Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_09_04MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCll. CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell . Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Moore. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and asked whether he could comment on the minutes. Chmn. Ingell explained that the consent calendar items are being approved as to form only. Mr. Lee explained that review of the minutes is by the Planning Commission, and it is left to the discretion of the Chairman whether or not to accept comments on the minutes. Comm. Moore stated that it would not be appropriate to accept testimony from the public on the minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the following consent calendar items: Minutes of August 21, 1990; Policy Statement P.C. 90-1, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INTERPRETING THAT MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARrS RETAIL SALES ARE DISTINCT FROM AUTO SALES AND AUTO PARrS SALES; Resolution P.C. 90-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CllY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MOTORCYCLE REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, DESCRIBED AS LOT 18 AND PORTION OF 19, WILSON AND LIND 'S TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE APPROVED SIGN WAIVER FOR THE COMMUNI1Y CENTER ELECTRONIC MARQUEE; Resolution P.C. 90-67, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CllY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA , AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PORfABLE CLASSROOM (RESOLUTION P.C. 90-36) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE-FOOT HIGH FENCE TO REPI.ACE AN EXISTING SIX- FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-5 INCLUSIVE, 7, 8, AND 21-40 INCLUSIVE, HERMOSA HEIGIITS TRACT; 1 P.C. Minutes 9/ 4/90 Resolution P.C. 90-68, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21943 FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 588 2CYm STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TIIE NORrHWESTERLY 133 FEET BY 120. 75 PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDIDON TO HERMOSA BEACH; Resolution P.C. 90-69, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND OUTSIDE DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT, TO ALLOW A SEPARATE RETAIL BUSINESS WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 203 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK 3, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue None Chmn. Ingell None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked for clarification on the policy related to automatic vacancies on the Commission. He also noted that Comm. Moore is still on the Commission, and he asked when that position would be filled. Comm. Peirce stated that the Council has allowed Comm. Moore to continue serving on the Commission until such time that someone is appointed to fill the position. Mr. Lee explained the policy, concurring that a Commissioner can continue serving until the vacancy is filled. Comm. Moore stated that when he accepted the assignment, he was under the impression that there could be four absences per year; however, only three absences are allowed, and the fourth absence creates a vacancy. CUP 90-5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE. GOLDEN LION LIQUOR (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 5. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be continued to a specific date. This request was continued by the Planning Commission based on the advice of the City Attorney. This was because of the need to assess the impact of a recent court decision which appeared to significantly limit municipal authority to regulate alcohol establishments. The City Attorney indicated that he has contacted the City of Los Angeles, the defendant in the case, which does not plan to appeal the decision. As such, the court's decision may set a precedent which will limit the ability to enforce controls on alcohol establishments. Assistant City Attorney Lee advised that this item should be continued to give his office adequate time to assess the latest information in regard to the Los Angeles case and to obtain clear policy direction from the City Council in light of the potential legal problems associated with regulating alcohol establishments. Mr. Schubach suggested that this item be continued to the meeting of September 18, 1990. 2 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this item to the meeting of September 18, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None CUP 90-14 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON•SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1433 HERMOSA AVENUE, J.B. BURGERS (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 17. 1990) Mr. Schubach stated that this item has the same report as that given for the previous hearing, and he recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of September 18, 1990. Public Hearing opened at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Constantine Farmans, 3812 Sepulveda, Torrance, attorney representing the applicant, John Bokolas, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicant objects to a further continuance of this item; (2) asked that the Commission consider this application on its merits at this time: (3) said that there is doubt that a municipal body has the right to regulate this type of license: (4) was surprised that staff initially recommended denial of this request, based on the fact that the applicant has operated this business for 15 years, he has the right to sell beer and wine in connection with the operation of a restaurant, there is no bar or television, the business closes at 10:00 P.M., and there is adequate parking; (5) said that there is no reason for the City to fear granting this request. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, concurred with staffs recommendation to deny this request until such time that the City does a thorough study on the ramifications of allowing additional liquor outlets in the downtown area. He felt that it would be appropriate to study additional methods of controlling such establishments. Public Hearing continued at 7: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this item to the meeting of September 18, 1990. Comm. Rue stated that it is prudent for the Commission to follow the advise of the City Attorney in this matter. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm Moore, explained that his office is awaiting additional information related to the Los Angeles case and the issue of preemption which could substantially limit the types of conditions imposed by municipalities in regard to alcohol sales. He stated that additional information will be available by the next meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 3 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 TEXT 90·5 -TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COMMERCIAL ZONES (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF AUGUST 7. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 30, 1990, and stated that staff recommended approval of the proposed resolution recommending the approval of outdoor display. At the June 2, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Cormnission 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. Several factors should be considered in relation to outdoor display. A distinction should be drawn between "display" and "activity," that is, 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, such as a mannequin 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 attempted to take into consideration all of these factors in their preparation of the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach continued by reiterating each of the conditions as specified in the resolution. Cormn. Rue asked whether approval of this text amendment would preclude outdoor sidewalk sales. He questioned whether the Chamber of Commerce would have any objection to this. Mr. Schubach explained that adoption of the text amendment would not prohibit outdoor sidewalk sales, stating that the zoning ordinance does not have a provision which allows outdoor sales on public property. He stated that the public rights-of-way are under the purview of the Community Resources Department and the Public Works municipal code sections. He said that permits for outdoor sales are obtained from the Community Resources Department. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Moore related to the policies of other cities, explained that most cities do not allow outdoor displays. He noted, however, that he has seen in the City such displays as T-shirts hanging outside, jewelry pinned to display boards, and in one case a giant trash can on display. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions about how this matter came about, explained that a request was received from a downtown merchant to allow outdoor displays on his own property. Mr. Schubach explained that most cities allow outdoor displays only of outdoor-type items. such as cars and Christmas trees. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that he feels the City can enforce the proposed regulations. He said that there is an interest among some businesses to allow such displays because they feel it would improve business. 4 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 Comm. Moore asked whether the City would have a chance to talce action tf this is approved and unsJghtly displays begin occurring all over the City. He noted that staff has only spent limited time thinking about the ramifications of allowing outdoor diSplays. Mr. Schubach noted that the City is always able to amend the ordinance should unforeseen problems arise in the future. Comm. Moore favored helping businesses improve; however, he noted that problems could occur with allowing outdoor displays. He wanted to feel confident that the displays could be controlled and limited 1f things got out of hand. Public Hearing opened at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) was concerned that the Council even suggested that this iSsue be studied; (2) said that approval of this text amendment will open a Pandora's box; (3) did not feel that outdoor displays are appropriate: (4) felt that the wording is not clear enough, and questioned what constitutes an "attractive" display: (5) noted concern that displays on private property will begin creeping out onto public property; (6) felt that the City's manpower could be better utilized in other areas; (7) could see no reason to allow such a practice in this City. Public Hearing closed at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce questioned why the City would want to allow this, noting that outdoor displays will create a more cluttered, honky-tonk atmosphere in the downtown area. He was not convinced that approval would be in the best interest of the City. Comm. Ketz agreed that approval would not be in the best interest of the City. She noted that the City is attempting to limit signs, and she questioned how outdoor displays could be controlled and limited. She did not feel that such displays would in any way improve the appearance of the downtown area. Comm. Peirce could see no good coming out of approval, other than being of benefit to one or two businesses in town. He could see no reason to approve this amendment. Chmn. Ingell felt that a better way to attract business 1S to create more attractive shop fronts, and he did not feel that outdoor displays would be of any benefit MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reject the proposed text amendment, Resolution P.C. 90-64, based on the following findings: (1) outdoor displays would detract from the general attractiveness of the commercial area: (2) such a practice would be difficult to enforce and would be costly to the City; (3) no cogent argument has been presented to convince the Commission that approval of said text amendment would be beneficial to the City; and (4) no input has been received from the business community related to this proposal. Comm. Moore, noting that no argument has been presented showing that this practice is necessary, stated that at this time he could see no reason to approve the amendment. He noted, however, that the Commission does not appear to be adamantly opposed to approval; it is just necessary that a better argument be presented det ailing why such a practice would be beneficial to the City. Chmn. Ingell stated that it would have been helpful to have had input from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Schubach suggested that additional restrictions be added to the resolution. He also suggested that such use could be allowed by a conditional use permit. 5 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that the Commission had heard no great demand from the public indicating that this text amendment is necessary. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None TmRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS SS 89·13 •• PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) Mary Rooney, Director of the Department of Community Resources presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed revisions to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan so that it may be included as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan. At the meeting of June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan. At their meeting of July 10, 1990, the City Council did not approve the recommendation. Instead they requested that staff review and revise the recommended organizational structure, lighting recommendations, and relationship with the Public Works Department. Council direction with regard to the organizational structure was to use the Department's current structure with only minor changes for the plan. Concerns about lighting recommendations for parks centered around the need for neighborhood input prior to any consideration of added lighting. Concerns about the recommended inclusion of maintenance staff under the Community Resources Department are that due to staff limitations, current crews could not be dedicated solely to recreation facilities, making the transition difficult to coordinate with other City needs. The Community Resources Commission had further concerns regarding the suggestion for expanded parking at Valley Park. The Commissioners were provided with the recommended changes in the Master Plan text that seek to address Council's and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Commission's direction and requests. As this Plan will serve as a guide for the orderly development of Parks and Recreation facilities and programs for the next ten years, Council felt that it was important to maintain a realistic focus in the recommendations so that objectives may be fulfilled with the fiscal resources available. Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-74, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 6 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 GP 90-4 --DRAFT REVISION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the revtsed housing element which covers the 1989-1994 planning period. The revision being considered is the second revtsion to the 1979 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City. Work was begun on this revtsion in early 1989 and the draft being considered has assembled data and information, with the objectives of the community, to produce a housing component to guide the City to 1995. Two workshops were held with the Planning Commission and City Council. The first, on February 15, 1990, was held to review objectives from the 1984 revision and to suggest adding objectives to comply with newly adopted state requirements. The workshop also added specific policies that related directly to actions desired at the local level. The second meeting, August 8, 1990, was for the purpose of review and public input of the completed draft revision. Corrections and changes from the workshop have or will be included in the element. The draft revision has also been revtewed by the City staff and by those interested in the general public. Basically, the revtsion provides updated information from the 1984 revision and the current situation for housing. New policies in the revtsion come mostly from the recognition of local problems. Several new sections have been added to the revtsion as State requirements or emphasis from the City. The completion of the draft revision and the holding of two workshops began the formal review process which will conclude wit h two public hearings. The hearings before the Planning Commission on September 4, 1990, and the City Council on October 9. 1990, end the revtew with the consideration to adopt the revisions as part of the general plan. Mr. Schubach stated that new information had been received today from the State Housing and Community Development Department. In light of this new information, he said that it would be necessary for staff to revise its recommendation based on the new information. He stated that several items in the critique need substantial modification, and he continued by explaining the necessary revtsions. Comm. Rue asked if this matter could be continued for two weeks so that the Commissioners would have a chance to study the new material, to which Mr. Schubach stated that the matter could be continued to September 18 with no problem. Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Comm. Rue stated that he would prefer to continue this item for two weeks so that the Commissioners could see the document in a completed form. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the meeting of September 18, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Recess taken from 7:50 P.M. until 7:55 P.M. 7 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 GP 90-3/ZON 90-3 --GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION/REZONING OF SELECTED INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION: AREA I: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the entire property be rezoned from R-1 to open space. The current general plan designation is open space, with a current zoning of R-1. Total land area is 2.66 acres, with a current use as a water utility. There are two lots. Its general plan designation in 1965 was for utilities; in 1975, open space/water; in 1979, open space/water: and in 1984 open space. In 1925 the site was zoned industrial, and in 1943 it was zoned M-1. It has been zoned R-1 since 1956. The subject property is currently developed with water tanks and a support building and is largely vacant with abundant grass and trees which historically has seived as neighborhood open space. The property is surrounded by R-1 zoned and single-family developed property to the north and west. the City boundary to the east. and R-2B zoned property to the north. Given the current and historic use of the property, staff felt that it can be assumed that the open space designation was more a recognition of the public facility /utility related use of the property rather than a prescription for future park or recreation use. It is therefore more like the open space designation given to the City Hall complex and the Community Center. Nonetheless. these types of areas are scarce in the City and should be protected. Also , given the historic character of this lot. it would not seem appropriate for the development of residences. The Water Company property was not included in the group of open space designated properties that were protected by the initiative vote in 1986 which prevents changes in the open space designation unless by vote of the people. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Terry Tambel, Director of the California Water Service Company, stated that they have no objection to the rezoning of this property to open space. He said that they have no intention of ever selling this _property. since it is necessary for the storage and pumping facility. Richard Halliburton, 1567 Golden Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his is the only property that fronts on the access road for 102 feet: (2) said he has a license to use his driveway over this property: (3) noted that he has talked to the Water Company regarding his possible purchase of his front lawn, and he asked for clarification from staff on the ramifications of the proposed rezoning, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the rezoning would have no impact. other than the area could be used only for open space. Mr. Schubach explained the procedure which would be followed were Mr. Halliburton to purchase the property from the Water Company. Public Hearing closed at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-73, as written. 8 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that this property was not included in the open space initiative and therefore does not need a vote of the people to be changed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None AREA II! WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE BE1WEEN 1225 AND 1255 PROSPECT AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the general plan be amended from low density residential to general commercial for 1235 Prospect and to rezone 1245-1255 Prospect from C-3 to R-1. Area II is currently general plan designated as low density residential and has a current zoning of C-3, with an R-3 potential. The total land area is 1.32 acres, and the current use is a residential and commercial mix. There are six lots ranging in size from 2125 to 2980 square feet. The area's general plan designation in 1965 was high density res idential. In 1975, 1979, and 1984, the designation was low density. Area II was zoned R -1 in 1925; R-2 in 1943; commercial in 1956: C-3 in 1960: and C-3 with R-3 potential in 1978 and 1983. Area II consists of six lots fronting on Prospect Avenue. Two lots are currently used commercially and three lots are residentially developed. The final lot appears to contain a garage and storage building used for storage only. The area is surrounded by low density, R-1 zoned property to the north and west; general commercial, C-3 zoned p roperty t o the south; and gener al commercial, C-3 zoned p roperty across Prospect. The n ortherly limits of this area are a p p roximat ely equiva l ent to the northerly limits of the shopping center across the street. These parcels were zoned commercially at the time of the 1956 comprehensive rezoning probably because of their proximity to the Aviation corridor and to match the depth from Aviation across Prospect. Staff r ecommended that this area be rezoned and general plan amended to a p p r oximately reflect the exis ting land use pattern. The first lot (1235 Prospect) closest to Avi ation ls used commercially and staff therefore recommended a general plan amendment to general commercial. Of the next five lots going northward (1245 to 1255 Prospect) the first one is developed residentially with three units; the second contains a garage and rear storage building wh ich appears to be used in conjunction with the three units, but which may be for c ommercial storage purposes only. The next two lots are Joined together and contain four units, and the n ortherly-most lot is developed with a small office building. Staff recommended a zone change from C-3 to R-1 for these five lots, as the majority use is residential. This will result in the small office building becoming nonconforming, but since it is an isolated commercial use, zoning it R-1 is more appropriate than spot zoning it to a commercial designation. Staff also recommended the elimination of the R-3 potential designation. The residential lots are developed at a higher density than some of the surrounding areas, with seven units on four lots and may be considered inconsistent with a lot density /R-1 designation. 9 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 In staff's judgment, however, because adjacent properties are wned R-1 and the lots are rather small, R-1 is more appropriate than any other alternative. Comm. Rue asked whether general commercial allows auto body shops, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Next to a residential use, it is not the best use; however, with the proper buffering it can be acceptable. Comm. Peirce, noting the size of the lots, stated that even if they were wned R-2, no more than two units could be built. Public Hearing opened at 8:13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Richard Zil.ky, owner of four units at 1251 Prospect, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that this has always been one lot. and since 1965 has always been wned residential; (2) said that it is inconsistent to change from res.idential to low density; (3) said the building has a lot of free space, plenty of parking, and area in the back; (4) said he would be willing to give up his two lot designation if the zoning designation were made higherdensity residential; (5) said that the plan is inconsistent with the current use; (6) said that the City's plan should be changed to correspond with the uses; (7) in response to a request from Chmn. Ingell, gave his opinion on the other surrounding uses. Public Hearing closed at 8: 17 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce discussed the various lots depicted on the map and their sizes. He continued by discussing Mr. Zilky's property in particular and what could be done with it were the zoning changed. Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to look at the other properties on this block, and he continued by discussing the other properties in relation to their zoning. He said that under R-3 zoning, Mr. Zilky would be allowed three units if the lots can be merged. With R-1 wning, there can be one unit per lot. Comm. Moore discussed the various lots as depicted on the map and asked for clarification as to what the uses of the lots are. He noted that there appears to be a variety of uses. He questioned why the recommendation is to take the commercial back through Lot 40. He felt that it would be appropriate to clean up the lots by use, especially along Aviation. He favored residential wning for all the lots on Prospect to Lot 44 and on Corona through Lot 45. Comm. Moore noted the importance of compatibility. Mr. Schubach stated that changes cannot be made at this time, other than those relating to the inconsistencies. He stated that it would be necessary to bring this back if the Commission desires to make other changes. Comm. Peirce suggested that this area be addressed more closely, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the Commission will soon be studying the land use element. at which time it can be discussed whether it is more appropriate to have commercial or residential in this area. Comm. Moore stated that he would hate to make one change tonight, only to have this area come back in the future for another revision. It felt it would be most appropriate to wait so that it can be thoroughly studied and changed properly. Comm. Peirce asked whether the Commission could delay making a decision on this area until such time that it has been more fully studied. Mr. Schubach stated that it has been a priority to eliminate inconsistent general plan areas; however, he said that this area could be continued. 10 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 Comm. Peirce felt it would be appropriate to delay a decision at this time, so that a proper revision could be made in the future. Mr. Schubach therefore suggested that this matter be continued to a date uncertain and that staff be directed to include this area in consideration with the revised general plan land use element. Comm. Moore stated that this particular block is critical, in that it is one of the major entry points into the City. It is also a veritable hodgepodge in its uses. He stressed that this is a key block and he therefore favored attractive development and further study. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this item to a date uncertain and to direct staff to include this area in conjunction with the revised general plan land use element. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None AREA m: BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE {435-453 HOLLOWELL AVENUE AND 436-508 GENTRY STREET) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the general plan for this area be amended from open space to low density. Area III is currently general plan designated as open space, with a current zoning of R-1. The total land area is 30,000 square feet. The current use is single-family residential. and there are 12 lots of 2500 square feet. In 1965 this area was general plan designated as institutional/school; in 1975 and 1979, open space/school; and in 1984, open space. Area III was zoned R-1 in 1925; R-2 in 1943, 1945, and 1960; and in 1978 and 1983 it was unclassified. The subject lots were developed with single-family homes in 1985 pursuant to the City's ordinance that unclassified property be treated as R-1. The surrounding area is zoned R-1 and developed with primarily single-family residential dwellings. The adjacent property to the south is the remaining portion of the Prospect Heights School property which is zoned open space. Staffs recommendation to general plan amend the lots to low density would recognize the existing development on the parcels and would be consistent with the surrounding zoning designation. Given that these properties were developed fairly recently and are each owned separately, the current open space general plan designation does not seem appropriate. Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:32 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-70, as written. 11 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None a) Communication Re2ardin2 160 Manhattan Avenue, Bayview Sanitarium (Continued From MeetJni of A.u@st 21, 1990l No action taken. b) Appreciation of Commissioner Moore's Service Chmn. Ingell thanked Comm. Moore for his service, noting that he contributed by presenting different viewpoints on important issues. Comm. Rue stated that Comm. Moore will be missed on the Commission. c) Memorandum Regarding PlannJ.ni Commission Liaison for September 11. 1990, Meeting Mr. Schubach, noting that the Planning Commission's decision to grant a CUP for gas pumps and a car wash at 931 P.C.H. is being appealed to the City Council, stated that staffs recommendation in regard to the number of pumps at the Mobil Station has now changed, in light of the fact that the applicant has not submitted the requested additional information. Staff is therefore now recommending only three pump islands, as opposed to four, at the station. No one will attend as liaison. d) Plannlnt Department Activity Report for July 1990 Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed various transportation issues as related to buses and bus ridership, funding, and subsidies. Comm. Peirce voiced concern over MAX problems. He said that he wants to see more information related to point-to-point routes. He said that there must be development of a ridership plan, and the demands must be determined. Comm. Peirce favored action to get the ball rolling in regard to obtaining information on the buses and the ridership demand. Comm. Moore suggested that a survey be printed in the Easy Reader. He also noted that the Commuter Computer has an extensive database. Chmn. Ingell noted that several studies have already been completed, and he asked that staff provide to the Commission information on what has already been done. e) Tentative Future Planni»a Commission Atenda No action taken. f) City Council Minutes of Aµ&ust 14. 1990 No action taken. 12 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 8:53 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foreg oing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commis sion of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 4, 1990. 13 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90