Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_11_06MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCll. CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Comm. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Petree. RQLLCALL Present: Absent: Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Petree, Rue Chmn. Ingell Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney: Sally White, Recording Secretary Vice Chainnan Ketz acted as Chainnan of the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Chmn. Ketz noted that the minutes from the meeting of September 18, 1990, would be available for approval at the next meeting. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of October 16, 1990, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None Comm.Rue Comm. Ingell MOTION by Comm. Petree, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve the following resolutions as submitted: Resolution P.C. 90-85, A RESOLUTION OF TI-IE PIANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DRIVE-THRU DAIRY TO AILOW A 250 SQUARE FOOT ADDIDON AND TO CHANGE 1HE HOURS OF OPERATION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 205 PIER AVENUE, ALTA DENA DAIRY, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 49, FIRST ADDIDON TO HERMOSA BEACH; Resolution P.C. 90-86. A RESOLUTION OF IBE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO 'IRE REAR YARD SETBACK AND TO AIJ.,()W LESS THAN IBE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AT 40 SEVENTH COURr, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TIIE NORTii 32 FEET OF LOT 20, BLOCK 7, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-87, A RESOUITION OF IBE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AI.ll)W AN ADDIDON TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1148 SECOND STREET AND LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 92, TRACT 733. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Aleks,Petree,Chlnn.Ketz None Comm. Rue Comm. Ingell 1 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-1 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMRNQllilENT TO ELTMJNA'l:'E CONDITION WHICH PROHIBITS EXTERIOR ACCESS TO THE BONUS ROOM IN UNIT B FOR A TWO·UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 8TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested amendment. As an alternative, staff suggested that the Planning Commission approve the requested amendment by adoption of the proposed amended resolution which includes substitute conditions that a deed restriction be recorded which prohibits the use of the basement bonus room as a separate dwelling unit and which prohibits a bathroom 1n the basement of Unit B. At their meeting of July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a two-unit condominium at 952 Eighth Place, subject to certain conditions. Condition 12(a) states that "the sliding glass door access to the bonus room in Unit B shall be eliminated." This condition was a recommendation noted by staff in the onginal staff report, and it was included in the proposed resolution. The applicant did not object to this condition at the public hearing and, according to the minutes, stated that he had no objection to the staff recommended conditions. Stafr s recommendation to prohibit access was to minimize the bootleg potential of the isolated bonus room in Unit B, located at the basement level below the garage and master bedroom level and containing a large area of approximately 313 square feet. Also at that level is a laundry facility and a walk-in closet. No bathroom is proposed at that level The onginal plans proposed a sliding glass door with direct access to the ten-foot-wide rear yard area. This would provide a completely separate and isolated rear yard access point to the bonus room, allowing for easy conversion into a second unit. Although staff understands the applicant's desire to have convenient access to the yard area, staff Is still concerned about the ease with which this area could be converted because of the large sire and isolated nature of the bonus room. Perhaps with a substitute condition requiring the recordatlon of a deed restriction, the potential would be reduced. However, this type of deed restnction has questionable value since it offers no more than the standard provisions in the CC&Rs. Comm. Aleks asked about enforcement procedures related to bootleg use. Mr. Schubach explained that the City currently has a full-tune bootleg inspector. He noted, however, that enforcement is usually on a complaint basis. Public Hearing opened at 7:07 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Greg Schneider, 1902 Speyer Lane, Redondo Beach, project designer and representative of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that they did not receive a copy of the staff report until just before the meeting; (2) stated that there should be direct access to the yard from the bonus room; (3) addressed the issue of a potential bootleg use and stated that there is not sufficient reason to deny this owner access to his own yard; (4) noted that the City has a full- time bootleg enforcement official, and if there are problems, the neighbors are certain to complain to the City: (5) did not feel there is any justification to deny the owner this right. Mr. Schnelder, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, stated that the applicant, Mr. Jamison, is out of town and was therefore unable to attend this hearing. He (Mr. Schneider) 2 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 was not present at the previous hearing on this matter, and he knows only what he was told by the applicant. Mr. Jamison informed him that he was not aware of any problems with this project; and if he had been, he would have mentioned it at the previous hearing rather than pay to appear again before the Commission for approval. Mr. Schneider stated that conditions could be included, such as requiring a deed restriction, to ease the City's concerns about the bootleg use. He felt that the imposition of fines would be a better solution rather than denying someone the use of their own backyard. Comm. Rue noted that there is plumbing in the lower level. He continued by asking questions about the plans. Public Hearing closed at 7: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding access to the patio, explained that there is a walkway with steps between the two units. Comm. Rue, referring to the plans, stated that the concrete patio area appears to be useless. Comm. Rue asked whether it would be possible during construction to install a sewer connection for a kitchen or bathroom 1n the lower level, to which Mr. Schubach replied that that would be doubtful; however, he noted that anything is possible. He did note that the plans do show a sewer connection to the laundry area. Public Hearing reopened at 7:15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schneider addressed the concerns of additional plumbing being added during construction, and he noted that inspectors do come out during the course of construction to check on the plumbing. Comm. Rue noted that his concern relates to the possibility of a bathroom being added during the course of construction. He was ttying to rule out any possibility of a bootleg conversion, noting that additional plumbing could be put in, which is of great concern to the Commission. Public Hearing closed at 7: 17 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue commented that it appears that the proposed open space will be mostly unusable. He also wished that there could be a way to ensure that this area would not be converted into a bootleg use; however, he did not know of any measure available that could be guaranteed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce to approve staff's recommendation to deny the request, Resolution P.C. 90-94. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Aleks stated that he could not support the motion to deny because there has been no indication that the applicant intends to create a bootleg. He stated that he could see staff's concerns; however, he did not feel it would be appropriate to deny on the basis of what might happen. Comm. Peirce stated that the issue is not so much what this particular applicant will do; rather. the concern is related to what future owners might do. In this case, he felt that the bootleg potential created would be too great to approve the request. He felt that allowing the sliding glass door would be conducive to creation of a bootleg. He also noted that cooking facilities could easily be added. With the outdoor access, he said it would be very difficult to verify whether or not the area is being used as a bootleg. He also cited the City's poor record of bootleg enforcement. Comm. Peirce was surprised that this issue has come back before the Commission, noting that nothing has changed since this matter was previously heard. 3 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-94, denying the conditional use permit amendment. Comm. Rue, after studying the plans, stated that it is possible that an owner would give up the laundry room and tum the area into a bootleg unit. CODllil. Rue stated that he feel people should be able to do what they want to with their property: however, in thJs particular case, he felt that the bootleg potential is too great to allow the sliding glass door. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Petrce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz Comm. Aleks None Comm. Ingell Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP ~11 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR QFF-8ALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2US1 HERMOSA AVENUE, THE GREEN STORE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 30, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone and has a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 3600 square feet, and the building size is approximately 812 square feet. The current use is as a convenience market and apartments. The Green Store is located on the southwest comer of Hermosa Avenue and 22nd Street. It shares the lot with adjacent bi-level apartments. The total square footage of the combined lot is approximately 3600 square feet. Beer and wine are currently sold at this market. The Green Store is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages, subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance, which has not obtained a conditional use permit. At their meeting of May 17, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to screen the dumpsters and require the owner to conduct appropriate exterior building and sign maintenance. The requested conditional use permit would authm1ze the continued sale of beer and wine from the premises. No distilled spirits are sold from the store. Staffs concerns relate to the exterior appearance of the store. Therefore, staff previously recommended conditions that the dumpster be enclosed and that the exterior be painted and signs maintained properly. Since the original review, the owners have painted the exterior with a thin coat of green paint: however, the large "deli" stgns are rusting noticeably and must still be repaired. Also, the dumpster on the west side must still be enclosed. The dumpster is used for the store and the adjacent eight-unit apartment. Current hours of operation are from 7:30 AM. to 10:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday, to 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday, and 9:00 P.M. on Sunday. Staff recommended a condition that hours be limited to between 7:00AM. and 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 AM. to 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. 4 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 One of the garages for the apartments is being used for storage by this business. Since this takes away parking from the residents, staff recommended a condition that no storage occur in residential parking. Since this is an existing convenience store in conjunction with the sale of alcohol, staff felt that the sale of beer and wine should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions, which are 11m.1ted to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance, and those conditions related to the site and the exterior premises. Also included are conditions related to the sale of sexually-explicit material. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, stated that there are four garages for the eight apartment units. Mr. Schubach clarified that the staff-proposed hours contain some flexibility, in that the applicant would not have to appear again before the Commission for an extension. He noted that sometimes applicants desire to stay open later; therefore, staff recommended allowing the closing hour of 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. Staff felt that these hours are reasonable, given the location of the store and its proximity to residential uses. Public Hearing opened at 7:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Carter Cumiford, 6664 Edding Hill, Rancho Palos Verdes, owner of the property, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has owned the property since 1968, and he leases the store to Mr. Ko; (2) said that corrective action has already begun in regard to the 24 conditions specified in the CUP; (3) said that the only problem relates to Condition No. 15 and the storage in the garage; (4) explained that the store is very small, and the garage has been leased to the store for many years so that canned beverages can be stored; (5) stated that he has had no requests from any of the tenants for use of that garage space; (6) noted that the store was built in 1908 when setback requirements were very different from today's standards; (7) said that, to his knowledge, the garage has been used for storage by the store since 1948 when the apartment units were built; (8) asked that the applicant be allowed to continue using the garage for storage, since there is no other location for storage. Mr. Cumiford continued and: (1) again noted that many of the requirements have already been started: (2) discussed with Comm. Rue the location of the trash area and the storage area; (3) stated that it is not feasible to use the trash area for storage, noting that there must be emergency access. Public Hearing closed at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue discussed the one garage space being used for storage, stating that he feels it is a grandfathered use. He did not oppose the use continuing as such, especially since this is a very old building. He favored a condition, however, specifying that if the use of the business changes, the garage space must revert back to residential parking use. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-93, with the addition of a condition specifying that if the use of the business changes, the garage space shall revert back to residential use. Mr. Schubach clarified that staff recommended a closing time one hour later than the applicant is currently using. He stated that staff has no concern over the additional hour, which the applicant may desire to use in the future. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Ingell 5 P.C. Minutes 11/6/00 CON 90-15 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22653 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 817-823 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 23. 1990, and recommended that the Plannmg Commission approve the CUP and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-3 zone. with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 7500 square feet. The existing use is three dwellings on three lots. The proposed density is 23.2 units per acre. Ten parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 1554 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes downward to the west. The proposed structure consists of four units above a subterranean parking garage which provides all the necessary parking. The units are designed such that two attached units in front are separated from two attached units in the rear by a courtyard. The two front units located along Monterey Boulevard contain 3570 square feet each and consist of three bedrooms, an office, a family room, four and a half bathrooms, a mezzanine and a roof deck. The floor plan for these units contains six split levels (approximately three and a half stories), and both an interior stairway and elevator is provided. An additional shared stanway exit is provided to meet existing requirements. The two rear units along the alley contain 2543 square feet each and consist of three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck in a standard three-level design. The proposed building elevations exhibit a smooth cement plaster exterior, burnt clay tile roofing, glass block. french doors, canvas awnings, concrete balusters, and ceramic tile. This combination of features gives the building somewhat of a contemporary Mediterranean appearance. The size of the subject lot would allow the construction of up to five units. The applicant chose to build only four units but has still essentially maxtmJzed the building square footage, enabling him to propose two unusually large units. A very positive result of the design is that the proposed garage is accessed exclusively from the alley, thereby saving all of the on-street curb parking on Monterey Boulevard. In addition, this improves the building's impact on the streetscape since no garage openings will face the street. The garage provides all the required parking spaces, and two required guest spaces are provided in nine-foot wide parallel spaces located along the alley. Another positive feature of the proposal is the proposed common courtyard which separates the two main portions of the structure. This courtyard is located above the basement level of the project. The Planning Commission must determine whether or not this courtyard portion should be counted as lot coverage. The basement is almost entirely subterranean where the courtyard is located and, at most, is only 30 inches above grade, and it does not appear to be coverage. Also, the lot coverage definition, although it does not specifically mention how to address decks above basements, states that lot coverage includes "decks higher than 30 inches above grade." Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission make an interpretation that it not be counted as coverage. Otherwise, the lot coverage would calculate to appraximately 77 percent. The project, with slight adjustments, will comply with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage {if the courtyard is not included) ts slightly above 65 percent, but it could easily be reduced with adjustments to the balconies. Open space is provided in decks, including roof decks, and within the courtyard. A small amount of additional private open 6 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 space is required for Units 1 and 2. This could also be accomplished by adjustments in deck sizes to meet minimum dimensional requirements for open space. Even though the building is quite large, staff felt that this project proposes an excellent and unique design, especially since all access Is provided from the alley. Also, it is consistent with the character of the surrounding R-3 area and other recent projects. Comm. Rue asked for clarification of the location of the wtnows, to which Mr. Schubach pointed out the location of the windows on the south side of Units 3 and 4. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Doug Leach, 119 West Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, applicant, addressed the Comm1ssion and: (1) displayed pictures of the project site: (2) displayed a color rendering of the proposed project, and in response to questions from Comm. Rue, described the proposed treatments for the facade: (3) stated that he has worked closely with staff on this project, and he felt that staff fully supports the project: (4) commented that this is an attractive proposal which will be an improvement to what is currently existing; (5) noted that, even though five units could have been built, they have elected to construct only four; (6) said that the four-unit project will be better for the site, and will not generate as much traffic as five units. Mr. Leach continued and: (1) noted that all access is from the alley, which is a major asset to the design: (2) stated that alley access provides more attractive options and also eliminates having garage doors facing on Monterey: (3) stated that the back-up area behind the interior garages 1s on-site. and no cars will be backing out onto the alley. thus creating a dangerous condition: (4) stated, in response to questions posed by Comm. Rue, that large units are very necessary in today's real estate market: (5) explained that five units would have created parking problems and probably would have precluded the attractive parking arrangement which 1s possible with only four units: (6) said that a five-unit project probably would have had about the same amount of square footage as is being proposed for the four units. Dean Kroll, owner of the property across the street from the proposed project, stated that, even though he will lose his ocean view. he is in favor of this project because 1t will be an Improvement to the neighborhood. He continued by commenting on the City's code enforcement policy related to bootlegs. and he said he is not satisfied with the procedure because It is hit and miss. Public Hearing closed at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-88, as written. Chmn. Ketz stated that this is a very attractive project, and she particularly favors the proposed parking arrangement. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms . .Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Ingell CON 90-16 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22684 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138-142 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE CON 90-17 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHA'l'TAN AVENUE 7 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 CON 90-18 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636 FOR A TWO.UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1~154 MANHA.Tr.AN AVENUE CON 90-19 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT Uffl:160 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29. 1990. and recommended that the Planning Commission continue this request to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that the applicant can consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive design which would improve the project is several ways: provide alley-only access: provide adequate common recreation space to meet the requirements for projects of five units or more; and to attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize the usable open space. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative recommendation to approve the proposed design by approving the CUPs and tentative parcel maps. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolutions, which also include a condition spectfylng that the existing palm trees be retained on site. This project is located in the R-3 zone. with a general plan designation of high density residential. The parcel size is 12.000 square feet, consisting of four 3000 square-foot lots. The existing use is an abandoned sanitarium. The proposed density is 29 units per acre. Twenty- eight parking spaces will be provided. Open space provided will be 320 square feet per unit. The subject property currently consists of four lots of approximately 3000 square feet each. Each is a separate legal lot: although, the entire parcel is under common ownership and is covered by one building. The property has a moderate slope downward from the alley to the street. The proposed project consists of four two-unit detached condominiums using both the alley and the street for access. Each project has a similar floor plan, similar bulk. and the same height. The individual units differ in their proposed exterior architectural features because of the slight variations in floor plans. Each unit contains approximately 2000 square feet and consists of three bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. Although some of the exterior f ea tu res vary between units. all of the buildings exhibit a style that can be characterized as contemporary or post modem. Each project. viewed separately, conforms to minimum planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is near 65 percent. approximately 320 square feet of private open space is provided per unit. and the proposed garage and parking layout provides enough parking and guest parking to exceed minimum requirements and to compensate for the loss of one on-street parking space. The parking requirements are exceeded because of the applicant's choice to use a 17-foot garage setback on the alley as well as on the street. A positive feature of the development which serves to integrate the projects iS the use of a shared driveway arrangement between adjacent lots which saves four of the existing on-street parking spaces. There are currently five on-street metered spaces available. Staff felt that the subject parcel represents a rare opportunity to improve the typical design for housing units in the city. which are normally constructed on small lot sizes. As such. staff suggested to the applicant that a more integrated and cohesive destgn be used to take advantage of the large parcel. Such a design could provide addiUonal usable open space and other amenities rather than the typical two-unit design with three-foot sideyard setbacks and a succession of garage openings and curb cuts facing the street. Also, staff has advised the applicant that he should provide access to the project from the alley only. Mr. Schubach gave to each of the Commissioners a copy of a letter he received dated November 6, 1990, from the Director of Public Works, in which Mr. Antich advises that even if these 8 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 projects are approved by the Planning Commission, he will not issue a permit of access from Manhattan Avenue. The decision would then m:ed to be appealed to the City Council. The letter goes on to state that he feel access should be from the alley in accordance with the City's circulation element. The applicant has chosen, however, to stay with the two-unit per lot design. He has indicated that the primary reason is to be able to market detached, single-family-like units with private access and parking rather than condos in a large project. Staff felt, however, that the single-family concept, although usually desirable, 1s unrealistic and inappropriate for this level of density. The benefits of single-family detached housing are gained when adequate lot sfze is available for usable yard and for separation of homes to allow for privacy. Staff felt that for the proposed density, amenities are improved by clustering the units and by integrating the parking so that only one or two points of access are provided. Also, the impacts of the project on the surroundings (street appearance, traffic, pedestrian safety, and on-street parking) would definitely be reduced by an integrated design. For example, instead of the units being separated by six feet, some units could be clustered together, meaning that buildings could be separated by ten to fifteen feet or more. A common, soundproofed wall on one side and a fifteen-foot separation on the other affords more privacy and quiet than a six-foot separation from adjacent buildings on both sides. Related to the issue of street access versus alley access, the proposed design results in six direct ingress/egress points into the City's street and alley. This could easily be focused into one or two points of ingress/egress if parking were shared, thereby reducing the traffic conflict points and pedestrian/traffic conflict points. Staff also felt that the proposed use of the street for access to the project is inconsistent with the City's recently-adopted circulation element. Implement Policy 4.9 read: ''Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on-street curb cuts and preserve available parking." Additionally, the zoning ordinance condominium provisions under Section 7.2-3, Purpose, includes the following: "The purpose of this subdivision is to promote the following standards: .... (d) a layout of structures and other facilities to effect conservation In street, driveway, curb cut, and other public or quasi-public Improvements." Staff also felt that since these lots are being proposed to be developed together, that Section 7.6(e) requiring 100 square feet of recreation space per unit for projects of five or more units applies. This requirement could be met if some units are clustered together and a common landscaped courtyard or pool/ spa area is provided. Also, In regard to the six-foot separation between buildings that results from the three-foot sideyard setbacks used in this design, it should be noted that the R-3 zoning standards require a minimum eight-foot separation between buildings when they are on the same property. The developer Is proposing four separate two-unit projects which meet the standards of the zoning ordinance if viewed as separate projects. However, the four lots which contain these four projects are contiguous, are currently occupied by a building which covers all four lots. and are under the same ownership. As such, staff felt that it is reasonable to view the development of these four lots as essentially one project, even if these individual projects were staggered over tune, and to apply design standards and review criteria as if it were one development. As a result, staff felt that the proposed design falls well short of meeting standards of good design in terms of maximizing usable open space or in terms of its Impact on the streetscape. Further, it is not in conformance with either the condominium provisions regarding common recreation space or with the general plan. 9 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Since the separate lots have not been merged and are legal lots. the Planning Commission has the option of making a decision on the four separate proposals. If so. staff prepared resolutions of approval for each of the projects, which include a recommended condition in addition to standard conditions that the existing palm trees be retained on the site and that a revised landscape plan be provided depicting the proposed locations for the trees. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments by Comm. Aleks, stated that there are other designs available for this project which would be more acceptable to staff; however, at this time, he was not prepared to address alternative designs. Comm. Rue asked for clarifl.cation from Mr. Lee related to whether these are four separate lots, or whether it is one lot since it is under common ownership. Mr. Lee explained that four separate projects on four separate legal lots are being proposed at this time. He said that the Commission must address the issue of cumulative environmental impacts which would be created by these projects. He continued by explaining that the proposed access must be consistent with the general plan. He noted that staff feels an opportunity exists at this time for the developer to meet both the letter and spirit of the law. He concluded by stating that the applicant does have the right to develop each of these lots separately. Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that the proposed projects are unique; (2) said that stall's philosophical concerns are being expressed somewhat late in the course of this project: (3) said that four separate applications are being proposed at this time; (4) said that the four-lot concept utllizing the original subdivision of this property is a very logical and appropriate use of this property: (5) said that this proposal is a very reasonable residential proposal. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that this project addresses the very real neighborhood concerns related to parking; (2) noted that the developer has a great deal of experience in building in this City, and the concerns of the city have all been addressed; (3) felt that the project also addresses the marketplace reality, in that it provides an attractive location in which to live in this area of the City; (4) stressed that from the beginning of this project, the applicant has comnmnicated with both the City and the County Engineer. and at no time did staff state their preference for looking at this project as a consolidated site. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) noted that staff encouraged access from the rear, however, after studying that possibility. the developer determined that such access would not be feasible: (2) said that it was determined that it would be better to distribute the access between the front and the rear: (3) commented that the circulation element has only recently been amended to require access from the rear, and she noted that such access was not required for one of the other projects at this location: (4) discussed the configuration of the streets in this area, noting that Monterey is a fairly quiet street and is not a major arterial, but it is an access to the beach; (5) said that condos in this area are looked at very differently from other parts of the City; (6) said that five metered parking spaces have been installed at this location within the very recent past; (7) said that the present sanitarium facility location has had a metered parking space put in near the driveway: (8) noted that this project will prese1Ve four of the five public parking spaces. Ms. Srour continued and: ( 1) explained that one of the primary goals of this developer is to provide the type of lifestyle people want; (2) stated that most people pref er single-family homes, but the concept of two detached condos is becoming very appealing to people; (3) said that there are very few problems associated with managing two-unit condos; (4) discussed the six-lot parcel on which the sanitarium is located, stating that at no time did the City specify that the parcels should be a consolidated development, noting that issue was not raised during the lot P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 merger discussions; (5) felt that staff is now being unfair in their suggestion that this be a consolidated project, noting that the project ts already well underway. Ms. Srour went on and: ( 1) discussed staff's recommendation related to the open space, stating that staff's concept is somewhat naive because the 14-foot separation between units will primarily provide access, and to call that area private open space would be compromising the access; (2) stated that the potential of this site allows for nine units, but this project is proposing only eight; (3) said that a subterranean garage is not feasible without compromtsing the parking as proposed; (4) said that the lot configuration and slope almost prohibit subterranean parking altogether; (5) continued by discussing the retaining which would be necessary, noting that it would mean a loss of parking and the possibility of building nine units. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that the units are reasonably designed, and 500 square feet have been given up in order to provide parking; (2) said that the facades have been broken up in this proposal; (3) noted that staff's proposal could result in a loss of parking and it could take away from the attractive facades now being proposed; (4) mentioned that 16 spaces plus four guest spaces are required with the eight units, and she continued by discussing proposed and potential parking requirements; (5) said that the developer and architect have done an exceptional job in providing visible, on-site parking which is easy to use. Ms. Srour went on and: ( 1) discussed the parking at other projects in the vicinity of this proposal: (2) said that underground parking is much less desirable for reasons of security, access, and maintenance: (3) felt that on-grade parking is much more desirable, and should be a goal of the City; (4) explained that if the City determines this project must be a consolidated development, all of the work done so far on the project would have to be redone. Comm. Peirce pointed out that, even if this project were to be approved by the Commission, the Director of Public Works has indicated that all access must be from the rear; otherwise, he would not issue the necessary permit of access. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) stated that rear access is a guideline, not a requirement: (2) agreed that guidelines are important, however, in this case, rear access ls not feasible: (3) in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, she questioned what authority the Director of Publ1c Works is acting upon in relation to his memo: (4) said that at this time, the applicant will not be addressing the memo: rather, they would like Planning Commission approval of the project. Comm. Petree noted that the issue of alley access has been discussed in the past by both staff and the Commission. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that a strict interpretation of the requirement ts not applicable in this case, stressing the it is merely a guideline and not a requirement: (2) in response to questions from Comm. Aleks regarding maintenance of two-unit developments, explained that in much larger projects there can be problems with large homeowner associations; (3) said that each of the projects meets all of the development standards: (4) noted that the open space, height, and setback requirements have been met: (5) said that parking requirements have been met. Ms. Srour continued and: ( 1) stated that they were nonplussed With staff's position on this project: (2) displayed plans and pointed out the proposed parking layout; (3) pointed out the proposed landscaping, stating that it will be substantial; (4) noted that the building facades are stepped back; (5) stated that she strongly supports approval of this project, noting that it is a very attractive development and is one which ls a reduced use of each of the lots: (6) stated that the overall impact of separate projects would be less than if this were one consolidated project. Ms. Srour concluded and: (1) discussed the setback requirements, stating that the buildings as proposed break up the elevations and facades as well as reducing the potential density; (2) highlighted positive aspects of this project, including its compatibility with the area, its 11 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 preservation of on-street parking, its creation of an attractive streetscape, and its safety features related to vehicles and pedestrians; (3) stated that the projects meet the City's goals and code requirements: (4) felt that it would be reasonable and fair for the Commission to address these as four separate projects. Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Htghway, project developer, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he has been a developer 1n the area for many years and he is very fam1Jfar with the City's requirements and needs; (2) stated that he is attempting to provide a project which will enhance the area: (3) explained that he is very familiar with the parking problems in the area: (4) said that this proposal will provide open space: (5) stated that this proposal will give the feeling of single-family living. Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) stated that staffs proposal to have this be a consolidated development will create an apartment-type effect, which is 1n direct opposition to the City's goals: (2) felt that home ownership is of benefit to the City; (3) opposed a consolidated development on this site; (4) stressed that these are four individual lots, and he was never informed by staff that alley-only access would be required; (5) discussed the parking on the other lots at this site. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) said that there was no metered parking at this location until only a few months ago: (2) noted that the project mass is not as great as it would have been with another proposal: (3) explained that he has put a great deal of effort into making this an attractive project; (4) stated that the issue of alley-only access is a new issue to him; (5) noted that he could build four maxed-out houses on these four lots with no approval at all; (6) stated, however, that he feel the proposed project is better for the City and will be an asset. Larry Korgan, 3600 Elm, Manhattan Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) pointed out on the rendering the parking configuration: (2) discussed subterranean parking, stating that it would be very difficult because of the slope of the lot; (3) stated that if stafrs proposal were implemented, there would only be five guest parking spaces, as opposed to the proposed sixteen for this project. Mr. Korgan, in response to comments from Comm. Rue regarding grouped projects and whether or not more open space can be obtained, explained that more common open space can sometimes be obtained: however. more private open space would not. He felt that most people prefer private open space. He noted that even if the project were grouped, space is space, and the units would merely be moved around. Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored the proposed project: (2) felt that single-family living is appropriate in this area, and he would actually prefer single-family homes at the site; (3) stated that he will soon be doing a project at 143 Manhattan Avenue: (4) opposed alley-only access on Bayview, noting that the traffic would be horrendous: (5) noted that most people want single-family homes with private open space and parking. Richard Macano, 113 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the project as proposed; (2) favored saving the palm trees: (3) felt that the applicant has made an excellent proposal and one which should be a precedent: (4) said that the applicant has done everything possible to please the City. Glenn Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on behalf of the Coral Terrace Homeowner's Association: (2) stated that the group strongly opposes alley- only access for all units of this project; (3) discussed Bayview, noting that it is very narrow and potentially dangerous: (4) displayed several photographs depicting the alley and cross streets and the dangerous situations occurring there: (5) said that even though Bayview is called a street, it is actually an alley. 12 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Mr. Tanner went on and: (1) stated that the increased traffic in the alley would be unacceptable: (2) stated that Bayview ts too narrow to accommodate parked cars: (3) felt that it would be more appropriate to flip the project so that access is all on Manhattan Avenue: (4) discussed the removal of the curb cut at the sanitarium and the placement of a new curb cut with metered parking; (5) stated that parking will actually be gained by this project: (6) stated that the group supports the development proposal as submitted. rather than one large development: (7) questioned whether it is in the purview of the City to require a consolidated development. Mr. Tanner concluded and: (1) discussed the demolition of the sanitarium and noted concern over the removal of asbestos: (2) felt that the asbestos is being removed in an unsafe manner, and he urged the developer to ensure that removal is occurring within all regulations: (3) noted concern over construction/ demolition activity taking place outside of the allowed hours: (4) noted concern over apathy in the City related to new projects. Jim Shirk, 446 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his complex has a subterranean garage, and he strongly urged the Commission not to allow any more of them: (2) stated that large developments are more conducive to renters, and home ownership is much more desirable: (3) said that many cars used the alley when the sanitarium was operating. Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) was impressed by the proposed plans: (2) favored saving not only the palm trees. but also the other mature hardwood trees on the east side of the property: (3) turned in a petition signed by homeowners and residents who favor saving the trees and who oppose ingress/ egress on Bayview: (4) said that the additional traffic on Bayview would be quite a burden: (5) noted that the traffic created by the sanitarium was light, especially since there was no parking on Bayview. Ms. Aden continued and: (1) favored the construction of individual homes, stating that it would be beneficial to the area and would also promote home ownership; (2) said that the City needs to Increase its percentage of homeowner residents: (3) continued by discussing the trees. stating that they seIVe as homes to many birds, and the trees also help with the air pollution problems: (4) was encouraged that the plans appear to depict much landscaping: (5) stated that with a few minor adjustments, these plans would meet with her complete approval. Ms. Aden went on and: ( 1) noted concern over damage done to streets by developers during construction, and she suggested that developers be required to pay into a fund which could be used for street bnprovements: (2) stated that she has corresponded with the City on this matter, and she did not feel it 1s appropriate for the City to pay for damage caused by development. Nathan Salter, 113 Monterey, addressed the Commission and noted concern over asbestos clean up, to which Mr. Lee responded that the City has no pUIView over asbestos removal: and that if there are problems. the County Health Department should be notified. Mr. Salter favored saving the trees: however, he opposed the alley-only access as recommended by staff. Public Hearing closed at 9: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that condominium approval 1s a discretionary act and not a right. He noted that this is an R-3, multiple-dwelling zone: however, In general, the R-3 zone was created for high-density residential use, not duplexes. He discussed the enclosed parking, stating that there is essentially parking for only two cars at each unit because people have a tendency to use garages as workrooms and storage areas rather than for parking. He noted that this conversion does not occur in common garages. He noted that even though these are four small lots, the City would be better setved by a larger project. Comm. Petree discussed the access and stated that the buildings are four narrow buildings on four narrow lots. He noted that this project proposes a bank of double garage doors on both 13 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Manhattan Avenue and Bayview Drive: however, he would pref er that situation rather than the elimination of the grade difference at the alley. He noted that there is already traffic in the alley because of the parking available there. Comm. Peirce discussed open space, stating that there is approximately 1700 square feet of non-usable open space with the proposed project. He therefore felt that a better design could be implemented by having a consolidated buildJng. Comm. Petree felt that the proposed buildings are not ve:ry attractive. He said that one of the goals of the City has been to consolidate lots, and he felt that one large project could provide more amenities as well as additional prtvate open space. Based on these reasons. he stated that he would favor one consolidated project. Comm. Aleks questioned whether requiring a consolidated project would be appropriate, noting that the lots could be sold off and developed indMdually. He stated that there must be trade-offs, and he felt that single-family-type dwellings are preferable to larger, consolidated condominiums. He felt that the project seems to have adequately addressed the parking concerns. He therefore stated that he could support Uus prQject as submitted. Comm. Aleks noted concern over the asbestos removal and asked whether a recommendation could be made to require that removal is done within all guidelines. He also favored saving the trees. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on why these lots were not merged during the lot merger hearings, to which Mr. Schubach explained that thiS is an R-3 area. Also, there was one large sanitartum building covertng the lots; therefore. the lot merger requirements were not met 1Il thiS case. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that this property was not designated as an SPA or precise plan because of Its R-3 zoning. Comm. Rue stated that he does not like to have concrete where landscaping could be provided Instead. He continued by commenting that he has never been a proponent of the 17-foot setback requirement. He discussed other projects in the area which he felt have too much asphalt leading to the garages. In looking at the available alternatives, he felt that this proposal would provide more prtvate open space than other projects. Comm. Rue felt that the mtent of the circulation element has been preserved in this case. He felt that the access proposal is far better than having all access from Bayview. He noted the great need for parking, and he felt that this project addresses the issue adequately. He felt that the project meets the R-3 requtrements. and under the circumstances, the units are as attractive as can be expected. Comm. Rue commented that It ts a shame that the City does not take the Initiative to attempt to group projects together; however, he questioned whether that would have been effective in this case. He felt that approval of this project would uphold the general plan and circulation element because the project is of lower density than could be built. He also noted that the project proposes two guest spaces per unit. Based on these reasons, he favored approval of the project as submitted. Chmn. Ketz felt it fs important to address the memo from the Director of Publfc Works. She reminded the Commission that she had voiced concerns over access when this site was originally discussed. noting that she very much supports the circulation element's goal of having alley-only access whenever possible. She also felt that a better design is available, noting that she does not favor four drtveways backing out onto Manhattan Avenue and four driveways backing out onto Monterey. She favored approval of staffs recommendation to address other options available for thiS site. 14 P.C. Minutes 11/6/00 Comm. Alex did not feel that the memo from the Director of Public Works should be addressed by the Commission. He noted that he has never before seen such a letter, and he felt that the letter should be regarded as testimony. He questioned whether the City can legally require the applicant to consolJdate these lots. Mr. Lee clarified that the applicant has the legal right to develop each of the lots separately; however, it does not mean that the applicant can build anything he wants. He noted that conditional use permits are required for condominiums, and the City therefore has discretionary puIView over such projects. He continued by explaining the extent of the City's discretionary control over condominium development and the bases of denial. He stated that it is well within the purview of the Commission to ref er this matter back to staff for the purpose of determining potential environmental impacts based on the cumulative impact of the four developments. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolutions 90-89 through 92, with the inclusion of additional wording to condition 4B specifying that if palm trees are lost, similar-sized specimen trees shall take their place; further, that other trees shall be encouraged to be maintained at the discretion of the planning director. Comm. Aleks suggested the inclusion of wording specifying that the asbestos demolition be undertaken in accordance with the rules and regulations. Comm. Peirce felt it would be more appropriate to send a memo to the building director related to asbestos removal. Mr. Schubach concurred that the building director is the appropriate person to notify of this concern. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION FAILS.) Comms. Aleks, Rue Comm.Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None Comm. Ingell Mr. Schubach noted that one Commissioner is absent: he therefore suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting for decision. In the meantime. staff can continue to work with the applicant on the project. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of November 20, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Ingell Recess taken from 9:32 P.M. until 9:38 P.M. LI.A 90-4-LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1712 THE STRAND Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 31, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment. The subject property is owned by Steven Legare. It contains approximately 6400 square feet, is currently developed with a nine-unit apartment building, and is zoned R-2B. 15 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 The subject lots were considered for a lot merger in April of 1989, but the merger was continued to give the owner the opportunity to remove the nine units on the property and to create two larger lots by a lot line adjustment. The merger has been continued two additional times by the Planning Commission, and the deadline is now December 31, 1990. The lot line adjustment Is the first step in the process that would enable the owner to develop two separate single-family homes on individual 40-foot wide lots. The resulting parcel sizes would be approximately 3200 square feet each, which is substandard in size to current standards, but which is larger than the existing lots and larger than most of the lots in the vicinity. Staff felt that this adjustment of the property line is an improvement over the existing situation of two 30-foot wide lots and an additional 20-foot wide portion. The resulting lots will be of a size that would allow only one unit per lot, and development for this purpose will not have any negative impacts on surrounding properties and would be consistent with the character of the area. If the lots are merged, the result would be one parcel of 6400 square feet, and with the R-2B zoning, two condominium structures could be built on the property. The only advantage of allowing a lot line adjustment rather than the merger is that the result would be two separate single-family lots rather than a two-unit condominium project. Hearing opened at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, representing the applicant, ·addressed the Commission and stated that they are in agreement with staff's recommendation. She said that the potential is more attractive as two lots rather than as one consolidated site. Hearing closed at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Petree, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-95, approving a lot line adjustment at 1712 The Strand. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms . .Aleks,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz. None None Comm. Ingell a) Election of New Chalnnan and Vice Chairman As agreed upon in the past, the Commission decided to rotate the responsibilities of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Comm. Ketz will serve as Chairman, and Comm. Peirce will seIVe as Vice Chairman. b) Alternative P1Anntng Commlpton Dates in December 1990 and Janu8ly 1991 Following tradition, the Commission will have its one meeting in December on Tuesday, December 4, 1990. Since the date for the first meeting in January falls on New Year's Day, it was decided to hold the meeting on Wednesday, January 2, 1991. 16 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 c) PlanulDf Oepartment Activity Report for September 1990 Comm. Peirce commented on the rapid transit ridership in the area, and he asked staff questions related to the stops on the line. Mr. Schubach noted that the City will be putting out a questionnaire related to rapid transit; most likely, it will go out in the City newsletter. Comm. Peirce suggested that the newsletter not look like an advertisement which people will throw away. ell Memorandum Reon,•ur PJpnnlnf Cfflpmlglnn Upl19n for November 13, 1990, Mef!tfDf No one will attend. e) Tentative Future Plpnntnf Comrntgton Agenda No action taken. f) City Connell Minutes of October 9. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Mr. Schubach stated that he has been informed that Comm. Ingell intends to resign from the Commission. He will, however, remain on the Commission until a replacement ts appointed. Comm. Peirce noted that Comm. Ingell provided valuable input to the Commission from the standpoint of his being a local retail businessman. He felt that his absence will be sorely missed, and he suggested that this fact be pointed out to the City Council. Comm. Rue asked for information on the Strand Hotel, to which Mr. Schubach responded by giving a brief update. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 9:56 P.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 6, 1990. -~-"-----/0-:-, __ -:1/d/?~ ChriStine Ketz, Vice Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary "-........ Date 17 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1990, AT 7:00 P .M. IN 'IDE CITY HALL COUNCB, CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Comm. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Peirce Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary Vice Chairman Ketz acted as Chairman of the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve as submitted the Planning Commission minutes of October 2, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Ingell, Rue MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve as submitted the following resolutions: Resolution P.C. 90-46, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE GENERAL LIQUOR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE, GOLDEN LION LIQUOR AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16, 17, AND 18, BLOCK 11, HERMOSA BEACH 'IRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-78, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT; Resolution P.C. 90-81, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITIED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-82, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22342 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 655 SIXTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 17, DR. DOUGHER'IYS HERMOSA BAY VIEW 1RACT; Resolution P.C. 90-83, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING 1 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-7(C)(3) REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF WALLS WITH NONCONFORMING SIDEYARDS TO GIVE TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE DISCRETION TO APPROVE REQUES'IS FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-84, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI-IE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT TO AILOW ON- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITI-1 A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MRS. GARCIA'S RESTAURANT, AND LEG.ALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 13 AND TI-IE SOUTHERLY6.24' OF LOT 14, BLOCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Aleks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None None Comms. Ingell, Rue COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the COIIlIIlission. SUB 86:2 -SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532, 534-540 20'11I smEET, COMMONLY KNOWN AS ''111E POWER STREET SUBDIVISION'' CCONTlNUED FROM MEETINGS OF 413/90, 5 / l /90, 6/5/90. AND 8/21/90) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 8, 1990, and stated that the new property owners have decided not to pursue a final map for 532, 534-540 20th Street. Instead, they have withdrawn the request and will submit a request in the future for development of the existing four lots. Chmn. Ketz stated that the item would be received and filed. CUP 90-23 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS UNTIL DARK AT 200 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, LA PENITA #2 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that this project be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, because the applicant was m and failed to mail out the public notices. The applicant is aware of the recommended continuance. Mr. Lee explained that no action at all should be taken on this matter at this time, including the opening of the public hearing, since the matter has not been properly noticed. Chmn. Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, as recommended by staff. VAR 88-14 -VARIANCES TO ALLOW A ]WO-FOOT REAR YARDSE'IBACK RATHER 1HAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET. LESS THAN THE REguIRED OPEN SPACE IN AREA AND IN M1N1MUM WIDTH. AND ADOPilON OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 4071BCOURT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request. 2 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 The lot size of this project is 960 square feet; builcling size is 1200 square feet; and the proposed addition is 108 square feet of deck. The staff environmental review committee, at the meeting of August 9, 1990, recommended an environmental negative declaration. This residence was constructed in 1973 as a three-story, one-bedroom dwelling unit. The first floor consists of a garage and laundry facilities. The second floor consists of a living room, kitchen, and half bath. The third floor contains one bedroom, bath, and deck. The deck originally contained about 180 square feet, inclucling the open stairway. The structure was allowed to be built with less than the required open space by virtue of a variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals and was allowed only one means of exit to the third floor by virtue of a modification to the builcling code granted by the Board of Builcling Appeals. In early 1986, the Board of Builcling Appeals denied a request for a fourth-level deck because of existing problems and recommended the enclosure of the third-level patio area, subject to variance approval by the Planning Commission for the elimination of open space. In June 1987, the Building Department discovered that the owners had enclosed the third-level deck, added a satellite dish, and installed a ladder leacling to the roof, all without obtaining any pennits. At their meeting of February 16, 1988, the Planning Commission denied a variance request for e1iroiuation of open space to rectify the deck enclosure without pennits. In December of 1988, the applicant submitted another variance request to provide a fourth- level deck, with access provided via a stairway encroaching to the rear property line. At the January 5, 1989, meeting with the staff review committee, the applicant was asked to return with a survey of the builclings on the adjacent property. The applicant never returned with a survey, and since that time, the Builcling Department has been pursuing litigation of the matter. The Commissioners were provided with a copy of a letter dated July 19, 1990, from the city prosecutor which summarizes the agreement to consider a "viable alternative" as discussed at the most recent office conference. Granting of this variance request is necessary for approval of that alternative. If denied, a new pretrial date would be set. The proposal to resolve the illegal construction involves the construction of new second-level and third-level balconies extended from the rear of the builcling to provide some open space in lieu of what was originally required. The proposed balconies would be three feet wide and would encroach to within two feet of the southerly property line. A total of 108 square feet of deck would be provided. The three-foot width would be well short of the required seven-foot dimension for usable open space; and because of the three-foot width, it would not be very usable. The circular stairway indicated on the plans leading to the roof has also already been installed without a permit. It appears that the roof area is being used as a deck. The applicant indicates that it is a "utility ladder for the satellite dish." As noted, the satellite dish was installed without a permit, and it also may be in violation of the zoning ordinance height requirements. Although the lot is very small, staff does not believe there is justification for a variance from the rear setback and also is concerned that the encroachment may have a detrimental impact on the property to the south. Additionally, the proposal does little to resolve the open space deficiency, as the balconies are only three feet wide, are located above each other, and provide a total amount of square footage significantly less than the original variance. 3 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 Further, the open space requirements of the zoning ordinance also serve the purpose of reducing the bulk of buildings. Approving this variance would have the opposite effect of allowing a bulky building. This is also inconsistent with the policy of the housing element to limit bulk. Staff agrees with the applicant's statement that there are only two options: (1) remove the deck enclosure to comply with the original variance, or; (2) approve this variance request. Seeing no justification for the proposed "after-the-fact" variance, staff recommended denial of the request and implementation of option 1. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks, that the violations specified in the staff report are being pursued by the building department. Public Hearing opened at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Richard Knickerbocker, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, attorney representing the applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicants are being prosecuted for a violation of the zoning code; (2) stated that the violations occurred approximately four years ago; (3) stated that prosecution of the violations is not actually at issue in this hearing: (4) explained that the applicants were advised to apply for a variance; (5) disagreed with several statements contained in the staff report. Mr. Knickerbocker continued and: (1) passed out diagrams depicting the project itself; (2) explained that the current owners did not own this property at the time it was built; (3) said that at the time the house was built, it was subject to a variance; (4) said that the main issue is whether things will be improved by approval of the variance. or whether they will be worsened by denial; (5) stated that the current owner purchased this property in 1985; however it was built in 1973. Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) responded to questions posed by Comm. Peirce by explaining that when this house was built. a variance was obtained in regard to the usable open space requirement: (2) explained that this house could not have been built at all without the variance approval; (3) questioned how it is possible for the applicant to comply with the spirit and letter of the law: (4) passed out additional diagrams depicting the open space and what would remain if everything which is in violation were torn down. noting that there would still not be enough open space to comply with today's standards since the project does not have a seven-foot dimension; (5) said that if everything which is in violation were tom down, 143.75 square feet of open space would remain; (6) again noted that even with the amount of open space remaining, it would not comply due to the fact that there is not the required seven-foot dimension. Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) passed out additional diagrams depicting what is currently existing and what would be added if this variance were approved: (2) explained that there is currently 36 square feet of open space. and the variance approval would allow for an additional 14 square-foot deck on the second floor and an additional 66 square-foot deck on the third floor, resulting in more usable open space (144 square feet) than if the enclosure were torn down; (3) said that approval of the variance would allow for more usable open space than if the enclosure were torn down; (4) explained that the satellite dish enclosure was erected on the recommendation of the Board of Building Appeals, who felt that it would be preferable to enclose the area; (5) said that the enclosure serves a safety function and covers an unsightly stairway: (6) said that the enclosure also helped correct a drainage problem of water going down the stairway and into the house; (7) said that the satellite dish was then placed on top of the enclosure. Mr. Knickerbocker continued and: (1) explained that the placement of the satellite dish would be perfectly legal if it were not on top of the usable open space and if the variance is approved; (2) stated that he appeared before the Commission several years ago on this matter; (3) stated that the applicants were told by staff that it appeared they were proceeding in good faith: (4) 4 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 said that he was surprised when staff recommended denial of the request; (5) explained that the applicant, in an attempt to ameliorate the concerns of staff, has come up with another way to provide additional open space; (6) passed out another diagram depicting the applicant's new proposal. Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) explained that the applicant proposes to widen further the third-story deck by relocating the wall of the master bedroom in, in order to provide the required seven feet of usable open space; (2) said that the applicant would also provide the additional space on the second-and third-floor decks as proposed; (3) said that this alteration would result in a total of 200 square feet of legal usable open space, which is in excess of what is required; (4) said that before the enclosure was put in. there was only 142 square feet of usable open space; (5) discussed the area on the roof, stating that a ladder was built by a previous owner, but a safer ladder was installed by the current owner at the request of Mr. Knickerbocker for safety purposes; (6) said that almost everyone else in the vicinity has roof access exactly like the one at this property. Mr. Knickerbocker continued and: (1) stated that the applicants are not requesting something which is not also enjoyed by others in the same area; (2) clarified that there were actually two ladders, the existing dilapidated ladder, and the newer spiral staircase which is much safer: (3) said that the issue of the ladder needs to be addressed by the building department: (4) explained that they would like to obtain variance approval from the Commission; (5) stated that this proposal is not obtrusive, none of the neighbors object to the proposal, and the existing condition has existed for quite some time with no complaints from anyone, and the applicants now would like to make the situation legal. Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Aleks related to the past history of this matter and stated that the old variance required 143.5 square feet of usable open space; (2) stated that he was not certain of staff's prior recommendation, noting that he was not present at all of the discussions; (3) saJid that it is difficult to determine what would be legal today: (4) stated that the best solution seems to be to relocate the wall of the master bedroom, since it would provide usable legal open space; (5) said that there are practical difficulties in this case because of the small size of the lot; (6) noted that this problem arose due to the approval of the past variance; (7) said that the applicant is trying everything he can to find a solution; (8) said that approval of the request would cause no harm to either the City or to the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Knickerbocker concluded and: (1) suggested that the Commission impose a condition requiring that the wall of the master bedroom be relocated, noting that that appears to be the best solution; (2) concUITed that a problem does exist, however, they are eager to find a solution. Public Hearing closed at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that nothing has changed over the past several years in regard to this project. He stated that, in good conscience, he could not waive the City's setback requirements. He therefore intended to vote against approval of this requesL Comm. Aleks concurred with the comments expressed by Comm. Peirce, stating that he could see no reason to approve this requesL He felt that an obtrusive situation already exists, and he noted that the applicant already appears to have proceeded without first obtaining the necessary pennits. Chmn. Ketz agreed that she could not support approval of this variance request, explaining that the necessary findings cannot be made. She did not feel it would be appropriate to remedy an already-illegal situation by approval. She noted that these changes were made without the proper building pennits. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to deny the variance request, Resolution P.C. 90-86. 5 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Ingell, Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the PJauuing Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 7:30 P.M. until 7:36 P.M. CUP 90-22 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE OPERATION HOURS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. AND TO ALLOW A 250 SQUARE-FOOT ADDfflON. AND ADOPDON OF A NF.GATIVE DF.cLARATION AT 205 PIER AVENUE. ALTA DENA DAIRY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 10, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-2 zone. The surrounding zoning is C-2 to the north and the east. The general plan designation is general commercial. The present and proposed use is as a drive-through dairy/market. The building size is 740 square feet, and the proposed addition is 250 square feet. At the meeting of August 23, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for the request. On July 12, 1983, the City Council granted a conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a drive-through dairy at this location. The Council, on appeal, overturned the Board of Zoning Appeals' denial of the requested pennit. The 250 square-foot addition is for the purpose of providing additional refrigerated storage space. In addition, the plans propose the addition of two more parking spaces to meet the parking requirements for the total square footage of this retail use. The plan elevations also indicate that the signs will be repainted, and the existing awniDg will be provided with a new stucco coating. The applicant is also requesting to extend the allowed operating hours, which are currently limited to between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The reason for the existing limitation on hours was apparently in response to the hours originally requested by the business owner. Since this project is located on a highly visible comer in the downtown area of the City, staff felt that it is important to consider the appearance of the site. Currently. the building and the landscaping are not being well maintained, and some dilapidation is occurring. Also, there are often boxes and junk being left outside on the premises. In addition, the existing signs are excessive. The pole sign, for example, is nonconforming to the sign requirements for the C-2 zone in which pole signs are not permitted, and only ground signs are allowed, to a maximum height of eight feet. Also. the amount of commodity identification signs is excessive. Enforcement efforts by the City have yielded limited results and have resulted in the construction of a dumpster enclosure, and in the reduction of the use of illegal commodity identification signs. Therefore, in addition to the standard conditions required for off-sale beer and wine establishments and the conditions already applicable to this business, staff recommended 6 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 / further conditions to improve the appearance of the site: (1) to require that instead of the proposed repainting, that a mansard roof be installed around the perimeter of the building and the awning structures; (2) to require that the signs be brought up to code requirements for the C- 2 zones, meaning that the existing pole sign must be removed and replaced with a maximum eight-foot high ground sign, and that a sign plan be submitted to bring overall sign.age into conformance with sign area requirements. The ground sign would also be for identification of the business, such as "Alta Dena Dairy and Market" and would not prominently display products or product names. The recommended conditions would require conformance prior to the issuance of any building permits for the addition; and (3) to require that existing landscaping be replaced where appropriate, supplemented with trees. and requiring a revised landscape plan to be submitted. Also, the border around the landscaped areas would be required to be minimum six-inch high permanent. concrete curbing. Other than the concerns with signage and appearance, staff did not anticipate any problems with the request. This is an existing business which provides a service to nearby residents, and adequate parking is available in the parking spaces in addition to the stacking spaces available in the drive-through lane. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks. explained that applicants are requested to submit a basic landscape plan showing what will be planted where, and the plan is subject to approval by the planning director. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He discussed several of the proposed conditions, referring first to Condition No. 3(a): "The use of a mansard roof around the perimeter of the building and awning which face Manhattan Avenue and Pier Avenue or other architectural roof treatment subject to approval of the Planning Director." He stated that he does not personally like mansard roofs, since they tend to date buildings. He preferred to have the condition read "other architectural treatment," rather than being limited to the use of a mansard roof. He stated that he would be willing to work with staff to reach a suitable agreement on this point. Mr. Compton addressed the repainting, stating that he discussed the issue with the applicant, and they have decided to restucco the building and tie it in to the rest of the building. The applicant has expressed concern. however. about the overhang because sometimes trucks are too tall and bump into that portion of the building. Mr. Compton next referred to Condition No. 6: "Alcoholic beverage shelf space must not exceed a maximum of 25% of the total refrigerated shelf space and 25% of the non-refrigerated shelf space." He stated that the applicant was not aware of this previously-imposed condition. He noted that the applicant currently uses less than 25% of the space; however, the applicant would like to have more space available for the display of imported beer and wine. This business does not sell liquor; only beer and wine, and Mr. Compton therefore asked whether the condition could be modified to allow 40% of the refrigerated shelf space to be used for beer and wine. Mr. Compton referred to Condition No. 10: "Exterior display/ storage of merchandise for sale. including ice products, shall be strictly prohibited." He asked whether this condition applies to the ice machine. to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Mr. Compton stated that the ice machine will be relocated to face out onto the drive-up area once the remodel is done, to which Mr. Schubach replied that that would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Schubach discussed the six-inch curb and sprinkler system, stating that the applicant has agreed to comply with those conditions. 7 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 Mr. Compton discussed the sign, stating that the applicant feels it is necessary to have a tall sign. He asked questions related to the sign requirements, to which Mr. Schubach stated that staff has no objection to cutting the poles down, adding a concrete skirt, and relocating the sign. He continued by discussing the verbiage which can be allowed on the sign, to which Mr. Schubach clarified that staff would have no objection to the words "Alta Dena" being larger, and the word "milk" being somewhat smaller. He stated that staffs main concern was that the word "milk" is currently so large. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Mr. Compton, explained that a conditional use pennit gives the City more control over signage. Mr. Compton said that the applicant is interested in upgrading his property, and he would like to modernize. Comm. Peirce pointed out that the plans denote two new parking spaces in the triangular- shaped area of the property. He asked whether staff would have an objection to removal of the parking space on the comer so that that area could be landscaped. He did not feel that parking is a problem at this business, noting that most people just pull in to the stacking area. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has recognized the stacking area as parking area. He therefore had no objection to removal of the one space for landscaping purposes. Mr. Compton stated that there would be no problem with landscaping that area. He noted that the extra parking was provided so that staff would not object; however, he agreed that it is not actually necessary for parking due to the configuration of the stacking. Comm. Aleks asked what type of roof treatment is being proposed, to which Mr. Compton replied that stucco would be an appropriate treatment. He stated that they would like to tie together the entire project. He noted that it would be very difficult to have a mansard roof on this building, since it could not go all the way around the building. Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce referred to the two new proposed parking spaces, stating that he definitely feels the one on the comer would not be very useful. He also questioned the usefulness of the space facing Manhattan Avenue. He felt it might be more appropriate to use that space for additional landscaping as well. He felt that the existing parking is adequate, and he suggested that the landscaping be allowed to extend all the way through to the comer. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would have no objection to removal of the two spaces in order to provide landscaping. Comm. Peirce felt that this is an opportunity to beautify a highly-visible area, to which Chmn. Ketz concurred, stating that the proposed parking would be difficult to get in to. She felt that additional landscaping would be very attractive. Comm. Peirce had no objection to allowing additional shelf space to display beer and wine. He felt that 40 % is excessive; however, he felt that 33% would be an acceptable compromise. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-85, with the following amendments: (1) Condition No. 3(a) shall be modified to read: "The use of an architectural roof treatment subject to approval of the Planning Director"; (2) Condition No. 6 shall be modified to read: "All alcoholic beverage shelf space must not exceed a maximum of 33.% of the total refrigerated shelf space and 33% of the non- refrigerated shelf space"; (3) a WHEREAS D. shall be added stating that addition of the two parking spaces does not substantially add to the operation of the business, and removal of the parking spaces to accommodate additional landscaping would greatly beautify the comer; (4) addition of a condition requiring that landscaping be provided in the area where the two 8 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 parking spaces have been removed; and (5) Condition No. 10 shall be modified to read: "Exterior display/storage of merchandise for sale shall be strictly prohibited; however, ice products shall be allowed under the canopy." Comm. Peirce noted that he has no opposition to the proposed hours of operation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Ingell, Rue F-4 --ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FARMER'S MARKET AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND 13TH STREET ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, in order to give the Public Works Department adequate time to study the traffic impact on the public right-of-way. Chmn. Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, as recommended by staff; however, she did ask whether anyone was present to speak on this issue, to which no one in the audience responded. NR-90:6 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(13) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND SECOND- STORY ADDITION RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING S'IRUCTIJRE AT 1148 SECOND S'IBEET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended approval of this request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The lot size is 2253 square feet. The existing building size is 1061 square feet, and the proposed addition is 786 square feet. The subject lot is a through lot with frontage on both Second Street and First Place. The applicant is requesting to expand an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling. The addition to the structure would expand an existing 1061 square-foot, two-bedroom, one-and a half-bath house into a three-bedroom, two-and a half-bath house with 1847 square feet. The dwelling is currently a nonconforming structure because of nonconfonnities to the garage setback and to open space. The garage setback is only five feet, rather than the required 17 feet, and although there is an existing 311 square-foot deck, no ground-level outside area qualifies as usable open space. In addition, the existing garage width of 16.5 feet does not meet the minimum required width for interior clearance of 17 feet for existing garages. The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b). to allow an addition which is greater than 50 percent of the existing replacement value. Staff has calculated that the proposal involves an addition equal to 64 percent of replacement value. Section 13-7 of the zoning ordinance requires conformance with the parking requirements of Section 11.5, which allows expansion of existing structures as long as two parking spaces are available. However, the existing garage is not adequate in width to qualify for two parking spaces. The minimum width for existing parking spaces is 8.5 feet per parking space, or 1 7 feet for a two-car garage. As such, staff included a condition of approval that the garage must be widened to provide a minimum of 1 7 feet interior clearance. The applicant was notified of this 9 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 needed change and indicated that he would be willing to modify the plan by moving the west wall of the garage an additional foot to the west. The proposal is otherwise consistent with Article 13. 7, as the other nonconformities would not be increased or worsened. Pursuant to Section 13-7(b), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. In this case, staff felt this finding can be made because this would allow a sound structure to be maintained, and the cUITent nonconformities that would be perpetuated are not significant or unusual, especially in consideration of the small size of this lot. Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Steve Crecy, 1148 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said he has lived in the home for 15 years, and he requested approval of the exception; (2) explained that the project is 14 percent larger than is allowed to meet the current requirements; (3) said that they will comply with the City's garage requirements; (4) passed out a photo depicting this project in relation to the neighborhood. Teny Slavin, 2506 Aviation Boulevard, project architect, addressed the Commission and asked if there were any questions, to which no one responded. Hearing closed at 8:07 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Chmn. Ketz could see no problems with approving this request, stating that this will be a nice addition; to which Comm.. Aleks concurred, stating that he feels this project will be an enhancement. MOTION by Comm. .Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-87, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoIIUilS.Aleks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None None CoIIUilS.Ingell,Rue CON 88-30 --EXTENSION OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20304 FOR A 1WO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that the tentative map be extended one year to November 1, 1991. On November 1, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a two-unit condominium project and a tentative map for the subject property. The map expires on November 1, 1990. The two- unit building is currently under construction. Section 66463.5 of the subdivision map act allows the Planning Commission to extend the expiration date for tentative maps for a period not exceeding three years. The applicant indicates that the reason for the delay was due to some financing difficulties. The applicant anticipates completion of the project within three months. Since the zoning has not changed in respect to the subject property, and since the building is nearing completion, staff felt it would be appropriate to extend the map. 10 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 - Hearing opened and closed at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to continue the tentative map for one year to November 1, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms . .Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Ingell, Rue LM89-l REQUEST FOR EX'IENSION OF 'IBE LOT MERGER AT 1712 'IDE STRAND Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission grant an additional extension of 60 days to the proposed lot merger. At their meeting of June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission granted an additional six-month extension to the original one-year extension on the subject lot merger. The extension expires on October 31, 1990. The property owner, Mr. Legare, has made some progress, albeit slow, towards removing the existing nine units on the property for his stated purpose of replacing the nine units with two single-family homes. It is staff's understanding that the tenants have been given eviction notices, and staff has been in contact with the applicant who intends to apply for a lot line adjustment early next week. Once the lot line adjustment is submitted, the PJaooiog Commission will consider it at the next available meeting. If approved, the applicant can proceed with demolition of the nine units. Staff felt that this can be accomplished within 60 days. If not, staff felt that the appropriate action would be to merge the lots. Hearing opened and closed at 8:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to approve staff's recommendation to extend this lot merger for 60 days. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms . .Aleks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None None Comms. Ingell, Rue a) Mnnicipal Pier Renovation Mary Rooney, Director of Community Resources, presented the staff report dated October 9, 1990. She recommended that the Planning Commission review the preliminary designs for the potential municipal pier renovation and provide input and suggestions for the project which, along with feedback from the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Commission and the Downtown Revitalization Committee, will be forwarded to the City Council for conceptual approval. Ms. Rooney continued by giving background of the project and explaining some of the proposals. She noted that the Commission will have additional opportunities in the future to discuss this issue. 11 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 Comm. Peirce stated that if the pier renovation extended up Pier Avenue to Hermosa Avenue. the renovation could be combined with the efforts of the downtown revitalization project. He asked whether any consideration has been given to the idea of removing some of the parking on Pier Avenue. Ms. Rooney explained that these are preliminary plans, and an attempt is being made to combine the pier renovation and the downtown revitalization so that the projects can be tied together. She continued by explaining some of the suggestions which have been made thus far. She noted that the installation of a police substation has been suggested. Ms. Rooney, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, outlined some of the h:igh1ights of the proposal, including seating on the pier. restaurant on the end of the pier, improvements in trash and lighting facilities, and installation of kiosks along the pier. She noted that the basic concept is to maintain the pier as a fishing pier; however, it is desired to draw other uses to the area as well. Ms. Rooney, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz regarding the kiosks, explained that the coastal conservancy typically has nature and wildlife depictions to serve as points of interest. Chmn. Ketz felt that some low-scale commercial development at the end of the pier would be a nice addition. Ms. Rooney, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained the procedure that this project will follow, including the funding aspects of the renovation. When more details are available, plans will again be presented to the Commission. Chmn. Ketz favored several of the suggestions: (1) the improved benches allowing for better visibility; (2) the water fountain; (3) the open plaza at the entrance, as opposed to an amphitheater; and (4) the low-scale restaurant use. She felt that it is important to proceed with the pier renovation. Comm. Peirce asked questions related to the location of the police substation, to which Ms. Rooney replied that a definite location has not yet been decided upon. She did note, however. that a new building may be built, or possibly the existing site may be used. Comm. Aleks concurred with the importance of proceeding with the pier renovation, and he will look forward to more information in the future. Ms. Rooney stated that she is amenable to any suggestions from the Commission in the future on this issue. b) Altemat;ive Planning Cmnmlyion Meeting Dates for December 1990 and January 1991 Chmn. Ketz. noting that several Commissioners were not present, requested staff to bring this matter back to a future meeting for discussion. c) Mernonmctum Regarding flaonJng Commission U@Json for October 23. 1990. Meeting No comm.ents; no action taken. d) Tentative Future planning Com.mission Agenda No comments; no action taken. e) City Council Minutes of September 25. 1990 No comments; no action taken. 12 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of rapid transit and asked for an update on what staff has done in regard to determining where people in the city are going. Mr. Schubach replied that staff is still working on this issue. He stated that staff is considering having a questionnaire printed in an upcoming issue of the City newsletter. MOTION by Comm . .Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 8:25 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of October 16, 1990. /~_L1_ Christine Ketz, Vice Chainnan Michael Schubach, Secretary 13 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90