Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-19 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 19, 2002, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pizer at 7:09 P.M. Commissioner Perrotti 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 V I'C I'EN COMMUNICATIONS None. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE the October 15, 2002, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 02-41, approving a Parking Plan, Precise Development Plan and Variance to construct a warehouse/storage building expansion to an existing manufacturing building at 618 Cypress Avenue; Resolution P.C. 02-43, approving a 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 project at 1111 Manlaattan Avenue and 1110 Palm Drive; Resolution. P.C. 02-44, approving a greater than 50-percent expansion and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling while maintaining a nonconforming side yard at 624 24th Street;, and Resolution P.C. 02-45, approving a Precise Development Plan to allow the constructionof a new front unit on a lot containing two dwelling units in the R-lA zone at 524 25th street. AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 6. ITEMS :FOR CONSIDERATION a. Resolution P.C. 02-42, denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on the Hermosa Beach Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. Director Blumenfeld advised that the project applicant has submitted a letter and has requested that the Planning Commission continue this matter in order to consider some additional evidence relative to the proposed application to provide a wireless telecommunication facility at 710 Pier Avenue; and mentioned that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission had voted to deny the project. He explained that a resolution is brought back to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting for final deter in ination when there are material changes that require rewriting the resolution or when one is not supplied to Commission reflecting their decision. In this case a new denial resolution has been prepared. He noted that if the Commission approves the applicant's request, staff will bring this matter to the Commission's January 2003 meeting for final consideration. Director Blumenfeld explained that this matter may be continued because there was no final resolution of denial available for adoption at the prior meeting; and stated that the Commission may either choose to consider and act this evening on the original denial from the October meeting or to continue this matter to the January meeting per the letter submitted by the applicant to present new evidence that the Commission may want to consider. Chairman Pizer, echoed by Commissioner Kersenboom, expressed his belief that this is a policy decision that should be made by the City Council and that he does not wish to continue this matter. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE the applicant's request to consider this matter at the January 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Tucker NOES: Kersenboom, Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PIT LIC' HEA RINGS 7. 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 and October 15, 2002 meetings). Stall Keconnnenc ed Action,: To continue to the January 21, 2003 meeting. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting this continuance so that they can 2 Planning Con=ssion Minutes November 19, 2002 sort out issues dealing with property ownership relative to the adjacent property, which is a part of this proposed project. Chairman Pizer opened the hearing. There being no public input, the hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, to CONTINUE this matter to January 21, 2003. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 8. CUP 02-8 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on -sale general alcohol; non -amplified live entertainment; a take-out food service window; to add bar seating in the patio area and extended hours of operation in conjunction with an existing restaurant, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1100 The Strand, Scotty's. Staff l ecornmend d Action: To deny said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that this afternoon, staff received a request by the applicant to continue this matter to the next meeting. Chairman Pizer opened the hearing. There being no public input, the hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE this matter to the December Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tucker expressed his belief that there have been plenty of continuances and that this matter should be considered this evening. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Tucker ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 9. PDP 02-17/CUP 02-9 -- Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a one-story 13,200-square-foot commercial building for a drugstore, including a drive -through lane for purchase and pick-up of pharmacy products, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 155 and 159 Pacific Coast Highway, Sav-on Drugs. Staff Re. ,00nmended Actioty To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld explained that the property currently contains an auto dealership and repair 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 business and one nonconforming residential building; that the project site is zoned SPA-7, which is shown as commercial corridor in the General Plan; and stated that this project is subject to a Tier-2 review process because of the overall proposed square footage, which exceeds 10,000 square feet. He advised that the lot size is 48,641 square feet, that the proposed project is 13,21' square feet; and that the proposed parking for the project is 59 spaces — noting that 53 spaces are required. Director Blumenf ld explained that previously, a drive -through fo a bark. had been. permitted as an acceptable use in this area since it is basically a low-interisity use and there is no proposed sound amplification; and that staff is considering this proposal similar to the use approved for the bank drive -through. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is proposing a state-of-the-art, full -service Sav-on Drug Store, with a dual lane drive -through pharmacy, a one -hour photo processing and other services typical of a Sav-on. He advised that the drive -through is designed for stacking of up to four vehicles, which staff has deemed to be sufficient to avoid cars stacking into the driving lanes and the street. He stated that the applicant has proposed 24-hour operation at this store, which is inconsistent with the project Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) application and noted his concerns for off -sale alcohol past 11:00 P.M. which requires a C.U.P. Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant is requesting approval of the 24-hour operation, but recommends suspending alcohol sales at 11:00 P,M., thereby not having to require a new conditional use permit. With regard to the circulation issues, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant submitted a traffic study which states that the proposed project will generate 28 greater trips than the existing auto dealership; that during the A.M. peak periods, there will be 22 fewer trips and that during the P.M. peak periods, there will be 2 fewer trips; and that, therefore, the project has been deemed not to have a significant adverse impact on the neighboring streets -- pointing out that the City's traffic engineer has come to the same conclusions, with the exception of the findings relative to by-pass trips. Director Blumenfeld advised that there is driveway access from 1st Place and 2"d Street; commented on the discussions with regard to providing driveway access off Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); and explained that the City's traffic engineer believed that from an operational standpoint, that would necessitate providing another left -pocket on PC'1.4,, which is in too close proximity to 2"d Street„ and that it would create its own hazard. He further added that relocating the driveway would have impacted the layout of the building and the parking on site and would have, in staff s opinion, compromised the appearance of the project from PCH because there would be an additional curb cut; and added that it would have reduced the amount of parking and landscaping. With regard to deliveries, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant prefers that delivery hours be permitted between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., with two delivery trucks per week; and noted that given the location of the truck loading area, staff is recommending that the delivery hours be limited to 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. He advised that the project complies with all the requirements of the SPA-7 and PDP, with the exception of the landscaping requirements -- pointing out that staff is recommending that additional landscaping be provided in an area that isn't dedicated to parking, close to the entry of the store, and some additional landscaping at the entry. He added that staff is recommending to reduce the pylon sign from 20 feet to 10 feet because of its proximity to the residential areas on l't Place and 2"d Street; and suggested that 4 Planning Comnussion Minutes November 19, 2002 some of the product identification signing on the 1st Place and 2nd Street elevations be eliminated. Commissioner Perrotti questioned if staff had available an accident history from the police department; in regard to the 2nd Street intersection, expressing his belief that this is one of the most hazardous intersections in the City. Director Blumenfeld advised that staff had not provided an accident history of the 2`1 Street intersection because of the notion that access was going to be taken off" local streets and that it didn't present an issue relative to the 2',d Street intersection, but stated that he could obtain that information. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Irwin Bucy, Regency Centers, 555 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, stated that studies indicated that there is enough demand for Sav-on to open a state-of-the-art drive -through drug store at this site; and advised that he has personally met with the contiguous residents to address some of their concerns. Kyle Maberry, traffic engineer from Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122, Costa Mesa, explained that the; trucks will swing into the eastbound lane at 1st Place in order to turn onto the site and then back up into the loading dock. Commissioner Tucker expressed his concern that the turn pocket is not deep enough for the trucks to safely turn onto the eastbound lane of 1st Place in order to swing onto this site; questioned how shoppers will enter onto this site after 3:00 P.M. without bottlenecking the intersection of 2nd Street and PCH; noted his preference to reduce the pharmacy drive -through lanes to one; and questioned the accuracy and the methodology for the finding that this project will only generate 28 more trips a day than the auto dealership. He added that he would like to see an entrance on PCH. Mr. Maberry pointed out that the Sav-on trucks that will be servicing this store will be smaller than the standard Sav-on trucks which service other stores. Mr. Bucy highlighted the Public Works Department recommendations to address some of the traffic impacts, such as including a left -turn signal northbound on PCH at 2nd Street; and explained that the applicant's traffic engineer determined that due to the proximity of the two intersections, it was not recommended because of safety concerns. Mr. Maberry explained that currently, there is driveway access on 1st Place; that the usual motorists' route would likely be to either turn before 1st Place or to turn onto 2"d Street and go around the block; and stated that this project wouldn't be impacting the neighborhood by adding any new volume to that movement. With regard to access on PCH, Mr. Maberry explained that the only location that makes any sense for a driveway, which would have to be signalized, would be across from 2nd Street, south, stated that this condition would create the need for two signals less than 50 feet apart from the existing street; and advised that Caltrans would most likely oppose that proposal. Mr. Maberry stated that the applicant would agree to a study to determine the feasibility of a northbound left -turn arrow -- pointing out that this type of operation will create some delay on the through movement of traffic. j Planning Conmussion Minutes November 19, 2002 Mr. Maberry explained for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that it is not uncommon in urban situations that the entire roadway, up to the center line, would be part of the delivery truck movement to enter a site; and noted that only two Sav-on truck deliveries are proposed each week. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that other type of vendor delivery trucks will be visiting this site. Eric Hull, Tate & Associates, 701 North Park Center Drive, Santa Ana, stated that his firm has provided the building architecture and the site planning for the project; explained that the delivery truck path is more generous than what would actually be required to make that movement, and stated that the smaller Sav-on trucks will be able to adequately service this store in terms of product deliveries -- noting that Sav-on is forecasting one to two deliveries per week at this site. Mr. Hull explained that the dual pharmacy drive -through lanes are an industry standard; advised that the outside lane would be designated as a prescription drop-off lane; that the inside lane would be designated as a prescription pick-up lane; and mentioned that the drop- off lane will be utilizing a pneumatic tube system to transport the prescription to the pharmacy. He added that the dual lane concept is extremely effective in eliminating any stacking by reducing the amount of time that one would spend in line; stated that, typically, it takes one minute to drop off a prescription in the outside lane; and that the inside pick-up lane would average 3 to 4 minutes. Mr. Hull explained that there's an approximate half-hour difference between the time of drop-off and pick-up; and mentioned that the only product dispensed out of the drive -through window is prescription drugs. Mr. Hull noted for Chairman Pizer that the applicant is concerned with staff s request to limit the delivery times. Mr. Hull noted for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that the vendor deliveries will vary from day to day; that Sav-on anticipates up to five vendor truck deliveries a day; explained that the vendor trucks are on site a much shorter duration than the Sav-on trucks, that the vendor services are completed more quickly; that the vendors will be required to go to the loading dock; and noted that the vendor trucks are usually smaller panel style trucks. Mr. Bucy explained for Chairman Pizer that Sav-on typically requests the ability to operate 24 hours a day if the market demand is present, but stated that after reviewing this location and talking with staff and the contiguous neighbors, Sav-on has agreed to the proposed hours of operation that's recommended by staff, from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. He noted that the pharmacy hours would match the operating hours of the store. Will Bucannon, 640 2nd Street, advised that he lives close to this site, stated that no one on the applicant's behalf had contacted him; questioned the accuracy with the finding that only 28 additional trips are going to come to this site; expressed his opposition to 24-hour operation; and requested that a study be done to determine the accident rate at the intersection of 2M Street and PCH. He noted his support for a drug store at this site, but reiterated his opposition to it being open 24 hours a day; and he requested that the lighting be situated so that it doesn't negatively impacts the neighbors. Mr. Bucannon questioned where the employees will park; urged that a system be put in place to control shopping carts being taken off site; addressed his concern with noise; and questioned whether someone will be present to regulate parking and control overflow 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 parking from the Pitcher House and the Hermosa Saloon. Rob Espinosa, 709 1st Place, noted that his main concern is traffic circulation; stated that he disagrees with 'tlie finding that only 28 additional trips will be generated at this site; expressed his belief that there is not enough room on lst Place for the trucks to safely maneuver; highlighted his concern with 24-hour operation and the noise impacts to the neighbors; and suggested the placement of treesdan.dscaping to mitigate some of the noise. Mr. Espinosa questioned whether the residents living on 1st Place and 2`1 Street would be permitted to park on Sav-on's lot. Perry LaNess, 704 1st Place, expressed his belief that the turning radius is not wide enough around this site for trucks to safely make the turn onto this site; suggested that some of the frontage off PCH be reduced in order to allow for a turn lane/cut-in onto this site; and stated that a driveway should be placed on PCH. Michelle Ludland, 658 Gould, expressed her support of the applicant's proposal, especially that of a drive -through pharmacy. Trevor Wright, 719 1st Place, stated that Mr. Bucy has been amenable to several of his recommendations; requested that the back loading area wall at I Place be built as soon as possible in order to decrease the noise impacts upon the residents; and addressed his concern with the back of the building and the potential for security problems -- pointing out that Mr. Bucy has stated that security cameras will be installed in this area. He noted his opposition to the loading bay being adjacent to his living room, but stated that he understands the site constraints. Mr. Wright requested that the loading hours be altered between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and starting no earlier than 9:00 A.M. on the weekends. He noted his concern with the sales of alcohol and tobacco; and requested that a security guard be employed by Sav-on. Alan Lesline, 843 3" Street, stated that this project will be an asset to the community; noted his support of staff recommendation for the pylon sign; and expressed his reservation with the placement of the building footprint, stating that most businesses maintain a street frontage along PCH and that the bulk of the buildings are away from residential areas, which preserves air and light for the residents behind the businesses. He noted his support for the drive -through pharmacy. Bob Johnson, owner of Domino's Pizza, 201 Pacific Coast Highway, noted his support of this proposal; and expressed his belief that there is more traffic going in and out of this auto dealership than what most people would think. He stated that this new building and landscaping will beautify the area. Carolyn Colby, 719 1st Place, noted her concern with this tall building and the loading dock being in close proximity to her home, stating that she is concerned with the noise and security of her home; and noted her opposition to the trucks using 1st Place to get to this site. Sid Colby, 719 1st Place, thanked Mr. Bucy for addressing the residents' concerns; and noted his opposition to 6:00 A.M. truck deliveries. Harold Cohen, 957 2n`t Street, noted his support for this project; and expressed his opinion that 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 proposed traffic is negligible on 1't Place and 2nd Street George Barks, 711 North Prospect Avenue, Redondo Beach, property owner, gave his assurance that everything will be done to mitigate any negative impacts to the neighborhood; and stated that he will continue to closely work with staff. Mr. Bucy stated that the applicant agrees to the hours of operation as proposed by staff, stated that the 8-foot wall with 2 feet of landscaping above that wall will create an additional buffer from the neighbors and that additional landscaping will be installed to screen the loading area; stated that security cameras will be installed in the northwest pocket of concern to the neighbors; that employee parking will be designated on site; and mentioned that from a parking requirement, this project is over code. He stated that the construction of the 8-foot wall will be done as soon as reasonably possible; and that after the grading is done, they will commence and diligently pursue the completion of that wall. He mentioned that the transformer will be relocated, as requested by one of the neighbors. Mr. Bucy noted the applicant's desire for the hours of deliveries to be from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., seven days a week, but stated that he would check with the applicant on limiting these hours -- noting that hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Saturday and Sunday may work. Mr. Bucy stated that the delivery trucks will not be permitted to idle on site; that the lights on site will be shielded to mitigate any overflow onto the contiguous residential properties; and proposed that PCH will be the access route in and out for the trucks. In response to Vice -Chairman Hoffman's inquiry regarding after -hour parking on site, Mr. Bucy stated that they could post parking signs on the lot, but questioned if that would be effective; and stated that if permitted, they would not be opposed to somehow securing the site. Chairman Pizer questioned the accuracy of the finding that only 28 additional trips will be created on this site; suggested that the parking lot be screened from PCH with the installation of low-lying shrubs, maintained at a minimum 3 feet in height, along the frontage of PCH. Mr. Bucy explained that an access driveway off PCH would create a safety and circulation problem. Mr. Maberry clarified that the 28 additional trips are new trips a day; and stated that the approximate number of daily trips this site would generate is 1,000. He explained that from an operational standpoint, a driveway off PCH is not reasonable and is unsafe. Vice -Chairman Hoffman questioned whether the additional product signage on the exterior of the store could be decreased. Mr. Bucy explained the necessity to be consistent with all corporate signage; pointed out that the square footage for secondary signage is below code requirements;, stated that he would be agreeable with non -illuminated secondary signs on both the I" Place and 2°d Street elevations, explained that the 20-foot high pylon sign is necessary to attract pass -through motorists who are not familiar with this location; and addressed his opinion that lowering the sign to 10 feet will create a traffic/pedestrian hazard. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the total footage of the proposed building could be Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 reduced to 12,000 square feet. Mr. Bucy explained that the larger store is based on the demand, site constraints and the ability to provide adequate parking for consumers. Commissioner Tucker expressed his belief that the store area is too large; stated that the building needs more landscaping against it; and noted his displeasure with the proposed architecture of the store, suggesting something along the line of mission -style. Mr. Bucy explained that many individuals were involved in the design of the building, including City staff, pointed out that staff felt that it was compatible with the surrounding area; and explained that from an owner's perspective, it's critical that they are happy with the style of the building. He noted that he would bring this concern to the attention of the applicant. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has recommended additional landscaping on the westerly property line and in areas that are designated "non -parking areas" and also at the entries. He advised that if there is a curb cut on PCII, then the continuous planting along the frontage of PCH, as requested by Chairman Pizer, would be interrupted by driveway in excess of 30'. Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for reducing the store hours to 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. and the delivery hours to 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday. He addressed his concern with access to this project, but explained that from a technical and safety standpoint, the safety problems created by vehicles corning off PCH outweigh some of the inconveniences that would happen off I" Place and 2"' Street. Commissioner Perrotti noted his support that the signage on l" Place and 2,d Street be non -illuminated; that the pylon sign be reduced to 10 feet; that landscaping be increased at the rear; that signage be posted to designate employee parking; and that the 8-foot wall at the westerly boundary be constructed as soon as feasible. He stated that he is not convinced a drive - through pharmacy is necessary. Vice -Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that this proposal is one of the better alternatives for this site; and noted his concurrence with the minor modifications to signage and landscaping. Commissioner Tucker expressed his preference that a driveway be placed along PCH or to place a tern pocket close to 2,,d Stj°eet; concurred with limiting the hours for deliveries; stated that only one pharmacy drive -through lane is necessary; than the lighting should not negatively inipact th.e neighbors; suggested that the lights be dimmed when the business is closed; noted his preference that the store footprint be reduced in size and that the architecture be altered to a style that is more consistent with the area, suggesting a mission tile roof with some eyebrows around it. He suggested that this matter be postponed so that the architectural plans can be altered. Commissioner Kersenboom concurred with the comments previously made. Chairman Pizer reiterated his preference for continuous planting with a minimum of 3 foot height, along the frontage of PCH; requested that the parking lot be secured when this store is closed; and noted his support for designated employee parking at the west. 9 Planning Con=ssion Minutes November 19, 2002 Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that Caltrans would have to approve driveway access off PCH; advised that Caltrans has already indicated that any cuts on PCH would require anencroachment permit; and that Caltrans has expressed concern with how this proposed project could potentially impact the flow of traffic on PCH. Commissioner Tucker requested that decorative paver stone be installed in the entry driveways, and approximately 20 feet into the parking lot. Director Blumenfeld stated for the Commission that the project resolution maybe amended per the items discussed to include an 8-foot wall and tree planting on the westerly property line, with screening above, which would be completed in connection with site grading; designate employee larking on the westerly end of the site; relocate the transformer; as practical per Edison requirements; provide a screened wall for the loading area; delivery hours to be 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 A.M, to 6:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday; prohibit truck idling during delivery activities; truck delivery via PCH; post with signage the property and secure the lot during non -business hours; place continuous 3' height shrub landscaping along PCH, in addition to the larger spaced tree planting; place decorative paver stones in the driveways and into part of the parking lot; and create a new roof treatment design and tile roof on the tower elements of the building. Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted his discomfort level with voting this evening on the number of suggested architectural changes Commissioner Tucker is proposing. Director Blumenfeld suggested if the Planning Commission wants to get some resolution on all the other items, a condition could be added for additional architectural treatment to the roof line and that these changes can be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that if Edison does not allow the movement of the transformer, that it be placed in an underground vault. Commissioner Tucker requested that a feasibility study be done to address the placement of a driveway off PCH, expressing his belief that a driveway on this highway is imperative for this site. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, to CONCUR with staff recommendation, including the additions reflected above, and the proposed resolution which was distributed this evening; and that the access shall remain as proposed by staff. Commissioner Tucker urged that more consideration be given to studying the placement of a driveway off PCH and requested that this matter be continued. The motion failed as follows: AYES: Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Tucker ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to continue to the next meeting and concurring with staff recommendation, including the additions reflected above, and the proposed Resolution which was distributed this evening; moved that the architecture of the building be re -addressed; and that a study be made for the placement of another driveway off PCH. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Tucker NOES: Perrotti, Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Pizer recessed the meeting at 9:32 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:39 P.M 10. VAR 02-3 -- After -the -fact Variance to allow a rear yard of 2.8 feet rather than the required 5 feet and greater than the maximum 65-percent lot coverage for a two - unit condominium project constructed based on an incorrect property line survey at 222 Culper Court. Staff Reconnnended Action,: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that this condominium project is near completion; that the only outstanding item on the completion of the project is some of the project interior; explained that staff discovered there was a discrepancy on the approved dimensions just prior to signing off on the final map; and stated that the project was approved by die Planning Commission when this matter was first considered but that the information was provided froin a faulty survey provided by the applicant's surveyor. Director Blumenfeld explained that the original project survey depicted the depth of the property along the northerly property line at 57.09 feet and the south property line at 42.7 feet; advised that the correct dimensions are 55.08 feet along the north and 41.24 feet along the south; and noted that this design discrepancy results in a lot size variance from what was originally shown at 2,894 square feet to 2,770 square feet. He noted that the discrepancy results in a substantial problem relative to setback and lot coverage, that the survey submitted by engineering showed that there's a 2.8-foot setback rather than the 5 feet required at grade; and that based on this information, staff could not approve the final map. He emphasized the problem resulted from survey not staff or City error. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting relief from a 5-foot setback requirement and the 65-foot lot coverage -- pointing out that lot coverage is 67 percent; explained that the basis for the applicant's request is that the project was constructed to approved plans pursuant to the information available at the time of construction, and that the resulting impact is not significant given the unique situation that exists despite this 5-foot clearance issue, that the retaining wall which abuts the property causes the property immediately abutting to have a greater setback than would even be required; and that the applicant is asserting that there is a negligible effect with the overall construction as it exists. 11 Planning Conunission Minutes November 19, 2002 Director Blumenfeld highlighted the four mandatory/specific findings to support a Variance; he suggested that the first condition may be considered unique because this is a remnant part of a parcel that's located to the property to the north; that the remnant is 7 feet in width with a depth on its northerly boundary of 57.9 feet. He added that it appears the original surveyor's error was due to misinterpretation of the data shown on the assessor's parcel map and that that in itself is a unique situation. He stated that the second unusual condition relates to the location of the retaining wall and the driveway; explained that upon inspection, it appears that there is a greater clearance than is actually shown relative to the property line based on the location of that wall. He added that there is a large 64-unit condominium to the east, which has a very large setback. With regard to Finding 2, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes this finding is difficult to make because the use of the property for the two new units is still possible whether or not a Variance is granted. He pointed out that financial hardship cannot be used for the applicant to remedy this issue through a Variance. He added that the Planning Commission may consider a link of unusual hardship due to the fact that the property, when it was approved, was lawfully developed within the constraints of the zoning code; and that the owner obtained all necessary permits and is now being denied a property right in connection with the second finding. With regard to Finding 3, Director Blumenfeld stated that the Variance will not cause any detrimental effect to the surrounding property because there is such substantial clearance to the nearest adjacent property; that encroachment is negligible; and that this extra, unused property located behind a retaining wall and the slight overage in lot coverage will not be noticeable or materially affect the adjacent properties. With regard to the Finding 4, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes the Variance would not conflict with the General Plan; and that these are only minor variations relative to the yard and the lot coverage. Nevertheless, he pointed out that staff believes there are some other options available to the applicant. Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner has the option of purchasing the land under consideration here, and stated that the applicant has declined to purchase this land due to the complicated process and the likely difficulty of dealing with the abutting condominium owners. Director Blumenfeld clarified for the Planning Commission that the footprint of the building is too close to the property line. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. David Simon, law firm of Simon & Simon, 1230 Rosecrans, Suite 410, noted that he is representing the applicants. Steven Mellilo, co -property owner, stated that he's been a concrete contractor for the past 19 years; that he routinely relies on surveyors to accurately place the property line stakes; and noted that he has never in his career seen this kind of mistake. He advised that he and his brother will live in this home; and stated that they were prepared to move in their home in the next couple of weeks. He stated that at no point does the building go over the property line; and he explained that it will be no easy or inexpensive task to demolish part of the building, stating that the entire back area consists of all sheer walls, the kitchen, two completed bathrooms which are only 5-feet 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 wide and back up to the stairs that go up to the second and third floors. He stated that because of the setup, approximately half of the house would have to be demolished. He expressed his concern with his construction loan becoming due in December -- pointing out that they've already received one extension; and that financing is ready to be implemented to take over the construction loan, but that they cannot obtain financing without a Certificate of Occupancy. Dan Mellilo, co -property owner, commented on the difficulty that will likely take place with getting all 64 condominium owners to agree on selling the adjacent land. He noted for Chairman Pizer that he did not approach the condominium homeowners association. Steven Mellilo stated that not only do the condo residents have to agree to sell the property, but also the banks which hold the condo owners' loans -- highlighting the fact that it will be a difficult and long, drawn out process. He highlighted the photographs which depict all his neighbors' walls building their fences up against this existing retaining wall; and requested that they be permitted to do the same -- pointing out that they would then have more than enough setback, 5 feet 10 inches in some areas. Dan Mellilo pointed out that this problem had not been discovered because it is not noticeable to the eye; and echoed his brother's request to allow them to put their fence in the same location as the abutting neighbors. Mr. Simon agreed with the Melliolo's comment that the physical appearance of the property with the large retaining wall looks like it is a correct placement; stated that the property is being used in the way it should be used; and highlighted his discomfort with the equity of negotiating with the adjacent property owners for the purpose of buying the adjacent lot. Mr. Simon commented on the virtual completion of this building and the property rights that are involved. He pointed out that this home was lawfully built, as indicated in the staff report; and that the applicants obtained all the necessary permits and did everything that was required of them. He stated that this home is a compatible addition to the neighborhood; and he stated that the neighbors are enjoying the same condition and requested that these applicants be given the same right which has existed next door for some time. Mr. Simon stated that staff report does a good job of making it possible to approve the Variance; stated that a large distance exists between the applicants' property and the adjacent property -- not the normal separation, which makes this a workable situation which would otherwise not be present when dealing with this kind of problem. He reiterated that the applicants should be able to enjoy their building in the same way the neighbor gets to enjoy his building to the south, which appears to be right on the property line. He expressed his belief that the condominium neighbors many years ago abandoned the property on the other side of their retaining wall; and that the applicants should be given the chance to make this abandoned space available to satisfy the ordinance requirements of a 5-foot setback. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated ghat while he sympathizes with the applicants, there is no legal basis for the Commission to, snake the necessary findings to grant the variance; and noted that the applicants should be seeking relief from the surveyor who provided the faulty report. He commented on the possibility that in the future, the condo owners may suddenly decide to use 13 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 that property line and that he's not sure they have abandoned this land in the legal sense. Commissioner Perrotti stated that he would have preferred that the applicant had approached the homeowners association. The Commission echoed Vice -Chairman Hoffman's comments. Chairman Pizer commented on the necessity that this body be fair and consistent with its decisions. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to DENY the applicant's request for a Variance. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 11. GP 02-1/ZON 02-1/CON 02-/PDP 02- -- General Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HD) and Zone Change from. Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Multiple -family Residential (1-3) or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26923 for a two -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 19 2nd Street. t,affl e!gginrraea tl i .ctiorl,: To deny said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the property is located on the north side of 2nd Street, second lot on the east of the neighborhood commercial development that fronts on Hermosa Avenue; stated that there currently is a restaurant located along that frontage; explained that the lot is located at a depth of 60 to 93 feet from Hermosa Avenue and that it abuts Beach Drive on the west; that the intervening property between the subject site and the restaurant is also developed with a duplex; that much of the surrounding use in the area is residential; that the property is one of three lots located along Hermosa Avenue that is designated neighborhood commercial on the General Plan map; and that it has an underlying zone of C-1, which allows for very limited commercial and residential or apartments above, providing for mixed -use development -- commercial on the ground floor, residential above. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting this re -designation to 1 D residential under the General Plan, or R-3, which world allow for exclusive residential development on the lot; that, basically, it would allow a two -unit condo project, which is the subject of this request; advised that the proposed density would be consistent with much of the surrounding land use, and that approving this change would preclude any commercial development of this site -- pointing out that both the City Council and the Planning Commission have expressed reservations of rezoning commercial property to residential. He stated that the applicant is 14 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 asserting that the opportunities for commercial development are very limited because of the size of the lot and its isolation from other commercial uses and that it's unlikely that commercial development will occur. Director Blumenfeld explained that the proposed two -unit condo project is a 3-story structure containing a basement with two stories above; that the units are designed in Mediterranean style, with tile roofs and precast decorative treatments on the exterior; noted that the parking is provided on the ground .Level with direct access from Beach Drive and 3rd Place;, that guest parking is available; and that with the exception of a minor accommodation for open space that occurs on the decks and the building separation, he advised that the project otherwise conforms with the requirements of the condo ordinance and zoning standards. Director Blumenfeld advised that the plan provides for adequate landscaping and noted that a condition has been included for a minimum of two 36-inch box trees. He stated that since the City Council and the Planning Commission have previously resisted re -designation of commercially zoned property in this City and since the property can be developed at this point with residential above commercial units, it is staff s recommendation to maintain the General Plan and zoning designations as currently shown. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6tn Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the property owners, urged the Planning Commission to recognize the historic use of this site; advised that this is an individual lot, and stated that residential use will be consistent with the surrounding residential uses and that it will be compatible with the development pattern to the south, west and across Hermosa Avenue. She explained that the applicant is requesting a zone change to R-3, which is the exact zoning designation to the west, north, and southwest; and advised that the northwest and southwest corners at Beach give and 2nd Street both contain large apartment buildings. Ms. Srour noted that this site is half a block from the beach; that it's outside the primary commercial corridor for the downtown area and a significant distance from the main street; that it has very little visibility from the main pedestrian corridor; and she stated that visibility is extremely important to commercial development. Ms. Srour advised that the applicant has considered alternative uses; and that there is very little incentive for retail use at this site or even a food service or small retail, which leaves them with office/professional use. Ms. Srour expressed her belief that the office use could work, but pointed out that it is not a local -serving type of business, that it does not add to the City's tax base. She noted that there is approximately 800 square feet of leaseable area on the ground level, limited to a two -level building; stated that because of the parking requirements, almost 75 percent of the first level would be parking because of the parking requirements; and at the second level, they would be able to get two 1,200-square-foot apartments. She pointed out that this alternative lacks economic incentive. She explained that the alternative of pursuing a lot merger at 2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue could be counterproductive to the goal of protecting the residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of commercial uses; and advised that the neighbors have expressed no interest in selling their parcels. She added that this is not a destination commercial area and that it is unfair to compare it with the PCH commercial corridor. Cindy Wells, property owner/applicant, stated that she lives approximately 2 blocks from this site; commented on the residents' opposition to increased traffic and business coming into the 15 Planning Conmussion Minutes November 19, 2002 area; and expressed her belief that if the three lots somehow manage to be combined, the only viable use would be club, restaurant, or grocery store, with very limited parking. She stated that. a placing a mixed use at this site is not a viable option because it won't bring, in enough customers. Ms. Srour stated that staff resolution gives a possible rationale to consider, that the General Plan and zone change will recognize the current land use of the subject property and current market conditions which have not supported or created an interest in expanding commercial development to include this location and will allow the development of an appropriate residential land use consistent with surrounding properties. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perrotti stated that he concurs with the City's reluctance to lose any more commercial properties. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he would support a mixed -use project at this site. Commissioner Tucker noted his preference to see more mixed use. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, to DENY the applicant's request for GP 02-1/ ON 02-1/CON 02-/111DP 02- -- General Plan Arnendunent from Neighborhood Connn.ercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HD) and Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Multiple -Family 'Residential (-3) or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None With regard to Page 9 of the Resolution, Item 2, it was suggested to modify the wording in the sentence to reflect, that the Conditional Use Permit shall only become elective if the City Council approves the proposed zone change. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26923 for a two -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 19 2nd Street and to amend the Resolution on Page 9. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 16 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 12. L-5 -- Legal determination on whether two dwelling units were lawfully created and constitute a legal nonconformity at 402 28th Street. Staff l ecor Imended Action,: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that this single-family residence was permitted and constructed in 1948; that the permit for alterations was issued in 1954 for the property; that plans had been submitted for a detached garage; and that a permit was issued in 1961 to close one-half of the garage to make it a "maid's quarter,"' as described on the permit. He pointed out that the City has a definition of an accessory living, quarters but that the term "maid's quarters" is not defined. He mentioned that the permit has an attached note which states, "Affidavit, no rental." Director Blumenfeld advised that there is no other permit record that indicates that a kitchen was created on this project and that it is not clear whether a maid's quarters may contain a kitchen. He stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance in 1956, accessory living quarters were not allowed to have a kitchen or to be rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling; and stated that no other City records or permit applications show approval for a kitchen. He advised that the property is zoned R-2; that the property is not consistent with the lot area per dwelling requirement of 3,500 square feet; that the current uses, the two units, are nonconforming to this chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, and mentioned that the current zoning, R-2, dates Back to '1.943. He advised that the applicant submitted documentation to reflect that the use was lawfully created and that the use of the second dwelling unit was consistent since the time it was created; and advised that additional information had been provided by the applicant from the County Assessor's Office, wherein an independent appraisal reflects that the use is considered two units, was taxed as two units for many years, and showing that the front unit was built in 1949 and the rear unit built in 1954. He stated that the information also includes a sketch, dated 1961, which shows a garage converted to a living area, a kitchen area, and a three-quarter bath. Director Blumenfeld commented on the code enforcement history with this property since 1972; and advised that the previous property owner had been sent letters from the City indicating that there was an illegal use on the property, that only one unit was permitted. He stated that in order to make this property consistent with the current zoning regulations, it would be necessary to remove the second kitchen, which is located in the maid's quarters, and that the southern half of the garage would have to be made accessible for off-street parking. He expressed staff s belief that there's rather limited evidence to support that there was a second kitchen lawfully constructed on the property; and advised that the owner has submitted evidence that the maid's quarters has existed continuously, which is one of the requirements for a legal determination. e confirmed that the City has evidence of issuing a permit for the maid's quarters. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the latest property owner was advised of the illegal use when he purchased the property. Director Blumenfeld stated that there is reference made in the residential building report that "south one-half of garage structure to be made accessible as off-street parking." He added that the applicant's property appraisal describes the property as two units. Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Kersenboom that if the applicant is allowed to 17 Planning Corrumission Minutes November 19, 2002 maintain the legal nonconforming condition, he would be limited to making minor improvements without Planning Commission approval. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. John Giesregen, 402 28th Street, stated that he purchased this property in 1981 as a duplex; that it was appraised as a two -unit property; that his loan and taxes have been based on a two -unit property; stated that he was not aware of 1972 letters sent by the City to the previous owner; and advised that since he received the notice from the City in the middle of this year that there may be a problem, he has worked with the City to provide any requested documentation. He urged the Planning Commission to grant the legal, nonconforming application; and stated that he would agree to convert the garage upon sale of this property. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that, typically, the County Assessor's Office processes the assessment upon receiving information of a building permit from a local jurisdiction. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that because the applicant has been paying taxes on this property as a duplex since 1981 and that he has provided other supporting documentation, he would support the request. He also highlighted the fact that the use has been continuous. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that the City records clearly indicate code violations suggesting that, in fact, this property was not converted legally; and that even with the contrary information from the County Assessor's Office, he would rely on the City's information which deems this to be an illegal unit. Commissioner Tucker stated that many houses in this same area have been placed in this situation following the City's increasing of the square footage requirements for this zone; noted the applicant's willingness to convert the garage when the property changes ownership; and commented on the applicant's property taxation as a duplex. He stated that the applicant has demonstrated that it's been used in this condition for many years and advised that he will support the applicant's request. Commissioner Perrotti stated that this City should not be bound by what the County Assessor's Office reflects; noted that this property has a paper trail to indicate some type of code enforcement activity in the past; and stated that he would not support the request. Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that the applicant's documentation is more compelling than the limited documentation possessed by the City. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the resolution validating that the legal nonconforming use of 2 dwelling units is legal, nonconforming at 402 28°"' Street. The motion carried as follows: 18 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 AYES: Kersenboom, Pizer, Tucker NOES: Hoffman, Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 13. CON 02-13/PDP 02-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26957 for a two -unit condominium at 1042 7th Street. S ilffReconLmended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that this project consists of a detached 3-level structure, with a basement below two stories and garages at the basement level; that the units contain 4 bedrooms each, 2 bedrooms with full baths; that the front unit has a roof deck; that the buildings are Mediterranean style; and that the project complies with the requirements for height, lot coverage, and landscaping -- adding that a condition has been added for two 36-inch box trees. He mentioned that the plans for the storage areas are inadequate; that the plans are difficult to interpret as to where the finished floor levels are; that the belly bands seem to intersect at odd locations and that it has to be more carefully laid out; and that the plans lack design detail on the building elevations. Director Blumenfeld noted that as currently proposed, one must walk up a flight of stairs in order to access the trash storage area; stated that staff is recommending that the trash area for both units be centrally located within the garages in the east side yard and at the same elevation/grade. He explained that despite these noted problems, staff believes that these issues can be corrected and can be made conditions of approval. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Larry Freddrick, representing the applicant, 2701 190th Street, Redondo Beach, noted his concurrence with the conditions of approval; advised that Unit 1 will provide 146 additional cubic feet of storage under the stairs and that the total for Unit 1 will be 376 cubic feet; and that for Unit 2, the total will be 316 cubic feet, which includes 148 cubic feet under the staircase. He noted his concurrence to place the trash area at the garage level; and stated that the elevation changes recommended by staff can be easily addressed at the staff level, with Planning Commission approval. He noted his concurrence with all of staff s recommendations and stated that he will work with staff to provide a more attractive exterior. In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Freddrick commented on the access to the storage spaces located underneath the stairs. Director Blumenfeld confirmed that storage can be placed under the staircase. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. With regard to the conditions of approval and the resolution, Director Blumenfeld recommended striking the words "any modifications" in No. 1 and striking the words "any modification shall require approval by the Director" in No. 5. He added that the amended resolution would come back to the Planning Commission in January for final consideration. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE 19 Planning Conunission Minutes November 19, 2002 CON 02-13/PDP 02-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26957 for a two -unit condominium at 1042 7th Street; and moved that the plans and final resolution be amended to include the above -mentioned changes, and to be presented for final approval at the January 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN:: None ABSENT: None 14. CON 02-15/PDP 02-19 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26814 for a two -unit condominium at 538 and 540 Manhattan Avenue. Staff Recommended led Action: : To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that this project consists of two detached structures containing basements and two stories above; stated that the front unit contains 4 levels, which includes a basement and mezzanine level; that the rear unit contains 3 levels, a basement and roof deck; and that the units contain 2 bedrooms and a bonus room on the ground level. He noted that the buildings are contemporarily styled; that the required parking is provided at ground level, each unit with direct access off Manhattan Avenue; that guest parking is provided for each unit in front of the garages, with one space on the alley and two spaces on Manhattan Avenue; that the proposed open space is provided on a mezzanine level deck, a second story deck adjacent to the living room, and the individual yard areas between the units; and added that the project meets all zoning requirements. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton, project architect, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 300, stated that this project is a companion project to the new building next door, using a similar color scheme; and advised that both properties are owned by the same individual. Mr. Compton suggested the following modifications to the plans: stepped eaves rather than complete tapered eaves and placement of galvanized steel railings instead of glass railings. He highlighted the use of brown slate wainscoting around the garage area; and he stated that this design will provide for improved views than what currently exists. Commissioner Tucker noted his opposition to the two properties having the same style front elevations; and stated for that reason, he will vote against the project. John Hill, 22700 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance, representing Dr. Alan Jones, advised that Dr. Jones recently purchased the property located at 540 Bayview; noted for the record his concern that his client was not informed of this proposal; and that there may be an issue with failure to disclose this proposed project when Dr. Jones purchased his property. He pointed out that it is not a direct challenge against this project, but that it may be a challenge against those who were involved in the sale of the property to Dr. Jones. He added that Dr. Jones' property will be 20 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 affected by this development and that Dr. Jones made a direct inquiry prior to purchase. Erleen Kearns, 218 6a' Street, stated that she lives directly adjacent to the proposed project; advised that in the last 10 years, 7 major homes have been built within 100 feet of her 80-year- old house -- expressing her displeasure with the complete tear down and rebuild of the neighborhood. She advised that she experienced many problems with this applicant's last project, such as contractors working after hours and on weekends, parking in front of her garage; and noted that she did not contact the City in regard to these complaints. She advised that this landlord will rent these units and expressed her belief that renters oftentimes do not make good neighbors. She noted her concern of the shoring activities and the impacts it may create upon her 80-year old home; and requested that the breezeway at the back of her property be maintained and not altered by the applicant. Chairman Pizer suggested that Ms. Kearns contact the City if she experiences a problem with the contractors. Director Blumenfeld stated that he will contact Ms. Kearns to discuss the obligations of the contractors and he offered his assistance should a problem arise. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker suggested that Ms. Kearns videotape her building/property prior to construction activities. With regard to Page Nos. 4 and 5 of the Resolution, Director Blumenfeld recommended striking the last sentence of Item 1, "minor modifications," and on the last line in Item 5, "any modifications shall require..." on No. 5; and add stepped eaves and steel railings will be revised in the plans and the resolution. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by "dice -Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 02-15/PDP 02-19 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26814 for a two -unit condominium at 538 and 540 Manhattan Avenue, including the modifications; and that it be brought back at a subsequent meeting when the revisions are available. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Tucker ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 15. CON 02-14 -- Conditional Use Permit minor amendment to approved plan to replace window with sliding glass door for a two -unit condominium project at 644 loth Street. Staff RecoMmended Action.: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. 21 Planning Conmiission Minutes November 19, 2002 Director- Blumenfeld advised that this project was approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2001; and that the applicant is requesting this amendment to provide exterior access to the basement level rooms at the rear unit. He noted staff s concern that the proposed change would increase the potential for an illegal dwelling unit. Harold Anschel, 615 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, stated that he would like to have this replacement in order to have access to his office and to allow easier access for his 7-year-old. child; and he assured the Planning Commission that it is not his intent to create an additional unit with this request. Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker highlighted the Commission's past efforts to eliminate situations for potential future bootlegs and noted his opposition to the applicant's request. MOTION by Corrunissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to BENS' the applicant's request for a minor amendment to replace a window with a sliding glass door for the property located at 644 1.0"' Street, and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial and to present it at the next meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARINGS 16. NR 02-12 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 924 Bayview Drive (continued from October 15, 2002 meeting). Staff P.ecormmended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has worked with the applicant and that he believes the plans have been refined to the Planning Commission's satisfaction; and added that sufficient improvements had been made, such as enhanced building elevations, stepping back the building, the trellis structure and the glass railing. Susan Scott, 924 Bayview Drive, thanked staff for their assistance with this project; and pointed out that this project went beyond the requirements that are required for a single-family residence. Jim Walker noted his support for the applicant and stated that the improvements are a pleasing addition to the neighborhood MOTION by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 02-12 -- addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family 22 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 924 Bayview Drive. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 17. A-14 -- Appeal of Community Development Director's decision to use points other than corner points for height calculation on a convex slope at 2008 Loma Drive. &IfFR,econirnended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant submitted evidence in the form of two profile drawings and a survey to demonstrate that the Planning Commission could reasonably consider this to be a convex slope. Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. Larry Pella, 67 14'h Street, project architect, advised that the existing house on this site is situated. on the neighboring property by 8 feet; stated that the client is proposing to demolish this house and build a new house within the proper boundaries; and explained that consideration was give to using the four points in the traditional fashion of determining height, but that it thwarted any possibility of building anything new on this property. Chairman Pizer closed the hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the applicant's request and direct staff, by minute order, to consider this as a convex slope. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 18. STAFF ITEMS a. Memorandum regarding Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan compliance at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, Einsteins Restaurant (continued from October 15, 2002 meeting). Director Blumenfeld noted staff s recommendation to table the current permit compliance discussion pending review of the new discretionary permit application for a proposed new restaurant with a new business operator at the subject site. 23 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002 Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that the new owners are aware of the complaints and related issues at this site. b. Memorandum regarding special meeting proposed for January, 2003. Director Blumenfeld explained that an additional meeting is being proposed for January in order to deal with development standards and agreed to place on the agenda two additional items for discussion: update the General Plan and finished height in garage areas. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to conduct the extra meeting on Monday, January 27, 2003, 7:00 P.M. 19. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Responding to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry concerning the Marineland Mobilehome Park, Director Blumenfeld explained that the owner of the park can replace the mobilehomes as long as they occupy the same space and/or as long as they don't decrease the number of units or collaterally change conditions, with the parking, aisle width, access, etc.; and that if they replace with no other collateral effects, then they can do so and not violate the mobilehome park ordinance. He advised that staff has done an investigation, which indicates that the number of units has not been decreased; and that the only thing that has been affected is the parking, which is a significant issue. He advised that staff has written to the owner and asked the owner to present a plan to show how they're going to replace the lost parking. He noted that staff recently received correspondence from the park owner and that staff will be responding to that correspondence by the end of this week, arrange to meet and confer on the issue, and then give the owner a date to conform. Commissioner Tucker noted his concern with the initial lack of notification on the part of the park owner. 20. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, for adjournment at 12:48 A.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 November 19, 2002. 111) Ron Pizer, Chai.rman 3�1 Date Sol Blumenfeld. Secretary 24 Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2002