Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_05_15MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 15, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCll, CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. ROILC.ALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue*, Chmn. Ingell None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (*Comm. Rue entered Council Chambers at 7:05 P .M.) CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as submitted the minutes of May 1, 1990; MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the following resolutions as submitted: Resolution P.C. 90-1, 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 SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH GAS SALES AND A RETAIL SNACK SHOP AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, 1RACT 223; Resolution P.C. 90-15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND ALLOWING AN EXCEPTION TO THE POLICY STATEMENT OF P.C. RESOLUTION 88-1 AT 2624 THE STRAND AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4 , BLOCK 27 , HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 1010 17TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, J.M. FLORES SUBDIVISION; Resolution P .C. 90-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21950 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1105 CYPRESS AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRACT 780; Resolution P.C. 90-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BE1WEEN 1230 OWOSSO AVENUE AND THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPER1Y AT 1036 CORONA STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, BYERLY TRACT, AND LOT 28, BYERLY TRACT CONNECTED WITH LOTS 1 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT; 1 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 Resolution P.C. 90-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI-IE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A FIVE-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATI-IER TI-IAN TI-IE REQUIRED 17 FEET AT 2150 CIRCLE DRIVE, LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 63, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. There being no objections to approval of above items; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-7 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22156 FOR A 'IWO-UNIT CONOOMINIUM AT 829 15ffl S'IREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use pennit and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 5670 square feet, or 42 by 135 feet. Seven parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 684 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling divided into at least three rental units. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape with a side to side slope and approximately a 10 percent slope upward from front to back. The proposed units contain 2537 and 2522 square feet and include three bedrooms, two and a half baths, and a roof deck on Unit A Unit A consists of two stories and a roof deck, and Unit B consists of two stories above a semi-subterranean garage. The height of both structures is less than 25 feet. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, blue composition shingle roofing, glass block, and metal railing. These features give the buildings a contemporary appearance. The overall appearance is rather simple and could be enhanced with the use of some additional architectural features. As such, staff included a condition that revised exterior elevation be submitted. The plans indicate a front yard setback of 17 feet for the second story and 20 feet for the garage. Existing setbacks along the street have been calculated to average approximately 16.5 feet; however, the two condominium projects located adjacent and to the east of this project were required to provide 19-foot front yards to be consistent with existing projects on the same side of the street. For consistency, staff recommended a condition that the minimum setback for this project also be 19 feet. Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages. Unit A has a garage oriented toward the street, and the garage for Unit Bis oriented to the middle of the lot and is accessed by an 11-foot wide driveway. Guest spaces are provided behind the garage for Unit A and in the side yard for Unit B. One on-street parking space will be lost as a result of the widening of the existing driveway. An existing large and mature eucalyptus tree (36 inches in diameter), located in the rear of the lot ten feet from the rear property line, is proposed to be removed as part of this project. Given the location of the tree on the lot, staff felt that the tree could be saved with a slight re-design of the project, and therefore recommended a condition to that effect. However, if the Planning Commission did not concur, a condition could be included requiring that the landscape plan 2 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 compensate for the loss of existing mature trees. If the eucalyptus is saved, this would apply only to the pine tree to be removed; if not, it would apply to both trees. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is only 53 percent, adequate open space is provided on the roof deck for Unit A and on the ground-level patio and yard areas for Unit B, and the height of the structures is less than 25 feet. In consideration of what could potentially be built within R-2B standards, this project has been kept to a relatively moderate scale and size. Although it appears that adequate storage space is available, the amount is not clearly indicated, nor is a location for trash receptacles identified. Staff included a condition the final plans identify the amount of space in the storage areas and the location for the trash receptacles. The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family structures, while the immediate neighbors of this project include two new three-unit condos and one two-unit condo in the beginning phase of construction. Staffs recommended conditions require that the plans be revised to increase the front yard setback and to save the large tree. As such, the Planning Commission may desire to continue this request to have an opportunity to review revised plans. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bruno Bemaur, 1561 Gates Avenue, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated he has no problems with the staff report, other than the condition relating to the tree, Condition 1 l(a); (2) explained that the tree has a very large crown and hangs over the east and west sides of the neighboring property; (3) stated that the tree is about 11 feet from the north property line; (4) said that to save the tree would present a hardship, since saving the tree would almost require that the rear unit be given up since the lot would then be suitable for only one unit unless the units are built together with a common wall; (5) proposed an alternative to saving the tree, stating that he would be happy to compromise with whatever is agreeable with staff; (6) concluded by stating that saving the tree would be almost impossible and would put a great burden on his project. Karl Simon, 1311 8th Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the tree in question totally dominates the property and even if it were saved, it would practically eliminate any possibility of a backyard; (2) noted that they would be happy to provide several smaller trees to make the area pleasant. Mr. Bernaur responded to questions from Comm. Rue and: (1) confirmed that trees would be provided in the rear yard; (2) stated that it would be possible to have several 36-inch box trees between the units; (3) explained the proposed facade treatment, stating that some portions will have a different textured stucco for relief, and the varying stuccos will be separated by a metal strip; (4) stated that, if so desired by the Commission, he would be happy to provide different exterior elevations which are more enhanced. Comm. Peirce referred to Sheet A4 of the plans, noting that the stairwell for the top deck appears to be encased in a plain box. He questioned whether anything could be done to enhance that area. Mr. Bemaur explained that that area is like a penthouse; however, he said that it could be slanted and treatment could be added. Comm. Moore discussed the design of this project, stating that there is quite a melange of architectural design incorporated in these plans. He noted that there appears to be no central theme at all, and he questioned the appropriateness of adding even more to the design. He 3 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 noted that the Commission is not an architectural review board; however, he felt it is important that condos complement neighborhoods by their design. Comm. Moore was happy to see that the project is under the lot coverage and height limits; however, he noted concern over the overall design of the project. He felt that a consistent design philosophy is necessary for this project, and he suggested that another designer be consulted for new ideas. Mr. Bernaur stated that the elevations could be changed to something which would be agreeable to staff. Comm. Moore stated that the City would like to have the best thought-out designs possible. He noted that he would support approval of the project based on the fact that it does not max out to lot coverage and height; however, he was disappointed in the design, and he urged the applicant to explore other design options. Mr. Bernaur, in response to a question from CoIIlIIL Ketz, stated that he has no problem with maintaining the 19-foot setback. He stated that his only objection relates to the large tree. Public Hearing closed at 7: 19 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Re solution P.C. 90-35, with the following changes: (1) delete Condition l l(a) requiring that elimination of the existing tree shall be prevented: (2) modify Condition 4(a) to require that at least two specimen size 36-inch box trees shall be provided to replace the existing trees (one tree in each planter), and that there shall also be trees in the rear patio, subject to approval of the Planning Director; (3) to require that the design shall be changed, and the plans will come back before the Commission for review. Mr. Vose pointed out that Condition No. 5 of the resolution states that "Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations, to be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, and any modifications shall require approval by the Planning Director." Comm. Rue stated that the would prefer final Planning Commission approval of the plans; however, he noted that the intent of his motion is to let the project continue at this time. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cormns. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None CON 90-4 /PARK 90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING PLAN ro ALLOW PORTABLE CLASSROOM IN EXISTING PARKING LOT AND ELIMINATION OF EIGHT PARKING SPACES AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 8, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit amendment and parking plan, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The present and proposed use is as a church, school, and rectory. The area of the property is 90,000 square feet. The proposed size of the additional schoolroom is 1500 square feet. There are 138 existing parking spaces; proposed parking spaces are 136, plus 20 to be provided as attendant-supervised parking when needed. 4 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 A conditional use permit for the church was granted in 1956, and it was amended to allow the school use in 1960. The parking requirement at that time was one space per six fixed seats, resulting in a requirement of 130 spaces. Currently, the ordinance requires one parking space for each five fixed seats, or one per 50 square feet of the auditorium, whichever is greater. The auditorium of the main church is approximately 6500 square feet, and contains 780 fixed seats. Using the fixed seat ratio gives the greater number of required spaces, which calculates to be 156 spaces. As such, the church and school are currently legally nonconforming. The applicant is requesting to install a one-story portable classroom of approximately 1500 square feet, located in the existing parking area behind the existing school building. The applicant indicates that the additional classroom space is necessary because of gradual changes in student enrollment. No additional grades are proposed. Previously the existing eight classrooms were adequate for the nine grades being taught here (kindergarten through eighth grade) as two grades were combined into one classroom. The applicant indicates that this will no longer be possible after this school year. The portable classroom would take away eight existing parking spaces. The plan submitted by the applicant shows an addition of six spaces in the secondary parking lot off 5th Street by adding some spaces in the middle of the lot. Because of the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the only way to legally expand the facility is to bring the parking up to code. Therefore, the applicant has applied for a parking plan to provide required parking by nUJiziog an attendant-supervised valet system when the need arises. The location for a potential 20 additional parking spaces has been identified on the plans. Staff felt that an attendant-supervised system would work in this situation, given that patrons generally come and leave at the same time, and that the services do no occur on a daily basis. Also, the use of the system would only be necessary on those rare occasions when the church is full. Another option available to the applicant which has not been explored would be to restripe the existing parking lot to provide up to 30 percent compact parking spaces. This could potentially add several additional parking spaces thereby reducing or eliminating the need for attendant- supervised parking. Staff included a condition that a revised parking layout be explored using compact spaces, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Given that the applicant has provided an alternative for providing required parking and that it appears that the parking for this facility has historically been adequate given the number of scheduled services, staff felt that the request is acceptable. However, it would be preferable to see the church build a pennanent structure on the property in conjunction with the school building rather than this apparent "quick-fix" and temporary solution. As such, staff included a condition requiring a one-year review of the CUP whereupon the applicant can report on the continued need of the extra classroom and on the status of plans for a more permanent facility. Public Hearing opened at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. William Leahy, principal of the school, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that stacked parking will be used to have additional parking, and the new building will not require that much more parking; (2) stated that there will be at least 156 parking spaces; (3) noted that it is a possibility that the parking area will be restriped to provide even more spaces. Greta Saylor, 1600 Spreckles, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over church users parking on her already dense street; (2) stated that there are very few existing parking spaces on the street; (3) stated that her street is used as a thoroughfare by 5 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 people picking up and dropping off their children as well as others using the church; (4) commented that she would like to see a copy of the proposed design (to which staff handed her a copy of the plans); (5) asked that something be done about the general appearance of the area. noting that it is quite unkempt. Steve and Phyllis Stewart. 1265 5th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that they live right behind the church parking lot; (2) noted concern over the portable classroom's appearance due to the fact that it will detract from the overall appearance of the area; (3) commented that their property has been appraised at a lower rate because of the unsightly appearance of the church, particularly the landscaping; (4) hoped that the church would spend money and effort to upgrade the site; (5) hoped that the church would not expand any further; (6) noted that there is currently a recycling center located at the church property which causes problems, especially with newspapers blowing around the neighborhood; (7) noted concern that people use the recycling center as a dump. Mr. Stewart continued and: (1) suggested that the church be painted and landscaped; (2) suggested that the holes in the fence be repaired and that the wall be painted; (3) noted that traffic and parking during peak how-s is very detrimental to the neighborhood; (4) stated that someone drove into his brick planter wall and did a great deal of damage; (5) did not feel that the portable classroom would add to the appearance, and he hoped that something would be done to improve the site; (6) handed out to staff copies of a letter he prepared regarding this issue; (7) noted concern over trash spilling out of the recycling bins. Mr. Leahy responded to concerns about the recycling area, stating that they have attempted to improve the area. He noted, however, that the lot next to the church does not belong to the church; therefore, the church cannot be responsible for its appearance. Chmn. Ingell noted that the recycling area does not appear to be on the plans. He asked for clarification. Mr. Leahy discussed the recycling bins, stating that they have been considering removing the large bin. He did not feel that the bins would affect the proposed parking. He stated that there is a possibility of erecting a fence with slats around the bins to block off the neighbors' view of the bins. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that the Public Works Department has an anti-graffiti program in the City. Chmn. Ingell advised that citizens can call that department with complaints about graffiti. Comm. Peirce asked about the specifications for screening trash containers, noting that the trash containers appear to be right on the street, which is not allowed. He suggested that staff investigate this issue. Mr. Leahy explained that this request relates only to the portable classroom, not the recycling center. to which Chmn. Ing ell explained that an amendment to a CUP allows the Commission to address all conditions. Comm. Moore suggested that a church representative meet with the neighbors to discuss their concerns related to the church and its appearance. Mr. Leahy noted that church children sometimes go out to clean up the surrounding area, to which Comm. Moore responded that more needs to be done. Father Alex, priest at the church, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with what the neighbors have said; (2) gave background history on the church, and noted that the parish is now solvent and money will be spent to upgrade the appearance of the property; (3) agreed that the recycling center issue needs to be addressed; (4) agreed that the church needs to be repainted. 6 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 Father Alex continued and: (1) stated that parishioners know where to place items, and he noted that others are now using the area which might be causing some of the problems; (2) stressed that something will be done to bring the center into conformance with City requirements; (3) noted the importance of the school being successful and the fact that additional space is necessary; (4) stated that the portable classroom will not be an obstruction of anything in the neighborhood. Father Alex went on and: (1) explained that the church would very much like to acquire the property next door, however, the church cannot afford to purchase it; (2) agreed that that lot is messy, but he noted that surrounding neighbors party and cause problems, not the church people; (3) stated that the church has attempted to clean out that land, even though it does not now belong to the church; (4) agreed that the church, as well as the entire neighborhood, needs to look better; (5) explained that the only time when there can be parking problems is during the church fiesta; (6) continued by explaining the various times of services and noted that parking is not usually a problem: (7) felt that the main issue appears to be one of maintenance of the site; (8) commented that money is a problem; (9) said that the fencing surrounding the school will be upgraded; (10) noted that there are problems with street people harassing the children. so a new fence with slats will be put up and the fence will be locked. Father Alex continued and: (1) stated that this is the only Catholic church in the City, and it is very important to have this school thrive; (2) noted that if they cannot expand it will be very difficult for the school to survive; (3) felt that it would be to the City's advantage to approve this request; (4) stated that if there are problems with the church, neighbors can contact either parish pastor Paul Fazio or himself. Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue asked about requirements for recycling centers. Mr. Schubach stated that there should be no recycling centers in a residential area. He noted surprise that the field inspection did not note such a use occurring at that location. Comm. Rue noted that the City has no formal recycling program, and such programs should be wholeheartedly encouraged. He suggested that the area be fenced in for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Schubach, noting that staff was unaware of the recycling center, suggested that this matter be continued so that staff can have an opportunity to study this issue. Mr. Vose stated that the code allows small collection facilities in C-3 and M-1 zones only with a CUP; therefore, this recycling center is not allowed in this residential zone. There is no way to allow this use to continue at this site unless the code is amended or the zoning is changed. Mr. Vose, in response to questions from Chmn. Ingell, explained the difference between one- time recycling events such as paper drives and on-going uses of a recycling center. Comm. Moore noted that times have changed and recycling must be encouraged, whether or not it involves amending the code. He urged that methods be :implemented to encourage recycling. Public Hearing reopened at 7:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Father Alex addressed the Commission and: (1) noted the importance of recycling; (2) urged that methods be considered to address the issue; (3) stated that a meeting could be set up with the neighbors so that their concerns can be addressed. Ms. Saylor agreed that recycling should be encouraged; however, she did not favor a recycling center which is an eyesore to the community and which would downgrade her property. 7 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 Public Hearing closed at 7:59 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce noted that the portable classroom will be down in a hole and will therefore not be obtrusive to the neighbors. He noted, however, that the trash and recycling area needs to be addressed before this project can go forward. He said that the resolution could be approved, which would require that they comply with all code requirements. He noted, though, that recycling is not a pennitted use in this zone. Comm. Moore, noting that this is a CUP amendment request and not a variance, stated that the request could be approved; however, the recycling issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible. He felt it is necessary that action be taken quickly to allow recycling centers, and he stressed the importance of such collection centers being allowed. Comm. Rue felt that, for the time being, there must be compliance with the code; however, he also agreed that the recycling issue must be addressed as soon as possible so that they can be allowed in a manner which is not obtrusive to the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Vose advised that the Commission can do nothing at this time related to allowing the recycling center, since it is not a pennitted use in the residential zone. Even if the use were allowed to continue at this time, there are clear code requirements, such as fencing and screening, related to such facilities. Mr. Vose also noted that the CUP itself is quite clear in specifying that all code requirements must be met. He noted another problem related to the fact that parking is shown on the plans where the recycling center is currently located. He said that the Commission can address the issue of the portable classroom, however, at this time. Comm. Moore noted that the Commission can approve the request, as submitted, related to the portable classroom. He noted that whether the request is approved or not, the recycling is not allowed since it is not a permitted use. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-36, as written. Chmn. Ingell urged that a church representative meet with staff, as well as the neighbors, to discuss their concerns. Comm. Rue discussed the issue of recycling and noted the importance of community service provided by schools and churches. He felt that the code needs to be addressed soon so that recycling can be allowed and encouraged. Mr. Vose cautioned, however, that even if the code is amended, the recycling center would need to be in confonnance with all City-imposed requirements. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None VAR 90-3 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW 'IWO PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND ROOF ENCROACHMENT IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2634 lBE STRAND Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The lot size is 2784 square feet, and there are currently six units on the lot. The existing density is 94 units to the acre. There are currently no parking spaces. The 8 P.C. Minutes 5/15/90 existing usable open space is 680 square feet. The proposed number of units is five, with a proposed density of 79 units per acre. The proposed parking is two spaces, and proposed usable open space is 500 square feet. The existing six-unit apartment building was originally constructed in 1913. The subject lot is a through lot with frontage on both Hermosa Avenue and The Strand. Pursuant to Policy Statement 88-1, the Planning Commission has detennined that both The Strand and the Hermosa Avenue sides of the lot are front yards. On March 22, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for this request. The applicant is requesting permission to remodel an existing legally nonconforming six-unit apartment with no parking spaces into a five-unit apartment. The proposal includes converting the front yard area on Hermosa Avenue to a parking area for two spaces. The remodel includes demolishing the sixth unit and reconfiguring several walls to change the existing layout of the remaining units, including the addition of a bedroom on the ground floor. A variance is required for the proposed parking spaces because they would be located in the front yard, and Section 1157(d) of the zoning ordinance allows parking in the front 20 feet only when leading to a garage. The applicant is also requesting a variance to permit the replacement of a balcony awning on The Strand side with a balcony roof structure to extend to the property line rather than the required setback for roof overhangs of 30 inches. A variance is also necessary from the nonconforming provisions of the zoning ordinance (Section 13-3[c]) because the currently nonconfonning amount of usable open space will be decreased by the conversion of excess front yard area to parking area (a loss of approximately 180 square feet of usable open space), and because the applicant is requesting to remodel a nonconfonning residential use greater than 45 units per acre. Although it appears that the reduction of the number of units and addition of two parking spaces would be an improvement to the site and to the neighborhood, staff noted several arguments to the contrary: (a) The two parking spaces will cause the loss of one on-street space, meaning that the net gain in parking would only be one space; (b) Although the fenced-in open space area on Hermosa Avenue is not in the best condition, it contains trees and vegetation which can be considered an amenity and open space which should be preserved. Although it constitutes only 180 square feet of usable open space as defined by the zoning ordinance, it actually consists of approximately 500 square feet; (c) The proposed remodel would still only result in a density of 80 units per acre and constitutes a net gain of only one parking space. The intent of the nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance as specifically stated under Section 13-0(d) is "to prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by current standards are considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking and setback"; (d) The proposed improvements will not significantly improve the existing situation. They will not bring the property near to conformity with density requirements, yard requirements, open space requirements, or even parking requirements; and it will only add permanence to and perpetuate the life of an existing structure which does not appear to possess any historic or aesthetic value. Staff did not believe that the Planning Commission has grounds to grant the requested variances. The unusual existing condition of this property (a legally nonconforming six-unit apartment in an R-1 zone) is a problem that needs to be corrected over time, not used as a justification for variances. Although staff would normally support providing off-street parking to the maximum extent possible, this proposal does not go far enough, and there is 9 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 nothing about the shape or size of the property which would preem pt the potential of providing parking in conformance with the dimen sional standards of the zoning ordinance, Staff commended the efforts of the applicant to improve the condition of his existing building; however, given the stated policies and laws of the City as set forth in the zoning ordinance, this particular proposal is clearly not consistent with the long-term objectives of the City. Staff does not find anything particularly exceptional or extraordinary about this property owner's situation which justifies the varying from these established laws. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that current records show six units at this building. Public Hearing opened at 8: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he was dumbfounded by the staff report, noting that he had no prior indication that there were any problems whatsoever; (2) noted that the staff report he received was a bombshell; (3) gave his view on what he thought the non conforming s e ction of the code m eant: (4) stated that this property is a real income generator, and if it is n ot allowed to be remodele d it will remain in its present condition until hell freezes over; (5) said that the building will either be allowed to be upgraded or it will remain in its present condition. Mr. Compton went on and: (1) stated that this project is totally within the spirit of the nonconforming section of the code, noting that it is less dense than what is currently existing; (2) stressed that this building is currently a legal nonconforming six-unit building; (3) said that most of the work being proposed can be done according to the building director; (4) noted that most of the work being proposed is not structural, and most of the things being proposed are allowed; (5) noted that according to the code 100 square feet can be added to a nonconforming building. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) explained that this is a double front yard, on The Strand and on Hermosa Avenue; (2) addressed the parking, and stated that the front yard is The Strand, and parking should be allowed on the Hermosa Avenue side; (3) stated that there is currently a very dangerous parking space at this property, and this proposal would be a benefit in terms of the traffic situation; (4) agreed that the open space would be impacted, stating that there should be flexibility; (5) said that there are six units at this site, and noted that in an R-1 zone, 400 square feet of open space would be required for each unit, or a total of 2400 square feet, which is unrealistic at this project; (6) said that the currently existing open space is bamboo and is totally unusable. Mr. Compton in conclusion: (1) stated that the upper units probably have adequate open space, and the lower units have direct access to the beach, which is the largest area of open space in the City; (2) discussed the front yard encroachment and stated that the proposal is to upgrade a currently existing metal awning, not add anything new; (3) hoped that this request would be approved; (4) again noted that this building is not just going to go away if it cannot be upgraded; (5) asked that the applicant be allowed to upgrade the property, abate one unit, and provide two parking spaces; (6) stated that the other option is to deny the request, thereby leaving six units with no on-site parking; (7) stated that no structural alterations are necessary, other than those involving the removal of the one unit; (8) stated that the unit being proposed to be abated is a single unit of only a couple hundred square feet; (9) stated that a termite and pest control inspection has been done, and everything is fine. David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he would like to convert the legal nonconforming six-unit structure into a five-unit building that will be desirable, pleasing, accommodating, and safe for the residents; (2) stated that he would like to have two on-site parking spaces where none now exist; (3) stated that the currently existing on-street parking space is quite dangerous; (4) commented on the currently existing tree, stating that he had it inspected, and it is in very bad condition and should be P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 removed; (5) discussed the bamboo and stated that it is not good because it deteriorates the pipes. Mr. Schumacher commented on the metal awning, explaining that it was damaged in a storm several years ago, and he would like to replace it now. Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue could recall no improvements being mao.e to this building for at least the past fifteen years. He was surprised that only now an attempt is being made to repair the damaged awning. He did not feel this project is within the intent of the nonconforming section of the code. He felt that if the density were being reduced by half, approval might be feasible; however, he noted that only reducing the area by 200 square feet is not very effective in achieving what the City had in mind for its long-term goal. He hoped that the present use would not continue for many years; however, he could not support approval of this request. Comm. Ketz stated that the intent of this ordinance is to allow only very minor changes; therefore, she could see no reason to approve this variance. She felt that approval would perpetuate the current use and its problems even longer, noting that even five units is not what she would like to see there. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution 90-38, denying the variance requests for property located at 2634 The Strand. Comm. Rue did not object to the use; however. he felt that when the life of a building expires, it should expire. He did not feel it would be appropriate to extend the life of this building any longer than necessary. He felt that it would be to the property owner's benefit to upgrade the property regardless of whether or not this variance is approved, noting that the units can command higher rents if the property is improved. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell. None None None CON 90-7 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO PARTS WAREHOUSE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 737 TlilRD STREET IN CONJUNCTION Wlffl VASEK POLAK AUTO DEALERSHIPS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 8, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use pennit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in S.P.A 7, and its general plan designation is commercial corridor. The previous use was as the Assembly of God Tabernacle Church. The area of the property is 11,599 square feet. The building area is 5958 square feet. The site is located only 80 feet from P.C.H. and is bounded by commercial uses on the east and a public parking lot on the south. An eight-unit condominium is located to the west of the property, and to the rear of the existing building to the north of the property are two residential properties containing three units and two units. A conditional use pennit for the church was granted in 1965, allowing an assembly of up to 160 people. The CUP was amended in 1984 to allow a portion of the second story, originally proposed for classrooms, to be used as a parsonage. 11 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 On April 10 , 1990 , the City Council amended the zoning map to create Specific Plan Area No. 7. The Commer cial Specific Plan Area includes the entire subject property. Previously Lot 56 was zoned R-3, and the remainder of the property C-3. Section 9.67-5 of the Specific Plan Area requirements states that "Properties with existing commercial uses or other than residential uses which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway may be used commercially, expanded, and/ or remodeled, if the existing access is maintained." On May 3, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration, recommending that the applicant provide information indicating the anticipated number of vehicle trips that would occur to and from the site, and further recommended that conditions be included to restrict work activities inside the building, and to restrict delivery of goods to on the premises and not on the public right-of-way. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing building for a parts storage in conjunction with his existing automobile dealerships located in varying locations along Pacific Coast Highway. The proposal constitutes a change of use only, as it involves interior remodeling and no expansion of the building. Specific Plan Area No. 7 allows the same pennitted uses as those listed for the C-3 zone. Automobile parts storage is in conjunction with the existing non-contiguous automobile dealerships. Therefore , the request falls within the category of automobile agency, thereby requiring a CUP. It is staffs understanding that the applicant is planning to move the parts storage function currently located at 2851 P.C.H. (the Subaru dealership site) to this location. The requirement for automobile agencies is one space per 1000 square feet of site area, m eaning that this s ite is required t o provide 12 spaces. According to the submitted plans, the p arking lot would b e r estriped t o provide 1 7 p arking s p a c es. Staffs primary concern with this request is the potential generation of truck traffic on a residential street. The applicant indicated at the staff review meeting that large trucks would rarely if ever be used, and that delivery and pick-up would occur in small trucks and vans. If the traffic is directed to P.C.H. staff would not necessarily anticipate any problems. Therefore staff recommended a condition that residential streets shall not be used by delivery vehicles except for the segment of 3rd Street from P. C.H. to the driveway of this site. The plan also provides for the required five-foot wide landscape strip along the west side of the parking lot, with the required trees planted at ten-foot intervals. Although this is an unusual request, staff believes that the location is appropriate as the property is across the street from a public parking lot and is located within the commercial corridor. Also, this type of use, as compared with a church, has a relatively low parking impact and would have no impact on the weekends since it will be closed, and no sales will be conducted whatsoever. The proposed use of the site should not create any automotive related noise, odor, or other related impacts typically associated with repair shops and dealerships. Also, since the interior of the building is fairly large and spacious, the necessary storage and work activities can be easily conducted inside. It should be noted that since the parts storage will not require numerous employees, there will be excess parking for other employees of the dealerships. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding the commercial area creeping down into the residential area, explained that the 3rd Street driveway is existing and is allowed to remain. If the use changes, then the access would be required to be removed from the highway. 12 P.C . Minutes 5/ 15/90 Public Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the driveway location; (2) handed out a memo he wrote dated May 11, 1990, addressed to the Commission; (3) continued by discussing the contents of the letter; (4) stated that the conditions are reasonable, and that this will be a good revenue generator for the City; (5) explained the use proposed; (6) said that the office space upstairs will not structurally hold storage, and the parts manager's office will be on the upper level; (7) noted that the upstairs configuration depicted on the plans is existing, explaining that it used to be a parish. Sherry Belanger, 720 3rd Street, noted concern over Vasek Polak adhering to the conditions of their CUP, stating that they continue to test car alanns and use their speaker system. She questioned whether they will comply with this CUP when they are not complying with other conditions. She noted further concern over traffic and access on her street. Mr. Schubach advised that citizens can complain to the City if there are noise violations, and someone will go out with the noise meter for testing. Public Hearing closed at 8:43 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-37, as written. Comm. Peirce felt this is an innovative use of the property, and it will probably be less intrusive if they follow all rules and regulations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Recess taken from 8:45 P.M. until 8:50 P.M. Chmn. Ingell, noting that a staff member had been waiting in the audience to speak on Agenda Item 11, announced that Agenda Items 10 and 11 would be reversed. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL (CONTINUED FROM MEEnNGOFMAY 1. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1990. At the previous hearing, the Planning Commission requested specific infonnation regarding the Planning Commission's purview, role, status, and mission over the Capital Improvement Program. Provided to the Commissioners were copies of the State Law relevant to the Planning Commission's concerns. Section 65103(c) and Section 65401 both indicate that the Planning Commission should be examining the CIP for conformance with the general plan. However, there is no restriction which preempts the Commission from making recommendations as to what should be in the CIP beyond the sake of conformity. Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, Public Works Department, addressed the Commission and stated that the comments made by Comm. Peirce at the previous meeting were totally correct, and the document has been revised to reflect Comm. Peirce's comments. Hearing closed at 8:56 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 13 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 Comm. Moore stated that he has only one concern related to the consistency; id est. the matter of The Strand wall and walkway project. He felt that there are a variety of possible solutions, including a wooden walkway on the sand side. He felt that the issue of beach and Strand use is a general plan issue; however, The Strand issue at hand is more of a maintenance issue. Chmn. Ingell gave background information related to past studies done on separating bicyclists from walkers on The Strand. Comm. Moore noted concern over a lot of money being spent on maintenance of The Strand wall. He felt that if the issue were studied in conjunction with the sand side, there might be a better solution to the problem. Mr. Terry stated that actual details have not yet been finalized for The Strand wall. He noted, however, that Comm. Moore's concerns will be presented in the staff report which will be given to the City Council. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-34, determining that the CIP is consistent with the City's general plan. Comm. Rue commented on the finding in the circulation element regarding The Strand wall. He commented that the wall serves as a barrier during storms and the issue is therefore one of health and safety. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Comm. Moore wanted to direct the engineer to provide analysis and details on a separate Strand walkway and wall when this issue is presented to the Council. Comm. Rue noted that The Strand is subjected to heavy abuse during storms. In the interest of safety. he wanted to ensure that good money is not being thrown away on bad. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Chmn. Ingell. to direct that a study of The Strand maintenance project (as discussed above) be recommended to the Public Works Department for presentation to the City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comm. Peirce None None SS -10 --TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the proposed resolution recommending amendments to the zoning ordinance. At their meeting of September 13, 1988, the City Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission to address their stated concerns that a CUP process to allow higher walls and fences would create problems, that such a process would have to specify conditions for approving or denying such requests, that enforcement would be difficult, and that a distinction should be made between residential and commercial requirements. 14 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 On August 2, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 88-68 recommending amendments to more specifically define the types of materials for walls and fences which would be allowed. The Commission did not agree with staff's recommendation to allow the established height limits to be exceeded through a CUP. The zoning ordinance currently allows walls, fences, or hedges to be constructed to a height of three feet in the front yard and six feet along side yards behind the front yard and in the rear yard. A variance would be required to exceed these limits. There is no requirement regarding materials or any distinction between walls and fences on commercial versus residential property. Building permits are only required for fences greater than six feet, or retaining walls of greater than four feet. Given the Planning Commission's previous action to avoid the use of CUPs as a method for anyone to request additional fence height, staff felt it would be appropriate to allow higher walls and fences by CUP only in limited situations. Those situations most appropriate would be where commercial and manufacturing uses abut residential uses. This issue was raised when the Planning Commission approved a rear wall for the Mobil site to be eight feet in height. Staff therefore recommended an amendment that would allow a wall, fence, or hedge to exceed the height limits in situations where commercial uses abut residential uses. The amendments include criteria for granting such an exception on the height limit. These criteria would mean that the Planning Commission would have to find that the additional height is necessary to mitigate a potential noise or visual impact, and that the additional height would not interfere with the light, air, and scenic view of nearby properties. Also included in the proposed resolution are amendments similar to those previously recommended by the Planning Commission that would specifically define the types of materials to be allowed in fences and walls when a CUP is required and for any fence or wall above three feet located on other than residential property. Also, staff included language to absolutely prohibit certain materials such as barbed wire, broken glass, razor wire, or other similar materials in all cases. The reason for not dictating materials on residential fences is that it would not be appropriate to control fence and wall aesthetics when the City does not currently control appearances and types of materials for the much more significant structure, the single-family dwelling itself. Staff also recommended a condition requiring that building permits are required to construct a fence or wall of above three feet in height. This would allow the City to check the structural integrity of fences and walls and to verify that height requirements are being followed. The Director of Building and Safety has no objection to the revised permit requirements. Staff also recommended elimination of Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code titled "Hedges, Fences, and Walls" as the requirements duplicate the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. Lynn Terry, Public Works De partment. addressed the Commission and r e s p on d e d t o a question from Comm. Rue r egarding the issue of ob taining permit s for walls. He continue d b y explaining when encroachment permits are nece ssary, s tating that those p e rmits are subject t o revocation by the City. He said that there are certain standards under the purview of the Building Department. 15 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 Comm. Rue commented on fences in the northern portion of the City, stating that some of the fences are at least six feet high. He questioned whether those property owners must be in compliance with the encroachment regulations. Mr. Terry stated that he is not familiar with that particular portion of the City, and it would be necessary for him to do further research on that area. Comm. Rue commented on the proposed resolution, Item 3, Paragraph 3: "No fence or wall three feet or greater in height shall be constructed without first obtaining a building pennit." He questioned whether this requirement will place an undue burden on staff. Mr. Schubach stated that that requirement was recommended by the Building Department. Mr. Vose replied that this is a standard condition in most cities. Comm. Rue commented on Item 3, Paragraph 5: 'Walls or fences located on property used for any use other than residential shall be constructed of an aesthetically pleasing material such as earthtone split face rock, wrought iron or simulated wrought iron, brick, wood, stucco, or a similar material approved by the Planning Director. Plain grey block is prohibited." He questioned whether this requirement should be imposed in residential zones. Mr. Schubach replied that those kinds of requirements are imposed on the single-family homes themselves; therefore, it was felt unnecessary to impose the requirements on fences. Comm. Peirce felt that it is preferable to give the homeowner flexibility in constructing fences. Chmn. Ingell, noting that many times fences separate two pieces of property, felt that it would be appropriate to include such restrictions. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that things seem to be working fairly well at this time; therefore, he did not feel it necessary to add more requirements in the residential zone. Comm. Rue felt that Item 5 lays out reasonable guidelines, prohibiting only plain grey block walls. He noted that walls are subject to a material approved by the Planning Director. Comm. Ketz felt that a clear-cut guideline should be included for the residential zone. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-40, with one change: to amend Item 3, Paragraph 5, to state: 'Walls or fences shall be constructed of an .... (strike out 'located on property used for any use other than residential')." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None LLA 90-3 --LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 120-122 25'IH STREET AND 2463:2467 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed lot 1:¢e adjustment. The subject parcels are both owned by Parker Kemp and Edward Kemp. Assessors Parcel 12 contains approximately 2313 square feet, while Assessors Parcel 13 contains approximately 2513 square feet. These two parcels show up as being separate on the assessor's map and Hermosa Beach subdivision map by a da~hed line, meaning that they were subdivided by deed ' 16 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 prtor to the subdivision map requirements. The Map Act requires the City to recognize these private subdivisions that occurred before 1972 as separate lots. The applicant is proposing to adjust the recognized property line approximately 1.24 feet to the east to make the two parcels more equal in size and to place the property line halfway between the two existing structures so that no existing structures will straddle the property line. The resulting parcel sizes are approximately 2410 and 2416 square feet. Staff felt that this adjustment of the property line is logical and will not have any negative impacts on the subject properties or surrounding properties. Hearing opened at 9: 17 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Parker Kemp, 121 Belmont Avenue, Long Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the staff recommendation; and (2) noted that the address mentioned in the title of the resolution should be corrected to read "2463." Hearing closed at 9: 19 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-39. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None NR 90-4 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-71B} TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DUPLEX GREATER THAN A 50 PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 834 BARD STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the request by adopting the proposed resolution. The lot size is 34 76 square feet, with an existing building size of 2366 square feet. The proposed addition is 1 794 square feet. and the area of the remodel is 364 square feet. There will be a 7 8 percent increase in valuation. There are four parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to make a significant addition to the rear unit (Unit B) while making no changes to the front unit (Unit A). Unit Bis currently 1278 square feet and would be a total of 3072 square feet after the addition. Unit A contains 1222 square feet. The proposed addition includes an addition of 985 square feet of decks. The property is currently nonconforming to current zoning for several reasons: (1) the garage is set back eight feet rather than the required 17 feet; (2) Unit A has no private open space, 200 square feet is required; (3) the existing parking is provided in tandem with direct access to the street, which is permitted only in the R-1 zone; and (4) there are four parking spaces and no guest spaces. The proposed additions conform with minimum planning and zoning standards. The total lot coverage is 64.5 percent, and 262 square feet of private usable open space is provided for Unit B. A total of 454 square feet of usable open space is provided for the total project. Also, a 484 square-foot roof deck with access only from Unit B is provided over Unit A; this cannot be counted as usable open space, as its access is from one unit and is located over another. The only concern staff has in regard to this request is the fact that such a large unit will be created and no guest spaces will be available. The eight feet behind the garage cannot be 17 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 counted toward guest spaces because it is behind tandem parking. However, there is approximately 16 to 17 feet between the face of the garage and the edge of the right-of-way which is commonly used to park extra vehicles. Staff felt that this proposal is consistent with previous Planning Commission decisions in regard to the remodel of nonconforming structures and felt that it is consistent with the intent of Article 13 of the zoning ordinance since the current use conforms to density requirements. Although there are several nonconformities, they are not exceptionally unusual or significant. Comm. Rue referred to Page A2.1 of the plans and asked for clarification on the building height, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the height must be in conformance with City requirements and will be addressed during the plan check. If the project is not in compliance. the project will be halted. Comm. Rue noted that this plan, as well as many others, does not indicate what is currently existing; it depicts only what is being proposed. He noted that it makes it difficult to envision the project. Mr. Schubach stated that currently existing plans are usually not required. Comm. Rue stated that it would be a great help if the Commission were provided with plans showing what is existing as well as what is being proposed. Comm. Peirce commented that this appears to be an unusual back unit. He asked whether had staff addressed the issue of this being a potential bootleg unit. Mr. Schubach stated that staff always considers the bootleg potential; however, this project does not appear to be a problem. Comm. Peirce, noting the unusual size of the project, stated that each of the three floors appears to have its own access, and he noted concern over this configuration. Comm. Rue stated that there is no outside access from the second floor. Comm. Peirce noted concern over bootlegs and urged staff to look at the potential at this project. Hearing opened at 9:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Neil Gretsky, 834 Bard Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the plans were designed to preserve what was already existing on the lot and to add space to what was there; (2) referred to Page 3 of the plans and described what was existing on the lot; (3) said that there was a front unit above the garage and a back unit of two floors; (4) explained that the area underneath the back unit was already framed but hollow, so they are going to add on; (5) said that the area falls off quite steeply in the back; (6) explained that he has owned the property since 1977, and he now needs additional space for his growing family; (7) discussed the parking, stating that the edge of the pavement to the front of the garage is 1 7 feet and four cars can easily be parked there, since there are no sidewalks on this street; (8) noted that four cars can park inside the garage; (9) commented that the lot is quite large, 30 feet by 116 feet and is zoned R-3; (10) stated that when this duplex was built in 1977 is was entirely conforming. Mr. Gretsky continued and: (1) stated that most of the addition will be incorporated in the existing structure; (2) said that the massing of the building will not be very much larger because a good deal will be going under the existing structure; (3) noted that the height will change because the lot falls off steeply at the rear. Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 18 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that the only issue at this time is that of adding more than 50 percent increase in valuation. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-41, as written. Comm. Peirce noted concern over possible future bootleg conversion at this property. He wanted to ensure that this project remains two units. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to add a condition requiring that there shall be only two units at this site. Amendment accepted by Comms. Ketz and Rue as maker and second. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None a) List of Completed Projects for Inspection No action taken. b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. c) City Council Minutes of April 24, 1990 Chmn. Ingell noted that the Commissioners had received only the odd-numbered pages of the minutes. He asked that corrected copies be provided at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce asked about the three parking spaces at the northeast comer of The Strand and 2nd Street, to which Mr. Schubach responded that the Public Works Department is currently investigating that issue. Comm. Rue asked when the AIA RUDAT meeting will be held, to which Mr. Schubach replied that it may be held in July. Comm. Rue wanted to discuss the issue of recycling and zoning, to which Comm. Peirce suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda for City-wide consideration. Comm. Rue commented on the issue of the parking of mobile homes on City streets, particularly on the 500 block of 25th Street and near Valley and Gould, to which Mr. Schubach responded by discussing the mobile home parking requirements in the City. Comm. Rue asked whether there is any new information related to the Greenwood hotel project, to which Mr. Schubach responded in the negative. Comm. Ketz asked whether any workshop meetings will be held to discuss the housing element, to which Mr. Schubach replied that several will be held; a joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission, as well as a meeting with the general public. 19 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90 . . MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9 :45 P.M. 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 May 15, 1990. / Date 20 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90