HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-15 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
NOVEMBER 15, 2005, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pizer at 7:00 P.M.
Commissioner Kersenboom led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer
Absent: None
Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Kent Robertson, Senior Planner
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary
ORAL[WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Perrotti announced that on Sunday, December 18, 2005, 3:00 P.M., the Nualani's
Polynesia, a local hula dancing club, will be presenting Christmas in Polynesia at the Hermosa
Beach Playhouse.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Approval of the October 18, 2005 Minutes
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE
the October 18, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as -follows:
AYES:
Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Pizer
ABSENT:
None
5. Resolution(s) for consideration
a. Resolution P.C. 05-60 denying a Zone Change from C-3 (General Commercial) to R-1
(Single -Family Residential) at 1255 Prospect Avenue.
MOTION by Vice -Chair Hoffinan, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE
Resolution P.C. 05-60. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Pizer
ABSENT: None
1 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
(Item No. 13 was considered out of Agenda order.)
HEARING(S)
13. NR 05-14 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent
increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 126 34th
Street (continued from October 18, 2005 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the December 7, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant needs more time to submit plans in order to comply
with the height requirements and the other development standards.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice -Chair Hoffinan, to CONTINUE to
December 7, 2005, NR 05-14 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-
percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 126 34th
Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Vice -Chairman Hoffinan recused himself from consideration of Item No. 6 because the project
architect is currently working for him on a project.)
6. L-5 -- Legal determination for two dwelling units at 66 11th Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this property contains 2 separate two-story structures that were
originally constructed in 1910 and both historically used commercially and residentially; stated
that the rear building contains 3 small dwelling units, which are consistent with the City's permit
records; and noted that the building fronting on llth Street contains 6 dwelling units, based on
the City's permit records, with 3 units on each floor. He noted that according to the applicant,
the front building has contained 8 units since the 1940's, or earlier, with 4 units on each floor.
He advised that the 1957 Sanborn Map shows 6 units in the front building; noted that the
property is currently zoned C-2, which would not permit any residential dwellings; and,
therefore, the current use, whether it's 9 or 11 units, is nonconforming. He added that the
applicant is seeking a legal determination for 11 units. He stated that the current minimum size
for a dwelling unit is 600 square feet for a 1-bedroom unit; and noted that dating back to the
1940's, the zoning designation was commercial, but at that time and up until 1956, multi -family
residential uses were also allowed in the C Zone.
2 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is currently remodeling the existing front building,
upgrading it structurally, along with plumbing and electrical; noted that staff inspected the
property in connection with this remodel on September 21, 2005, when the building was stripped
to framing, and that staff found evidence of what was once originally one unit now appearing to
be two on the floor west of the hallway in the front building; and that the front building had been
partitioned sometime in the past to add an additional unit. He noted that evidence was also seen
in comparing the newer type of construction in the western unit with the older framing lumber in
the eastern unit, which appeared to be 2 units on each floor from the original construction and the
small size of the kitchens in the westerly rear units; and stated that this inspection showed these
units which are in dispute were likely created by a partition that was not part of the original
construction — noting that it's not clear how recent this partitioning occurred.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Zoning Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the
opportunity to make a legal determination at the request of the property owner when it can be
shown that the dwelling unit in question was constructed prior to January 1959 in accordance
with then applicable laws and that the use of the dwelling has been continuous; and stated that
the Planning Commission may also validate that conditions are legally nonconforming for a
building constructed after 1959 based on the evidence presented — pointing out that the applicant
has presented his own evidence. He noted that staff was able to determine some of the permit
history from the permit records on file, the Sanborn Maps, and from some legal records on file;
and he summarized this research as noted in staff report (of record).
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant purchased this property in 2005 with the
understanding it contained 11 units — pointing out that documentation has been provided by the
applicant supporting this assertion; advised that the applicant is in the process of modernizing
and upgrading the building; stated that the applicant has provided letters from the former owner,
Thelma Greenwald, who states that when she purchased the property in 1951, it was 11 units;
and that these units were used in conjunction with the Sea Sprite Motel for overflow — pointing
out that it is not clear if the units were being used for short-term transient tenancy in connection
with the motel or rented as apartments or both. He stated that the former property manager of
the building indicates that it was 11 units and that it was 11 units when the owners purchased the
property in 1995; however, he noted that the Residential Building Report (RBR) in 1999
indicates there were 9 units — pointing out, though, that this document was not signed. Director
Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has reconstructed the use of these structures, which is
enclosed as a narrative attached to staff report; and in summary, he stated that since the City's
permit records show 9 units and the recent use of the building has been 11 units, the question is
when were the two additional units created, was it after 1995 or did it occur prior to 1951. He
stated that staff s best guess is this occurred sometime after the 50's or 60's and that it was done
without permits; added that if this were done after 1956, both the number of units and the
parking would not have been in conformance with the code at the time; and prior to that time,
there would be no specific density restrictions or parking regulations.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the consequences of making these two units legal are that the
City would be authorizing the continued use of these two small units with their own kitchens,
separate doorways, and access hallways; that, in contrast, if it is not declared legal, the front and
the rear units would have to be connected and rented as one single unit; and noted that if the
Commission believes the evidence demonstrates the Commission can make a legal
Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
determination, staff will return with a resolution at the next Commission meeting.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Brian Burrescia, applicant, presented a floor plan of this building, believing it is from 1910-
1912; highlighted the fact that there are several pieces of contradictory evidence in the property
records; and he attempted to piece together the history of this property, noting that the paperwork
drifts between 9 and 11 units. He distributed to the Commission an old photograph depicting
this building, its floor plan, and the surrounding neighborhood; stated that the floor plan from
approximately 1912 indicates there were two bathrooms at the end of the hallway; that there
were four identical units, formerly called Andrew's Apartments as reflected in the Hermosa
Review from 1924; and he highlighted in the photograph where the Southern California Gas
Company built a block wall right next to the west of this building in 1924, thereby making the
west four units undesirable — pointing out that the east four units were open to a parking lot, as
shown in the old photograph. He stated that in 1930, the City permitted a 2-car garage, which is
at the back of the building, with a unit above, thus creating the ninth unit; explained that
sometime during the war, he found evidence that the chimney which was blocked off and
plastered over and that the remodeling of the last unit commenced at that time.
Mr. Burrescia stated that he talked to Mr. Stan Dunn who lived in this neighborhood years ago
and that Mr. Dunn indicated the government was encouraging cities to find housing for the
returning war veterans — highlighting the numerous plumbing and remodeling permits all dated
from 1945 to 1947; and he expressed his belief that at this time, the garage was converted into
two units. He added that the number of units fluctuated on the west side, as depicted in the
photographs; advised that none of the inspection reports are signed and that some have question
marks on them; and stated that the paperwork indicates most of the construction was done at the
end of WWII. He added that there was no plumbing in the building until 1930; and noted that
those familiar with this property indicate it has been used as 11 units for many years.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom commented on the inconsistency with the records; highlighted the
fact that this property has been operated with 11 units for many years; and noted his support for
the applicant improving this site. He stated that he is in support of the applicant's request,
considering all the documentation provided.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted some of the inconsistency in the City's records; and stated
that he will support the applicant's request, placing most of the weight of his decision on Mrs.
Greenwald's letter, who is an impartial witness to the history of this site.
Commissioner Allen stated that he also has put a lot of weight on Mrs. Greenwald's letter and
stated that the applicant has been straightforward with his knowledge of this property's history.
Chairman Pizer stated that he is aware there was a lot of activity to find housing for the returning
veterans in this time period and that he would support the request also because of Mrs.
Greenwald's letter confirming the 11 units. He added that this project will be of benefit to the
City.
4 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to
DETERMINE there are 11 legal, nonconforming units at 66 11th Street. The motion carried as
follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Vice -Chairman Hoffinan
(Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from consideration of Item No. 7 because of its
close proximity to his business.)
7. L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 -
674 4th Street (continued from June 21, August 16, September and October 18, 2005
meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property contains 3 structures: a two-story
building in the front and a. 1- and 2-story building, in the back; noted that the property is 4,600
square feet and is zoned R-2; that the building; fronting on 41h Street (668A and 70) contains two
dwelling units approximately 550 square feet each and constructed sometime in 1960-61; and
advised that these units are built above a 4-car garage which also contains a store room and a
rumpus room with a bath. He noted that the area in dispute with this building (668A, the rumpus
room) does not have a kitchen, but is being occupied as a separate rental; and that the use as a
separate rental is inconsistent with an affidavit filed February 10, 1961, which specifically
allowed a rumpus room with a shower and lavatory but no separate rental. He stated that the two
buildings at the rear of the lot (672 and 674) were built in 1924 and contain an approximate 380-
square-foot unit in the 1-story building on the west and a 280-square-foot unit on the second
floor of the building to the east, and a small storage room and bathroom of approximately 200
square feet on the first floor of the 2-story building (installed by permit in 1951). He explained
that this first floor area is the area in dispute on the rear part of the lot (674A); and that it also
contains a kitchen and is being used as a separate rental. He noted that the 1957 Sanborn Map
shows the buildings at the rear of the lot to be one 2-story and one 1-story single dwelling unit;
and that a handwritten note on the map at the front of the lot indicates that 668 and 670 are a
duplex. He stated that the file also contains an affidavit filed by a prior owner in February 1961,
allowing the owners to add a rumpus room with a shower and lavatory at the 668 building; and
that the affidavit specifies the installation will solely be used for accessory uses and not for an
additional dwelling unit. He added that a note in the file from 1971 indicates the rumpus room
was being used as a sleeping room; that the case was settled when the City received an affidavit
from the current owner, Mrs. Parker, on June 24, 1971; and that again, the same condition was
found in that unit in November 1972 and it was remedied by the removal of some plumbing and
gas lines in December of 1972.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the origins of the disputed unit in the rear building are not
as well documented; noted there is a reference to a storage room with a bathroom below the legal
Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
unit in 1951, but that specific dates as to when the kitchen was installed and how long it has been
used as a dwelling is absent from the record; and that there is no record of any code enforcement
action regarding this unit. He stated that according to the current zoning requirements, only two
dwelling units would be allowed on this property, and therefore, the current use, whether 4, 5 or
6 units, is nonconforming.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff inspected the property on November 2004 and found
that Unit 668A contained a single room used as both the bed and living room with a small
bathroom connected by a doorway; that the room contained a small mini -refrigerator with a
microwave oven on top; and that there was no wet bar or kitchen counter. He advised that Unit
674A in the rear part of the lot contained a small living/bedroom, a small kitchen which
contained a small countertop cabinet unit with a sink and waste grinder, a full sized refrigerator,
and a four -burner gas stove; and mentioned that one must proceed through this kitchen to a small
bathroom.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to
validate current conditions which otherwise violate zoning or current building and safety
requirements when the City records and actual property use conflict, that the Commission may
validate these conditions are legally nonconforming based on the evidence. He noted that the
applicant has provided several documents, such as floor plans (which are not complete), a
statement of their history of ownership/rental of this property, an assortment of private insurance,
rental and tax documents, as well as a 1969 letter from the City which referred to the three units
in the rear of the property at 674. He stated that the Parkers purchased this property in 1965 with
the understanding that it contained 6 rental units, basing this information on various purchase
and escrow documents; that in 1969, the Parkers obtained a building permit for electrical work
on the rear units; and that the City did not dispute it was 3 units at that time. He added that the
letter of permit at that time made no reference to the front units. In 1971, after a fire, he advised
that the City conducted an inspection of the front building, which is what caused the notification
to the Parkers of the illegal unit and the use of the rumpus room being used illegally as compared
to what the recorded affidavit indicated by the prior owners. Based on the record, he indicated
that staff cannot make a finding to support 668A as a legal, separate unit; and pointed out that
not only was it never permitted, the Parkers have not kept it in continuous use as a separate
rental. He stated that the 1961 affidavit prohibits it from being used as a separate rental. Senior
Planner Robertson stated that the consequences of making this unit legal would be that the City
would be authorizing the continued use of a rumpus room with no kitchen as a legal unit despite
the 1961 affidavit; and stated that staff is also recommending if this is not declared legal, the
owner shall be required to remove the bathroom and disconnect all plumbing to prevent any
further code enforcement problem and illegal use.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the record is not nearly as clear regarding the other disputed
unit, 674A, which was permitted as a separate storage room and bathroom with separate access;
noted that at some unknown time later, a kitchen was added to make this a habitable unit; and
advised that the private records of the Parkers, which are somewhat corroborated by the 1969
inspections done by the City, indicate that it has perhaps been in continuous use as a separate
unit and, therefore, it may meet the criteria for a legal determination. In conclusion, he noted
that staff believes it may be appropriate to consider granting a determination that the fifth unit,
674A, is a legal dwelling, but that staff is recommending the Commission reaffirm the use of the
6 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
668A be limited to a rumpus room pursuant to the 1961 affidavit.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Marjorie Parker, applicant, stated that she purchased this property as 6 units, noting that all
the escrow papers indicate this is a 6-unit property; and that the affidavit was never revealed to
them as new buyers. She stated that she has rented the units as it was originally sold to her,
noting that she has made some aesthetic improvements. She noted that the rear units were built
before WWI. She added that in the late 1960's, Mr. Dempsey, the City's building inspector,
oversaw the upgrading of this property, pulling permits, and that no inspector had ever voiced
any concern with the renting of the front building. She noted that it was only until there was a
fire that the City apprised her of a problem with the number of units for rent. Mrs. Parker stated
that she is willing to not rent Unit 668A.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted Mrs. Parker's willingness to stop renting Unit 668A and stated he
would support staffs recommendation.
Highlighting the various documents presented, it was the consensus of the Commission to find
that Unit 668A is not a legal unit and that 674A is a legal unit.
MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to DETERMINE
that Unit 674A is a legal, nonconforming unit and that Unit 668A is not a legal unit and is to be
limited to a rumpus room, 668 - 674 4th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
8. CUP 05-12 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to change from on -sale beer and
wine to on -sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 1150
Hermosa Avenue, Italy's Little Kitchen.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the restaurant is located at the corner of Pier and Hermosa
Avenues; explained that the Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit (CUP) in
1995 for on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with another restaurant use; advised that the CUP
does not include live entertainment; that the current use allows hours of operation between 8:00
A.M. and 2:00 A.M.; and noted that the applicant is proposing slight alterations to the interior
floor plan in connection with the proposed amendment, such as replacing the standard dining
table with a small countertop bar near the entry. He advised that the restaurant contains a
relatively small seating area and that it does not lend itself to live entertainment or dancing; and
stated that no specific changes in the Conditions of Approval or the hours of operation are
requested. He mentioned that there were no violations with Italy's Little Kitchen. Director
7 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
Blumenfeld advised that City Council recently imposed more restrictive closing hours of
midnight for a similar request, Mediterraneo Restaurant, when it requested on -sale general
alcohol; and that the Commission recently denied that requested amendment to change the
closing time to 2:00 A.M. He noted that the applicant (Mediterraneo) has appealed that decision
to City Council and that it is scheduled to be heard in February 2006. He highlighted similar
requests and approved closing hours for similar businesses in the City, as noted in staff report.
He stated that given the proposed minor alterations and the relatively small size of the restaurant,
staff is recommending approval of this request for on -sale general alcohol and no change in the
hours of operation.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Zane Koss, applicant/owner, stated that he has been in business in Hermosa Beach for 8 years;
commented on the history of his family's business in this area; and explained that when he first
opened this business, his restaurant was one of three Italian restaurants in this area — noting that
his restaurant provides a higher end concept, upscale family restaurant for this area. He
explained that because this area has changed over the years, he is now at a disadvantage; noted
there are over 8 Italian restaurants in the area; and that because there are very few commercial
offices and retail spaces in this area, it is difficult to have a lunch business; and that with the
limited parking structures, no shuttle services, parking has become increasingly more difficult at
night and fewer families are coming to the Promenade because the bars are filling up with a
younger crowd. He urged the City to encourage family oriented businesses to succeed; and he
mentioned that his customers have requested a full liquor menu, noting that ABC has granted his
license. He asked that the hours of operation be maintained in order to remain competitive in
this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti commended the applicant on the restaurant's food; noted his support for
the general alcohol request; and he noted that he would prefer to see a 1:00 A.M. closing hour,
commenting on the long-range perspective of granting a CUP. He noted that while this
establishment is run very well, the restaurant could change ownership in the future; and stated
that this creates concern with the possibility of another establishment with general alcohol and a
2:00 A.M. closing hour. He highlighted the later dining habits of today's customers.
Vice -Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that taking out seating and putting in a bar top can
potentially change the operation of this restaurant whether intended or not; stated that it's likely
this sort of bar operation will become the dominant part of the very late night hour, questioning
how many people are looking for a fine dining experience at 1:00 A.M.; and he suggested a
closing hour of midnight.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for the general alcohol and for the midnight closing.
Commissioner Kersenboom echoed the Commission's comments, noting he would support a
1:00 A.M. closing.
Chairman Pizer echoed those same comments, noting he would support a midnight closing.
8 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffinan, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CUP
05-12 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to change from on -sale beer and wine to on -sale
general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 1150 Hermosa Avenue, Italy's Little
Kitchen, and to require a midnight closing. The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
Allen, Hoffman, Pizer
NOES:
Kersenboom, Perrotti
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
9. CON 05-25/PDP 05-27 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 064484 for a 6,500-square-foot commercial office
building with two stories above surface level parking, containing sixteen commercial
condominium units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 727
2nd Street.
Staff Reconi.niended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the property is located between 2nd and 3rd Streets, west of
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and adjacent to a City parking lot; and noted that this site was
formerly used as a storage parking lot for the Vasek Polak automobile dealership and that it is
now the new Sav-On drug store on the southwest corner of 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway.
He stated that the site is currently vacant; advised that the project involves a moderately sized
office building which contains approximately 6,500 square feet and two stories above a ground
level parking area; that it's divided into 16 condominium units which range from 380 to 430
square feet and that it contains the required 26 parking spaces. Senior Planner Robertson stated
that the building is designed with a maximum height of 34.5 feet, which is above the first tier
height of 30 feet but below the second tier maximum height of 35 feet; stated that the central
tower, which houses the elevator and central stairs for the building, is the only part of the
building that exceeds the first tier height limit of 30 feet; otherwise, the majority of the building
is below the 30-foot height limit. He noted that the building bulk, building size, building
setback, and landscaping complies with the requirements; and noted that the building will be
compatible with neighboring properties.
With respect to traffic and parking, Senior Planner Robertson stated that vehicle access to the site
will be from both 2nd and 3rd Streets; that the existing driveway curb cuts will be slightly
widened; noted that the parking will be shared by all users of the building; and stated that the
project is in compliance with the Congestion Management Plan. He noted that the project is
expected to generate a net increase of 10 vehicle trips during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours and a
net increase of 72 vehicle trips on a typical weekday, based on the building occupancy; and
advised that the traffic study concluded the development and full occupancy of the project will
not result in any significant traffic impacts for the nearby intersections or transportation impacts
on the Congestion Management Plan road network. He added that the City's consultant traffic
engineer has reviewed the traffic analysis and has found the project to have traffic impacts below
any significant thresholds and that the traffic engineer recommends approval of the traffic
analysis. He explained that the peak use of the project, because of its office use, will typically be
9 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
during the daytime and weekdays when the supply of public on -street parking is at its highest
availability.
As noted in staff report, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project conforms to the Precise
Development Plan standards for the zone as well as the CUP standards and Commercial
Condominium standards. He noted that the condominium units will vary in size from 380 to 430
square feet; explained that the units will most likely be sold separately/individually; and stated
that approval of the Condominium Tract Map will make condominium sales an option for the
developer, but it does not require or guarantee that each individual condo unit will be sold to
separate proprietors. He noted that staff is recommending approval of the project subject to
typical, standard conditions of approval and that staff is recommending four additional
conditions: 1) all available parking shall be shared amongst the occupants of the buildings on
site and owned in common, which shall be clearly set forth in project CC&R's, and no parking
spaces shall be assigned for exclusive use by any owner, occupant, or tenant. 2) decorative
paving surfaces for the entries into the parking area; 3) any changes to the interior layout of the
building require Planning Commission approval; and 4) provision of a decorative block wall
along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential properties.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that elevator shafts are allowed to
pierce the height limit; stated that the elevator is an ADA requirement for this building; and that
for this C-3 Zone, it will mostly likely include general office uses as well as retail uses.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, highlighted the architecture of the building, noting the varying
terracing of the floors; stated he will make an adjustment on the plan, to construct a solid wall on
the facade to meet fire code; and highlighted the generous amount of landscaping along 2nd and
3rd Streets. Mr. Tomaro stated that there is great interest in these units and asked that because the
units are relatively small, that they not have to come back before the Commission for interior
modification, such as putting in a door between two units if two units are combined. He noted
his anticipation in combining 2 to 3 units. He stated that the block wall will be amended on the
west side.
Jim Nesbit, 705 2nd Street, stated that this site has created a barrier from the commercial area and
the homes nearby; expressed his belief that nothing was to be built on this vacant lot; and stated
that there is inadequate parking for this project. He noted his concerns with the lack of parking
currently in this area and the high volume of traffic; and expressed his belief the parking will
become worse with this project. He stated the proposed use is inappropriate for this area; and he
stated it should not be permitted.
Hector Hernandez, 717 2r'd Street, expressed his belief this project will have a negative impact
upon the parking and traffic in this area; noted his opposition to this project; and urged the
Planning Commission to deny the request.
Christie Root, 715 2nd Street, asked that this project not be approved; stated that people are
illegally using the Sav-On parking lot for personal use; and she noted her concern for the safety
of pedestrians and vehicle traffic in this area.
10 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
John Barry, co-owner of 217 to 229 Pacific Coast Highway, noted his family's support of the
proposed project, stating that something must be done with this vacant property; expressed his
belief that a thorough examination has been made of the traffic study; and stated that this project
is a compatible business from the side of the retail properties, creating a clear zone that is retail,
then office use and then residential.
Larry Daniels, 415 24th Place, leasing agent for the building, expressed his belief this office
building will have more than enough parking for its tenants; stated that most of the interest in
this building has been from sole practitioners, such as attorneys, accountants, single brokers;
explained that the units will be small, comfortably accommodating one to two people; and noted
his support for parking in common.
Michael Root, 715 2°a Street, expressed his concern with inadequate parking, believing the
parking problems will only be exacerbated by this project.
Brian Lindquist, bicycle store owner at 219 PCH, immediately adjacent to the lot; stated that
parking is grossly inadequate in this area; with people constantly parking illegally; stated that
only 24 regular parking spaces are being provided because of the requirement to provide two
handicapped spaces; and expressed his belief that 24 spaces are not enough to accommodate 16
businesses. He stated that this property should be developed, but that the proposed density is too
high. He noted his concern for the safety of the pedestrians and vehicular traffic in this area.
Mr. Tomaro explained that they have purposely made these units small, wanting the ability to
expand into an adjoining space if there is a need; mentioned that each unit will have its own
bathroom; stated that the most up to date traffic counts were considered in the traffic analysis;
and stated that this project fully complies with the parking requirements for this type use. He
explained that the traffic being generated here is being generated during the hours of typical off
use when people are driving to work or leaving; and that as people are coming home, these office
people will be going out of the area, which would mitigate some of the traffic issues. He added
that people who typically use these offices don't necessarily conduct business in these offices all
the time, that they may be out in the field meeting with clients; and noted that they have tried to
develop this project to minimize the impact.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated that while he sympathizes with the residents on the parking
problems, he believes this project is designed well and that he does not believe there will be any
overflow parking into the neighborhood.
Vice -Chairman Hoffman commented on this attractive building, noting it is the kind of
development the City needs; expressed his belief this is an appropriate building for this location
in terms of design; and stated that the applicant has made a conscientious effort to make this
building fit well on this site. He stated that there should be no impact upon traffic, but that there
might be an impact upon parking. He pointed out that this lot is not going to remain vacant and
that this is the best use for this site. He noted his support for the Commission to review any
change to the interior layout of the building.
11 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could require general office use only.
Commissioner Perrotti commended the architect for the project design; highlighted the traffic
and parking problems in the City; and noted that this project will be a buffer between the
residential and highway. He noted his support to restrict the use to general office.
Commissioner Kersenboom echoed the Commissioners' comments; stated this is a well planned
project; and expressed his belief the small units will not generate a lot of traffic.
Chairman Pizer commended the architect on the project design and noted his support to limit the
use to general office.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE
CON 05-25/PDP 05-27 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 064484 for a 6,500-square-foot commercial office building with two
stories above surface level parking, containing sixteen commercial condominium units, and
adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 727 2nd Street; and to include the four
additional conditions as reflected above. The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
10. VAR 05-4 -- Variance for an eight -foot garage and parking setback rather than
seventeen feet and a greater than forty-two inch wall in front yard for a single-family
dwelling at 1806 and 1820 Hillcrest Drive.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the requested Variance for the garage and parking
setback only.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this area is zoned R-1, low density residential; noted that
the lot is very unusual in that it's a shallow lot with 100 feet of frontage on the street and a depth
of only 33 feet; and advised that the lot is currently developed with two detached dwellings, each
containing a one -car garage. He noted that the applicant is requesting these two Variances in
order to allow the construction of a new two-story home, with a basement containing 3
bedrooms, a basement game room, and 3.5 bathrooms and a roof deck. In order to meet this
objective, he advised that the applicant is requesting two Variances. He noted that the first
Variance is for the parking setback requirement; stated that the proposed setback from where the
planned sidewalk will be located is approximately 8 feet rather than the required 17 feet,
pursuant to the Zone Code; and that given the lot depth is only 33 feet, it is not possible to
provide a front -loading 20-foot deep garage and a 17-foot parking setback on this lot. To make
up for the lack of guest parking, he noted that the plans provide for a guest space to the side of
the proposed garage.
With regard to the second Variance, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is
12 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
proposing a 5- to 6-foot wall height around the perimeter of the courtyard area; that the wall is
proposed to extend to the front property line and encroach into the front setback area; stated that
the Zone Code limits the height of fences/walls in the front yard to 42 inches (3.5 feet); and
explained that in order to grant these requested Variances, there are four required findings that
must be made:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions
applicable to the property involved;
2) The Variance(s) are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in
question;
3) The granting of the Variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located; and
4) The Variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant's reason for requesting the parking setback is
because the subject lot is very shallow in depth, essentially half the typical depth of lots in the
area; explained that this small depth makes it impossible to provide a front -loading garage in
compliance with the 17-foot setback, and thus limits the potential for building a home consistent
with existing and new homes on the street and in the area. He added that if the applicant were
required to provide a driveway and a side -loaded garage, the combination of the garage interior
dimension and the required turning radius would take up half the lot, leaving approximately 48
feet at the ground floor level for the home; also, since the ground level open space is required in
the R-1 Zone, he noted that this type of design with a side -loading garage would substantially
limit the amount of floor area that could possibly be built on the first floor. Senior Planner
Robertson stated that the reason for the Variance to the wall height is a little less clear; and
explained that the applicant wants the wall off the courtyard area and to include the front setback
area in this walled off courtyard.
With respect to the first required finding, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the lot is
unusually wide and shallow and is the only lot in this R-1 zoned area with such a configuration
that is not a corner lot; noted that the lot size and dimensions force a complying garage to be
loaded from the side, requiring a wide driveway and turning area that would substantially limit
the amount of buildable area on the ground floor; and that with respect to Finding No. 1, he
stated there does not seem to be as clear a connection with the Variance for the wall height, since
the courtyard is permitted to have a 6-foot wall at the 5-foot setback line.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Variance from the
parking setback is arguably necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other properties in the area, to construct a typical garage that is loaded from the street and to
construct a reasonably sized dwelling with a reasonable floor plan that includes some ground
floor habitable space; however, he noted that the Variance from the fence/wall height
requirement does not appear necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right.
With respect to Finding No. 3, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Variance from the
parking setback, if granted, would not be materially detrimental to neighboring properties, as it
13 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
simply would allow a fairly typical garage to be constructed, accessed from the front, which is
not unusual for this street; and that the Variance from the wall height may have a detrimental
impact on the surrounding properties with respect to the appearance of the property.
With respect to Finding No. 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the construction of a single-
family home is consistent with a low -density General Plan designation.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in order for the applicant to achieve some parity with
neighboring properties, staff does believe the findings can be made to support a Variance
specific to the parking and garage setback, but staff does not believe findings can be made for
relief from the front yard wall height given that the location of the wall can be modified to satisfy
the Zoning Code requirements without compromising the courtyard design/function.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Nagy Bakhoum, project architect, stated that the lot is very unusual in the City, noting that most
sites run perpendicular to the streets rather than parallel, unless it's on a corner; stated that this
lot is essentially trapped, and as a result, the owners end up with 100 linear feet of the property
on the street, making it unusually wide and shallow. He explained that this results in the front
yard setback occupying 15 percent of the entire lot area — pointing out that the average in the
City is 7.5 percent; and he stated that the applicant is trying to capture a portion of that 100 linear
feet, limiting it to approximately 33 percent of the frontage, and to take a wall that is in the
neighborhood of 5 or 6 feet in order to create a more enhanced courtyard. He stated that this
would allow the applicants enough height to accommodate the spa that's in the courtyard, which
must have a 5-foot surround. He explained that if they were to take that wall and push it back, it
would take away the enjoyment, about 5 percent of the front yard, which they capture by putting
the wall in this location; and stated this would be used more as a private yard. He noted that the
General Plan does not specifically address this issue, that it only speaks to the average 7.5
percent of front yard setbacks; and expressed his belief this lot is penalized by the General Plan
with the site orientation. He expressed his belief the findings can be made due to the unique
orientation of the lot, the substantial loss of the enjoyment of the lot, where the owner is being
penalized by the General Plan in this scenario by 7.5 percent of their total property; and he stated
that ultimately, a greater visual impact would be observed if they did run a 42-inch high wall
across the entire length of the property rather than limiting the amount of wall by placing it in
just a small portion of the courtyard of the home. He noted that the applicant would be amenable
to pushing this setback a little bit and buffering it with some landscaping. He reiterated that the
other neighboring properties have the utilization of the majority of their front yards, only losing
about 7.5 percent; but that in this case, the applicant is losing 15 percent of their property to the
front yard setback. He suggested limiting the wall's impact, limiting its length and providing an
approximate 10-foot front yard setback, with the balance to be used in the courtyard.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that because of this property's unique orientation, he would
support the applicant's request.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he would support staff s recommendation; and stated he cannot
14 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
make the findings for the wall.
Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he can make the finding for the parking and garage; stated
that he could not make the findings for the wall Variance because it is driven by design, not by
inherent site conditions.
Commissioner Allen stated that he can make the findings for the parking/garage but not for the
wall.
Chairman Pizer echoed the Commission's statements.
MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffinan, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE staff
recommendation for VAR 05-4 -- Variance for an eight -foot garage and parking setback rather
than seventeen feet at 1806 and 1820 Hillcrest Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Kersenboom
ABSTAIN.: None
ABSENT: None
11. CUP 05-11 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility
to co -locate with existing business at 1102 Aviation Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the subject site is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue; noted that the property is currently
developed with a small one-story multi -tenant commercial building; advised that the applicant is
proposing to install 3 paneled antennas within a modified light pole to be placed in the existing
landscaped area on the northwest property corner, which is the northeast intersection of Aviation
Boulevard and Prospect Avenue; and to install 6 equipment cabinets and 2 GPS antennas
surrounded by a screened wall. He noted that the proposed modified light post will have a 22-
inch diameter that will conceal the proposed antennas; and stated that the antennas are needed to
service the eastern portion of the City and provide coverage along Aviation Boulevard. He noted
that the proposed use is consistent with the permitted uses in the C-3 Zone; and that the project is
consistent with the height requirement, except that the project shows the light pole at
approximately 11 inches over height, which can be corrected as a condition of approval.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed facility complies with the setback requirements in
the C-3 Zone and the requirements with respect to screening, noting that the proposed paneled
antennas will be completely screened with a modified light pole and the equipment cabinets on
the rooftop will be completely screened behind a screen wall. He stated that because the
proposed facility is co -located, it conforms to the screening and site guidelines and mentioned
that it exceeds the setback requirements for the zone and is consistent with the zone and the
planned use for the property. He added that this proposed use is located in a highly visible area
of the Aviation Boulevard corridor, which is currently being studied; and suggested that the pole
be moved further to the east, a bit deeper into the lot to make it less obtrusive on Aviation
Boulevard. He mentioned that the code does not allow monopoles, but that it is possible to
15 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
incorporate the use as a light standard to meet the intent of the code.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that the lighting not negatively impact the residents..
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Danielle Brandenberg, representing Cingular Wireless, stated that it would be possible to alter
the location of this pole on the property to make it less prominent; and she asked that should the
City require the movement of this pole once the Aviation Corridor Study is complete, that it be
located in an area nearby that has the ability to provide coverage — noting that coverage is not
adequate in this area and that the facility is a necessity. She added that the illumination will be
shielded to force the light in a downward direction.
Anthony Ramsar, 2304 Vanderbilt Lane, Redondo Beach, asked that the Commission consider
the aesthetics of this proposal in relationship to the main corridor.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the pole be moved back in the planter area, more
towards the north.
Vice -Chairman Hoffman suggested moving the pole to the opposite end of the flower bed,
moving it from the north end of the planter to the south end of the planter.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could consider changing the resolution to reflect
that the proposed use conform to any future planning in the project area; and that in the event the
location of the facility conflicts with future plans for the area, that the CUP shall be referred to
the Planning Commission for review and approval.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CUP
05-11 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility to co -locate
with existing business at 1102 Aviation Boulevard; and to add the following language: The
project shall be located to the south, subject to the approval of the Director, and conform to
current and future plans for the project area. In the event the location conflicts with such plans,
the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
12. TEXT 05-2 -- Text Amendment regarding outdoor display of retail merchandise on
Pier Plaza.
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
16 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
Director Blumenfeld stated on that May 10, 2005, City Council reviewed the current outdoor
dining regulations and directed staff to return with a resolution reflecting Council's changes for
retail sales on Pier Plaza; that on August 9, 2005, Council approved the proposed changes
adopting these standards for design and operation of outdoor retail display areas on Pier Plaza;
and he noted that the retail sales/display standards have been prepared and are attached to the
Commission's report for review. He noted that the Ordinance amends the encroachment
regulations for outdoor sales regulations — noting that currently, permanent outdoor sales and
displays are prohibited in the Zone Code, only permitting temporary outdoor merchandise
displays. He noted that the proposed changes are meant to allow for these displays on Pier Plaza.
He explained that the Zone Code regulates commercial area use parking by gross floor area; that
if more than 333 square feet of the encroachment area is utilized by retail business, then it's
subject to parking requirements and in -lieu fees; and noted staff is proposing that the use for any
encroachment area along Pier Plaza not result in additional parking for the business. He added
that the retail businesses will now be required to obtain an encroachment permit and insurance;
that they would be charged a reduced encroachment lease rate in order to provide an incentive
for retail businesses along the Plaza; advised that the business owners must currently submit an
encroachment permit fee of $370 and a lease permit of $2 a square foot; and that the retail
businesses are proposed to be charged 50 cents a square foot for sales display area in contrast to
the dining area display. He noted there are retail display standards attached to staff report.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the design standards provided essentially mirror the standards
for outdoor dining regulations, suggesting that they should have been tailored more for retail use.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the
public hearing.
Vice -Chairman Hoffman echoed Commissioner Perrotti's suggestion, stating that the outdoor
retail shouldn't simply be thought of as an extension of a store out onto the Plaza and almost
creating a semi -permanent addition to the retail space; and suggested that the merchandizing and
displays be subject to some kind of review, desiring a slight elevation in the caliber of displays
on Pier Plaza. He suggested that it possibly be subject to review by the Public Works
Commission or Director.
Discussion ensued on what type of apparatus to use as a standard for consistent appearance.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the encroachment permit can be written to limit the
encroachment area to permit less than one required parking space so as not to require a Parking
Plan.
Chairman Pizer suggested that limit of outdoor display area for each business be delineated and
noted his desire to see a tidy and more businesslike appearance on the Plaza displays.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the businesses should be permitted to come out as far as
the outdoor dining areas.
Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Commission so directs, staff will take photographs of other
shopping center displays to provide additional background regarding this proposed amendment.
17 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
There was consensus to continue Item No. 12 in order to gather additional information.
14. STAFF ITEMS
Senior Planner Robertson informed the Commission that staff is proceeding in accordance with
the estimated timing of tasks for the Aviation Boulevard Study; advised that staff has now
completed a detailed ownership list of all the property owners along the corridor; that parcel
maps have been created; and that staff anticipates completing the background research, the
mapping, the data collection, and hopefully present this information at the next meeting for
discussion/review.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that people have approached him with interest in seeing some live -
work provisions along the corridor.
15. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti asked for a status report on the proposed traffic signal on 16"' Street, near
the Pavilion.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the property owner is continuing to work with Caltrans to get
the traffic light installed; and stated that the main issue holding up the project is the location of
the cabinet and the controller. He noted that he will get another update from the Public Works
Director for the next meeting.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his concern for the safety of pedestrians crossing the highway at
this area.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned what can be done to obtain more consistency with City
records among the various City departments.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City is working on computerizing the very old, historical
records, but stated that because of limited staffing and the number of old records, this process has
been slow. He stated that the departments do use the same information, but that some problems
do arise when very old data is used. He mentioned that some applicants refer to their business
license records for evidence in legal determinations, but explained that that information is not an
entitlement because the City does not use the applicant's business license information as a
standard for review but uses building records. He noted that as more of the old data is put into
the computer, there will be fewer inconsistencies.
Vice -Chairman Hoffman questioned if the Commission can control projects from putting up
parking structure gates and charge for parking, noting that these gated structures can impact
street parking — highlighting this evening's Item No. 9.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City typically does not regulate the price for parking but
explained that the Commission does have the ability to regulate parking with respect to parking
efficiency/operations. He stated that it would be reasonable to refer a matter back to the
18 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005
Commission if a gate were installed thereby limit parking availability. He stated that he will
research this matter further for the Commission.
16. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
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 November
15, 2005
,
Ron Pizer, Chairman Sol Blumenf d, S cretary
e
n�
Date
19 Planning Commission Minutes
November 15, 2005