lease. However, after several meetings that option fell through. He is now attempting to find another site for the relocation. He stressed that the Der Wienerschnitzel business will not be affected and it they will remain until it can be moved to another location. Mr. Bacon continued by discussing the fine reputation of El Pollo Loco and the fact that they are doing quite well financially, explaining that the gross sales are very encouraging. He stated that the proposed location would be quite good for an El Pollo Loco based on the fact that so many drivers will pass by on their way home from work, and access will be easy. Steve Lewis, 16700 Valley View Avenue, La Mirada, project administrator for Denney's (parent company of El Pollo Loco), addressed the Commission. He stated that, after reviewing the staff report and proposed recommendations, he is in agreement with the report and concurs with the proposed conditions. 4 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 ~ Mr. Lewis stated that he had brought documentation supporting the proposal for allowing five additional parking stalls to be included in the parking count for the drive-thru lane. He continued by discussing a traffic study which was prepared for use at a typical El Pollo Loco. The report asserts that the maximum number of cars at an El Pollo Loco is 32 vehicles at the peak parking time, which is from 12:00 P.M. to 12:30 P.M. Of that thirty-two cars, ten to thirteen vehicles were served during each of two fifteen-minute periods. The report indicates the need for the driveway and the percentage of customers who will use the drive-thru, thereby reducing the need for actual parking spaces. L Chmn. Peirce discussed the sign location plan, Plan Number D4, "Illuminated Exterior Menu Sign." He asked for clarification on the location of that sign. Mr. Lewis stated that the sign will be in the front of the building on the southeast corner. The sign will be approximately six feet from grade level. However, if the Planning Commission feels it to be necessary, the size of the menu board could be reduced somewhat. He noted, however, that all of the boards are built to a standard size, but in some cases custom signs have been used. He stated that the base of the sign itself could be eliminated to lessen the height. He continued by stating that landscaping is proposed to serve as a screen for oncoming headlights. He also noted that, if the Commission desires, berms could be added; however, they would probably be limited to two or three feet because of the lineal distance involved. Mr. Lewis, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the menu board is on the inside of the drive-thru lane. Comm. Ingell asked how many cars would actually be in the drive-thru lane during the two peak fifteen-minute periods. Mr. Lewis replied that those figures were not specified in the traffic study; however, the report did indicate that one hundred lineal feet of stacking would be sufficient for that establishment; one hundred feet can accommodate five cars, measured at twenty feet each. Comm. Ketz asked whether any consideration was given to the possibility of having the entrance to the drive-thru on the north side of the property and the exiting on the south side. Mr. Lewis stated that that could be done; however, if there were problems with overflow, then the parking stalls would be blocked off. He did not feel there would be any problems with the current proposal. Comm. Ketz asked how the drive-thru lane would be entered; i.e., whether someone could enter the drive-thru lane from the AM/PM Mini Market entrance next store. Mr. Lewis replied that it is possible; however, there is not a great potential for causing problems on 11th Street. Comm. Ketz stated that the cars enter from the counterclockwise direction. Mr. Lewis stated that an attempt has been made to soften the turning radius in order to make it easier to enter into the drive-thru lane. Mr. Bacon stated that he has been to many El Pollo Loco establishments, including the second largest one in Los Angeles, and there are no problems using this particular configuration. He stated that customers receive very fast service; therefore, there is not enough time for cars to back up and cause problems. He stated that there are very 5 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 rarely more than four to five cars waiting during peak hours. Mr. Bacon stated that this configuration at this particular site has been thoroughly studied, and it is felt that there will be no problems. He agreed that it would be wise to diffuse the headlight glare by using hedges or a berm, and he agreed to comply with such a condition. He felt that a berm would be better, since plants could die or not be trimmed properly. Mr. Lewis, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards, showed on the plans where the orders will be placed (at the menu board) and where they will be picked up (at the window). Mr. Bacon applauded El Pollo Loco's decision not to have a driveway on Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that they will be Triple A tenants and will run their business in an assiduous manner. He also stated that the trash area has been designed very well. Mr. Bacon stated that he is very concerned about his properties being kept clean and beautifully landscaped, and this establishment will be no different. El Pollo Loco has promised to maintain the planting, and Mr. Bacon will oversee the planting since he is quite knowledgeable in that area, and he will have final approval on the choice of plants to be used. Chmn. Peirce noted that a lighting plan was not submitted. Mr. Lewis stated that a lighting plan was not a requirement of the conditional use permit package. It was his assumption that the lighting plan would be reviewed during the Building Department plan check. He noted, however, that such a plan could be submitted if desired by the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that such a condition could be added to the approval. Mr. Lewis stated that a lighting plan will be submitted to the staff. Comm. Ingell felt it would be more appropriate for the pick-up window to be located closer to the exit of the drive-thru lane. If the window were relocated, there would be more room for waiting cars. Mr. Lewis stated that there is a prototypical building used by El Pollo Loco, and they try to use the same plans for each of the establishments. There have been no problems with the layout used, so long as there can be five cars between the pick-up window and the entrance of the drive-thru lane. Comm. Rue asked whether the proposed location of the menu board is typical of the placement at other El Pollo Locos. Mr. Lewis explained that this placement is average for various El Pollo Locos in the area. Comm. Edwards asked whether El Pollo Loco utilizes an air pollution control method in order to reduce odors. Mr. Lewis stated that El Pollo Loco uses the most advanced hood system in the industry, and documentation can be provided to support that. He could not, however, explain the technical workings of the unit. He stated that virtually all smoke and most smell has been eliminated. He further noted that they are required to comply with the 6 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 I" requirements of the AQMD. Gail Lee, operator of the Der Wienerschnitzel 1137, 1107 Pacific Coast Highway, opposed the proposal, explaining that there is still almost eight years remaining on her lease. She stated that business is good at that location, and she has many years' experience in the business. She stated that a relocation could hurt her business. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Commission can approve only the conditional use permit. The applicant must work out contractual arrangements with the operator. Public Hearing closed at 8: 17 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce favored adding a condition requiring a berm along the Pacific Coast Highway side, explaining that that would be a real improvement. He also favored shrubbery on top in order to soften the side of the building. Chmn. Peirce noted that the sign as proposed seems to be somewhat high. He suggested wording to designate a maximum allowable height for the menu board. Mr. Schubach noted that Mr. Lewis said the base of the sign could be removed in order to lessen the height of the menu board. The sign could probably be maintained at a height of five feet without much difficulty. Comm. Rue favored a happy medium between the height of the board and the proposed landscaping. Mr. Schubach suggested a three-foot berm with shrubbery on the Pacific Coast Highway side. Further, that the sign be reduced to approximately six feet~ Comm. Rue noted that the sign does not project into a residential area. Comm. Edwards asked for clarification on Condition No. 3: "The volume of the drive­ thru menu board shall be controlled .... " Mr. Schubach stated that "the volume" refers to the loudness of the speaker on the menu board. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the wording of Condition No. 3 be changed to: "The loudspeaker volume of the drive-thru menu board .... " Comm. Ketz noted concern over the design of the drive-thru design, stating that she feels it is awkward. She also noted concern over possible stacking of traffic on 11th Street. She suggested that a condition be added to prohibit stacking on 11th Street. Comm. Rue noted, however, that a business will, in its own best interests, provide easy access for its customers. Comm. Ingell felt that the layout would be better if the plans were swapped the other direction in a mirror image. He felt that this would improve the traffic flow. Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that the circulation would then be clockwise. Comm. Ingell suggested that the kitchen exits be relocated so that the exiting is near the church parking lot. 7 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Comm. Ingell asked how long this conditional use permit will be in effect. Mr. Schubach stated that the Zoning Code specifies that a project must be executed within two years, or the conditional use permit expires. It is also within the purview of the Planning Commission to make that condition more strict, if deemed necessary. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that it is not up to the Planning Commission to redesign this applicant's project. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-2, with the following amendments: (1) that a lighting plan be submitted; (2) that the landscaped area along Pacific Coast Highway be raised as an earthen berm with land sc a ping in order to mitigate the lights shining onto the oncoming southbound traffic on Pac ific C oast Highway; (3) that the stacking area for the cars waiting to enter the lane not be allowed to spill onto 11th Street, and that management be instructed to not allow such spillage onto 11th Street; (4) that the menu board sign shall be limited to six feet; (5) that Condition No. 3 state: "The loudspeaker volume of the drive-thru menu board ... "; (6) that a condition be added stating that odors and emissions must be controlled. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Mr. Lewis addressed the Commission and discussed the location of the drive-thru lane and stated that if it were to be reoriented to the other direction, it would become a passenger pick-up area, which is undesirable. Mr. Bacon asked if it is absolutely necessary for him to return with a zone change request for this project. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. PARKING PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 400-SQUARE F OOT RESTAURAN T EXPANSION AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE, LA TRAVIATA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 15, 1988. This project is located in the C-2 restricted commercial zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. La Traviata is located in a large mixed-use complex. The applicant is requesting a parking plan to convert existing retail space to restaurant use. The existing restaurant is approximately 1070 square feet. The applicant is requesting to expand the restaurant into an adjacent suite which is approximately 400 square feet. Based on existing parking standards, the applicant is required to provide four additional parking spaces; one space per each 100 square feet of restaurant use. Although there will be no new floor area added to the complex, additional parking is still required because the use is being changed from retail to restaurant. The building at 934 Hermosa Avenue was constructed under old zoning standards; therefore, the parking is already nonconforming. 934 Hermosa A venue has a variety of 8 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 commercial uses; however, the hours of the business vary. The applicant is proposing to utilize four parking spaces from another mixed use complex located adjacent to 934 Hermosa Avenue, at 936 Hermosa Avenue. There are 22 parking spaces at this complex, 15 located underground and seven behind the building. The four added spaces should be reserved for employee parking. This will increase the amount of parking available at La Traviata and will maximize any available parking. A condition of approval should require employees to park at the four added parking spaces at 936 Hermosa Avenue. The property owner of 936 Hermosa Avenue has also submitted a use, floor area, and hour summary for 936 Hermosa Avenue. Based on this summary, it appears that parking is available during the hours La Traviata is open. The only business which is open during some evenings is a hair salon which would only require three parking spaces. On-site inspections of 936 Hermosa Avenue conducted by staff have indicated that the subterranean parking spaces have been reserved for specified tenant use without obtaining any prior approvals. Parking should be used by all tenants and customers of the building. With all underground parking spaces assigned to the tenants of the building, there are no parking spaces available for customers. A condition of approval should require the existing signs to be removed and replaced with signs stating parking is available for tenants and customers of the building. La Traviata presently has a conditional use permit to sell alcoholic beverages. The present business is conforming to the conditions listed in the CUP; however, the CUP should be amended to include the expansion and the hours of operation listed in the CUP. The existing CUP states that the hours of operation are 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The hours should be amended to 5:30 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. All other existing conditions are listed in the amended resolution. The property owners of both commercial complexes have submitted letters indicating their commitment to the proposed parking plan. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a parking plan, conditional use permit amendment, and environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Chmn. Peirce asked how the current signage is currently marked at 934 Hermosa A venue. Mr. Schubach stated that it is currently open parking. Chmn. Peirce asked about the connection between Mr. Sidney and Mr. Hof, the two par~ies who submitted letters and which are attached in the staff report. Mr. Schubach stated that Mr. Sidney (934 Hermosa Avenue) and Mr. Hof (936 Hermosa Avenue) are the two property owners involved. Chmn. Peirce asked whether there will be enough parking, then, at 936 Hermosa Avenue when parking is taken away. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, explaining that because of the hours of operation at 936 Hermosa Avenue, parking is not needed at night. He explained that there will be a shared parking situation between these two addresses. 9 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Chmn. Peirce noted that staff recommends that the hours of La Traviata be changed to eliminate lunch service, therefore ensuring that the shared parking concept works. Comm. Rue asked whether validated parking would be available to this establishment. Mr. Schubach stated that staff investigated the possibility of validated parking; however, this commercial development is not located within the Vehicle Parking District. Therefore, validated parking cannot be implemented at this restaurant. Chmn. Peirce suggested adding a condition specifying that if validation ever does become available, that it be used. Mr. Schubach agreed that that would be an appropriate condition. Comm. Ingell asked about the boundaries for the Vehicle Parking District. He understood that the area had not been restricted. Public Hearing opened at 8:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Hans Hof, 1707 Pacific Coast Highway, owner, addressed the Commission. He explained that the Vehicle Parking District ends at 10th Street; therefore, he falls just outside of the VPD. Mr. Hof discussed the issue of open parking versus assigned parking. He stated that the problem with open parking is that during the summer it is impossible to check on who is parking there. He stated that the area becomes very congested, and people park anywhere they can. With open parking, the area will become a zoo. Mr. Schubach stated that the Zoning Code technically does no.t. p_ermit assigned parking; however, signs can be put up stating that the parking is for the use of the customers of the building only. He agreed that open parking can be a problem. Mr. Hof stated that some of his tenants have placed signs advising others not to park in their spots. He said that the parking situation is very bad on Friday and Saturday nights, and that the lot is completely full. Chmn. Peirce asked where people come from on Friday and Saturday nights, if the businesses are closed in the evening. Mr. Hof stated that people come from all over the area and park there to go to other establishments. Mr. Hof stated that his parking was acceptable at the time the building was built. Mr. Hof stated that La Traviata is a very nice restaurant; the food is good, and the prices are low. He felt that it is an addition to the City of Hermosa Beach. Public Hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce felt that, if the parking arrangements can be worked out, La Traviata should be allowed to expand. He noted that the outsiders must be kept out of their parking area, and he asked how this could be accomplished. Mr. Schubach agreed that it is difficult to keep others out of the parking area unless management patrols the area or puts up some sort of sign in the garage area. He 10 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 suggested the addition of a condition stating that some type of signage shall be installed or provided advising that cars will be towed away if they are not approved to be parked in that location. Comm. lngell felt that if the four parking spots are signed correctly and monitored, problems will be lessened. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-5, with the following modifications: (l) Condition No. 4 shall state that signage shall be place d w ith the appropriate wording advising that cars will be towed whic h do not belong there (ex act wording to be provided by staff), and that parking is for both customers and emplo yee s of La Traviata; (2) Condition No. 5 sha ll be de leted; (3) a standard condition shall be added specifying that a copy of the conditional use permit shall be read and signed by the manager; (4) if and when validated parking becomes available, this business shall be encouraged to use the validated parking in order to mitigate the parking problems. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT AT 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO ALLOW THE OPENING OF THE DOOR ON BORDEN STREET DURING SPECIFIC HOURS AND TO ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 13, 1988. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request for a conditional use permit amendment and parking plan amendment to allow the opening of the door on Borden Street during specific hours. On December 12, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit, parking plan, zone variance, and a negative declaration for a proposed expansion of the existing church at 2420 Pacific Coast Highway. Subsequently, two neighboring residents requested an appeal of all the noted items approved. In addition, the applicant appealed two conditions of approval, one of which addressed the closure of the door on Borden Street. At the January 27, 1987, meeting, the City Council reviewed the appeals. The variance, which permitted a stairwell and exit hallway to encroach into the required setback, was overturned by a 5-0 vote. The CUP and parking plan were approved with modifications by a 4-1 vote. On April 19, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an additional parking plan between Pacific Plaza, located at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, and Hope Chapel to allow an office addition at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway. On November 3, 1988, the environmental review committee examined a conditional use permit amendment application to open the door on Borden Street from 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday only. They recommended a negative declaration and requested that revised plans be submitted indicating the individual phases of expansion. 11 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 L On November 17, 1988, the environmental review committee examined a parking plan amendment application to open the door on Borden Street from 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday only. They recommended a negative declaration. Currently, Hope Chapel has an agreement with Pacific Plaza to provide 15 parking spaces during midweek daytime hours in exchange for the use of 15 parking spaces at the office building during evening and weekend hours. The applicants contend that the requirement of closure of the door on Borden Street will jeopardize their parking plan; the reason being the closure would limit access. Therefore, Pacific Plaza may dissolve the agreement. Staff has examined the site and agrees that the condition of closure may hamper access. However, one of the conditions Hope Chapel appealed to the City Council on January 27, 1989, was the requirement that the door on Borden Street not be used as general access but for emergency purposes only and that panic hardware for the said door be provided to permit access for emergencies only. City Council voted 4-1 to uphold this requirement. It was the original intent of the City Council to require the door closure to limit disturbances to neighbors, and staff does not find grounds to justify change. In fact, allowing the Borden Street opening to continue shall only encourage patrons to utilize on­ street parking in the neighborhood because of easy access. It should be noted that alternative access is available from Pacific Coast Highway and is more appropriate than the proposed access. Chmn. Peirce asked about the distance between the fifteen parking spots inside Hope Chapel and the back of the building versus the distance from the fifteen spots in the front of Hope Chapel. Mr. Schubach stated that the difference is significant to a walker; staff actually walked the distance to make the determination. Mr. Schubach, in response to a comment by Comm. Ingell, explained that the "door" on Borden Street is actually an opening in the wall as opposed to an actual door. Chmn. Peirce asked whether Hope Chapel is actually in violation of the conditional use permit by their not having a door in place. Mr. Schubach explained that there were actually two separate conditional use permits approved; the second CUP was never actually implemented for expansion of the interior of the church, but the building next door did do a small expansion. The question of the door arose during the discussion of the second CUP request; and that CUP has not been executed. Staff felt therefore that they are not in violation of the existing CUP at this time; however, they could be in violation in the future if the door is not installed. Comm. Ingell commented that, as he remembered the original hearing on this matter, there was a question regarding whether or not the door was supposed to be there at all. Mr. Schubach noted that this matter has been ongoing for many years, even before he arrived. Originally Hope Chapel had a CUP, and they were to seal off the emergency doors. Hope Chapel later returned to the Building Department and requested that an opening be allowed in the wall; the doors going out to the street were not unsealed, but a new opening was created. The Building Department issued a permit; however, the permit was never finalized and it expired. 12 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 L Comm. Rue felt that the ideal situation would be to keep the office building traffic off of Borden Street Monday through Friday during the daytime hours, and to keep the Hope Chapel traffic off of Borden Street on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and weekday nights. Public Hearing opened at 9:01 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Greg Scharf, representing Hope Chapel, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was instrumental in submitting the amendment to the CUP application. He began by correcting what he felt to be errors in the staff report. He stated that Hope Chapel has a tentative agreement with 2306 P.C.H. (Loomis Building) for the fifteen parking spaces. Hope Chapel has a 40-space easement situation with Pacific Plaza, which is next door. He handed out photographs depicting the areas in question. Mr. Scharf continued by discussing the photos. One photo showed the opening from the inside of the Hope Chapel parking lot looking out onto Borden Street. Other photos showed various views of the opening. He stated that there are four residences on Borden Street, three of which are owned by Hope Chapel. He showed photos depicting the surrounding residential area. Mr. Scharf continued by discussing the physical layout of the streets in this area. Chmn. Peirce asked how many parking spaces Hope Chapel has at the Loomis Building. Mr. Scharf explained that as of April 19, Hope Chapel had applied to change fifteen spaces with Loomis Building. The Commission, at that time, felt that if there were enough parking spaces, that could be done; however, certain conditions were to be met, one of which was to seal off the Borden Street exit, presumably because the Planning Commission had concerns over people pouring out onto Borden Street and out to 24th Street, thereby creating problems for the residents. That application belong to Loomis. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the agreement with Loomis had been executed. Mr. Scharf replied that it has not. He stated that Hope Chapel left that meeting resigned to the fact that they were to block the opening on the Borden Street side. Mike DeMott from Pacific Plaza called, after reading the Commission's decision, and stated that there was a problem with the reciprocal easements executed with Pacific Plaza in late 1983. There was a drawing attached which depicted the Borden Street hole in the wall. Mr. DeMott asserted that the hole in the wall was bargained for in the easements; if the easement is removed, they would take away the 40 parking spaces. Mr. Scharf then set up a meeting with Mr. DeMott in an attempt to correct the problem. He stated that it was not clear in the easement agreement that the hole in the wall was, in fact, bargained for. The only mention was in the attached drawing. It is therefore still unclear whether or not the opening was indeed bargained for. Mr. Scharf stated that Mr. DeMott made the valid point that his people park underneath Hope Chapel, and that fact is included in the leases. If that parking is taken away, it will cost Mr. DeMott a great deal of money if he loses tenants. He stated that his people walk out of the opening to go to their businesses. If they must walk on Borden Street to Pacific Coast Highway, they won't do it because of the distance involved; they will park on the residential streets. That situation would create even more problems. Mr. Scharf stated that the issue is trying to solve everyone's problem in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, Hope Chapel is proposing an amendment to close off the opening 13 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 L during the evening hours and on weekends. Hope Chapel will get no benefit, but it would be mutually agreeable to both businesses and residents. Mr. Scharf stated that Hope Chapel people were parking in the residential area in years past for 8:00 P .M. and 10:00 P .M. services. However, parking was changed and there is no longer a problem with the evening services. Mr. Scharf stressed that the opening is not a general access door. He would be willing to lock the door and pass out keys to authorized people. The door will be controlled. He felt that this would solve the problem and be in everyone's best interest. He stated that the door could be opened and closed each day at a designated time. He requested that they be given three months to test this proposal. Chmn. Peirce asked how the door will be controlled. Mr. Scharf stated that someone from Hope Chapel could be designated to unlock the door at 7:00 A.M. and then close it at 6:30 P.M. Mr. Scharf replied, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, that evening services are now 8:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. The parking area has been opened to allow attendees to park there in order to alleviate the problem on the residential streets. Comm. Rue asked whether the concept of permit parking for the residents on Borden Avenue has ever been addressed. He felt that permits might help solve the problem. Mr. Scharf did not think permits had been contemplated. He noted that of the four houses on Borden Street, three are owned by Hope Chapel. Also, the curb on Borden is painted red, except for the three spaces in front of the businesses.. Mr. Scharf stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that the City was not involved in the 1983 agreement between Hope Chapel and Pacific Plaza; that was a private situation between Hope Chapel and Pacific Plaza only in an attempt to alleviate the parking problems. Ann Latner, 936 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she spoke two years ago on this matter when Hope Chapel was directed to seal off the opening and install emergency only hardware for egress only; however, nothing was ever done. She felt that this matter has gone on for too long now; and since Hope Chapel has not complied in the past, there is no reason to believe they will comply now. She stated that church people do not park on Borden because it is a red curb; so people come up the street and park in the residential area. She stressed that in the past, Hope Chapel has been directed to seal the opening, and no effort has been made by Hope Chapel to compromise. Ms. Latner stated that Hope Chapel has done absolutely nothing to correct this problem, and she sees no end to this problem. She stated that for the City to allow this problem to continue, the rights of the residents are being violated. She asked that the door be shut once and for all in order to stop these problems. Ms. Latner felt that Hope Chapel must be made to comply with the requirements which have already been imposed. Ms. Latner, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, did not know if permit parking is the answer to this problem. She did not feel the citizens would gain anything by having to obtain permits. She felt that it is more appropriate to seal the door and have the 14 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 people parking in the 15 spaces walk to their destination. Ms. Latner, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that the Hope Chapel problems occur mostly on the weekends. Ellen Birnbaum, 832 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, agreed that Hope Chapel should be required to seal the opening as they have been required to do in the past. She continued by discussing the past problems and agreements at Hope Chapel. She stressed that the problem is being exacerbated because nobody is monitoring the parking assignments as contained in the agreement. Ms. Birnbaum stated that the curb on Borden Street is painted red; however, people still park there sometimes during peak hours. She stated that the congestion is terrible in the area all day and all night. She questioned whether permit parking would help the situation; however, she did not know what it would involve, but she felt it could be studied. Ms. Birnbaum stressed that there is no street parking left in the area; no one is monitoring the various parking agreements in effect; and the parking and congestion are ongoing at all hours of the day and night. Barbara Bullard, 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200, Hermosa Beach, representing the management of Pacific Plaza, addressed the Commission. She stated that Pacific Plaza has a reciprocal parking agreement with Hope Chapel whereby Pacific Plaza uses 40 parking spaces of Hope Chapel during business hours during the week in exchange for Hope Chapel using 40 of their spaces on Friday and Saturday night and Sunday morning. Ms. Bullard stated that there is a crucial parking problem in the City. In consideration of this concern, management at Pacific Plaza has made certain parking agreements with Hope Chapel as well as with Jeanette's Restaurant. The consideration is to try to solve the parking problems of all three parties with a minimum impact to the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Bullard suggested that there be a locked door on the Borden Street exit. Someone could be designated to unlock and lock the door at certain hours each day. She stated that Pacific Plaza would like to keep the door open during business hours in order to accommodate the business people parking in the Hope Chapel lot. By having the door open, they will not have to walk as far to their offices. She stated that when people rent office space, they expect to have safe, accessible parking. Ms. Bullard stated that if the Borden Street access is closed off, the walk is much longer; therefore, tenants will look for closer parking spaces, possibly on the residential streets. Chmn. Peirce asked if it would be possible to relocate the parking spaces at Hope Chapel so the people don't have to walk so far. Ms. Bullard stated that that is a possibility. She stated that the closest parking is reserved for visitors. Ms. Bullard stated that she would have no objection to having the door keyed so that only certain individuals would be able to access the door. Christine Purcell, 912 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that this is not a simple matter, but rather one which has been going on for years. She stated that there are 15 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 other ways to correct this other than allowing the opening to remain. She stated that the traffic generated by the opening has been horrendous. She stated that the quality of life has been very adversely affected by allowing this opening to remain. She also noted concern over safety for the children in the area. She stressed that the door is not necessary. Ms. Purcell noted that Hope Chapel has been told repeatedly to close the opening, and they have done nothing thus far. She stated that there are other ways to correct this problem. She noted concern over property values being affected by the traffic and congestion. She concluded by noting that the parking agreements are not being monitored by anyone in the City. Rick Thompson, Hope Chapel Administrator, clarified that the requirement that Hope Chapel seal the opening was in response to the second CUP request, which was never implemented. That was the only time they were directed to seal the opening. He stated that Hope Chapel is not trying to better its position by requesting that the opening remain. He stated that the request is merely an attempt to be a good neighbor to the Loomis Building. Mr. Thompson stated that Hope Chapel is attempting to correct a problem, rather than to create a problem. Ann Latner stated that she would have no objection to the tenants being provided with keys so that they could access the opening during certain monitored hours. She noted concern, however, over the number of keys which would be issued. Dan Goodrich, on behalf of Hope Chapel, stated that Hope Chapel itself will not use the door; it will be used only by the 40 people at Pacific Plaza. He f.elt that key distribution would be a viable solution. Chmn. Peirce asked whether Hope Chapel would agree to install a door with a lock and distribute keys to the appropriate people. Mr. Goodrich replied in the affirmative. He stated that the door could be installed so that it closes and locks behind each person; so there will be no unauthorized uses. Ms. Purcell stated that the entire issue here is one of density. She noted that the CUP runs with the building; and she questioned what would happen if Hope Chapel leaves. She noted concern over safety in the area as well as property values. She stated that future impacts must be considered. Mr. Thompson requested that Loomis and Eyck also be given ten keys; however, if that request will delay the process, they would be willing to withdraw the request. Reverend Parker gave background information on why the curb on Borden is red, stating that it was to protect the residential area from commercial interests. He could not believe that this issue was being heard again. He stated that he understood the problems at Hope Chapel; however, he noted the importance of their cooperating with the neighbors. He favored closing the opening because there is too much traffic and congestion already. The hole in the wall should never have been allowed in the first place, and in fact was never approved by any City body. He stated that only so many cars can park in a certain area, and this area is already too crowded. 16 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Rev. Parker agreed with the staff recommendation on this matter, to not allow the opening to remain. He stated that the people at Pacific Plaza could make a hole elsewhere in the garage for the tenants to use. He noted that the City Council directed a year and a half ago that the opening be closed; however, nothing has been done. Mr. Scharf stated that many of the problems foreseen by residents will not actually come to pass. He pointed out that there is, as part of this amendment, another aspect, and that is there is a parking plan underneath Hope Chapel whereby they are seeking to reduce the number of spots because they are not in conformance to the code. Their architect is attempting to submit a new plan. He stated that the area will be restriped properly. Mr. Schubach explained that staff went out and examined the parking when the first conditional use permit application was received. It was discovered that the area was not properly striped in regard to minimum standard stall widths and lengths, as well as turning area; therefore, it is necessary to correct that problem by restriping to the correct standards. Mr. Goodrich explained that Hope Chapel was advised that it was necessary to restripe the parking lot according to the terms of what was previously approved in the CUP; restriping, however, will reduce the parking spaces to 129 from the current 135. Public Hearing closed at 9:56 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that the neighbors feel the best solution would be to close the opening entirely; however, in the interests of the businesses, it would be better to allow access during certain monitored hours. Chmn. Peirce felt that key distribution to authorized people and a self-locking door seems to be the ideal solution to this problem. He recommended that this suggestion be implemented for a certain time period to see whether it works. If it is not working, Hope Chapel could then be directed to seal the door. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, gave background information as to how this situation has transpired. Comm. Edwards commented on the concept of distributing keys. He stated that it would be easy for people to have the keys copied and then pass them out to unauthorized people. Also, it would be easy for people to put something in the door, such as a brick, to keep it open at all times. He felt that this could pose a problem. He noted that this issue has been previously addressed, and each time it was recommended that the opening be closed. He therefore favored that the opening be sealed, and other alternatives be studied, such as relocation of the opening. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct that a self-locking door (locking in both directions) be installed within one month from the date of this approval; that serialized keys stating "No copies to be made" be issued, 40 to Pacific Plaza and l 0 to Loomis Eyck; and that the progress be reviewed in seven months at another hearing to determine if the method is working; if not working, at that time the Planning Commission shall direct that the door be closed. Comm. Rue suggested that the issue of parking permits be studied. 17 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Comm. Rue stated that he at one time favored closing off the opening; however, the best way to mitigate the problem appears to be to get the tenants off of the street. Therefore, he strongly favored the motion. Chmn. Peirce stated that Hope Chapel will have one month to install the door and six months to have trial use of the door. He stated that the door will be monitored by the City. Comm. Edwards noted that the residents have lived with this problem for several years with no end in site. Therefore, he favored closing the opening. Comm. Ketz favored the trial period. Comm. Ingell favored having emergency hardware on the door. Chmn. Peirce disagreed, stating that that is not a required door or a fire exit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Edwards None None Chmn. Peirce stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 10:09 P .M. until 10: 17 P .M. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP //46903 FOR A 15-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 603 FIRST STREET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM 12/6/88 MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 12, 1988. Staff recommended approval of the zone change, vesting tentative tract map, and conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that there are three alternatives: (1) rezone the subject property to a Specific Plan Area to limit density to the equivalent of two units per lot assuming that the property can be divided into six 4,000 square foot lots; (2) leave the property zoned R-2, M-1 and Open Space and change the general plan from medium density residential to manufacturing and open space for those portions with corresponding zoning; (3) redesignate and rezone the property low density residential including the remaining lot. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of October 20, 1988, requested that the applicant revise the original plans to correct problems with landscaping, guest parking and the turning radius. Also, the Public Works Department requested that a parking study be prepared for the project. Based on these conditions, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for the project. At the December 6, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter because of improper noting, a result of the applicant sending notices without proper postage. 18 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 The property is designated in the general plan as medium density; the corresponding zoning for medium density is R-2. Currently the property is zoned M-1, R-2, and Open Space. In the past, M-1 zoning had some logic since there was a railroad sub-spur line abutting the property to the south. The rail line was abandoned and the property was sold to a private party. This property has now become part of the subject property and inadvertently rezoned open space when the main spur line, now known as the "Green Belt" was rezoned open space. However, it may be argued that it was never the intent of the City to rezone this property open space since it was never specifically discussed or shown on any map until after staff discovered that it was railroad right-of-way and determined that it was inadvertently zoned open space. If it were determined that there was no intent to rezone it open space, and therefore it was not rezoned, then this portion of the subject property would revert to the railroad right-of-way classification which limits its use to railroad purposes only. Staff does not believe the City intended to rezone private property to open space; but being classified as railroad right-of-way limits the use of the property even further. The railroad should have not sold this property to a private party without first asking the City to rezone it. The property has been in private hands for approximately 40 years, and has not been used as a railroad right-of-way. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire subject property to correspond to the general plan. If the City does not rezone the property, it is in violation of State law. The subject property is 26,.319 square feet; and under R-2 zoning a total of 15 dwelling units would be allowed. This number is equal to 25 units per acre. Although it may seem that other lots with, for example, two units have a lesser density, in many cases the density is no different. The lot is just smaller in size and the two units equates to 25 units per acre. The general plan designation is medium density, and the sun:ounding properties to the east, west, and south are also medium density. The zoning is generally R-2. However, a small amount of R-1 exists to the west, and M-1 to the north and south. R-2 zoning on the subject property would be a logical extension to the R-2 zoning abutting the property to the east. Alternative 1: To rezone the subject property to Specific Plan Area is another method of implementing the general plan and enables the City to, for example, limit density. Through a specific plan, other standards may also be imposed, such as setbacks, open space, parking, etc. Since the property is large enough and has adequate frontage on a public street to be subdivided, staff computed how many 4000 square foot lots could be created. Assuming a total of six lots of 4000 square feet could be created, a total of twelve units, two per lot, could be developed at a density of 21.78 units per acre. This density is generally equal to density found in the surrounding neighborhood, although there are some higher densities since the surrounding area was once zoned R-3. Staff believes it would be detrimental to subdivide the property. The result would be the "row housing" currently being built with almost lot line to lot line lot coverage, no amenities, front yards almost completely covered with driveway, and only a small amount of landscaping. Alternative 2: The property could have a general plan amendment so that the designation corresponded to the current zoning. This would result most likely in inverse condemnation for the open space zoned portion since none of the permitted uses under open space would be economically viable on a lot that small (261.3 square feet). 19 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 However, the City could buy the open space portion of the property and create a park. If the M zoned portion were redesignated, the result could be manufacturing uses which should be, by anyone's standards, the worst possible development that could occur. In every respect, this property is not viable for manufacturing uses. It is located on narrow local streets not suitable for truck traffic, and it is abutting residential development. Noise, fumes, dust, toxic chemicals, and potential fires all could significantly impact the health, safety, and welfare of the adjacent residences, and all are associated with manufacturing-type uses. Also, the appearance of manufacturing-type buildings and signs would detract from the surrounding neighborhood and have a negative impact on property values. Alternative 3: The property and adjacent block could be rezoned and redesignated low density, as a small segment of property to the northwest of Ardmore Avenue is zoned. If this were to occur, then of course, the property would be subdivided into minimum 4000 square foot lots. It should be noted that even though the property to the northwest is zoned R-1, the lots are considerably smaller, with an average size of 2600 square feet; whereas, the average size of the lots between First Street and First Place is 4600 square feet. The proposed development consists of 15 dwelling units, which is equal to 25 units per acre. Lot coverage is 43 percent, which is significantly lower than typical developments currently being proposed which generally have lot coverage between 63 and 65 percent. The reduced lot coverage is a result of the relatively large lot compared to the typical size in the City. Open space also significantly exceeds the minimum requirement because of the large size of the lot; 428 square feet per unit. is proposed, which is 128 square feet per unit in excess of the minimum. Typically, only the minimum open space requirement is met, and it is all on decks and balconies. In this project, 3398 square feet of open space is at ground level. Ample landscaping is being provided in all the setback areas. Since the front setback need not be utilized for driveways and guest parking, the amount of landscaped area is significantly above average. Architectural treatment is also superior. It includes some dome and pyramid roof structures, stucco projections, ins and outs, sconce lights, sand finish stucco, cross­ hatched windows, and a unique multi-colored paint finish. All other minimum zoning standards are met. The driveway is the least desirable aspect of the project because of its long, massive appearance. Staff believes that the driveway, therefore, should be constructed of press concrete or similar material to make it aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Schubach read into the record the "Summary and Conclusion Report" submitted by Justin F. Farmer of Transportation Engineers, Inc.: II • A proposal has been made to construct 15 residential condominium units on a 26,319 square foot site east of Ardmore A venue and north of First Street in Hermosa Beach. 20 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 • A total of 38 parking spaces will be provided, 30 of which will be for residential use and 8 for guests. • A trip forecast for the project is as follows: AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Residential 88 l 6 6 3 • Because of the very minimal number of trips associated with the project, there will be virtually no impact on the adjacent streets. • Two cumulative projects were assessed, both of which have quite nominal future trip generation. • No mitigation measures are needed to accommodate project or cumulative volumes along the site frontage. • Adequate parking is provided on-site for residents and users of the site. • There will be a nominal amount of project traffic using local residential streets, except on First Street between the site and Pacific Coast Highway. The conclusion, therefore, is that the project can be accommodated at the site without any undue adverse impact." Mr. Schubach then read into the record the response on the-0 5ummary and Conclusion" report. The response was submitted by Ed Ruzak, Ed Ruzak and Associates, Inc, dated December l, 1988: "I have completed a review of a traffic impact report for the subject project and have the following comments: I am in agreement with the consultant's findings. He has taken in consideration the cumulative projects in the area and has looked at the distribution and assessment of trips to the site. His discussion of the neighborhood impacts from an environmental standpoint should provide the lay reader with a reasonable guideline. I do not necessarily agree with the statement he makes at the bottom of Page 15 as it applies to these type streets (residential/collector). We know that intrusion on residential streets does exist at volume levels well over the 1200 vpd level shown in Table 4. This is not the case on the streets in this area. Volume levels are low. My only real concern with the study is the lack of mention of the driveway location proximate to the Ardmore/ 1st intersection. It is my opinion that a 20' driveway as the sole access is too narrow. A wider opening and rounded curb, curve radii would be more desirable than the simple "x" cut driveway. Second, I believe it will be necessary to remove parking on a permanent basis on 1st Street from Ardmore to the easternmost limits of the project in order to provide 21 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 sufficient sight distance for vehicles emerging from the site and for vehicles traveling on First Street." Comm. Edwards stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter, since he lives within 300 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Lough explained for the benefit of the Commission the new guidelines enacted by the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding the determination of conflict of interest matters. One is now presumed to have a financial conflict if one lives within 300 feet of a project, unless one can prove there is no change in value. Mr. Lough continued by explaining how one would go about proving there is no conflict of interest. Chmn. Peirce did not agree with the new guidelines for conflict of interest matters, stating that Commissioners will have to abstain for no good reason in the future. Mr. Lough noted that even though Comm. Rue was absent for the first hearing on this matter, he has read the minutes and listened to the tapes of the meeting; therefore, he is fully informed and can participate in this hearing. Comm. Rue noted the large amount of open space proposed for this project. Public Hearing opened at l 0:42 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick Killin, 312 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed project was designed to the R-2 standards, which he feels is compatible with what is currently existing_in the area. He noted that the units have been made smaller in order to create real, usable open space at the ground level. Mr. Killin also stated that an attempt was made to minimize the impact of the driveway and the paved area from the perception of the City and the community, thereby internalizing the parking area and driveway space to the center of the lot and creating only one in/out onto 1st Street. He stated that he has no problem with increasing the width of the driveway as was suggested by the consultant. Mr. Killin stated that his biggest concerns are to preserve as much on-street parking as possible in the area and to maintain the R-2 standards. Mr. Killin noted that this project well exceeds the minimum requirements for open space. It is also well under the maximum allowed lot coverage. Mr. Killin continued his presentation by discussing the site plan for the project, explaining the setbacks and locations for the proposed buildings as shown on the drawings. He noted that Buildings A and B will each have four units; Building C has two units; and Building D has five units. There will a ten-foot setback at the 1st Place. Mr. Killin noted the importance of achieving active recreation space for this project. He continued by discussing the drawing which depicted Building C Basement/Garage Floor Plan. He also commented on the drawings representing the first and second floors of Building C. He said that the buildings are considered two stories and a basement. He noted that the balcony off of the smaller bedrooms is not even counted in the open space calculations; however, it was included for aesthetic purposes and to reduce the bulk of 22 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 the building. Mr. Killin showed drawings representing the west elevation of Buildings A and B. He commented on the proposed exterior treatment, including the doors, windows, and architectural decoration, including the sconce lights and balconies. Mr. Killin continued by commenting on the isometric drawings for Buildings A and B. Mr. Killin showed a north elevation drawing of Building C, which is a two unit building. He then displayed an isometric drawing of the building. Mr. Killin presented a view of the east elevation of Building D, which will have five units; also shown was an isometric rendering of Building D. Mr. Killin felt that the proposed project is a compromise which will be of benefit to all concerned parties. He felt that the units are aesthetically pleasing and have ample open space. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, directly across the street from the proposed project, noted concern over density and traffic. She also noted concern over the fact that another 13-unit building is being proposed for the site of the old gas company. She stated that the cumulative effects of all these projects must be addressed. She questioned the accuracy of the traffic study which was prepared for the project. She stated that parking in the area is already very bad. She noted that other properties in the area are subject to zone changes in the future; she felt all of these properties should be addressed together once the rezoning is concluded. She noted that low density in the City has been an objective for several years. She felt that this property should be rezoned to R-1. Mr. Schubach explained the past and current zoning in the subject area; stating that it was originally R-3 and is now generally going towards R-2. There is a small amount of M zoning left between 1st Place and 2nd Street; also between 2nd and 3rd, but most of that has been rezoned to R-2. Mr. Schubach, responding to a comment by Comm. Rue, explained that the traffic study did take into account other projects which may be built in this area. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, felt that the proposed project is too dense. He favored lowering density in the City, and he felt that the lots should be larger. He stressed that the area is already too dense. Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that the proposed project is too large for the area. She disagreed with the traffic study, stating that the added traffic will add greatly to the congestion in the area. She stated that the area should be rezoned to R-1, because that is all the area can handle. She suggested that the Commission look to the future in regard to allowing these developments. She stated that the additional developments will create more traffic and parking problems. She felt that the required parking is not adequate. Susan Johnson, niece of the present majority owner of the project site, stated that the Johnsons have owned this land for 25 years, during which most of that time the property was zoned R-3, but has now been downzoned to R-2. The owners were led to believe that the M zoning would also be rezoned. 23 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 r-,, Ms. Johnson discussed the past history of the property, stating that the owners have been wanting to do something with the property. She stated that the owners should not be penalized just because they happen to own a large parcel, rather than several smaller lots. Ms. Johnson stated that the proposed development will provide continuity, rather than a choppy, bulky project. She felt it will flow nicely, and she felt that the property will be well utilized. Pat Sirlin, 614 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, felt that 15 1,1nits is too much for the area; she favors the property being developed; however, she felt that the only appropriate zoning would be R-1. John McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over parking problems in the area. He felt that this development is too large for the area and will generate too much traffic. He noted that the congestion becomes worse during the summer months. He stated that the cumulative impacts of other projects must be considered. He favored rezoning this property to R-1. Mr. Killin stated that the traffic study did in fact take into consideration the other new developments proposed for this area. He noted that, he too, lives in Hermosa Beach and has concerns for the area. He stated that in this case, it is important to determine not only what is appropriate for this particular site, but also for the entire south end of town. He stated that the zoning code and the general plan is in effect and is to be used as the guideline for projects. He stated that the lot as it currently exists is not consistent. As a resident of the City, he did not favor zoning it for manufacturing because it does not fit. He also did not feel R-1 would be appropriate because there is no other R-1 zoning on that side of Ardmore; everything is R-2. Mr. Killin said that every effort was made in designing this project to have it conform with the surrounding neighborhood. He also considers this to be a good development. He noted that there will always be parking problems in the City. He felt that R-2 zoning would be a reasonable compromise for that area. Public Hearing closed at 11 :23 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ingell questioned whether rezoning this area to R-1 would actually be a solution; however, he felt that fifteen units is too many for this site. He stated that this is a beautiful project, but it is too large. He felt R-2 with 12 units would be a more appropriate compromise. He also felt that the parking standards are not stringent enough for this piece of property; and this might be the time to implement higher parking standards. He felt three parking spaces per unit would be more appropriate. He also felt that the setback on Ardmore should be a front yard setback as opposed to a side yard setback, since it is the longest frontage on the property. He stated that he could not support 15 units at this property. Comm. Rue stated that zoning codes are implemented in order to give developers direction by which to proceed when they are designing projects. He noted that there have been many recent changes in the ordinance. He noted that this project provides a great deal of open space on the ground, and the lot coverage is well below the maximum allowed by the code. He noted that since buildings are sold by the square footage, the developer is giving up a lot by having smaller units to allow for ample open space. By providing the additional open space, he felt that a compromise has been made in this project; therefore, he stated he could sup.port the project as proposed. 24 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 . . Comm. Rue noted that the parking requirements of two spaces per unit, plus eight guest parking spaces, does meet the current code; and he had no problem with the proposed parking. If it is determined that the parking requirements are not adequate, he said that the code should be changed. He did not feel the developer should be penalized if the parking requirements are not adequate. He felt that the developer has complied with the requirements on this project. Comm. Ketz felt that this project provides a better design than if the site were divided into four lots with two to four units per lot. She agreed that the project provides ample usable open space as well as a nice design. She did note, however, that the streets are narrow in that area, and there are problems with congestion. She felt that additional guest parking spaces would be appropriate, especiaHy since weekend traffic is heavier. She stated, however, that she could support the design and density of the project as proposed. Chmn. Peirce stated that he has been a long-term advocate of building to the standards for apartments, and trying to make condominiums more than just apartments. He stressed the condos are not apartments; therefore, condominium approval is a discretionary act. If the Planning Commission feels higher standards are necessary, then stricter standards can be implemented. Chmn. Peirce felt that it is important to demand more of condominiums than of apartments; and it would be in the best interests of the City if this were done at this project by way of a specific plan area. Chmn. Peirce felt that the project as proposed does not provide adequate parking; the setbacks are not large enough; and the density is too high. Chmn. Peirce did not think a rezone to R-1 would be appropriate, because R-1 is well below the property value for the area; further, the property to the east will be developed to the R-2 standards, and the properties across Ardmore are very small. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to designate this area a Specific Plan Area; to require a ten-foot setback along Ardmore; to allow 13 units; and to require three parking spaces for each unit. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to park in front of the garages of the proposed project; even though the area might not be large enough to qualify as a regulation parking space. Mr. Killin replied that there are several locations where the driveway is wider than necessary and where someone could parallel park in front of the garages without creating a problem; therefore, an additional six spaces could be obtained by such parking. Those spaces, however, do not meet the parking standards. Mr. Killin commented on the motion for a Specific Plan Area, stating that if the SPA is voted upon, he would like to request specific direction as to how to proceed with the project. He noted that standards are in place, and an attempt is made to work within those standards. Comm. Rue stated that requiring more parking necessitates the need for more concrete, which he is opposed to. He felt that if there is usable parking space, people will park in that space, even though it may not actually be standard size. He discussed the ten-foot setback on Ardmore, stating that Building A is at a nine-foot setback; Building B, with its 25 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 .. five-foot setback, is the location where the additional parking could be gained. He felt that common sense should be used in making this decision. Chmn. Peirce stressed that the standards in place are for apartments, not condominiums; and condominiums are not apartments. He stated that there is currently no zoning code for condominiums. Comm. Rue felt that the developer has compromised in regard to the open space and square footage of the units. He stated that square footage equals dollars to the developer. Comm. Ketz favored additional parking for this project; however, in reality, if additional parking can in fact be gained by using the extra space, she could she no reason to require the additional setbacks at Building B. Chmn. Peirce reiterated his motion, stating that he proposes to increase the parking to three spaces per unit; require a ten-foot setback on Ardmore; and allow only 13 units. The units could then be made larger, and additional parking could be obtained. Comm. Ingell, as second, stated that he would support 13 units; however, he felt that 12 units would be more appropriate. Public Hearing reopened at 11 :39 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Jim Marquez, 1334 Park View Avenue, Manhattan Beach, commented on the discussion by the Commission, stating that the applicant would concur with one exception; that they would favor a condition in the CUP that the revised plans be subject to the approval of staff, so that the applicant does not have to come before the0 .Commission with a Specific Plan Area, which they feel to be unnecessary. The plan as designed by the architect is sufficient in its design scope to accommodate the concerns of the Commission to lower the density and to address the concerns of the neighborhood to add more parking so that the impact of this project is lessened. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted concern that this project was designed before the zone change was even approved. Kim Turrett, 501 Herondo, which is a 75-unit condominium development adjacent to the proposed development, stated that there are already tremendous parking problems and congestion in the area. He asked that the Commission do everything possible to reduce the traffic in the community. Public Hearing closed at 11:44 P.M. Chmn. Peirce noted that the applicant prefers to have specific guidelines rather than the Specific Plan Area. He asked for direction from staff. Mr. Schubach stated that a Specific Plan Area would not delay this project. Further, the conditional use permit will expire in two years if not implemented, but once the zone is changed to R-2, it will remain R-2. There is nothing holding the applicant to the conditional use permit; whereas, with a Specific Plan Area, the project is actually set with the standards imposed by the Commission. He noted that the time frame would be the same whether there is a zone change request or an SPA. 26 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 . . Mr. Lough concurred with staff; however, he noted that with an SPA many issues must be specifically addressed such as setbacks, density, public improvements, interface with streets, curb and gutter cuts, and sidewalks. Therefore, with the SPA, the project must come back before the Commission. He noted concern, though, over tying a reduction in units into the CUP as a condition. Comm. Rue noted, however, that the applicant has agreed ~o lower the number of units to 13 as proposed; therefore, he suggested that the zone change be recommended. Chmn. Peirce noted that the zone change will automatically go before the City Council. Comm. Ingell noted that a criterion for approval is that "the project shall conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will be compatible with adjacent residential properties." Since 15 units is felt to be too excessive to be compatible, he felt that this requirement gives the Commission the purview to reduce the number of units to 13. Mr. Schubach advised that, if the Commission desires to recommend the R-2 zoning at this time, conditions can be added to the CUP stating that there is to be a maximum of 13 units for this project, that there be three parking spaces per unit; and that there be a minimum 10-foot setback on all three street sides. A condition could also be added that the revised plans shall be subject to approval by the staff. Comm. Ketz stated that she would support thirteen units with the additional parking. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to recommend a zone change from M and Open Space to R-2 for this property; and that the zone:dlange shall be contingent upon implementation of a conditional use permit, which will follow. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Edwards None MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-4, with the following modifications: (1) each appearance in the resolution of the number of units shall be changed to reflect that the number of units is to be reduced from 15 to 13; (2) ten-foot setbacks shall be required on all three sides of the property; (3) three parking spaces per unit shall be required; (4) if the CUP is not implemented within two years, the R-2 zoning shall revert back to the M-1 and Open Space zoning. Mr. Schubach noted that Condition No. 1 specifies that plans shall be subject to approval of staff. Mr. Lough explained that if the CUP is not implemented within the two-year period, the zone change would become null and void and the zoning would revert to M and Open Space. Mr. Marquez stated that the applicant agrees to the proposed changes. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Edwards None 27 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Chmn. Peirce stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. STAFF ITEMS a.) Memorandum Regarding City Council/Planning Commission Workshop b.) The City Council/Planning Commission workshop will be held on Tuesday, January 31, 1989, at 7:45 P.M. Several issues were suggested for discussion at the workshop: parking standards, apartment standards versus condominium standards, circulation element, expansion of non-conforming structures, development standards, downtown, and the multi-use corridor. Planning Department Activity Report for November 1988 The Commission discussed the activity report. No action taken. c.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 1/ 10/89 City Council Meeting No one will attend. d.) City Council Minutes of November 22, 1988 No comments. No action. e.) Letters from Mr. Parker Herriott Chmn. Peirce recommended that staff not make copies, distribute, or apply postage to letters submitted by citizens and containing a distribution list. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell asked about the storage of materials on City streets during construction, thereby taking up parking spaces. Mr. Lough stated that the Public Works Department issues encroachment permits to allow storage of materials on City streets during construction. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 12:15 A.M. No objections; so ordered. 28 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 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 January 3, 1989. • • • • • •• ¥mes Peirce;Chairman '.) Date 29 ,., P;C; Minutes 1/'J-~