Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_01_03MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 3, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Comm. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Pierce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue Ingell Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Kevin Northcraft, City Manager; William Grove, Building Director; Jody Hatch, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the December 5, 1989 meeting were not available for review and approval at this meeting date. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P. C. 8 9-7 6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE AGENCIES, INCLUDING STORAGE AND SALES OF PARTS, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2775, 2851, 2901, AND 3001 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P. C. 8 9-8 4 , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW SERVING OF GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 2515 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HOTEL HERMOSA. No Objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, second~d by Comm Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-88, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A TANNING SALON AT 1559 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, TOUCAN TAN. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P. C. 89-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND REPEALING PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING USED AUTO DEALERSHIP AND MODIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 840 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. No objections; so ordered. 1 PC 01/03/90 MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-90, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD A GYMNASIUM/HEALTH & FITNESS CENTER TO C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections: so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9, Hermosa Beach, questioned the Building Department ruling on front yard setbacks on The Strand. He understood that it was to apply to new developments only, however, the Building Department has been requiring it for remodels also. He requested that the Planning Comm i ssion address this issue at the next regularly scheduled meeting and supply an interpretation of Code. Mr. Schubach stated that staff will look back at the minutes taken for the original determination, and will report back to the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21580 FOR A 2- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 833 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of High Density Residential. The present use is as a single family residence. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit detached condominium on a rectangular lot located at 833 Loma Drive. Each of the units will contain about 1,873 square feet, two bedrooms, a mezzanine, and 3 baths distributed in two levels over a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed structures will have a contemporary appearance with stucco exterior, glass block, an exposed chimney, and aluminum windows. Each unit will be provided with two enclosed parking spaces, and one open and unenclosed guest space. Staff has requested that the architect redesign the open space and include an additional 49 square feet lacking from the required open space. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:13 p.m. Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated that the additional 49 square feet of open space could be added to the courtyard area. He explained that because of the setback and 2 PC 01/03/90 parking requirements in this area, this particular floorplan comes up often with some minor variations. Chmn. Rue asked if there were some additional architectural features that could be added to avoid a row-house effect, and keep all the units different. Mr. Compton replied that this design is new for this area, and he is trying to design unique buildings with every project. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:20 p.m. Chmn. Rue noted that the architect did agree to supply the additional open space, and felt it was a good idea to do so. Public hearing reopened by Chmn. Rue at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Compton stated that he has provided an additional 100 square feet of open space over and above any other project on this street, and he has modified the deck arrangement so both decks face the ocean. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:24 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Chmn. Rue stated that this project meets all zoning requirements and condominium standards, and will create no adverse impact on the neighborhood. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ingell Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21824 FOR A 3- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 425 ELEVENTH STREET Comm. Moore announced that he would be abstaining from any discussion of this item. Mr. Schubach gave the staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of high density residential. The present use is as two residences. The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit attached condominium on a rectangular lot located at 425 11th Street. Each unit 3 PC 01/03/90 will contain about 2,100 square feet, 3 bedrooms, a loft, and 2 1/2 baths distributed in two levels over a semi-subterranean garage. These units will have a contemporary Mediterranean appearance with clay mission tile roofing, an exterior plaster-smooth finish, aluminum windows, canvas awnings, and french doors. Each unit will be provided with two enclosed parking spaces and one open and unenclosed guest space. Because these units front in the westerly side yard, a 6-foot side yard setback is required according to Section 1217 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission, however, has the authority to make this determination. staff is requesting that the Planning Commission supply direction on this section of Code for future reference. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed condominium development and parcel map. comm. Peirce suggested having a wider sideyard for the first unit and a regular sideyard for the last unit. Mr. Schubach noted that there are many interpretations of this section of Code, and it is up to the Commission to make a determination. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:26 p.m. Bill Cameron, 21454 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, project architect, agreed that the entries on the side should be wider, however, he tried to keep the structure away from the east side adjacent neighbor. As designed the west sideyard is 4 1 8 11 , with additional steps back at the entries for planters. He added that a new mature tree will be planted in the front yard area to replace an existing tree that will be removed. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:30 p.m. Chmn. Rue felt the project was designed nicely, but the entries would be nicer if the sideyard was wider. Also, he was disappointed that the east neighbors didn't come to the meeting and provide input. Comm. Peirce felt that moving the building one foot to provide a 6 foot west sideyard wouldn't make much difference other than pushing the building more to the east. He didn't see any reason to require a 6 foot setback. Comm. Ketz asked whether this issue was a zoning requirement that would require a variance, or if the Commission were making an interpretation. Mr. Schubach explained that the interpretation was in the location of the front of the structure. Just because the doors are on the side doesn't mean that the front of the building couldn't be facing the 4 PC 01/03/90 street. Many questions could arise from this issue, and staff needs input from the Commission on how to impose this. The city Attorney stated that he couldn't make a clear interpretation of this section of Code either. Chmn. Rue stated that he would prefer to take up this issue at a later date, The Commission was in concurrence. When questioned on how staff felt about having only a 4 1 8 11 walkway to the entries, Mr. Schubach replied that staff would prefer a wider walkway. The public hearing was reopened by Chmn. Rue at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Cameron noted that this is not a two story building for its entire length, and stated that he could adjust the building for a wider entry. The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:39 p.m. Comm. Ketz felt that the Commission couldn't make an interpretation on the sideyard issue at this meeting date. Chmn. Rue felt it was a good time to do it because they had a project before them that represented that very issue. He said he would like to see a 6 foot entry walkway. Comm. Ketz concurred. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Pierce, Chmn. Rue None Comm. Moore Comm. Ingell Chmn. Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS PUMPS AND CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MOBIL OIL STATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project is located in a C-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of General Commercial. The present use is as a service station and snack shop. In addition, Mr. Schubach stated that the attached noise study is deficient in that no nighttime noise levels were taken, and confirms that the car wash will violate the city's Noise Ordinance. The highest 5 PC 01/03/90 noise level at 60 feet will be 76.2 DbA, which is loud enough to cause a disturbance to adjacent neighbors. The automatic roll-up doors do close when a vehicle enters the car wash, and cut the noise level somewhat, however, it still may not be sufficient. The applicant has stated that he would provide an ambient night-time noise level study at this meeting date. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of June 8, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project, with a mitigation that a traffic analysis be prepared to address impacts of ingress and egress on Pacific Coast Highway. To date, the applicant has not submitted an adequate traffic analysis, however, the Planning Department is satisfied that the traffic impact, as a result of an additional access via 9th Street, will not be significantly different than what is currently experienced at this location. The Planning Department consulted with Public Works, and it was agreed that a full traffic analysis is not warranted in this case. The applicant is requesting to replace an existing service station/snack shop with a more modern facility containing additional gas pumps, a retail snack shop, and a self-service car wash. This proposal does not include auto repair service. Because the property use will be changed to a retail/commercial use by this new proposal, the parking requirement will now call for 6 parking spaces. Staff, however, feels that the parking is more than adequate, with parking provided at the pumps and four additional spaces located along the rear of the site. The plans provide landscaping along the rear property line, and a six foot high block wall, which provides an adequate buffer from the residential property to the west. Staff is also recommending that a tree be provided at 20 foot intervals to provide a more effective buffer. Staff has included a condition ensuring that a complete sign plan be submitted, to include dimensions and copy, for approval, in accordance with the Sign Ordinance, and that the existing 45 foot pole sign be removed and the proposed ground sign be limited to a maximum height of ten feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration. When questioned if there were any restrictions on fuel deliveries, Mr. Schubach stated that staff hadn't considered it an issue, but the Commission could impose a condition on delivery hours if necessary. When questioned about the nighttime light levels and the amount of noise generated by the air and water compressor, Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant has suggested putting an 8 foot wall at the rear property line, instead of a 6 foot wall, and the air and water facilities could be relocated. 6 PC 01/03/90 Mr. Schubach further explained that the allowable noise level in residential areas is 55 DbA from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 50 DbA from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. In commercial areas the allowable noise level increases by 5 DbA. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:52 p.m. Brian Recksteiner, 9891 Vixburg Drive, Huntington Beach, representative of Mobil Oil, addressed the Commission. He stated that fuel delivery is a fairly quiet procedure because the trucks are shut off and the fuel tanks are gravity fed. Fuel deliveries need to be on a 24 hour basis, and the neighbors haven't complained so far. Mr. Recksteiner explained that all lighting is indirect, or direct down- lighting, and will not spill over to the neighbors. Additionally, he asked that the conditions relating to the car wash be modified, conditions #5, #9, and #12. Condition #5 limits the hours of operation to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; Mobil is asking for a 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. operating schedule. Condition #9 requires a 6 foot wall at the rear property line; Mobil wants to put up an 8 foot wall instead, and have it stepped down as it reaches the street. Condition #12 relates to the maximum noise levels permitted at the property line on 10th Street, 60 DbA daytime and 55 DbA at night; Mobil has no doubt it will meet the ordinance limits. Mr. Recksteiner noted that a reading done at 9:30 p.m. the previous evening equalled 56 DbA, straight into the front door of the car wash. Comm. Peirce was concerned that the noise would radiate down the street where there was no wall to block the sound. Mr. Recksteiner agreed that it would be noisy in the street, but the residences would be protected. Chmn. Rue voiced his concern about any future development on the adjacent lot to the west, and asked how far away from the edge of the car wash a new residence would be. Mr. Recksteiner replied approximately 74 feet. Comm. Peirce noted a memo from Mr. Schubach, together with the supporting figures on page 5 of the staff report, indicate that the noise level at the entrance of the car wash is 67 DbA. This would indicate that the noise level if measured from the top of the wall would be at least 65 DbA, which exceeds allowable limits. Roger Otte, 521 Kings Road, Newport Beach, representative for the manufacturing company of the car wash equipment, stated that the noise to be received by a new residence on the adjacent lot to the west would have to be measured by a sound engineer. The studies conducted by Mobil 7 PC 01/03/90 were performed using a meter only, positioned approximately 5.5 feet above the ground. Mr. Recksteiner interjected that Mobil would be agreeable to Commission approval with the condition that a noise and acoustical study be performed to ensure that the car wash meets the noise ordinance requirements. He further added that the pole sign has been in place a long time and Mobil would like to maintain it, changing only the price board. Mobil would agree to lower the pole sign from the present 45 foot height to the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. The trees along Pacific Coast Highway inhibit the view of the logo sign, but the pole sign remains visible. Comm. Moore questioned the degree of investigation that went into choosing the trees to be used along the rear wall. He asked that a condition be imposed that would require a thorough analysis of various types of trees to determine which would make the best buffer for the residential area while requiring little or no maintenance from those adjacent residents. Mrs. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, a resident, stated that she had received notice about the proposed car wash during the holidays, and she has sent letters of protest to the Mayor and Mr. Schubach. She was concerned about the waste of water generated by the car wash, and the possible impact on the environment. She asked that the hours of operation be limited to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. only. She also agreed that the tankers delivering the gasoline weren't noisy, but the blaring radios from the trucks were. Sybill Hess, 647 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, a resident, stated that she was concerned about the extra traffic that will be generated by the addition of a car wash. The streets in the area are narrow and there are lots of parking problems, and problems with cut-through traffic from the station. Mr. Recksteiner addressed the Commission in rebuttal to the comments and concerns of the residents. He explained that the car wash is far enough away from the residences that it shouldn't wake anyone in the morning. He agreed that the radios playing in the delivery trucks could be a noise problem, but gas delivery itself is a relatively quite procedure. The tanks could be relocated to the front of the site, between the driveways, if the Commission deems it necessary. Mr. Otte explained that the equipment used in these types of car washes is very water conservative, using only 17 gallons per car as opposed to approximately 40 gallons per car used during a home hand washing. As for the water drainage and overflow, this type of car wash uses a blower system which dries the cars to approximately 85%, which prevents it from being carried out into the street. 8 PC 01/03/90 When questioned about the type of detergent used and the proposed waste water drainage system to be installed, Mr. Otte explained that only biodegradable detergents and waxes are used with nothing else added to the water. A water reclamation system, approved by the County of Los Angeles, is installed in areas where water conservation is a major issue. It is a more expensive system to use and maintain, mainly because contamination builds up in the tanks and the sewer connections which have to be cleaned on a regular basis, however, it is very effective and the water is safe enough to use over again. This system is not required by the county for all areas. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:31 p.m. Comm. Peirce summarized the three major areas of concern as: 1) the 45 foot pole sign, which he felt was too much signage and agreed with staff's recommendation to eliminate it; 2) the hours of operation for the car wash, which he felt should be determined by the traffic flow on Pacific Coast Highway; and, 3) the noise generated by the car wash, which he felt needed further study in order to set adequate restrictions on allowable noise levels. Comm. Ketz concurred with Comm. Peirce about the need for special attention on the noise levels generated and what restrictions to impose. She asked if staff would be able to measure the noise levels first hand to ensure that everything was within range. She also felt that the pole sign should be lower. Mr. Schubach replied the City was in the process of training staff members on meter reading, but an actual study needs to be performed to determine the ambient noise level. Comm. Peirce said that he would prefer a continuance of this item until a noise study could performed. Mr. Schubach informed the Commission that a noise study should only take one to two weeks to conduct, and this item could be back before them for the first meeting in February. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this item to the first regularly scheduled meeting in February, February 6, 1990. This continuance will allow the applicant time to receive a completed noise study from a licensed acoustical engineer. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Rue asked that staff also supply any information that could be obtained from a similar project located at Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Aviation in the city of Redondo Beach. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 74 PIER AVENUE, ROBERT'S LIQUOR. 9 PC 01/03/90 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 19, 1989. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as general alcohol (off-sale). Robert's Liquor is an existing store which has been in business for at least 20 years, and is one of eight Packaged Liquor Stores which are being operated as an off-sale alcohol beverage establishment without a Conditional Use Permit. In following the amortization ordinance, Roberts Liquor was notified to apply for a permit for its business activities. In the past five years only minor security infractions or disturbances have been reported, along with one report of selling sexually explicit material to a minor. It is illegal in Hermosa Beach to sell sexually explicit material without a Conditional Use Permit to regulate the operation, however, under the current moratorium, Robert's Liquor cannot apply for this permit at this time. The police have requested a condition to prohibit the sale of single beers to help mitigate public drinking. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration. Chmn. Rue asked if staff had fully explained the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit to the applicant. Mr Schubert replied that it should have been explained at the city counter, but that he personally had not spoken with the applicant. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 8:51 p.m. Mr. Sei Kim, 74 Pier Avenue, owner of Robert's Liquor, stated that he had no problem making any of the changes required to continue to operate under this Conditional Use Permit. Chmn. Rue asked if Mr. Kim understood the conditions imposed, and he replied in the positive. Comm. Peirce asked if there were presently any window signs at the store, and noted that an excess of these signs was illegal. Mr. Kim stated that he had two signs, and staff inspected the store and said that they were within the limits of Code. Mr. Schubach validated that statement, and noted that it was included in condition #13. He said that the signage would be checked on a regular basis. Chmn. Rue reminded Mr. Kim of the moratorium on the sale of X-rated material and the inability to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to do so at this time. 10 PC 01/03/90 Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:56 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ingell Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within 10 days. Chmn. Rue called a brief recess at 8:57 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9: 07 p.m. with all attending members present and seated. PUBLIC HEARING WORKSHOP FOR DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mr. Shubach gave staff report dated December 27, 1989. The City Council at their June 13, 1989 meeting requested that the Community Resources Department prepare a Master Plan regarding the future development of existing and future parks and recreat i onal programs. This was to be an objective study to supply facts and numbers to aide the City in the development of specific programs and facilities. It appears, from the overview of the report, that the consultant relied heavily upon a survey distributed city wide to determine current needs. Unfortunately, none of the statistical data obtained was used and no projections were made for the future. Mr. Schubach briefly addressed some basic issues from the report for emphasis to the Commission, and then turned the floor over to the consultant for more detailed information. The public hearing was opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:16 p.m. Meredith Kaplan, 219 No. Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, recreation consultant, stated that the report supplied to staff was merely a master plan for the parks and recreation element of the General Plan. This report reflects professional judgement and residential input. Guidelines and projections for the future have been included for the development of an implementation plan. Comm. Moore noted several major problems with the report. The demographic survey had a very low response rate, and almost all responses were received from the 45 year old home owner category. 11 PC 01/03/90 Hermosa Beach has a high concentration of young singles which haven't been adequately represented, and there are almost no safe places for small children to play. There needs to be more input from the 21 to 39 year old residents. Also, the bike path/strand wasn't mentioned at all, and that is a major area of recreation for this city. There are too many conflicts between the pedestrians and bikers and skaters. This area needs attention. In response, Ms. Kaplan explained that not all the conclusions were drawn from the survey. As for the Strand, it is strongly recommended in the report that an intensive study be performed of the beach area and its activities, and solutions could be generated from that study. Norman Landerman Moore, Naples Island, Long Beach, consultant, interjected that he had asked if the Strand and pier were to be included in this study and the response received from the Community Resources Department was negative. The City should scope this area on an separate and individual basis because of the intense usage. He added that the report submitted also listed resources and guidelines for seeking necessary funding to implement new recreational projects. Mary Rooney, acting director of Community Resources, concurred that staff had decided it would be better to conduct a separate 'study on the beach area, and not include it as part of this master plan. Chmn. Rue stated that the Strand area is a large part of the recreation in Hermosa Beach and it needs to be addressed. Also, he was hopeful that the consultant could give the city ideas on how to raise the necessary funds to implement new projects. Mrs. Kaplan replied that the city needs to hire someone to specifically work on funding. There are goals to meet, and you have to develop a way to reach those goals. Mr. Moore, the consultant, explained that funding is based on user fees, outside financing, and financing mechanisms. Tapping into the different types of cash flow requires a study. There are 5 or 6 basic funding structures that work via an interrelationship with each other, and the city needs to work with a funding council to put a funding plan into effect. Comm. Peirce then referred to Mr. Northcraft' s memorandum to the Community Resources Department, and agreed that it is difficult to determine from the plan submitted by the consultants what needs to be added or deleted from the current Parks and Recreation program of Hermosa Beach. He asked how it is determined if there is too much or too little of one type of recreation, such as tennis or racquetball, and who decides when and how to change it. 12 PC 01/03/90 Ms. Kaplan replied that this information is based on the demographics of the area, and if specific types of information is requested, a study is done and the data supplied. Mr. Moore added that, beyond determining the funding and general needs of an area, definite plans for implementation become very site-specific. This plan allows the city to evolve to the point of specifically telling the people what is needed where. Ms. Rooney noted the section on "action items" that was included with the report submitted by the consultants. This section addresses a more specific implementation plan, and supplied the information requested to the satisfaction of the Community Resources Commission. When asked if it was the job of the Community Resources Commission to come up with the types of items deemed necessary to meet the needs of the residents, Ms. Rooney explained that it is the consultant's job to develop a broad plan, or Policy Statement, as a guideline for the Community Resources Commission. From this Policy Statement, the Commission implements more specific and focused items. Staff has suggested a few minor changes to the report, and the Commission concurs with these changes, however, all areas of open space should be included. George Shelnik, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, said that he has read the document and found it to be too general to be adopted into the General Plan. Future developments need to be redefined. The city needs to look ahead to what will be needed in the 1990's, as opposed to what is needed at the present time. The survey performed was very inadequate and very predictable, and the report submitted does not serve as a basis for a General Plan element. The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:47 p.m. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm Peirce, explained that this report was developed for presentation to the Planning Commission, and once approved, it is sent on to the city Council. When the first quarterly adoption period for the General Plan comes up, the report will be included with the open space element. The report will be adopted as a Master Plan for recreational facilities, but it hasn't yet been determined how to adopt it into the General Plan. Chmn. Rue asked if it could be adopted into the General Plan as a more comprehensive policy statement containing more specificity. Mr. Schubach replied that it could be adopted as an appendix to the open space element of the General Plan with the recommendation that more specific data be added. Ms. Rooney suggested adopting the report as a "policy statement". MOTION by Comm. Moore, second by Comm. Ketz to adopt the report prepared and presented by the consultant as a "policy statement", and require 13 PC 01/03/90 that the Department of Parks and Recreation consider the comments of the Commission for analysis to develop a more specific plan. Comm. Ketz stated that a top priority should be to acquire all available school property. HEARING APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION REGARDING APPLICATION OF SECTION 1200 OF THE ZONING CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3129 THE STRAND Mr. Grove gave staff report dated December 19, 1989. This property is located in the R-1 zone, with General Plan designation as low density residential. The applicant was issued a building permit for a new single family residence on November 16, 1989. The building department determined that this is a through lot, and therefore, is required to maintain a front yard setback on the Strand and on Hermosa Avenue. Section 1200 of the Zoning Code states that on through lots of 150 feet or less in depth, the height of a building on that lot may be measured from the sidewalk level of the street on which the building fronts, provided that this lot has a deviation in grade of at least 7 feet. A third story may be permitted on such a lot, provided that the structure does not exceed two stories from the upper street grade. Mr. Grove admitted that this section of the Zoning Code is poorly worded and ambiguous, however, the Commission has the discretion to decide whether section 1200 applies to this project, and how it should be interpreted in the future. The issue appears to be which street is to be considered the front of the property, although historically, homes in this area front on The Strand. Staff concurs with the Building Official's determination that Section 1200 of the Zoning Code does not allow increased building height for the referenced project, and recommends that the City Council delete this section of the Code to avoid future confusion. The public hearing was opened by Chmn. Rue at 10:05 p.m. Steve Downing, 3129 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, property owner, stated that his intent is not to seek a variance of any existing laws, but to follow all the rules as written. Every aspect of this project has been done in accordance with Code and in good faith. The building department has been very strict, and hasn't allowed even a door on the side for an outdoor shower access. Plans have been resubmitted several times for changes and corrections, and it has become very time consuming and costly. The Code itself even changed between plan changes, and the plans had to be changed again because of it. 14 PC 01/03/90 Mr. Downing stated that PC 88-1 allowed that the front yard setback on the strand side could be counted as open space, but the front yard setback on Hermosa Avenue could not. The building official defined this lot as a through lot, and required two front yard setbacks. He explained that this is a 90 foot lot with a 10 foot grade differential, and Section 1200 is fair for lots like this one that require an exception to the rule. Guy Bartoli, project architect, referred to a slope diagram for visual aide to the Commission, and said that this property fronts on Hermosa Avenue, has a greater than 7 foot grade differential, and is less than 150 feet in depth. It fits right into the intent of Section 1200, and therefore, is allowed to maintain a third story on the Strand side. The upper street grade does not exceed two stories. Comm. Peirce interjected that three stories may be allowed, but it does not say that the structure can exceed 25 feet. Mr. Bartoli replied that the building does not exceed 25 feet on the upper street side, and there is no way to get three stories into 25 feet. This project is an exception. The first level is 1 1/2 feet below grade, and there are other three story buildings in the area. Mr. Downing stated that he has followed all the rules, and the Code has to be interpreted as a reasonable person would. A 35 foot front on the Strand will not block any views and will be a nice addition to the Strand. Chris Coppersmith, 3133 The Strand, a resident, said that he would eventually like to build onto his house, and would like clarification of this section of the Code. There is a statement of Section 1200 that addressed structures of "a greater height", which he interpreted to mean greater than 25 feet. Having three stories fronting the Strand would not be a detriment to the City. Comm. Moore asked if Mr. Coppersmith felt that large, looming structures along the Strand felt oppressive to people walking by. Mr. Coppersmith replied that these larger structures are not oppressive because the other side is all beach open space. Older houses are within only a few feet of the Strand, and the newer homes are required to provide a setback. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 10:34 p.m. Chmn. Rue stated that the Code should be read and interpreted as written, and if it is found to be wrong, then it should be corrected by the Planning Commission. The architect has tried to follow the Code, and problems with the Code should not be imposed on the applicant. As far as determining the front of the structure, it could go either way. 15 PC 01/03/90 Comm. Peirce reiterated that is doesn't say anywhere that you could exceed the 25 foot height limit. The location of the front of the structure is not important. It only matters what the Code says now. Comm. Ketz said that this project was similar to the earlier project with the entries in the 'side yard. Comm. Moore stated that the intent of Section 1200 was to supply a solution to the problem of developing on through lots, with relatively short depth, and a moderately steep slope. The downhill side was to be the back of the structure, and the issue would be the 25 feet on the street side. This is a highly visible Strand house, and with the slope of the lot, the house will be even taller on that side. Mr. Grove, in response to a question by Comm. Moore, stated that the Strand has always been treated as the front, but when the Code was changed to require a setback on Hermosa Avenue, it confused the issue. Through the chair, Mr. Downing noted that PC 88-1 established Hermosa Avenue as the front, and his trust deed shows two addresses for the property, one on Hermosa Avenue and one on The Strand. This resolution also allowed the owner to count the Strand yard as open space. MOTION by Chmn. Rue to grant the appeal based on the interpretation of Section 1200. Motion dies for lack of second. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm Ketz to deny the appeal. Comm. Moore stated that he could not agree with the denial, although he does agree that the house fronts on the strand. The height from Hermosa Avenue will only be 25 feet, and that height will extent straight back to the Strand, but because of the lot slope, the Strand height will be 35 feet. Comm. Peirce restated his motion to delete Section 1200, and to uphold the 25 foot height limit in the R-1 zone. To uphold the interpretation made by the Building Department. Motion seconded by Comm Ketz. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce Chmn. Rue None Comm. Ingell Chmn. Rue announced that no appeal to the City Council could be filed for this item. This decision is final. MOTION by Chmn Rue, second by Comm. Peirce to study Section 1200 and bring it back before the Commission. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS 16 PC 01/03/90 a) Complaint Policy Memorandum Mr. Schubach stated that the residents are complaining that the response time for answering questions and complaints is too long, and they are asking for quicker and more thorough feedback. Staff is working on the reorganization of the system, and would appreciate any input from the Commission. Mr. Northcraft noted that staff is not getting the positive feed back that they are capable of, and the memorandum presented merely recognizes the problem and affords a response that it is being worked on. Comm. Peirce added that many people complain about the City Hall being closed of Fridays, but the answering service helps buffer that somewhat. b) Letter Regarding Zoning Violations Mr. Schubach explained that this is part of an effort to keep the Commission tuned into what's going on with follow-up items. C) Planning Department Activity Report for November 1989 Mr. Schubach said that this report is to inform the Commission of what the Planning Department is working on. d) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for the January 9 1 1990 City Council Meeting Comm. Moore said that he would try to make it to that meeting, e) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Comm. Peirce, stated that the oil issue would be back before the Commission at the March 6, 1990 meeting during the General Plan Review. f) city Council Minutes of November 28, 1989 No comments. No action. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ketz noted that the City of Los Angeles is billing sign owners for posting signs on public property as a way of curbing this activity. Chmn. Rue stated that Hermosa Beach needs to develop an official policy for recycling, and it should be placed as a priority issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 11:20 p.m. No objections; so ordered. 17 PC 01/03/90 } l 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 Meeting of January 3, 1990. Date / 1 18 -;? z:_;-_y, //2! I //'/0c#~ /_ Michael Schubach,, Secretary~ ~ PC 01/03/90 ·--·.::