Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10.03.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 3, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ketz Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve the minutes of September 19, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA5 DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DETERMINATION. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Moore commented on Resolution P.C. 89-65 and recalled that the Commission had continued this matter so that the applicant could apply for an amendment to the hours of operation to the conditional use permit; therefore, the Resolution should also be continued until such time that the matter is heard again and a decision is made. Chmn. Rue concurred and stated that approval would be continued for Resolution P.C. 89-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES AT 240 PIER AVENUE, "ABE'S LIQUOR," AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 20, BLOCK 48, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89- 69, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21305 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 634 FIRST STREET, DESCRIBED AS LOT 149, WALTER RANSOM TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-70, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST OF EXCEPTION FROM THE MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL l P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 CORRIDOR TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AT 524 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 AND 4, TRACT NO. 294. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-71, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD GYMNASIUM/HEAL TH AND FITNESS CENTER AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C- 2, RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONE, AND TO ESTABLISH PARKING STANDARDS FOR SAID USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE ALCOHOL AT 2455 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERNATIONAL LI UOR, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 15, 1989, MEETING Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He stated that this matter was heard at a public hearing held on August 15, 1989. At that meeting, the Commission continued the matter to the hearing of October 3, 1989, because of an apparent language problem. Following the Commission's recommendation, the applicant's legal representative contacted staff, who explained the conditions of Resolution 89-63. Also, on September 20, 1989, the City staff had a meeting with the applicant and the property owner. In that meeting, the conditions of Resolution 89-63 were discussed. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has already complied with the requirements set forth in the conditional use permit. Staff therefore recommended that the CUP be approved. Public Hearing opened at 7:13 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Robert Kirstie, 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant now has a thorough understanding of the conditions in the CUP and has complied with all of the conditions with the exception of the requirement regarding the paving and restriping in front of the business, explaining that that matter is within the purview of the landowner. The landowner is currently in the process of completing that work. He hoped, however, that approval of the CUP could be granted at this time. Mr. Schubach stated that since the applicant is making an attempt to comply and results have been seen, staff has no problem with the CUP being approved at this time. The applicant would be given a reasonable amount of time in which to meet full compliance; if completion is not done, staff would then send letters to the applicant. If results are still not seen, a citation would be issued. Mr. Kirstie stated that letters and a citation will not be necessary; the applicant is complying, but it is just a matter of time before the work can be completed. 2 P .C. Minutes l 0/3/89 Kathy Midstokke, 1101 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over adult X-rated videos for sale at this establishment which are accessible to minors because the videos are placed in the middle of the aisle. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, noted concern over the number of establishments in the City selling alcoholic beverages. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:18 P.M. Comm. Peirce was under the impression that a conditional use permit is required to sell or rent videos. Mr. Schubach agreed and stated that staff had not noticed the fact that this store was selling adult videos. He suggested that this matter be continued so that the appropriate conditions can be added to the CUP. He continued by explaining that a CUP is required for videos; however, staff has no opposition in this instance since the business is in the C- 3 zone, which permits the sale of adult videos with a CUP. Comm. Ingell noted that there appears to be trend among liquor stores and markets to sell and rent videos. He suggested that it might be in the best interests of the City to begin including standard conditions relating to this issue. He therefore suggested that this CUP be sent back so that staff could include the standard conditions imposed on video stores. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that this application is not for a video store, but rather for a liquor store. He stated that one could assume that the applicant is in violation if they are selling and/or renting videos at this time without the proper permits. Comm. Ingell stated that they cannot be in violation since they do not have a conditional use permit at this time. Mr. Lee explained that video stores require conditional use permits as a permitted use. He continued by stating that it would be necessary for him to confer with the applicant in an attempt to ascertain to what extent videos are being sold at this business. Mr. Schubach clarified that video sales (no X-rated) by themselves are allowed in the C-3 zone with no CUP; however, if adult X-rated videos are involved, a conditional use permit is required. He again suggested that this matter be continued so that conditions can be added regarding the adult videos. Mr. Lee suggested that the Commission consider the CUP request with respect to the liquor sales at this time. The applicant could then return later with a request for a CUP to sell videos, if they intend to sell X-rated videos. In the meantime, the applicant is in violation of the code, and video sales should be halted immediately. Comm. Moore felt that the request before the Commission at this time and the matter of adult videos sales are actually two separate issues. He stated that the alcohol CUP can be passed at this time. Sale of the adult videos should be stopped immediately since it is in violation of the code. The applicant can then, if so desired, apply for a conditional use permit to sell the videos. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of liquor stores and convenience markets selling videos can be addressed later in the meeting. 3 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Comm. Ingell suggested that applicants, at the time they apply for business licenses, be informed that video sales and/or rentals require a conditional use permit. Comm. Peirce agreed that the issue of the liquor store CUP is different from the issue of video sales. He noted concern, however, that applicants tend to flaunt the rules. He therefore would have difficulty supporting the alcohol CUP until the video issue is resolved. Mr. Lee stated that the Municipal Code contains provisions in this regard, explaining that an enforcement officer can enter the establishment and demand that the sale of adult videos cease immediately. The applicant can also be issued a citation. After citation, penalty provisions can be implemented. Comm. Moore felt that this matter would be more clear and concise if the two issues are separated. Chmn. Rue voiced concern over the City's ability to effectively enforce the code in regard to the sale and/or rental of adult videos. He felt that the entire overall picture of stores of this type selling videos should be addressed, especially in relationship to the possible additional parking which might be required. Comm. Moore noted, however, that if the alcohol CUP is not voted upon at this time, the City will still have no control over this business. He noted that the applicant has been attempting to comply with the conditions set forth in the proposed CUP. He noted that the applicant has not yet even been given an opportunity to respond to the comments made about the videos being visible to minors. He felt that the CUP as proposed should be approved at this time. Public Hearing reopened at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Kirstie stated that the store does in fact have X-rated videos; however, they are are hidden from the view of the general public. He stated that the store sells approximately two adult videos per week. Mr. Kirstie stressed that the sale of adult videos will cease immediately, noting that any unlawful activity will stop as soon as he can get to a phone to call the store. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, stated that he went to International Liquor in search of an off-road auto magazine. He noted that he did not find what he was looking for; however, he noticed there were many "girlie" magazines for sale. He stated that a few of the magazines were placed behind opaque shields so that the covers were partially blocked from view. He could not remember seeing any adult videos at that time, though. Public Hearing closed at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue felt that, since the applicant has agreed to stop selling adult videos until such time that the proper permits are obtained, the CUP should be approved at this time. Comm. Peirce agreed, noting that the applicant's representative has stated that such sales will stop immediately. MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-63, with the inclusion of a Condition No. 7(a): "Sale and/or r enta l of X-rated videos shall be prohibited, subject to the applicant's obtaining a conditional use permit pursuant to the Municipal Code provisions." 4 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Comm. Peirce asked whether stores of this type are required by the code to place adult magazines behind opaque coverings. Mr. Schubach explained that the required coverings apply mainly to outdoor newsracks. Comm. Peirce stated that, although he agrees with the prohibition of adult videos until the proper permits are obtained, inclusion of such a condition in the resolution is not necessary because such sale is not now permitted, according to the provisions of the Municipal Code. He felt that inclusion would only muddle the issue. Comm. Ingell felt that it is advantageous to include such conditions in CUPs so that enforcement officers know what to look for when they are inspecting various establishments. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ketz CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121370 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 515 &TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 19, 19&9, MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He noted that the applicant's representative, Elizabeth Srour, had written a letter dated October 2, 1989, asking that this matter again be continued. He noted that the plans have been revised to satisfy the planning staff; however, after discussing the issue with the building staff, the..applicaat has,.determined that additional revisions will be necessary in regard to the driveway slope. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that this matter be continued to the hearing of October 17, 1989. Chmn. Rue and Comm. Moore both noted that they would be absent from the meeting of October 17. It was therefore suggested that the matter be continued to the meeting of November 8, 1989. Public Hearing opened at 7:35 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stated that 8th Street is narrow and is very heavily used. She noted that there are no sidewalks on this street, and she felt that this should be taken into consideration before any approval is granted of this project. She also stated that the setbacks on the street should be recorded, noting that this street is very old. Mildred Michaels, co-owner of the property in question, concurred that this is a very narrow street and people have a difficult time getting in and out of their driveways. She stated that sidewalks will make the matter worse because people park in their driveways as well as the aprons in front of the driveways. She discussed the setbacks and stated that it would not be fair to penalize one property owner when others do not meet the setback requirements. She stated that the proposed project will not be set out any further than other projects on the street. She suggested that this street be made one­ way since it is so heavily traveled. Tyna Winters, 425 Gould Avenue, asked whether the Commission is again considering an additional three units on a two-unit lot. 5 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Mr. Schubach explained that this lot meets the requirements for three units, noting that it is zoned R-3, high density residential. He noted that until several years ago, four units would have been allowed on this particular lot. Comm. Peirce asked about the proposed sidewalk mentioned on the plans. Mr. Schubach stated that sidewalks are within the purview of the Public Works Department; he would have to inquire further for additional information on sidewalks. Comm. Moore stated that the sidewalk issue should be confirmed, noting that this street is indeed very narrow. Public Hearing continued at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 1989. Comm. Moore noted that he will be absent from the meeting of October 17, which he regrets because he feels very strongly about traffic problems on 8th Street. Chmn. Rue noted that he too will be absent on October 17. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Chmn. Rue as second, to continue this matter to the meeting of Wednesday, November 8, 1989, (since Tuesday, November 7, 1989, is election day). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ketz CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121471 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1101 VALLEY DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 26, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed condominium and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 4,640 square feet, or 58 feet by 80 feet. The current use is as a single-family house. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct three attached condominium units on a rectangular lot located at the corner of Valley Drive and 11th Street. The three proposed units contain approximately 2330 square feet each, and contain two bedrooms, a mezzanine, a bonus room, and two and a half baths. The proposed structure has two stories and a mezzanine level above a garage. Proposed architectural features include a stucco exterior finish, dark anodized aluminum windows, glass block, and pipe railings on the balconies. Several rectangular windows and exterior balconies break up the facade of the otherwise regimented, bulky, and flat appearance of the structure. The style is contemporary with the flavor of the "international style." 6 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 The project meets the minimum parking requirements. There are six enclosed parking spaces in three separate garages, and six guest spaces are available in the 17-foot setback behind the garages. The guest parking is adequate to replace the two on-street parking spaces lost as a result of the curb cut along 11th Street. The subject lot is, by definition, a reverse corner lot. Therefore, its front yard is on Valley Drive, and one of its side yards is on 11th Street. Although 11th Street front yards are required to be a minimum of ten feet pursuant to the zoning map, on this lot the 11th Street frontage is defined as a side yard, and pursuant to Section 603 the setback for the street side of a "reverse corner lot" is "equal to the front yard setback required on the abutting lot to the rear or equal to 10 percent of the lot width, whichever is the lesser." In this case the lesser is 10 percent of the lot width, or 5.8 feet. Therefore, the project, as proposed, conforms to minimum setbacks by providing five feet, one inch on Valley Drive, and five feet, ten inches on 11th Street. Since the only other residential project facing Valley Drive on this block was approved with a five-foot front setback (the adjacent lot), staff believes that the proposed five feet, one inch is appropriate for Valley Drive. However, staff is concerned about the proposed setback along 11th Street since it is inconsistent with the requirement for setbacks along the rest of the street. Also, the proposed project's driveways and entrances are oriented to 11th Street, making it seem that the project is functionally facing 11th Street. As such, staff is recommending a condition that the plans be revised to provide a minimum ten-foot setback along the 11th Street frontage. The plans conform to all other minimum planning and zoning requirements. The lot coverage is 64 per cent, adequate private open space is pro:v;ided on mezzanine-level decks, and 200 cubic feet of storage is provided on the ground floor. The subject property is located in an area of the city undergoing a rapid transition from smaller single-family homes to large multiple-unit condominiums, many recently completed and several under construction. In staff's opinion, this type of project is therefore compatible with the surroundings. However, staff believes that because of the high visibility of this corner location, the Planning Commission should carefully consider the architectural appearance of this proposal when making its final decision. Comm. Moore asked whether staff has done an analysis on the safety of parking for Unit A. He stated that the corner of 11th Street and Valley Drive is quite dangerous. He could envision a car backing out of Unit A, only ten feet from the corner, the view shielded by a planter, and a dangerous condition existing. Mr. Schubach recommended that the planting material be of a low-growing variety in order to minimize view blockage potential. He stated that this project meets the corner cut-off requirement specified in the code. Comm. Peirce asked about the location of the proposed planter. He recommended that the planter be only several inches high for safety purposes. Public Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Ken Morrisey, 1101 Valley Drive, applicant, stated that he had no objection to keeping the planter area low. In response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the setbacks on 11th Street, he stated that he feels it is important that it be offset and that it avoid a boxy appearance. He felt that the proposal is one which will be important to the City. 7 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Comm. Peirce noted that staff is recommending a ten-foot setback, rather than a five­ foot setback. He asked the applicant's opinion on that fact. Mr. Morrisey stated that the larger setback would require the three units to be pushed back in order to make all three units flush; he felt that such a configuration would greatly detract from the appearance and style of the project. He felt that the project as proposed is interesting and has style. He felt that a major attraction of the project is having the units stepped back from one another. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission on several points: (1) he expressed umbrage with the staff report, explaining that the report paints a negative view of the project, and staff makes it appear that the project barely squeaks by on the minimum standards when in fact it is over on many standards; (2) he stated that the stepping action provides rounded corners, whereas flattening of the corners makes for large, boxy projects; (3) he stated that the project provides six guest parking spaces, rather than the four which are required; (4) he stated that four parking spaces are being provided per unit; (5) he felt that staff does not have the expertise to make architectural decisions on a project; (6) he commented that he is very comfortable with the appearance of this project. Mr. Compton continued: (1) he stated that there is excess open space, noting that 300 feet per unit is required, and in this project one unit has 350 square feet, and another unit has 450 square feet; (2) he felt that the staff analysis needs to take into account extras such as the additional open space; (3) he discussed the floor plans and elevations and discussed how he designed this particular project in regard to the setbacks; (4) he stated that he discussed with staff the project in relationship to the setbacks and was informed by staff that there would not be any problem; (5) staff now appears to have changed the ir m inds in regard to the setbacks; (6) he continued hy discussing the various setbacks on this project as depicted on the plans; (7) he felt that by stepping the building, he has dealt wit h the intent of the ten-foot setback at the corn er; (8) he stated that the available setback was utilized to provide for open space for the rear unit; (9) he stated that usable private open space, as well as architectural features, would be reduced by requiring the larger setback as the project relates to the corner placement. Mr. Compton went on: (1) he agreed that this is a prominent corner, and care was taken in designing this project; (2) he agreed that the project is large; however, trends dictate that larger projects sell because that is what the public is demanding; (3) interesting architectural details are provided in this project, such as pop-outs; (4) he stated that he worked as closely as possible with the ten-foot setback in designing this project; (5) he noted concern that the staff has change d their opinion from what was origi nally discusse d during the design phase of this project; (5) he felt that the larger setback would create a negative, rather than a positive, effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Compton, in response to comments from Chmn. Rue in regard to the rolling configuration of the interior of the units, stated that the elevations show the stepped and rounded effect, particularly on the east elevation. He stated that the rounded effect will minimize a sharp feel at the setback line. Mr. Compton stated that it would be easier to design projects if the rules did not continually change midway through projects. Had he known that a ten-foot setback was going to be required, he would have provided it originally. He stated that he felt there would be no problem with the 5'8" setback, particularly when the surrounding area is taken into account and the way that this project is stepped. 8 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Tyna Winters, 425 Gould Avenue, asked whether there is a safety requirement of ten feet for setbacks. Chmn. Rue explained that setbacks are not a safety issue; rather, it is an issue of neighborhood continuity. Mr. Schubach stated that this project meets the cut-off requirements in regard to safety. He noted, however, that concerns have been voiced regarding setbacks; therefore, staff now addresses setbacks when projects are proposed. He continued by explaining, in response to a request from Chmn. Rue, what staff looks for in regard to setbacks. He noted that this project is somewhat unique, in that the sideyard is on 11th Street, and the front yard is on Valley Drive. After staff reviewed the plans, it was determined that the project should provide more than the minimum setback. Public Hearing closed at 8:08 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission and Council have concurred that it is desirable for new projects to conform with the existing neighborhoods. He noted that instances such as this are difficult because the actual neighborhood is on 11th Street; although, since this is a reverse lot, the address is actually on Valley Drive. He felt that this could be a test case in regard to corner lots. He felt that neighborhood continuity should be maintained; however, someone without prior direction from staff will proceed with the information he is given by staff. Comm. Moore stated that if this project is required to provide a flat front, the design will suffer. He is therefore persuaded that the stepping of the project will be beneficial and is important to having good visual impact. He stated that, even though he likes the proposed style, the project itself is huge. He noted concern for the neighbor immediately to the west, who will be presented with a monumental wall; however, that is not reason enough for him to favor denial of this project. Comm. Moore felt that the public will soon rise up and say that, even though projects meet the code requirements, the code is too lenient. He noted concern over the profusion of huge projects all over the City. He would like to see restraint used in the design of these new units going in. Comm. Moore stated, however, that he will favor the project as proposed. Comm. Peirce, even though sympathizing with the architect's desire to step the building to make it more attractive, felt that this is a very large project which will be built to the max. He strongly supported following the trends in having new projects conform to existing neighborhoods. He noted that this could be a test case, however, because of the placement on the corner lot. He questioned where the front of the project actually is, and he noted that there is really no back yard either, since the project is built right to the limit. He stated that he could favor this project only if a ten-foot setback is required. He stated that there are other options for a visually-appealing project, even with a ten-foot setback. Comm. lngell noted concern over this project, stating that he is very much in favor of keeping neighborhoods aligned. He questioned whether a disservice would be done to this neighborhood by approving the project with a ten-foot setback and having a project which is bulkier in appearance. He stated that he agreed with the comments made by Comm. Moore in regard to the design. 9 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Chmn. Rue noted that many times applicants proceed with information obtained by staff, but the rules then change. He did not feel it would be fair to penalize an applicant in such an instance. He felt that if there is a problem with the standards, they should be addressed independently from individual projects. Chmn. Rue noted that six guest parking spaces have been provided for this project. He noted that since two on-street parking spaces are lost, there is still a net gain in parking. He stated that this project meets the code requirements of the City. He felt that the project should be approved; however, he suggested that the corner lots and the issue of bulk be addressed in the future. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-72, with the following amendments: Condition Nos. 3 and l0(a) shall be amended to state that the setback shall be 6 feet_,_ 8 inches. Mr. Compton stated that he does not want to have this project be a test case. He stated that the applicant is willing to pull in a foot further off of the setback in the front so that there is a minimum 61811 setback along 11th Street, and a 10'10" setback on the other end. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Chmn. Rue Comm. Peirce None Comm. Ketz CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, VARIANCE, AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW AN ADDITION OF AN ALUMINUM AWNING FOR _£ABS AND DELETION OF PARKING AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 25, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the amendment to the conditional use permit, parking plan, and variance. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot area is 17,000 square feet. The present use is as an auto wash and gas station. There are currently six parking spaces provided. The environmental designation is categorically exempt. On October 26, 1971, a conditional use permit was approved to operate a car wash with gasoline sales. In 1988 the planning staff discovered the awning, which was built without a permit, in a routine field check. On December 1, 1988, the applicant applied for an amendment to the conditional use permit. On January 19, 1989, the staff review committee required the applicant to submit a parking plan. On July 31, 1989, the applicant submitted a revised parking plan. The subject property is surrounded by Aviation Boulevard from the north, Pacific Coast Highway from the west, 10th Street from the south, and a retail store and a single-family residential dwelling from the east side. The property contains a 3500 square-foot building for car wash, office space, lobby, patio, and two dual gasoline pumps. The awning is 21 by 35 feet in size and is located in the rear parking lot, where the customer and employee parking spaces are supposed to be located according to the 10 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 original conditional use permit. The purpose of this awning is to provide additional space for detailing and could be used as a shade for the cars that have been washed manually. In the original permit, approved on October 26, 1971, the applicant was required to provide six parking spaces. The proposed project is built in the rear parking lot, replacing two of the six parking spaces. Section 1162(d) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance specifies the number of off­ street parking spaces to be calculated for new and existing construction as: "For every building in the C or M zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed or expanded, the parking requirements and turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance. In no case shall new construction reduce the parking serving an existing use below the requirements of this ordinance." In the absence of a specific parking requirement for customers and employees for car washes, staff used two approaches to calculate the parking for this site. First, the parking requirement for service stations is one space for each 1000 square feet of site area and, second, the parking requirement for general commercial uses is one space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. In both situations, the number of parking spots required for this project is 17 spaces. Currently, the applicant has 20 employees, six of whom work on weekdays. The number of employees increases to nine, according to the applicant, on Saturdays. Neighbors in contact with the Planning Department mentioned that the employees already park their vehicles on the street in the surrounding residential neighborhood. The applicant has neither provided any justification for the reduction in required parking nor shown how adequate parking will be provided for custome~~and employees. The awning is being used for detailing and shade. Detailing is a kind of activity that could create a nuisance and it is being done right next to the single-family residential home. In staff's judgment, it could be detrimental to the health and welfare of the residents. The applicant has also requested a variance to encroach 100 percent into the eight-foot setback required for commercial projects which abut residentially-zoned properties. The property to the east, adjacent to the awning, is developed residentially and zoned R-1. Section 8.5-1(9) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code describes the setback requirements for commercial buildings adjacent to residential zones as: "A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of eight feet shall be provided, and an additional two feet of setback shall be provided for each story over the first story for structures that abut residential zones, except where public rights-of-way, twenty feet or greater in width, separate commercial zone from residential zone." Based upon the staff review, several findings justify denial of the variance request: (l) An exceptional circumstance or extraordinary situation applicable to the property is not experienced by the applicant if strict application of zoning regulation [8.5-1(9)] is imposed on the subject property. The support pole problem, which is addressed in the applicant's letter, may be resolved in an appropriate site plan. Therefore, there is no absolute necessity proven by the applicant to eliminate the required parking spaces and to encroach into the eight-foot setback and construct a 35-by 21-foot awning. Further, it should be noted that the awning violates the Building Code; a one-hour constructed fire wall with no openings abutting a property line, or a three-foot setback is required. 11 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 (2) The setback requirement has been in effect for approximately two years, and although there are nearby commercial properties that do not meet the setback requirement from the residential areas, they were approved prior to the change in the law. No variance has been granted from this requirement. (3) The proposed encroachment would be incompatible with the future neighboring setbacks and could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and has the potential to be detrimental to surrounding properties; it may also set a precedence. Staff believes that there might be other options available for the applicant. One is to cut eight feet off the awning and provide current and additional parking spaces in an alternative site plan, although it is difficult to make any conclusions since plans have not been submitted which would indicate that additional parking could be provided. It should be noted that the eight-foot setback requires landscaping. If an alternative is approved, this matter could be continued so that the applicant can provide: (l) a means of accommodating at least 17 vehicles; (2) a landscaping plan; and (3) a revised site plan. Comm. Peirce noted that the resolution from 1971, 154-818, specifies in Item No. 7 that ingress and egress shall be from Aviation Boulevard only. He stated that this parking lot is actually being entered from 10th Street. Mr. Schubach concurred and explained that staff was informed that cars are being driven onto Aviation, going around the block, and then entering the car wash from 10th Street. Comm. Peirce continued by discussing how cars are entering and leaving this car wash. Mr. Schubach stated that there does in fact appear to be a problem, since part of the area is a portion of the public right-of-way. He suggested that this matter be addressed in the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, explained that the canopy is butting up against the property line which separates the commercial from residential. He stated that the canopy partly extends adjacent to residential property. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Paul Cleveland, 912 2nd Street, applicant, addressed the Commission. He discussed a number of issues: (l) he stated that he would be a fool if he thought he was getting away with something, noting that building officials constantly come to his car wash; (2) he gave detailed background information as to why he built the awning, explaining that he was told, on an informal basis, by one of the building inspectors that the awning could be erected without a permit; (3) he stated that this issue was discussed at a staff meeting, where this discussion did not become part of the minutes; (4) explained how the awning was discovered by one of the building inspectors, who informed him that the awning needed a permit. Mr. Cleveland continued by discussing: (l) his conversations with various planning staff members regard ing this project; (2) the parking plan for six spaces, because 17 parking spaces is absolut ely out of the question at this property; (3) his desire only to improve the property, not do anything illegal; (4) the pa rking plan he presented to staff, which was deemed to be too small; (5) the revised plan which was then submitted and rejected by a staff member; (6) the discovery of the eight-foot setback problem, which was all news to him since it had not previously been mentioned by staff; (7) (a) the cost of erecting the 12 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 awning, which was $6000; (b) the cost for removal which would be $1000; (c) the CUP application has cost $550; and (d) $150 to send out notices of the hearing. Mr. Cleveland went on: (1) stated that the staff report is not untrue, it merely has omissions; (2) felt that the building inspector gave him the correct information, so he proceeded with the project; (3) didn't know what to do with the parking, stating that he followed staff's recommendation only to be rejected; (4) stated he is not out to fight over this matter, and it is no longer that important to him. Mr. Cleveland continued: (l) he was disappointed in the way this entire matter has been handled; (2) he thought he was proceeding properly on the advice given by the building inspecto r; (3) he would not return for another hearing, because there is no way he can provide 17 parking spaces at this site; (4) he will abide by the decision of the Commission. Mr. Cleveland explained that the plans stamped September 18 is the current proposal. He stated that staff told him to provide six parking spaces, not 17. In response to a question from Comm. Peirce, he stated that he does not know when the opening was constructed on 10th Street, noting he has owned the property only two years. He said that the original site plans do not depict the opening in question. Even though the discussion regarding the opening was not in the staff meeting minutes, he stated someone from the Fire Department asserted that the opening has been there for many years, and someone must have approved it years ago. He stated that he had no further information in regard to the curb cut. Mr. Cleveland clarified another issue which was raised in the staff report, stating that there are actually eleven employees at the car wash during the week, and up to seventeen employees on the weekends. He stated that they <Sar pool to work since many of the employees do not have their own vehicles. He stated, however, that they sometimes do park on the street, but employees from other businesses park on the street as well. He said that sometimes people living on 10th Street use his parking area during times when the car wash is closed, and he will allow them to continue doing so. Mr. Cleveland, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the parking configuration, explained that the parking has been put back the way it was originally. He has done some design work, and the spaces could be rearranged; however, it would then be difficult to provide the appropriate turning radius. He stated that people sometimes will have their cars parked there for a short time while they go to the store or to get something to eat while their car is being washed. The car is then parked until the customer returns. Mr. Cleveland, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding whether the parking area in question is used for detailing, stated that occasionally cars are parked there so that wax can be buffed off, especially on hot, sunny days. Mr. Cleveland, in response to comments by Chmn. Rue, stated that he felt that had he gone directly to the counter at City Hall for help before he began the project of installing the awning, things would have turned out even worse. He felt that things might possibly have turned out better had he gone directly to the Building Department rather than the Planning Department. Comm. Moore noted that this issue seems to focus on the question of whether the use of the business has been expanded, thereby triggering the need for additional parking so that there would be 17 parking spaces. He noted that the awning outwardly was installed to provide shade for the six parking spaces; however, the awning covers only two and a third 13 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 of the six parking spaces, and it extends over an area where cars are not parked. It therefore appears that the awning was constructed to provide shade to an area where detailing work is performed. Mr. Cleveland stated that had the Commission seen his first set of plans, things would not appear this way. He stated that he followed staff's recommendation and redesigned the parking spaces. He stated that nothing has changed at this business; i.e., cars have always been detailed, and cars have always been parked for short terms while people go to the store. He stressed that he has not expanded this business. Nothing has changed, except the awning being put up. He felt that staff obtained the impression that the use had expanded because there is a sign on the awning. Comm. Moore noted that it would seem apparent that the Commission would want those spaces used only for parking; therefore, it is possible that a condition could require that there be no electrical outlets in that area as well as other conditions to ensure that the spaces would be used for parking only. Mr. Cleveland noted that the six parking spaces seem to be an adequate number for this business. He stated that he does not like the parking arrangement; but he followed staff's recommendation in rearranging them. Mike Rodriguez, 840 10th Street, noted concern that people go around Aviation, then go up to 10th Street to use the rear entrance. He stated that the detailing area is used frequently. He stated that cars are parking on the lot unless it is very busy, when cars are then parked on the street. He stated that there is heavy traffic on 10th Street, especially on weekends and late afternoon. He opposed the awning because it brings more traffic to the back, and he feels there is ample room in the front of the business. He felt that if the awning remains, business will be increased and that area will be used for detailing. He would favor the approach being closed and the wall being finished off so that traffic will be stopped from coming down 10th Street. Beverly Rowe, 933 10th Street, urged denial of the permit for the same reasons as stated by Mr. Rodriguez. She stated that she would hate to see the loss of any parking spaces. She noted concern over employees parking on the street. She noted concern that, with the traffic on 10th Street, access to P.C.H. would be more difficult. If the awning brings more traffic to 10th Street, she would be opposed; however, if there is no increase, she has no problem with the awning. Public Hearing closed at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Moore discussed the relationship between the awning and its use to the business. He asked how staff would feel if the awning were over open parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated that any floor area is considered expansion to the business. If the awning were to be a covering for employees' cars, a setback adjacent to the property line would still be required to satisfy both the zoning code and Building Department requirements. Mr. Schubach discussed the fact that the parking was reoriented at the request of staff. He stated that the alternate configuration creates problems in regard to the required turning radius. He stated that a parking plan could be improvised utilizing stacked parking strictly for employees' use. There could then be valet parking for customers. He stated that the setback issue has to do with the variance request, rather than the CUP request. 14 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Comm. Peirce noted that the City has discouraged any work from taking place in parking spaces. He stated that the original CUP request has no requirement regarding the number of parking spaces. He stated that the area in the rear was not originally construed to be part of the car wash. He therefore noted concern over the opening on 10th Street and questioned how it was created. Comm. Ingell noted that it is very difficult to read the plans. He also noted that his set of plans is stamped with a July date, whereas the other Commissioners have plans stamped in September. Public Hearing reopened at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Cleveland stated that the plans are exactly the same. He noted that plans were originally submitted in July; however, additional copies were submitted in September. The plans were merely stamped on the date received. Public Hearing closed at 8:54 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell noted concern over cars not being able to exit from the rear if the driveway is sealed off. Comm. Peirce stated that the south end of the lot is where the cars should exit. He found it difficult to envision how the configuration was created, though. Comm. Ingell noted concern that the three lanes will be filled with customers waiting to get their cars washed. If someone wanted to leave, it would be quite difficult; therefore, he felt that the exit in the rear is necessary and must have been part of the original concept. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, pointed out on the plans how cars could egress from the site during business hours. Comm. Ingell and Mr. Schubach discussed various ways cars could get out of the car wash. Chmn. Rue stated that this is an unfortunate occurrence because the owner attempted to obtain information from the City; however, there have been misunderstandings. He felt that this is strictly a zoning matter, and there do not appear to be grounds to allow the awning to remain. He felt that retaining the awning would encourage detailing work to take place in that area. He stated that there might be a reduction in traffic on 10th Street if the awning is removed because there would be less work taking place in that area. Chmn. Rue felt it would be appropriate to deny the variance and require that the awning be removed. He stated that since the driveway is existing, it should be allowed to remain, noting that it might be beneficial in the event of an emergency when vehicles need to get in and out. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the variance request for the awning, and that everything else remain as is. Comm. Moore questioned whether additional conditions are necessary to ensure that work is not done in the area in question. 15 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Comm. Peirce stated that residents can complain if there are problems. He also noted that enforcement officers occasionally check businesses to ensure CUP compliance. Mr. Schubach explained that if the variance for the awning is denied, the parking plan and conditional use permit amendment become moot. He stated that the current resolution states that ingress and egress is supposed to be only from Aviation. He noted, however, that if the awning is removed and work is no longer done in that area, people would probably use only the Aviation entrance. Chmn. Rue stated that if the area will be used only for parking, the commercial egress and ingress is from Aviation. He felt that the 10th Street entrance/exit would be an auxiliary use, and one that is not intensive. Chmn. Rue felt that it is very unfortunate that the applicant was given incorrect information by a City worker. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ketz Recess taken from 9:00 P .M. to 9:08 P .M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR OUTDOOR SEATING AND TO BE A SNACK SHOP TO SERVE SANDWICHES AT 517 PIER AVENUE! THE PEPPERMINT CAFE AND BAKERY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 25, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit for outdoor seating for the bakery and to deny the request for snack shop status to serve sandwiches and salads. Mr. Schubach noted that two letters had been received on this project: from Leslie Newton, in favor of the request; and from Richard Mccurdy, in opposition. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as a bakery, including unauthorized outdoor seating and sale of sandwiches, formerly "Cake Walk" Bakery. The floor area is 1000 square feet. The staff environmental review. committee, at their . meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for this project and recommended that, if approved, a condition requiring the removal of the illegal roof sign be included. The Peppermint Cafe and Bakery obtained their business license in August of 1988. They were first notified by the City in November of 1988 that the roof sign, the outdoor seating, and the serving of sandwiches and salads were code violations. This application is a much delayed response and attempt to legalize the violations for the outdoor seating and the serving of meals, which have nonetheless continued unabated to this day. Also, the applicant agreed to remove the roof sign and was given an extended period up to June 15, 1989, in which to comply; the applicant still has not complied. The subject property is a 4000 square-foot parcel with 40 feet of frontage on Pier Avenue. The subject business is a bakery which occupies half the property in a 1000 square-foot space. The kitchen takes up approximately one half of the indoor area, with 16 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 the balance being display areas and a small seating area for about five tables. The outdoor portion of the property, which is part of the private property, is already being used for additional seating area. The area currently being used for outdoor seating is located on the owner's property and is covered by a roof overhang. The applicant is essentially paying for this area in their lease. The use of this area by patrons to take items such as coffee and pastries purchased inside does not seem to pose any problems. Staff believes that the use of this area is incidental to the business, does not significantly expand the business, and is an attractive use of the frontage. The "Peppermint Cafe and Bakery" recently replaced a previous bakery, "Cake Walk," which also had indoor seating, therefore maintaining the same use. However, the merchandise for sale has expanded beyond a typical bakery's selection to include sandwiches and salads. The Planning Commission does have the authority, if it can make the findings, to grant a conditional use permit to approve the service of sandwiches by classifying this particular bakery as a "snack shop" and allowing sandwiches as a snack item pursuant to Section 270.1 of the zoning ordinance. However, in staff's judgment, sandwiches are not usually just a snack item, and it would be stretching the intent of Section 270.l to call them a snack. As such, staff believes that the selling of these additional items has changed the use of this building to a restaurant, a change staff believes is a more intensive use because of the higher parking demand than bakeries. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space per l 00 square feet for a restaurant or snack shop; bakery is not specifically listed in· the parking requirement section of the code. One space per 250 square feet is required for commercial/ retail businesses. Only two parking spaces are available along the alley to the rear of the site; otherwise, patrons must park on the street. This has always occurred at this location for the previous bakery, so this nonconformity can be continued if a bakery use is continued. However, pursuant to Section 1162(e) of the zoning ordinance, if the use of an existing building is changed to a more intense use, parking requirements must be met. Ten parking spaces would be required for the 1000 square-foot area. Section 1152(0) of the parking section of the zoning ordinance, however, does give the Planning Commission authority to allow less parking for "snack shops" if findings can be made that characteristics of the business result in less parking being necessary. In short, in order to approve the request to serve sandwiches, the Planning Com mission would have to find: (1) that sandwiches are a snack item; and (2) that the charact eristics of this business somehow justify less parking. Staff does not believe those findings can be made. In regard to the roof sign which was also used by the previous bakery, the City's sign ordinance no longer permits roof signs. When the owner changed the face of the sign, it triggered the requirement for a sign permit. At that time the Building Department informed the applicants that the sign would have to be removed. The applicants have failed to comply. The applicants are also aware that they are currently violating the law by serving sandwiches and salads; nonetheless, they have signs in their windows advertising these items. Also, rather than remove the outdoor seating pending resolution of this application, they have continued to place tables and chairs outside. Public Hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. 17 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Marilyn Boussaid, 517 Pier Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. She discussed several issues: (1) this is a family business run in a family-oriented community; (2) she turned in a petition with over 600 signatures of people favoring approval of this request; (3) she works very hard at this bakery, which has existed for 13 or 14 years and where sandwiches have been served in the past; (4) the business also had tables outside in the past; (5) there were no problems until the name was changed to the Peppermint Cafe; (6) she wants to provide a place where people can come for a light snack; (7) almost all other bakeries in California sell sandwiches, and she has never heard of having to obtain a special license to sell them; (8) her husband has been in the business over 20 years; (9) she discussed a "typical bakery se lection, " and stated that they have been trying to obtain a specific definition of what a "typical bakery" sells; (10) she presented a letter she wrote in December to City staff in an attempt to obtain information as to what they could and could not sell; however, no answer was forthcoming; (11) the only way she can determine what to sell is by looking at what other local bakeries sell. Ms. Boussaid continued: (1) all the other local bakeries sell sandwiches, salads, soup, hot dogs, and various other items; (2) she hoped to resolve this matter involving a difference of opinion on what can be sold; (3) she felt it is not fair that they are allowed to bake their bread, but are not allowed to put cheese or other foodstuffs on it; (4) she said there is no reason for other businesses on the street to feel threatened by their selling sandwiches, because they are not the same types of establishments as this one; (5) she felt there is no need to worry about parking in the area because most of their customers arrive on foot; (6) most people do not stay at the cafe long, since they come from local businesses and many are on their breaks; (7) people who just come in to pick up sandwiches do not linger, and they therefore do not take up parking spaces for a long time; (8) she has never complained about other bakeries selling baked goods, and they are in fact competition. Ms. Boussaid went on: ( l) the people who park directly in front of her store are not actually her customers, they are going elsewhere; (2) her customers do not stay very long at the bakery. Ms. Boussaid, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding whether the petition states how the customers arrive, i.e., on foot, bike, or by car, stated that that information was not included. She stated, however, that she would be happy to do another survey to obtain that information. Chmn. Rue stated that sometimes parking requirements can be reduced if it is proved that an establishment does not need the parking because their customers arrive in ways other than by auto. Comm. Peirce referred to a letter dated January 30, 1989, from Building Director Bill Grove to attorney Leslie Newton, in which Item No. 1 states that the Boussaids applied for a license to be a bakery, stating that they intended to be a bakery only. Ms. Boussaid stated that the man in the business license department had asked if she wanted to be a "restaurant." She replied that they wanted to be a place where people could order baked goods and coffee, explaining that they thought of it in the European sense of a sidewalk cafe serving pastry and coffee. Ms. Boussaid, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding when they began serving sandwiches and salads, stated that they have been served almost from the time the restaurant opened. 18 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Diane Pollyai, 2410 Manhattan Avenue: (1) stated that this establishment is a jewel with a wonderful ambience and great food; (2) pat ronizes the bakery about four times a week and linger s over the paper; (3) most people goi ng in arrive on foot; (4) people arriving by car come and go very quick l y be c ause they are picking up take-out orders; (5) did not feel that parking would be a problem , because this is not like a restaurant where people will stay for hours; (6) this establish ment is more of a snack shop use; (7) stated that the outdoor seating does not interfere with the flow of sidewalk traffic; (8) felt the cafe should be allowed to have sandwiches and outdoor seating. Georg ia Ta too, 2247 Park Avenue : (1 ) agreed with the previous s peakers, stating that there is no t a clear definition of what can and cannot be sol d ; (2) felt the re is n ot hing wrong with putting things on the bre ad; (3) food is good here; (4) the bakery is clean a nd a wholesome atmosphere; (5) businesses of this type should be encouraged in the City; (6) favored approval of the request. Mrs. O'Connor, senior citizen: (1) said this is the first real bakery she has seen in the area, commenting that the quality of the food is excellent; (2) said this is a good place for people to walk to; (3) favored approval of the request; (4) did not feel there would be parking problems because most people driving only come to pick up orders; (5) described the great ambience at this bakery; (6) did not feel that the business should be restricted. Richard George, 2315 Gates Avenue: (1) did not feel that the real issue is the quality of food, but rather whether or not the establishment is complying with the requirements of the City; (2) felt that all usages should conform to the requirements; (3) felt it is importan t to guard against expansion of businesses unless they provide the required parking ; (4) stated that parking is already very difficult in the area; (5) stated that the petition with 600 signatures proves that there will be an increase in cars; (6) said that the sign should be legal and conforming; (7) did not think that nonconformity and flagrant violation of the rules should be rewarded by approval of this variance and CUP, which is quite old and was intended for a bakery; (8) said that there is no great question as to what bakeries can serve, noting that the requirements for keeping other foods at the proper temperatures differs considerably than the requirements for baked goods; (9) opposed the outdoor seating, stating that it can be an impediment to pedestrian traffic, cause an increase in traffic accidents, and create sanitation problems; (10) stated, however, that he would concede to the staff recommendation in regard to the outdoor seating; (11) to deviate from the parking requirements in this case would be unfair to those other businesses who have provided the required parking; (12) stated that this establishment should not be given a favored status; (13) felt that the sign should be in compliance; (14) recommended denial of the proposed request; (15) stated that all bakeries do not sell sandwiches; (16) asserted that the City has the power to demand conformance and to conduct periodic inspections to ensure compliance. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) stated that "cafe" means a place to sit down and eat as opposed to a bakery; (2) wished that this establishment would put in a full-scale bakery, stating that when she has been there, the selection is not very large; (3) stated there has not been a full-service bakery in town for many years; (4) questioned whether outside seating without a barrier around it would be putting the City at liability in the event of an accident; (5) said that all other outside eating establishments have been required to erect barriers; (6) stated that there are already seven restaurants or cafes between the fire station and Monterey; (7) didn't want to put anyone out of business; (8) did not feel another eating place is necessary in town; (9) stated that the signs should be in conformance, both rooftop and window signs; (10) noted concern over too many of the same type businesses in the same area which will undercut one another; (11) hoped that the business would expand its bakery use, not the cafe-type use. 19 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Henry Porrieau, owner of the Gem Cafe, 439 Pier Avenue: (l) has been at that location for 27 years; (2) is disturbed by the applicant applying for a ''bakery" license, and now they are selling other foods; (3) stated that this business could impact his own cafe; (4) said that it should be only a bakery; (4) stated that his customers cannot find places to park in the area; (5) felt that approval of this request will further diminish the available parking in the area; (6) noted concern over so many restaurants in the same area, especially as they relate to the parking situation; (7) stated that many other business people in the area are also concerned over traffic and parking problems; (8) opposes parking meters in the City; (9) said that CUPs must be enforced in order to regulate parking; (10) if the City continues to grant variances, the purpose will be defeated; (11) favored a bakery only, not an establishment selling other foods; (12) felt that the business should conform with the sign ordinance requirements. Ms. Boussaid: (1) said that the 600 signatures were obtained over a period of many months, which would come out to only one car per day, which would not be a burden on the parking situation; (2) said that their health department license states "restaurant"; (3) stressed that the chairs and tables on the sidewalk are not on the City portion, and do not interfere with pedestrian traffic; (4) requested additional information in regard to a definition on what can be sold at bakeries; (5) named other bakeries in the area which sell sandwiches as well as other foods; (6) clarified that she is not asking to change from a bakery to a restaurant, but merely is requesting to be allowed to serve what other bakeries serve; (7) responding to the charge that the bakery does not have a full selection, stated that the bakery sells what their customers prefer; (8) regarding the roof sign, stated that it has been there for ten or fifteen years, and they merely repainted it with the new name, so they do not think it constitutes a new sign as asserted by the City; (9) stated that the code says no alterations are allowed, and they do not feel that repainting is an "alteration"; (10) said they have therefore not removed the sign, pending clarification of the ordinance; (11) stated she would like to keep the sign; however, she is now resigned to taking it down. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P .M. Chmn. Rue noted that parking is a major issue in the City. He said that the businesses are getting new business and are therefore creating the need for additional parking. He hoped that businesses would band together in the future in an attempt to create additional parking spaces. He hoped that business people give their input when the traffic circulation element is discussed. Chmn. Rue stated that he had no objection to the tables and chairs being on private property, noting that they do not interfere and it is within the property owner's right to use that space. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, explained that repainting a sign is considered by the City to be an alteration; therefore, it must conform to the sign ordinance regulations in effect. He stated that signs are within the purview of the Building Department, and this interpretation has been used by the department for many years. Chmn. Rue stated that he would like clarification from the Building Department in regard to what constitutes alterations in signs. Comm. Moore stated that in his experience on the Board of Zoning Adjustments, a sign was considered to be altered if it was repainted. He stated that it was an attempt to keep signs in compliance with new regulations by eliminating old nonconformities. 20 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 c-, Mr. Lee read from the City Code, Section 28A-16(c), relating to the issue of altering signs. He continued by discussing with the Commissioners what constitutes a change. Chmn. Rue asked whether take-out businesses have different requirements for parking. Mr. Schubach explained that take-outs actually require more parking because they do not provide seating, and the use is more intense. He continued by explaining various parking requirements for various types of uses. Comm. Ingell asked whether it is being proposed to add additional seating at this business. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would have no problem with the seating, so long as it remains a bakery. He stated that staff has no objection to the three tables outside; however, allowing the three tables outside would actually be an addition to the seating. Mr. Schubach stated that there is actually enough floor area at this bakery to have additional seating, and the additional seating is proposed to be outside. He stated that an additional condition could be added to the resolution specifying that seating shall not exceed what is currently depicted on the plans. Comm. lngell stated that when the code was written, a bakery was a bakery, not a snack shop or sandwich shop. Even though there may be a trend in what bakeries sell today, he felt that new bakeries should be considered as restaurants if they intend to sell these other products as well. He did not feel it would be appropriate to let this one just evolve without providing the adequate parking. He therefore could not favor allowing this bakery to turn into a sandwich or snack shop. Comm. Peirce agreed with the comments expressed by Comm. Ingell. Chmn. Rue stated that the only solution for this business is to provide the required parking. Comm. lngell felt that it is also important that the definition of ''bakery" is made clear in the code. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ing ell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-73, wit h the modification that a Condition No. l0(a) be added specifying that existing seating, both inside and outside, as shown on the plans will be allowed (staff to add exact number of seats). Comm. Peirce noted that Condition No. 2 specifies quite clearly what can be sold at this business. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ketz DRAFT CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 27, 1989. He suggested that the public hearing be opened to allow public input, that staff and the consultants be directed as 21 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 deemed appropriate, and that this matter be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1989, for the purpose of obtaining additional input and recommendations. In January 1986 the City Council directed staff to submit a budget proposal for FY86-87 regarding revising the Circulation Element. In January of 1987 Requests for Proposals were sent to ten consulting firms. In July 1987 a contract was signed between OKS Associates and the City to prepare the element. The Planning Staff has examined the draft document submitted by OKS Associates and is pleased with the document in general. However, the planning staff does concur with the Public Works Department staff as indicated in the memorandum provided. Public Hearing opened at 10:13 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Michael Meyer and Gary Hamrick, OKS Associates, made a presentation regarding the element. Mr. Meyer showed view-graphs on the overhead projector which included actual pages from the Draft Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element dated June 1989 and prepared by OKS Associates. Mr. Meyer discussed the actual cover of the document and the table of contents, including the introduction; goals, objectives, and policies; existing circulation system conditions; transportation; parking; and glossary. Mr. Meyer discussed key issues which were addressed in the report: traffic congestion; locations where intersections are above the acceptable level of service; through traffic, and non-residential through traffic; the levels of congestion an Pacific Coast Highway; prohibition of parking during peak hours on P .C.H.; and a projection of future traffic volumes on the City streets. Mr. Meyer discussed the key issues in the transportation section: various modes of transportation, including rapid transit; truck routes and their locations as well as potential new truck routes to the commercial areas; and bicycle routes and their locations and the types of uses generated by bicycle use. Mr. Meyer commented on the key issues in the parking section: location of existing parking deficiencies and proposed new parking areas; impact of future growth and zoning and what types of parking will be required for the future land uses in the City; evaluation of the pros and cons of changing parking on Hermosa Avenue; and evaluation of the elimination of peak hour parking along Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Meyer continued: (1) showed the previous traffic circulation element, and he explained the purpose of an element; (2) discussed collector, arterial, and local streets and their purposes; (3) showed a view-graph of the existing traffic volumes, including Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia; (4) showed an illustration of intersections as they relate to peak hour levels of service and their indicators; (5) discussed likely future developments, projecting into the year 2010; (6) discussed the level of growth as it is factored into adjacent communities and the corresponding projections; (7) talked about the license plate survey do ne along P .C .H. in an attempt to study the traffic entering the City from the north and where those cars were going; (8) discussed the pattern of distribution of the traffic throughout the City ; (9) discussed Valley and Ardmore and their volumes and usage and t he recom mendation that they both function as collectors throughout the City; (10) reco mmended that Longfellow and Highland also function as 22 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 collectors and be designated as such; (11) all other arterials should continue to be designated as such. Mr. Meyer briefly summarized the section on goals, policies, and objectives. He said that the overall goal for all three elements is to provide a balanced transportation system for the safe and efficient transport of people and goods consistent with the goals of the Land Use Element. Mr. Meyer stated that there are four main objectives: (l) to maximize the use of alternative transportation modes and multi-passenger vehicles for transportation within and through the City and decrease reliance on single passenger automobiles; (2) to protect the environment on local residential streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods; (3) to ensure an adequate supply of parking, both on-street and off-street, to meet the needs of both residents and commercial businesses; and (4) to develop and construct transportation improvements to provide the capacity and performance necessary to meet the service needs of the public while preserving open space and the special environmental quality of the City. Mr. Meyer stated that a summary of recommendations can be found in Section 3, beginning on Page 31. The recommendations include: (l) limiting parking along P.C.H. during peak hours; (2) various alternatives for Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue; (3) installing signals at various intersections where future traffic volumes will increase; (4) maintaining Valley and Ardmore as two-way streets; (5) putting in one-way streets only in selected portions of the north end of the City; (6) increasing parking requirements for restaurants; (7) continued pursuit of studying parking structures and shuttle systems; (8) suggested that angled parking not be implemented on Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Meyer continued by briefly summarizing some of the Ci>ther recommendations contained in various sections of the element. Tyna Winters, 425 Gould Avenue: (1) discussed at length the configuration of Gould Avenue and recommended that it have a 25 MPH speed limit; (2) described the noise and traffic problems on Gould Avenue; (3) wanted to have bump patterns on the street in order to reduce the speed; (4) requested that parking at the park continue to be non­ metered; (5) asked that there be adequate signage on the street; and (6) requested that the center sign be moved over two feet. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste: (l) did not support the removal of parking along Pacific Coast Highway and continued by discussing problems which would result from such removal; (2) dicussed fumes and noise along Valley and Ardmore; (3) felt that Valley/Ardmore travelers will not use Pacific Coast Highway; (4) discussed the number of traffic lanes in Hermosa and the resulting increase in the number of cars by adding add itional lanes by removal of parking lanes; (5) did not think that tra ffic in the City will decrease; (6) discussed what has happened in Manhattan Beach since parking lanes have been removed from the highway, commenting on the number accidents which have occurred; (7) commented on parking which will spill into the residential neighborhoods if parking is removed from the highway. Mr. Lissner went on: (l) he recommended that the new circulation element provide for two left-hand turn lanes at westbound Artesia to south-bound P.C.H.; (2) he favored a 25 MPH speed limit on Gould Avenue; (3) he discussed methods by which speed calculations are determined; (4) he wanted to reclassify Gould as a local street, so that the speed could be lowered to 25 MPH; (5) he discussed neighborhood attempts to reclassify Gould and the problems which have been encountered in that effort; (6) he urged the 23 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Commission to consider redesignating Gould; (7) he presented letters from the Prices and the Adams {both residents on El Oeste) requesting that the speed limit on Gould be 25 MPH. {Comm. Peirce left Council Chambers at 10:53 P.M.) Tyna Winters, 425 Gould Avenue: {l) stated that she has appeared several times reques ting a 25 MPH speed limit on Gould and 100 percent of the neighbors want to have the speed limit lowered; (2) said that everyone favors the small speed bumps; (3) said that most people do not care for the one-block long bike path, which took away six parking spaces from Gould Avenue; (4) stated that 100 percent of the people on Gould Avenue desire to have two lanes turning onto P.C.H.; (5) questioned the consultant as to why a 25 MPH posted speed limit is not possible on Gould. Mr. Meyer explained how speed limits are determined for various streets, stating that surveys are done before a final decision is made. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, asked the consultant how streets are reclassified from collector and arterial status to local street status. Mr. Meyer responded by explaining how streets are redesignated, stating that a redesignation would not automatically change how the traffic is handled on the street. He noted that traffic volumes must also be taken into account. He stated that it is not appropriate to reclassify a street, making it at odds with how the street is actually being utilized. Comm. Moore discussed the angle of redesignating streets for the purpose of using radar enforcement, and he asked for the consultant's opinion. Mr. Meyer stated that he has not studied that issue, but noted that he could return with additional information at the next meeting. Chmn. Rue stated that this issue will be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1989. Chmn. Rue, noting that Comm. Peirce had to leave the meeting, read the written list of comments given to him by Comm. Peirce: (1) he favored the elimination of parking on the west side of P.C.H. in the evening; (2) he supported a parking structure downtown; (3) he opposed further work on additional signal installation in the city; (4) he opposed one­ way streets; (5) he did not favor the widen ing of Ardmore/Valley; (6) he opposed any new stree t construction; (7) he opposed any bike path along the greenbelt; (7) he wanted to leave the Gould speed limit as is, 35 MPH. Comm. Ingell: (1) favored a parking structure downtown; (2) opposed the widening of Valley/Ardmore; (3) questioned the wisdom of removing parking on southbound P.C.H. during peak hours without first providing parking elsewhere. Comm. Moore: (l) stated that he will take into consideration how many businesses would be affected by removal of parking along the highway; (2) noted concern over traffic accidents and lack of a safety analysis; (3) noted concern over truck weight on streets and possible damage caused by vibrations; (4) discussed the Pier Avenue crossing by Ardmore and noted concern over additional traffic and its effect on other streets; (5) discussed the limited ability to travel Valley and Ardmore; (6) questioned whether there would be any benefit to the City to have more back-and-forth connections between Valley and Ardmore, especially between Pier Avenue and 27th Street because of the great grade difference. 24 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Chmn. Rue: (1) questioned whether the issue of adding one-way streets in the south end of town could be addressed, especially as it would relate to parking; (2) questioned the feasibility of 8th Street being one-way westbound, and 2nd Street being one-way eastbound; (3) commented that crosswalks have been removed along Valley and Ardmore and questioned whether it has been beneficial. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the meeting of November 21, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Moore, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Ketz, Peirce a) Memorandum Regarding Continuance of the Master Conditional Use Permit at 555 Pacific Coast Highway Mr. Schubach explained that this matter will be coming back to the Commission at a future meeting. He noted that the applicant appears to be very willing to comply with City requirements; therefore, staff has no objection to continuing the matter. b) Letter From and Response to Mr. and Mrs. Spangberg Mr. Schubach stated that the letter and response were included for informational purposes only. MOTION by Comm. Ing ell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Meeting Dates Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed various dates for future meetings. It was noted that the first meeting of November will be Wednesday, November 8, 1989. The first meeting of January will be Wednesday, January 3, 1990, if there are no objections. Mr. Schubach stated that there will probably be only one meeting December, as has been the custom with the Commission; however, the December meeting date can be discussed later. d) Letter Regarding Appeal of Variance Denial at 415 Pier Avenue Chmn. Rue stated that he would like to have an update on this matter as information becomes available. e) Planning Department Activity Report for August 1989 No action taken. 25 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 f) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for October 10, 1989, City Council Meeting Chmn. Rue stated that he will attend as liaison, if possible. g) City Council Minutes of August 22 and September 12, 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell asked when the new zoning standards would be studied. He also asked whether there will be design standards for condominiums. Chmn. Rue favored a City Council/Planning Commission workshop session to address the standards. Comm. Moore suggested that formulas to reduce bulk be studied. Chmn. Rue and Comm. Moore both noted that they would be absent from the meeting of October 17, 1989. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to adjourn at 11:29 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of October 3, 1989. 1----y I Mich u le/ea Date / I 26 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89