Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-18 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 18, 2003, 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 Tucker led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker, and Chairman Pizer Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None, CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE the January 27, 2003 and February 18, 2003, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Director Blumenfeld advised that the project architect has completed the plans for the project, but that there will be some slight modifications to the critical points for measuring height; and that the project as submitted reflects the revisions as previously suggested by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Perrotti requested input with regard to the plans reflecting decorative pavement but noted the absence of this provision in the resolution and suggested this be a standard condition. Director Blumenfeld explained that projects must be constructed as shown on the approved plans or as stipulated by the conditions of approval; and stated that this project does include decorative concrete paving on the approved plans as approved by Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 02-54, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26814 for a two -unit condominium project at 538-540 Manhattan Avenue and moved to include a provision in the resolution for decorative concrete paving. This motion carried as follows: Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 AYES: Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PDP 02-8/PARK 02-6 -- Precise Development Plan and Variance for a 4,500-square- foot expansion of an existing office building by the addition of a third floor, and Parking Plan to permit five tandem parking spaces, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 824 1st Street, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration (continued from September 17, October 15, November 19, 2002 and January 21, 2003 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To receive and file. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the proposed project has been continued three times at the Planning Commission; explained that during this period of time, the project has evolved and been redesigned; and stated that the applicant is continuing to work on the project to ensure that it will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and not require discretionary review. Since this proposal has been agendized over three times, Director Blumenfeld noted that the applicant is required to renotice for another public hearing once but that no hearing will be required if the project is fully code complying. Staff is recommending at this time that the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to RECEIVE AND FILE PDP 02-8/PARK 02-6 -- Precise Development Plan and Variance for a 4,500-square- foot expansion of an existing office building by the addition of a third floor, and Parking Plan to permit five tandem parking spaces, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 824 1st Street, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration: The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 7. VAR 03-3 -- Variance from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard in the R- 3 zone to allow the development of two units on a 2,611-square-foot lot at 1220 Sunset Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that this property is a street -to -alley through lot; that it has frontage on Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Loma Drive and alley frontage on Sunset Drive; and that it currently contains a single-family dwelling that was built in the 1920's. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance provides that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the R-3 zone (in which this project is located) is 1,320 square feet; advised that the subject lot contains 2,611 square feet and that it does not contain sufficient lot area to qualify for two units. He added that the corresponding General Plan designation for the property is 33 units per acre (High Density residential category); explained, that this property is one of 7 similar lots located on the block located between Pier Avenue and 11tn Street; and stated that these lots are 30 feet wide and contain slightly less than 2,640 square feet. Director Blumenfeld stated that 5 of the 7 lots are currently developed with two units; and that these lots are nonconforming uses because they're nonconforming to the lot area per dwelling unit standard in the R-3 zone. He stated that the subject lot and Lot No. 6 (as shown on the applicant's exhibit) are developed with conforming single-family dwellings; and added that the applicant is requesting a zoning Variance in order to develop two lots on the subject property, where the development standard only permits one unit. Director Blumenfeld expressed staff s belief that the basic facts and circumstances in this case are not consistent with granting the Variance, as the applicant's proposal would in effect change the zoning and allowable use for the subject property in order to allow an additional unit — pointing out that granting this Variance would double the density allowance on the property. Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Planning Commission approves this Variance, it could create a precedent with other properties in the City that are similarly close to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard, including the 7 other properties on this block. Pointing out that a Variance should be used on a site specific basis rather than area wide, he added that if the Planning Commission is interested in approving the Variance that it would be more appropriate to rezone the properties and create a new General Plan designation which exceeds 33 dwelling units per acre. Director Blumenfeld stated that there are four mandatory findings that must be made in order to grant a Variance: 1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions of the property; 2) That the Variance is 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) That the granting of the Variance 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) That the Variance is consistent with the General Plan. With regard to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant indicates that there are exceptional circumstances that exist for this property and 6 adjacent properties within the block; however, he stated that in order to make this finding, there must be unique or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved; and noted that because there are 6 other lots on this block and other lots located throughout the City that similarly fall below the threshold for an additional unit, this finding cannot be made. With regard to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld stated since there are other properties that are 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 similarly affected; there is not a finding that can be made for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the subject property. He noted that this is not a minor Variance as alleged by the applicant, since if the other property owners avail themselves of the same property right, it will result in a cumulative effect on the density of block, which will substantially affect the property rights of those in the area. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant argues that the majority of the properties within the vicinity are zoned R-3 and are developed with two or more lots. He stated that while these properties contain two or more lots, the lots that are shown on the applicant's submittal are all nonconforming lots and do not legally contain two or more units on a lot. He added that the other lots that are developed with two or more units are properties that are much larger and have sufficient lot area to allow two or more units; and, therefore, the applicant is seeking a property right which is not possessed by other properties in the zone and vicinity. With regard to Finding No. 3, Director Blumenfeld stated that the granting of this Variance will be materially detrimental to property and improvements in the vicinity and zone, since it will add one more unit and double the density on the subject lot; and have a negative cumulative effect on the area if all similar properties are developed to this density. With regard to Finding No. 4, Director Blumenfeld stated that the land use category for this property is the highest allowable density in the City (High Density Residential), which has a density range of 33 units per acre; advised that if two units were developed on the subject lot, it would result in a density range of 33.36 units per acre and exceed the maximum density allowable in the General Plan. He stated that the applicant argues that the density should be calculated not on a lot basis, but on the basis of the prevailing lots on the block; advised that staff disagrees with the applicant's method of calculating density; and that the General Plan Land Use Element clearly states that residential development densities which exceed the General Plan are prohibited. He stated that because of these conditions, it is staff s belief that none of the findings have been met to grant the proposed Variance. Terry Stambler-Wolfe, applicant's representative, distributed some written communications to the Planning Commission in regard to this matter; pointed out that she and staff have different views on the project density calculationsy; stated that staff is arguing that the Planning Commission should be looking at density and specifically looking at whether there are grounds for this Variance predicated on other parcels for which there are nonconforming parcels. She stated that she believes these lots are legal, nonconforming parcels; and that if one has a legal, nonconforming parcel, one has a right to maintain the density that exists in a neighborhood. Ms. Stambler-Wolfe stated it's been her experience that most property owners are going to do whatever they can to maintain their properties and preserve the densities that they currently have, which were established, perhaps, before the current zoning standard was put in place. She stated that there is no historical data or supporting documentation on these properties to indicate past history; but that her interpretation of what the density is and how this Variance should be evaluated is based on existing conditions; and that there is flexibility in interpreting the General Plan. With regard to staff s assertion that this would create a precedent, Ms. Stambler-Wolfe stated that the applicant is only talking about a relatively small number of properties that could come before the City to ask for such a request because there aren't that many properties that are going to yield their legal, non -conforming densities and then come back and ask for variations to the General Plan. 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 She noted her opposition to denying this request based on the presumption that there may be property owners down the road that may ask for a Variance; and that not granting this Variance request will create an inequitable situation for the applicants. She stated that because she does not have as much information as she might like relative to the legal, nonconforming status of the properties, she will be submitting to staff a Public Records Act Request. Victoria Iglio, applicant, stated that every neighbor on her block and surrounding properties support and agree with her position; stated that the difference in size of properties is negligible and not visible to the eye; and noted that if she is not able to build two units, she will not be able to afford a single-family residence in this City — highlighting her desire to stay in Hermosa Beach. Nancy McCutchin, 1309 Loma and 1310 Sunset, expressed her belief that this area should be specially designated to allow the two units; noted her opposition to decreasing the density plan and the resulting property value; and stated that this creates an unfair situation for this applicant and the 6 other property owners who are not able to enjoy their properties in the same manner. Lee Vaughn, 1224 Sunset Drive, stated that she lives adjacent to the applicant; that her own property has two dwellings on the lot; advised that the applicant has a well -maintained lot; expressed her belief that the applicant's house is too small to accommodate a growing family and, therefore, should be permitted to build two dwellings on her property. Stan Ralls, 1226 loth Street, Manhattan Beach, provided a brief history for the reason these lots are substandard in size, explaining that different north points were used by various land surveyors when this area was being subdivided and that research indicates several subdivisions and streets are not parallel; and he urged the Planning Commission to grant the applicant's request, allowing for consistency in this area. Chairman Pizer inquired of Mr. Ralls if he believes there are any special circumstances involving this set of lots as compared to similar lots in the City. Mr. Ralls expressed his belief that the special circumstance is the fact that the subdivision is on different north points; and that if the subdivisions had been accurately conducted, all of these lots would be 80 feet long and would meet the standard. He stated that his research was not able to identify another area in this City wherein this condition existed by virtue of the fact that the subdivisions were laid out on different ordinances. Dale Anderson, 1107 Loma Drive, pointed out that this entire area has multifamily lots, with two dwellings on each lot; expressed the need and desire to attract more family units to Hermosa Beach — believing that families create a more stable environment in the City; and stated that the applicant is a conscientious property owner and an asset to this City. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the applicant's request. Loretta Summers, 1305 Loma and 1304 Sunset Drive, stated that she is in favor of granting the Variance; noted that most of the properties in this area have two units; and that allowing this Variance would create a more consistent look to this neighborhood. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. s Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Vice -Chairman Hoffinan stated that he agrees with some of the points the applicant has made; but highlighted the necessity to be consistent in the Planning Commission's interpretation of what the mandatory findings are and what the Planning Commission is bound by in State law as to the process by which a Variance can be granted. He expressed his belief that because there are other properties in this area that have the same condition, it does not present a unique situation; and pointed out that the findings cannot be based on a set of similar lots, that the uniqueness has to be related to that one lot. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he would like a future Planning Commission agenda to address a possible mechanism to change the zoning of these properties and other lots that may have been affected in the same manner during the down -zoning activities. Commissioner Perrotti echoed Vice -Chairman Hoffman's statement that because there are similar lots in the same condition, it does not pose an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance; and stated that he would like to see a mechanism put in place to rectify this problem for the 6 to 7 lots that are in the same situation. Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concurrence with the Commission statements and indicated his interest in possibly rezoning this area in the future. Commissioner Tucker stated that he could not make the findings to support the Variance; and noted that he would be in favor of considering another alternative to solve this situation for the neighborhood and inquired that can be done to correct the condition. Chairman Pizer noted his concurrence with the Commission's statements and interest in solving this problem for the 7 properties. Director Blumenfeld explained that this is not only a zoning matter, but that it is also a General Plan issue; that if the Planning Commission and City Council wish to make a change that would be permissible, other than changing the lot area per dwelling unit standard which would apply on an area -wide basis, then the City would need to make a change to both the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan to allow a density that exceeds 33 dwelling units per acre. He added that staff calculates density on the basis of lot area per the Zoning Ordinance standard of minimum lot per area dwelling unit. Chairman Pizer stated that this creates a special circumstance due to the way the survey was done for this area. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes the way the survey was conducted is irrelevant; and that the issue in this case is whether this area should be developed to a higher density. He added that there are many properties that fall short of the standard for lot area per dwelling unit, just as there are many lots that don't meet other standards. He stated that if the Planning Commission and City Council believe a higher density is warranted in this area, that a change would have to be made to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that in order to accommodate this one block, consideration would have to be given to an overlay zone or a specific plan with special zoning provision to the subject block. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to DENY VAR 03-3 - 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 - Variance from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard in the R-3 zone to allow the development of two units on a 2,611-square-foot lot at 1220 Sunset Drive. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Pizer advised the applicant that an appeal could be made to the City Council. 8. CUP 00-1 -- Review of the Conditional Use Permit for Dano's Beach Grill at 1320 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a review of Resolution No. 00-24, the Conditional Use Permit allowing on -sale beer and wine and on -sale general alcohol for Dano's Beach Grill; and added that this item was initiated at the request of Hermosa Beach Police Chief Lavin, who requested that the Planning Commission consider reviewing the existing Conditional Use Permit due to disturbances and recent arrests at the restaurant. Director Blumenfeld stated that the police incident reports reflect that there was inadequate staffing and management at the restaurant. He highlighted the two major disturbances which happened in December 2002, wherein mutual aid police units had to be called in to assist with the situation. Director Blumenfeld stated that this property is currently being purchased by another group that has indicated a plan to operate as an up- scale restaurant. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission could leave the current Conditional Use Permit in place and have the new owner be responsible for implementing the conditions of that permit; that the Planning Commission could modify the Conditional Use Permit and set more restrictive measures with respect to security and operating controls; that the Planning Commission could establish a 6-month review period to see how the business is operating with that modified permit; and that the Planning Commission could revoke the Conditional Use Permit and require that the new owner obtain a Conditional Use Permit and draft new conditions on that basis. Police Chief Lavin highlighted the incidents that have taken place at this establishment; explained that the two major incidents resulted in a large fight which resulted in calling out mutual aid, stating that this is rarely necessary in this City and that fights of this magnitude are not usually encountered in this City; pointed out that the two incidents happened two weekends in a row; and that he believed it was necessary to take steps to make sure that the management practices are modified or adjusted to make sure this does not happen again. Commissioner Perrotti questioned whether the Fire Department has checked the operations at this facility for over -crowding. Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's inquiry, Police Chief Lavin stated that the Fire Department has made inspections at this business and that he is not aware of any citations that have been issued for over -crowding. 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Police Chief Lavin expressed his belief that a change to up -scale restaurant versus a nightclub should improve the conditions at this site in the future. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the Police Department has a training program for the doormen at these types of businesses. Addressing Commissioner Tucker's question, Police Chief Lavin stated that the Police Department usually meets with operators of these type businesses once or twice a year to talk about the role of doormen, what they can and cannot do in the realm of their responsibilities; that the Police Department does not provide the training, but that they communicate to the businesses what they would like to see the doormen doing. Commissioner Tucker questioned if fights break out at other establishments. Police Chief Lavin noted for Commissioner Tucker that other establishments in this area have experienced fighting; and stated that the police foot patrols are put in place to help alleviate this problem on the weekends. Vice -Chairman Hoffman questioned where the responsibility of a doorman begins and ends and where the police responsibilities begin. Police Chief Lavin explained that the type of music being played, the type of alcohol being served, and the business practices all play a part in the proper crowd control; and noted the necessity to engineer the practices on the front-end so that it reduces problems on the back -end. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Dano Miller, owner of Dano's Beach Grill, stated that the successors of this business plan to operate an upscale restaurant; explained that there have been no further disturbances at his place of business; and he thanked the police for their assistance. He asked that the Conditional Use Permit not be altered, noting that it may have a detrimental impact on the final sale of his business. Chairman Pizer questioned whether the restaurant has been sold and, if not, when the process would be complete. Mr. Miller noted his expectation that the sale should be finalized within the next 30 days if no change is made to the Conditional Use Permit; and urged the Planning Commission to give the new owners an opportunity to start their business without added restrictions. Chris Marquez, incoming business partner with Southern California Restaurant Endeavors, advised that the new name of the business will be Element; explained that it will be a sophisticated, up -scale restaurant serving steak, seafood and pasta dishes. He stated that the deal on the table would be affected by the changing of the existing Conditional Use Permit and would deem this business less competitive with other restaurants in the area. He added that the problems have ceased at Dano's as a result of altering his business activities. 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Chairman Pizer questioned whether the new owners are planning any modifications to the facility. Mr. Marguez advised that plans have been submitted to City staff for minor cosmetic changes to the exterior of the building, to increase the capacity of what the current kitchen can put out, and to move the fencing out, but not to change the dining capacity. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the Conditional Use Permit does not restrict outdoor dining. Mr. Marguez stated that he would like the opportunity to provide live entertainment, possibly a 3- piece band for a special event, private party or wedding reception; and he reiterated that this will be a restaurant and not a dance club. He stated that he expects the sale of this business to go through within the next 30 to 60 days, pending no change to the Conditional Use Permit. He added that he would like to be in operation by June. There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker stated that he would like to view the submitted plans; and that he would prefer that this sale be completed without any change to the Conditional Use Permit — stating that a change this evening may not work for the new business. Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the necessity to remind problematic establishments in the community that they have a responsibility to maintain a respectable operation that does not require routine assistance of the Police Department; and expressed his belief that the change in ownership and operation at this establishment will be an improvement in the business operations. He stated that at this point in time, he would not recommend a change in the Conditional Use Permit. He expressed his belief that outdoor dining hours should be consistent throughout the City with these types of businesses. Vice -Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that the operational problems have improved with this business; and stated that the property owner should be given the opportunity to complete the sales transaction without the hindrance of adding new restrictions to the Conditional Use Permit — questioning whether this could be contingent upon the transfer of the business. Commissioner Kersenboom suggested leaving the Conditional Use Permit as is, but suggested that this matter be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a month. Director Blumenfeld suggested that the Planning Commission may consider continuing this matter until such time that the applicant is able to submit to the Commission plans for the development and operation of the establishment, which would include plans for outdoor dining. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he would like to see proof of the sales transaction, such as the escrow papers. Commissioner Tucker addressed his support for not changing the Conditional Use Permit at this time; suggested allowing the property owner 60 days to get through the escrow process; and noted that based upon the submitted plans, modifications may become necessary. 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE CUP 00-1 -- review of the Conditional Use Permit for Dano's Beach Grill at 1320 Hermosa Avenue to the next meeting in order for the new owner to submit a set of plans for Planning Commission review. 9. CUP 03-1 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing restaurant with on -sale alcohol at 1332 Hermosa Avenue, T. J. Charlyz. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the original Conditional Use Permit for this project was granted in 1983, permitting on -sale beer and wine sales in conjunction with the restaurant; and that in 1996, the City Council approved an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment. He explained that the project is located in the Downtown area and is appropriate in the zone and consistent with the General Plan; and stated that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing storefront wall of the restaurant with a 3-foot high wrought iron fence and to relocate the wall back 13 feet from the front property line to create an outdoor seating area. He advised that staff recommends that a new seating plan be prepared for occupant load purposes and that an acoustical study be prepared to include any required mitigation measures that might be required to mitigate noise, particularly with respect to live entertainment; and he stated that staff is suggesting a 6-month review of the project in order to monitor the operations of the business. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Steve Dotta, owner of T.J. Charlyz, stated that he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Perrotti questioned whether the applicant concurs with the conditions in the proposed resolution, specifically with regard to the restriction that no outdoor/patio seating shall be permitted after 11:00 P.M. and that no patrons shall be seated on the patios beginning an hour before this time. In response to Commissioner Perrotti's inquiry, Mr. Dotta stated that he concurs with that restriction. There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker noted his concern that some type of vestibule entranceway would need to be constructed to keep patrons from cuing in the outdoor/patio area during the restricted hours. Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant could locate a new wall further to the south and then create a corridor along that area with an exit directly to the sidewalk, which could be the entrance to the restaurant, and to create a second entrance in that new wall area to the patio. Director Blumenfeld stated that the Conditional Use Permit should include the outdoor dining area restriction. 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the Conditional Use Permit include the need to modify the entryway in the patio area. Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that restricting the outdoor dining area to everyone after 11:00 P.M. is too restrictive, noting that patrons should be permitted to smoke in this area after hours. Commissioner Tucker highlighted the fact that the City Council had reversed the Planning Commission's decision to limit the patio hours to 11:00 P.M. at the Chop House, allowing the business to use this area until 2:00 A.M. There was consensus among the Planning Commission that the City should be consistent in limiting the hours of operation for outdoor seating/dining for similar businesses in the City; and that this establishment should also be permitted to use its outdoor seating/dining area until 2:00 A.M. if that is the desire of the City Council. Commissioner Tucker reiterated his suggestion that a vestibule should be installed at the front entry door to keep the sound from migrating. Director Blumenfeld suggested that the Planning Commission allow the acoustical engineer to develop a design solution/requirement that will assist with cueing of patrons and sound attenuation. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan suggested a 6-month review period to determine if these changes with the wall and outside seating pose any problems; and that the railing be redesigned to create a cue along the south side of the building. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 03-1 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing restaurant with on -sale alcohol at 1332 Hermosa Avenue, T. J. Charlyz; and to include a modification that the railing be redesigned to create a cue along the south side of the building. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Pizer recessed the meeting at 9:03 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12 P.M. 10. TEXT 03-7 -- Text Amendment to add internet center and computer network to the C- 3 zone permitted use list. Staff :Recommended. Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment. 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Director Blumenfeld highlighted the request to change the text of the Zoning Ordinance to include "computer and internet access center" as a permitted use under the C-3 zone; explained that this type of technology is quickly evolving; advised that this proposed use will offer internet services and assistance. He advised that staff had contacted several other cities to see how they regulate these types of businesses and that the survey of those contacts had been provided to the Planning Commission. Director Blumenfeld explained that staff determined that most of these businesses are operated under Conditional Use Permit requirements; and stated that there are no special parking requirements attached. He addressed some of the problems which have been associated with these types of businesses, such as loitering and hang-outs. He stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider adding this use, "computer and internet access center" to the permitted use list as a conditionally permitted use and to establish conditions on a case -by -case basis when an application comes before the Planning Commission. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the Planning Commission is addressing the text amendment to allow the use in the zone, not a permit for the applicant. He added that the cities which were surveyed did not restrict gaming on the computer. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Anhtuan Pham, applicant for the text amendment, Redondo Beach, addressed his interest in opening this type of business in the City; noted his intent to offer internet and telecommunication service, business computer assistance/education, gaming and homework stations. He stated that the patrons would pay an hourly fee; and added that the demographic he is striving to attract is between the ages of 24 to 54. Mr. Pham advised that he has in place business practices that prevent gang problems. Mr. Pham stated that only one person may use a computer station at a time; that friends must wait in the waiting area and not crowd around a work station; and stated that the stations will be placed in circular clusters. He added that he would assist staff in developing the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Pham confirmed for Commissioner Tucker that the games are completely played on a computer, not a typical arcade machine. Barbara Kenard, owner of the center, expressed her full support for Mr. Pham's proposal, believing that the applicant will operate a reputable business. There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffinan, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE TEXT 03-7 -- Text Amendment to add internet center and computer network to the C-3 zone permitted use list. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 12 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 11. SUB 03-1 -- Lot split to create two 30-foot-wide lots pursuant to the approved Variance at 836 Beach Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the subject property contains a duplex on two lots from the original tract that was merged into one lot, all occurring with the lot merger program that took place in 1988; and stated that the merged lot can be developed with up to 3 units in accordance with the lot area per dwelling unit standard for the R-2 zone. He noted that the applicant has obtained approval from the Planning Commission to develop two single-family homes on individual lots, with a Variance to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances — pointing out that the proposed lot split implements that Variance. He stated that the Planning Commission approval allows the proposed lot subdivision; that the approval was based on the unique situations that were created by the merger of the two original lots, resulting in combined square footage that yielded a development potential of 3 units — noting that neither lot is large enough to qualify for two; and stated that as a result, this subdivision will implement the requested Variance which was approved in January. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE SUB 03-1 -- lot split to create two 30-foot-wide lots pursuant to the approved Variance at 836 Beach Drive. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to consider Agenda Item Nos. 12 and 13 together. 12. VAR 03-2 -- Variance to allow the required ground level open space of the R-1 zone to be located in the front yard at 2326 The Strand. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. 13. VAR 03-1 -- Variance to allow the required ground level open space of the R-1 zone to be located in the front yard at 2330 The Strand. Staff Recommended Action,: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting a Variance from the ground level open space requirement in the R-1 zone, which requires 75 percent of the required 400 square feet of open space to be located on the ground; and relief from the requirement that an additional 100 square feet be located on the deck adjacent to the primary living area since the deck is proposed to be 7 feet rather than the minimum 10 feet required. He explained that the request for relief from the 13 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 ground level dimension is similar to a Variance that was granted by the City Council in January 2000 for similar reasons, allowing that the front yard with less than 10-foot dimension to meet the open space requirement was unique for the property involved because of the small lot size and because of the alley access at the rear. He stated that the applicant is suggesting that those are similar grounds for a Variance on this subject property. He advised that the applicant's request is to allow the building to extend to the front yard setback, which is 8 feet from the property line of the strand — pointing out that it is typically 10 feet; that in order to provide the required 300 feet of open space on the ground, the building would have to be set back approximately 20 feet from The Strand; that, alternately, open space could be located in the courtyard area in the middle of the lot, but advised that this option is not practical; and that it is impossible to provide this in the rear area because that is the area located for the garage and access to the property. Director Blumenfeld stated that overall, the building would have to be reduced by approximately 900 square feet to comply with the ground level open space requirement. Director Blumenfeld advised that there are four mandatory findings that the Planning Commission has to make in order to grant the open space Variance request; stated that the applicant is making this request because of the small 2,400-square-foot lot size, which is not quite small enough to qualify as a small lot under the R-1 ordinance; that the alley is the only access at the rear; that these conditions force the ground level open space to be provided toward the front of the lot, which significantly limits the potential building size and also limits the view potential off The Strand; and stated that this applicant believes this combination of factors is unique relative to other Strand properties. With regard to the first finding, Director Blumenfeld stated that the lot is small, 2,400 square feet, but that it is not considered a small lot under the R-1 standard and that it does not qualify for the small lot exception; that the alley being the only access at the rear of the open space has to be provided at the front of the lot and that this limits the potential size of the dwelling compared to the Strand lots, limits the view potential, and is arguably a unique condition. He added that in total, these circumstances could be considered to be exceptional and extraordinary. With regard to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld stated that the property owners wish to exercise their property right which is possessed by other properties in the neighborhood, by constructing a new dwelling of reasonable size and to take advantage of the view potential; and that it is arguable that similar R-1 properties to the north are allowed to use their open space in their front yard to count as their open space requirement. With regard to Finding No. 3, Director Blumenfeld stated that the property will not likely be materially detrimental to the property improvements in the vicinity and zone; and that staff believes this can be supported since the project complies with all other requirements. With regard to Finding No. 4, Director Blumenfeld stated that the project is not unusually large or out of scale with the neighborhood and is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. 14 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6ch Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, requested that the Planning Commission acknowledge the unique circumstances that create constraints on this property; explained that she is seeking relief from the strict interpretation of the R-1 code with regard to the open space requirements; and that, specifically, she is asking the Planning Commission to allow the yard area to be within the front setback area. With regard to the decks, Ms. Srour stated that this neighborhood block and the adjacent neighborhood block are very similar to R-2 lots, which are just to the south and east of this site; and that it is her belief there exists a basis for considering certain R-2 open space standards -- namely, the 7-foot dimension. She mentioned that the R-2 properties have a front setback of 5 feet. In addressing the constraints of these two properties, Ms. Srour stated that these lots are quite small; that they are approximately 70 square feet larger than a small lot consideration in the code; advised that these two properties are adjacent to a 10-foot wide alley; and that as a result, the garage has to be set back even further than normal to accommodate a turning radius. She explained that the entire southwesterly view corridor is already blocked by an existing building and that she is asking for the same opportunity that was allowed for the other properties. She stated that she has identified the constraints of the property; noted that the owner would be put at a disadvantage without this Variance; expressed her belief that this proposal is not out of scale with other buildings in the neighborhood; and that it would not be detrimental to the City. Ms. Srour mentioned that there are two very usable decks on the upper level, both off primary living areas; and expressed her belief that this will be an attractive addition to the area. Director Blumenfeld advised that depending on the outcome of this evening's vote, staff will have to return to the next meeting with a resolution; pointed out that the Variance findings pertain specifically to the request for relief from the required ground level open space and not from the deck area — pointing out that staff believes the deck area does not qualify for the same findings. Mae St. Ledger, 2321 Hermosa Avenue, expressed her opposition to the granting of this Variance, believing that it will create a precedence; and that placing the house 8 feet from The Strand would obstruct the view. Ms. Srour pointed out that the properties immediately to the east of this segment of The Strand are zoned R-2 and that those property owners enjoy the same thing the applicant is asking for this evening. She stated that these property owners enjoy a much more lenient use of the property than the subject properties before the Planning Commission this evening. She mentioned that these are two originally subdivided lots, two separate lots. She added that a variety of nonconformities will be cleared up with the new development. Ms. Srour advised that if you take all of the required open space at the ground level, all the required setbacks, you would use up almost 50 percent of the lot just in open areas — pointing out that this creates a unique situation. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Director Blumenfeld highlighted for Commissioner Perrotti the City Council's approval of a similar project that had been denied at the Planning Commission level. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that this is not an increase in density. 15 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted his concurrence with staffs recommendation to grant the ground level open space and to deny the request for the 10-foot dimension. He highlighted his anticipation that the City Council would be consistent in their determination with regard to this type of issue. There was consensus to concur with staff s recommendation to grant the Variance for the ground level open space requirement and to deny the 10-foot dimension. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to GRANT the Variance with regard to the open space ground level, VAR 03-2 -- Variance to allow the required ground level open space of the R-1 zone, but to DENY the request for the Variance of minimum dimensions for both properties. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARINGS 14. NR 03-1 — Remodel and expansion of an existing nonconforming building with an extension of an existing nonconforming side yard of 3 feet rather than 5 feet at 658 Gould Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is proposing to convert approximately half of an existing garage to livable floor area and add 213 square feet of garage area to maintain two parking spaces; stated that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 1,177 square feet to 1,433 square feet, which is a 19.8 percent increase in valuation. He advised that the project conforms to planning and zoning requirements; and explained that the existing deficient side yard would be extended by approximately 10.5 feet. Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Perrotti that the same plans submitted this evening had been approved by the Planning Commission in February 2000. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that any garage clearance deficiency would be picked up during the zone/plan check phase. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffinan, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 03-1 — remodel and expansion of an existing nonconforming building with an extension of an existing nonconforming side yard of 3 feet rather than 5 feet at 658 Gould Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 16 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 15. CUP 02-10/PDP 02-22 — Appeal of Director's decision to allow glass barrier at upper deck to exceed the height limit per Section 17.46 for Union Cattle Company at 1301 Manhattan Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that the Conditional Use Permit was reconsidered and amended on December 10, 2002; that at that time, the applicant was required to provide a sound attenuation study pursuant to that approval; stated that the applicant is requesting consideration of the Planning Commission as to whether a glass partition, which is part of the noise attenuation requirement in the 2002 Conditional Use Permit Amendment, can be considered under the similar use provision of the Zone Code relative to exceeding the height limit of the zone. He reminded the Planning Commission that the applicant was to provide a sound attenuation partition, to be provided between 7 and 8 feet in height. He advised that the property sharply drops off to the west and, as a result, the building pierces the height envelope with a 7- to 8-foot high partition wall to attenuate noise, that it can only be built 4 to 5 feet in height — pointing out that this undermines the purpose for the sound partition barrier which was designed pursuant to the conditions by a qualified acoustical engineer. Director Blumenfeld added that the Zone Code allows certain equipment or structures to be constructed above the height limit on the roof in commercial and industrial zones, provided they do not exceed the height limit by more than 8 feet and cover no more than 5 percent of the total roof area — pointing out that both of those conditions would not be exceeded under this proposal. He stated that the applicant is required to provide screening to adequately mitigate noise impacts for the restaurant; that the screening was prescribed by an acoustical engineer to be 7 to 8 feet to be adequate to attenuate noise, but that a partition of only 4 to 5 feet is permitted under the height ordinance. He stated that unless the screening is determined by the Planning Commission to fall under the provisions of 17.46.010 as a similar structure, a Variance to construct the building over height must be processed for Planning Commission approval or, alternately, the owner can modify the Conditional Use Permit and occupy the outdoor area during limited hours as originally considered by the Planning Commission. Director Blumenfeld advised that the project tenant improvements are under way; that the applicant feels neither of these latter options is acceptable because modification to the Conditional Use Permit will be time consuming — pointing out that the applicant is trying to open the business prior to summer. Chairman Pizer questioned how this is a similar structure. Brief discussion ensued with regard to the Planning Commission viewing this as a roof -top deck. Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that this piece of plexiglas is barely visible and would not be intrusive to the view. The Planning Commission noted its concurrence with Commissioner Perrotti's comment. The Planning Commission directed staff to reflect that this is a similar structure. No objection was noted. 17 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 16. NR 02-7 -- Nonconforming remodel to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation while maintaining a nonconforming fireplace encroachment into the side yard at 420 29th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that this is an existing one-story dwelling unit that was constructed in the `40s; stated that it was recently remodeled in 1999; and explained that the garage is currently nonconforming to the alley setback and turning radius and that it will be corrected with the new garage that's proposed to be constructed. He advised that the only nonconforming issue on the building is the fireplace setback from the property line, which is approximately 1 foot rather than 2.5 feet; but that the project otherwise complies with the requirements of the zone. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the building by adding a bonus room at the basement level and two bedrooms on the first floor above the garage; and noted that staff believes this is reasonable and would therefore recommended approval. Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice -Chairman Hoffinan that 3 feet clearance to the property line is typically needed, 3 feet of clearance from any other structure. He stated that as long as the other property maintains the conforming yard, this applicant would comply with the Building Code requirement. Commissioner Tucker requested a condition be added that the applicant provide proof that the fireplace is structurally sound and that a spark arrestor is mounted on the fireplace. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 02-7 -- nonconforming remodel to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation while maintaining a nonconforming fireplace encroachment into the side yard at 420 29th Street; and that a condition be added to require proof that the fireplace is structurally sound and that a spark arrestor is mounted on the fireplace. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 17. STAFF ITEMS a. Rotation of the Planning Commission chairmanship (April, 2003 through December, 2003). The new Planning Commission Chairman is Peter Hoffinan. The new Planning Commission Vice - Chairman is Peter Tucker. b. Memorandum regarding proposed General Plan update work scope. Director Blumenfeld advised per the previous joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council staff is seeking direction relative to any proposed General Plan Update scope of work; and 18 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 highlighted the some Commissioners' interest to involve the public prior to retaining the services of a consultant as part of the scoping out the work. He stated that this process would lead to an RFP and ultimately to a fully developed public participation program as part of the General Plan update process. Commissioner Tucker expressed his preference that citizen input start at the beginning of the process, helping to guide the consultant in what the public would like to see with this process. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan commented on the importance of citizen input, but noted his opposition to a citizen committee doing a lot of work on this process prior to bringing in a consultant, that the public get involved in an expeditious manner. He suggested that this issue be agendized as soon as possible in order gain knowledge as to what the public is interested in addressing with the General Plan Update. Chairman Pizer suggested reviewing various elements at the Planning Commission meetings and obtaining public input. 18. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Perrotti reminded the Planning Commissioners to submit their 700 Forms to the City Clerk in a timely fashion. Commissioner Perrotti questioned what the allowable weekend hours are for construction purposes, noting that he has witnessed contractors working on the weekends. With regard to weekend construction activities, Director Blumenfeld highlighted the homeowner exemption rule, but noted that all other construction is prohibited on Sundays. Commissioner Perrotti requested that, if possible, the permitted construction hours be posted on the City's website. With regard to Agenda Item No. 7 on this evening's agenda, Vice -Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that something needs to be done to solve the problem with the zoning in the neighborhood of 1220 Sunset Drive; and suggested that the issue be addressed on a future agenda. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan requested the following change to the language in the resolution for Agenda Item No. 8, Dano's Beach Grill, No. 4: "The business shall provide adequate staffing and management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons both inside and outside the business and in nearby public areas." He requested the following change to the language in No. 6: "The Police Chief shall determine...." and "...eliminate the problem and/or shall submit a report..." He stated that the same wording should apply to T.J. Charlyz. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that the next Planning Commission agenda will include an item with regard to the new legislation concerning the allowance of an additional unit on R-1 properties. 19 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003 Commissioner Tucker requested that staff obtain information concerning the City's involvement, if any, in the Artesia Boulevard project improvements. 19. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, for adjournment at 10:42 P.M. No objection was noted. 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 March 18, 2003. �2n LP6-11 - %Ww" Ron Pizer, Chairgian Sol Blumenf d, ecretary Date 20 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2003