Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_08_07; . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 7, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCll, CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chrnn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. RQLLCAIL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chrnn. Ingell Comms. Moore, Peirce Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Paul Yoshinaga, Substitute City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Chmn. Ingell noted that, because of absences, a quorum was not present for the purpose of approving the resolutions and the minutes of July 3 and July 17, 1990. He stated that approval of all consent calendar items would be continued to the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. PARK 90-4 --PARKJNG PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW AN AEROBIC STUDIO AT 1310 -1314 PACIFIC COAST ffiGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 17. 1990) Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant submitted a letter dated July 23, 1990, withdrawing this request; therefore, staff did not renotice this project for public hearing. He suggested that the Commission receive and file this item. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. CUP 90-8/PARK 90-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKJNG PLAN TO EXPAND EXISTING CAFE FOR DINNER AND COCKTAIL SERVICE AND TO INCLUDE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE. COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit amendment, parking plan, and a mitigated negative declaration to allow the expansion of the cafe and to allow limited entertainment but no dancing, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request for a novelty building. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The building size is approximately 8000 square feet. The proposed addition is 418 square feet. Existing parking is 35 spaces; 40 parking spaces are proposed. On May 17, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the project, with several recommended mitigation measures: 1 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 (1) provide sound attenuation to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public Safety Department; (2) pedestrtan access shall be provided from the parking lot to the entrance so that pedestrians will not have to use the alley: and (3) the proposed alterations. additions, and the inclusion of the adjacent restaurant space shall not result in any increased occupancy or seating capacity of the combination of the existing uses. The Planning Commission, on March 15, 1988, approved an amendment to the existing CUP for live entertainment and on-sale alcohol 1n conjunction with food sales to allow a box office addition. The CUP granted at that time superseded all previous CUPs. The box office was never constructed; therefore, the CUP was not executed. The original conditional use permit for the Comedy and Magic Club was granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments 1n 1978. It has since been modified four times. The applicant is requesting to expand the current cafe and bar portion of the business, which is separate from the main room for live comedy and magic, and to expand the use to include entertainment and dancing. The proposed expansion includes the entire adjacent vacant restaurant space (previously the Panda King) and a proposed building expansion into the open area partially occupied by a stairway. The proposed building expansion involves 418 square feet, which includes an 80 square foot stage. The area of the adjacent restaurant space is approximately 1300 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to restripe the parking area to include compact spaces, resulting in an increase from 35 to 40 parking spaces. The proposed building addition is in the form of a top hat, requiring Planning Commission approval of a novelty building. This proposal involves a change in use of the existing adjacent restaurant from strictly a restaurant use to a live entertainment and dancing use, typically considered an assembly use, plus the addition of 418 square feet to this assembly use. The current CUP for this business permits on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment, subject to several conditions. One of the conditions prohibits dancing. Also, live entertainment is not expressly permitted within the caf e area. The gross floor area of the club is approximately 8000 square feet, and 35 parking spaces are available on the roof. Because of t he uniqueness of the mix of uses for this business, staff has calculated parking requirements by summing up the different uses. When classified this way, the parking requirement calculates to be approximately 90 spaces, or 55 spaces deficient. Therefore, the existing parking is clearly deficient, meaning that the building is legally nonconforming to parking. The adjacent vacant restaurant space at 1014 Hermosa Avenue has a CUP for on-sale beer and wine and also for outside dining. It is also nonconforming since it has no parking. At 1300 square feet it is deficient 13 parking spaces. The overall deficiency of the combined buildings at 1018 and 1014 Hermosa Avenue is 68 spaces. Section 1162 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "(d) For every building in a "C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed or expanded, the parking requirements and turning area for the entire bullding shall be as set forth in this ordinance (emphasis added) ...... (e) When the use of an existing building or structure is changed to a more intense use with a higher parking demand, the required parking as stated in this article for that particular use shall be met prior to occupying of the building .... " This means that to allow the proposed addition and the proposed change of use from restaurant use to assembly use would require that the parking be brought up to code. Staff calculates the 2 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 total parking requirement with the proposed changes would be 127 parking spaces, creating a deficiency 87 spaces. Staff does not believe that this deficiency can be addressed through a parking plan, nor could the findings for a variance be made. If the use remained a restaurant, the parking problem would be much less severe. Therefore, if the request for dancing is eliminated and entertainment is only offered in conjunction with a restaurant use of the cafe area (no amplified music), the parking deficiency is significantly decreased, and staff felt that the findings for a parking plan can be made. The use of the cafe would be limited to primarily a restaurant, with full dinner service. with entertainment for the dinner customers (stand-up comedy and acoustic music) only as an incidental use. This is different from a primarily entertainment or assembly type use because the customers arrive and leave at their convenience at varying times, and the entertainment does not involve scheduled petformances, and no auditorium-style seating is provided . Under this scenario, which has been previously suggested to the applicant. the request iS reduced in scope to simply an addition of 418 square feet. No change in use iS involved except for the ancillary use of limited entertainment. and the restaurant use would be continued. Although a parking deficiency of 67 spaces still needs to be addressed, it is actually less than the existing overall deficiency of both 1014 and 1018 Hermosa Avenue of 68 spaces. Staff therefore believes that findings can be made for a parking plan under the following conditions: ( 1) the applicant enter into the validation program with the VPD and advertise this to patrons; (2) utilize valet parking on the roof parking deck to maximize customer parking and advertise that valet parking will be available; (3) restrict seating in the cafe to full-size restaurant tables for the serving of dinner, and no auditorium-style seating would be allowed; (4) limit entertainment in the cafe to stand-up comedy or non-amplified music, such as piano or acoustic guitar: and (5) prohibit scheduled performances. Under these conditions, staff felt the findings to allow a reduced number of parking spaces can be made because the valet system would provide for a portion of the deficiency. and the use is such that it does not increase parking demand over what ts currently allowed: i.e., a restaurant. Staff has focused on the parking concerns because it was their opinion that other concerns related to the expansion, such as noise, would not be a significant problem. The notse concern will be addressed by a standard condition to conform to the noise ordinance and an additional condition that the building's acoustics be satisfactorily designed, as well as existing conditions relating to the closing of doors and windows during petformances of any type. The above conditions, and all previous conditions, are included in the proposed resolution. Staff believes the modifications and added conditions noted allow the business to be expanded without a significant impact on the surroundings. Section 209 of Section 7-1. 7 of the Municipal Code requires Planning Commission approval of "a building or structure of an unusual or unorthodox architectural design." As depicted on the proposed elevations, the applicant ts proposing a structure with the appearance of a top hat and cane. Staff believes that this building design needs to be considered by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the surroundings. Existing signs and the current building theme would seem to be adequate to capture the attention of passers-by. Staff continued by stating that there is an alternative if the applicant wtshes to create a second assembly-type use on the property with dancing and scheduled petfonnances, in that perhaps a contribution of an in-Ueu fee to the VPD could be considered to compensate for the deficient 3 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 parking spaces. In staff's judgment, this would be the only way that additional assembly uses could be justified. Public Hearing opened at 7: 14 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Mike Lacey, 94 Strawbeny Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, applicant, addressed the Comm1ss1on and: (1) displayed a rendering of his proposed plan to create a top hat and cane building, explaining that there will be a glass atrium roof with a magic wand projecting from it; (2) discussed the parking situation and said that his building is in the Vehicle Parking District and explained that no parking was required at all when he opened the club. but there were 35 spaces; (3) explained that there has been a restaurant on the comer from the very beginning; (4) said that he proposes to enclose the outside dining area, which is already zoned for dining; (5) stressed that he does not intend to increase the seating capacity of either the front bar/cafe as it exists or the existing restaurant; (6) said that he is not adding even one more person to the already existing occupancy load, but he will be adding five more parking spaces. Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) discussed the staff-proposed parking recommendations, stating that the cost of the validation program is prohibitive and would cost him $72,000 per year; (2) said that his customers never complain about a parking problem; (3) said that it would be difficult to have to hire someone to validate the parking, and it is also difficult to determine when customers will leave and need to be validated; (4) discussed valet parking on the roof and said that stacked parking is not feasible, and he continued by explaining that the very narrow alley would need to be used; (5) said that the valet parking would create more problems than it would help; (6) said that valet parking on the roof would cause the business as well as the neighbors problems. Mr. Lacey went on and: (1) said that he does not want an auditorium-style seating arrangement: (2) said that he merely wants to enclose the outdoor dining area: (3) discussed the customer flow within the establishment and said he wants to tie the two areas together: (4) discussed the entertainment provided and said he does not want to disturb his current clientele; (5) noted that he has worked very hard to build the reputation of the club: (6) stressed the importance of his maintaining the good entertainment being provided; (7) stated that he intends to bring back the art of vaudeville, along with tap dancing and music; (8) said that the theme of the cafe would be that of the 20's and 30's: (9) described items he has on display in the business and explained that he intends to provide even more memorabilia: (10) said that he would like to have hand and footprints inside the club, in order to cany out the theme of the 20's and 30's. Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) said he has hired Disney animators to help create the appropriate atmosphere in the club: (2) discussed the dancing, stating that he would like to have small musical groups playing so that people can dance after dinner; (3) discussed the condition stating ·that no cover charge can be used in the cafe and said that it is important for him to maintain as nice a crowd as possible. and in the event the clientele should change, he would like the option to impose a cover charge to keep out undesirables; (4) discussed the condition prohibiting scheduled performances and stated that it is important to schedule acts so that plans can be made and schedules prepared. especially if he starts having dinner shows; (5) again stressed that he does not intend to add any more seating. Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) stated that he would like to serve lunch at the club: (2) stated that a group has been formed in an effort to revitalize the downtown area: (3) stressed the importance of putting money back into the downtown area and trying to obtain a good business mix; (4) hoped that lunch service would bring business people into the area. Mr. Lacey responded to questions from Chmn. Ingell related to the vehicle parking district and: (1) said that the validation program was started to help the merchants; (2) felt that instead of helping, the program would create chaos and take away a lot of funds he has been saving to improve his business and to remodel: (3) said that be firmly believes in putting as much as possible back into the business, and this expansion is very important to his business; (4) noted 4 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /00 that in addition to locals, he gets customers from all over the countcy; (5) stressed that quality improvements need to made in an effort to make this a landmark, and he felt that the Disney audioanimatronics are vital in achieving that goal; (6) again noted that he receives no complaints from customers related to parking prices: (7) said that it is important to draw good businesses to the downtown area; (8) said that over $400,000 a year is generated by parking, and hopefully other businesses will contribute to build parking structures further up the street so there will not be view problems; (9) said that if he helps pay for the parking validation, nothing will be gained; (10) noted that if he ls required to pay for validations, that money will be taken away from the funds generated by the lots. as well as being less money he would be able to spend on the remodeling. Edie Webber, 1201 11th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the request and stated that if all businessmen were like the applicant, the business community would be quite healthy; (2) favored the spirit of what the applicant is attempting to do in his re- creation of the 20's and 30's; (3) stated that the club has put the City on the international map: (4) stated that the applicant has a proven track record and always does what he says he will do; (5) noted that people do not object to paying for parking if they are coming to a nice, clean establishment; (6) said that the top hat is not an assembly-type usage; (7) agreed that the valet parking is not feasible; (8) hoped that the VPD can be rejuvenated in the future, and she continued by discussing past histocy of the validation program stating that it does not seem to work in this city; (9) stated that with the nature of this business, validation would be difficult; (10) urged the Commission to allow the applicant to proceed with this request. Jercy Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored support of this request; (2) said that the City owes a debt of gratitude to the applicant for what he has contributed to the downtown area; (3) said that he favors a revitalization of the downtown area, and approval of this project would be a step toward achieving that goal; (4) urged the Commission to exercise their ability to help this applicant succeed. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (l)said that he frequents the club, and it is a great place; (2) said that the business has been a good neighbor; (3) noted concern over the parking, stating that at any given time, there are 300 guests at the club; (4) at two people per car. there are 150 cars per show, or 300 cars per night; (5) said that the problem with the VPD is that the lots always have signs indicating that they are full; (6) said that the lots fill up, the street parking fills up. and the parking spills over onto the residential streets; (7) said that he has seen people parking at 8th and Monterey and walking to the club; (8) noted, however, that customers of the Comedy and Magic Club are well dressed and well mannered; (9) said that the parking situation must be addressed; (10) noted that his friends cannot find parking when they come to visit; (11) favored approval of the project, however, he felt that the parking problems in the residential area need to be addressed. Leslie Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported approval of the applicant's request: (2) said that she has worked with the applicant in efforts to revitalize the downtown area; (3) stated that parking ls a City-wide problem, not one generated solely by this business; (4) said that whether or not this business is there, there will still be a parking problem; (5) said that the applicant ls a visionacy, and he should be encouraged to continue; (6) said that the applicant ts a very good businessman who brings very desirable people into the City; (7) urged the Commission to help this applicant succeed, noting that it will benefit the entire City. Pat Mitchell, 425 Longfellow. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has done work for the applicant, and Mr. Lacey always demands the highest quality of work available; (2) noted that the side of the street where this business ls located has been steadily improving over the past few months; (3) said that this business ls maintained in a very attractive manner; (4) said that he is always able to find parking in the downtown area; (5) said that this club is clean and a nice place to go; (6) noted that out-of-towners always want to go to the club when they are in town; (7) asked that the Commission do everything possible to help this applicant with his plans. 5 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 Karen McDonough, lOll Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over the parking problems 1n the area, stating that it is already difficult for her to get into her garage: (2) said that her garage ts directly behind the club; (3) said that she has talked to the applicant, and he Is willing to help work out the problem. Mike Lacey again addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed that there is a parking problem: (2) stated that he cannot afford a parking structure: (3) noted the importance of attracting well-run businesses to the downtown area that could hopefully be assessed to provide parking lots: (4) stated that the next time around, the VPD funds must be protected; (5) noted that the key is to attract good, strong businesses who attract good crowds who are willing to pay for the parking so that the funds can go toward building parking structures. Mr. Lacey went on and: (1) strongly favored assessments for parking structures 1n the future: (2) stressed that he does not intend to increase the seating capacity at his business: (3) stated that he does not want to create problems for the neighbors: (4) said that he does not want to let the businesses die, and thereby allow undesirables in, allowing the tax base to die; (5) felt that staff studied these issues veiy hard, however, he does not feel that roof-top valet parking ts viable. Comm. Rue asked whether Mr. Lacey has explored the option of shared parking as a short-term solution to the parking problem, to which Mr. Lacey replied that he is doing evetything he can to solve the problem. He noted, however, that he has not explored the possibility of shared parking. He stated that he would even favor a shuttle service to bring customers in. He noted that parking is a severe problem: however, he does not want the issue to become solely one of parking. He said he will add no additional seating, but he will add five more parking spaces. Mr. Lacey discussed the staff-imposed conditions: (1) said that he favors deletion of Condition No. 18, which would require this business to participate in the VPD validation program: (2) said that he favors deletion of the Condition No. 19, which would require roof-level valet parking; (3) said that he favors deletion of Condition No. 12, which would prohibit dancing: (4) discussed entertainment and said that he would like to have musical performers, and in the past such entertainment has never caused any problems; (5) stressed that his entertainment must be unique, therefore, it is important that he be allowed to have music and tap dancing in an effort to bring back vaudeville; (6) discussed Condition 2(b) and said that it is sometimes necessaiy to impose a cover charge in certain circumstances: (7) discussed Condition 2(b), related to the prohibition of regularly scheduled entertainment and said that it is sometimes necessaiy to have schedules. Mr. Lacey stated that he is willing to abide by all noise regulations in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that staff was under the impression that the applicant wanted customer dancing: however, he said that staff would have no objection to dancing by performers. Mr. Lacey stated that he would like to have both entertainment and customer dancing. He said that if both are approved, it could be reviewed in six months to see whether there are any problems. He noted that the dance area would be veiy small. He said that even though he does not intend to increase the seating, he would like to have dinner shows; therefore, it would be necessaiy to have scheduled performances. Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue asked why staff had concerns related to scheduled entertainment, to which Mr. Schubach replied that people might come in just for the entertainment, thereby creating an assembly-type use, not a restaurant-type use. Comm. Rue noted, however, that dinner service could be required, thereby precluding an assembly-type use. He understood the need to prohibit scheduled shows because of parking; 6 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /00 however, he felt that scheduled performances are necessary in certain instances, and he felt that dinner seIVice could be required to preclude problems. Comm. Rue referred to Condition No. 13: "Comedy/theatrical productions shall be maintained at least 50 percent of the operating time in the main showroom." He asked why that was included. Mr. Schubach clarified that this is an overall CUP, and he noted that an additional condition should be added specifying that this CUP supersedes all previous conditional use permits. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff has no objection to the seIVice of lunches. Comm. Rue discussed residential parking permits and asked whether they could be used in this area, to which Mr. Schubach replied that neighborhoods can request to be included in the parking permit program. Chmn. Ingell agreed with the comments made about the applicant being a visionary. He felt that Mr. Lacey has taken hold of this business in the downtown area and has f1nnly anchored it. He felt that this business is a namesake to the City, and it has contributed a great deal to the City. He felt that this business attracts the best type of people possible to the downtown area. Chmn. Ingell felt that it would be appropriate to allow dancing for six months and then have the use reviewed in six months. He felt that this applicant is an outstanding business operator and should be given a chance to succeed. He agreed that valet roof-top parking would create more problems than it would solve. He also agreed that the validation program would not be appropriate in this case. noting that his customers do not object to paying for parking to attend performances at this business. To make this applicant validate would reduce parking revenues to the lots. He also felt that the applicant can provide quality dancing at this business, and there can be a six-month review. Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that the conditional use permit runs with the land, and caution should be taken in the event this business is ever sold (which he felt is unlikely). Comm. Ketz felt that this business should be allowed to expand, noting that it has been a wonderful asset to the City. She also favored the proposed design. Comm. Rue noted that there is excitement building among downtown businesses related to the VPD. He felt that this project is an anchor in the City, and he strongly favored the top hat design, especially since the sad demise of the Brown Derby. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-62, with the following changes: (1) Condition 2(a) shall be modified to read: "Entertainment shall be permitted only as an ancillary use to the restaurant use with performances limited to stand-up comedy, magic acts, acoustic music, or entertainment dancing; (2) Condition 2(b) shall be deleted; (3) Conditions 12, 18, and 19 shall be deleted, however, Condition No. 19(a) shall specify that five parking spaces will be added that do not require the use of a valet parking system; (4) a condition shall be added stating that this conditional use permit supersedes all previous CUPs: and (5) a condition shall be added specifying there shall be a six-month review of this conditional use permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce Recess taken from 8: 15 P.M. until 8:20 P.M. 7 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 CUP 90-20/PARK 90-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY WITH RETAIL AT 1106 HERMOSA AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff re_port dated July 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use permit and parking plan. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution and to adopt a mitigated envtronmental negative declaration. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is vacant: it was previously a snack and gift shop. The lot size is 4000 square feet. There are two unimproved parking spaces. The total building floor area is 3200 square feet. The City Council, on January 23, 1990, amended the zoning ordinance to add health and fitness facilities as a permitted use in the C-2 zone, subject to a conditional use permit. Also, parking requirements were added to require one parking space per 50 square feet of floor area for exercise classes and/or one parking space per 100 square feet of floor area used for gymnasium-type weight lifting and weight training facilities. This amendment was onginally initiated by the applicant. On July 5, 1990, the staff envtronmental review committee recommended a mitigated negative declaration with the following mitigation measures to deal with the parking deficiency: (1) limit hours of operation to avoid peak parking periods: (2) require employees to park off-site in the VPD parking lot: (3) utilize the VPD validation system: (4) provide bike racks; and (5) prohibit group classes. The committee also found that certain f ea tu res of the proposed business and the location might justify a parking deficiency. First, the nature of the proposed business as a health and fitness facility oriented to local clientele will result in a high percentage of walkers and bicycle riders. Secondly. the previous use , although it was last occupied two years ago, involved retail and food seivice. And, finally, the proposal also involves using a portion of the space for retail sales. The applicant is requesting t o utilize 2400 square feet of the lease space for weight training and the remaining 800 square feet for retail sales of weight training equipment. The 3200 square-foot building, which could be used for retail or office purposes without any special approval, is currently nonconforming to parking. Thirteen parking spaces are required under current zoning, and although there is room for two cars to parallel park off the alley, this area is not improved for parking. Therefore, since no paved parking is available, the existing deficiency is the full 13 spaces. The parking requirement for the proposed use would be 28 parking spaces. For the Planning Commission to approve this request, a finding would have to be made consistent with Section 1169 of the zoning ordinance. In this case, a finding would have to be made that unique f ea tu res of the proposed business, as well as the hours of operation, and the amount of bicycle and foot traffic justify allowing a greater parking deficiency. In addition, the site must be improved to provide the maximum amount of off-street parking that is possible. The applicant submitted a letter indicating the limits on the hours of operation would be acce_ptable to him. The business would be open from 5:30 AM. to 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday: 5:30 AM. to 6:00 P.M. on Fridays: 7:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M. on weekends, with allowance for private training only from 6:00 P .M . to 8:30 P.M. on Fridays. 8 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 These hours generally avoid the peak times for parking in the downtown area, and it would be expected that the heaviest use of the facility would be in the morning hours and the late afternoon. In staff's judgment. these times avoid the worst times for parking in the surrounding street parking and in the public parking lot which is generally weekend nights and midday on weekends during the summer. However, the proposed weekday hours would extend too late and conflict with the busy nighttime use of the area for entertainment and restaurants. Therefore. staff recommended that the hours of operation end at 7:30 P.M. on Monday through Thursday, with allowance only for individually-superviSed training until 9:30. With these restrictions, it clearly distinguishes this use from, for example, a restaurant use which peaks at the same time as the existing peak uses which are restaurants, bars, and the Comedy and Magic Club. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that a bike rack will be provided inside the building to encourage bike riders. Also, in statrs judgment. this type of use. which is oriented to local users and attracts those interested in physical fitness. would have a high percentage of local users who would walk or ride their bicycles. In regard to off-street parking, the rear of the building facing the alley is setback over 20 feet from the alley. However, a rear patio area is located behind the building at a significantly lower grade than the alley. This leaves an area only about ten feet deep for the parking of two cars in a parallel manner. The area is currently unimproved sandy soil. The applicant has indicated that up to six spaces can be provided in the back. However, there is only room, at the most. for five eight-foot wide spaces. In order to provide the parking in the rear, the patio would either have to be filled in, or perhaps a platform provided to park cars over the patio. Since the applicant is asking for approval of a reduction in required parking, staff felt that it is appropriate to require that the maximum amount of parking be provided on the site. Therefore, staff is including a condition that the rear of the site be improved to provide a minimum of 18 feet in depth for the full width of the lot to support five eight-foot wide parking spaces for customer parking. These improvements would have to be made prior to occupancy of the building. Staff felt that the proposed use is unique in terms of its impact on parking and could therefore be deemed to be similar to the impact a retail establishment would create. In that sense. the existing nonconforming parking situation would not be made any worse. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Shane McColgan, 1155 17th Street. applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has been promoting health and fitness in the City for four years. and he hopes t o continue; (2) said that everything in the staff report is fine; however, he discussed the hours of operation and stated that it would be detrimental for him to close at 7:30 P.M. during the wee~ (3) said that he would like to stay open until 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday and until 6:00 P.M. on Friday through Saturday: (4) explained that most businesses of this type are open until 10:00 or 11:00 P.M.; (5) said that he would like to have private training after the 6:00 P.M. closing on the weekend; (6) stressed that this project has been very time consuming and expensive, and it is necessary for him to remain open longer to meet his expenses. Mr. Mccolgan continued and: (1) stated that the longer hours would have no detrimental impact on the parking because almost everyone walks or rides a bike to the business: (2) noted that he will be providing bike racks at the business; (3) said that in the back of the building there is a potential for five spaces, noting that he was initially mistaken that there were six spaces: (4) said that he has an agreement with the building owner to provide that parking; (5) 9 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 asked if he could have extended time to build the parking deck, noting that it will be very expensive; (6) stated that he has many supporters of this project. Comm. Rue asked how many people will be training at the club, noting that his interest relates to the parking issue and the hours of operation. Mr. Mccolgan said that the staff environmental review committee recommended that there be 28 spaces; however, he did not feel that 28 spaces are necessary because he will not have 28 people using them at one time. He said that this use will be one of personal training. He said that there will be no aerobics or group training. Comm. Rue asked whether there is a completion date for the parking structure, to which Mr. McColgan responded that he would like to open before the structure is finished. He hoped, however, that it will be completed in six months to a year. Mr. Mccolgan stated that he will encourage his trainers to park in the 12-hour parking area between Valley and Ardmore; however, he will not validate for employees. He stated that he will ensure they do park in that area, or encourage them to walk, bike, or run to work. He stated that he would be willing to pay for employee VPD parking in the event employees are found to be parking in the residential areas. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) voiced support for approval of this project: (2) supported extended hours for this business: (3) said that people like to exercise after work. and the extended hours are necessary in order to accommodate working people: (4) said that this business does not serve alcohol and therefore should not have to close early in order to provide parking for alcohol-related establishments; (5) said that this is a good business and will provide exercise services for many people: (6) felt that this is a good healthy business for the community; (7) urged the Commission to give the applicant a chance to operate this business Shelly Rocker, 1215 Monterey. addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke in favor of the proposed business: (2) said that health and physical fitness is a positive influence in the City; (3) said that there is a need for such a business in the City; (4) said that this business is busiest at a time when there is the least parking demand; (5) said that many people will walk or bike to the gym: (6) stated that the benefits of the business are far greater than the minute possibility of adding to the parking problem. Gene Chavez, 815 Havana. addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke in support of the proposed business; (2) noted the strong determination of the applicant: (3) said that this business will be of benefit to the City; (4) stated that all beach cities have a parking problem; (5) said that he does not get away from his job until sometimes after 7:00 P.M.: (6) said that no one complains about parking at this business. as most people walk or bike to the gym. Fernando Amas, 1242 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported approval of the project: (2) said that most people will walk or bike to the gym and will not create a parking problem; (3) said that this business will be of benefit to the City; (4) noted that the building has been empty for many years, and this business will be an asset; (5) asked that the Commission give this applicant a chance. John Warren, 1120 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he is the landlord of this property; (2) explained that he has parking spaces behind his business, which the applicant could use after 7:00 or 7:30 P.M .: (3) noted that the dry cleaners could also let him use two or three spaces after a certain time; (4) said that the applicant could use these spaces until such time that he can build the parking structure: (5) further noted that he would be willing to take out a loan on this building in order to help Mr. McColgan build the parking structure. P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 Mr. Warren continued and: (1) urged that the applicant be allowed to remain open until at least 9:30 P.M.; (2) noted that many other gyms remain open until 11:30 or even midnight; (3) suggested that he be allowed to stay open until 9:30 for six months, at which time the use could be reviewed; ( 4) said that if problems are discovered, the hours of operation could then be addressed at the review: (5) stressed that the City needs a gym and longer hours are necessary to accommodate the people who will go to the business. Mr. Warren went on and: (1) said that this building was kept vacant until a good business. could be found; (2) stated that he no longer wants the building to be vacant; (3) said that this applicant will def1nltely improve the area; ( 4) noted that the applicant has staying power by virtue of the fact he has endured almost two years of City formalities: (5) urged the Commission t o give this applicant a chance to stay open until at least 9:30 P.M.; (6) voiced confidence in the applicant's ability to remain and be successful in this business; (7) stated that if there are no problems with the business staying open until 9:30, the applicant should be allowed to remain open even longer; (8) stated that this is an ideal location for a gym. Mr. Nafissi, 1048 Hermosa Avenue, operator of the dry cleaners, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that there is a parking space which he would be happy to let the applicant use after 7:00 P.M., which is when he closes: (2) said that the building needs to be improved, and he is confident that the applicant will be an asset: (3) clarified that there are two spaces behind his store, but one of the spaces belongs to the optical shop, which is closed on Wednesday; (4) stated that the applicant can probably also use that space after 7:00 P.M. Linda Kasner, 950 17th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that it is important that a building which has been an eyesore in the City be put to good use: (2) felt that a gym would be an asset to the City: (3) stated that it would be convenient to walk or bike to the gym; (4) said that the gym would be a great addition to the City and would be beneficial to the downtown area. Sue Lockridge, 37 9th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that at no time are there parking problems at this business: (2) said that most people walk or bike to the gym: (3) was very much in favor of clearung up the downtown area: (4) favored cleanlng up a building which has been an eyesore: (5) favored the addition of a health-oriente~ business in the downtown area. Larry Tavari, 86 16th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that some young blood is necessary in the community; (2) stated that new people are necessary to drive the businesses and provide some parking structures in the City. Brian Yasui, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored extended hours for the business; (2) said that extended hours are necessary for the applicant to make ends meet. Greg Jones addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the City should help businesses which have a positive effect on the City; (2) stated that the applicant's expertise of this use is vast: (3) said that the gym will be very professional and help people be more physically fit: (4) wholeheartedly supported approval of this business: (5) felt that the business should be allowed to stay open until at least 9:30. Public Hearing closed at 8:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Ketz felt it would be economically detrimental to require this applicant to close at 7:30 P.M. She did not feel there would be a great impact on the parking if the business were allowed to stay open until 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday. Chmn. Ingell commended Mr. Mccolgan for his endurance. He discussed the hours of operation and stated that if the use can be justified and there are no parking problems created by this use, there should not be limitations on the hours of operation. He stated that he has no problem with allowing the business to stay open until 11 :00. He felt that this will be a good 11 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 .. business for the area. and the owner needs every opportunity available to succeed. He also noted that working people need longer hours in order to go after work. He stated that if there iS a problem with staying open until I 1:00 P.M .. seven days a week, the matter could be reviewed. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the hours of operation were based upon the parking need in the downtown area on weekend nights. Chmn. Ingell felt that most people will walk or bike to this business. He felt that allowing this business to have what the competition has will help it to be competitive and to succeed. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that the hours in the resolution were the hours proposed by the applicant: however, he assumed that the applicant would be happy to have extended hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell stated that most of the customers would probably walk or bike to the gym. In regard to the number of spaces required for the parking plan, he suggested that the applicant keep a record of how hiS customers arrive which could be presented at the six-month review. In this way, if there is proof of how the customers arrived, there can be Justification as to why these hours were allowed. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-63, with the following change: (1) Condition No. I shall be modified to state that the hours of operation shall be from 5:30 AM. until I 1:00 P.M. Comm. Rue suggested adding a condition related to imposing a time limit on the completion of the parking structure before a final building permit is issued. Mr. Warren stated that they will make every effort to complete the parking structure in six months; however, he requested that the time limit be one year. He stated that he can provide two spaces after 7:00 P.M. and one space after 7:30 P.M., and the dry cleaner operator can let him use two spaces after 7:30 P.M .. for a total of five spaces. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Ketz as second, to require that the parking plan be completed by Memorial Day of 1991. Further. to require proof that the applicant can use the five spaces as proposed by Mr. Warren, the landlord, until such time that the parking structure is completed. Also, to add a condition requiring a six-month review of the project. Further, if necessary at the six-month review, an extension could be granted for completion of the parking structure so long as the five parking spaces are being provided. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce SS 90-5 -SPECIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD INSTALLATION OF CAR STEREO AND CAR ALARMS WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO C-3 PERMITTED USE LIST AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 1, 1990. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending amending the permitted use list in the C-3 zone to include "automobile audio equipment sales, installation, and/or repair" and "automobile alarm sales, installation, and/ or repair" only with a conditional use permit. At the June 19, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to set this matter for public hearing as soon as possible. 12 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 This issue was initially brought to the attention of the City from concerns noted by Mr. Sullivan in regard to the nuisances being created by a nearby alarm installation business. Currently, car stereo/alarm installers are operating in the City with business licenses. These businesses were granted approval under the general category of "automobile parts and accessories --retail sales" when it was acceptable to allow uses which were generally similar. Obviously, as noted by Mr. Sullivan, the installation of alarms and stereos can cause a severe nuisance to neighboring residents and businesses. especially with the advent of new technology and the popularity of alarms and stereos with high noise volumes, such as boom boxes. In staffs judgment, these types of installations should be regulated and should be limited to the C-3 zone. Staff felt that a separate category ts appropriate for purposes of clarification and also would include all such installation uses under one specific category whether or not they are a primary or secondary use. Secondly, the CUP review process would mean that such activities would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission in regard to such important concerns as the proximity of residential uses, whether or not the installation and testing would be conducted inside, and the hours of operation. Standard conditions of approval, such as prohibiting the manufacturing of boom boxes outdoors, could also be imposed. It was noted that the existing businesses with auto stereo/alarm installation activities will be subject to CUP review under the recently adopted amortization ordinance within two years of notice if this text amendment is adopted by the City. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:08 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission has discussed this issue in the past. and it is something which needs to be done. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-66, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce TEXT 90-5 -TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COMMERCIAL ZONES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 30, 1990. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending approval of outdoor display. At the June 2, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission determined that outdoor display of merchandise was prohibited by Section 8-5(2) of the zoning ordinance. At the meeting of June 26, 1990, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission re- examine allowing outdoor displays on private property. Staff had previously brought this matter to the Planning Commission's attention because of the increasing number of downtown merchants who were displaying merchandise outdoors. The downtown area had taken on a swap meet appearance, and the City was receiving complaints. 13 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 Several factors should be considered in relation to outdoor display. A distinction should be drawn between "display" and "activity"; i.e., the selling of merchandise outdoors versus displaying it. Also, the type, quantity, size, permanency, and location of outdoor display should be examined. Large quantities of displayed items encroaching into the required parking area would not be desirable. The display of "adult" or similar items would also be undesirable; e.g., mannequins dressed in lingerie. Also, for example, a large inflated object left continuously on display may constitute a prohibited type of sign. Finally, the general appearance of the display should be considered. It should be attractively organized and not be excessively large. Staff has attempted to consider the above factors in preparing the proposed resolution. Comm. Ketz asked several questions about whether downtown properties can go right to the property line in their displays, to which Mr. Schubach replied that this issue relates to private property. Chmn. Ingell, noting the importance of this issue, stated that he would favor continuing this item to a meeting when all Commissioners are present and can contribute to the discussion. Public Hearing opened at 9: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that this use has been allowed in Berkeley and the area has become quite unsavory, making the area look like a junkyard; (2) urged that the Commission proceed with caution on this matter, noting that such a use can be very unattractive and conducive to stealing; (3) stated that outdoor displays look very junky: (4) stated that such a use would be of benefit to no one in the City. Public Hearing continued at 9: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chmn. Ingell, noting the importance of this issue, ag&in suggested that this issue be continued so that the full Commission can participate in the discussion. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding what other cities allow such a use, stated that such use is very limited. He stated that it is a use mostly allowed in shopping centers: however, Hermosa Beach differs from most other cities. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of September 4, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce INTERPRETATION OF C·3 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST "AUTO SALES AND PARTS" TO INCLUDE "MOTORCYCLE SALES AND PARTS" AS ONE IN THE SAME Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31, 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct staff to consider motorcycle sales and parts the same as auto sales and parts sales. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative: to set this matter for public hearing as a text amendment to add to the permitted use list or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list. At the July 17, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission continued the CUP for motorcycle sales and repair to the meeting of August 21, 1990. The applicant desires to start parts sales 14 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 immediately, and therefore needs an interpretation: parts sales do not require a conditional use pennit. Since the zoning ordinance permits motorcycle repair with a CUP and also auto sales and auto parts sales, staff, including the City Attorney, has questioned whether motorcycles are too closely related to warrant a text amendment which generally is necessary to add a new permitted use to the list. The permitted use, "motorcycle repair," is likely to be the most intensive between "sales," "parts," and "repair," and therefore would seem to dictate that auto parts and auto sales have little or no distinction to motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales. Further, motorcycle parts must be sold in conjunction with motorcycle repair and is therefore an ancillary use. The biggest distinction seems to be that motorcycle sales and parts sales may generate indirectly, via customers, more noise. However. motorcycle repair would invariably generate equal amounts of noise. If motorcycle sales and parts sales are not the same as auto sales and parts sales, then possibly motorcycle repair via a text amendment should be eliminated from the pennitted use list. In any case, no use can violate the City's noise ordinance directly or indirectly by customers or others. However, to allow uses which will obviously result in noise violations and therefore public disturbances resulting in police problems should be carefully examined and possibly not permitted. The reason for a permitted use list is to allow only desirable types of businesses into the community. If the Planning Commission determines that auto sales and parts sales are not the same as motorcycle sales and parts sales, a text amendment to consider adding these uses to the permitted use list or removing motorcycle repair is warranted. Chmn. Ingell noted that this matter was heard at the last meeting, and that hearing was continued until August 21, 1990, because there was a question related to the very item being considered this evening. He asked why that item was therefore placed on this agenda. Mr. Schubach explained that motorcycle parts sales, if considered to be the same as automobile parts sales, does not need a conditional use permit. He explained that the applicant would like to begin selling motorcycle parts at this time, rather than waiting for the other issues to be addressed at the next meeting. He clarified that motorcycle sales and repairs do need a CUP; however, vehicle parts sales do not need to be included 1n the CUP. He noted, therefore, that it is necessary to have an interpretation as to whether "vehicle parts" includes both automobile and motorcycle parts. He did note that "parts" sales are included in the permitted use list. Chmn. Ingell recollected that this was a question at the last meeting, and the purpose of continuing that hearing was to address this issue and make a determination. Mr. Schubach stated that since this particular item does not require a public hearing, staff felt that the matter could be heard before the Commission at this time. Hearing opened at 9:24 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue. Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the CommiSsion and: (1) stated that the main issue is to determine whether automobile parts and motorcycle parts are the same thing; (2) showed several parts, some of which were for autos and some of which were for motorcycles, and explained that the average person cannot tell which ts for which; (3) said that the concept relates to whether one can sell parts which make a ''vehicle " run; (4) said that parts are parts, and the applicant should be able to sell the motorcycle parts: (5) explained that the applicant would like to begin sales of motorcycle parts; (6) gave 15 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 background inf onnation on this particular business; (7) stated that the applicant is battling the public's misconception of what the average motorcycle owner is like; (8) said that this applicant is very serious about the business, and he would like an opportunity to do business: (9) discussed his concept of the conditional use permit process: and (10) said that approval of thiS request would be a way for the City to determine the type of customer who will come to the business when the time comes for the Commission to address the conditional use permit request. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he is a Harley- Davidson rider, and it is difficult for him to obtain parts because all of the stores are quite a distance away, (2) said that many Harley riders are in the neighborhood, and they are very good citizens; (3) said that the business will be a real asset to the City, and the sale of parts would be very beneficial; (4) supported approval of the request to begin parts sales. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed the shop because of noise and traffic; (2) stated that more people would be present if they were aware of this hearing; therefore, he suggested that this item be continued so that more people have an opportunity to give testimony on this matter. Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn Ingell. Comm. Rue said that at the last meeting, noise seemed to be the main issue of concern; however, he noted that no one appeared to speak on this item tonight. He stated that. from the materials presented, he would be unable to make a decision on this matter at this time. He noted that he would be absent from the next meeting and would be unable to participate at that time. Comm. Ketz stated that this is a bigger issue than merely an interpretation. She felt that, at the very least. it should be a text amendment With a full public hearing since it will affect many people in the City. She noted that this interpretation was not even advertised; therefore, she felt it would be appropriate to continue this item. Chmn. Ingell, although he could emphasize With the applicant's desire to begin selling parts, did not feel that this item should even be before the Commission at this time. He noted that the matter was previously continued to a date certain; people were unaware that this would be on the agenda tonight; and he felt it would be appropriate to continue it so that people have an opportunity to speak on the matter. Chmn. Ingell, acknowledging that Comm. Rue will be absent from the next meeting, stated that the Commission needs to make a final decision at that time. He did not feel it would be in the applicant's best interests to again continue this item. He stressed that all matters related to this business should be heard at the same time. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the meeting of August 21, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce RESCISSION OF THE APPROVAL OF A NEW ELECTRONIC MARQUEE AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER Chmn. Ingell, noting that he abstained from discussion on this matter the last time it was heard, stated that he would again abstain. He noted, however, that a quorum was not present because of his abstention; and he stated that the matter should be continued to the next meeting, August 21, 1990. 16 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO STUDY A TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIDEYARD EXCEPTION, Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 2, 1990. He suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to s t udy and schedule public hearings for this amendment, and to conduct environmental assessments by adoption of the proposed resolution of intent. Hearing opened at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to whether or not this item is in the housing element, to which Mr. Schubach explained that this issue is generally directed toward new development; (2) commented on the dimensions of sideyards, and noted concern that they are being made too narrow: (3) asked what the intention is related to this proposed text amendment: (4) felt that this should be wrttten more clearly so that people can understand it. Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-67, to direct staff to study and schedule public hearings for this amendment, and to conduct environmental assessments by adoption of the proposed resolution of intent. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: (1) SELECTED GENERAL PLAN/ZONING INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; (2) DRAFT REVISION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT: AND (3) PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN CHANGES REFERRED BY THE CITY COUNCil. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 2, 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct staff to schedule public hearings for the amendments and to conduct environmental assessments. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may consider initiating the general plan amendments. The housing element amendment involves the adoption of the State-mandated 1989 revision to the 1984 housing element, prepared by staff. The staff environmental review committee has recommended an environmental negative declaration for this project. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public workshop on the draft housing element on August 8, 1990. The selected inconsistent areas east of P.C.H. involve three small areas east of the highway which have inconsistent general plan and zoning designations. This is another step in our continuing effort to eliminate all inconsistencies between zoning and the general plan. If these areas are resolved, only four small areas remain. The selected areas to be considered are: (1) the Water Company property east of Prospect between 15th and 17th Streets --designated as open space on the GP map and zoned R-1: (2) eight lots on the west side of Prospect north of Aviation between 1225 and 1255 Prospect -- designated low density residential on the GP map and zoned C-3 with R-3 potential: and (3) 17 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 '. twelve residential lots north of the Prospect Heights school site --designated open space on the general plan and zoned R-1. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan involves the formal adoption of the Parks and Recreation policy document titled "Parks and Recreation Master Plan," prepared by Purkiss- Rose Landscape Architects and Landerman Moore Planning and Economics, as an amendment to the open space element of the general plan. The City Council has referred this back to the Planning Commission with proposed changes. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that this hearing would be scheduled for the first meeting in October. Hearing opened at 9:48 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to the location of the inconsistent areas east of the highway; (2) discussed the proposed parks and recreation master plan changes, and objected to putting in more parking at the North School park, stating that the City only owns part of the land, and the intention was to use the site as a park. Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to schedule the proposed general plan amendments for public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce a) Memorandum Regarding Workshop Meeting Between Planning Commission and Department Heads At the request of the Commission, Mr. Schubach stated that the meeting would be scheduled for September 4, 1990, prior to the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting. b) Planning Department Activity Report for June 1990 The Commissioners were pleased to see that a code enforcement officer has been hired. c) Tentative Future Planning Commission ,A&enda No action taken. d) City Council Minutes of June 26 and July 10. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:57 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 18 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 J • . . ) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning CommJssion of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of ugust 8, 1990. ~/ Date 19 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90