Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-15 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 15, 2002, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pizer at 7:02 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 Elaine Doerfling, representing the Women's Club of Hermosa Beach, invited everyone to attend the group's 10a' Annual Pancake Breakfast on Sunday, October 20, 2002, from 8:00 A.M. to noon, at the Clark building; and advised that all proceeds from the event will benefit the community's schools, city events and local organizations. CONSENT CALENDAR In reference to the September 17, 2002 Minutes, Director Blumenfeld pointed out that as requested by the Planning Commission, a supplemental item for the Ardmore Avenue project had been provided to the Planning Commission; and mentioned that the Planning Commission had requested to look at the final plans to make sure they adequately reflected the changes as recommended. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE the September 17, 2002, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE 5a) Resolution No. P.C. 02-35, to deny a requested Variance to legalize and maintain two dwelling units on a lot substandard to the minimum lot size requirement for two units in the R-3 zone, ind with less than required off-street parking for two units at 136 2nd Street; 5b) Resolution No.02-36, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26844 for a two -unit condominium at 184 and 186 2nd Street; 5c) Resolution No.0 2-37, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26807 for a two -unit condominium project at 666 & 668 3rd 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Street; 5d) Resolution No. 02-38, approving a 232-square-foot expansion and remodel to an existing duplex with demolition of exterior walls exceeding 10%, while maintaining nonconforming parking, and land use at 241 Longfellow Avenue; 5e) Resolution No. 02-39, approving a Precise Development Plan amendment for a two-story 5,000-square-foot commercial office building at 2697-2699 Pacific Coast Highway; and 5f) Resolution No. 02-40, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 24249 for a two -unit detached condominium conversion project at 1723 and 1725 Golden Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 6. ITEMS :FOR CONSIDERATION TON None, PUBIAC 11EAR1.NGS 7. PARK 02-7/PDP 02-14NAR 02-2 -- Parking Plan, Precise Development Plan and Variance for a 2,499-square-foot warehouse/storage building addition with on -site parking, including one tandem parking space, at 618 Cypress Avenue (continued from September 17, 2002 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director :Blumenfeld advised that this project is located adjacent to the private parking lot to the south froin the City yard and the City parking lot that fronts 6t' Street; stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing 1,200-square-foot manufacturing building; that the existing building is used for the current business, which packages motor oil into smaller containers for wholesale to other suppliers; and explained that the business owner is seeking to construct this new building and reconfigure the building to accommodate all the storage materials and rectify some of the existing building and zoning violations on the property. Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed use is appropriate to the zone and consistent with the manufacturing uses prescribed in the General Plan. Director Blumenfeld explained that a Parking Plan is required because the owner is proposing to provide one space in tandem, which would occur within the existing footprint of the building, and to approve a proposed warehouse use which is necessary to accommodate the storage aspect of the business. He stated that a Variance is required because the construction proposes to allow the expansion for an existing nonconforming building to parking and because the expansion exceeds 100 percent of the existing valuation; noted that the building has a concrete slab on grade and has an existing roll -up door for its manufacturing use to accommodate parking; pointing out that parking supplied in this manner is necessary due to the configuration and location of the building on an interior lot. He mentioned that the owner could provide this space in side -by -side configuration, but if that were done, there would only be 13 feet of useful area within the building footprint -- pointing out that this would negate using the existing building 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 because there would be such little room left to accommodate an office and manufacturing needs. He added that because the code does not explicitly provide for tandem parking, the Planning Commission may, through a Parking Plan, approve tandem parking providing this deficiency is accommodated pursuant to Section 17.44.210 of the Zone Code. He explained that it is possible to accommodate the parking and not create a disutility in the community and that the owner will exclusively manage the parking to accommodate parking. For this business which is primarily wholesale and there is little need for off-street parking to service customers. Director Blumenfeld stated that the project also requires a Parking Plan approval because the owner is proposing storage for a warehouse use pursuant to Section 17.44.210 and the Planning Commission must consider approval of this use, and the owner must record a covenant guaranteeing that it will not be converted to a non -warehouse use. Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner must also process a Precise Development Plan because the project exceeds 1,500 square feet. He advised that the applicant has been working with the City's Fire Safety consultant to conform to the Zone Code and Building Code requirements in regard to the storage and packaging of flammable and combustible materials; and added that a Variance is required to accommodate the use and to construct beyond the 100- percent valuation provision. He expressed staff s belief that the Variance application appears to place the applicant's property in parity with other surrounding properties. With regard to the first finding for the Variance, Director Blumenfeld explained that this lot is an interior lot with frontage only on Cypress Avenue; that there are only 10 other lots out of a total 79 lots in the vicinity that possesses similar access and narrow lot width conditions -- pointing out that this 30 feet in lot width is unusually narrow in the manufacturing zone; and that it is staff s belief that these conditions support an exceptional and extraordinary condition in this vicinity and zone, particularly as it relates to developing and operating a manufacturing use in the area. With regard to the second finding for a Variance, Director Blumenfeld stated that the lot is small relative to other manufacturing lots and one of the few which is not side merged with other parcels; and that staff believes unless the storage issue can be resolved through physical reconfiguration of the property, the use which is classified in the Building Code as an H occupancy will effectively preclude using this wood -framed building and will arguably present an unusual hardship for the property owner -- pointing out that the expansion is the pre -condition to curing some of the Building Code problems that are inherent with the use of the property and building and the operation of this business. With regard to the third finding for a Variance, Director Blumenfeld explained that the project will conform with all the requirements of the Zone Code, that the project will not be out of scale with other manufacturing uses in the area; that the building expansion will be code compliant, provided it's approved as a storage use; that it will provide its complement of parking for that expansion, pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the Zone Code; and that staff believes the project is a fitting use, appropriate size and stated that it will not be materially detrimental to the zone or the City. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Mike Mantel, 618 Cypress Avenue, applicant, stated that he has been formulating high- performance lubricants at this site since 1991; explained that the portion that is being proposed for development is an open yard; advised that the property is landlocked; and expressed his belief that the project will improve the neighborhood. He mentioned that currently, the property has no parking and that this project will be adding some parking to this site. He stated that he has a 15-year parking lease for 4 spaces with the property next door; that he has reduced the original project proposal by 1,800 square feet and added 2 on -site parking spaces up front; and he explained that with the on -site parking, there will be adequate room for the forklift to maneuver around the parked vehicles. Mr. Mantel explained for Commissioner Perrotti that he does not have customers coming in and out of his business; that approximately 95 percent of his customers are on the West and East Coasts; noted that the lubricants are mostly used for race cars; and stated that he only has 3 employees: himself, his wife and son -- pointing out that he and his wife drive in together. Mr. Mantel explained for Commissioner Tucker that only one minor material placed him in the Hazardous Storage category; and that he is well below the 108-gallon limit for this particular material, maintaining a total of 54 gallons on site. Mr. Mantel noted for Chairman Pizer that the front building facade will be fixed up and that the new construction will match that of the existing building; and mentioned that the new building will be built of concrete block instead of steel. There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that with the limited number of employees, the tandem parking will adequately work; and stated that due to the physical limitations of this property, he would support the findings for the Variance. Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted his concern for future uses of this property and the possible need for additional parking; expressed his belief that the size of this lot is not dissimilar to other small lots in the City; and that he can't make a finding that it creates an exceptional and extraordinary condition. Commissioner Tucker questioned the expansion of the building footage and the possible need for more employees in the future, thus creating more parking demands; and suggested that a condition be created which limits the number of employees to 3. Director Blumenfeld explained that the parking chapter of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the owner of a nonconforming building must park the addition; pointed out that if the Planning Commission approves this proposal, a covenant would be required to be recorded for the owner to guarantee that the expansion will be used exclusively for warehouse and storage; and mentioned that the City's code has very limited parking requirements for warehouse and storage uses. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that if the owner changes or moves his business from this site, the use will have to remain as storage and used exclusively for warehousing purposes, or it will become a code compliance issue. He stated that should this site 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 be used for commercial purposes in the future, it would be incumbent on the owner to amend the Conditional Use Permit and park the use according to Code. Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that this project will upgrade the neighborhood. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to concur with staff recommendation to approve PARK 02-7/PDP 02-14/VAR 02-2 -- Parking Plan, Precise Development Plan and Variance for a 2,499-square-foot warehouse/storage building addition with on -site parking, including one tandem parking space, at 618 Cypress Avenue. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 8. 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, 2002 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that the existing office building is 2,990 square feet; that the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the second floor and add a third floor to the building; and advised that the existing on -site parking lot will also be reconfigured to increase site parking and that additional parking will be provided on the adjacent lot at 828 First Street, which is currently owned by California Water Company and which is in negotiation to be purchased. He explained that when the building at 824 First Street was constructed in 1979, the parking requirement was 1 space per 300 square feet; and noted that the current parking requirement for retail/office is 1 space per 250 square feet, a change which makes this building legal, nonconforming to parking. He stated that the applicant is proposing to provide a total of 18 parking spaces for the project, which includes 10 spaces that are part of the existing footprint of the building, then 18 standard stalls and 5 stalls in tandem, which would occur under the existing building footprint and also at 828 First Street. He advised that in order for the owner to accommodate this parking, it's necessary to provide 5 spaces in tandem; explained that since it is not possible to provide the full complement of required parking in the conventional layout, there's arguably less than required parking on the project; that pursuant to the Parking Plan provisions in Section 17.44.210, the Planning Commission can approve the deficiency in parking provided that the deficiency is accommodated in some other means; and mentioned that the code provides. several recommendations that can be considered as accommodation. Director Blumenfeld explained that in this case, the 5 tandem parking spaces can be managed by the office tenants, that staff believes the project can be conditioned so that the office tenants and the tandem parking can be managed within each office; and noted that the applicant intends to assign the tandem parking spaces to employees. He mentioned that a future condition could limit 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 the use in this building to professional and general office use only. With the applicant's proposal to reconfigure the building, he stated that it would involve remodeling to accommodate garage parking, basement -level parking on the existing lot -- noting staff s belief that this will further encourage the use of on -site parking. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is proposing to purchase the property from the water company and to lease a small footprint to the water company for its continuing pumping operations; noted staffs belief that a Parking Plan could be approved to accommodate this operation and the shared use of this site. He reiterated that the operation of the parking area is geared to the occupancy of the building and limited to professional and general office uses; that access to the parking lot will be obtained through the locked/secured gate on the easterly property line and will be limited to California Water Company vehicles for maintenance and emergency services only and keyed for that maintenance purpose; and stated that no outdoor parking will be permitted in the area after 7:00 P.M. He mentioned that no changes will be made to the parking layout without Planning Commission approval, with the exception of California Water Company's equipment use of the site; stated that the lots comprising 824 and 828 .First Street will be merged into one legal parcel; and that the owner will demonstrate that 828 First Street is controlled by the owner by producing a grant deed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Director Blumenfeld commented on increasing the landscaping both at the building site and the California Water Company site, including the installation of a water feature, turf block and trellises. With regard to the first finding for a Variance, he explained that this lot must be shared with the water company at 828 First Street; that it can only be partially used for surface parking; that staff believes this creates a unique circumstance and limits the potential development of this commercially zoned property for office use and parking. With regard to the second finding for a Variance, he explained that without it, the owner could not economically construct the addition and could not accommodate his needs or those of his tenants for the office facility. With regard to the third and fourth finding for a Variance, he stated that this project will enhance the appearance of the building and vicinity; and that it's not out of scale with the neighborhood. He explained that the front elevation will include decorative wall and window treatments at the east elevations with substantial setbacks and landscaping which benefit the neighborhood. Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that the 828 First Street property is currently owned by California Water Company; that at this time, the applicant is negotiating the purchase of this property with California Water Company; and that the Planning Commission's approval would be predicated on this real estate transaction. Vice -Chairman floffi an questioned whether it is appropriate to go through this approval process and make a determination without the applicant owning. the 828 First; Street property and questioned whether it is prudent to do this much work when it's contingent on the sale of this property. 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Director Blumenfeld expressed his belief that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider this matter this evening since the Water Company has signed the permit application as one of the property owners; advised that the applicant will not be able to obtain building permits without the grant deed; and noted that the City Attorney can confirm this matter. Commissioner Tucker requested clarification on what species of trees is being proposed. Director Blumenfeld advised that written correspondence had been received from the community in regard to this proposal, both pro and con; and that this correspondence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. With regard to the letter from Cynthia Furnberg, dated October 14, 2002, he explained that the nonconforming use runs with the land, not with the occupancy of the building; he explained that the parking is nonconforming; and that this legal nonconforming status is only forfeited if the building is razed for redevelopment. Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that staff would recommend that no medical offices (which has a higher parking demand) be permitted in this building, that it be limited to general office. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. David Tomblin, 2733 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 210, Torrance, applicant, advised that he has been proactive in reaching out to the neighbors to apprise them of the project and obtain their input; that he has tried to address as many of the residents' concerns as reasonably possible; and noted that additional written correspondence (of record) received from the residents had been provided to the Planning Commission at this evening's meeting. He advised that the building was in foreclosure for the third time when he purchased it; and that it was purchased with the intent to remodel and expand it, if possible, and to reconfigure the building to eliminate as many of the design defects as possible. He explained that the building is an eyesore to the neighborhood; and that the neighbors have complained to the City about this property in regard to it being a nuisance and complaints of excessive noise. He mentioned that it was difficult for the prior owner to lease the offices to long-term tenants with the existing layout; explained that the current design creates a parking problem; expressed his belief that this project will enhance the property values of the neighbors; and mentioned that this plan keeps an open space atmosphere on the California Water Company property, with much more quality landscaping than what currently exists. Mr. Tomblin stated that the actual square footage of the third -floor addition is 3,348 square feet; that the plan includes an elevator, which he believes will attract quality tenants and assist with ADA regulations. He stated that his company will occupy approximately 2,500 square feet; that his company only has 5 employees and has a small customer base visiting his office; and noted that he envisions no more than 3 additional tenants for the building. Mr. Tomblin explained that entry to the California Water lot is through the existing building with two gated openings on the east wall of the existing building; that the existing opening will be used for emergency use by California Water only, which will eliminate some of the concerns raised by the neighbors; that in order to mitigate some of the noise, he has moved as much of the parking away from the east property boundary as possible; that there are only 3 parking spaces located at the 5-foot landscape setback; advised that parking on the California Water Company 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 property will occur between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and no parking during the weekends; and that the two gates entering this lot will be closed and locked during the off hours to ensure compliance. He explained that the 13 spaces under the building will have prearranged weekend parking assignments; advised that the extra landscaping areas on the California Water Company site will enhance the property and mitigate potential traffic; noted that a watef feature will remain on during the evenings and weekends for the neighbors to enjoy; and advised that to address the neighbors' concerns of safety, he has redesigned the front by adding an additional 65 feet of enclosed lobby area and added extra lighting. Cynthia Furnberg, 912 Second Street, advised that 17 individuals are present this evening who are in opposition to the applicant's proposal; referred to her letter dated October 14, 2002 (of record), which had been provided to the Planning Commission; stated that this proposed plan is deficient in 7 parking spaces; that the code does not allow for tandem parking for commercial properties, and that the proposed tandem parking spaces do not meet the residential requirement of 17 feet long -- pointing out that the applicant is proposing 15-foot long tandem parking. She expressed her belief that tandem parking is unfavorable and creates an enforcement problem; and expressed concern with the severe deficiency of parking in this area. She expressed her belief that there exists no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and that no findings have been made to support a Variance. She stated that there are no other commercial properties that have 7,500 square feet on a side street; and with respect to the increased parking demand, she stated that this proposal is detrimental to the welfare of the neighbors. She advised that under the Precise Development Plan, at least 10 property owners will lose their ocean views; stated that because the applicant does not know who his tenants will be, he is not aware of what the parking demands will be; and noted her belief that approval of this proposal will set a precedent by approving a building of this size in this area. Edwin Mora, 311 Anita Street, noted his opposition to this proposal, to the removal of the greenbelt area which is home to a variety of birds; stated that the proposal will create additional air, noise and visual pollution; and commented on the loss of ocean air currents and ocean views, believing that this project will have a negative impact upon the property values in this neighborhood. Mark Homan, resident, stated that his home directly faces this building; expressed his belief that it will have a substantial impact upon the property values; stated that this proposed building will block his current views of the ocean and Palos Verdes; and he addressed his concern with the noise and pollution this project will create upon his living conditions, citing the starting of engines, car exhaust and car alarms outside his door. He expressed his belief that the development of this property comes at the expense of the property owners in the area. He urged the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request and suggested that the building be remodeled with the existing size, space and parking. Jeffrey Goeckner, representing Sherman Gabus, Inc., project architectural firm, stated that he has been working on this project for approximately a year; that he has analyzed the best use of the property and attempted to mitigate as much of the issues of concern to the neighbors as possible; and that they have been sensitive in trying to address the view and parking issues -- pointing out that it is his belief that only the neighbors who are next door to this site on the southerly end of the existing building, the last two or three residents, would have their views obstructed with this proposal. He mentioned that the Holiday Inn appears to obstruct most of the views from the 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 condominium units facing in the westerly direction. He stated that the applicant is willing to reduce the height at the rear of the building, the penthouse over the rear stairway, if they could obtain a minor design change to the building, which has a 35-foot height limitation. Mr. Goeckner stated that numerous parking studies had been conducted at this site and that he believes they have come up with a solution that mitigates some of the impact to the neighbors; and noted that with the use of landscaping and trellises, an attempt will be made to shield from view the impact to the neighbors. Mr. Goeckner noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that the existing building is two stories, about 23 to 24 feet in height and approximately 135 feet deep; that the new addition sits on top of the existing building footprint; and stated that open decks, sloped roofs, open hallway and insets along the east side of the building have been incorporated. Commissioner Tucker noted his preference that the height of the building be minimized; questioned if the condensers can be placed on the ground and not in the penthouse area; and expressed his belief that the penthouse is not necessary and that the parapet roof around the top should be decreased in size. Mr. Goeckner noted for Commissioner Tucker that it may be possible to place the condensers on the ground; explained that there is not a lot of room to place the equipment on the ground; and stated that some room above the elevator shaft is necessary. Mr. Goeckner expressed the applicant's desire to work with staff and the neighbors to come up with alternative plans to mitigate the concerns. Mr. Goeckner stated that the landscaping and trellises will be added so that it won't negatively impact the neighbors, but provide the screening they desire -- noting their attempt to minimize that impact of looking down on the parking. He added that the percentage of landscaping is significantly over the required 2 percent that they are required to have and that they will be providing more landscaping than what currently exists. David Lewis, 840 First Street, homeowner, stated that his residence will be the most impacted by this proposal; advised that his bedroom window is 10 to 20 yards from the high-pressure water pump; noted his concern that not enough assurance has been given to maintaining the gates in a locked and secured fashion; and questioned who will be liable if a vehicle crashes into the pumping station and causes damage to the neighbors' homes or lives. He stated that the parking is already in a crisis situation in this area. He added that the developer knew what restrictions he was facing prior to his purchase of this site and that he should not be asking for a Variance that will negatively impact the residents; stated that this project will negatively affect the property values; and stated that the rules/regulations should equally apply to all property owners in the City. Maureen Crean, 904 First Street, resident, stated that there are 21 residents who live on First Street, live within a 300-foot circle of influence, and support the approval of this project; advised that this abandoned building is a threat to the safety of this community; expressed her belief that code enforcement personnel will be more proactive in ticketing the illegally parked cars; stated that she is pleased with the proposed design of the building, landscaping, and installation of an elevator -- believing that this will be an asset to the community. She noted the benefit of the landlord occupying the building; and commented on her experience with the success of tandem parking. 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Ann Lewis, 834 First Street, stated that she lives directly next to this proposed parking lot; expressed her belief that the applicant has not met compliance with City codes related to parking', questioned how the applicant can assure adequate parking if he is not aware of who his tenants will be; and addressed her concern with the limited parking in the area. She stated that this proposal will create a negative impact upon the property values by removing the ocean views and creating more traffic problems; and questioned what benefit this City will gain as a result of granting this Variance. Ms. Furnberg urged the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request; suggested that the applicant reduce the proposal by 1,500 square feet; expressed her concern that the City will not be able to control the tandem parking activities; and stated that this request should not be granted because the applicant does not own the California Water property. Mr. Tomblin reiterated that all tandem parking will be assigned to employees, stated that the balance of employee parking will be put on the California Water Company property to minimize the vehicular activity of customer traffic; noted that they are willing to alter the parapets to lower the building height; and highlighted the fact that there are residents who are in favor of this proposal. Mr. Goeckner clarified that the property at 828 First Street is owned by California Water Company; that California Water Company is interested in selling this site; that the sale of this site has to be presented to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for approval before he can complete negotiations on this property; that his attorney is currently drafting documents for this purchase, a license agreement for this proposal to move forward; and advised that it will take approximately q months to a year to go through the PUC process. Mr. Goeckner noted for Chairman Pizer that it would not be economically feasible for the applicant to only renovate this property; and stated that analysis for the highest and best use of this site would be condominiums. Mr. Goeckner stated for Commissioner Tucker that the pumping station will be substantially protected/blocked from vehicles; explained that an easement will be entered into to allow for access through a locked gate for maintenancefeniergency water company vehicles, and stated that the gates will have to be physically closed by California Water Company employees. The Commission questioned if it is appropriate to continue with consideration of this matter prior to the sale of the California Water property. Director Blumenfeld stated that he will refer this matter to the City Attorney to determine whether consideration of this proposal is inappropriate; and lie reiterated that Planning Commission approval would be conditioned upon the sale Ile stated that a report will be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting, following the City ttorney's response. He also pointed out that; the applicant would not be able to obtain any building permits without a grant deed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this matter until a determination has been provided by the City Attorney with respect to the sale of the California Water Company site and whether this hearing is appropriate at this point. 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to continue to a future meeting 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 lst Street, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration. 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 9:20 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.M. 9. CUP 02-7 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on the Hermosa Beach Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that on July 23, 2002, the City Council, independent of this issue, recognized the Community Center as a locally significant landmark -- noting the difference from an historic landmark under the Zoning Ordinance; and advised that with this distinction, there's a different standard of review for projects which are designated as historic landmarks under the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. He explained that on September 24, 2002, the City Council authorized the applicant to proceed with obtaining permits to install the wireless telecommunication facility on the parapet of the Community Center and authorized the City Manager to proceed with negotiations for a lease agreement. Director Blumenfeld stated the proposed project involves the installation of 6 antennae on the existing building, with cables connecting from the right-of-way to the Community Center; advised that the cables connecting from the right-of-way will be 2 inches in width and will extend from grade level to approximately 2 feet up to the finished floor level of the Community Center on the east building elevation; and that at that point, the cabling will become an interior issue. He advised that the cable will run on the interior of the building up on the east building elevation so that it is not visible from the street; that the cabling will then run along the Community Center roof where it extends on the north elevation along Pier Avenue, connecting to 2 antennae. He stated that there is a connection on the highest part of the roof above the Community Center theater stage toward the south of the building and another connection on the west face of the building. He added that the antennae are approximately 48 inches long and 7 '/2 inches wide; and mentioned that AT&T Wireless also proposes to lease an equipment room inside the Community Center building. Director Blumenfeld explained that most of the cabling will be screened from view to the public, either placed behind the building parapet, along the finished roof surface area, or within the building interior. He added that the most visible aspect 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 of this antenna system will be the 6 antennae on the building parapets. He noted that staff believes the project is consistent with the code provisions; that the project won't exceed the height limit in the zone for the proposed antenna array; that the antennae will be screened/camouflaged from view and painted to match the color of the building. He mentioned that the resolution title was amended and that the Planning Commission had been provided a copy of the amended resolution. Director Blumenfeld explained it is staff s intent to have very little cabling exposure on the exterior of the building, with most of it behind the parapet. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the antennae are going to be on the facade of the building. Commissioner Tucker expressed his preference that the cable tray should be placed underground all the way around until it enters the building; questioned if the theater group is willing to give up the storage room for the equipment and whether the equipment will be placed on the roof if a lease agreement for the storage room is not obtained; and suggested that consideration be given to the applicant fixing the sidewalk on the east side of the building, running the cabling under the sidewalk. Director Blumenfeld stated that the City Manager and City Attorney are proceeding with finalizing the form of the lease agreement -- noting that the lease agreement will need City Council approval; explained that part of the lease agreement includes the Community Center storage room; and surmised that if the lease agreement for the equipment room was not approved, the Conditional Use Permit approval would have to be amended. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Gregg Masini, MSA, 5757 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing AT&T Wireless Services, explained that every attempt has been made to reduce the visual impacts; and stated that all 6 antennae will be placed above the auditorium section of the building — 2 antennae on the north sector, 2 antennae on the south and west sectors and placed approximately 1 foot below the height of the building; and noted that the antennae will be spaced approximately 4 feet apart. Mr. Masini stated that there has been a slight variation to the application -- pointing out that the antennae are slightly over 51 inches long, 16 inches wide, and 3 1/2 inches deep. He added that AT&T will be trenching from the telephone source to the building; that the conduit is 2 1/2 inches in diameter; that the conduit will go up about 2 feet on the building, making sure to clear the interior of the first floor before going into the building; that from that point, the cabling will be inside. He explained that once the cabling goes out to the roofing, the cabling trays will either run along the parapet or on the surface of the roof -- pointing out that the cabling conduit will not be strung over the parapet down to the antennas, but will be punched through the wall. Mr. Masini stated that the other area for exposed conduit is on the south side of the building; advised that AT&T will have an emergency generator plug at this site in case the power goes down; and that they are proposing that the conduit run along the top of that one-story portion of the building exterior that runs south of, the auditorium -- pointing out that they will try to do this on the inside wall if possible. Mr. Masini noted that the leased area for the egL6prnent is an auxiliary room that's adjacent to the equipment cool. He explained that this site is needed for coverage and capacity in this area gy stated that the air conditioning milts are quiet and necessary to keep p ea -- 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 noting that calls are being dropped in this coverage area Mr. Masini noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the antennae can be placed behind the parapet, replacing the parapet with a fiberglass material; and explained that the only feasible option is to keep the antennae below the height of the building and painted the same color so that it doesn't interfere with the building facade as much as possible. Mr. Masini stated for Commissioner Tucker that AT&T will bring in its own power source and meter; that they'll have two conduits coming into the setup; and stated that these are directional antennae. Rick Koenig, 1825 Manhattan Avenue, noted his opposition to this proposal; pointed out that it has taken a lot of work to get this building designated as one of historic significance; expressed his belief that this project will jeopardize the procurement of a $325,000 Getty Foundation grant; and suggested that an alternative site be sought. Duke Noor, 250 35t` Street, noted his opposition to this proposal; commented on the building's historical significance; and noted his concern that if this project is approved, other carriers will seek co -location at this site. Skip Blomer, 126 First Court, commented on the importance of having adequate wireless communication sites in the City; stated that many people rely on cellular service for their daily needs; and he expressed his belief that the additional income will benefit the City. Maggie Austin -Moir, 1937 Valley Drive, urged the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request; expressed her belief that the antennae are visually offensive and will negatively impact the historical beauty of this building; and she suggested that the applicant look for placement of its antennae at other facilities in the City, such as churches. Jeff Pierce, city resident, questioned if the City will be able to preclude another carriers from co - locating to this site if this proposal is approved; stated that a lot of effort has gone into applying for the Getty Foundation grant; and suggested that further public input be obtained before a decision is made on this matter. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the applicant look at other buildings for this system. Not wanting to jeopardize the procurement of the Getty Foundation grant. Commissioner Tucker highlighted the City Council's prior consideration of this antenna matter and the City Council's final determination on this matter; noted his concern with the mounting of the antennae, believing that they can be better camouflaged; suggested that the cabling be placed underground until it enters the building, stated that the conduit should be hidden; and noted his concern with the loss of the Community Center storage room. He added that the air conditioning units should be adequately screened. He mentioned that he has unsuccessfully fought these installations for years; and he expressed his belief that most of the cell sites will eventually go away with future technology. 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Vice -Chairman Hoffman questioned what benefit the City will derive from this installation versus the impact to this building; and explained that he is inclined to leave the building as is. Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Perrotti that if the Planning Commission feels that a site is saturated because of aesthetics, it can reject a proposal; and stated that the City does encourage co -location of these facilities. Commissioner Perrotti commented on the growing use and need for cell phone coverage; expressed his belief that the antennae could be less visible than what has been proposed; stated that he is not opposed to the antennae being placed on this building; and requested that if the equipment becomes outdated, that it be removed. Director Blumenfeld stated that the ordinance requires the applicant to remove obsolete equipment, and stated that this wording could be added as a condition of approval. Chairman Pizer stated that while he has previously supported other cell sites, he believes co - location on this building would be a problem; and suggested that the applicant choose another site for this installation. He favorably commented on the efforts to restore this building. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to deny CUP 02-7 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on the Hermosa Beach Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Tucker ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None For the record, following roll call vote, Commissioner Perrotti clarified that it was his intent to approve the applicant's request, that he mistakeningly voted to support the motion for denial. 10. CON 02-11/PDP 02-15 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26791 for the addition of a second unit to create a two -unit condominium at 1111 Manhattan Avenue and 1110 Palm Drive. Staff l .emmcornmend d Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the project consists of a detached 3-level structure; that the structures are designed with a basement and four bedrooms and baths; that the new structure will be designed in a contemporary manner to match the existing unit; advised that the parking is provided in the garages on the ground level of each unit, with direct access to Manhattan Avenue; and noted that one guestparking space is provided for each unit, one in the alley and one on Manhattan Avenue. He stated that both units comply with the 30-hoot maximum height limit; that all required yards are provided, with an 8-foot separation; advised that lot coverage is approximately 3 percent over maximum -- pointing out that a change can be made to reduce the lot coverage without materially affecting the project; stated that all project open space is provided and directly accessible to the living areas; and mentioned that staff has included a condition for 36-inch box palm trees be to utilized along the building frontage. 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Commissioner Tucker noted the limited room for the placement of the 36-inch box palm trees. Director Blumenfeld stated that if the applicant cannot find room on the frontage, that the palm trees can be placed elsewhere on site. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Sorrel, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, stated that the lot coverage will be reduced to comply with the 65-percent maximum; explained that the driveway concrete slab is pretty flat to the alley -- pointing out that the grade has been corrected to comply with code; noted her desire to place one of the palm trees on the Palm Avenue side; and displayed a color rendering of the proposed project. Commissioner Kersenboom suggested additional articulation on the side of the blank wall. Al Agora, project architect, explained that there will be more windows placed along the wall; stated that the finish will be smooth stucco with bull -nosed corners; that the wall will be adorned with decorative wrought iron lamps; and that he will add some type of architectural treatment to the exterior of the chimney. He noted that the palm trees will be located between both buildings. Jim Caldwell, 1111 Manhattan Avenue, applicant, stated that it is his intent to move into the new building and to keep the other as a rental. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker concurred with Commissioner Kersenboom's suggestion for additional architectural treatment to break up the stucco mass. Vice -Chairman Hoffman expressed his desire that this building will be more architecturally pleasing than what is reflected in the renderings; and he suggested that additional window treatments and other details be added to create more interest to the architecture. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to approve CON 02-11/PDP 02-15 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26791 for the addition of a second unit to create a two -unit condominium at 1111 Manhattan Avenue and 1110 Palm Drive; that more descriptive elevation drawings be created to better reflect what the applicant is proposing; that the resolution reflect the suggestion for additional architectural treatments, and that these changes be included in the next agenda. package, and final approval during the Consent Calendar portion of November's agenda. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 11. CON 02-12 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment adding a roof deck and related stair access and substituting solid glass railings with a 28" solid glass railing and 14" stucco wall at 106, 108 & 110 Eighth Street. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld stated that the project is currently under construction and in the framing stage; and explained that the owner has decided to make some modifications to the plans, which he believes will not compromise the intended look of the building that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2001. He noted that one of the changes involves adding a roof deck on the front unit, with related exterior staircase; that this change will be visible from the front and prominent on the north elevation and will create another critical point; and advised that all the deck rails which were originally proposed to be full height and the green tinted glass are now being proposed as a partially stuccoed wall for the lower 14 inches and 28 inches of glass at the top area, which slightly reduces the amount of glass area. He stated that the original plans were to provide glass along the south elevation; and that the current provision has stucco walls on the lower deck of 5 feet 6 inches rather than 3 feet in height; advised that this would not be open on two sides, as required, and that staff would not recommend approval of the solid stucco wall greater than 3 feet in height. He expressed staffs belief that the request can be approved without affecting the open space and that most of the features that have been changed are not significant to the quality of the building. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the Planning Commission recognized at the previous meeting that the glass railing was an attractive feature. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, project architect, explained that the purpose for the change is to give the homeowners more privacy in their living room from the Hermosa Avenue elevation; and stated that the impact to the aesthetics of the building is minimal. Mr. Compton noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that a rooftop deck has been added to the plans; advised that some blockage to the neighbor's deck is necessary for privacy purposes; that what is required on this building is a 42-inch guardrail; and that the applicant is proposing a 3- foot solid rail with a pipe rail above it, which will bring it up to 42 inches as required. He clarified that the main changes are the handrails and the privacy issues. Mr. Compton noted for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that he is including all of the railings on the north elevation; and that the west elevation would be reconfigured with a slightly higher stucco mass and a slightly reduced amount of glass. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perrotti noted his concurrence with the changes and with bringing the stucco wall down to 3 feet. Vice -Chairman Hoffman, echoed by Commissioner Kersenboom, noted his support to create more privacy for the residents. 16 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Commissioner Tucker questioned what the total square footage is of the two deck areas. Chairman Pizer re -opened the public hearing. Mr. Compton advised that the area will not exceed the maximum allowed height. Director Blumenfeld mentioned that the plan checker will make sure it is not over the limit. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to approve CON 02-12 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment adding a roof deck and related stair access and substituting solid glass railings with a 28" solid glass railing and 14" stucco wall at 106, 108 & 110 Eighth Street; and moved that the mezzanine, plus deck area, not exceed 500 square feet. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 12. PDP 02-16 -- Precise Development Plan to demolish and reconstruct the front unit on property containing two units at 524 25th Street Staff Recoi-ninended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is proposing to demolish the front unit to build a new two-story, single-family dwelling; stated that a PDP is required because this lot contains two detached units and that the proposed project exceeds 1,500 square feet; advised that the proposed project will include a four -bedroom home on the front lot; and stated that the existing rear dwelling will remain. Ple explained that the project complies with all the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; that all required yards are provided; that lot coverage is 31 percent, which is well below the maximum 55 percent permitted; and that open space is provided, including the deck on the rear of the new dwelling -- noting that the total amount of open space easily exceeds the 100 square feet that is required. He stated that the height of the proposed structure complies with the 25-foot height limit measured from the existing grade; and explained that staff had concluded that the submittal include plans that locate and identify the critical points on the roof plans along the property lines, which is a standard submittal requirement. Director Blumenfeld stated that there's an existing over -height hedge that's located in the public right-of-way that is required to be trimmed down to 42 inches or removed pursuant to the requirements for clearance and encroachment. With regard to the tall hedge, Commissioner Tucker noted his concern that the pedestrians should not have to walk out into the street. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. 17 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Mike Coughlin, 524 25'h Street, applicant, advised that the hedge will be removed. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to approve PDP 02-16 -- Precise Development Plan to demolish and reconstruct the front unit on property containing two units at 524 25th Street, and moved that the hedge be removed, as proposed by the applicant. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARINGS 13. NR 02-8 -- Remodel and expansion to an existing two-story dwelling, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation and exceeding 30% or more in exterior wall removal at 2408 Hermosa Avenue (continued from July 16, August 20 and September 17, 2002 meetings). Staff" RecomLnended Action: To continue to November 19, 2002 meeting. Director Blumenfeld recommended continuance of this matter. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to continue to the next meeting NR 02-8 -- Remodel and expansion to an existing two-story dwelling, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation and exceeding 30% or more in exterior wall removal at 2408 Hermosa Avenue. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 14. NR 02-9 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1242 Bonnie Brae Street (continued from September 17, 2002 meeting). Stgff ecom vended Action: To continue to November 19, 2002 meeting. Director Blumenfeld recommended continuance of this matter. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to continue to the next meeting NR 02-9 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1242 Bonnie Brae Street. Motion carried as follows: 18 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 15. NR 02-11 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 624 24th Street. St&Recomn ended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is proposing to remodel and expand 60 percent of the exterior walls; that the applicant will move the garage from the rear to the front in order to comply with the current setback requirements; explained that the expansion increases the living area from 1,100 square feet to 2,029 square feet:; that the project conforms with the planning, and Zoning Ordinance; stated that there is adequate open space; that lot coverage is 45 percent; and that the residents propose to maintain a single story dwelling, complying with the 25-foot maximum height limit. He stated that the nonconforming side yards will be maintained --noting that staff does not believe it to be a serious issue. Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that no comments had been received from the neighbors in regard to this project. Kelly Amato, 624 2e Street, applicant, advised that the neighbor to the west has been advised of the project and that they have voiced no concern. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to approve NR 02-11 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 624 24th Street. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 16. NR 02-12 -- Remodel and expansion to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation 924 Bayview Drive. Staff Reconiniended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that this project is located in the R-3 zone; that the project is located on a half lot which fronts on Bayview Drive; advised that the existing building contains two stones, with a roof deck that was originally constructed in 1936; noted that the building is currently nonconforming to lot coverage, totaling 66.8 percent; and that the proposed project will bring the open space into compliance by providing the 300-square-foot deck, which is located on the third level. He explained that the applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the building by adding a third level, which will be the new second level of the building, as the applicant is proposing to modify the grade around the building perimeter; and that by building the grade up, 19 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 the applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of the Building Code and avoid providing a second exit to the third story. He added that the project includes a complete remodel of the interior and relocation of the interior stairs; that the building footage will increase from 1,238 square feet to 1,728 square feet; that the project valuation will increase to approximately 84 percent and can be accomplished by removing less than 30 percent of the exterior walls; and stated that the project conforms to the planning and Zoning Ordinance. He expressed staff s belief that the nonconformities are not severe. Commissioner Tucker expressed his concern with the conflicting measurements in the preliminary plans; questioned if there is an egress from the bedroom at the basement level; and questioned the height of the wall adjacent to the neighbors. Director Blumenfeld confirmed that some of the plans have conflicting information; that these conflicts will be addressed by staff during plan check and that the project will comply with the height and egress requirements. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will make sure that a structural engineering report will be submitted to evaluate whether this structure can safely withstand the proposed construction. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that this is a half lot, that there are no right- of-way issues; stated that it will be the applicant's responsibility to make sure the project is adequately drained to the nearest public way; and that relative to this body's approval, staff will make sure that a condition is in place to protect against drainage problems. Susan Scott, 924 Bayview Drive, applicant, stated that the title report does not show any easements; with regard to the drainage and the grade elevation, she advised that the retaining walls on the property lines will vary from 2 1/2 feet to 3 feet high; noted that a 2-foot high retaining wall is currently located at the back of the property; and noted for Commissioner Tucker that there are plans for egress from the bedroom at the basement level. Director Blumenfeld reiterated that staff will make sure that the conflicting information is corrected. Commissioner Kersenboom recommended additional articulation on the bare elevation. Ms. Scott stated that she recently purchased the home with the intent to remodel it. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will show Ms. Scott various samples of adding more articulation on the bare elevation, work with her to create more articulation on the exterior and to resolve the grade and elevation conflicts. Ms. Scott welcome staff s input. Based on the rough plans that have been submitted for the Planning Commission's review, Vice - Chairman Hoffman stated that this body should not approve a project of this magnitude with the conflicting information that has been presented and the lack of color renderings. 20 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Commissioner Tucker pointed out that these plans are not the final set of plans that will be submitted. Director Blumenfeld reiterated that staff will work with tile applicant to prepare a corrected set of plans for Planning Commission consideration at the November meeting, and explained that the plans being reviewed this evening are preliminary, conceptual plans. Chairman Pizer stated that from what has been provided, he is not clear what this body will be approving and noted his concern that raising the foundation is a major structural change. Ms. Scott advised that she has already engaged the services of a structural engineer who is in the process of creating working drawings; that the structural engineer is including the detail for the walls that were not detailed very well on the preliminary plans submitted this evening; and that she anticipates that the working drawings will be done within a week. There was consensus to continue this issue to the next meeting in order to obtain data from a structural engineer and to have more defined plans. M0110N by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to contintle to the next, meeting NR 02-12 -- Remodel and expansion to an existing nonconforming singde- family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation 924 Bayview Drive. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 17. S7AFF ITEMS a. Memorandum regarding Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan compliance at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, Einsteins Restaurant. Director Blumenfeld summarized staff report; advised that because a complaint had been received that Einstein's Restaurant was not complying with its discretionary permits relative to noise and business operations, staff reviewed the conditions and conducted two late -night site inspections on September 28th and October 5th to determine whether the project, was in conformance with tile CUP --- specifically, the conditions relating to the Outdoor patios, outside dining and seating, He commented on the, conditions for tile hours of operation for the outdoor patios and a condition that a ininitnum 6-foot high glass partition shall be installed around the outdoor seating area; and he explained that the Planning Commission examined those conditions and set a condition on the lower patio for operating hours to I I :00 P.M., added a requirement for the 6-foot partition, and that the seating be ceased an hour before closing time. He explained that looking through the minutes from 1,996, it was unclear what the Planning Commission's intent was at that meeting with regard to the use of the patios; and stated that it seems the Planning Commission was concerned with noise issues. He added that Condition Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 deal with the attenuation of noise; that there are a lot of conditions which relate to noise and the owner's responsibility to limit the noise both on the patios and inside the building. 21 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 Director Blumenfeld stated that the other issue is the conversion of banquet and office area, which is mentioned in the complainant's letter (of record); advised that the original plans show the banquet areas, but he questioned how much of the use Is dedicated to darice and banquet activity. He stated that the area in question has been used for lunches, banquets and dancing and that this is not inconsistent with the operation of the restaurant. He explained that if there is a primary change of the use fi-om restaurant to nightclub or some other use that wasn't contemplated by the Planning, Commission in the past, then the project is in violation of Condition Nos. I and 12. He noted staffs belief that this business is mostly a restaurant during the day but operates as a nightclub in the late evenings and that the restaurant operations cease at that time. Director Blumenfeld advised that there are no building permits that were obtained for the conversion to the second -floor space; that there was an interior wall that was removed; stated that staff consulted with the Fire Department and that staff had been told that a warning had been ,given to the business owner about excessive occupancy; and that the Police Department reported that over the past, year, there were 14 calls for loud music and 9 calls for disturbing the peace. Having participated in the late -night site inspections, Director Blumenfeld explained that he found that there was a lot of noise emanating from the property, but that there was also noise emanating from many of the businesses on lower Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenlie; and that he had trouble distinguishing where some of the noise was coming from. He stated that if the owner can mitigate the noise successfully, then the complaints should cease; and expressed his desire to have a sound engineer evaluate these noise issues and evaluate what's Currently in place, such as the plastic cover in lieu of the glass surround which was originally required on the lower patio -- pointing out the importance of knowing what effective sound attenuation measures can be taken before the Planning Commission acts on this issue. Director Blumenfeld stated that he did speak with Mr. LaPoint, who indicated that this issue may well be on its way to resolution because -there is going to be a change in ownership and that the change in ownership may result in operational changes and perhaps physical changes to the building as well. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the problem is mostly with the outdoor dining area and stated that there needs to be more specific conditions on the use of the patios. Commissioner Perrotti stated that it was his prior intent that the outdoor patios would not be occupied after a certain time. Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted his concurrence with Commissioner Perrotti's statement and added that the Planning Commission was told that this was a restaurant, not a nightclub. He stated that the interior modification, done without the benefit of a permit, suggests to him that it was done to accommodate the new use. Director Blumenfeld added that he found the doors and windows were closed, except the main entry door; that the noise could be heard with the main entry door open; and commented on the need to keep the doors closed and stated that accommodations need to be made for cueing of the 22 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 customers into the business. Chairman Pizer stated that the Conditional Use Permit should be changed to reflect that "Outside occupancy shall not be allowed after 11:00 P.M. on lower patios and 10:00 P.M. on upper patios." Jack Williams, 400 lffi Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that the landlord is the primary complainant and advised that he happens to live behind the restaurant, advised that there has been some dialogue between the landlord and the business owner; and stated that there is no one on Patio I after 10:00 P.M. He stated that the noise comes from the front door which must remain open for fire hazard purposes. He advised that there is no dancing allowed on the patios-, and explained that since they have removed one of the speakers, no complaints have been received in 3 weeks. Director Blumenfeld noted that it will be incumbent upon the business to retain an acoustical engineer to determine the noise issues at this site. Mr. Williams stated that they will continue to work with the landlord to address the noise problems; explained that they are looking at a significant change in the concept of the business, more of a steakhouse; and that they intend to Submit detailed plans the beginning of 2003. He added that there may be a change in ownership. Commissioner Tucker urged that if a new owner does take over this business, that they be advised of the conditions imposed on this site. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that the business owner needs to comply with the conditions placed upon them as a restaurant use. Director Blumenfeld stated that he will obtain feedback from the acoustical engineer and come back to the Planning Commission with a report for further discussion. 18. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Vice -Chairman Hoffman suggested that more routine Planning Commission meetings take place to accommodate heavy agendas and special studies. Director Blumenfeld suggested that continually producing agenda material severely limits day to day operations of the office; and stated that staff could accommodate a few special meetings thrOLIghout the year if the Planning Commission so desires. He explained that having additional meetings each month would not necessarily get all the work done that needs to be addressed. He commented on past special meetings wherein the Planning Commission addressed the housing element and development standards. Commissioner Tucker noted his support to possibly create 3 additional meetings through the year to address special issues, such as zoning and housing issues, for instance. 23 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002 19. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, for adjournment at 12:19 A.M. No objection was noted. CERTIFICATION 1. hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planing Commission of flennosa Teach at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 19, 2002. Ron Pizer, Claairnaan / ? h 2- Date So BtUrnen eld Secretary 24 Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2002