Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_01_16MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chmn. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Ken Robertson, Associate Planner; William Grove, Building Director; Jody Hatch, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989 MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of November 21, 1989 as written. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 1990 MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of January 3, 1990 as written. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P. C. 90-2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF- SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 74 PIER AVENUE, ROBERT'S LIQUOR. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21824 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 425 11TH STREET. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21580 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 833 LOMA DRIVE. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. 1 PC Minutes 01/16/90 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. Comm. Moore brought up an issue he felt needed to be settled as soon as possible, and that was the length of Council and Commission meetings. He felt that the meeting run too late in the evening to expect clear and rational thinking on the part of the City officials and Council members. He noted that the last Council meeting lasted until 2: 30 a.m., and suggested possibly shortening the agenda so everyone could get home at least by midnight. Chmn. Rue suggested that this issue be brought up at the end of the meeting with the Commission items. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21331 FOR A 3- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE (continued from 12/5/89 meeting) This project, for 1502 Loma Drive, and the following project, for 1508 Loma Drive, will be combined for discussion at this meeting date. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1990. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of High Density Residential. The present use is as a 10 unit apartment. The Planning Commission continued this request to allow the applicant time to revise the plans to meet the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance for common open space for projects of more than 5 units. The plans have been revised to provide a common recreation area by widening the originally proposed courtyard to 20 feet. The change was accomplished by taking one foot off the side of each building along the courtyard area, which also reduces lot coverage and total square footage of the units. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 10 unit apartment building and construct two identical three-unit attached condominiums on two adjacent lots located at 1502 and 1508 Loma Drive. Each of the units will contain about 1,800 square feet, two bedrooms, a loft, and 2 1/2 baths distributed in two levels and a loft level over a semi- subterranean garage. The proposed structures will have a contemporary appearance with cement plaster/sand finish exterior, glass block, architectural reglets, and pipe balcony railings. The layout includes a shared, landscaped, walkway which leads to the entrances of all six units. Each unit will be provided with two enclosed private parking spaces. Two open and unenclosed guest spaces are also available. No on-street parking will be lost as a result of the curb cuts along Loma Drive. 2 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:09 p.m. Larry Peha, 67 14th street, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated that he has met the concerns and requirements of staff and the Commission. The common open space provided will total 736 square feet, and at one point the buildings are separated by 20 feet. A landscaping plan has been provided as per request, and the front deck has been extended by 1 1/2 feet to provide more building relief. Mr. Peha showed the Commission a color rendering of the proposed project. Comm. Moore congratulated Mr. Peha on responding to the concerns of the Commission so promptly and effectively. Comm. Ingell stated that he appreciated the color rendering being provided. It is a very effective visual aide. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:13 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is suggesting the addition of a new condition requiring the finalization of all tract maps prior to the issuance of any building permits. This is a City imposed requirement to become a new standard condition. Jerry Compton, addressed the Commission with a point of interest, stating that this condition creates a timing problem, because of the time frame involved with the county approval of tract maps. The idea behind this condition is not to delay a project, but to ensure that the survey is correct. It takes 3 to 4 months to get county approval on tract maps, and after speaking with the City Manager, a modification of the wording may be helpful to avoid any delay of projects. Mr. Schubach stated that staff wouldn't be opposed to a modification, if the city Manager didn't see any problem with it. Approval can be made subject to the approval of the Director of Building and Planning. Chmn. Rue asked when an error made by a surveyor would be caught, and Mr. Schubach replied that a surveyor's map is compared with existing assessors maps or any previous maps that may be on file to check for any discrepancies. Mr. Compton added that there is a good possibility that a surveyor will make a mistake, but nothing that the county would pick up on, unless it's an error in street size or something comparable to that. The County doesn't check the actual surveyor's points. A city inspector would catch 3 PC Minutes 01/16/90 any errors made before the County would. The condition is a good idea because it lets the surveyor know that he's going to be checked for accuracy. When questioned as to whether any cities actually require two surveys to check the accuracy, Mr. Schubach replied that he had never heard of any that do. Comm. Moore noted that it is conceivable that only one of these two projects will be built at this time, possibly due to financial difficulties, and the other would be built at some time in the future. He stated that he would vote in favor of this application. Mr. Schubach, at the request of Comm. Ingell, clarified the additional verbiage for the new condition requiring tract map approval as, " ... unless the Director of Building and Planning gives prior approval." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue None None None 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 #21330 FOR A 3- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1508 LOMA DRIVE (continued from 12/5/89 meeting) This project was included with the discussion of the project for 1502 Loma Drive. See above for project details, and Commission input. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21620 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1344 MANHATTAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave the staff report dated January 8, 1990. 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. This matter was continued by the Planning Commission at the meeting of June 6, 1989 to give the applicant time to revise the parking plan to comply with current zoning standards. The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit attached condominium located at 1344 Manhattan Avenue. The units contain 1,744, 1,675, and 1,882 square feet which includes 2 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, a mezzanine, and two decks, over a subterranean garage. Unit B also contains a bonus room on the subterranean level. 4 PC Minutes 01/16/90 These units will have a contemporary appearance with stucco exterior, anodized aluminum windows, glass block, and metal guard rails. Each unit will be provided with two enclosed parking spaces and two open and unenclosed guest spaces, for a total of 12 parking spaces for the project. These guest spaces are provided within the garage setback area. Al though staff believes this is an inappropriate way to accommodate parking, it is not inconsistent with any city policy. Mr. Schubach added that the applicant would prefer to provide a 5 foot sideyard setback for the entries rather than the full 6 feet. This, however, is subject to the interpretation by Commission of Section 1217 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Condominium Development and Tentative Parcel Map. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:30 p.m. Terry Wetkowski, 307 Hopkins Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, said that this project was continued to redesign the garage and parking layout. Two bonus rooms were removed and all concerns brought forth at the previous meeting have been corrected. Comm. Peirce questioned the completeness of the west elevation. He felt there should have been 4 levels shown on that elevation, and it only showed two levels. Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, explained that the west elevation is a straight on front view, and it represents two levels over the garage. There is a mezzanine level on the inside which would not be shown from an outside view. This view is of the front unit only, and doesn't represent the perspective of any units to the rear. The rear unit is the only one that approaches the height limit because of the slope of the lot. He stated that he had originally wanted tandem parking, but there was no way to access the garage from the alley because there would be a 15 foot drop down to the garage. The two bonus rooms were removed to modify the parking, and the only feasible solution is the one presented with the most recent set of plans. Mr. Compton continued with an explanation of the applicant's request for a 5 foot sideyard setback, as opposed to a 6 foot setback as required by Section 1217 of the Zoning Code. He stated that the dimensions of the lot really don't allow for a one foot southerly shift of the building. There is only a 4 foot 2 inch sideyard to work with and removing an additional one foot, wouldn't allow for a 3 foot stair on that side and still provide any sideyard. Also, on the adjacent property to the South is a commercial building that sits on the property line, and the applicant was trying to keep as far away from that property as possible. The applicant was not informed of this 6 foot setback requirement until 5 PC Minutes 01/16/90 just recently, and no one felt it was important enough to focus on it before now. This rule is very old and hasn't been applied for a long time. It really should be reviewed by Council before it is imposed on anyone else to clarify the intent, and to provide future direction for staff and the Commission. This Code section wasn't required when this project was originally before the Commission, and it isn't fair to require it now. Mr. Lee interjected that this is a requirement set forth by the Municipal Code and is applicable to this project no matter when it was originally brought before the Commission. Chmn. Rue asked if the Commission could rule on whether the Code actually applies to a project, or just make an interpretation on a section of Code. Mr. Lee explained that the conditions imposed in the Resolution determine what restrictions will apply to a project. The Commission would have to make the necessary findings to draft a Variance to a section of Code. Mr. Compton said that he felt a fair mitigation measure to allow a minor egress to the building and maintain a 5 foot sideyard for the entries instead of 6 feet, is the 2 additional parking spaces provided for guest parking and the many cut-ins provided along the side of the building for relief. These cut-ins provide an appearance of a sideyard greater than 5 feet, and if an averaging method were used to figure the width of this sideyard including these cut-ins, it would total more than 6 feet in that area. Mr. Compton, in response to a question raised by Chmn. Rue about tandem access, explained that you can't have tandem access off of the Street, but you can off of the alley. The 40 foot by 100 foot lots are a problem because parking is very difficult, especially with single access only situations. To obtain "straight-in" tandem parking off of the alley for this lot would put the garages into the middle of each unit. The slope down to the garage would be too steep for lower level tandem parking. Mr. Lee interjected that in order to grant a variance to allow a setback of less than 6 feet, this issue needs to be re-noticed for a separate public hearing dealing with the variance request only. He suggested that the Commission grant conditional approval subject to the applicant coming back before the Commission with a variance request. This could cause some delay, but legally a conditional approval requiring a variance request is a fair and reasonable route to take. Chmn. Rue asked how the interpretation of Section 1217, and the allowances made in the past, would apply to this situation. Comm. Peirce asked that the discussion get back to the public hearing and the Commission could get back to this issue later. 6 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Larry Peha said that he sympathized with Mr. Compton's situation about the sideyard setback issue, and agreed that there needs to be more guidance regarding Code interpretation. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:02 p.m. Comm. Peirce noted that part of Section 1217 wasn't mentioned yet, and that reads " ... upon which dwellings front ... ". The decision now is to determine what part of the building is to be considered the front; is the front of the building the part which faces the street, or it is wherever the doors are located? Just because the door is on the side doesn't mean that is the front of the building. The Commission never really upheld the Building Directors ruling on this issue with a previously approved project, the architect just moved the building to obtain the 6 foot setback to get the project moving. Mr. Compton interjected that the Code defines the front yard as the narrowest side of the lot facing the street. Mr. Lee suggested adopting an interpretation of where the front of multiple, or row, housing is and stop trying to interpret this issue with each project that comes up. Mr. Schubach stated that this matter should be studied further before an interpretation is made. Mr. Compton added that with the cut-ins on the north side of the building, the sideyard appears much larger than a flat wall with a 6 foot sideyard. If you use an averaging method to determine the size, it works out to be 6 feet or more, including the cut-ins. Mr. Lee stated that Code Section 1217 requires an increase of the sideyard where multiple dwellings front on that sideyard. There is no mention of applying an average width. Chmn. Rue noted that an earlier project with the same tandem parking requirements was much nicer than this one, and would like to look closer at this Code Section. The Planning Commission has the ability to change or to allow this at their discretion. This project will look like an apartment building and it could be a lot nicer. Comm. Peirce agreed that the tandem parking would need a variance, but the 6 foot setback issue needs further investigation. Comm. Moore state that he could vote in favor of this project with a one foot shift of the building. If averaging were an option it would be a good idea. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map with the condition that the building be shifted one foot south to obtain a 5 foot sideyard for the entryway. 7 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Chmn. Rue stated that he agrees that averaging can and should be used to give designers some flexibility. The overall intent in requiring the 6 foot sideyard is to add more light and air in the corridor. The applicant is already adding extra parking, and the additional one foot isn't that significant. Comm. Ketz said that the architect should be notified much earlier about these requirements to avoid these problems at the hearing. Also, using an averaging method could get carried away, so caution should be exercised there also. Chmn. Rue stated that part of the duty of the Planning Commission is to apply these issues to say 'yes' or 'no' , or provide some sort of flexibility. It's hard to catch all the problems in the Code and the staff reports, but the applicant needs to get a copy of these reports early enough to review them and get any questions answered. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue None None None Comm. Peirce noted that he voted 'yes' because the Code section in question is poorly written. The City needs to change the standards to decrease lot coverage to eliminate all these interpretation problems. Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that the tract map requirement needed to be modified for this project also. Comm. Moore stated that it was his intention to include that modification in his motion. Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Chmn. Rue called a recess at 8:20 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:25 p.m. with all members seated. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21574 FOR A 3- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 631 SIXTH STREET. Mr. Schubach gave the staff report dated January 4, 1990. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. The present use is as two single family residences. The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit attached condominium located at 631 Sixth Street. Each unit will contain 2,389 square feet which includes 3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, a patio, and two decks, over a subterranean garage. 8 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Except for exterior appearance, these units will be identical to the three unit project approved and constructed on the adjacent one and one half lots to the east. Both of these properties is owned by the same company, and this p r oject is the second half of a project totalling 6 units. These units will have a contemporary Mediterranean-style appearance with stucco exterior, clay tile roo f ing, mutin bar doors and windows, and stucco and clay tile cap fire places. Each unit wi ll be provided with two enclosed parking spaces, with two additional exterior guest spaces also available. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Condominium Development and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Comm. Ingell stated that this was the worse set of plans, as far as duplication quality, that he has ever received for review. He felt that he did not have the opportunity to review these plans adequately, and therefore will not be able to vote on this item at this time. Comm. Peirce said that it appears that rooms are missing, and everything inside is not represented and visible on the plans. The Commission shouldn't have to guess what the plans have on them, because it could cause misinterpretation. Mr. Schubach noted that the Commission approved this same set of plans for the previous project located immediately east of this proposed site. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 8:35 p.m. Ed Johnson, 2459 Oakleaf Canyon Road, Walnut, applicant, apologized for the poor quality of the plans. He stated that he planned to build two identical buildings, side by side, and only change the exterior color. He decided to change the elevation of the second building to compliment the first, and because it was a last minute change, the plans were rushed. These two buildings are identical on the inside, but will appear different on the outside. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, stated that the intent of the applicant was to provide the Commission with all the information necessary to decide on the project. There is already sufficient information on file with the plans of record. The open space is the only difference between these projects. The new proposal is for 3 similar units, similar in size and amenities, as a companion project to the 3 unit structure to the east. As revise, the building has less bulk, and is not an exact copy of the other project for something more unique. With regard to the Resolution, it is the intention of the applicant to retain as many trees as possible, but he would also like the flexibility to replace any trees lost during construction. She also asked that the parcel map condition be modified as it was for the previously approved project at 1502 Loma Drive. 9 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Chmn. Rue asked Ms. Srour to run through the layout of the project. Comm. Ingell felt that this time should not be spent going over plans in detail, and this item should be continued to the next meeting date to allow for time to review these plans more carefully. Ms. Srour stated that these are only the preliminary plans, and are not of construction usage quality. All the standards and requirements are met and there is enough information available to approve this project at this time. There is no question about the overall parameters of the project, and although these plans are of poor quality, the Commission should still be able reach a decision. Mr. Johnson reiterated that the interior of both projects is identical, which means the units are the same as those approved in November. He added that the exterior was changed slightly to avoid building a copy of the adjacent building. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:50 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Ing el 1, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this project to the next meeting for review of the plans. Approval shouldn't be based on a previously approved project, even though it is similar. Chmn. Rue suggested discussing this further and making a conditional approval based on a requirement that these items are actually identical. Otherwise the project will have to come before the Commission again. Comm. Peirce said that he could vote for conditional approval to ensure that these plans are identical to those approved previously. Comm. Ingell argued that this is a major part of the process, and plans like these shouldn't be allowed to make it through the system. The Commission shouldn't just set conditions to work around situations. What about trying to determine if there are any bootleg units in these plans, it is too hard to tell. Comm. Peirce said that he would also like to see a complete set of plans. Chmn. Rue noted that there is already an identical set of approved plans on file, and although plans are important, there is enough information on file to make a decision. Comm. Moore stated that he could vote in favor of this project as is because the plans submitted are clear on the points of importance. Bootleg units aren't a big issue in condos because of the other owners. Could vote a conditional approval as suggested earlier, but this project shouldn't be delayed because of poor duplicate plans. Comm. Ketz concurred. 10 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Vote for continuance; motion fails, as follows: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Peirce Comms. Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Rue None None MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map as submitted, with the condition that the floorplan be substantially the same as the previously approved project to the east. The Resolution will reflect the modification to the condition requiring approval of the parcel map, and the addition of the verbiage allowing for the replacement of trees lost during construction. The Commission asked Mr. Johnson to provide low maintenance trees and landscaping as the replacement for any trees lost, and that he try and preserve as many existing trees as possible. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Rue Comms. Ingell, Peirce None None Comm. Ingell stated that he voted •no' because he hasn't fully reviewed the plans. Comm. Peirce stated that he voted 'no' because the plans don't appear to be complete. Chmn. Rue reiterated that this project has been approved provided that the new plans are the same as the plans for the previous project. Chmn. Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AGENCY AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, PACIFIC MOTOR SPORTS. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1990. This project is located in the C-1, commercial corridor zone, with the General Plan designation of General Commercial. The present use is as two retail shops. On August 22, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 89-1004 extending the moratorium on the issuance of permits within the Commercial Corridor. At that time the Council modified the original language of the moratorium to allow an exception for commercial projects 11 PC Minutes 01/16/90 which meet the standards of the C-1 zone, when approved by the Planning commission, and are consistent with the provisions of the Commercial Corridor. The applicant is requesting an exception from the moratorium to remodel the interior of an existing commercial building containing two units. He proposes to remove the existing interior walls and create one large unit, change the front elevation to improve its appearance, and provide six parking spaces at the rear of the building. The intended use of the building is for an auto brokerage specializing in exotic, specialty, or other types of vehicles for customers. The storage and display of vehicles will be within the building only. All interior walls will be removed, and a new wall will be installed to separate the display area from the "storage" area. This storage area may not be used for service, body work, or repair of vehicles. The proposed building design includes ceramic tile, stucco band, aluminum frame windows, canvas awning, and concrete tile roofing. Because the property is adjacent to residential property to the east, it must provide an 8 foot setback from the property line. The existing building is well over the 8 foot setback requirement, and the applicant will provide a 3 foot 9 inch landscaped area as the required buffer. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:05 p.m. Alex Del Pozo, 714 Redwood Avenue, El Segundo, applicant, stated that he was happy with the report presented by staff, and he was available to answer any questions. Nellie Schroll, 824 7th Street, was concerned about the shift in the direction of traffic leaving the car wash because of cars parked at the rear of the subject site, and asked if the applicant would be allowed to wash cars on his lot. She added that applicants who get approval always seem to add just a bit more than asked for, and was concerned about the cars being unloaded onto 7th Street. Chmn. Rue replied that the applicant cannot do any work on the cars on the site. Mr. Schubach confirmed this by citing condition #10 which prohibits any type of maintenance on site. Jim Housing, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there are already a number of car dealers on Pacific Coast Highway, and they race up and down the street to test drive the cars. This new proposal would look nicer than what is there now, but another car dealer isn't needed in this area. 12 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Jackie Tegiaferro, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, concurred that there are enough car dealers around now, and added that they are very noisy and very busy. Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, said that he also lives on 7th Street, and agreed that there are alot of car dealerships in the area, but these dealerships generate a substantial amount of income for the city. An auto brokerage deals mainly off-site, and the cars are generally not sold from the showroom floor. He added, however, that the Planning Commission should do whatever it can to protect the neighboring residents. Mr. Schubach stated that many dealerships aren't governed by a Conditional Use Permit, but with amortization they will be caught up with soon. Mr. Del Pozo added that this project will substantially improve the area, and his cars will be washed at the car wash next door. There will be an 8 foot wall between the parking at the rear and the adjacent residential area. When questioned about deliveries of cars, Mr. Del Pozo replied that the cars will usually be brought in one at a time, and the driveway will be large enough to unload from Pacific Coast Highway directly onto the lot. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that the driveway extends out to Pacific Coast Highway, and because the street is considered public property, it is up to the police to site any violators who use 7th Street to unload. Jerry Compton asked that a condition be added prohibiting the use of 7th Street for unloading vehicles. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:23 p.m. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to addition of a condition prohibiting the use of public property for u~loading cars. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Chmn. Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 13 PC Minutes 01/16/90 ZONE CHANGES FROM C-3, R-1 1 R-2 1 AND R-P TO COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANN I NG COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ALONG EAST AND WEST SIDES OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO EIGHTH STREET. Mr. Robertson gave staff report dated January 10, 1990. Staff is recommend i ng that the areas designated Commercial Corridor in the General Plan, located south of eighth street, be rezoned from their current zoning classifications of C-3, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-P (the majority being C-3) to Commercial Specific Plan Area. The City Council, at their meeting of May 9, 1989, amended the Land Use Element of the General Plan by eliminating the Multi-Use Corridor and creating the Commercial Corridor and several residential designations. Previous efforts of the Planning Commission and City Council focused on defining the boundaries of commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway, and now the efforts will be focused on the establishment of development standards for these areas to ensure a level of quality for future development of this corridor with minimum impact to neighboring residential areas. Staff's approach was to develop more restrictive standards for the C-3 zone in areas such as height and view blockage, landscaping and buffering, and use of current residential properties fronting on side streets. The subject area is currently completely built out, containing a mix of commercial uses, with a focus on automot i ve related uses. Parking is inadequate, and the structures are old and unattractive. Landscaping is sparse and infrequent, and there is an abundance of signage. This strip, however, is very well traveled and quite vibrant. The majority of the lots are rather small, and the trend is leaning toward combining lots to create larger commercial developments. Staff recommended one Specific Plan Area which contains a different height requirement for the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway to recognize the different impact on views to the west. All other requirements are the same for both sides and use the existing C-3 permitted use list and existing parking requirements as currently contained in the zoning ordinance for the C-3 zone. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Zone Change and Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, replied that the goals have already been set in the General Plan Amendment. This policy will help to reduce the commercial/residential conflict, and will encourage commercial growth. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:38 p.m. 14 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, stated that the part of this policy affecting him is the development standards. He said that he hopes there will be more than one public hearing on this issue, because he just received the information about it and needs time to study it. This policy is proposing some major changes, and all development along Pacific Coast Highway needs to be looked at carefully. Hopefully this Commission will develop some solid standards to follow to let the developer know what is expected from the very beginning. Betty Ryan, 588 20th street, Hermosa Beach, questioned the fate of the 'commercial potential' zone. Will any action tonight change commercial potential to strictly commercial? Also, how does the Planning Commission feel about commercial abutting residential without any form of transition? Greg Tucker, 850 8th Place, Hermosa Beach, felt it was nice that Hermosa Beach wasn't becoming a major commercial oriented city, but maintains a high level of residential areas. It is nice to keep the heights down to avoid blocking any views. Jim Housing, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, said that he applauds the efforts of staff to keep the heights down, but felt it would be better if the heights were even lower. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:49 p.m. Chmn. Rue commented on the lack of community response to this issue, and asked staff if it were noticed for public hearing. Mr. Schubach replied that most residents were satisfied with the changes proposed at the General Plan Review, and this step is merely an implementation phase. Comm. Peirce stated that this particular plan may not encourage more development, but it may encourage a piece-meal aggregation of side street lots. If access is required off of Pacific Coast Highway only, could the business owner acquire the adjacent residential lot at the rear and use it as a parking lot with side street access? Mr. Schubach replied in the positive. Comm. Peirce felt that 40 feet was too high for this area, and proposed a 35 foot maximum. The area would appear out of scale because of the depth of the area. The City should encourage aggregation of lots to encourage new development in the commercial area. Comm. Ketz said that she would rather see the same height on both sides of the street, and 35 feet would be more appropriate than 40 feet. She suggested adding some form of sign standards and requirements to add consistency to the commercial area, and a section for street trees in the landscaping plan. 15 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Comm. Ingell felt that this item is too large to decide on in only one meeting, and suggested breaking the project into smaller issues rather than having a blanket Specific Plan Area. Some of the lots involved are larger and the requirements would be different. Chmn. Rue concurred, but felt that it may not be necessary to break the plan up into smaller issues. It would be nice to get more community input, however, before ma k ing a dec i s i on. The city should set the limits and then live by them. Comm. Peirce stated that an incentive is needed to keep the contractors developing under the maximum height limit, such as, allowing automatic Board approval if the proposal comes in under the maximum. This issue should be continued in order to weigh it out more thoroughly. We need to make sure that it doesn't get too complicated. Comm. Ingell stated that the whole issue goes deeper than just the height of the building; the type of business is also important. A design review is needed to check all new businesses coming into Hermosa Beach. The public hearing was reopened by Chmn. Rue at 10:04 p.m. Robert Heard, 418 Oceanview Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked the Commission to explain what the 'commercial potential' zone was and what it means to future development. Mr. Robertson explained that the city is planning to eliminate the commercial potential zone and convert it to residential only with a rezoning hearing in the future. Only if the property in question is in the commercial corridor and adjacent to commercial property which fronts on the highway, could it be converted to commercial use. Mr. Schubach noted that there is nothing keeping the zoning from changing in a particular area at sometime in the future. Any property owner has the right to request a zone change. Jerry Compton, 200 pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, agreed that the height limit should be the same for both sides of the street, and some buildings should be allowed a variance if parts of that building will not impact any views. If you're going to require a Precise Development Plan you need to allow more options. Maybe certain sections of the Zoning Code could be referenced in the Specific Plan Area policy that state specific requirements to follow. It is too easy to miss sections that are important. This is a big step for the city. Jeff Wellbaum, 222 No. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, representative of Jeep/Eagle Dealership, stated that the dealership has a lot totalling almost one acre, and with a 45 foot height limitation there is an economical restriction. Retail offices, hotels, etc., can't be built in this area because of the height limit, and these developments make money by renting space by the square foot. No one is interested in the Jeep site because they can't develop a working plan within the existing 16 PC Minutes 01/16/90 guidelines to be economical . There is development, but maybe a terraced hotel needs more clear cut Code requirements, redesigned and more concrete. no market here for office would be feasible. The city and the sections need to be The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 10:21 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue the zone change and Negative Declaration to the next meeting date in February. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission needs additional information from staff regarding a bulk limiting paragraph for this recommendation. The city could possibly allow a higher building if it is less bulky in appearance. Furthermore, the Commission needs some economical information, and more feedback from those who might build in the effected area. Comm. Ketz concurred stating that it would offer more flexibility. Comm. Ingell suggested contacting the Chamber of Commerce for information about what businesses would use this property. We need to know what would be a viable business for this area. Chmn. Rue noted that the property owners on Pacific Coast Highway keep track of business coming in and going out, and staff could contact them for input. We need to establish development standards and parameters. Mr. Compton added that the Building Industry Assoc iation would be of some help with this research. They could supply information on typical businesses for this area. Comm. Peirce commented that this may be too much work for two weeks, and asked staff if they needed more time. Mr. Schubach explained that staff could supply more information and adjust the standards, but this is the implementation stage, and future development is only a prediction. The standards need to be set for today's business development. The text can always be changed in the future to adjust to the area and usage. The intensive study has already been done. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this discussion to the second meeting in February, February 20, 1990. No objections; so ordered. 17 PC Minutes 01/16/90 HEARING EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #30986 FOR AN 8-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532, 534-540 20TH STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS POWER STREET SUBDIVISION. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1990. At the City Counc il meeting of June 13, 1989, a one year extension was granted for the finalization of a tract map for an eight lot subdivision. On July 20, 1989, the Staff Environmental Review Board continued the Environmental Assessment until the county completed its study regarding flooding in the area of the subject property. Staff feels there is no need for an additional extension at this time since it is anticipated that the county flood study will be completed prior to the expiration of the current extension period, and the applicant will then be able to proceed with the finalization of the tract map. The Planning commission may, however, grant an additional one year extension pursuant to Section 66452.6 (e) of the Government Code. Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant is not present at this hearing, which may be an indication that he agrees with staff. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz to accept staff's recommendation for no additional extension at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Chmn. Rue announced that no appeal to the City Council could be filed for this item. This decision is final. STAFF ITEMS a) Election of the New Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman are determined on a rotating basis. The current Vice Chairman, Scott Ingel l, will become the Chairman as of the next meeting date, February 6, 1990. The next Vice Chairman is Comm. Ketz. b) Tentative Future Planning commission Agenda No comments. No action. 18 PC Minutes 01/16/90 c) City council Minutes of December 12, 1989 No comments. No action. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce suggested that all Commission and Council meetings should be wrapped up by 12 midnight at the latest. Maybe by 11 p.m. the Commission could assess the situation, as far as items still to be addressed, and reschedule anything that is not crucial or in need of immediate attention. It is just too difficult to make rational decisions about important issues in the middle of the night. Mr. Lee stated that it could be brought up for a vote, and perhaps take a poll of the audience to see who's present for which item, and then decide what could be carried over to the next meeting. Comm. Moore added that another element in determining the length of meetings are the speakers who address the Board. city Council uses a timer to limit each speaker, which helps keep the meeting time down somewhat. Comm. Ingell said that he would be in favor of a time limit for speakers addressing the Board. Chmn. Rue felt that the chairman should be in charge of keeping track of the time. Comm. Ingell felt that this would be too much of a burden for the chairman to have to watch the clock and absorb what is being presented. Mr. Lee stated that if a time limit were to be established, it should be noted on the agenda to notify the public of the Commission's intention to keep comments brief. Comm. Moore stated that he is not in favor of a time limit because some cases involve a lot of technical data that needs to be heard and is very relevant. Comm. Peirce, speaking on a different issue, asked staff to look into how other beach cities that are similar to Hermosa Beach have retained their small town atmosphere. All large developments are kept away from the beach. Comm. Ketz suggested looking at the Zoning Codes of these areas, and getting an overall picture of lot sizes, lot coverage, size of yards, etc. 19 PC Minutes 01/16/90 Mr. Schubach noted that this can be interjected into the housing element, and added that staff is anticipating having something available for Commission review by March. Comm. Ingell asked that staff draft a letter to Paul to thank him for his service to the Planning Department. He also thanked Jeff Rue for his service to the Planning Commission as Chairman. Chmn. Rue turned the chair over to Comm. Ingell, the new Chairman. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:52 p.m. No objections; so ordered. 20 PC Minutes 01/16/90 ,. 'i ) 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 16, 1990. ~~ Michael Schubach, Secretary -- Oat if 21 PC Minutes 01/16/90