Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-21 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 21, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Ketz led the pledge of allegiance. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz*, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary *Arrived at 7:25 p.m CONSENT —CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Schwartz ABSTAIN: Vice -Chair Ketz 6. ORALI' ''RITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. C-31— COMPLETION OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT. INCLUDES AMENDING THE CITY'S COASTAL LAND USE PLAN, AND A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES OF THE LAND USE PLAN AND COASTAL ACT. WILL RESULT IN THE CITY OBTAINING PERMIT AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. Staff Recommended Action: To take public testimony, review the Coastal Land Use Plan and continue to a special meeting of the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000. P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He indicated that the Coastal Act sets out regulations which guide the development of coastal resources. He said the State maintains authority over the City's coastal regulations until such time as the City incorporates the goals of the Coastal Act into their local regulations. He also said that the purpose of the draft amendments will be to obtain certification on the City's local coastal program. He indicated that last year, the City submitted a grant request to the California Coastal Commission and the City was awarded a grant to obtain funding to help the City prepare their local coastal program. With the approval of the documents being considered this evening, a subsequent decision hearing will be held the first week of April with a final consideration by the City Council. He said the matter will then be referred to the Coastal Commission for consideration and if approved, the Implementing Ordinance would be incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance as part of the City's local regulations. He explained that while the City will retain coastal authority the Coastal Commission will still retain some of its permitting authority relative to the area known as the original permit jurisdiction area and appealable area. He indicated that all the properties within the Coastal Zone designated area would receive a CZ Coastal Zone designation appended to the standard designation. He also explained that the development standards within the City's Coastal Zone would largely remain unchanged with the Implementing Ordinance simply mirroring the Zoning Ordinance with respect to development standards. Director Blumenfeld also noted that there are strikeouts (indicates areas in the Land Use Plan proposed for deletion) or areas underlined (indicates areas recommended for addition) in the documents received by the Commission. He further pointed out that after the draft was published, areas were picked up that required further refinement and clarification. He noted the following changes in the Land Use Plan: Page 4 — Delete the reference to the Downtown Implementation Plan relative to parking. Page 5 — Delete the reference to lease or purchase of parking resources and substitute with, "The City should maximize efficiency of parking in parking lots disbursed throughout the City and Downtown Enhancement District so as to minimize impact on parking demand to the City and its residents." Page 9 — Change paragraph 3 to read, "That whatever designation had the lessor designation." He reviewed that the Commission has received a Land Use Plan with corrections and revisions, an Implementing Ordinance and a matrix provided for comparison purposes. Brian James of the Planning Center presented a brief overview and presented the following for discussion: The purpose of the Coastal Act • Protecting the marine environment • Assuring that there is a balance between the development and utilization of the coastline and its conservation • Maximizing public access as well as recreational opportunities • Providing priority for coastal dependent development 2 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 The Local Coastal Program • The Land Use Plan • Implementing Ordinance • Coastal Zone established by the Coastal Act • Coastal Boundaries • Authority to issue the Coastal Development Permits • Create a more customer friendly atmosphere • Streamline the permitting process • Appealable area • Non -appealable area • Subject to the Coastal Act • Categorically excluded • Exempt • Require a Coastal Development Permit • Comparison of today's process and the proposed process • Proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan • Parking and access section • Coastal housing portion • Coastal recreation section • Coastal development and design • General Plan amendments and Zoning Map amendments not certified by the Coastal Commission • Zoning category for the beach Chairman Perrotti questioned the status of a lot that is part of an appealable area. Mr. James clarified that if only a portion of the lot is in the appealable area, the entire lot would be considered an appealable area. Commissioner Schwartz asked if prior comments and input into the original plan are still relevant today. Director Blumenfeld said this project has been initiated now because the Coastal Commission provided a grant to the City to provide the resources to complete the work. He further explained that the Coastal Program consists of the LUP and the Implementing Ordinance, and there was not an Implementing Ordinance prior to this time. He further pointed out that the original wording was left intact, with minor amendments made to the language and noted that much of the document is still relevant. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the railroad right -of -wad on page 3 of the Land Use Plan. Director Blumeni"eld indicated that this is the greenbelt area and refers to parking near the fields. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the VPD on page 3 of the Land Use Plan. Director Blumenfeld noted that the definition will be put back in before the abbreviation. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 4 of the Land Use Plan stating, "'For new or expansions of existing retail and office development within the DED parking in excess of 3 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 that existing on the site at the time of the proposal shall be provided at 65% of the current parking requirement." Director Blumenfeld clarified that this section is proposed to be added. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 5 of the Land Use Plan stating, "and the City shall construct new parking upon reaching that threshold limit or the City shall not approve new development beyond that threshold limit." Director Blumenfeld indicated that the City currently has an in lieu program which was based upon replenishing the parking that the City was granting in lieu after a certain threshold which was set at 100 spaces. He said the downtown parking has currently been replenished at 300 spaces. He said staff now has the ability to go forward with the in lieu program with a new threshold again of approximately 100 in lieu spaces. Director Blumenfeld noted that on page 5 of the Land Use Plan, leasing or purchasing parking is being deleted. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 7 of the Land Use Plan stating, "That the City should separate Strand uses that add to the congestion on the Strand between loth and 15th Streets during the summer months." Director Blumenfeld explained that this suggests that some safety measures have been implemented. He agreed that this language may be better addressed in the paragraph above, Existing Policies and Programs. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 8 of the Land Use Plan stating, "The City, where feasible, should construct parkettes and pedestrian spaces similar to the one recently constructed at 13th 14" and 15`h Streets and Beach Drive," Director Blumenfeld noted that 13"' and 14" Streets have special paving and landscaping that mirrors the Frier plaza.. Commissioner Schwartz requested clarification of the second program on page 9 of the Land Use Plan and asked if the Zoning Code and the General Plan have conformed. Director Blumenfeld stated no and that there are some inconsistent parcels. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the first policy under Future Policies and Programs on page 9 of the land Use Plan should be under Existing Policies and Programs. Director Blumenfeld indicated yes. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the third policy on page 10 of the Land Use Plan and asked if landscaping is feasible along the east side of the Strand. Mr. James commented that the parkettes in the previous policy could be an example. Director Blumenfeld further stated that any of the streets terminating at the Strand present this option. Commissioner Schwartz asked what is the exception and non -exception concerning Item 6 on page 7 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Mr. James explained that if you are converting these multiple unit residential structures to timeshares, this would be excluded from obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. He further indicated that he will check the applicability of condominiums. 4 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Commissioner Schwartz questioned the process of the public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding Item B, Appeal of a Non -Discretionary Project, on page 12 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Mr. James explained that if the item is appealed, it would go through City Council and then go to the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Schwartz questioned Item D, Continuation of Action, on page 12 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance and the limit of the continuation of public hearings. Director Blumenfeld said there is a process for timely review of projects that relates to permit streamlining, but there is not a set limit of public hearings and the Commission does it by policy,. Commissioner Schwartz noted a typo on Item C, Local Appeals, on page 14 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance, "Action by the Director or may be appealed to the Planning Commission." Commissioner Schwartz questioned what is appealable regarding Item F, Grounds for Appeal, on page 14 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Director Blumenfeld explained that anything can be appealed to City Council, but this section sets the grounds for appeal to the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the difference between an immaterial and material change under Item D, Action on Amendments, on page 16 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Mr. James said that the noticing is similar, but he noted the differences will be made more distinct. Commissioner Schwartz requested an explanation of Enforcement, on page 17 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Director Blumenfeld indicated authority along with responsibility is transferred with additional work involved. He further said that the vehicle for processing the appeals needs to be looked at and monitored. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti reminded the public that written correspondence can be sent into the City, the Commission is not making a final decision this evening and this item will be continued to April 5, 2000. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE C-31 — Completion of the Local Coastal Program pursuant to the California Coastal Act, to the April 5, 2000 meeting. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission took a break at 8:10 p.m. 5 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 The Commission reconvened at 8:20 p.m. 8. CUP 99-3 — REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE, IBIZA. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the attached resolution modifying the Conditional Use Permit. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He reviewed the applicants violation of the existing CUP conditions related to the following items: • Failure of compliance to the Parking Plan Failure to obtain building permits for existing construction required to enclose several garages along Palm Drive o Excessive noise and nuisance complaints based on Police Department records and public testimony 0 Failure to install and maintain emergency exit signs at the exit doors on Palm Drive • Failure to maintain emergency exit door self -closing mechanism to attenuate noise onto to Palm Drive Use of restaurant storage area to provide additional seating in violation of the approved plans for the project under the original Resolution 9857 Failure to obtain a final Certificate of Occupancy He reviewed the operating hours and Parking Plan. He further indicated that the City Attorney has advised that the CUP represents a substantial property right and that a revocation must be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.20 of the Zone Code. He reviewed the findings that would have to be met in order to revoke or modify a CUP. Alternately, he reviewed a list that staff has prepared as recommendations to use to modify the CUP. He also said staff is recommending to amend the CUP with a 90 day term to complete all the outstanding work and if after 90 days these items are not resolved, the matter be set for revocation. He pointed out that Sergeant Jaakola has provided a memorandum outlining the nuisance calls the Police Department received. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Sergeant Jaakola indicated that they have made two security checks, both of which showed everything appearing to be fine. He also said they had a disturbance call for noise on February 13, 2000 and March 2, 2000. Jay Hart, 915 Manhattan Avenue, indicated the only solution is to revoke the CUP. He said they should not be given any further chances. He expressed concern with the upcoming summer season and noise, creating an annual event. He pointed out that there are plenty of businesses in Hermosa Beach that obey their CUP and are welcomed members of the City. 6 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Gary Zimmerman, 928 Palm Drive, stated that Ibiza promised an upscale restaurant, but all that has occurred is a late night bar with all the consequence problems of noise, nuisance and nausea. He noted that Ibiza has had chance after chance to clean up their act and have taken every break that the Commission has given and run with it. He said that extending the bar space and reducing the dining area without permits or hearings was not acting in good faith. He also said that by converting the storage area adjacent to Palm Drive into restaurant and lounge space serving liquor and playing loud music was not in good faith. Also, he said they have remained opened beyond their approved hours and pushed for even more extended hours. He further said that by renting out the restaurant to loud private parties that don't abide by the CUP is not acting in good faith. He also pointed out that most of the violations took place well after the operators were aware of the problems to local residents which is the biggest insult of all. He said that it is clear that this site is not compatible with a late night bar, and he requested suitable hours of no later than midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, and 11 o'clock other nights. He requested that steps be taken to mitigate the noise. He further requested that the restriction hours be extended for delivery hours on Palm Drive. He also expressed concern with the glass noise and would like to see measures taken to mitigate the sound. He would also like to see dates set for the modifications and that enforcement be checked. Micki Smallman, 920 Palm Drive, agreed time constraints are needed and a CUP that is enforceable. She would like to see the hours cut back to 11 or 12 midnight. Terri Koch, 53 9th Street, reviewed the history of problems concerning the restaurant and stated that she can hear the noise inside her home. She also noted that the west and north side of the patio are open. She noted that the owners have gotten more chances than they deserve and noted that it has been well over a year, and the owners still have not complied with the items in their CUP. She urged the Commission to revoke the CUP and at a minimum, reduce the hours consistent with the prior occupant of 11 p.m. and close the patio at 9 p.m., enclosing it with glass. Jay Barry, 131 8th Street, stated the revocation would not be a good option. He pointed out that the police have indicated that there has been better compliance in the last month, and the owner should be given a chance. He said, however, that after 90 days they still have not complied, the CUP should be revoked. Jerry Mifindol, 812 Manhattan Avenue, stated that he takes his parents to eat at Ibiza which caters to a well-mannered crowd. He said the speakers are gone in the back and on the patio. He also indicated that the noise has gone down and many changes have occurred. He said the restaurant is very nice. Pete Tucker, 235 34th Street, stated that he was on the Commission when this project first came before them, and the restaurant has not turned into an upscale restaurant as promised. He indicated that a solution would be to limit the hours, especially on the weekends. He also noted that by enclosing the patio, an occupancy load problem could occur which could affect their parking plan. He expressed concern with the storage room being used as part of the restaurant. 7 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Rebecca Scott, 150 l Oth Street, mentioned that the noise level is still not acceptable, and she still cannot have her windows open on the weekend. She also said it will be worse in the summer. She pointed out that just because the police are not called doesn't mean there is not a noise problem. She also would like to see the hours cut back at the very least. Kevin Wall, owner of Ibiza, said they opened nine months ago with a required six-month review. He said that they share the building with other tenants and the cars being stored are from other tenants. He explained that they have been trying to get the landowner to finish the construction. He also said that after the meeting in November, they tried to take steps to address the noise problems. He felt that the residents were just calling for no reason so it would be on record. He noted that the police have not cited them, and they were not aware of noise issues. He also indicated a lot of the noise is coming from The Lounge. He commented that by cutting back their hours would crush their business and it would be difficult to get the customers out by midnight. He agreed with no deliveries on Palm Drive. He suggested that they come back in two or three months. Chairman Perrotti asked about the status of the storage area. Mr. Wall indicated that the speakers have been removed. He pointed out the plans show this area as dining. Commissioner Hoffman suggested enclosing the patio. Mr. Wall indicated that one of the draws to their restaurant is the patio. Shawn Peiffer, 12 27th Street, co-owner, executive chef and general manager of Ibiza, stated they intend to be committed through the summer to ensure that their business does not have to rely on late night bar business all winter long. He indicated that they would like to have a nice dinner crowd throughout the year. He reviewed that they have hired a publicist to get his name exposed. He said he has had a four and five star, restaurant background in Chicago for the last nine years and has worked under some of the top chefs in the country. He also said that they have pending reviews in both the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Magazine. He said that they are doing a monthly wine dinner with some of the bigger wine producers in California. Also, he said they have taken steps to do some advertising with some local publications in terms of special events occurring weekly. He expressed his commitment as a chef and business owner. Will Buchanan, 640 2"d Street, said that he has eaten at Ibiza and indicated that the food is very good but overpriced. Further, he pointed out that it would not matter how good the food is if the restaurant was a disturbance to him. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer was glad to hear Mr. Peiffer was at the restaurant and is trying to upgrade the restaurant to first class dining. He said he visited the restaurant and many of the items are not in compliance. He summarized a plan of action as follows: 8 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 1. Closing hours 7 days a week at 11 p.m. for the enclosed parts of the building, and 9 p.m for the patio or other areas not fully enclosed. This restriction applies as soon as the amended CUP is official. 2. The closing hours will be changed back to the original CUP hours except for the patio and other areas that are not fully enclosed when the following corrective action is completed as follows: A. Corrective action that must be completed within two weeks after the amended CUP date: • Maintain all doors and windows closed at all times. • Restrict occupancy if air conditioning is not adequate. • Install solid core self -closing Palm Drive exit doors. • Remove chairs, couches, tables and audible system, speakers and similar items from the storage area even stored as storage items. • Maintain the door to the trash facility closed and locked at all times except for trash removal. • Prohibit deliveries on Palm Drive between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily. B. Corrective action that must be completed within six weeks after the amended CUP date: • Provide a revised floor layout and seating plan showing correctly the number of bar and table seats and noting the accuracy and the maximum occupant capacity for removal and approval. • Provide an onsite parking and signage plan for review. • Install revised parking signage. • Remove stored vehicles from the parking area. C. Corrective action that must be completed within twelve weeks after the amended CUP date: • Install a floor drain with a trap primer in the trash facility area and prohibit the washing of the area onto Palm Drive. • Construct a vestibule at the entrance. • Close the entrance to the patio or not fully enclosed areas. • Air conditioning should be reviewed and installation completed if required for operation with all the windows and doors closed. Commissioner Schwartz believed that it is very easy to find conditions to revoke the CUP. She stated that the owners of the business have had a lot of time to comply and make progress. She recommended revocation of the CUP. Commissioner Ketz expressed frustration, and the owner has been before them many times denying that they have a problem. She agreed with Commissioner Pizer's proposal adding the following: • No dumping of bottles between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. • Citing of violations. Commissioner Hoffman indicated that a closing hour of 11 p.m. for a fine dining establishment should not be detrimental to the business. He also suggested closing the patio at sunset or enclosing the patio if longer hours are desired. He agreed that many items should have been corrected long ago, as they are minor. 9 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Chairman Perrotti announced that letters have been received from Wayne Harrod, Grace Ortiz, Micki Smallman and Lois Heintz concerning this item. Chairman Perrotti stated he is not in favor of revocation at this point. However, he said that the only action that has been taken is that the larger speakers have been removed, and comments from the Commission have been ignored. He also noted that the storage and occupancy issues still have not been resolved and should have been taken care of when the operation first began. He agreed with Commissioner Pizer's implementation plan and agreed that a vestibule door would eliminate a lot of problems. He pointed out also that there are many successful restaurants in the City that close by 11 p.m. Commissioner Pizer suggested it would not be fair to revoke the CUP, as they were never cited for violations. He also said there is still a speaker in the patio area and some of the electrical connections looked unsafe. Chairman Perrotti asked about the status of the storage area. Director Blumenfeld said that the plan that was originally approved under the Resolution for the restaurant shows the area as storage. He believed that applicant is referring to an area on the building plans where nothing had been indicated on the original drawings. He said the plan checker noted in pencil "dining" because there is an exit door immediately adjacent and storage is not allowed around a required exit pursuant to the Building Code. Further he clarified the occupancy load is based on 15 square feet per person, but the occupant load number that the applicant is using reflects the storage area as additional area to occupy, which is not approved. He also noted that if this area is approved as dining area, then the applicant would need to provide parking for it under a Parking Plan. Director Blumenfeld indicated that if the Commission agrees to roll back the hours, a Resolution would be brought back to reflect the changes. He said the matter would have to be set for hearing and amend the CUP to change the hours subsequently. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to MODIFY CUP 99-3 incorporating the timing of Commissioner Pizer's Implementation Plan with staff recommendations. Also, amending Commissioner Pizer's Implementation Plan as follows: The removal of the first paragraph, #2; adding under (A) no dumping of trash or bottles between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.; adding under (C) construction of a vestibule; changing (C) to ten weeks; and come back for Planning Commission review in three months (June 20). AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: Schwartz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Director Blumenfeld indicated that this will be brought back in final form at the next meeting for final reading. 10 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 9. CON 99-30/PDP 99-36/VAR 99-7 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25678 FOR A CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX INTO A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND VARIANCE TO THE 30' HEIGHT LIMIT AT 1136 — 1140 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 16,1999, DECEMBER 1,1999, JANUARY 18, 2000 AND FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETINGS). Staff Recommended Action: Project withdrawn by the applicant. City Planner Schubach indicated that this item has been withdrawn by the applicant. 10. PDP 00-3 — PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ADDITION OF A SECOND UNIT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 43 20TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He indicated that the applicant has revised the plans and is no longer a nonconforming remodel and meets all the current zoning requirements for the project except for enclosure of the trash area and the full 23 feet behind the one open parking space. He said, however, that these conditions have been included in the Precise Development Plan Resolution. Commissioner Pizer asked if the second unit can be less than a 1,000 square feet. City Planner Schubach indicated yes, since it is a Precise Development Plan and not a condominium project. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the separation of the garages. City Planner Schubach indicated that a condition could be added showing a separation of a two -car garage and one -car garage providing a side door for the one -car garage. He said, however, this is not a requirement. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked for clarification of the front elevation. The applicant indicated that it is visible through the windows on the rendering, which is a bit confusing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz stated that she would like to see separation between the two -car garage and one -car garage. Commissioner Pizer agreed. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE PDP 00-3 — Precise Development Plan for addition of a second unit to an existing single family 11 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 residence and the remodel of an existing garage at 43 20th Street, subject to staff s conditions including the condition that the garage be made into two separate garages. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 11. VAR 00-1— VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION AND REMODEL OF A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING FRONT AND SIDE YARDS AT 122 2ND STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: 1) LOT COVERAGE — 73% RATHER THAN MAXIMUM 65%; 2) INCREASE IN VALUATION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING GREATER THAN 100%; 3) PARKING — NO GUEST PARKING RATHER THAN REQUIRED ONE SPACE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To continue to April 18, 2000 meeting. City Planner Schubach indicated that the applicant is requesting to continue this item to the April 18, 2000 meeting. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Ketz to CONTINUE VAR 00-1 — Variance to allow the expansion and remodel of a building with nonconforming front and side yards at 122 2"d Street with the following variances: 1) Lot coverage — 73% rather than maximum 65%; 2) Increase in valuation of nonconforming building greater than 100%; 3) Parking — no guest parking rather than required one space. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 12. ZON 00-1/CON 00-2/PDP 00-2 — ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #53116 FOR A TWELVE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE. DECLARATION AT 603 lsr PLACE, AND 112, 138 & 142 ARDMORE AVENUE. 12 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Staff Recommended Action: 1) To recommend approval of said Zone Change and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. 2) To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 12-unit condominium and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He explained that at applicants' requests in the past, various portions of the manufacturing zoned area have been changed to the R-2 zoning along Ardmore Avenue. He said that the applicant is requesting a change to R-2 to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. He also said that by combining the five lots, the applicant is able to construct up to twelve units allowing a better designed project with parking located on the interior of the project. Also, he said that staff has added the typical Conditions of Approval including significant landscaped area along the north property edge. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Rosecrans, Hawthorne, stated she is representing the applicant and property owners. She stated that the request is for five of the six lots that front on Ardmore Avenue between First Place and Second Street. She said twelve units are proposed which generate a better project. She also said that there would be no curb cuts on Ardmore Avenue other than one driveway entrance. She described the current businesses in the location and said that this project would be much more compatible. She pointed out that the current businesses are creating more traffic than this new residential project, which would generate approximately 120 vehicle trips with its 2.3 people per unit. She also said that the lots of the properties to the east of Ardmore Avenue are larger and have been R-2 for a long time with multiple units. She also said that the R-1 lots to the west are much smaller. She summarized stating that the R-2 zoning is compatible and the density which is consistent with the General Plan is also appropriate for this particular neighborhood. She further said street parking would be preserved, providing a lot of parking on site. Also, she said at least 100 square feet of the private open space is placed off of living area which is to the front of the unit, creating a lot of interest to the front of the building. Also, she noted that the project is semi -subterranean, with the street sloping up to the east. Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with clearance for the guest space. Ms. Vargo indicated that there would be adequate clearance with further shifting. Chairman Perrotti suggested installing a gazebo providing a more friendly area. Ms. Vargo indicated that this could be done, which would provide a usable area. Commissioner Ketz requested moving the trash area away from the open space. Ms. Vargo said that their intent was to locate the trash area where it would be convenient. Will Buchanan, 640 2"d Street indicated that he submitted a list with twelve signatures. He requested that the manufacturing stay due to less noise in the evening and on the weekend. Also, he expressed concern with more City personnel needed to accommodate the additional residents. Also, he believed more traffic congestion would be created. 13 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Charlie Cheetum, 548 2'a Street stated that by turning commercial property into residential is detrimental to City revenue, decreasing sales tax base and property taxes. He said the infrastructure of the neighborhood is old, the streets are narrow, the traffic flow is bad and putting another dense project in the area would create problems. He expressed concern with this development hurting his property value. He noted that the City should take a stand against more high density projects. He believed that the area should be zoned R-1 such as the houses across the street from the development. Stewart Silver, 116 Hill Street, believe the development is way out of perspective. He noted that his street is all single family homes except for one building. He expressed concern with the street being narrow, traffic generated from the development and parking problems. He preferred to see six beautiful single family homes built instead of the condominium development. Rebuttal Ms. Vargo noted that the General Plan designation is for a density that is consistent with the proposed project. She said at the time the General Plan was changed in the area, an EIR would have been done for the evaluation of impacts on schools, fire, police and other City services. She also said at the time the General Plan designation was placed in this area, all of these factors were put into place. She pointed out that going through the building permit process, the prof ect pays impact fees. She also said the answering service business that is currently there does not pay any sales tax to the City, and the other business pays a minimal sales tax of $1200 a year. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ketz stated that the buildings are large but meet all of the zoning requirements. Commissioner Schwartz agreed with the zone change, and she believed the project is nicely done. She again would like to see the guest parking made more usable, and also agreed that the courtyard should be made more inviting to the residents of the area. She also would like to see the trash area relocated. Commissioner Pizer agreed with the zone change and said that the internal parking access of the project is nice with less curb cuts. He also believed that the guest spaces should be widened for better utilization, and he too would like to see an alternate location for the trash. Chairman Perrotti also pointed out that City Council requested that the property owner initiate the zone change, not the City. He said that this is the case concerning this development and the zoning should be R-2. He also believed that the configuration of the development is better, as there is just two curb cuts on the side streets off of Ardmore Avenue. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE ZON 00-1/CON 00-2/PDP 00-2 — Zone Change from M-1 to R-2, Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit per staff recommendations with the following modifications: 1) Revision of the plans to widen the guest parking spaces beyond the 8' 6", 2) the common open 14 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 space area include a gazebo or other structure, and 3) an alternate location be found for the trash area. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission took a break at 10:40 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:45 p.m. 13. CON 00-3/PDP 00-4 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25473 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1041 MONTEREY BOULEVARD/1042 BAYVIEW DRIVE. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said requests. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He indicated that the plans contain additional grade information demonstrating that there is a convex slope and staff has referred this to the Commission for confirmation. He also said the height of the proposed structure is 5.94 feet over the 30-foot height limit. He summarized that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the Resolution approving the project with clarification of the height issue. Commissioner Schwartz requested clarification of the ground level versus basement bath requirements. Director Blumenfeld indicated that "ground level" will be reworded to "basement level." Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6ch Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that she is representing the property owner and applicant. She presented the rendering of each unit. She noted that the front elevation is broken up and nicely articulated. She also said that the storage and trash issues will be taken care of during plan check. She explained that there is a very distinct break in the topography two-thirds back, and she reviewed the grade point calculations. She further noted that in past applications, the Commission has accepted this type of topographic characteristic for measurement of height. She also said that the plans comply with all of the development standards. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz agreed with meeting the findings for the convex slope but felt that the buildings are unattractive even though they are articulated. 15 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Chairman Perrotti believed that the Commission can find for a convex slope, the project meets the height standards and staff can work with the applicant to make the appropriate modifications to the plans for further required articulation. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE CON 00-3/PDP 00-4 — Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25473 for a two -unit condominium at 1041 Monterey Boulevard/1042 Bayview Drive as recommended by staff with the following conditions: 1) The reference to the ground level bathroom be changed to basement bathroom and be three-quarter; and 2) the architect developer work with staff to improve the elevation as one theme. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 14. L-5 — LEGAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE TWO DWELLING UNITS AND CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO A BEDROOM EXISTING WERE LAWFULLY CREATED AND CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY AT 7714111 STREET/76 15 TH COURT (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To validate the two dwelling units, the west bedroom, and the conversion of the garage as legal nonconforming with respect to zoning requirements. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He indicated that staff is recommending based upon the evidence that the applicant has submitted and research into the file, that the Commission find that this is a legal nonconforming use. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Rick Icaza, 77 14th Street, stated that he has witnesses and neighbors available for testimony and questions. He further indicated that the easterly garage and wall are 3 inches short of meeting the requirement of the current building codes and if the Resolution is passed, it would preclude the use of the windows in the front room permitted in 1944 along with closing the kitchen window and door leading to the kitchen and two other windows in the garage. He agreed, however, that the windows of the westerly bedroom should be closed off. He further requested that the deck on the second floor be opened in the back for access. Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission does not have latitude to allow a violation of the Building Code, but has latitude to make a determination relative to the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that in 1937, which was the earliest Building Code available, there was a requirement for a 3 foot separation to the property line.. Mr. Icaza pointed out that in 1937, the surveying equipment was not as accurate as it is today and the meters could have changed. 16 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Director Blumenfeld clarified that where there is a window opening less than 3 feet from the property line, it must be corrected. He further said that staff can infer from the assessor information that there was a building permit approving at portion of the project. Judy DeAngelo believed that the structure is legal nonconforming. She stated that the issue is that Mr. Icaza needs to get an after -the -fact permit for the garage, but not for everything on the east side of the building which was already in place. She agreed that the windows should be sealed on the west side. Director Blumenfeld suggested requiring a building permit and conformity to the Building Code on the westerly side where there is no permit record whatsoever. He also suggested that on the easterly side which seems to have more of a permit record that a building permit need not be issued. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Metz and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to ADOPT the Resolution for L-5 — at 77 14th Streetd76 15'' Court, with the amendment of Section 5, Items 2 and 3, inserting the word "westerly" before "property lines." AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None HEARING(S) 15. NR 00-1— NONCONFORMING REMODEL AND 172 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION FOR AN EXISTING DUPLEX WITH ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT AT 641 AND 643 30TH STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He indicated that it is a nonconforming use with one parking space per each dwelling unit on the property. He said that the maximum allowed addition is 250 square feet, which the applicant is well below at 172 square feet. Staff is recommending approval. Director Blumenfeld noted that the applicant's name is shown incorrectly in the Resolution which has been corrected. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. 17 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to APPROVE NR 00-1 — Nonconforming remodel and 172 square foot addition for an existing duplex with one parking space per dwelling unit at 641 and 643 30th Street per staff recommendations including the modification of the name change in the Resolution. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 16. STAFFITEMS a. Code interpretation of parking dimension requirements at 833 14th Street. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He requested clarification from the Commission as to whether the applicant can have just two 17-foot guest stalls and one required space rather than two 18-foot long spaces and one 17-foot setback. Director Blumenfeld clarified that a 17-foot setback is required and parking is only allowed in the front yard when it is located in a driveway leading to a garage. He further pointed out that required parking cannot be removed. He said in this case, there is no driveway leading to a garage and the owner is providing parking in the front yard. Commissioner Ketz noted that a 17 foot setback is required to prevent cars from hanging over the sidewalk. She agreed, however, that would not apply in this case. She further suggested that if it is determined that there is no setback because there is no garage and the applicant is not parking the first 10 feet, he can have two parking spaces. The Commission moved by Minute Order to DIRECT that there were two spaces provided originally and two spaces provided currently with a required setback. b. Status of proposed changes to single and multi family development standards. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. Chairman Perrotti expressed that the Council may not have understood the 15% open space on roof decks. Director Blumenfeld indicated that he will clarify this in the follow up staff report to Council. C. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. d. Community Development Department Activity Report of January 2000. e. City Council minutes of January 25, 2000, February 8 and 22, 2000. 17. COMMISSIONER ITEMS 18 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00 Chairman Perrotti requested the status of the Bijou building. Director Blumenfeld stated that they have completed their seismic retrofit and submitted plans for building shell improvements. He said there have been changes made and a building permit will be issued on the building shell which will include installing an elevator, dealing with fire exiting and escape and other building shell type improvements. He said as soon as this is completed, the applicant can submit tenant improvement plans and complete the project. - 18. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chairman Perrotti to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:58 pm. No objections, so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of March 21, 2000. Sam Perrotti, Chairman Sol Blumenf 1 , ecretary 7 �/,61 Date 19 P.C. Minutes 03-21-00