Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-27 PC Minutes Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULARLY ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 27, 2003, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pizer at 7:01 P.M. Vice -Chairman Hoffman led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Kersenboom, Tucker, and Chairman Pizer Absent: Commissioner Perrotti Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION 1) Chimney Design and Height for all Residential Projects Director Blumenfeld stated that this matter has been brought forth in order to discuss whether to amend the zoning ordinance for the allowable height of chimneys; and added that Louie Tomaro, who works as an architect and does many projects in the City, has been invited to this evening's meeting to present some information and lend his expertise in regard to this matter. Director Blumenfeld noted that the Planning Commission's previous direction was to see uniform height for all chimneys, not more than 3 feet above the allowable roof height; but that this direction has created its own special problems that need to be addressed. He highlighted staff s recommendation to define chimney assemblies to include the elements that make up the chimney -- the chase, the flue, the spark arrestor, and the chimney cap; to limit the bulk of listed chimney assemblies to 3 feet wide by 3 feet long for single -flue assemblies, 3 feet wide by 5 feet long for double -flue assemblies, and 3 feet wide by 7 feet long for triple -flue assemblies; to limit the maximum height of chimneys to not more than 5 feet when the chimneys are located on the sloped roof section and not more than 4 feet when the chimneys are located on the flat roof section; and, lastly, to prohibit non -listed chimney assemblies. Referring to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements, Director Blumenfeld advised that any chimney must be at least 2 feet above the nearest roof within 10 feet; and explained that if you have non -rated and rated assemblies, it can complicate matters. He added that depending on the location of the chimney, the Planning Commission may want to give consideration to how high the Commission wants to allow a chimney — stating that, for instance, in the case of a flat roof, the Commission may want to consider limiting the height of the chimney to 4 feet, and on a sloped roof condition, the Commission may want to consider limiting the height of the chimney to 5 feet. He pointed out that each chimney assembly requires 30", including the framing, the chimney wall and the spark arrestor. Highlighting the drawings in staff report, Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the chimneys are typically part of the building design. Planning Commission.. Special Meeting January 27, 2003 4 all a Louie Tomaro, 1001 6ch Street, Manhattan Beach, architect Mr. Tomaro addressed some of the limitations that have cropped up with chimneys during the building design stages; explained that one of the problems architects are faced with is using unattractive, prefabricated chimneys with spark arrestors; and stated that architects would like to see more latitude to allow for design creativity that they can use with the fireplaces, but pointed out that architects face some liability in what they design for custom chimney caps, such as ample venting and the separation requirements for combustible materials. Mr. Tomaro stated that each chimney manufacturer makes different types of shrouds with decorative colors that cover the spark arrestors; and advised that there are a number of different fireplace manufacturers, each one having their own listed assemblies. He addressed the importance of proportionately designing the chimneys to fit with the character of the architecture; and added that in most cases, he tries to combine multiple chimneys into one so that the chimneys are not scattered across a roof. Director Blumenfeld highlighted the drawings on page 6 which illustrate some of the problems confronted by architects; stated that what is shown on page 6 is a manufactured listed chase which is non-combustible; added that when you have that entire assembly, you can go up 3 feet from the roof and comply with the 2-and-10 requirement; but noted that if you have a condition with a combustible chase, then you have to come up another 3 feet; and that if you don't have the rest of the listed assembly, what you're looking at is an unadomed/plain chimney cap with a spark arrestor. He stated that staff would like to avoid this situation and added that this design feature should not be compromised with this code requirement. He reiterated staff s 5 recommendations, including the recommendation to prohibit non -listed chimney assemblies. Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Pizer that the termination cap, the decorative shroud is part of this recommendation and would be incorporated into the overall height. He stated that custom designed termination caps could be used as long as they are ICBO approved as non- combustible assemblies. Mr. Tomaro explained that it would take a tremendous amount of time to obtain a UL rating or ICBO approval on a custom design; and stated that this provision would limit the architects in what they could do, but he reiterated that he would support this limitation because of the liability concerns with designing custom caps, making sure that they draft and vent properly. While wanting greater design flexibility, Mr. Tomaro explained that the architects are seeking direction on the maximum size of chimneys; stated that he is in agreement with the dimensions recommended in staff report; expressed his belief that the manufacturers would allow different materials to be used to make decorative shrouds; and that it is his belief there are plenty of designs in the marketplace for the architects and the manufacturers to use listed, decorative shrouds. Director Blumenfeld explained for Chairman Pizer that the architects would use the listed shrouds and then apply another material over that assembly, though not covering the spark arrestor. 2 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 Mr. Tomaro confirmed for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that he is comfortable with using a listed assembly and working with it to create a character that would be reminiscent with whatever style of architecture he is working on at the time. Director Blumenfeld stated that it is staff s belief that a maximum 5-foot limitation would allow for enough space on any roof pitch and a maximum 4-foot limitation would allow for enough space on a flat roof. Mr. Tomaro noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that the above -mentioned dimensions should work with all fire box assemblies, be it single, double or triple designs. Director Blumenfeld clarified that on the steepest part of a roof, a chimney may extend 5 feet above the roof; that the chimney height would be measured from the roof from which it extends, not from the adjacent roof, and stated that if you had a stacked set of roof lines, then the 2-and- 10 rule would apply, measured no greater than 5 feet at the top. Mr. Tomaro explained that where the increased dimension is needed is where the chimney comes out of the roof. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that Recommendation Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to design issues and that the others are enforcement issues; and requested direction from the Planning Commission on whether to come back with a text amendment to Chapter 1746.010 of the Zone Code relative to the 5 items. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffinan, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE staff s recommendation to define chimney assemblies to include the elements that make up the chimney -- the chase, the flue, the spark arrestor, and the chimney cap; to limit the bulk of listed chimney assemblies to 3 feet wide by 3 feet long for single -flue assemblies, 3 feet wide by 5 feet long for double -flue assemblies, and 3 feet wide by 7 feet long for triple -flue assemblies; to limit the maximum height of chimneys to not more than 5 feet when the chimneys are located on the sloped roof section and not more than 4 feet when the chimneys are located on the flat roof section; to prohibit non -listed chimney assemblies; and directed staff to return with a text amendment to Chapter 1746.010 of the Zone Code for the 5 recommended items. Commissioner Tucker suggested that the Mechanical Code also be amended to include these changes. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti 3 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 2) Snack Shop Definition Director Blumenfeld addressed staff s desire to make the code more understandable with regard to snack shop versus restaurant uses; stated that a snack shop is parked at a less restrictive parking ratio than a restaurant, at the retail parking ratio of 4 per thousand as opposed to a restaurant parking ratio of 10 per thousand; and explained that the City needs to uniformly and consistently make its determinations when distinguishing between the two uses, stating that it can sometimes become problematic when some of the uses sell more than just snacks, such as offering table service, food menus and providing a large number of tables/chairs. He highlighted the importance of promoting more retail, particularly in the Downtown area; and stated that staff is proposing 5 potential recommendations to clarify the differences. Director Blumenfeld mentioned that the Planning Commission had amended the Building Code to make the snack shop/restaurant distinction with whether a business had a Type I hood vent versus a Type II hood vent; and he expressed staffs belief that it would be better to limit the seating area for these types of uses. He stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission address uses that cater to walk-in traffic; to address limiting the service area; and to address limiting menus and limiting cooking and food preparation areas. Director Blumenfeld recommended establishing a limit on the maximum number of seats and tables that are permitted to qualify as a snack shop, such as allowing no more than 5 or 10 tables, which would place a business outside the realm of most restaurants. He suggested prohibiting table service and establishing a limitation on gross floor area, stating that if a business has a large kitchen, it should not be considered a snack shop. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that both indoor and outdoor seating would be included in the total permitted; and stated that staff would suggest no more than 5 tables, with a total of 20 chairs. Chairman Pizer suggested using the kitchen hood types for certain businesses as a guide to determine if it's a snack shop versus a restaurant. Commissioner Kersenboom stated, echoed by Commissioner Tucker, that he would prefer to see no more than 5 small tables with a total of 10 chairs in a snack shop establishment. Director Blumenfeld explained that if you limit the number of users, you ultimately limit the parking demand. Commissioner Tucker noted his support for no table service and to place a limit on the gross floor area. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that a parking plan will continue to be required for every project; and that the Planning Commission would have the ability to use discretionary review. With regard to limiting gross floor area, Chairman Pizer pointed out that there are a large number of restaurants in Hermosa Beach that have small square footage. 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is suggesting that the gross floor area where the patrons are allowed be no more than 1,000 square feet. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that this would apply citywide. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would prefer limiting the total gross floor area for customer usage to 800 square feet. Director Blumenfeld stated that he will obtain a sampling square footage of public areas for businesses, such as Starbucks and the Coffee Bean, and obtain a clearer picture on how much floor area would be needed for 5 tables and 10 chairs. Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice -Chairman Hoffinan that staff will return with some regulations to limit an active retail use, such as a Krispy Kream or Jamba Juice business/drive- through. Commissioner Tucker questioned if a snack shop needed a Type I hood vent, would it be permitted with this change. Director Blumenfeld explained that if the staff recommendations are adopted, the Type I or Type II hood vents would no longer be a consideration. Director Blumenfeld explained that certain businesses are pedestrian oriented and don't generate any parking demand, particularly in the Downtown area; that some of these uses tend to sell retail products, such as Starbucks selling coffee mugs and coffee making equipment; pointed out that certain uses have a retail component to them; and that the City does not want to penalize these businesses which have a retail component. Vice -Chairman Hoffman suggested defining a snack shop as an ancillary activity that's conducted in a retail establishment and whether or not the business has a kitchen; and suggested creating a list of permitted items for sale — pointing out that this list would be occasionally modified. Director Blumenfeld advised that staff did visit some of these local businesses to try and get an idea of the size needed to operate; and he reiterated that staff will return with some figures on square footage, using a ratio of public area to gross floor area in looking at this limitation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve staff s Recommendation Nos. 1 through 4 as reasonable additions or limitations on what would be permitted for a snack shop (address uses that cater to walk-in traffic, limit the seating and table area, prohibiting table service, limiting gross floor area), and to exclude Recommendation No. 5 (limiting menus and limiting cooking and food preparation areas.) 5 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 3) Three -Quarter Bath Requirement for Two or More Units Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission had eliminated the ability to build full baths at the ground level, believing that it may be easier to convert to bootleg units; and stated that it is staff s belief this provision is not effective in preventing an owner from converting a space to a bootleg unit, adding that there is no evidence to support this theory. He suggested that this provision be eliminated and that the City continue its enforcement pursuit of these illegal units. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan expressed his belief that this provision is not effective and stated that he would support eliminating this provision. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would support the elimination of this provision as long as the unit stairways are open and a deed restriction is signed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to eliminate this condition. 4) Standards to Reduce Sound Attenuation Requirements for Condominiums other than Stacked Flats Director Blumenfeld explained that the City uses a noise attenuation rating for the components that make up the walls, the floors and other assembly units that make up the construction of a condominium unit; stated that the current requirement is a 58 Sound Transmission Co -Efficient (STC) rating for condominiums; and explained that this rating is only achieved by pouring a light weight concrete floor typically for stacked units. He added that the light weight concrete floor is an expensive and difficult endeavor; that it is only effective with stacked units as opposed to side -by -side units; and pointed out that side -by -side units are typically built in the City. He stated that staff is recommending eliminating the 58 STC rating for non -stacked projects; and requiring an STC rating of 54. Director Blumenfeld recommended that wording be added to the last line of Item G, "The minimum wall insulation rating between units shall be 52 STC. Floor/ceiling assemblies between stacked wall units shall be 58 STC. In all other cases, the floor/ceiling shall not be less than 54 STC. These ratings shall be detailed and referenced on the approved plans." In addition, he advised that staff is suggesting a common wall definition, "Common wall means staggered stud walls on one upper and lower plate separating two condominium units. For the purpose of this chapter, parallel stud walls with separate top and bottom plates in the air space between are not defined as common wall." He stated that staff wants to ensure that no plumbing fixture shall be located in a common wall of a floor/ceiling assembly between stacked units; and he added that the plumbing can be located in the parallel stud walls. Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice -Chairman Hoffinan that if you have a stacked unit, you would have to comply with all of the condominium law requirements and the 58 STC rating; but that side -by -side units will have to conform to no less than a 54 STC rating. It was the concurrence of the Planning Commission to concur with staff recommendation. 6 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 5) Limitations of Open Space Coverage for Trellis Structures Director Blumenfeld advised that a homeowner is allowed to provide some of the required open space on decks, but that one cannot enclose more than two sides on the deck and that the trellis not result in more than 50-percent coverage. He stated that this provision is unclear. He explained that the Planning Commission had previously approved the layout of trellises that could occupy the entire space, holding back the trellis from 50 percent of the floor area, which has from time to time resulted in unsatisfactory results for the architect/builder. Director Blumenfeld suggested that the Planning Commission may want to dispense with this requirement and allow the homeowner to cover the entire deck area with trellis, making sure that the trellis spacing is 50 percent open space area. He noted the need for trellis and patio cover to be better defined for code enforcement purposes. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that he would support 25 percent coverage. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he would support covering the entire area provided the coverage is less than a certain percentage, yet to be determined. Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Planning Commission left the 50-percent limitation intact, staff would calculate the open space between the framing. Director Blumenfeld suggested that the Planning Commission could leave the 50-percent coverage intact and direct staff to ensure that there is no prohibition when reviewing plans on covering the actual deck area up to the full extent of the deck. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to support staff s first recommendation, that the trellis shall be allowed to cover the entire open area as long as the open areas between the framing represent at least 50 percent open space. 6) Garage Entries and Finished Height Director Blumenfeld highlighted the need for uniformity of requirements for areas covering the driveway and areas that lead into a garage, both commercial and residential; noted staffs preference to be guided by the UBC standards, which require 7 feet clear from the finished floor to the finished garage door opening, unobstructed head room to head room clearance of not less than 7 feet above the finished floor, with the door in the open position. J.R. Reviczky, stated that the UBC doesn't reference garage door openers, that it references piping and obstructions; advised that some garage door openers will not work unless the motors and rails are lower than the height of the door; and he urged the Planning Commission to take this into consideration. Director Blumenfeld stated that by approving the proposed change that the building may become more compressed and this may become a design issue for the architect. 7 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the code be consistent and require a 7-foot clearance, with no obstructions, from the finished surface of the garage to the finished surface of the garage door opening. 7) General Plan Update Director Blumenfeld highlighted the various elements in the City's General Plan and the date the various elements had been adopted and/or amended; advised that the City Council had directed staff to develop a draft RFP for the update of the City's General Plan; and commented on some of the inconsistencies in the General Plan. He stated that the Land Use and Circulation Elements must be internally consistent with each other and all other elements, in particular, the Housing Element. He added that an environmental analysis would have to be performed, either preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which would depend on the results of an Initial Study for the project. Director Blumenfeld stated that the consultant would need to conduct some initial data collection identifying potential significant impacts and prepare a Draft Technical Study, which would be used for the environmental review. He stated that the environmental review would include traffic reports, an air quality analysis, a noise analysis, and a review of the initial analysis and studies conducted by staff; and on that basis, the consultant would then make a determination as to whether an EIR is required. Director Blumenfeld commented on the public hearing cycle that would need to take place to complete the various element updates and the update of the General Plan as a whole; and he estimated that the entire process would take approximately a year to complete. Director Blumenfeld stated that this process can be very costly and noted that funding may limit what can be undertaken in this scope of work. Vice -Chairman Hoffman suggested updating the Urban Design Element and the Seismic Element and noted his support for conducting a Land Use and Circulation Elements update. Commissioner Tucker expressed his opinion that the City should conduct a comprehensive General Plan Update, bringing all of the elements up to date. He mentioned that he would like to increase the minimum size of condominium square footage from 1350 to 1750 in order to alleviate density in the City. Director Blumenfeld stated that this process can be very costly and that it would be more feasible to carry out the project in a phased manner; and highlighted the need for community outreach, such as conducting various workshops. Chairman Pizer expressed his preference that a General Plan Review Committee be formed prior to the RFP going out to bid in order to assure that the public has adequate input with this process. Commissioner Kersenboom requested that the Planning Commission be provided a copy of the Economic Review Committee's report/booklet that was presented to the City Council. 8 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003 Director Blumenfeld suggested that each Planning Commissioner present to staff their ideas for the RFP to prioritize what to pursue; and stated that the City could obtain a cost analysis for each task. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would like to see the following element updates: housing, noise, urban design, economic, seismic, parks and recreation, and conservation; and stated that he would support Chairman Pizer's request for the creation of a committee to address this matter. Director Blumenfeld stated that it is his understanding the Planning Commission is directing staff to not issue the RFP at this time; that a cost analysis be provided for each task; and to wait until a determination has been made for the creation of a committee. Vice -Chairman Hoffman expressed his appreciation for all the work Director Blumenfeld had put into creating the staff reports for this extra meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to ADJOURN the meeting at 9:34 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 regular scheduled meeting of January 27, 2003. Ron Pfizer, Chairman l (63 Date 9 Planning Commission Special Meeting January 27, 2003