Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-20 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 20, 2004, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kersenboom at 7:09 P.M. Vice -Chairman Perrotti led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Allen, Hoffinan, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Kersenboom Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Ken Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary Steve Pinard, 632 First Street, Hermosa, asked for two volunteers from the Planning Commission to assist the Historical Preservation Subcommittee to review the plans related to historical preservation; and noted his anticipation that two meetings will be necessary to complete this task. He stated that the meetings can start as early as next week. Planning Commissioners Allen and Hoffman volunteered to serve on the Historical Preservation Subcommittee. Commissioner Pizer announced that another General Plan Update workshop will be held on Thursday, April 22, 2004, 7:00 P.M., in Council Chambers; stated that the topic of this workshop will be Architecture in the South Bay: What's Right for the Future of Hermosa Beach; and noted that Julie Oakes and Dean Nota will be the guest speakers at this session. He indicated that following that presentation, a session will commence to solicit ideas from everyone in attendance on what they want for the future of Hermosa Beach. CONSENT CALENDAR 4. a) Approval of revised February 17, 2004 minutes regarding 516 Bayview Drive. b) Approval of March 16, 2004 minutes With regard to the February 17, 2004 Minutes, Director Blumenfeld asked that the Commission disregard the attachment with the strikeouts on the February 17, 2004 minutes; stated that page 2 of the March 16, 2004 minutes were inadvertently left out of the agenda packet, but noted that the Commission is now in possession of the fall minutes; and with regard to the February 17 minutes, Item No. 13, he advised that the minutes were revised to reflect all the statements that Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 9 were made by the applicant and the Commission's responses in regard to the applicant's criticisms. Vice -Chairman Perrotti stated that the bottom paragraph of page 1 of the March 16 minutes should be deleted, as they were included on the February 17 minutes. Because of the confusion, Director Blumenfeld stated that the March 16, 2004, minutes will be reviewed by staff and then brought back at the next meeting for adoption. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE the revised February 17, 2004, Minutes as presented this evening. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 5. Resolution(s) for consideration None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PDP 04-9 /CON 04-8 -- Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use building with three residential condominiums above commercial at 30-44 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld noted that this project has been previously heard by the Planning Commission in various forms prior to this evening, noting that a similar project was approved by the Planning Commission on August 19, 2003, and again in January 2004. He advised that both proposals contained 3 commercial units above 3 residential units; noted that the August submittal contained subterranean parking, but that when the plans had to be revised when existing ground water conditions, made the project infeasible. As a result, he noted that the revised project was considered and approved by the Planning Commission on January 20, 2004; that the City Council, upon appeal, denied the project due to concerns with the tandem parking and noncompliance with certain Mixed Use Development standards. Since that hearing, Director Blumenfeld advised that the developer and architect have worked to cure the problems that pertain to the Mixed Use Development standards and also to eliminate the commercial tandem parking. He noted that the project still has a Vesting Tentative Map that was approved originally, and which is still in effect. Director Blumenfeld explained that the property is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, at the corner of Lyndon Street; noted that it is an assembly of 3 lots; stated that the revised plans are again proposing a 3-story building with 2 floors of residential and a roof deck above the Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 ground floor; stated that the commercial portion has 3 separate spaces for retail or office tenants; that the 3 residential units are located side by side and sit above the commercial area; mentioned that this project is subject to the C-1 Mixed Use Ordinance and the R-3 Development standards; and advised that this project complies with the Mixed Use Development standards. Under the C- 1 zone, Director Blumenfeld explained that there is no front setback requirement in the commercial portion of the lot; advised that the project is consistent with the 30-foot height limit; and that 89 percent of the ground floor is commercial and that under the Mixed Use Development standards, no more than 25 percent of the floor area can be allocated for residential use. He noted that the ground floor frontage is exclusively used for commercial purposes; that it maintains the average minimum commercial depth of 30 feet; that the 3 units are lower in density than what would typically be allowed for a 7,200-square-foot lot — pointing out that up to 5 units could be provided on this lot under the R-3 standards. Director Blumenfeld noted that open space is provided in decks over 300 square feet for each unit, with a minimum of 100 square feet being adjacent to the primary living space; advised that the side yard setback of 5 feet is provided on the residential levels and that the rear yard setback on the alley is 1 foot, as required. He explained that the front setback for the residential portion varies between 6.5 feet and 9 feet, which complies with the minimum of 5 feet required under the Condominium Ordinance and the Mixed Use Development standards; and noted that the front setback area on the second floor level is used for required open space. He advised that the plans do not include 36-inch box trees or other improvements for off -site improvements, noting that staff has added conditions of approval for these improvements. Director Blumenfeld stated that there are separate, secured entrances provided for the residential units at the parking area; advised that the project complies with the condominium standards for unit sizes, setback requirements, and enclosed storage areas; and noted that while there currently are no construction drawings, staff will ensure that the project complies with the noise attenuation requirements at the time of plan check. He stated that the parking has been modified; that there is an open garage; that the ground floor is in compliance with the aggregate parking requirements for commercial and residential uses; that there are 2 parking spaces per residential unit, which are provided in tandem, with a 20-foot-depth dimension per stall; and noted that the tandem parking for residential purposes is specifically allowed under the zone code. He advised that the plan also includes 2 guest spaces per unit, which is also a requirement for this number of units; stated that 8 commercial parking spaces are required; and noted that 1 handicapped accessible space is provided. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending that a condition be added that the residential spaces be assigned to each of the residential owners and that the residential guest parking spaces be shared among the residential owners and that the commercial parking spaces be shared in common with the commercial owners and tenants; and that there be a condition included that signing so reflect these parking assignments. He mentioned that the project CC&R's will also reflect this requirement — noting that the applicant's attorney has submitted a letter which indicates that the CC&R's have been drafted and that they will comply with the requirements of the Planning Commission. Director Blumenfeld stated that this project is in conformance with the PDP requirements, which primarily relate to neighborhood consistency; and noted that this project meets all minimum standards and is consistent with the surrounding commercial and residential uses. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 the project is fully parked; and explained that the proposed project will have less of an impact than the previous use, which was a daycare business and some retail use. He mentioned that this project will also have less of an impact on trip generation — highlighting the trip generation table included in staff report. He stated that a Mixed Use Development project of this size could generate 113 vehicle trips per day if the project has retail with residential above; that if the mixed use project was office, it could generate 44 trips per day; advised that the previous use generated 199 vehicle trips per day; and stated that other commercial uses listed would generate more trips than what is being proposed. With respect to the City Council's concerns, Director Blumenfeld stated that there will not be tandem parking for the commercial portion; that additional building setbacks have been provided for the residential area of the project; and that the project meets the minimum average commercial 30-foot depth requirement. He explained that the applicant has indicated that the CC&R's will meet the separate requirements for commercial and residential organization of the homeowner associations; and that these two independent organizations will not overlap but work independently. Director Blumenfeld mentioned that the project size has slightly been reduced to comply with the setback requirement on Lyndon Street; and he highlighted the following conditions of approval that staff would recommend: 1) That the parcels comprising the property be merged; 2) That a landscape plan be submitted to provide 3 street trees, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department; 3) That detailed construction plans indicate that the project will comport with the sound transmission/noise attenuation requirements of the Condominium Ordinance; 4) That detailed construction plans provide details for lighting and signage, to be consistent with Section 17.40.180 C and D; 5) That limitations on the allowable commercial uses be included to prohibit restaurants, bars, laundromats, and dry cleaning businesses and that the snack shops be limited in operation from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.; 6) That the CC&R's comply with the Condominium Ordinance; 7) That detailed plans be submitted for off -site improvements and be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer for approval by the Public Works Department; and 8) That signs be posted in the parking area to specify commercial, residential and accessible parking locations on the project. Commissioner Hoffinan asked for additional information on the Palm Drive drainage problem. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Hoffman that due to the unique topography in this area, there are ground water/drainage problems along Palm Drive; and explained that the Public Works Director has recommended that the property owner retain an engineer to study that problem and propose a solution for Public Works Department approval for drainage in this area on Palm Drive. Vice -Chairman Perrotti questioned if there is a requirement for a second access for all residential units — noting that he was not able to find one for Unit F. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Responding to Vice -Chairman Perrotti's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld explained that on the Lyndon Street side, there is access to Unit F; and stated that only one entry is required. Vice -Chairman Perrotti questioned if the ordinance specifies any criteria for a minimum amount of square footage. In response to Vice -Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the standard set for commercial is for an average of 30 feet in depth, that there is no square footage requirement. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing, Julie Oakes, project representative, explained that the first time this project was presented to the Planning Commission, there were no guidelines for the Mixed Use Ordinance; advised that this project fully complies with the requirements for this use, density, parking, open space; and stated that in her experience, businesses can be successful operating in a building with a 30-foot depth. She stated that this project will help to renew some energy and to revitalize the south area of town. She mentioned that the alley measures 20 feet wide. Ms. Oakes noted for Commissioner Hoffman that the wall on the ground floor of the commercial, between the 2 southern units, is not a structural wall — noting that there is flexibility to put doors in should the need arise; and stated that the area near the stairwell can be unified — explaining that the commercial floor is 12 feet clear and that there is enough space to open it up. Betty Ryan expressed her belief that this project will be a positive asset to the community. Larry Daniels, 415 24"' Place, commercial real estate broker, commented on the growing demand for office and condominium space; and expressed his belief that this project will have a positive effect upon the south end of town and the community. Skip Lomer, resident, commented on the history of this project's proposals and meeting discussions; expressed his belief that there is not enough parking to accommodate both residents and customers who will be visiting this site; noted his disagreement with the projected traffic numbers on the surrounding streets; noted that the only legal way to access this property would be to access it from Lyndon Avenue — pointing out that Palm Drive is a one-way northbound street. He addressed his concern with motorists ignoring the 1-way signs each day; and expressed his belief that this project will have a negative impact upon the traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. He urged the City to more clearly/adequately define/sign Palm Drive as a one-way street and suggested that consideration be given to making Palm Drive a 2- way street from First Street to Lyndon Avenue; expressed his belief that the City will lose revenues because of the residential component; and noted his preference for commercial only on this site. Yvonne Bernard, neighborhood property owner, expressed her support for this project; commented on the lack of energy in this part of town; and stated that the building plans are aesthetically pleasing. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtal Avenue, noted his support this project; expressed his belief that the mixed use development should prevail in this City; and concurred with staff s thorough analysis. Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, noted her support for this project; expressed her belief that mixed use developments can bring money to the City; and she commented on the business needs of the community. She stated that this is a well -planned project which should only enhance the neighborhood. Mark Warshaw, 540 Manhattan Avenue, noted his support for this project; and stated that a mixed use development should benefit this part of town. Al Benson, 1924 Monterey, noted his support for this project; and pointed out that a larger project with a greater impact to the neighborhood could be built on site if this does not get approved. Jay Schuster, project developer, commented on the letter (of record) he had submitted to the Planning Commission in support of this project. He expressed his belief that this project will bring many benefits to the City, such as revitalization in the south end of town, increased sales tax and property tax revenues. Pat Zingheim, project developer, stated that everyone has worked hard to make sure this development fully complies with the Mixed Use Development standards; advised that staff and the Commission now have the draft CC&R's; and stated that this is an attractive project that is economically feasible for this site. Ms. Zingheim explained for Vice -Chairman Perrotti that there will be a master board of directors which will handle the maintenance issues involving the common areas. Mark Bliss noted his support for this mixed use concept and stated that it will have a positive impact on the south end of town. There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffinan explained that he had voted against this project previously due to his concerns with the limited commercial, issues concerning parking and the lack of guidelines for its functionality, all done and considered when there were no mixed use guidelines to follow. He stated that other than rectifying the issue with the street trees, this project complies with the ordinance; noted his pleasure that as a result of Council's rejection of the project, the new proposal is an improvement over what had been approved by the Planning Commission and that the project fully conforms to the Mixed Use guidelines. Commissioner Allen noted his pleasure with the building's aesthetics; and stated that he likes the roll -up doors. He expressed his belief that this project will improve the south end of town. Commissioner Pizer noted that the revised proposal is an improvement; and he encouraged support for mixed use developments in this City. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Vice -Chairman Perrotti noted his concerns with the square footage, but indicated that increasing the square footage would impact the parking; he urged the City to cautiously approach mixed use developments; and stated that he is in support of the revised project. Chairman Kersenboom commended the applicant on this project and its meeting of the guidelines. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE PDP 04-9 /CON 04-8 -- Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use building with three residential condominiums above commercial at 30-44 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Kersenboom recessed the meeting at 8:26 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:36 P.M. 7. CON 04-6 /PDP 04-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061098 for a two -unit condominium at 24 8th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson advised that this project is located on the south side of 8th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue; stated that this area on 8th Street is zoned R-3 and designated high density residential on the General Plan; advised that the lot is 2,850 square feet, which is standard for this block; noted that this property was recently subject to an abatement action by the City due to the substandard and unsafe condition of the existing two-story structure and the previous owner's reluctance to abate the problem; and he advised that the new owner is currently in the process of demolishing the existing structure pursuant to the City's recommendation. Senior Planner Robertson noted that a similar 2-unit condominium project was designed by the same architect with an almost identical plan, located at 62 8th Street, which is 6 lots east of the subject site, and that it was approved by the Planning Commission in October 2003. He stated that the project consists of 2 attached units containing basements with 2 stories above; noted that each unit has 3 bedrooms; mentioned that the unit fronting on the walk street is the larger unit, which contains 4 bedrooms, a recreation room and 3.5 bathrooms; that the rear unit has 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms; and noted that each unit has a roof deck. He stated that the building is designed and accented in a contemporary style; and noted that the exterior accent features differ slightly from the project at 62 8"' Street that was previously approved.. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Senior Planner Robertson stated that the building complies with the 30-foot requirement on the rear half of the lot and 25 feet on the front half of the lot; stated that all required yards are provided, including a 57' front yard, which substantially exceeds the 0-foot required front yard for this block; however, the Condominium Ordinance requires a 5-foot front setback. He advised that the parking is provided on the ground floor with 2-car tandem garages for each unit with access to the alley; and noted that one guest parking space is provided for both units to the side of the garages. He stated that the project complies with lot coverage requirements and open space; explained that open space at the front unit does include a ground floor patio, which is in the front 10 feet of the property; and noted that since the yard requirement for this block is zero, staff is recommending to count the patio as required open space because of the unusual condition of this block where the front setback is zero. He stated that the project meets all the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance; and that adequate landscaping is being provided. He advised that staff received a letter of concern in regard to this project from the neighbor immediately to the west concerning pile driving that will be necessary during the shoring phase of construction; stated that the neighbor is requesting that the project require the drilling for shoring purposes as an alternative to pounding of the shoring into place — noting that this is a requirement in Redondo Beach. He advised that staff looked into this request to consider the alternative, but that staff has concluded that drilling is not a feasible option at this location because of the sandy condition of the soil and the liquefaction potential of the soil. He advised that the drilling option is not possible because there is inadequate friction for the drilling activity to be successful. Because this neighbor was not able to attend this evening's meeting, Senior Planner Robertson read into the record the letter from Gary Brutsch and Tina Williams: "Re: Parcel Map No. 06158 for a 2-unit condominium at 24 8ch Street Dear Mr. Blumenfeld, We are unavoidably unable to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. However, we would like to make this letter a part of the public record. Please distribute this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Shoring: Redondo Beach has recently prohibited the pounding of shoring because of the damage caused by shock waves created from the force of the pounding piston on the steel beams. The alternative would be to drill the shoring into place. We respectfully request that as a condition of construction approval, that the builder be required to drill the shoring placement. Ground Water Control: The Civil Code is very specific in its requirement that water from private property must be contained. Please require that the owner properly regulate the disposal of ground water. Debris Control: Please require that the debris around the site be regulated as to not cause a hazard. This control must extend into the alley. Tandem Parking: This parking configuration is a nuisance for the owners as well as the neighbors. The project is located one residence from the corner. Any measure to mitigate car shuffling danger will be appreciated. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Sincerely, Gary Brutsch and Tina Williams." Responding to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld stated that the requirement to properly control construction debris is currently a code requirement and that any problems that arise relating to parking access should be communicated to the Community Development Department or Police Department. Director Blumenfeld noted that the shoring process is now done with a vibration, not pounding on steel. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton noted his concurrence with the conditions of approval; advised that only the front half of the building will get shored; and noted that the neighbor's property currently has a line of shoring and that he does not anticipate the shoring activities to become a problem. He explained that most of the -soil in Redondo Beach is hard and that most of the dirt in Hermosa Beach is fluffy sand. Because he intends on going down only 5 feet, Mr. Compton indicated that he does not anticipate this project's shoring activity to be a problem. Commissioner Hoffinan highlighted his concern with a potential for a separate unit to be available at this site. Responding to Commissioner Hoffinan's inquiry, Mr. Compton explained that the owners will be willing to obtain a covenant to keep this area from becoming a separate unit in the future. He explained that he could get rid of the stairwell, but noted that a ladder would have to be added at a minimum. There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffinan noted his support of this project, noting that this body had approved a similar project in the neighborhood. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 04-6 /PDP 04-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061098 for a 2-unit condominium at 24 8th Street and to include a covenant restriction for the guest quarters not to be turned into a separate unit. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 8. CON 04-7 /PDP 04-8 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060637 for a three -unit condominium at 1220 & 1224 Sunset Drive and 1223 Loma Drive. Staff Recom Trended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson advised that this project is located on the west side of Loma Drive between 1 It" Street and Pier Avenue; that this area is designated R-3, high density residential; noted that the applicant is requesting confirmation that the property has a convex slope relative to the height determination; stated that this project consists of 2 attached units (Units A and B) and 1 detached unit (Unit C), all containing basements with 2 stories above; advised that Units A and B face Loma Drive; that Unit C faces Sunset Drive, which is the alley; and stated that each unit has 3 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms. He advised that the buildings are designed in a Mediterranean style with stucco and stone veneer finishes, tile roofs, and decorative wrought iron deck guardrails. With regard to the applicant's request concerning the convex slope of the lot, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing alternative points for measuring height rather than the easterly corner points; and that the applicant is requesting to use an alternative point for the northwesterly corner point. He explained that the applicant's request is based on the abrupt change from a relatively flat to steeply sloping terrain down to Loma Drive along the southerly property line and a plateau area on the northerly property line; and noted staff s belief that these conditions appear to represent a convex slope condition following the natural topography in the area. He displayed a profile drawing to help the Commission visualize the conditions on site. He explained that the street profile maps for Loma Drive and Sunset Drive show the grades at the east side of Sunset Drive and noted that the grades on the west side of Loma Drive were cut significantly when the thoroughfares were originally paved; and, therefore, he stated that the original grade or natural grade elevation at the original property corner points was much higher than the current grade. He explained that this confirmation of the convex condition would allow the building to be constructed with 2 stories above a basement with a flat roof line from the back of the lot to the top of the bank on the existing grade; and that if a standard corner point interpolation or straight line interpolation was used, the units would not be built with the proposed roof styles; and that the building would be approximately 5.2 feet over the 30-foot maximum height limit as the plans are drawn. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project does generally comply with the zoning requirements with respect to lot coverage, required yards, usable open space; stated that the parking is provided in the ground floor garages for each unit with access to Units A and B on Loma Drive and access to Unit C on Sunset Drive; and stated that guest parking is provided for each unit in each driveway in front of the garages for Units A and B and in a space adjacent to the garage on Unit C. He noted that the guest parking also compensates for the loss of one parking space that is available on Sunset Drive. He stated that the plans aren't quite specific enough for staff to determine if it complies with the maximum driveway slope of 12.5 percent; but given the elevations and the finished grade elevations of the garage entrances, he noted that it looks like it shouldn't be a problem; and advised that staff is recommending this issue be resolved with a condition of approval. He advised that the project generally meets all the 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 requirements of the condominium ordinance, although staff is recommending conditions to provide adequate storage areas and a designated trash facility; stated that the plan provides for landscaping in the areas available in the front and rear yards and in the area between the buildings, including the six 36-inch box king palm trees; otherwise, the lack of an irrigation system can be resolved as a condition of approval. With regard to the slope requirement for the driveway, Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that there were not enough spot elevations on the plans, an oversight by the architect. Commissioner Pizer cautioned the applicants to provide the necessary information prior to it coming before the Planning Commission for consideration. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Sorror, 1001 6th Street, representing the applicant, stated that there are unique characteristics of this lot which supports the claim for a convex slope; noted her assurance that the driveway approach is well within the 12.5 percent — pointing out that that information will be added to the plan; advised that there is plenty of room in the garage of the rear unit, Unit C, for the trash and storage; and that there is plenty of room for storage in the garage. She noted that there are currently 3 residential units on this lot and that the density will be maintained; and she asked for the Commission's support for the convex lot; and stated that some fine-tuning of the plans will need to be undertaken. There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman recognized this as a convex slope. Vice -Chairman Perrotti pointed out that the exhibit clearly shows the convex slope. Commissioner Pizer stated that there is enough information to support a convex slope. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 04-7 /PDP 04-8 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060637 for a 3-unit condominium at 1220 & 1224 Sunset Drive and 1223 Loma Drive and to support the existence of a convex slope. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARING(S) 9. TEXT 03-3 -- Referred for review and recommendation by the City Council of a Text Amendment regarding snack shop definition (continued from March 16, 2004 meeting). t 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Staff Recommended Action: To consider and incorporate suggestions made by the City Council as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that previously, the Planning Commission had reviewed the text amendment to clarify the definition of snack shop and distinguish it from a restaurant. The Commission noted that clarifying the difference is important because the parking requirement for restaurant is 10 parking spaces per thousand square feet, whereas the parking requirement for retail use is 4 parking spaces per thousand square feet, or 3 parking spaces per thousand square feet in the downtown area. The Planning Commission spent time studying the definition and believed it was important to include the prohibition of waiter/waitress service and table service, believing that this was an operating characteristic that ought to be used in order to distinguish between restaurant and a snack shop, and without it, it tended to make the definition more ambiguous. Director Blumenfeld advised that at the Planning Commission's direction, staff drafted a report to present to City Council; noted that the report basically highlights these concerns of the Planning Commission; and notes that if the proposed definition is not acceptable, that the City Council might want to consider eliminating the snack shop definition and simply treat the use as a restaurant use with a higher parking requirement. Vice -Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that staff s analysis has captured the concerns that the Planning Commission has in its attempts to distinguish between an employee just bringing some food out and a full-time waiter/waitress; and noted his belief that this issue is what concerned a couple of the City Council members. Commissioner Hoffman stated that when this item came back to the Planning Commission from the City Council, he spent a lot of time looking at other city codes rather than try and reinvent the wheel. He explained that there are two universals in the definition, such that the kitchens are not capable of preparing full meals and that there is no waiter/waitress table service; and advised that the only other thing he has seen in other city codes defining snack shops is that a snack shop is one that is self-service. He noted that there are a few cities that define snack shops based on the square footage; and that it's really nothing more than a small restaurant -- in other words, at a certain level, a facility stops being a restaurant and becomes a snack shop simply because of the size of the facility. He stated that he does not support these two definitions, as it is not the intent of this body to head in that direction; and that he is convinced the proposed definition in staff report is a conventional/standard definition. He expressed his opposition to the suggestion of deleting the definition for the snack shop, believing that it would defeat the whole purpose; stated that at that point, it probably would make sense to say there are large and small restaurants; and that he would not be supportive of that intent or of creating a different parking threshold at that level. Commissioner Hoffinan expressed his belief that the Planning Commission has done its due diligence in demonstrating that the proposed wording is the conventional definition of a snack shop, one that is self-service. Vice -Chairman Perrotti stated that the City Council comments regarding this matter were general and that those comments didn't give any focused direction, other than the server issue; and he expressed his belief that there didn't seem to be full agreement by the City Council on this matter. 12 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 Commissioner Hoffinan stated that while it may at first strike someone as a peculiar way to define this, when one looks to see what the precedent is, they will see that the proposed language is the standard definition -- that snack shops are self-service and typically without a full-time attendant and lack a kitchen capable of preparing full meals; and stated that approximately 75 percent of the cities he studied had this same definition and that some were even void of a definition. Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that at this point in time, this body has done all it can do. Commissioner Hoffinan expressed his hope that the City Council understands that the Planning Commission has spent a number of hours focused on resolving this matter. Commissioner Hoffman moved, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to support the definition as follows: Definition: "Snack shop or snack bar means a retail establishment that is distingLiished from a restaurant as it does not include waiter/waitress table service and does not serve full meals or have a kitchen ca able of serving meals but instead serves snacks or non-alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises or for take-out 11 n4)etween-nw4; specifically, items such as donuts and other baked Dods, ice cream, yogurt, cookies, toff andiuices are considered snacks. A*d4-,ann nmis as saaeks.„ Parking Requirement: "The parking requirements for a snack bar and or snack shop shall be the same as that for restaurant, unless it can be shown to the Planning Commission that the characteristics of the building, its location, size and other mitigating factors such as limited service area relative to ross floor area and limited seatijig ca acit result in less parking _.eeess:.. ess-demand than for a restaurant use. In these cases the Plannin Commission ma consider the retail commercial requirement for parking, pursuant to Section 17.44.210 ParkiiM Plans." The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSENT: None 10. S"i'AF F ITEMS a. Review of revised plans for 233 Lyndon Street. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission had approved this project at its prior meeting, but that the Commission had asked to review some revised elevations relative to 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 the exterior appearance of the building; and noted that the Planning Commission has a copy of the modifications, which includes some specifications for the quality of materials. Gerard Somers, project architect, displayed a material board for the Planning Commission, highlighting what materials will be used on the exterior of this project; and advised that the stucco will be applied by machine for a more uniform finish. He mentioned that vinyl windows will be installed. Commissioner Hoffman stated that this revision makes the proposal clearer. Commissioner Allen noted his pleasure with the detailed plans that have now been provided. There was consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the revised elevations. b. Status of General Plan Update. Director Blumenfeld stated that a calendar of the activities has been attached to the Planning Commission packet materials; commented on the General Plan Update workshop that is scheduled for this Thursday; and suggested that because of scheduling conflicts, consideration be given to having the subcommittee meet on alternate days. He asked for the Commission to review the report on what the subcommittee has proposed thus far and if the Commission was in full agreement with the activities that have been set up by the subcommittee and comfortable with the direction the subcommittee is taking. He highlighted the subcommittee's plans for a community survey that will address issues of land use, circulation, and urban design; advised that the subcommittee is proposing that this completed survey be available at a booth at the Fiesta event on May 29-31, 2004, with the intent to expose as much of the residential population to the proposed update; and stated that the survey will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. He commented on the web page links to the General Plan Update; and advised that the subcommittee has selected a facilitator, Laura Raymond, to conduct the workshops. Commissioner Pizer stated that someone is needed to operate the web page — pointing out that the person who was originally going to do it is not available. He noted his preference that when the visioning process is complete and after the Fiesta event, that the survey data be compiled and for the subcommittee and the Commission to decide what next needs to be done, suggesting that that may be a good time to make a presentation before the City Council for its support and to establish a budget for the update. He noted that the survey will address parking, new business, pedestrians, urban areas, building design, land use, and security. He noted that everyone on the General Plan subcommittee is following through with their assignments. The Commission did not provide any additional comments or direction and stated that by way of minute order, the subcommittee should proceed as planned. Commissioner Hoffman commended the subcommittee members for their efforts. 14 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004 11. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Hoffman noted his repeated amazement with the statistics in the Department Activity Report, noting that the City lost 3 housing units this period. Senior Planner Robertson reminded the Commission that the next Commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 17, 2004. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:32 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Plag i�ng I om si rlhosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20, 2004. Langley K: rseriboom, Chairman Sol 13lumen � 1, eeretary Date 15 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2004