Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991 Except 3-19MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON DECEMBER 3 , 1991, AT 7 : 00 P . M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Roger w. Springer, Acting Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Di Monda pulled November 19, 1991 Meeting Minutes, Page 13, Motion should read, " ... to accept and approve the alteration to the original plan , al lowing the window to remain as built, assuming all other changes have been c orrected.'' Mr. Schubach noted this change had been made with copies not yet distributed to the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the November 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, with the correction to Page 13. Resolution P.C. 91-71, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ·PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT PROJECT AT 632 ELEVENTH STREET. Resolution P.C. 91-72, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ~OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO SALES BUSINESS ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 305- 307 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING AUTO DETAILING, WINDOW TINTING AND AUTO SERVICE ( SMOG CHECK ONLY} USES LOCATED AT 303 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Resolution P.C. 91-75, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE TWO AUTO REPAIR ESTABLISHMENTS AT 725 5TH STREET. Policy Statement P.C. 91-3, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR "CHECK.CASHING ESTABLISHMENTS". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Suard Hone Chmn. Retz Comm. Merl abstained on Item 4(h) ONLY Hone 1 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 3 COMI-11JNICATIONS F R0i'-! THE PUB T,IC No one wished to ac.iress the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PDP 91-5 PRE CISE ~EVELO ?b EN~ PLAN TO ~..1.LOW A 71-ROOM HOTEL, ;;~""D ADOPTI ON OF .?-~ MITIG._TED :;E:GATIVE DEC Ll-_RATION AT 125 PACIFIC COJ!-ST HIGHWAY, KING BA R!30R -~v':::';~L (contin ued from Noverr.ber 19, 1991 meeting). Recommended Actio~: To continued to January 7, 1991 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant again requested a continuance of this matter due to the redesign of the hotel to include a restaurant. The applicant will submit a complete set of plans approximately two weeks prior to the January 7, 1991 meeting. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:05 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:05 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconde d by Comm. Di Monda, to continue this application until the Janua r y 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None PDP 91-23 --cmrnITIONAL u s;:: !?E~MIT FOR AUTO REPAIR, AND ADOPTION CF AN ENVIR0Nl4'"E i.~TAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF 2697 PACIFIC COAST H I GHWAY, A.S .A .P . MUF F LE-· ... & BP.AKES. Recommended Action: To continue to January 7, 1992 meeting for applicant to s uo3it the noise level survey. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends this item be continued to the January 7, 1992 meeting to allow the applicant to complete the noise study. Mr. Schubach noted an alternative exists if the Co mm ission wis he s to currently approve t h e C.U.P., subject to Resolution Conditions: (l ) a noise level survey be submitted with improvements implemented within 60 days of C.U.P. approval and (2) a new site plan is to be submi tted and reviewed by Staff. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:07 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission on this item. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:07 p.rn. Chmn. Ketz confirmed with Mr. Schubach the applicant would complete the noise study to determine the noise levels at the property line 2 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 1 ! j prior to the January 7, 1992 meeting. Comm. Merl noted previous complaints had related to guard dogs, outside buzzers and ringing bells, items currently prohibited in the Conditions. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:09 p.m. Michael Hansen, applicant, stated he needed to be "in business" in order to complete the noise study. Chmn. Ketz confirmed that Mr. Hansen had read and agreed to all of the Conditions. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:10 p.m. Comm. Merl confirmed the applicant could not be in operation without a permit and quest ioned the applicant's statement that the noise study could not be completed unless the facility was operating. Mr. Schubach explained a study can be done prior to the business being in operation by testing other similar businesses, or actually conduct a sound study of the applicant's business while in operation. Comm. Merl stated he felt problems generated by the previous business were addressed in the C.U.P. Conditions. Chmn. Ketz felt provisions had been made in the Conditions if excess noise were created by this business. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve CUP 91-2 3, subject to the Conditions provided within Staff 's recom- mendation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAI~: ABSENT: Comins. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None VAR 91-1 VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT RESULTS IN A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SETBACK OF 3.5 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND REDUCES GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE TO ZERO RATHER TH.11..N THE REQUIRED 200 SQUARE FEET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL i'1EGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3104 INGLESIDE DRIVE (continued from November 7, 1991 meeting). Recommended Action: To deny the variance. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends denial of the variance, noting at the November 7, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission requested Staff investigate the relocat ion of the power pole and associated problems regarding the small-sized lot. Staff confirmed the pole relocation cost is $20,000. He submitted and described one sample building diagram, but is aware there are a variety of designs for building a fairly large unit on small-sized lots. Chmn. Ketz asked if the diagram allowed for the required turning radius into the garage, to which Mr. Schubach responded aff irma- tively. Comm. Merl confirmed the alley width was 10 feet. Public Hearing opened by Chrnn. Ketz at 7:17 p.m. Simon Mitchell, 3104 Ingleside Drive, discussed the plan submitted by Staff, stating if he were building from "scratch", the plan 3 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 would be good, but he is remodeling his home. He challenged that he is being denied a property right if the garage is not allowed to exit on Ingleside, stating 12 out of 17 homes currently exit on Ingleside, eight of those homes have been remodeled. Mr. Mitchell described his lot, also stating the cost of moving the power pole would leave him no money in which to i.=-.-:p rove his home. He discussed current versus future parking capa b ility. Mr. Mitchell understood the Zo ni ng Requ irement s we r e created to protect residents. Since hi s neighbor s actively a pprove his plans, so this protection is not required. He also fel t that s ma ll lot standards and requirements should be re-evaluated in order to allow the property owners and City to be able to work with particular lot sizes. Mr. Mitchell felt a Variance would be inappropriate. Comm. Marks and Chmn. Ketz confirmed the 10-feet alley was a "two way". Co::rrn. Di Monda asked for further explanation regarding the neighboring garages, to which Mr. Mitchell complied. Comm. Di Monda then requested copies of previous subject information, including photographs, which Mr. Schubach supplied. Comm. Marks asked the architect, Gary Lane, Lane Building Designs, if he had considered an angled alley entrance. Mr. Lane said that due to the size of the garage, that was not considered. Chmn. Ketz commented three parking spaces were required. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:30 p.m. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed renovation history of the neighboring houses and current Code requirements. Chmn. Ketz and Mr. Schubach discussed set-back requirements, with Chmn. Ketz then stating she felt the Variance should be granted since the difficult situation solution provided allows for more parking. Comm. Suard commented the remodel is a good solution and would enhance the neighborhood. Comm. Merl felt the alley was a problem and preferred the garage entry be on Ingleside. Comm. Di Monda expressed his concerns regarding a precedent being set. Mr. Springer stated each case would be decided on its own merits, not vesting a new applicant with any right to a Variance. Mr. Schubach pointed out that 'if a Variance is granted, it runs with the land. Mr. Springer felt that if a new structure were built, the Variance would not apply. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to approve the Variance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cornms. Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz Comm. Di Monda, Marks None None CO N 91-5/PDP 91 -7 CONDI TI ONAL US E PERMI T , TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22886, AND PRECI SE DE VELOP MENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 143 MANHATTAN AV EN UE (continued from September 17 and October 15, 1991 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Development Plan. 4 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 J Mr. Schubach stated the Corr:mission requested corrected. drawings addressing several issues: side yard raising, bootleg potential, lack of architectural details, interior stairway corrections and courtyard elevation, noting new drawings had been received and described the changes made. Mr. Schubach noted Staff's felt landscaping should be further described for the "courtyard" area and at least three trees should be planted. He stated a letter from C. D. Michel re lated to a civil matter concerning the locating of a fence between properties, but also for the Commission's information. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:43 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:44 p.m. Comm. Marks stated the drawings displayed a continued problem with stairways and requested correct, precise drawings be submitted. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the basement and property elevations, stating the purpose is to get the house six feet below grade, obtaining a "basement" level, to which he objected. He also coIT1J.~ented upon the lack of b~ilding esthetics, suggesting the Commission actually look at the building. Mr. Schubach suggested that perhaps the application could be approved with a Condition of Approval that new, corrected drawings be submitted to the Commis- sion. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:48 p.m. Ron Riggs, applicant, requested the difference between "concept- ional" and "preliminary" drawings, to which Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach replied. Comm. Di Monda explained the problems relating to the basement to Mr. Riggs. Comm. Marks requested Mr. Riggs assure his architect review the drawings after marking the areas in question on his copy of the drawings and returning them to Mr. Riggs. Mr. Riggs explained his confusion regarding the issues and requirements, stated he had been working with the Staff and City, requesting specifics as to what the Commission wanted, exactly. Comm. Di Monda explained if the Building Code is violated at any time during construction, changes will be requested. • Mr. Riggs requested approval, with conditions. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Schubach explained that plan flaws are caught during plan check prior to obtaining the Building Permit and are more related to the Building Code. The Commission could request the plans be resub- mitted to it after approval. Comm. Di Monda felt the required changes could be corrected through Staff, commenting the "basement" issue was an ongoing problem which would be address e~ at the City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Marks reiterated his feeling that precise, correct drawings should be submitted, requesting that Staff not accept substandard drawings for submittal to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda discussed the letter from Mr. Michel with Mr. Riggs. Mr. Riggs stated the letter related to another condominium he owns which has property drainage problems. He stated a gutter drain is being requested, 5 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 and Mr. Riggs is pouring cement in his side yards prior to a street cut being made. A v erbal agreement has been made to erect a fence between the adjacent propert~es since Mr. Riggs previously took the chain-link fence out because it was three inches too far onto his property. Comm. Di Monda requested Mr. Riggs work with the Planning Department o n this issue. Comm. Marks discussed the drainage problem with Mr. Riggs , discussing the specifics of the installation tiw~~g. J,mTION by Comm¥ Suard, seconc.2:d by Comm. Merl, to approve CON 91-5/ PDP 91-7 with Conditions, plus an additional Condition requesting the Planning Department obtaining from the applicant and presenting to the Commiss ion a revised set of plans addressing the stairway, the window on the south elevation not shown on the plan and basement/first level of "B" Unit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Com.ms . Di Monda, )!arks, Mer 1, Suard, Chmn. I<etz None :N·one None SUB 91-2 REQUES'l' FOR APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #2324:6 TO SU'SDIVIDE TWO LOTS INTO THREE LOTS FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 206-212 PROSPECT AVE~~E. Recommended Action: If approved, impose co~ditions as recommended. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating Staff is recommending Conditions imposed through the Reso lution. He noted supplemental information , c han ges reques ted by the Public Works Department; rat her than requ iring completiori of the off-site improveme nts prior to approval of the final map, t he modified condition gives the app lication the option to guarante e completion of the improvements, which protects the cities interests. Mr. Schubach described the uniqueness of lots, surrounding lot proportions , proposed sub- division and accesses, noting that while Hermosa Beach considers the fronting roadway an "alley", Redondo Beach considers it a "street". He stated the City Attorney's opinion is that a City cannot apply its Codes outside of its jurisdiction. Mr. Schubach noted the Commission has the authority to decide if Reynolds Lane is consistent with the needs of the community. He stated if the subdivi sion is approved, the impacts will be mitigated by an overall improvemeint to the public facilities that will serve t he subdivision. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:22 p.m. Mark Lueker, applic ant, read his prepar ed summary to the Commission, outlining why he feel the subdivision would meet City and neighborhood needs while creating value to the neighborhood. He stated he had been working on this subdivision for a t otal of two years. He presented copies of correspondence and photographs of the lots and adjacent areas to the Commission for its review, noting the City of Redondo Beach supports the subdivision. Mr. Lueker confirmed with Comm. Marks that one of the properties will be have sewer lines connected to with the City of Redondo Beach's lines. Comm. Suard discussed area. upgrading with Mr. Lueker, 6 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 noting Mr. Lueker has no olans to construction other than one house on the back lot. ~ Robert Brandon, 217 Prospect Avenue, stated he has lived at this acidress for 50 years. He st!:"ongly objected to this application, noting the confusion in address, the application does not agree with the downgrading which was decided upon in t he last election and stated the lots are landfill ove r an old oil sump, used from 1920 through 1950. This waste was never cleaned out, only filled with soil; then houses were built on top of it. He discussed access to the properties and discussed the area traffic problems. Jackie Godo Ikiss, 224 Prospect, felt her rather it is a charming prop erty. She subdivision would result in l ose of her subdividing two lots into three, inc reasing density. home was not a hovel, felt approval of the privacy and protested rather than decreasing Steven Godo !kiss, 224 Prospect, stated he bought the property 17 years ago b e cau se it was large and had open space. He stated his property value and privacy wi l l decrease if the application is approved. He r equ ested the app lication not be approved. Hank Dreyfus, 209 Prospect, hoped the project will be rejected, stating his concerns regarding the soil stability and his unhappiness that a sub divis i on is being considered when there are no plans to build. Jim Barks, R-1 Zones more. 217 2nd Street, are needed. He opposed the application, stating more felt the City needs less people, not Mar;<. Lueker rebutted the comments, discussing proposed property access similar to adjacent properties, stating the house to be built would not interfere with any views or privacy or surrounding homes. He.discussed his efforts to change his address to "1265 Van Horn" to the di f ficulty in l ocating the house. He discussed with Comm. Di Monda the property h istory as an oil and trash dump, which Mr. Lueker had not been aware. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:?4 p.m. Comm. Di Monda asked what the Commission's responsibility and liability might be if it approved this application. Mr. Springer didn't feel that approval o f a Tentative Subdivision Map would expose the City to any l i abilities resul ting from below-grade pollution, because this prope rty does not belong to the City. Mr. Schubach commented that whether the property is subdivided or not, a danger due to soil contamination still exi sts. This problem will be addressed by the Building Department when a request is made to build a home on the property. If oil exists under ground, removal will be required. Comm. Marks felt that this application was in conflict with Hermosa Beach's efforts to decrease density. Comm. Suard felt that decreasing the lot sizes, the chance of existing home improvement would decrease accordingly. Chmn. Ketz stated the lots being on a 20-feet street inhibited approval due to the possibility of 7 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 increased traffic circulation problems. Comm. Merl noted the lots conform to the General Plan relating to minimum lot requirements, with the proposal being consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Schubach noted the application is consistent, stating the City Attorney had stated the Commission has the authority to decide whether or not Re ynolds Lane ~s consistent with the needs of the community. Comm. Merl qu e s tio n ed this statement in terms of the density issue, to which Mr. Schubach responded enough land exists to meet the General Plan. Comm. Merl, though agreeing with Chmn. Ketz, felt the situation was the real issue. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Suard, to deny SUB 91-2. AYES: NOES: Col.Y'.ms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl¥ Suard, Chmn. Ketz Nor:.a ABSTAIN: No:1e ABSENT: None (A recess was taken from 8:59 to 9:07 p.m.) PARK 91-6 PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A 150 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, AND TO PROVIDE REQUIRED PARKING OF'F-SITE AT 1063 AVIATION FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED Z:iT 1095 AVIATION BOULEVARD, AND ADOPTION OF AN EKVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLl~~~TION. Recommended Action: To deny the request. Mr. Schubach stated the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a covenant be required to justify an off-site parking agreement between the church and applicant, which was obtained to allow four parking spaces, instead of the required seven, and with a revokable parking allowance condition. He stated work had commenced to expand the kitchen and bathroom areas, without an increase in seating, of the restaurant without building permits. Mr. Schubach re fa renced relevant Code Sections pertaining the parking plans a ~d .requirements, e x plaining the reasons _the building is nonconforming. Mr. Schubach noted no on-site parking is available and offered soluti ons 1~ remodeling to allow rear-property auto access. He stated approval could establish a precedent, leading to unrealistic parking arrangements to allow square-footage additions. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:13 p.m. Jose Manuel Mendez, applicant, and Josephine Mendez, applicant's daughter who served as translator, presented a letter from the Church which provided seven parking spaces. It was stated that Mr. Mendez's previous associate started construc t ion without permits or a licensed contra ctor, leaving Mr. Mendez with the problems as they now exist. Chm n . Ketz compare d the requirem ent of seven spaces to the four spaces author i zed by the church, to which Ms. Mendez stated the minister will agree to the seven spaces in writing. Mr. Sc h ubach noted the submitted plans display ed six spaces and the applicant was not ified the Code required seve n spaces. When asked what would happen if there was a parking conflict between the 8 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 . . responded the CoITuil. Suard latt er . Ms. r em ove that chur ch's and the restaurant's needs, Ms. Mendez res-c.aurant would close early on those two days. r e quested the provision to revoke be removed from the Mendez said the applicant would ask the minister to clause. Garv Wa v land, C.P.A., 1097 Av i 2tion Boul evard, said Mr . Men d ez had asked t-o use the parking facilities at t h i s address, but it is unavailable for the restaurant's u s e . Mr . Wayland expre ssed his concern that this parking lot would be used without autho rity by the re staur a n t 's p a trons. Comm . Marks and Mr. Wayland di scu ssed parki ng in the nine-foot area next to the building, wh ich was dete rmin ed to be i n a p p r o pr i at e. ?ublic Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:24 p.m. Comm. Suard noted a major point was if the Commission wished to encourage area updating and objected to the revokable conditions of the letter, noting a more per manent solution was requ i red. Chmn. Ketz felt pedestria n s would n0t come to the restaur a nt . Comm. Di Monda stated he was d isappointed the project was started without permits, but pointed out s e ating capacity was not being added, therefore, no additional traff ic wo u l d be added. He felt this restaurant served local, srna.Ll businesses for the lunch trade. Com.~. Di Monda felt the addition could be approved, but with the requirement that the store front be reh a bilitated. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schu bach discussed the Co mmi ss i on's ability to impose a requirement to rehabilitate the store front, to which the applicant .agreed. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to ap~r ~ve the Resolution contingent upon the Commission's rec e ivi ng a nonrevokable parking approval from the church and inspection, acceptanc e and approv al of the existing cons t ruction by the Building De partment , and submi ssion of store-fro n t and signage drawings f or the Commission's a pproval. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di I-i onda, Merl, Chmn. Ketz Comms. Marks, Suard None None FOURTH QUARTER GENERAL PL.?Ul AMENDMENT: GP 91-3/ZONE 91-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTI;:..::.:. (MD) AND Z ON E CHANGE FROM C-2 TO r-2, OR TO SUCH OTHER DE SIG:. ATION/Z ONE AS DEEI•rE D APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ADOPTION OF A..~ ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 64 10TH STREET. Recommended Action: To continue to January 27, 1992 meeting to include the adjacent areas. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends continuance, with renotifi- cation to an expanded area to include lot 17, noting a Resolution of Intent has been submitted. He gave the item actions completed thus far and described the subject parcel and the types of construction development, as well as zoning of surrounding 9 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 properties. Mr. Schubach noted historically this lot has been zoned "commercial", but the a pplicant is requesting a zoning of "residential". He noteci Staff's conclusion that combination of this and the a djoining one -h a lf lot wou l d not result in a lot size which could s u pport a d esirable comme r c ial project which warrants consideration in cha n g ing b o th lots 16 a~d 17 to residential designations. He reminded the Commission that it can only make recommendations on General Plan Amendments or Zone Changes, however, a Commission denial is final, unless appealed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn . Ketz at 9:40 p .rn. No one wished to speak to the Commission relation to this item. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:40 p.rn. Comm. Di Monda discussed the constant problems associated with the residential and commercial zones being adjacent and the resultant parking problems. He questioned approving residential zoning in the center of c ommerc ial zones, c ommenting he felt the commercial strip shou~d be enl a r g ed and viewed this item as counterproductive. Comm. Merl expressed his agree me nt with Co mm . Di Manda's statements. Chmn. Ketz ascert ained fr om Mr. Schu bac h the applicant wished the change in order to allow h im to con duct residential property development to his single-family home on the property. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to deny GP 91-3/Zone 91-2, maintaining t~e commercial zoning designation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARING Ccmms. Di ~,:ionda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None 1.;0~1.;a NR 91-6 --AN EXCEPTION FRC~,I SECTION 13-7 (B) TO ALLOW A FIRST- STORY RE MODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING WITH A i\i'ONCONFO RMING SIDEYARD AT 1040 10TH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve the request. Mr. Schu b a ch desc ribed the property location and bu ildin g con- struct ion partic ular s , stating the second story additio n is in comp lianc e . He sta ted a two-car garage is not n ec essarily requir e d, the remodel is calculat ed to be 95 .1% o f r ep lacement value o f the axi stin g nonconformi ng s truc ture . Mr . Schubach noted the s ide y ard n o n conf ormity is n o t s evere , the exist ing s tructure is in sou nd conditio n , the projec t ed dw el l ing s ize compares with neighborin g houses , more t han adequ ate open s p ace is provided and the proposed plans will result i n a n o veral l i mprove ment in dwelling appearance. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:49 p.m. Ken Sarno, 104 0 10th Street, a 13-year resident, introduced his architect and contractor to the Commission. It was stated air conditioning and heating units would be placed on the roof. 10 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 Comm. Di Mondo discussed the roof slope with Mr. Sarno, voicing co~cern that the mechanical equipment might protrude above the roof top and discussed possible sol~tions to possible visual problems. Al Meyer, associate of Ken Sarno, discussed the height issue, noting the roof cannot be changed, but the equipment could be located at the rear of the roof. He stated that t na location of the units is most efficient on the roof and asked approval to use a screen the block sight of the units. Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:54 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to approve NR-91-6 with the Condition that the design of roof-top mechanicals be such that they are not visible or protrude above the parapet height. AYES: NOES: AEST~IN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None m:ine Ne::~ MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE :CEZo'I:HTION OF A BASEMENT (continued from October 15 and ~ove~~er 19, 1991 meetings). Chrnn. Ketz ex~ressed her understanding that Comm. Marks had requested additional information related to the number of lots located in R-2 which would be e:::f ected by the basement definition. Comm. Marks felt this ite .. 11 should be · discussed at the Joint Meeting with the City Council. Mr. Schubach stated the Joint Meeting agenda is full with six items, but this matter will be presented under the Housing Improvement Program and reactivated as of the City Council January 14, 1992 meeting. He stated the agenda has been approved by the City Council. Comm. Di Monda suggested the Commission start reviewing the practice of filling lots prior to the HIT program. Applicants could be i~formed the Commission does not approve lots being totally filled. Mr. Schubach stated a Condition of Approval in the C.U.P. accomplishes this. Com.~. Di Monda suggested this subject be discussed with applicants prior to application submittal. Chmn. Ketz requested Staff initiate and submit such a policy addressing fillings to create a basement to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda requested a policy which encourages deck space adjacent to living areas be initiated, which was discussed and agreed upon by the Commission, which asked Staff to initiate this policy. PLP-..NNING DEPART1-IENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF OCTOBER, 1991. Receive and File. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLlu~NING COMMISSION AGENDA. Receive and File 11 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 CITY COUNCIL I~I~UTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1991. Receive and File, Chmrr. Ketz stated the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled to be held December 12, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. COM!'ISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Ketz noted the Co mmission had received a letter asking about a "granny unit", noting the interpretation all owing two units on an R-1 Zone lot, noting the request is for two units in an R-1 Zone and the application shou ld proceed thrcugh the appropriate proc edures. Comm Di Monda ar:d Chmn. Katz discus s ed policies relating to drawings that are submitted to the Cornmiss io~o Mr. Schubach stated Staff has changed the requirsments, with careful examinations for complete compl iance are being conducted by Staff, and each depart- me nt is supplied with plan sets for review of all technical prob- lems not noted by the Planning Department, so that the applicant may be immediately notified . This process was discussed between Comm. Merl and Mr. Schubach. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by 10:12 P.M. Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. No objectio~s; so ordered. CE:R~IFICATION Di Monda, to adjourn at I hereby certify that the fore ,;oing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled r:,eeting of December 3, 1991. Christine Ketz; Chairman ach, Secretary 12 P.C.Minutes 12/3/91 •' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 19, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Vice-Chmn. Marks. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard Chmn. Ketz Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary Vice-Chmn. Marks introduced Commissioner Suard, who acknowledged the introduction, thanking the Council for their vote of confidence and stating he looked forward to working with this Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the November 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution P.C. 91-67, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE OF USE OF AN EXISTING OFFICE/RETAIL_ BUILDING TO A COFFEE HOUSE/SNACK SHOP AT 157 PIER AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-68, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PAINTING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING AUTO BODY REPAIR BUSINESS, "EUROPEAN AUTO BODY", AND THE ADDITION OF A SPRAY BOOTH AT 501-555 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Resolution P.C. 91-70, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMM'.tSSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW LESS THAN REQUIRED PARKING AT 102 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND TO ALLOW THE LEASING OF EXCESS PARKING SPACES FOR THE STORAGE OF NEW CARS AND/OR PUBLIC PARKING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Resolution P.C. 91-76, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A LOT LOCATED AT 64 10TH STREET. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz 1 .P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 _ .3 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No . one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PDP 91-5 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW A 71-ROOM HOTEL, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL. Recommended Action: applicant's request. To continued to December 3, 1991 per Mr. Schubach noted the applicant has requested a continuance of this matter due to his inability to obtain Cal Trans' comments regarding the application for adjusted curb cuts on Pacific Coast Highway. He stated Staff recommtmds this matter be continued to the December 3, 1991 meeting. Comm. Merl asked if the applicant understood the information would be available prior to that -meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant hopes to have a response, but contacted Cal Trans three months ago. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to continue this application until the December 3, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz PDP 91-8 --PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW A DUPLEX AT 632 11TH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Developme"r1t Plan. Mr. Schubach stated Staff ~recommends approv~l _of the precise development plan sub~ect to conditions. He described the project, discussing each section of the duplex, exterior and interior plans, open space requirement and parking provisions, recommending one garage space be maintained without a garage door and a sign designating guest parking be installed. He noted lot coverage, density and building hei~ht are below the maximums, with trash receptacles provided adJacent to the garage. Mr. Schubach commented Staff recommends a condition that two existing trees on the property remain or be replaced by two 36-inch box trees. He stated the original plans had been accepted through Plan Check before it was Noticed, but Staff feels overall it is a good project and should be approved. Comm. Merl asked if the applicant understood the condition about the trees. Comm. Di Monda asked if all addresses are required to be illuminated. Mr. Schubach responded in the affirmative to both questions. 2 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Robinson, representing the applicant, stated Mr. Woodbury agreed to retain the trees. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:11 p.m. Comm. Di Monda asked if this rental property could be turned into a condominium. Mr. Schubach stated not if it didn't meet the minimum condominium standards. Comm. Di Monda objected to requiring a "guest space" parking sign and requested Condition #2 be pulled. Comm. Merl stated his agreement, suggesting a stipulation stating the parking space cannot be separately rented. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to approve PDP 91-8 with the following changes to Condition #2: a garage door will be allowed but not required, the requirement for "guest parking" signs is deleted and leasing/renting of the guest parking space will not be permitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Co1D1ns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl Suard None Chmn. Ketz CUP 91-24 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AUTO REPAIR BUSINESSES AT 725 5TH STREET, GERMAN MOTORS AND ASENKAS AUTO CENTER. Reco1D1nended Action: To approve said Master Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends approval subject to conditions, commenting the auto repair shops are in existence, but being brought into conformance. He described the property, location and hours of operation, recommending a change in hours of operation. Mr. Schubach stated Staff's concerns relate to a barbed-wire fence, lack of a trash enclosure and an R.V. and boat trailer stored on the lot, and that Staff recommends these items be addressed in the conditions of approval. -• Comm. Di Monda asked the penalties in keeping the R.V., trailer and barbed wire. Mr. Schubach · said these are zoning violations and misdemeanor offenses, which has not be complained about or enforced. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed planting by the sidewalk. Vice-Chmn. Marks established no painting facilities currently exist. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Pikowski, applicant, explained the barbed wire was installed to prevent burglaries. Comm. Di Monda asked about the boat and trailer, to which Mr. Schubach replied the previous business owners are aware of the necessity to remove those items. Comm. Di Monda established the barbed wire must be removed, to which Mr. Pikowski initially objected, but finally agreed. Vice-Chmn. Marks deter- mined the fence is six feet high, with Mr. Schubach stating more 3 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 effective methods for burglary prevention can be used and offered Staff assistance to Mr. Pikowski. Mr. Lee stressed that barbed wire violates the Municipal Code and cannot be authorized by the Commission. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. l:1arks at 7: 36 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to approve CUP 91-24, Staff's recommendation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di .Monda, Marks, Suard None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz CUP 91-25 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO SALES BUSINESS AT 303 -307 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. P.C.H. MOTOR CARS. Recommended Action: To approve said Master Conditional Use Permit Amendment. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions. He stated the trash receptacle is being shared. He noted the existing business wishes expansion onto an adjacent lot, describing the building, location and lack of direct access to its parking lot. Mr. Schubach defined the stated conditions for approval and stated Staff believes the Master CUP would be beneficial for all concerned parties, while recommending the previous conditions, including approval addressing the business scale, be included in the C.U.P. Amendment. Mr. Schubach He commented the applicant had diligently complied with previous requirements and has currently obtained permits from the Building Department. Staff's concern is the two parcels are separately owned with no guarantee the uses will be maintained in co-existence. Therefore, a condition which allows the pre-existing C.U.P. to remain in effect for 303 P.C.H. if the proposed business were to cease is suggested. He stated all of the previous resolution's conditions have been included in this proposed C.U.P. Amendment. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed interpretation of the the SPA-7 requirements. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:44 p.m. Mr. Fred Berry, applicant, stated the Staff Report was satisfactory to him. • Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:45 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Suard, to accept Staff's recommendation to approve CUP 91-25, Master C.U.P. with conditions. 4 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz ZON 91-1/CUP 91-21 ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DAY-CARE CENTER WITH 28-30 CHILDREN, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 739 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, O.K. CORRAL DAY CARE. Recommended Action: To deny the request. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, recommending denial and that the area be s tudied in conjunction with the General Plan Land Use Element revision to address the General Plan and Zoning map incon- sistencies, noting the C.U.P. cannot be considered without a zone change. He discussed previous property business and residential history and current alternatives, suggesting the matter be put on "hold", allowing Staff -to provid1::! a Text Amendment change to the R-1 Zone. He discussed allowance for a 30-children care center with certain criteria being met and Staff's research into other day-care centers in the City, outlining mitigation measures requested by the Staff Environmental Review Committee's if approval is given. Mr. Schubach discussed relevant Code Sections and criteria used in making zone changes, stating findings for making the zone change could be based on the historical property use and consistency with the General Plan but this zone change would allow encroachment of- commercial use into the residential area with detrimental impact.- Further, Mr. Schubach outlined the lot size, propo sed vehicle parking and drop-off requirements, noise impact and landscaping requirements. He discussed Staff's recommendation for hours of operation and that conditions be imposed to require marking of street frontage for loading/unloading only, noting the Commission must weight the benefits of allowing a needed community service vs. potentially negative impacts.-_, ; •'- Comm. Marks asked if current day-care centers are filled to capacity, with Comm. Merl commenting upon the demand for day care. Comm. Suard noted both current day-care centers had very little availability, based upon his conversations with them, noting the South Bay area is a "higher demand" area, with the ages of O - 2 most limited in available care. Comm. Marks discussed the parking plan, noting no handicapped parking. Mr. Schubach replied the handicapped parking could be waived in this area and that the turning area was not adequate. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Jeff Brooks, parcel owner, explained the project's history, including efforts to sell the residence and efforts to return the parcel to its original use. Comm. Suard asked when the lot was purchased, to which Mr. Brooks replied, "two years ago." 5 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 Vice-Chmn. Marks and Mr. Brooks discussed the previous day-care center and other businesses located near this lot. Mr. Brooks did not feel noise would be a big issue. Mr. Bill Beck, applicant, stated he was attempting to start a day-care center at the subject location; his second attempt. He said he had talked to neighbors and felt adjustments could be made, benefiting the community. He requested the business be allowed to open at 6: 30 a.m., stating the other requirements represent no problem. Vice-Chmn. Marks established Mr. Beck had not operated a day-care center, commenting upon the amount of traf fie resulting from pick-up of children, which Mr. Beck did not see as a problem since pick-up and delivery would be staggered. He explained his yard and classroom facilities, stressing the personalized care the children would receive. Comm. Suard and Mr. Beck discussed staff size, which will be three permanent employees, and perhaps some part-time employees. Comm Suard and Mr. Beck then discuss the handling of any noise complaints. Mr. Woods, 7 31 Longfellow, opposed the application, stating the previous child-care center-had a very detrimental impact on the area due to noise, traffic congestion and safety and parking and explaining his reasons for his opposition by giving instances of problems experienced in the past. Ms. Virginia Rustanius, 728 Longfellow, concurred with Mr. Woods' statements, adding the residents' driveways were used by the children's parents. She requested the area be approved for only R-1. Mr. Craig Cleizak, 744 Longfellow, expressed concern that people will park in his driveway, the lost of street parking space, but stated he is planning to have children and a center would be convenient. He requested he would like his lot changed to R-3 also. Mr. Steve Schapiro, 732 Longfellow, took a poll of neighbors, stating most of the people are definitely against this application, noting the back-entrance street to be used_ .i.s an -.. alley and complaining that traffic is currently congested and would become more so if a day-care center were allowed. Comm. Suard asked if the number of children was the objection. Mr. Schapiro responded it wasn't the children; the concern was for safety, traffic, parking a n d congestion. Vice-Chmn. Marks and Mr. Schapiro discussed the parking problems including the fact that local business employees park daily on this block. Ms. Julie Beck, 15-year resident, wishes to open the care center to provide quality care for her two children and all others that would be attending the center. She urged approval of the application. Ms. Francis Parker, 521 1/2 Loma Drive, a school teacher, noted her observation in the difference between children who received quality care vs. standard care. She stated all of Hermosa Beach has a parking problem and other factors create more noise than children playing. 6 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 Ms. Connie Peron, 20-year resident, commented upon the differences in the City during the last 20 years, noting it is time the com- munity changes and concessions must be made. Mr. Eris Simmon, 25-year resident, lives 1/2 block from a day-care center, disputing the problems stated by the application opponents. He stated quality day-care center is important to him and that there is not enough quality being offered, stating he supports this application. Mr. Ray Peron suggested the parking problem can be solved by issuing "Resident Only" parking permits, ending during the evening hours. Ms. Pattie Sauterman, single mother, wants quality day-care for her daughter. Ms. Ronda McDonald, native of beach area, is on the waiting list for this day-care facility. She discussed the large day-care center associated with her work place, stating it was filled to capacity almost immediately. She supported the application. Mr. Jim McDonald, felt a television show discussing day-care would be of benefit to all attendees at this meeting, discussing the future problems in obtaining day care within the City. He noted the residents seemed to need help with or without the Center. He supported the application. Mr. Paul Moser, 15-year resident, spoke in support of the applica- tion, noting his children have always been on waiting lists for day-care centers. He stated the center his child is currently in has 90 children with 6 parking spots, noting he has never seen traffic congestion at this facility. He felt replacement of the run-down, vacant house by a Center, would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Bill Beck stated surveys state only 2-5 minutes are necessary for drop-off and pick-up of children. He said that Mr. Brooks has unsuccessfully tried to sell the land, a day-care center would be good use of the property and requested approval. Vice-Chmn. Marks and Mr. Beck discussed Mr. Beck's efforts and results in conducting surveys as to the need for day-care centers. Comm. Suard asked if the adjacent office building had adequate parking. Mr. Brooks said it did. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:55 p.m. Vice-Chmn. Marks felt this issue warranted a separate meeting to allow in-depth discussions. Comm. Merl discussed his involvement with local schools and feels there is a need for day-care facilities. However, he questioned the approach to dealing with the generic subject matter, feeling Staff's alternative of dealing with the C.U.P. process might be a better way to assure a workable set of conditions. He noted day-care centers are usually in a residential area. Vice-Chmn. Marks asked for an explanation of an amendment, to which Mr. Schubach stated the City allows small day-care centers. However, Staff has suggested larger facilities 7 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 within the residential zones would have certain criteria imposed on them. A Text Amendment would be the procedure to follow. Staff is studying alternatives to allowin9 a zone change. Mr. Schubach suggested this item be continued indefinitely, allowing the applicant to renotice if he wished, with the Commission directing Staff to initiate a Text Amendment to change the text with certain criteria included to allow larger day-care centers. Comm. Di Monda asked the length of time for the process to be complete. Mr. Schubach stated, as a priority item, two and one-half months. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach determined that if the Text Amendment were approved, the C. U. P. application would be brought back for Commission approval. Comm. Merl felt the process should be followed, even though this will be a fairly lengthy process. Mr. Lee noted that if a proposed Text Amendment change is presented to the Commission, notice publication would have to be November 22, 1991, in order to meet the December 3, 1991 meeting time, which may not allow enough time for Staff to conduct an study and complete and analysis. Comm. Merl explained his concern regarding not allowing enough time for proper study since the criteria established will not be particular to this item, and ask Mr. Brooks his time frame as a point of clarification. Mr. Brooks stated delay would have a serious financial impact due to the time and money spent getting to this point of time. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to direct Staff to initiate a Text Amendment to the R-1 Zone and present the study to the Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to continue this Zone Change and C.U.P. indefinitely. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz (A recess was taken from 9:12 to 9:27 p.m.) HEARINGS CON 90-8 A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 829 15TH STREET. Recommended Action: To grant one year extension~ Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends the C.U.P. be extended for one year to November 15, 1991 and the map be extended one year to May 15, 1992. He comment upon the construction history, stating the extension was requested due to hardship in obtaining a construction loan. He noted the Planning Commission may extend the expiration date for a period not exceeding three years. 8 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 .· Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:29 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:29 p.m. Vice-Chmn. Marks asked how an investment company could have hardship in obtaining a construction loan. Mr. Schubach stated details had not been obtained, because no changes have been made in the Zoning Ordinance, Staff recommends continuance. Comm. Di Monda asked if a zoning change were made, would this item be "grand- fathered" in, to which Mr. Schubach stated only if a "grandfather clause" were in the ordinance. Comm. Di Monda asked if the Commission's "hands" would not be tied. Mr. Lee noted the Vesting Tentative Map presents some complications; explaining the intent of the legislation to developers. Mr. Lee requested deferment in order to review the Gov·ernment Code relating to the extent to which developers would be given vested rights prior to the Commission's decision. Mr. Schubach noted that if the project is not completed and returns for another extension, the Commission does not have to grant that extension. However, prior to May 1992, certain items cannot be imposed upon the --project once the extension has been approved. Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed the possibility of zoning changes within the subject area, which was slight. Comm. Di Monda stated he would like to grant an six months' extension to allow the Commission to be aware of exactly what the City is considering with regard to the Housing Improvement Program. Mr. Lee agreed this action would be appropriate. Vice-Chmn. Marks stated he had found construction loans are no- problem to obtain at this time, with lower interest rates. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to approve a six month extension of a Conditional Use Permit for the two-unit condominium at 829 15th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comins. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard Marks None Chmn. Ketz PS 91-5 A POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING THE LAND USE CATEGORY OF "CHECK CASHING ESTABLISHMENTS". Recommended Action: To adopt a policy statement interpreting the check cashing establishments are currently not on the permitted use list and do not fall under "retail" or "banking and financial institution" categories. Mr. Schubach noted this is a formality matter, having requested by City Council to adopt a Policy Statement. Commission previously made determination on this item, and recommends Policy Statement adoption. Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:39 p.m. been The Staff 9 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:29 p.m. Comm. Marks asked if a check cashing category needed to be created, to which Mr. Schubach responded yes, if it were to be a permitted use. Comm. Marks asked if the people conducting the check cashing would be monitored or controlled. Mr. Schubach responded the Com- mission may request background checks before approval. Mr. Lee noted that if there are concerns about the type of use, the Commission may consider this as a C.U.P. permitted use within the commercial zones, requiring adequate information to assure checks and balances as to the type of use. Comm. Di Monda noted the Commission is not adding check cashing as a permitted use. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the Policy Statement. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz After discussion with attendees, Vice-Chmn. Marks declared, for the convenience of the audience, Staff Items would be reviewed out of sequence. PETITION TO REDUCE THE set back ON 2700 BLOCK OF HERMOSA AVENUE. Mr. Schubach stated Staff received a petition from block residents requesting the set back be reduced from 10' to 3'; as it is inconsistent with other City blocks and a hardship for these residents. Mr. Schubach defined the history of the establishment of the individual R-3 Zone block set backs, stating changing current set backs would divert from historical precedence and resultant development patterns, and requires unanimous owners' consent. Zones R-2 and R-1 have specific set .b&c_ks required. He stated that if charges start -to be made, all owners should-then be allowed to have same minimum set backs, which in some cases is zero (0). Receive and file is recommended by Staff. Alternatives are to notify petitioners may privately initiate the amendment, following procedures, or a Zoning Amendment may be initiated. Comm. Di Monda determined an established set back would have to be built in with a driveway, discussing lot sizes and lot development with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda recommended Receive and File. Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:48 p.m. Bob Strokee, representing Mary Jo Blue (2704 Hermosa), stated Mary Jo circulated a petition signed by every property owner on the block, giving a copy of the petition to the Commission. He discussed the variety in set backs, displaying photographs of the 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100 and 3200 blocks. He explained Ms. Blue 10 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 wanted to have the same set back as residents of the other blocks, requesting a standard set back for the 2700 block be established at three feet and not 10 feet. Vice-Chmn. Marks discussed the various block set backs with Mr. Strokee, establishing Ms. Blue wishes to extend her patio and is prevented by the current set back. Comm. Di Monda asked Mr. Schubach the historical reasons the blocks have such variations in set backs, to which Mr. Schubach complied. Comm. Merl noted that the property lines are sometimes hard to define due to right-of-ways. Vice-Chmn. Marks discussed obtaining a variance rather than changing the set back with Mr. Schubach, referencing Ms. Blue's wish for an enlarged patio. The Commission discussed the actual set backs within the blocks with Mr. Strokee, establishing the new buildings built after the Zone Change confirm to the 10 foot set back, with the older buildings have less. Comm. Di Monda noted he would not like to see increased lot coverage and bulk and did not agree to reducing of set backs. Comm. Suard noted that no one likes the inconsistency of the set backs, but the Com- mission is looking for a consistent standard throughout the community. Mr. John Ofsel, 2705 Palm Drive, stated he thought that Ms. Blue should be able to do what she wants to do, which will not affect any of her neighbors. He discussed the various setbacks within the neighborhood, stating the setbacks cannot be in conformance or equal. He supported the reduction in setback request. Vice-Chmn. Marks discussed the blocks' patios and balconies which have from 0 to 10 feet setbacks with Mr. Ofsel. Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 10:11 p.m. Vice-Chmn. changed. setback. Marks stated he would not like to Comm. Di Monda reiterated his views see the setbacks to not approve a MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to Receive and File. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE CHANGE OF WEST ELEVATION FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Mr. Schubach stated Staff noted an alteration to the west elevation of the completed project, stating to conform to plans, the window must be enlarged. This item was presented due to the significant changes which require an amendment to the C.U.P. Staff is requesting a determination as to if the change is minor or requires an Amendment and any alternatives from the Commission. Vice-Chmn. Marks commented he saw five changes to the plan, rather than just one. Mr. Schubach stated all changes will be or have been corrected. Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 10:18 p.m. 11 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 Mr. B. Barsoum, project architect and owner, discussed the discrepancy in window size, his proposed solution and the problems associated with any changes on the completed building. Upon being questioned by Vice-Chmn. Marks, he reiterated the problems in changing a completed building, explaining how the window was completed. Comm. Di Monda stcLted Mr. Barsoum chose to change the design after it was approved, relocating the fire place, changing the window size and other issues. Comm. Di Monda reiterated the importance of the Commission's approval and the fact that changes cannot be made without approval by the Planning Director or the Commission, noting the proposed changes are worse than the exist- ing building. Mr. Barsoum explained he planned on scaling windows on his working drawing and the current proposed changes are due to objections the existing building vs. the plans that were presented, stating he is willing to make any reasonable changes. Comm. Di Monda noted other items the Planning Department had discussed with Mr. Barsoum which were not built according to the plans presented and commented upon the low quality of drawings .. He also noted that Mr. Schubach is trying to establish a minimum quality for all drawings submitted to the Commission. Vice-Chmn. Marks discussed the window plan and building history with Mr. Barsoum, with Vice-Chmn. Marks stating extreme leeway had been taken in making changes without approval by the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Ron Riggs, project owner, stated they have a problem which needs to be solved. Vice-Chmn. Marks noted the problems were the same as in the proposed project: inconsistency, incomplete work, without acceptance. Mr. Riggs suggested the Commission instruct them in the completion of this project in order to resolve the problems, stating he would like the project to remain "as is". Comm. Di Monda noted he hoped the same problems would not reoccur with the next project (across the street). Mr. Riggs stated working drawings will be submitted in the future. The property owners then discussed all of the changes with the commission, stating exactly what the changes were. Mr. Riggs stated he saw no "good solution". Vice-Chmn. Marks asked for a definition of "minor" and "significant" changes, to which Mr. Schubach complied, stating the changes had not been approved by the Planning Department. Comm. Di Monda noted that one of the problems is that Mr. Barsoum misunderstands the entire building process. Vice-Chmn. Marks asked another proposal be presented to the Commission, discussing possible solutions with the applicants. Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 10:55 p.m. Comm. Suard commented if the original plans had been submitted as the building was actually built, he thought the plans would have been approved. He proposed a plan be proposed to govern all f uture submiss ions and penalize applicants who make changes to the approved plans. Comm. Di Monda noted that the Commission does not want to set up a way for builders to make business decisions, judging fine costs against building costs. He also stated his disagreements with the building as built, but felt it might be 12 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 , . •• appropriate the "put this matter behind us" at this time, while exercising future care. Comm. Di Monda recommended Mr. Barsoum read the building code, totally rejecting Mr. Basoum's reasons for change as not being for financial reasons. Comm. Merl stated all future plans received have to be dimensioned and specific. He commented he fel t Mr. Barsoum knew he had Planning Commission requirements to meet, and they are not to be thrown out the window. Comm. Merl noted Mr. Basourn's responses during this meeting were totally unacceptable. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to accept and approve the a lteration to the original plan, allowing the window to remain as bui l t, assuming all other changes have been corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard None None Chmn. Ketz MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF A BASEMENT (continued from October 15, 1991 meeting). --- Vice-Chmn. Marks commended the Planning Department's excellent research efforts and stated that he felt prior to any decision making, due to the impact on R-2 zoned properties, this subject should be put on the agenda for the City Council/Planning Com- mission meeting. He requested Staff obtain a listing /number of properties that will be impacted. Mr. Schubach noted the difficulty to define the impact to current and future buildings, but stated Staff will supply the number of R-2 properties currently in the City. • -MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Marks to continue this issue until the meeting of December 3, 1991. No objections, so ordered. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Mr. Schubach noted the De·cember • 3, 19 91 meeting •is· -heavily scheduled. Comm. Merl . asked for information pertaining to the Joint Meeting. Mr. Schubach stated he added Beach Drive Parking and Greenbelt Parking as Staff Items for that meeting, noting the City Council is anxious to meeting with the Planning Commission and will probably schedule the Joint Meeting on December 12, 1991. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1991. Vice-Chmn. Marks stated he was astounded when reading the minutes that 50 trees had been planted in the Greenbelt without a _ landscape plan, asking if this subject should be put on the agenda for the Joint Meeting, to which the Commissioners and Mr. Schubach agreed.-· Comm. Di Monda stated his understanding was an irregular planting pattern is being followed, establishing that draught-resistant plants were to be used. 13 P.C.Minu±es .11/19/.91-. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Merl noted in the 1970's, annual meetings were held between the City Council, Planning Commission and the School Districts. He noted that it appears not much contact is made between the City and _ the school districts. He suggested annual meetings be scheduled to' discuss the effects on each other and how to assist each other. Vice-Chmn. Marks suggested this item be brought forward at the Joint Meeting, to which Comm. Merl agreed. Mr. Schubach suggested a memorandum from the Commission mentioning this item to City Council be sent to obtain the Council's response. Comm. Di Monda asked if a town-town study had been applied for through the Chamber of Commerce, which Mr. Schubach affirmed. Comm. Di Monda noted the Chamber has asked for Council and Com- mission members to attend their meetings when RUDAT is discussed. However, these meetings are held on a Thursday, 12:00 noon, making attendance difficult. He suggested a note be sent to the Chamber asking if they would consider holding an occasional meeting in the evening at, perhaps, the Community Center, more Planning Commission involvement could result. Comm. Di Monda asked for a legal opinion on what the Commission can do with respect to removing automotive body shops and spray painting as a permitted use within the City. Mr. Lee clarified with Comm. Di Monda the parameters of his question. Mr. Schubach stated a two-year moratorium could be placed for two years while the issue is studied. Mr. Lee suggested his Office return to the Commission with suggestions on the vehicles to be used in order to look at further restrictions: zoning, clear and more restrictive conditions for C.U.P. approvals, over concentration issue and recommendation of moratorium to allow a detailed study. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Marks, seconded by Comm. Merl, to adjourn at 11:15 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 19, 1991. Robert B. Marks, Vice-Chairman Date --. .. . 14 P.C.Minutes 11/19/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 1991, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL . COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chlnn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Merl. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach, Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. ·Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the October 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution P.C. 91-61, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE LEGAL USE TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2104 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 91-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE- PERMIT AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF SANDWICHES AND CHIPS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING SALE OF OTHER BAKERY I'l'EMS AT 517 HERMOSA AVENUE. Resolution P~C. 91-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ~OMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF AN OUTSIDE DINING AREA AS AN EXPANSION OF AN .EXISTING RESTAURAN T. ,(IJ\ PLAYITA CAFE) AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED· NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TH-STREET. Resolution P.C. 91-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AME!mMENT TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A MEZZANINE LEVEL TO AN EXISTING 4~UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1107 LOMA DRIVE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLI.C No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. 1 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 .. PUBLIC HEARING VAR 91-1 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT RESULTS IN A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SETBACK OF 3.5' RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17' AND REDUCES GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE TO ZERO. RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 200 SQUARE FEET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMEN- TAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3104 INGLESIDE DRIVE.· Recommended Action: To Deny the request. Mr. Schubach gave the staff report, describing property location and noting the sub-standard size of the lot. He stated a similar request by previous property owners was . submitted in May, 1987 which had been denied, with City Council upholding that denial. Mr. Schubach discussed the garage's 3.5' setback, conversion from one-car to two-car garage, its fronting on a 10' wide alley, an existing power pole at the property line, the need for guest space parking and the inability of replacing a required 200 square feet of usable open space which the applicant is proposing to use "grass-crete" for open space replacement. He stated Staff believes the previous denials by the -·Planning Commission and City Council should be upheld, and that alternatives are available for property improvement within the Code. Public Hearing was opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Simon Mitchell, 3104 Ingleside Drive, confirmed the Commission had photograph copies previously provided. He explained two car garage parking would be difficult due to the location of the power pole, discussing the difficulties in moving the pole. Be stated of- the 17 homes, two have alley-entrance garages, adding 15 neighbors have signed a declaration and are aware of his plans. He discussed the sub-standard lot size, the use of grass-crete, the remodeling of eight neighboring houses with 3.5' setbacks. He felt a variance is not necessary and would have a potential detrimental effect _on public welfare. Comm. Marks asked if he had a project archit._ect, Mitchell confirmed Mr. Gary Lane was the architect. and Comm. Marks discussed the power pole location. to .. __ which Mr. Mr. Mitchell Mr. Gary Lane, Lane Building Designs, 1444 Aviation Blvd, confirmed -with Comm.-Marks the power-pole location is in the center of the property line, discussing the difficulties in pole relocation and garage first-and second-story dimensions. Comms. Di Monda and Marks believed a dimensional error had been made on the plans. Mr. Lane stated the intent was the simply replace the existing structure. Comm. Di Monda asked if the cost of pole relocation was a consideration, to which Mr. Lane stated the 10' narrow alley was the concern. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:50 p.m. Comm. Di Monda questioned the lot coverage and open space area, to which Mr. Schubach stated the open space dimension is _countable. 2 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed previous neighboring construction versus the current building requirements. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Merl discussed turning radius of existing garages, which Mr. Schubach stated current requirements are not met, but Staff has designed lot footprints for these size lots which meet require- ments. ._ Chmn. Ketz felt · the applicant has unusual circumstances which should be considered and the variance should be granted. Comm. Di Monda questioned the impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Lee stated a precedent would be set, establishing a property right. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Lee discussed the ramifications of such a precedent, with Comm. Di Monda stating he felt a small lot denotes a small house. Comm. Marks suggested a parking plan utilizing the current garage, with .Comm. Di Monda considering the addition of a second floor to the existing garage and ~elocation of the power pole. Comm. Di Monda stated he was not comfortable in granting a variance when alternatlves exist. MOTION by Chmn. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve Staff's recommendation to DENY the request. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, and Marks Conuns. Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl asked if Staff would investigate the street light issue and associated problems if the items is continued. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to continue this application until the December 3, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Coinms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None .. PARK 91-5 --PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW USE OF THE GTE PARKING LOT FOR STORAGE OF NEW CARS FOR SOUTH BAY NISSAN AND/OR FOR PUBLIC PARKING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 102 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Action: To approve said Parking Plan and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff report, defining the GTE lot loca- tions, parking spaces, building square footage and primary usage. He noted that Staff is concerned about new car storage, the use of drop-off trucks, noise and test · driving which may have environmental impacts. He stated the applicant requested excess parking be allowed to be leased, Staff found this request reasonable, and that South Ba¥ Nissan and the Cit¥ requested use of the lots for parking.· Staff is recommending conditions:. (1) only one car may be delivered at a time, (2) storage area gate/fencing security and quiet alarms be installed, 3 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 ( 3) ( 4) ( 5) ( 6 ) ( 7) ( 8) (9) car alarms with sound warning systems be disengaged, test driving or car delivery be from the west via Pacific Coast Highway, only new vehicles are stored, a right-turn-only sign is placed at parking lot exits, lighting is oriented away from adjacent residences, landscaping at the eastern parking lot boundaries, and securitr fencing and gates may not be barbed wire or chain link. . Public Hearing opened by Chinn. Ketz. at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Richard Garvisch, Thousand Oaks, GTE, asked if the turn sign would be applicable to GTE employees. He was told only Lots A & B would be effected. He discussed current security gate and fencing, to which Mr. Schubach stated any addition should be decorative. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Garvisch discussed the City's parking request, to which Mr. Schubach stated adequate parking would be available for public parking and Mr. Garvisch agreed. Mr. Ralph Provetto, 731 10th Street, stated no unloading of vehicles is done at this location, all car alarms systems will be disconnected, no testing driving will be conducted, only new vehicles will be stored. He stated an average of 85-90 cars are stored on the lots, with an additional 63 cars if the application is approved. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Provetto discussed the car storage particulars of all the storage lots being used. Mr. Carl Barch, 848 8th Street, owns a 4-unit apartment building across the street from the parking lot. He stated street parking is very difficult and wanted public parking in applicant's lots. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Lee suggested language clarification changes to the Resolu- tion as follows: Page 4, Section 1, starting "The only two parking areas", second line, change "identifies" to "identified" and strike the word "shall" and replace with "may"; Section II, he proposed the condition read, "Said alternative purposes allowed on Lots A & B shall only be storage of new cars and/or City public parking.", Condition 12 read, "Any more intensive use of the building shall require amendment and approval of the parking plan prior to such more intense use", Condition 15, first line, remove "parking•• and add "approved", change "lot" to "lots", Condition 15 ending, remove "in the parking lot" and add "on the property." Chrnn. Ketz asked about Resolution changes if public parking is allowed on the 3rd lot, to which Mr. Schubach stated a condition/amendment should be added, to allow for review, which states, "Any additional public parking may be allowed but shall require a review/approval by the Planning Commission." Chrnn. Ketz stated the Resolution should include an allowance for public parkin9 if the City wished to negotiate for that ~arking. Comm. Di Monda and Chmn. Ketz discussed the maintaining public parking space for the City. Comm. Di Monda stated the City derives revenue on used-car lot 4 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 portion of sales and the City Council should be made aware of possible effects involving Nissan parking, City parking and City sales tax revenue, to which Comm. Merl a~reed. Chmn. Ketz and Mr. Schubach discussed the City's interest in public parking and the requirements to implement such parking. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve this apJ?lication with the changes as noted by Mr. Lee, plus a conditio'n stipulating that in Lot C, the balance of 77 spaces, public parking may be a permitted use subject to a parking plan being approved by the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None MOTION by Comm. Merl to request.that notification be giving to City Council and the Chamber of Commerce to advise that this Resolution has been approved, and if the City Council or Chamber of Commerce wish to obtain a lease, action should be taken in a timely manner, the sales tax should be-examined as to how it effects the sales-tax relationship with the potential of new cars being stored in Hermosa Beach. No objection, so ordered. • CUP 91-19 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW COFFEE HOUSE AND SNACK SHOP, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 157 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA GROUNDZ. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the request would allow change in-use of an existing building from office retail to a coffee house snack shop. He described the current building, stating the shop location would be on the upper level; the lot being one of nine owned by the same owner, describing the adjacent lots and their uses and available parking spaces. Recommendation has been made by the Staff Environmental Review Committee to approve -•the Environmental Negative Declaration with ·10 parking spaces being made available ·for the snack shop. Mr. Schubach quoted applicable codes and coastal plan relating to this proposed use. Staff recommends foods be premade, ready for sale, without the use of heating appliances, no kitchen,· thereby maintaining the primary use as a coffee house. Staff recommends the types of foods allowed for sale be described, all food be ordered from the walk-up counter, no table service allowed, 10 parking spaces be assigned to Hermosa Groundz with J?arking lot debris being eliminated and standard signs be installed, since property overall appearance is marginal. Staff believes the building use intensification can be absorbed by existing parking facilities-along with the use .of 10 leased parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated alternatives are: (1) approval without requiring parking space leasing, and (2) approval with a full 5 P.C.Minutes 11/7"/9:l . upgrading and clean up of parking areas and dilapidated structures, as well as a parking space legal agreement requirement. He stated the City Attorney suggested that the parking spaces maintenance be made a requirement through a restrictive property-use provision. Comm. Di Monda made a comparison between a previously approved snack bar and the current application, noting no parking provisions were previously required. He didn't feel parking should be an issue in this application. He and Mr. Schubach discussed cleaning requirements of adjacent parking lots. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:49 p.m. Ms. Cindy Jednak, 1236 3rd Street, stated she was comfortable with the Staff's recommendations, because she· has leased 10 parking spaces, which was an additional cost. • However, she expressed concern about the statements, "microwave ovens are accel?table only for the warming of premade food items," and "only offering premade foods," stating her intent is to prepar~ and heat foods on site to offer her customers. Chmn. Ketz stated this would be taken under consideration. Ms. Jednak stated she wants more abilitl to be creative when offering food to her future customers. She discussed the planting and cleaning -that. has been completed. Comm. Marks asked why an entertainment permit was withdrawn. Ms. Jednak stated she had wanted poetr~ readings, but the confusion and difficulty in obtaining that permit caused her to withdraw her request. Ms. Jednak described other available parking areas in addition to the 10 spaces. Comms. Marks and Di Monda and Mr. Schubach established that a permit and parking re-evaluation would be re9uired if a person were to play an instrument with Ms. Jednak establishment. Mr. Lee noted that distinctions are difficult to make between what is and is not· entertainment, discussing the permit intents and parking issues with Comm. Di Monda. Comm. Marks and Mr. Lee discussed the results on businesses in limiting parking and the attracting of parking problems. Mr. Lee noted Resolution Condition #4 should include an automatic termination provision if the 10 parking SJ?aces are lost if the Commission wishes to allow something more intensive than that offered in the Resolution or the Staff report. Mr. Lee also discussed the parking space requirement, stating· that if· -a -·more intense use is proposed,· Staff should have an opportunity to analyze any increased parking demands generated. Mr. Wesley Bush, Chamber of Commerce, asked who decided an establishment's effect on nearby areas, to which Mr. Schubach responded -this is a standard condition and is based on the reasonableness of what people feel are effecting them and the Commission makes the discretionary decision. Comm. Di Monda asked if any business had been closed as a result of this statement, to which Mr. Bush stated, "No". Comm. Di Monda noted that Mr. Bush's area of concern is not an issue. Mr. Bush discussed Chamber of Commerce actions, tours and projected results, including area upgradings, and stated the Chamber of Commerce's support of the applicant's snack shop. 6 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 Ms. Helene Frost, Coach Drug owner, said she had toured the downtown area, met Cindy Jednak, and stated her support of the snack shop. Mr. Mark Manaskelco, 215 E. Pleasant St., member of Chamber of Commerce, stated his familiarity with the parking situation. He . felt parking was not a problem except a few times a year when fairs, etc. are in operation. He is very sup.Portive of the snack shop and saw no problems with proposed entertainment. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:10 p.m. Chmn. Ketz suggested a method to allow the "entertainment" in the snack shop should be acceptable. Comm. Di Monda reiterated that no parking requirement was a condition of the last snake shop appli- cation granted, parking is not a problem in this situation, and should not be a condition of this one, to which Comm. Merl agreed. Comm. Di Monda felt warming of food was a reasonable request and commented upon her hours of business. He suggested a separation of "light entertainment" vs. "entertainment" to allow her to provide poetry reading and other light entertainment. Comm. Marks agreed and suggested a definition of "individual, non-electronic music". Chmn. Ketz commented upon the shop being a nonalcoholic establish- ment. Mr. Lee stated if the Commission considers allowing entertainment uses, including poetry reading, the matter should be renoticed and the types of conditions and restrictions to be proposed should be considered, since hearings would be required to amend the conditions established. The Commission and Mr. Schubach agreed the applicant can, at a future time, request the amendment with a minimum of costs, with the fees waived. Comm. Merl com-. mented the entertainment description is vague and would require interpretation. Mr. Lee compared the various types of individual entertainment for consideration. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve Staff's recommendation to approve CUP 91-19, changing Condition #1 by placing a "period" after "acceptable", deleting the. rest of the sentence, Condition #2, remove "premade", delete Conditions #4 and 5 (remove the 10-space parking requirement condition), eliminate all references to the self service of the microwave oven, adopt the Env:~ronmental .. _Negative Declaration, and allow the applicant . to request an entertainment permit at a later time without cost except for the notification expenses. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ket~ None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None A short break was taken from 9:22 to 9:29 p.m. CUP 91-17 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMEN.DMENT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A SPRAY BOOTH IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN AUTOBODY SHOP, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 501 & 555 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, EUROPEAN BODY SHOP. Recommended Action: To deny the request. 7 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 Mr. Schubach stated the denial recommendation is based upon the increased intensity of use and access blockage, offering an alternative of approval with a condition to allow paint booth construction at a site currently housing storage trailers. He said at a one-year review of a previous!¥ approved Master CUP, displayed little condition-compliance activity. Three months' later, a review revealed an compliance activity taking place. In 1991 a CUP to construct a larger facility was denied. Mr. Schubach continued, giving a history of Planning Commission decisions and owner appli- cations and property status, summarizing by stating the business is not licensed for painting or flammable materials storage, no exhaust/filtration system exists, landscaping is currently being improved, uniform signs have been installed, and the proposed business would be land intensive. Mr. Schubach discussed alter- natives to denial offered by Staff, as well as Staff's recommen- dation of additional conditions re9arding air quality, hazardous material handling and disposal, minimization of noise and odor levels and accountability to A.Q.M.D. and Fire Department, if the CUP is approved. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed other auto repair shops' locations in the surrounding area. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:37 p.m. Mr. Michael Bates, M.B. Technical Services and applicant's representative, stated his educational and professional background. He stated the applicant accepts the alternative recommendations, but questioned Section I, Item 28, spray booth odor elimination. He explained the two available methods, commenting upon the cost of each, and stating an A.Q.M.D. permit has been granted, with the booth meeting all Fire Department r.equirements. Mr. Garabed Maroikian, property owner, stated one tr~iler is being removed on November 14, 1991, with the other trailer continuing to be used for storage of expensive parts. He stated anything the Commission wants, he will comply. Chmn. Ketz said the trailers were to haye been removed as of one and one-half years ago . He stated he needed time to remove the second trailer. Comm. Di Monda confirmed a spray booth exists currently, which is constantly in operation. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:48 p.m. Comm. Di Monda commented upon previous denials of similar requests, noting the recommendation for denial. He asked if Staff should revise the zoning Ordinance, restricting body shop locations. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve Staff recommendation for denial of this request. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks and Chmn. Ketz None Comm Merl None 8 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 SS 91-3/TEXT 91-2 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATED AREAS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action: To recommend approval of sald test amendment and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to study possible amendments to the General Plan & Zoning Ordinance related to allowable uses in the open space zone, referring to the 1986 vote to protect open space. He discussed text additions in 1989 and 1974 adopted provisions, and defined non-typical open- space usage and specific restrictions. H~ outlined the potential use reduction methods, stating Staff believes the standard applied on the OS-1 zone is too severe and recommends amendment of the use list, eliminating many restrictive facility descriptions and clarification of non-building improvements by the addition of specific types of facilities. Staff recommends Section 9.5-8 modification and elimination of some items currently on the permitted use list. He stated a question of status remains referring to government building, schools and utility structures located on OS-designated property, (not including protected open space areas surrounding existing school sites) which should be given a separate zoning in General Plan category. Mr. Schubach stated the p~opos~d zoning -ordinance text amendments will be consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan, when map changes are considered for public facilities designation, reference to public and governmental buildings can be completely removed from the open space element. He submitted a replacement copy of P.C. Resolution 91-66, which has been standardized in presentation, noting sign size will be at the discretion of ttie Commission. Mr. Schubach also discussed Staff's concerns relating to the South School site. Chmn. Ketz asked if oil drilling on the South School site was a possibility, to which Mr. Schubach con- firmed, with explanation. Comm. Di Monda discussed the resolution terminology in reference to the size of signs with Mr. Schubach. Mr. Lee added the Commission may require a smaller area sign, but allow a maximum height of eight feet. Comm. Merl commented a sign plan submittal consistent . with the usage ana • approved -by the Commission should be included in this document, to which Comm. Di Monda agreed, adding language stating, "the sign must be made from materials compatible with the open space". Comm. Di Monda questioned -the 20% lot and space coverage which allows the footprint ~nd parking space to the same size. Chmn. Ketz discussed the public use properties, with Mr. Schubach stating that some private use is made of some designated open-space areas. Public Hearing opened and closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:09 p.m. Chmn. Ketz stated zoning public school non-conforming open space should go hand-in-hand with the General Plan change making thel_ll public facilities. Comm. Merl discussed the permitted use list, noting the museums and educational facilities have been excluded. Comm. Di Monda stated park land is always under attack, with museums wanting to expand into park areas, noting he d,oes not wish · 9 P.C.Minutes -11/7/91 -· · to add educational facilities into the category. Chmn. Ketz felt the Commission should be handling all as one package, rather than designating certain items as non-conforming, asking to reason for addressing this item at this time. Mr. Schubach stated this item was a priority request from City Council, suggesting the Commission might make a recommendation for continuance to allow investigation as to what City properties should be designated as other than open space. Comm. Di Monda stated lot coverage and parking coverage, and signage, reviews by the Planning Commission should be items for discussion at the Joint Meeting. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm Marks, to continue SS 91-3/ TEXT 91-2 and make this an item for discussion at the Joint Meeting to be held in December 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARING Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None FOURTH QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Mr. Schubach stated the law requires the Commission amend the Gen- eral Plan four times a year. Staff suggests the private project at 64 10th Street be changed from zone C-2 to R-2 and from GC to MD. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm Merl, to place the Fourth Quarter General Plan Amendment on the agenda. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None A. MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF CHECK CASHING USE. Mr. Schubach stated a need to interpret the Zoning Ordinance in regard to __ check cashing as a requested use exists, stating the ~erm~tte~ use list is not s~ecific, stat~ng "banking and f~nancial - 1nst1.tut1.on·s 11 • Staff queried the Pol.tee Department which Mr. Schubach defined for the Commission. He stated Staff's concern is the lack of a specific statement stating it is a permitted use. He noted the Building Department has held applications but not issued any permits until an interpretation is available. Chmn. Ketz felt it is not a banking or financial institution and lacks comparable security or service. Mr. Lee suggested the Commission note the facts supporting the belief the stated classifications are not applicable and direct Staff to prepare a resolution for the Commission's review and adoption. 10 MOTION by Chrnrn. Ketz, seconded by Comm Merl, that "retail, banking or financial" is not an applicable description, because the type of use, range of transactions, security, service, hours are not the same, with no product being sold. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None B. MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF LOT MERGER ORDINANCE IN REGARDS TO COMBINE LOTS ON 30TH STREET. Chmn. Ketz abstained due to her principle residence location. Comm. Marks assumed the Chair. Mr. Schubach stated this item was done but not completed, the merge was not done because the block was already more than 80% split. The applicant requested he be able to demolish the existing home and build individual homes of each lot. Mr. Schubach explained the particulars of this request, including adjacent lots with the Commissioners. Comm. Di Monda ascertained the Commission is being asked to force lots to merge, commenting the lots should not be forced to merge, to which Chmn. Marks and Mr. Schubach agreed. A courtesy-Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Marks at 10:33 p.m. Mr. Mark Nobel, 255 30th Street, }?resented photographs of the property to the Commission, explaining the footprint on the properties, stating his belief that splitting of double lots have a negative impact on the neighborhood, for which Chmn. Marks asked an explanation. Mr. Nobel felt new building's height and bulk being built in a crowded area creates a negative impact and requested double lots not be allowed to split and that double-lot property owners should not be allowed a wind fall. Comm. Di Monda stated he didn't not see a negative impact, feeling the four remaining property owners should be allowed to split their properties as other had previously done. The Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Marks at 10:38 p.m. MOTION by Chrnrn. Di Monda, seconded by Comm Merl, to confirm Staff's interpretation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, and Merl None Chmn. Ketz None Mr. Lee rendered the opinion, after research, that this item can be appealed within a 10-day period of the Commission's decision. Chmn. Ketz assumed the Chai~. 11 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 C. MEMORA.."-JD'i.JI,f REGARDING 1) DECEMBER MEE;l'I!~G DATE,. 2) CITY COUNCIL/ PLA."INING CO:Ml.USSION KOR:~sr-IOP. Chmn. Ketz suggested the regular Planning Commission meeting be held December 3, 1991 and canceling the December 17, 1991 meet- ing, suggesting the Joint Meeting's be sched~~ed for December 12, 1991. If this date is inconvenient, the Cit~ Council may recommend another date. r:o o:ilj ectio~, ..;..:> ordered. Comm. Di Monda auestioned the status of the standard CUP condi- tions, with CUP; being organized into a standard condition and special condi ticn format, whi..cr: were supposed to be initiated by the City Manager. Mr. Schubach stated this h as been completed. He stated snack shops have no standard conditions yet. D. MEl-iOR.Zli'iD~-I RE~·ARDii~G LEGAL OPINION FCh. ::."L;l.l."-'fflING CO:!wl?USSION' S INFORMATION. Chmn. Ketz stated this will be discussed at the February 4, 1992 meeting. E. MEMORANDUM RZG:tu.~DI~JG A.N-:,.::;.TICLE FROM LCS A.:~GELES TH.LES FOR THE PLA.NNHTG CO:MlUSSION' S INFORii.L~TI01:J. Chmn. Ketz stated the article discussed the combating of noise with noise. F. PLAl~?IIiG DEPA..~TMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF SEPTE~•J3ER 1991. Receive and File. Receive and File. H. CITY COUNCIL MI~U'T:1:S 0:,.0 OC'l'OBER S, 1991. Receive and File. .... .. i-..:..,. COMJ.U SSICNER ITEMS h K t t d 11 1 1 t , , d. h k. C mm. e z reques e sma ot ~ayou s, 1.nc_:.1 1.ng a .ouse, par 1.ng and turning radi~s off of a 1 0' alley, 70' lot. Comm. Di Monda asked the status of required landscaping at Constantine's Detailing on Pacific -Coast Highway, to which Mr. Schubach stated an amendment had been fil ed, with landscaping !:Jeing started aft-=r that date. Comm. Di Monda said the g reenbelt. pa:cking lot issue has been included in the City Council's Consent Calendar, stating this item should not have ~een included. This item hc.s been sent back, resulting in the earliest Commission review would be February 1992, a year's lapse since the Commission's first review. He requested the Commission direct Staff to contact the City Manager in writing, requesting fast action of t ~e se particular item. No objection, so ordered. Comm. Marks suggested both this subject and "Beach Drive" be presented at the Joint Meeting. 12 P.C.Minutes 11/7/9) Comm. Di Monda, regarding emissions regulations concerning body shops, felt the following information should be forwarded to the City Attorney: the City is allowed to have more restrictive ordinances of which the South Coast District Board must enforce, if asked by the City of Hermosa Beach. Also, if the City wishes to have an ordinance more strict that the A.Q.M.D. 's, at the City's request, they must assist the City in ordinance adoption. Mr. Lee stated that though the language notes that stricter standards may be set, it does provide for a conflict and preemption provision, allowing for questions that can be raised by applicants if stricter standards are set. Comm. Di Monda suggested the Commission start by requesting the A.Q.M.D.'s assistance. Chmn. Ketz asked how parked storage trailers can be eliminated, to which Mr. Schubach stated a complaint on behalf of the Commission will be submitted to the Building Department expressing its concern, the zoning code is enforced on a complaint basis. The Commission requested a complaint be issued to the City Manager. Comm. Di Monda and Chmn. Ketz discussed zoning for body shops. The Commission decided this issue should be reviewed. Mr. Lee discussed the constitutional problems associated with this issue, urging caution in implementing new zoning codes. The Commission requested Staff review how other cities regulate body shops. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11:07 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 7, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairman Date 13 P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 15, 1991, AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chrnn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Merl. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Chrnn. Ketz None Ken Robertson, Associate Planner, F. Paul Corneal, Building Inspector, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Mel, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Resolution P.C. 91-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22916 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-60, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 2010 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 91-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE AUTO SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AUTO- MOTIVE REPAIR, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BUGGE BUILDERS. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, commented she supports Agenda Item 10. She was informed by Chmn. Ketz that agenda items must be discussed in order, not during "Communications". 1 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 PUBLIC HEARING LEGAL DETERMINATION HEARING TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX LOCATED AT 2104 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Recommended Action: To determine said property to be legal for a single-family dwelling and require conversion of the existing duplex to a single-family dwelling. Inspector Corneal, representing the Building Department, discussed the zoning history and information pertaining to this property, stating the change from single to dual dwelling was not done through permit documentation, al though completed many years ago. Additionally, the dishwashers and an electrical panel are in substandard condition. Removal of one kitchen and installation of an interior stairway are recommended to accomplish the requested conversion to a single-family dwelling. Comm. Marks stated the property dimensions on the drawing supplied to the Commission are inaccurate and requested drawing accuracy. Mr. Corneal stated the Assessor's map was utilized. Comm. Marks and Mr. Corneal discussed the actual footage of the land and building. Comm. Merl and Mr. Corneal discussed the fact that the property owner had previously signed a deed restriction in 1981. Public Hearing was opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:10 p.m. Mr. John ~oodwin, 2104 Monterey Blvd., stated at the time of his purchase 1.n 1968, he was told the property was a nonconforming duplex. He gave his experience history in dealing with the City as a result of the construction of a bedroom over the garage, his signing of an "inaccurate" deed restriction, an evicted tenant's complaints against him and the problems, legal fees and other costs relating to his efforts to retain his duplex as a duplex. He asked that the application be approved, allowing him to retain the duplex, not requiring conversion to a single dwelling. Chmn. Ketz and Comms. Merl and Di Monda discussed the one-dwelling building permit and deed restriction form signed by Mr. Goodwin, who explained these forms were misinterpretations, signed by him out of frustration and lack of an attorney being present. The property assessor's records, permit requirements, Mr. Goodwin's previous tax returns, property usage and the existence of neighboring duplexes were discussed with Comms. Merl and Marks. Comm. Di Monda asked about the research conducted to obtain variance records, to which Mr. Corneal outlined his research efforts. Comm. Di Monda discussed the disqualification of the lot for two units under the old law resulting from it's being under 30 feet with Mr. Goodwin, with Mr. Goodwin questioning the measure- ments and requirement. Mr. Corneal stated an inspection had previously been requested and denied by Mr. Goodwin, to which he disagreed, stating he had repeatedly made his home available for inspection of which was never performed. 2 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 Mr. Gustoff Verner, 2026 Monterey Blvd., stated Mr. Goodwin good neighbor who improves the entire neighborhood as maintaining his own property in excellent condition. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:46 p.m. J.S a well Comms. Marks requested accurate information as to property building location. Comm. Merl stated the property usage is the basic question, noting the documents state "single-family dwelling", commenting the Commission must be concerned with the legal use of the property, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. Comm. Di Monda discussed the purchase history of the property and lack of legal conversion with Mr. Goodwin. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Merl, to approve Staff's recommendation and determine the property is a legal single-family dwelling. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CON 91-5/PDP 91-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22886, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 143 MANHATTAN AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 MEETINGS) Recommended Action: amendment. To approve said Conditional Use Permit Assoc. Planner Robertson stated the recommendation was based upon the understanding additional, detailed renderings would be received from the applicant, which if not received, the recommendation is for continuance. Previously, the Commission stated concern and requested clarification for architectural features, side yard level, ground floor bedroom and interior stairway. Mr. Robertson noted revisions have been submitted raising the ground floor and exterior feature description, but has not addressed changing the ground floor plan. Staff feels this ground-floor • plan is not inconsistent with ones previously approved. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz. at 7:56 p.m. Mr. Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, stated he could not afford another art rendering, but has given a revised plan to the Commission. Mr. B. Barsoum, project architect, discussed changes made to the decorative materials, costs, and landscaping. Comm. Marks noted his feeling that this is a three-story building and discussed the grading from the street to the alley with Mr. Barsoum, establishing a 3-foot difference. Messrs. Riggs and Barsoum noted their con- fusion as to what the Commission is requesting prior to approval. 3 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 Comm. Di Monda noted objection to creating a retaining wall, setting a precedent, suggesting the plans might be flipped to alleviate this problem. Mr. Riggs objected to this idea, as well as any changes to the downstairs area, while agreeing to changes in grading and landscaping requirements, with Mr. Barsoum's concurrence, after discussion with Comm. Di Monda. Comms. Marks and Di Monda objected to a raised grade, retaining wall and the quality of the drawings provided and requested new concise, clear, accurate drawings be submitted to the Commission. Mr. Riggs explained the efforts he and Mr. Barsoum have made trying to comply with the Commission's requests and requested clear definition in order to receive Commission approval. Chmn. Ketz felt the issues should be clearly addressed to alleviate any misunderstanding. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:28 p.m. Comms. Marks and Di Monda responded to the request for clarity by stating: (l) submitting architectural renderings for review by the Comrntssion, (2) resolve the potential of a downstairs rental unit, (3) minimization of retaining walls, (4) window-size indication and more detail on elevations, and (5) accurate and internally consistent set of plans. Comm. Merl concurred with concerns relating to the downstairs configuration and the retaining wall. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to continue this application to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the issues in question and to respond to the Commission. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None A break was taken from 8:26 to 8:40 p.m. CON 85-15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN ADDITION OF A MEZZANINE LEVEL TO AN EXISTING FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1107 LOMA DRIVE. Recommended Action: amendment. To approve said Conditional Use Permit Assoc. Planner Robertson stated Staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions, defining the building and zoning requirement history, and explained the requested building additions. Staff is recommending the exterior stucco and windows match the existing structure and the decks be widened to 7 feet to bring open space up to code, noting the addition is less than 50% and may be approved with the 5 '4" decks. Comm. Marks discussed parking requirements with Mr. Robertson Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 300, architect, stated the four owners have agreed to the building changes, disagreed with 4 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 the open space (deck) area requirement and definition of "open space" and stated the building height would not be increased above the roof peak. He explained the excellent construction and stress control of the original construction of the building, stating the addition would "build onto" this original construction. Comm. Marks discussed agreement of the owners, egress and footing/wall compensation with Mr. Compton. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:58 p.m. Comm. Di Monda agreed with Mr. Compton regarding open space adjacent to a living area is more valuable than in other areas and felt the Commission should review this concept in the immediate future. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve Staff's recommendation to approve the modification to the Conditional Use Permit, except that no change to the width of the mezzanine deck is required. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Coffllns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 91-20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SALE OF THE SANDWICHES AND SIDE DISHES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAKERY LOCATED AT 517 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA CAFE. Recommended Action: To approve Conditional Use Permit amendment. Assoc. Planner Robertson stated Staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions, and denial of the sale of side salads. He described the site accommodations and business, including defining "snacks", amount of display space allowed, the requirement that food be preprepared, and no waitresses or menus utilized to alleviate progression into a restaurant. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Jim Lienghot, 517 Pier Avenue, described his background, his employment history, his current bakery business and his desire to increase the menu to his customers. He stated most of his customers are "walk-in". Chmn. Ketz asked if he agreed with all the conditions, to which he replied, "Yes." Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Di Monda asked Staff about the parking requirements of this business and restaurants. Mr. Robertson stated the requirements are based upon square footage, not the number of tables. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Robertson discussed the "snack" definition vs. "a meal", and display case requirements. Comm. 5 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 Merl requested the Commission be open regarding the type of food to be served as long as the display area is less that 50%, commenting the issue of floor space vs. square footage to establish parking requirements should be reviewed. Comm. Di Monda observed that general parking is available to this and other local area businesses, and felt the Commission should address this parking situation in the future. Comm. Marks established with Mr. Lieng- hot that his primary business is baking. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve Staff recommendation, except Condition 3 be changed from "meat and cheese filled croissants and baguettes" to "sandwiches" and the percentage of display window be changed to 50%. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 91-23/PARK 91-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TH STREET, LA PLAYITA. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and Parking Plan, and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Assoc. Planner Robertson stated La Playita recently moved to this new location and the Staff Environmental Review Committee had recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration with four measures. Applicant has requested expansion with an outdoor patio, four striped parking spaces, use of City right-of-way for landscaping and bicycle parking. Staff recommends out-door dining be limited to from 9:30 a.m. to sunset, management is responsible for noise level, landscaping be submitted for approval and the maximum area possible be used for bicycle parking. Staff also believes a finding can be made for less than required parking because of the location, which results in a high incidence of walk-in or bicycle traffic. Comm. Di Monda questioned the hours of operation, noting other local restaurants open earlier and discussed the proposed area location with Mr. Robertson Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Harold Cohen, applicant and restaurant owner, introduced his architect, Larry Peha, who discussed parking and bicycle racks with Comm. Marks. Comm. Di Monda established Mr. Cohen would prefer to open the outside patio at 8~30 a.m. with landscaping in the form of colored flowers and a tree. Chmn. Ketz established the applicant had read and agrees with the CUP conditions. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:29 p.m. 6 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm Marks, to approve CUP 91-13/PARK 91-4 with a change in Condition 2, changing opening business hours from 9:30 to 8:30 a.m. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF A BASEMENT. Comm. Marks noted the definition of basement should be discussed at length, by the Commission, looking at the Los Angeles Zoning Code, to assist the Commission in determining and agreeing upon a correct zoning and third-floor definition. Chmn. Ketz requested this item be presented in the November 19, 1991 agenda. DRAWING FROM AN AREA RESIDENT REGARDING THE BILTMORE SITE. Chmn. noted this proposes a restaurant built over a restricted beach. Received and Filed. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Chmn. Ketz noted the meeting date of Thursday, November 7, 1991 agenda is filled. Comm. Di Monda asked if an emissions ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach is progressing, to which Mr. Robertson responded City Council, Tuesday, October 22, 1991, will consider the Commission's request to direct Staff to study this issue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1991. Receive and File. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Merl requested Staff be directed to investigate (l) the issue of open space and directly accessible open space to assure usability, compatibility and livability, comparing other cities ordinances, and ( 2) restaurant parking requirement determination guidelines. He stated customer volume should be the critical factor, to which Comm. Di Monda agreed. Mr. Robertson noted the pending ballet measure which may enable a more comprehensive review of residential standards. Comm. Di Monda didn't feel the ballot should delay or effect open space apportionment. Comm. Di Monda also asked if Staff would be presenting the 50% remodel ordinance to the Commission. Mr. Robertson was not aware of any such plans. Comm. Di Monda noted dissatisfaction with the current ordinance, discussing this ordinan~e and value determination with Chmn. Ketz. 7 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to adjourn at 9:48 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 15, 1991. ~b~ Secretary Date 8 P.C.Minutes 10/15/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 1, 1991, AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by comm. Di Monda. Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, and Chmn. Katz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary Chmn. Katz introduced and welcomed Commissioner Rod Merl. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks to approve the Consent Calendar items with the change as noted in Resolution P.C. 91-55: Minutes of the September 17, 1991 Planning commission meetings. chmn. Ketz pulled Resolution P.C. 91-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USER PERMIT TO ALLOW SNACK SHOP ( FEEBEE 'S YOGURT CAFE) WITHIN A RETAIL DESIGNATED SPACE IN THE HERMOSA PAVILION, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY #114, for discussion. she stated when the commission made the Resolution, it was specific in stating this is "restaurant use," not "snack shop." This Resolution shall be changed to read: "······TO ALLOW RESTAURANT (FEEBEE'S YOGURT CAFE) ..... " Resolution P.C. 91-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE IMPACT OF VAPORS AND ODORS RELEASED FROM BUSINESSES AND TO STUDY POSSIBLE METHODS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL THESE VAPORS AND ODORS WHETHER THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS OR THROUGH AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LAWS. Resolution P.C. 91-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20755 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR A PROJECT AT 345 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MURAL SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS SIGN AREA REQUIREMENTS AT 1242 HERMOSA AVENUE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: comms. Di Monda, Marks, and Chmn. Ketz None comm. Merl None 1 P.C. Minutes 10-1-91 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBL I C Mr . Ro be rt Ut ivi ch, 1559 Pacific coast Highway, referred to the September 3, 1991 meeting, asked what had been done about Round Table Pizza's violation of parking codes, and if Round Table Pizza is required to have a CUP. Mr. Schu- bach stated Round Table Pizza has submitted a revised parking plan, which is legal and will resolve its parking problem, and that no CUP is required. Mr. Roy McNalley, 207 29th street, thanked the Commission and invited the members, staff and attendees to a Bar-B-Q at his house Saturday and Sunday, October 5 & 6, 1991. PUBLIC HEARING CON 9 1-4/PDP 91-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP i22916, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT, PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENU E {continued f r om 8/6 & 9/3/91 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Schubach stated this item had been continued in order that staff could further investigate prior existence of a curb-cut and to allow the commission to determine the number of s~~=ies. staff found a curb cut had been closed off and is satisfied of the previous existence and does not believe the extra parking space is required. The applicant has also addressed the commission's concerns. Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:07 p.m. Mr. Ivars Janieks, 2453 silver strand, property owner, discussed the lack of balcony off the living room with Comm. Di Monda, who stated the Commission is trying to obtain usable open space. comm. Di Monda stated the drawings were very completed and asked that the balcony-surface material be specified, to which Mr. Janieks agreed they would be in the final plans. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:10 p.m. comm. Marks questioned a two-story building with only one means of exit. Mr. Janieks stated it is a two-story building and meets requirements. Chmn. Ketz, Comms. Marks Di Monda and Mr. Janieks discussed nonfilling of the lot, adjacent grades, building requirements and "floor" determination. Chmn. Ketz and Mr. Schubach determined this is a building code issue, requiring the Building Director's interpretation. Mr. Schubach stated the Director would probably consider the garage/bedroom level a "basement." Comm. Merl stated the code is an issue of grade rather than usage, to which Mr. Schubach agreed and discussed the upcoming initiative and the November election. Mr. Lee noted that any building code violation would be noted at the time the plans are submitted for plan check, with appropriate actions being taken, noting the particulars of the commission's concerned. 2 P.c. Minutes 10-1-91 comm. Di Monda discussed the problems of grades raised and lots being filled vs. this in-the-ground instance. He noted the question by Comm. Marks should be addressed by the Building Dept. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Merl, to approve staff's recommendation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CUP 91-15 Couuns. Di Monda, Merl and Chmn. Ketz CoDDn. Marks None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS WITH AUTO SALES, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BUGGEY BUILDERS. Recommended Action: To approve said request Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated staff recommends approval subject to conditions. He described the location, buildings and operation, noting that an approval condition is that the garage may only be used in conjunction with auto sales. Mr. Schubach described past business history, along with previous city council actions, noting current management has adhered to all requirements of the Municipal Code. staff had added a condition limiting the size of the display area and prohibiting cars for sale being parked in customer, employee or public right-of-way parking, and a condition requiring the wooden fence be maintained in satisfactory condition or be replaced by a 6' decorative block wall. staff believes the proposed use meets the CUP'S original intent. Comm. Di Monda noted the absence of a sprinkler system. Mr. Schubach affirmed a sprinkler system currently exists; if not, it will be added, noting it must be kept in operational condition. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach agreed to add to Item 18 area maintained devoid of weeds and landscaped area shall be maintained. Comm. Merl questioned the presence of spray painting activity, to which Mr. Schubach stated, "No." Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Rob Pervis, manager, 825 Pacific coast Highway, stated a sprinkler system is in and working, set on a timer. Chmn. Ketz asked if he has seen and agree with all the conditions, to which he responded, yes, except for a question regarding Item 9, customer and Employee Parking. He stated adequate employee and customer parking has been provided. He questioned the ability of the city of Hermosa Beach to state where the employees can park and requested clarifi- cation. Chmn. Ketz stated the commission likes to assure enough on-site parking to not impact the streets. He stated their business hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and business streets are fairly clear. chmn. Ketz and Mr. Pervis discussed street parking and neighbors' concerns. 3 P.C. Minutes 10-1-91 Mr. Jim Weber, 730 8th Place, 722 8th Place, property owner, noted the wooden fence is ready to fall down and asked if the City checks on the conditions or does he check and call the City? He noted the improvements to the property made by the new owner. Mr. Schubach stated regular checks are made in the course of CUP enforcement. Chmn. Ketz noted that Mr. Weber may call to inform the Planning Dept. of any violation. Mr. Weber requested a copy of the CUP. Mr. Schubach agreed to furnish a copy for Mr. Weber's pick-up after 10-15-91. Ms. Maryann Wright, 731 8th street, asked why the business was allowed to be there, describing the parking problems in her area and the noise generated by the business. she talked to Mr. Nick Haas, property owner, at midnight. she complained that business owners state they have gone to the Planning commission when she complains to them. She discussed cottages that had previously been on the property and the smallness of the lots. Mr. Schubach stated a CUP for auto sales currently exists, and explained the general policy. Mr. Rob Pervis, 825 Pacific Coast Highway, rebutted by stating if he is told something is wrong with the fence, it will be fixed within hours on t~e same day. He explained Mr. Haas is the property owner, but has nothing to do with the business. He is not aware of the other problems expressed, explained the problems with opening the business and his hours of operation. comm. Marks asked about the hours of operations. Mr. Pervis stated they are 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday, closed Sunday. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:38 p.m. Comm. Di Monda referenced a previous auto detailing business of which the commission required landscaping and asked why landscaping wasn't considered at this location. Mr. Schubach explained this is an amendment to an existing CUP, but landscaping could be added if the commission wished. Comm. Merl suggested landscaping be discussed with the applicant. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:39 p.m. Mr. Rob Pervis asked where the landscaping would be located. Comm. Di Monda stated Mr. Schubach will furnish suggested and discussed previous typical landscaping requirements. Due to the presence of a sidewalk, the landscaping would need to be on the asphalt portion, not interfering with the fence. Mr. Schubach suggested planter boxes. Comm. Di Monda stated landscaping would be in the lot, explaining barriers are not desirable. Mr. Pervis stated willingness to landscape. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:42 p.m. MOTION by comm. Merl, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve this CUP with the conditions recommended by staff, plus an additional condition that additional landscaping along Pacific coast Highway as recommended by the Planning Director and planting of ground area between the sidewalk and the street along 8th Place be added. 4 P.C.Minutes 10/1/91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BEARINGS conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz None None None NR 91-5 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO ALLOW A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO CONVERT A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING RESULTING IN GREATER TRAN 50% EXPANSION AT 2010 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach noted supplemental information had been received from a neighbor states a division between property results in a view which would be blocked by this addition. The neighbor, Ms. Miller, requested this item be continued due to her illness and inability to attend this meeting. Mr. Schubach explained the history, requested building 64% addition and consolidation, and the basis for nonconformity. He questioned the zero (0) front yard, but stated this is not unusual, nor does it have a detrimental impact in the neighborhood. Mr. Schubach noted request approval by the commission would also require a finding that the goals, intent and purpose of Article 13 are being met. He discussed plan corrections, including recommendation of conditions that (1) all plumbing connections to the existing kitchen and separate stairway access be removed, (2) modification of final plans so that lot coverage does not exceed 65%, and (3) correction of the second floor space which encroaches into the setback. He further discussed a front "yard" second level deck with railing encroaching into the front yard setback. comm. Merl asked if staff had discussed the lot coverage issue with the applicant. Mr. Schubach affirmed this, stating plan revision will not be difficult, and Staff will assure the plans compliance. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Mike Ludwig, 1050 Ardmore, stated he has no problem with the corrections and the deck will be removed above the entryway. Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:52 p.m. comm. Di Monda pointed out plan problems, discussing zero front yard and the extent of building vs. original structure and structure reinforcement and setback relocation. He stated the commission is still awaiting a Monterey issue decision and, therefore, cannot agree with Staff's recommendation. Chmn. Ketz discussed with comm. Di Monda the ordnance and safe guards. Public Hearing was opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Mike Ludwig stated the plans appeared to have a lot of changes, but that this was not true: existing windows are being replaced, the basic structure 5 P.C.Minutes 10/1/91 will remain intact and closets removed. chmm. Ketz and Comm. Di Monda questioned the drawings vs. what Mr. Ludwig stated was to be done, noting a number of inconsistencies. Comm. Marks discussed the set back requirement and existing patio with Mr. Ludwig and Mr. Schubach. comms. Di Monda and Marks, Messrs. Schubach and Ludwig discussed the exterior stairs, which are to be removed. Mr. Ludwig stated he was remodeling to economize, rather than buy a new house. comm. Di Monda felt with the amount of construction, a set back should be required, to which Mr. Ludwig disagreed. Public Hearing was closed by chmn. Ketz at 8:09 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by cbmn. Ketz, to continue this item until November 19, 1991 to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise and clarify the proposed plans. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Merl and Chmn. Ketz Comms. Di Monda, Marks Hone Hone Comm. Marks stated the applicant should acknowledge the proper set back, suggesting the applicant resubmit the plans within guidelines. comm. Di Monda objected to the zero set back due to the work extent, having driven by the property and noting adjacent properties were set back significantly. Comm. Merl felt a clear sense of the proposal is necessary, expressing concern that a portion of the building is on public right-of-way. Comm. Di Monda stated the commission is not aware of the city council's future action relating to set backs on Monterey, guessing the intent is to assure buildings have set backs. comm. Merl reiterated his desire to see a clear sense of the proposal and alternatives, and give an opportunity for the neighbor(s) to speak. Comm. Di Monda discussed alternatives. chmn. Ketz commented upon the extensive remodel. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to deny allowance for a first floor remodel and second floor addition. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, and Chmn. Ketz Comm. Merl Hone Hone MEMORANDUM REGARDING TBE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE IN NOVEMBER. Chmn. Ketz stated staff requested the meeting date be changed due to the city Council's unavailability. This meeting date is changed to Thursday, November 7, 1991, to begin at 7:30 p.m. 6 P.C.Minutes 10/1/91 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF AUGUST 1991. Chmn. Ket2 commented upon the new format comparison of 1990 and 1991. RECEIVE AND FILE. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. RECEIVE AND FILE. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1991. Comms. Marks and Merl and Mr. Schubach discussed the budget. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Marks asked about the status of the the Ocean Drive Parking Plan. Mr. Schubach noted this will be on the agenda~ however, the Public works Dept. Schedule forwarded to staff notes presentation to the city council on February 11, 1992 and the Planning Commission thereafter. comm. Marks found this unsatisfactory. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the quality of drawings being presented to the Commission and suggested policy be revised to clearly state a signed survey, a color rendering, photographs of adjacent buildings and call out of exterior finishes are required, to which Mr. Schubach stated this policy is being changed and will be brought back as a staff item. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to adjourn at 8:34 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 1, 1991. U .. L_ ~ -----7µ....cJA:.:....-L~"--'-' ·~ pc;:::;....c~____.:;_;t"---"~"'--'-?--:--=;~=-P __ ,, -~·/"""""'",~ -C7h•r~i~s~t=i~·=n=e=-K=e~t-2~,=c~n~a_..i_rm __ a_n____ l'iikhael Schubach, secretary Date 7 P.C.Minutes 10/1/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1991, AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano and Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant city Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Peirce to approve the following consent calendar items: Minutes of the following change: chicken grease." September 3, 1991 Planning commission meetings with the Page 9, section E, " ... will emit combustion byproducts and Resolution P.C. 91-41, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE RELOCATION IMPACT REPORTS FOR MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS OR CLOSURES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Resolution P.C. 91-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 248 27TH STREET. Resolution P.C. 91-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHMENT AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1231 PROSPECT AVENUE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce and stifano . None chmrn. Ketz None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Richard Sullivan, no address given, stated typical CUP, section 3 states CUPS are subject to review, if needed. He stated differences exist for body shops within the city and requested a review of the CUP -for Felder's Auto, requesting the Planning commission review the lack of standardization in issuing CUPs. Mr. Sullivan then defined what he felt were the differences. He feels CUPs should be standardized. chmn. Ketz suggested Mr. Sullivan write a letter to the Planning commission staff outlining his complaints, to which he agreed. 1 P.c. Minutes 9-17-91 PUBLIC HEARING CON 89-5 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20755 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 345 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 120 4TH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Schubach stated Staff is recommending approval of a request to reinstate a Tentative Map which had been previously approved, but is currently expired. The condominium uni ts have been completed in conformance with Condominium Requirements and Standards and are currently rented. comm. Di Monda asked if the building was constructed in compliance with the ,99 CUP, to which Mr. Schubach responded, "Yes." Public Hearing was opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Perry Herwood, 2-unit condominium property owner, stated he was not aware of the CUP expiration, having been misinformed by the firm he had hired to complete packaging the project and to complete the associated paperwork. He is now resubmitting the parcel map for approval. comm. Marks discussed with Mr. Herwood the responsibilities of the firm hired and the problems experienced. Comm. Peirce discussed the map's inaccuracies with Mr. Herwood, establishing that it was not a final map. Mr. Herwood stated the condominiums are being leased rather than sold due to the bad real estate market. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:17 p.m. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation. AYES: HOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano, Chmn. Ketz Hone None None CUP 91-5/PDP 91-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22886, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 143 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve said request conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Schubach stated staff submitted to the commission supplemental information, revised plans which indicated a north elevation and less than 65% lot coverage. Therefore, Staff recommends changes in the recommended conditions as follows: 2A regarding the lot coverage, and 2B, first sentence, regarding submittal of a north elevation. He stated an alternative of continuing until October 1, 1991 would allow the Commission to review the revised plans. Mr. Schubach then discussed the lot, landscaping, proposed structures and the staircase within the structure, noting the basement complies with code, copies of which had been provided to the Commission. staff recommends the revised ·landscape plans be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Schubach asked that the project architect explain the staircase plan during this meeting to eliminate the need for revised plans. 2 P.C. Minutes 9-17-91 comm. Marks noted the two building are detached, noted an error in the basement plans, questioned the first story bedrooms in Units A and B, noting this area could be easily turned into rental units, and questioned the grade around the basement. Mr. Schubach responded the Building Director had assured him the basement is in compliance with Code, commenting the Basement definition is very flawed. Chmn. Ketz and comm. Marks discussed the need for two exits from the second and roof deck, including necessary stairway height and access. Mr. Lee stated this issue is a Building code issue, and not need be addressed for approval of this CUP. comm. Peirce stated the Building Department does not make Code interpretations, but rather the Planning Department. Comm. Di Monda agreed and discussed basement interpretation associated impacts, suggesting the issue be continued until new correct drawings are submitted. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:33 p.m. Mr. B. Barsoum, project architect, explained recently issues had been brought forward, leaving little time to revise the plans. He noted the Code interpretation is the Building Department's, not his. He stated the code did not define whether a basement is from an adjacent existing grade or finish grade. Mr. Barsoum also discussed the neighboring properties' grades. comm. Marks discussed the drawings' errors relating to the stairways with Mr. Barsoum, who explained the stairway access plans and agreed to correct the errors. comm. Marks noted two more elevations of the buildings needed to be incorporated. Comm. Di Monda discussed the Uniform Building code and Hermosa Beach standards with Mr. Barsoum, stating many questions still need to be answered. Mr. Ron Riggs, applicant and property owner, explained the plan changes were made within a short period of time, and requested expediting of required actions since his loan application is pending the commission's approval. He wj,shed to respond to the commission's requested as soon as possible. chmn. Ketz asked if the downstairs bathroom could be revised, to which Mr. Riggs was opposed since he will be living in one unit and selling the other. He asserted no "bootleg" operation would be possible. Mr. Riggs stated he felt Mr. Lee had already answered the elevation issue and requested expansion. Mr. Lee stated he would defer to the Planning Commission's request to have this matter continued and bring back an analysis of definitions for basements and what is within the Planning commission's authority to decide at the next meeting. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:49 p.m. Chmn. Ketz, Comm. Peirce and Mr. Schubach discussed the time frame of one month to allow plan preparation and review. Comm. Peirce suggested the basement issue be discussed during the commissioners Items section. MOTION by comm. Peirce, seconded by comm. stifano, to continue this matter for one month to October 15, 1991 Planning commission Meeting to allow corrections to the plans made, and to get a clarification on the basement issue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: .) ABSENT: Coumts. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano and Chmn. Ketz None None None 3 P.c. Minutes 9-17-91 CUP 91 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SNACK SHOP-YOGURT SHOP, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, i114. FEEBEE'S YOGURT CAFE. Recommended Action: To approve said conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach said staff recommends approval of the requested CUP, describing the business and location. He stated the Environmental Review committee recommended a Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach noted an nonpermitted 150 sq. ft. addition to the leasing office should be corrected at the time of this project. staff is recommending the addition plus any created deficiency be incorporated into the review of the overall parking plan. The applicant is requesting that yogurt, soup, sandwiches, strudel be included, which requires a determination that items other than yogurt are additional snack items is necessary. Mr. Schubach then gave a definition of "snacks" and "snack shops" as relates to parking requirements and stated staff believes the emphasis of this business for snack food and quick service with adequate parking to provide for any increase in business. The parking plan will need be modified as the shopping center offices are filled to allow for compensation of the overall parking plan. Chmn. Ketz and Mr. Schubach discussed the parking requirements of a snack shop vs. a restaurant. Comm. Marks stated the shop only had one exit door and commented upon the apparent danger and questioned the illegal 150 sq. ft. addition. Mr. Schubach stated that was a previous leasing office and should be cured prior to issuance of approval. Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:58 p.m. Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific coast Highway, suite 209, stated the illegal footage occurred prior to her employment at the site. she discussed her being made aware of the problem and her efforts to comply with requirements, stating her belief that parking should be addressed at a later date. She discussed the limited menu and seating and requested the shop be held under the retain parking regulations. Comm. Marks discussed the illegal 150 sq ft addition with Ms. Harris. Public Hearing was closed by chmn. Ketz at 8:03 p.m. comm. Marks noted the commission should let Ms. Harris the parking situation obligation at the present time, with review at a future time. chmn. Ketz noted her problem with interpretation of a shop that sells various foods as a snack bar, al though she has no problem with this particular shop. comm. Di Monda noted as other spaces are rented the parking requirements will be revised; however, to be consistent, the higher use of eight spaces should be utilized. Comm. Marks and Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed state Law and safety requirements regarding the number of exits required. Comm. Di Monda recommended that signed drawings be requested. comm. stifano discussed the restroom requirements with Mr. Schubach. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to approve CUP 91-14 as restaurant use, with the addition that drawings are signed by a person licensed to practice architecture or one of the accepted engineering disciplines prior to submittal. 4 P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano, Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARINGS CUP 90-8 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, COMEDY MAGIC CLUB. Recommended Action: To postpone the review to August 11, 1992. Mr. Schubach noted the applicant has not executed approved CUP. staff recommends continuation until completion of the expansion so that staff will have something to review, at which time the CUP would be activated. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 8:10 p.m. Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:10 p.m. MOTION by comm. stifano, seconded by comm. Peirce, to postpone this review until August 11, 1992. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano, Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A MURAL SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABL.E SIGN AREA AT 1242 HERMOSA AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve subject request. Mr. Schubach stated staff recommends approval subject to conditions that any sign copy added to the sign be approved by the Planning Director, although the sample gives no sign copy. Mr. Schubach displayed a miniature of the proposed sign, stating the mural would be approximately 500 ft. and it is a matter of the Commission's judgment to determine if the mural is in the character with the surrounding properties and/or gives the business a promotional advantage. The Commissioners discussed the lack of any sign copy is on the sample although stated in the recommendation. Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 8:14 p.m. Fernando Lamas, 1242 Hermosa Avenue, owner of a men's and women's clothing, stated no words would be included on the mural. comm. Marks discussed the depth, quality and maintenance of the proposed mural. Public Hearing was closed by chmn. Ketz at 8:16 p.m. Chmn. Ketz felt the mural was not a sign, with comm. Di Monda stating he felt a mural became a sign when it is representative of a business. 5 P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Marks stated the mural was an excellent idea. MOTION by comm. Marks, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve the request. AYES: HOES: CoDDDs. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, Stifano, Chmn. Ketz Hone ABSTAIN: Hone ABSENT: Hone RESOLU'rIOH OF INTENT TO STUDY THE PROBLEM OF ODORS AND VAPORS BEING RELEASED FROM BUSINESSES. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated at the September 3, 1991, the Commission expressed concern regarding odors and vapors. Although agencies currently control emissions, obnoxious odors are not necessarily controlled. staff recommends adoption of the Resolution of Intent if the commission wishes further study and suggests this item be passed to city Council as a consent Item. comm. Di Monda questioned the wording, "investigate the impact", stating there is a problem which should be addressed by asking staff to present an ordnance to help control toxic grease, etc. being released into the atmosphere, to which Mr. Schubach suggested, "to examine vapors and odors released and to study possible methods to monitor and control these vapors .... " Comms. stifano and Di Mondo discussed the inclusion of the fact that the commission recognizes citizen complaints and other Public Hearings that the state and other ordnances do not address the problems. An investigation of impact is not the need, rather a manner of control is necessary. Comm. Peirce suggested a review of other cities which have had the same problem and review the solutions implemented. Comm. stifano stated another issue raised was whether or not the study should be proposed to City Council or immediately begun. Comm. Peirce stated he felt the staff should start the study. comm. Marks, Di Monda and Chmn. Ketz felt it should go to city council before staff conducts a study. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:26 P.M. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 8:26 P.M. Mr. Lee stated he could ask for clarification in terms of the release of vapor and fumes, asking if the Commission wishes to regulate all types of vapors, fumes or only noxious, toxic ones. Comm. Marks felt the Resolution should be narrowed to include only noxious and harmful vapors, using the Air Quality Board Guidelines. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. stifano, to approve the Resolution of the Planning commission to recommend to the city council to direct staff to investigate the impact and odors released from businesses, study possible methods to monitor and control vapors and odors, whether it is through enforcement of existing laws or through amendment of existing laws. 6 P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 !. AYES: NOES: Connns. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano, Cbmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS MEMORANDUM REGARDING PUBLIC TELEPHONES AT 635 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LE MASTERS. Mr. Schubach stated Staff was directed a memorandum to the City Manager. Staff has discovered the General services Department is in the process of removing the telephones and notified General Telephone and the property owner. staff therefore believed the memorandum was unnecessary, but will prepare it if the Commission so wishes. comm. Di Monda requested follow-up on this item. Mr. Schubach said this has been included in the CUP. RECEIVE AND FILE. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chmn. Ketz stated the agenda item is the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a two-lot subdivision at 596 19th street. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 1 AND 15, 1991. No comments~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1991. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce brought forth the basement issue, discussing fire ··exits and the associated dangers in exiting. chmn. Retz asked if Public safety has expressed an opinion on this issue, to which Mr. Schubach stated it hadn't been asked. Comms. Di Monda and Peirce discussed commission vs. Departmental authority and responsibilities, as well as finished grade vs. existing grade vs. building site. Mr. Lee suggested that typically the interpretation the Uniform Building Code rests with the Building Director, subject to his interpretation, subject to the Municipal code as a Board of Appeal to interpret building requirements. Mr. Lee stated application is the commission's purview and suggested amending the Zoning Code for clarity if the commission so wished. He stated the Building Code could be amended to provide for local jurisdiction definition and consistency. Mr. Lee read the zoning Code basement definition, stating it lacks clarity. comm. Peirce and Mr. Lee discussed the problem of the Commission's vs. the Building Department's interpretation of what constitutes and basement and the applicable provisions apply. 7 P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 The commission directed Staff to bring this item back before the commission, agendize it at the appropriate meeting and to make an interpretation as to how the height is measured from an existing grade, or if the basement is determined by existing grade and not finished grade, and to include one consistent base- ment definition. comm. Marks asked about the status of the ocean Drive parking situation. Mr. Schubach stated the Public works Director had resigned, resulting in this issue being "on hold". staff was directed to furnish an answer on this issue at the next meeting. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 8:49 P.M. Ho 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 September 17, 1991. ~ ICJs ,Oh_~ .... Christine Ketz, Cha irman Michae1 ·schub acih , /s ecretary Date )))9''1/ 8 P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1991, AT 7: 00 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:07 P.M. by Vice-chrnn. Marks. Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner stifano. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, stifano and Vice-chmn. Marks chmn. Ketz Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Roger Springer; Acting Assistant city Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording secretary CONSENT CALENDAR With Comms. Di Monda and Peirce abstaining, the following consent calendar items were approved. No objections, so ordered. Minutes of the August 20, 1991 Planning commission meeting. Resolution P.C. 91-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATING HOURS AT A RESTAURANT TO INCLUDE BREAKFAST HOURS FROM 6 : 0 0 A.M. TO 11: 00 A.M. AND TO CONTINUE TO AUTHORIZE ON-SITE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND A TAKE-OUT WINDOW .ON THE STRAND FOR 4 PIER AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION qF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTO SALES AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE PARKING PLACE. Policy statement P.C. 91-2,A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTERPRETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A "HALF-LOT" AT 215 4TH STREET IN THE R-3 ZONE, AND TO APPLY INTERPRETATION TO ALL SIMILAR LOTS WHICH ARE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF AN ALLEY AND A STREET WITH THE NARROW PORTION OF THE LOT FRONTING ON THE ALLEY AND THE LONGER SIDE FRONTING ON THE STREET. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC BEARING CON 91-4/PDP 91-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22916 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE (continued from August 6, 1991 meeting), Recommended Action: meeting. To continue to October 1, 1991 Planning Commission Mr. Schubach stated Staff is recommending the commission continue this CUP to October 1, 1991 as revisions are required for zoning and previously noted - 1 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 concerns compliance. staff suggested an alternate recommendation: approval of the request by adopting the resolution which includes conditions requiring (1) revised plans which provide additional guest space be re-submitted for review and approval, and (2) separate rear access to the second unit be eliminated. The plans had not complied with Zoning Ordnance Section 1151 and "bootleg" concerns resulted in previous continuance by the commission. currently, the applicant has not submitted revised plans and contends the curb-cut existed. Therefore, he believes the plans need not be modified. Mr. Schubach displayed aerial photographs, stating staff did not locate a driveway on this property and a thorough search did not show a previous curb-cut in existence. If no driveway previously existed, street space lost as a result of driveway installation must be replaced. If no effort to comply is made by the applicant, the project should be denied since the state's permit streamlining act restricts project approval/denial time amount. comm. stifano asked the manner of previous curb-cut investigation by staff, to which Mr. Schubach responded two neighbors' letters stating belief that a curb-cut existed previously had been received by staff. Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:16 P.M. Mr. Chris Coale, 217 5th street, owner of 228 Ardmore Ave., presented photographs of the curb-cut to the commission, stating it is obvious a previous curb-cut existed. Comms. Peirce and Vice-chmn. Marks reviewed the aerial photograph provided by Mr. Schubach and discussed the possibility of a previous curb cut with Mr. Coale. Mr. Coale commented upon his intention to 'resubmit plans, stating the-listed problems can be solved, but the parking problem should be exempted due to a previous existing curb-cut. Comm. Di Monda suggested Mr. Coale obtain the information requested by staff, with staff continuing to investigate, with the commission continuing the application. Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Marks at 7:25 P.M. comm. Peirce discussed the apparent curb roll-over and questioned the existence of a driveway on this property, instructing staff to investigate and determine the existence of a previous driveway or the use of a bootleg driveway, with comm. Di Monda stating agreement, discussing property-owner's good faith actions due to nonawareness and apparent lack of enforcement by the City of Hermosa Beach. Comm. stifano referenced residents' letters stating the existence of a previous driveway. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. stifano, to continue CON 91-4/PDP 91-6 to October 1, 1991 in order to give the applicant the opportunity to resubmit plans, providing a cross-section and removal of unit bootleg potential, and allow staff the time in which to continue their investigation into the existence of a previous curb-cut. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Stifano Comm. Peirce None Chmn. Ketz CUP 91-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINT SHOP AT 1231 PROSPECT AVENUE, BUCK'S BODY SHOP. Recommended Action: To approve said conditional Use Permit. -2 -P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 Mr. Schubach stated staff recommends CUP approval, subject to conditions: (1) additional landscaping, ( 2) public ·right-of-way shall not be used for parking of storing of vehicles, and (3) parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the front yard setback. Business hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Saturdays. A.Q.M.D. and Fire Department requirements have been met with the recent installation of a spot-area paint booth. Mr. Schubach stated complaints have been received relating to adjacent property and residents' confusion seems to exist regarding to the adjacent property, another Buck's Auto Body vs. this particular business location. comm. stifano compared previous CUP's with the current application, requesting an explanation of differences, with Mr. Schubach responding CUP'S relate to a particular site's requirements and, therefore, differences have been allowed by the Commission in its CUP approval. comrns. Peirce and stifano and Vice-chmn. Marks discussed angle and tandem parking with Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Marks at 7:43 P.M. Mr. Ray Martin, 1255 corona street, discussed noise limitation vs. increased business hours, stating his opposition to increased hours of local businesses. He requested an addition to the CUP requiring the ventilation system be less obtrusive and that cars be delivered and picked up only during business hours. Mr. Richard Sullivan, 3rd street, agreed the ventilation system is an "eye-sore", comparing previous body shop CUPs' requirements with this application, and requested that Buck's Auto shop not be allowed to operate on Sundays. Ms. Edie Weber, 11th Street, discussed previous residents' efforts relating to fumes and noise from auto shops and requested restriction of noise and vapor emissions. she discussed both Buck's Auto shops interrelationship and the lack of a paint booth at either establishment. she stated this shop is being blamed for emissions from other body shops and suggested demanded compliance from other body shops, as well. Dr. Bernard Winikur, 1232 corona street, questioned how the establishment of this auto shop was allowed with no notification to him, objected to the fumes and noise emitted by this location, and stated cars are being parked on the street. He requested rejection of this CUP. Mr. Schubach stated for clarification the commission cannot change existing CUPS by denying them; only regulate a CUP to enhance its neighbor-friendliness. Comm. Stifano questioned the legality of denial of CUP'S by the Commission with Mr. Schubach. Mr. Springer stated the commission can legally deny a CUP, but the purpose of a CUP is to restrict the manner of business operation. Mr. springer cautioned against denial of the CUP since this action would result in nonrestriction of the business operation. Ms. Tawny Beaudet, 11th street, stated both Buck's Auto Shops were not adhering to state laws. She invited the commission to visit the location on Saturday in order to smell the emitted odors, stating the ventilation equipment is not effective and that none of the body shops have state required equipment. Mr. Schubach rebutted that the business had received A.Q.M.D. and Fire Department approval. - 3 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 Mr. Maurice Beaudet, 11th street, said he spent two hours watching the methods of operation by Buck's Auto Shop and questioned the manner of compliance assurance by the commission. He discussed Fire code requirements and workers' safety relating to this shop. Mr. Beaudet stated he stood across the street from the shop and smelled emitted fumes. Mr. Schubach said CUP condition #14 is requiring odor equipment, which is not currently installed. Mr. Beaudet also stated he has had discussed with the A.Q.M.D. the mechanics of registering a complaint. comms. Peirce and Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the Fire Department and A.Q.M.D. requirements for business operation, establishing the commission can ask for stricter requirements. Mr. Seibra Aslanian, Buck's Auto Body, stated an approved spray booth and air duct is on site, permits and approvals have been obtained, business is conducted within the business hours stated with no work being conducted on Sundays. comm. Di Monda asked the applicant's understanding the of the requirements, to which Mr. Aslanian stated the shop has always complied with all requirements. Vice-Chmn. Marks, Comm. Peirce and Mr. Aslanian discussed the spot-area paint booth operations and filtration. Mr. Papken Aslanian, owner Buck's Auto Body, stated for 10 years he had no problems with local residents, but his problems began two years ago when Mr. Beaudet moved into the area. Mr. Aslanian said he has always been in compliance with all requirements, but Mr. Beaudet continually complains. Mr. Aslanian has lost business over the last two years. He stated he has cooperated with the residents and the city of Hermosa Beach by changing his building plans. comm. Di Monda questioned Mr. Aslanian' s ability to comply with the CUP requirements, to which he responded spray painting takes only 3-4 minutes to spray a panel and he does not understand the current complaints. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:35 P.M. Comm. Peirce and Mr. Schubach discussed the lack of a City ordnance requiring screening of ventilation systems. Comm. Peirce stated the problems appear to be lack of a proper vapor filtration system for a business next to a resi- dential area and hours of operation. comm. Di Monda discussed previous CUP requirements for similar businesses and agreed with Comm. Peirce that operation hours should be decreased to limit those hours on Saturdays and none on Sundays. He stated current A.Q.M,D. and Fire Department regulations are probably not restrictive enough, perhaps further toxic chemical elimination information can be obtained. comm. stifano agreed. comm. Peirce recommended the CUP be approved with a high-priority request to staff for investigation and resubmittal of determination of odor reduction requirement, which would result in an enacted ordnance implementing and enforcing odor reduction, coordinated with the A.Q.M.D.'s and Fire Department's requirements. comm. stifano recommended P.c. Resolution 91-54, Item 14 be eliminated and continuation of the CUP to allow problem solving. Mr. Schubach stated odor elimination systems are in existence currently. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve CUP 91-16, P.C. Resolution 91-54, #23 changing the hours of operation, eliminating all business hours on Sunday and allowing Saturday operation from 9:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M., adding "the ductwork on top of the building shall be screened from the public - 4 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 view". P.C. Resolution 91-54, Item 14 shall be changed to read, "Odor elimination equipment shall be provided for the building including for the paint booth and it shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director" and any future city ordnances regarding odors must be in compliance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, and Peirce CoDDn. stifano None Chmn. Ketz TEXT 90-11 TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE RELOCATION IMPACT REPORTS (RIR) FOR MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS OR CLOSURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF DISPLACING EXISTING RESIDENTS, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (continued from July 16, 1991). Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment and adoption of the Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated staff had received some last-minute material from the mobilehome park owners, an attorney and western Mobilehome Association which has not been yet carefully examined by staff. He also stated the application had previously been Noticed of the Text Amendment. Staff currently has a recommendation, as well as alternatives. staff recommends this amendment be presented to City council amending the zoning Ordnance to add provisions regarding state-mandated relocation impact as regards mobilehome conversion by adopting the resolution. Mr. Schubach discussed recommendation modifications to Proposed ordnance Planning commission Findings and Decisions section 1445, and methods for appraisal, stating the city of Carson has used appraisals based upon the depreciated replacement cost approach, which includes no value for underlying land or location, with limitations. Mr. Schubach emphasized the decision as to the amount of compensation, including the choice of appraisal method, would be made in response to a specific closure request, at which time the City of Carson's pending litigation final decision may set a precedent. Mr. Schubach presented two alternatives: (l) Receive and file, qetermining RIR provisions, based upon state law, when a mobilehome park is closed, and ( 2) exclude trailers and recreational vehicles from compensation. Comm. Peirce discussed state Law #78-, #1-12 text impact on the cities of Carson and Hermosa Beach, mobilehome owners and mobilehome park owners with Mr. Schubach. Comms. Di Monda and stifano discussed the status of the City of Carson's current litigated cases pertaining to mobilehomes. comm. Di Monda established Text 90-11 was initiated by the city Manager, referred to the city council which approved the city Manager's request for study. comm. Di Monda asked about the similarities between the city of Hermosa Beach's text and the city of Carson's. Mr. Springer doubted the City of Hermosa Beach would be drawn into Carson's litigation because, presently, the ordnance has not been enforce with no person's rights violated. comm. stifano noted section 1447 wording seems to require a double dip purchase requirement by the landowner when closing a mobilehome park. The commissioners were in agreement this section should be changed to eliminate any double dip. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Marks at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Steve Anderson, 1334 Parkview Avenue, suite 100, Manhattan Beach, representing Marineland Mobilehome Park owners, wanted a copy of the staff - 5 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 Report. Mr. Anderson stated his purpose was not to threaten with a law suit, but to make the commission understand economic reality. He then proceeded to define land value vs. mobilehome value, discussing in-place value, buy-out and current ability to relocate mobilehomes to other locations. He stated relocation radius needs further definition and discussed current litigation status relating to mobilehomes/parks within California. Mr. Anderson objected to section 1445, the attempt to strike the words, "on-site value" and stated "depreciated cost" is the best of the stated methods of evaluation, although he takes exception to this method and discussed current specifics of litigation involving Monrovia and Carson. Mr. Anderson requested the commission eliminate any provision that contains any part or all of "in-place value" by staying with the state guidelines, File and Receive, allowing options at the time a mobilehome park is closed, alleviating the possibility of challenge by the land owner and city liability. Vice-chmn. Marks and Mr. Anderson discussed the definition of a "non-movable home". comm. Di Monda and Mr. Anderson discussed Mr. Anderson's previous involvement with park closures and relocation ~of tenants . comm. Di Monda established with Mr . Anderson his objections to section 1445, the inclusion to the listing of anything that could be in-place value, further discussing the particulars of this section. comm. Peirce discussed in-place value with Mr. Anderson, who gave examples of similar situations other than mobilehome parks. Ms. Barbara Watson, space 56, stated she purchased her coach in Hermosa Beach after deciding against the city of Carson, although purchase in Carson would have been much cheaper. My coach purchase price, and subsequent mortgage, is based upon the coach and its location. Public Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Marks at 9:48 P.M . comm. Di Monda asked staff if relocation of these affected people must be within the coastal zone. Mr. Schubach stated the people do not have to be relocated within the coastal zone, but the park must be replaced within the coast ZOD:e. Comm. Di Monda noted continued objection to the "double dip" requirement and felt the mobilehome definition should remain as the State defines it, excluding recreational vehicles and trailers. comms. Peirce and Di Monda discussed P.C. Resolution 91-41 1441 and 1442.9.b with Mr. Schubach. comm. stifano discussed the parameters of park closure with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Peirce disagreed with the "double dip", section 1445. 7, suggesting removal of, "any mortgage obligations of the resident on the mobile home, and the costs of purchasing a mobile home on-site in a comparable park or acquiring other comparable replacement housing." Comm. Peirce felt that nonallowance of in-place value would a d versely impact the res idents, but felt the coach owner does not have the right to the land. comm. stifano commented the property owner is taking a chance when he sells the land and questioned if mobilehome "fair market value" includes mortgage obligations. Comm. Peirce suggested "replacement value" should replace "fair market value", while comm. Di Monda suggested the state wording be used. comm. Peirce requested staff send Notices to persons affected and the Coast Zone Commission by the Commissions' decision. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve Text 90-11, P.c. Resolution 91-41 with Item 1445. 7 changed to read, "A requirement that a resident whose mobilehome cannot be relocated within a reasonable distance to a comparable park be compensated by a lump sum payment not to exceed the reasonable cost of physical relocation." and direct staff to change Definitions, section 1440, paragraph 3, to use the state definition of a mobilehome. - 6 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 AYES: NOES: Colllllls. Di Monda, and Peirce, stifano and vice-Cbmn. Marks None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cbmn. Ketz A break was taken by the commission from 10:15 to 10:22 P.M. BEARING N.R 91-4 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7 (B) TO ALLOW REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 50% EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 248 27TB STREET 9 (continued from August 6, 1991 meeting). Recommended Action: To continue this matter for applicant to submit revised plans. Mr. Schubach reviewed the staff Report, stating staff recommends further continuance to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans to bring an existing one-foot side yard adjacent to the existing garage up to code. The applicant's submitted plans show existing structures with a garage interior clearance of 17 '11". The applicant states moving the garage to accommodate a 3, setback is too costly and requests the commission reconsider its position. Mr. Schubach noted the nonconformity of the existing garage. Comm. Di Monda requested clarified of the deck renovation. Mr. Schubach said a mistake at the time of renovation resulted in a substantial departure from the Code requirements, resulting in 75% lot coverage. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Marks at 10:26 P.M. Mr. Charles Simmons, project architect, 218 Longfellow, previously discussed preliminary project plans with the Planning Dept. and received verbal approval for the plans and existing nonconformity. subsequent submittal of plans to the Building Dept. resulted in notification of problems and the requirement of submittal to the Planning Dept. Mr. Simmons gave a detailed history of this project's lack of progress, discussing the details of the existing site and structures. He quoted Article 13.7(b) relating to nonconforrnance, stating his interpretation is the Code's intent is to avoid altering a current nonconform- ing building without bringing it into conformance. Mr. Simmons stated the nonconforming structure is not being altered; a second-floor addition on the front building is the only change. He contested the requirement of access to all four corners of the property, stating there is currently access at two corners. Mr. Simmons requested the commission vote for project approval rather than a continuance. Comm. Di Monda discussed the 1979 variance and dimensions of the existing structures and property with Mr. Simmons. comm. Marks asked if Mr. Simmons presents preliminary plans to the Building Dept. to obtain clearance. Mr. Simmons said, "Always to the Planning Dept.". Ms. Patricia Gleason, 248 27th Street, reiterated that the nonconformity exists in the back structure, a double-car garage with a second story, on which no - 7 - P.c. Minutes 9-3-91 construction will be done. Previously, the Planning Dept. had granted an exception for the construction of that structure. To move the required two feet entails the entire building being moved, which is extremely costly. Moving the garage will probably result in damage to wood floors and tiles. The proposed remodel is a result of needing more room. Ms. Gleason stated she has spent a lot of money to this point and requested this application not be continued. Ms. Gleason maintained the deck is not higher than 3 0", while Mr. Schubach stated the deck is over 3'. comm. Di Monda and Ms. Gleason discussed the current side-yard encroachment, deck and landscaping, with Comm. Di Monda explaining the current requirements for consistency. Public Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Marks at 10:49 P.M. comms. Peirce and Di Monda discussed an appeal to the city council to receive direction relating to future nonconforming remodels. Comm. stifano felt the requirement to remodel the back building was not appropriate. Vice-chmn. Marks stated the reason for side yards is to allow access to both building sides by the Fire Dept. Comm. Marks discussed consistency in previous considerations as well as this particular one. Mr. Simmons explained existing access and landscaping to the commissioners, stating access is blocked on one side of the property. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to deny NR 91-4. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Co11m1s. Di Monda, Peirce, and Vice-cbmn. Marks Comm. stifano None cbmn. Ketz A. MEMORANDUM REGARDING ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A DELIVERY CONJUNCTION WITH A TAKE-OUT PIZZA RESTAURANT INSIDE VONS CORRESPONDENCE FROM "ROUND TABLE PIZZA" and SERVICE IN MARKET AND B. PETIT.ION FROM "BROOKLYN bRICK OVEN PIZZA" REGARDING "ROUND TABLE PIZZA". Mr. Schubach stated the item is being presented to the commission as a result of staff's becoming aware that Round Table Pizza was operating a delivery service from Vons Groceries. Although staff was approached and approved the use as a location within Vons, deli very service opens the question as to whether it is appropriate additional use or a more intense use which will require an approved parking plan. Previous approval for take-out purposes only was based upon the similarity of existing uses within the market. staff believes delivery changes the business to a "restaurant", finding for approval of a parking request can be made as long as the number of delivery vehicles is minimal and an area is defined for delivery vehicle use. staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to interpret the addition of delivery service as a restaurant use and require a parking plan submittal for commission con- sideration. An alternative is to allow the delivery service to continue as a secondary use of the market. Public hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Marks at 11:02 P.M. Mr. Robert Udovich, 1559 Pacific coast Highway, is concerned at the alternative suggested by staff, stating allowing two separate, large businesses to use each others' privileges is wrong, while challenging the statement that both are the - 8 - P.c. Minutes 9-3-91 the commission. Mr. Udovich requested that this issue be reviewed by the com- mission, complaining that currently the parking lot is not adequate for all the vehicles parking in it. Mr. Kenneth Hass stated his support to the Brooklyn Brick oven Pizza business owners and testified to the parking problem. He stated Von's and A.M.C. Theater customers park in the lot, taking parking from the east-end businesses. Delivery trucks and Round Table Pizza customers increase the parking lot overcrowding. Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, discussed the difficulties of parking at Von's and Brooklyn Brick over Pizza, asking if Von's will continue to incorporate other businesses within its facility. she stated she objects to delivery trucks parked in the parking lot using the trucks for advertising purposes and believes delivery trucks should have a designated area in which to park. Ms. Diana Mario asked if "Round Table Pizza" is a restaurant, and, if so, how many parking spaces are required. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 11:21 P.M. Mr. Schubach offered the suggestion the businesses change the parking lot arrangement to assure compact stalls, meeting the Code and assuring additional parking. Comm. Peirce referenced previous discussions regarding Von's parking lot, established this public parking is used by the A.M.C. Theater attendees as well, and offered the solution that enforcement be increased while parking time allowance be decreased. It was noted that private security is present within the parking lot, with multiple time limits within the same parking lot. comm. Peirce suggested the original parking plan be reviewed by the commission, to which comm. Di Monda and Vice-chmn. Marks agreed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce to adopt staff's recommendation. so ordered. C. CORRESPONDENCE FROM AND RESPONSE TO MR. AND MRS. GOODWIN. Receive and File. D. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF JULY, 1991. Receive and File. E. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Mr. Jim Listener, 2715 El oeste street, referenced a letter he wrote to the City council regarding restaurants. His specific concern is the Pioneer Chicken, Artesia and Pacific coast Highway, is to convert to a broiling type of operation and will emit natural gas, combustible byproducts and chicken grease. He is concerned about the amount of natural gas released into the area. He stated he contacted the A.Q.M.D. with no satisfaction and requested the commission consider CUP'S for this type of operation. - 9 -P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1991. comm. Peirce directed staff to vigorously pursue investigation towards control and monitoring of vapors and odors being released from businesses. Comm. Di Monda recalled a previous CUP issued ordering that two telephones be removed from LaMasters Grocery store which have not been moved to date because the responsibility for removal has not been defined. comm. Di Monda stated city Council should direct the Public Works or General services Departments to initiate action with General Telephone, commenting that a "not my job" mentality appears to be dominant. Comm. Di Monda suggested the commission send a memorandum to the City Manager requesting appropriate action. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Vice-chmn. Marks, to adjourn at 11:39 P.M. Ho 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 September 3, 1991. Robert B. Marks, Vic e -chairman Mi c h a · Date -10 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 20, 1991, AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by comm. Marks. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comms. Marks, stifano and Chmn. Ketz comms. Di Monda and Peirce Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording secretary MO'l'ION by comm. stifano, seconded by Comm. Ketz to approve the following consent calendar items: Minutes of the August 6, 1991 Planning commission meetings with the addition of "and parking space" to Page 9, "Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda for August 20 and September 2, 1991." Resolution P.C. 91-46, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2641 MANHATTAN AVENUE, MI-T-MART. Resolution P.C. 91-47, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AUTO SALES AND DETAILING, WINDOW TINTING, AND AUTO SERVICE (SMOG CHECK ONLY), AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 303 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Resolution P.C. 91-48, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP #22882 FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 596 19TH STREET. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: comms. Marks, stifano and chmn. Ketz None None comms. Di Monda and Peirce COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Ms. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th street, commented she felt small businesses who have been in the area many years with no police problems should be exempt from CUPs or have lesser-controlling CUPs, with licensing and taxation levels reduced to enoourage continuation of current businesses and bring in new business. Mr. Fernando Lamas, requested information regarding obtaining a permit and was directed to the Planning Department between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 1 P.C.Minutes 8/20/91 PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE OPERATION HOURS TO INCLUDE THE MORNING HOURS FROM 7:00 A,M, TO 11:00 A,M, AT 4 PIER AVENUE, DIANA'S MEXICAN FOOD, Recommended Action: To approve said conditional Use Permit amendment. Mr, Schubach gave staff report, noting the applicant has requested an extension of operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. staff recommended approval of (l) A CUP to allow beer and wine in conjunction with the Mexican restaurant, and (2) Allow a Take-out Window on The strand (previously approved in 1969), subject to requested changes to Resolution conditions. comm. stifano asked about the necessity for requiring beer to be served in glass only, to which Mr. Schubach stated this is a standard condition which dates back to the 1970's. Comm. ·stifano discussed with Mr. Schubach the Take-out Window hours of operation, employees' definition of loitering and police-problem determination. Mr. Lee stated amending conditions required under the zoning code would require the Zoning Code itself be amended; the Commission is not authorized to change mandated conditions. Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Samuel Magana, 4 Pier Ave., owner of Diana's Restaurant, wishes the business hours to be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Chmn. Ketz, comm. stifano, Mr, Schubach and Mr. Magana discussed the take-out window location and hours of operation. Mr. Magana protested the requirement for glass rather than paper cups and the manner in which the Police commission checks on sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:23 p.m. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Stifano discussed the importance of the various require- ments including the requirement for glass containers. Mr. Lee stated this might be discussed as a commissioner Item since glass rather than paper or plastic cups is a mandated condition under the current Municipal code. MOTION by comm. stifano, seconded by comm. Marks to approve CUP 91-11, with section III-1 and I-4 operating hours time change from 6: 00 a.m. to 12: 00 midnight. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Stifano and Chmo. Ketz None None Conuns, Di Monda and Peirce CUf!i 91-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW USED CAR SALES AT AH EXISTING CAR LOT AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE PARKING PLACE. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional use Permit. Mr. Schubach gave staff report, noting the proposed use is for a 8-month interim time period, with a month-to-month extension possible thereafter. Mr, 2 P.c. Minutes 8-20-91 r Schubach stated the removal of a chainlink construction fence is necessary. staff recommends conditions that if auto sales business ~continues beyond one year, landscaping improvements be required and unused structures be removed, with current business hours limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Schubach discussed these Condition recommendations with Comm. stifano. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Andrew Mattingly, General Manager of The Parking Place, 125 Pacific Coast Highway, agreed with all conditions except #14, removal of chainlink fence. He stated removal will nullify his security and increase his expense. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:35 p.m. Chmn. Ketz and Mr. Schubach discussed options including reinforcing the current chainlink fence and removal from the north side only. MOTION by chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Marks to approve CUP 91-12, with a change in condition #14, to remove the fence on the north side and change condition #15 to include the requirement to remove the fence on the south side if the business continues more than one year. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS Comm. Marks, Stifano and Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Di Monda and Peirce PS 91-2 INTERPRETATION OF APPLICABLE SETBACK ON HALF LOT AT 215 4TH STREET AND TO APPLY TO ALL SIMILAR ALLE Y/STREET CORNER LOTS . Recommended Action: To interpret the alley frontage the front yard and the street frontage the side yard. Mr. Schubach gave the staff report. staff recommends a General Policy state- ment be adopted for applications of this interpretation for all similar alley/ street corner half lots throughout Hermosa Beach. No one wished to address the commission regarding this matter. Chmn. Ketz established the proposed construction would be oriented to Bay View. comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the definition of a street vs. an Alley, establishing a street is over 20' width. MOTION by comm. Marks, seconded by chmn. Ketz to adopt Policy statement PS 91-2. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Stifano and Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Di Monda and Peirce 3 P .c. Minutes 8-20-91 STAFF ITEMS A) MEMORANDUM REGARDING GREENBELT OVERNIGHT PARKING {continued from August 6. 1991 meeting) Chrnn. Ketz commented the Commission is simply changing the memorandum wording being sent to city Council's August 27, 1991 Meeting. comms. Marks and stifano and Mr. Schubach discussed parking and camping ground allotted areas. No objection, so ordered. B) MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR AUGUST 27, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chrnn. Ketz stated city council will be discussing Jack-In-The-Box's appeal. Mr. Schubach stated the Staff has conducted on-site investigation finding no problems seem to exist until after 2:00 a.m., suggesting the restaurant could remain open until 12:00 midnight without problems. C) TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMM.ISSION AGENDA. Chrnn. Ketz stated the commissioners have the September 3 and 17, 1991 agenda .. D) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 18. 23 AND 25. 1991. Receive and File. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None MOTION by Chrnn. Ketz, seconded by comm. Marks to adjourn at 7:50 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 August 20, 1991. James Pei.-.r;ce, V-i~ chairman Cl.--i-ush.-,e_ lch Date ,._,, 4 P.C. Minutes 8-20-91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 6, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by chrnn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chrnn. Ketz. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce,chrnn. Ketz comm. stifa'no (Arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant city Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks to approve the following consent calendar items: Minutes of the July 16, 1991 Planning commission meetings. Resolution P.C. 91-45, A RE$OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THRU TAKE-OUT WINDOW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT AT 116 0 AVIATION BOULEVARD, JACK-IN-THE-BOX. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, chrnn. Ketz None Comm. Peirce comm. stifano COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Robert Eutivich, 1559 Pacific coast Highway, Brooklyn oven-brick Pizza, submitted a petition pertaining to Von's and Round Table Pizza. He stated another pizza shop is unnecessary and will create area parking problems. He asked the commission review the matter re·garding possible negative impact. Chrnn. Ketz asked Mr. Schubach his knowledge of this request, who responded Von's is expanding the delicatessen area, with no delivery trucks in operation. Chrnn. Ketz requested Mr. Schubach investigate the possibility of Von's pizza delivery vehicles and respond with the information to Mr. Eutivich. PUBLIC BEARING CON 91-4/PDP 91-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22916 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE. ) Recommended Action: To continue to September 3, 1991 Planning Commission meeting for applicant to submit revised plans. 1 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 3 Mr. Schubach stated the recommendation to continue, waiting for revised plans. Additional parking space on the property is required. The Planning commission should review the revised plans. Comm. stifano _ asked multiple questions regarding the automatic sprinkler requirement, landscaping, cable TV conduit, automatic garage door openers and satellite dish requirement. comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach responded to his questions. comm. Peirce discussed landscaping and building plans, stating an area of the building appeared to have the ability to convert to a rental. Mr. Schubach responded the plans had not previously been viewed in that manner. comm. Marks noted the absence of a secondary stairway. Mr. Schubach noted plans are submitted for environmental staff review by the Building Dept. Comm. Di Monda established the building as a 2-story structure. comm. Marks asked for a requirement for longitudinal section to the building and the lot, to the street to enable the commission to determine the number of stories in the building. Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:24 p.m. No one wished to address the commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:10 p.m. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to continue until September 3, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano, Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 90-36 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES, AUTO REPAIR, {SMOG CHECK ONLY) , WI NDOW TINTING AND DETAILING, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 303 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Action: To approve said request conditional use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated staff recommends approval and gave a history of the individual increases in services offered and hours of operation. Mr. Schubach noted either an on-site trash container or a signed agreement for continued use of neighboring trash container was recommended. The combination of four businesses would require the scaled operation remain small. Staff recommends conditions be included requiring the five display spaces be designated as such, for-sale-automobiles shall be marked with a tag attached to the rear-view mirror, and parking area be enclosed by a low decorative wall. Nine off-street parking spaces are required. staff recommends Planning commission authorize initial smog check, but not the follow-up service. The plans submitted require slight revision. ) comm. stifano and Mr. Schubach discussed a 3 1 decorative wall requirement, the placement of the display spaces and the liberal hours of operation. 2 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the method of exhaust dissipation resulting from the smog check. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Steve Constantine, owner Constantine's Auto Detailing, agreed with conditions of the permit and showed a letter agreement pertaining to the trash container and a drawing for a brick wall he wished to build. discussed the hours of operation with Mr. Schubach. comm. Peirce Mr. Lee suggested Condition #5 be written, " ... in the event the owner and adjacent property owner should have a termination of their signed agreement, the property owner's obligation is the provision of an on-site trash container." Mr. Ted Dalton, 529 24th Place, property owner, agreed to this condition, stating his current agreement ends July 1, 1993. Mr. Lee questioned the agreement conditions, to which Mr. Dalton stated the two properties worked a trade~ vehicle access through Mr. Dalton's property and use of the trash container located on the adjacent property. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:37 p.m. Chmn. Ketz, comm. Stifano and Mr. Schubach discussed the stated hours of operation. MOTION by Comm. stifano, no second, to remove Condition #2, 3 1 wall, with no replacement and Condition #6, hours of operation restriction. Motion failed. MOTION by comm. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve the conditional Use Permit as presented with the modification to Condition #2, "a three-foot high decorative wall," and condition #5, "in the event the agreement is terminated, the property owner is obligated to supply an trash bin enclosure on site," AYES: HOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Couans. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce and Chmn. Katz Conan. Stifano None None SUB 91-1 --A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP i22882 FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 596 19TB STREET. Recommended Action: To deny the request. Mr. Schubach said staff recommends denial, stating the particulars of the applicant's request, comparing this request to similar previous ones, and commenting the street identified as 19th st. is a private 32' wide easement for four lots. Mr. Schubach explained staff's concerns and processes in review of lot size area comparisons and subdivision requirements. Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:50 p.m. 3 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 Ms. Kathy May, applicant's representative, 2200 Pacific coast Highway, stated they have concerns and disagree with Staff's report: (1) ·feel the lot and the division is unique, (2) property fronts on two streets, (3) very few area lots are eligible for subdivision, (4) there is a 50' lot frontage, (5) area lots are inconsistent in size, but with consistent frontage (6) five of six neighbors are in agreement with applicant's request, the concerns of the sixth neighbor can be addressed by maintai ning the current pool and limiting the size of building construction, and (7) applicant has owned the lot since 1969. Mr. Glenn Davis, 596 19th street, described the original building, the additions and repairs made, and the reasons for increasing the size of this home. He stated that selling a portion of his property would allow him to obtain the money needed to build this new house, then discussing the street widths and parking practices on the two street. Mr. Davis said he is agreeable to working with the Council and neighbors to assure conformance with all requirements. Mr. Larry Portiami, 590 19th street, stated the proposed lots are not consistent with the area, expressing his concern the buildings will back up to his property. He purchased his property due to low density and the presence of back yards and does not want a building in his immediate view. Ms . Phyllis Horner, 1738 Valley Park, has no objection to Mr. Davis' request . Mr. Don Posluszny, 578 19th street, has no objection to Mr. Davis' request. Mr. Jack Miller, 575 20th street, stated the major issue is integrity of the neighborhood; if this application is approved, applications from others will follow . Ms. Kathy May rebutted previous comments by stating review of plans display a greater set-back than is current if the request is granted, lot sizes are inconsistent, and the neighborhood integrity will be maintained as not many lots are eligible for subdivision according to her review. she stated conditions are acceptable to the applicant in the approval of this request. Comm. Marks, Ms. May and Mr. Davis discussed responsibility for maintenance of the privately-owned street, with Mr. Davis stating his property does not compare to others within the area. Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:10 p .m. comm. Peirce and Mr. Schubach discussed the lot dimensions and -set-back allowances. comm. Peirce asked if conditions of zoning matters can be applied to these lots. Mr. Lee responded this would be highly unusual, he has not seen this done before, but if the property owner signed a recordable covenant, the agreement would be enforceable. Mr. Lee asked that the matter be deferred until he investigated further. comm. Peirce stated the ordinance was clear and the property does not meet the subdivision criteria. comm. Di Monda stated the property seems to meet the criteria, but falls short meeting the last requirement; subdivision could prove interesting. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. stifano, to adopt Resolution PC 91-48, denying the request for approval for vesting tentative parcel map two-lot subdivision at 596 19th street. 4 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Marks, Peirce, Stifano, chmn. Ketz Conun. Di Monda None None CUP 90-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C., AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2641 MANHATTAN AVENUE, MI-T-MART. Recommended Action: To approved said conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Environmental Review committee recommended Negative Declaration, recommending Planning Commission to require the applicant owner to enclose the trash dumpster, repair the western parking area railing, reduce window signs to 20% coverage and maintain abatement of graffiti. After-hours alcohol sale and sales to minors were noted, and recommendation of limiting hours of sales from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. was made. The applicant has addressed all of the concerns except parking-lot striping. staff recommends conditions stating the parking lot be re-striped, preliminary landscaping plans be submitted to Department for review and upon approval, landscaping to be implemented within 90 days, reserved parking signs be posted at subterranean parking, staffing be adequate, if necessary, an on-site officer will be at the owner's expense, and continued violations will result in immediate revocation. staff also recommends compliance with all Health Department regulations. Comms. Stifano, Peirce, Mr. Schubach and Lee discussed citations issued to the applicant, with Mr. Lee asking for a deletion under section 2, with a decision made upon any environmental impact rather than alcohol sales. comm. Marks recommended that parking should be one hour rather than two (Section 3). Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 8:26 p.m. Mr. Michael Townajian, owner of Mi-T-Mart, built the store and has been only tenant since 1969, discussed the exterior and interior of his building, stated landscaping and conversion of two subterranean parking spaces is no problem. He challenged the ability of the police department to determine adequate staffing for his store, stating his problems have only happened during the last year and challenged the use of police cadets. He stated he has never had a problem with the Heal th Department. Mr. Toumaj ian does not agree with the underground parking, police being brought to his establishment at his expense and single cans sold must be put in see-through containers. He has no problem with employees being made aware of the conditional use Permit requirements. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 8:36 p.m. comm. stifano and Mr. Schubach discussed comm. stifano's questions and reasons for disagreement with several of the conditions specified: i.e. employee's ability to make informed judgments, police protection at owner's expense, ho~rs of operation, subterranean parking, sign ordinance compliance and clear bags for individual containers. 5 P.c.Minutes 8/6/91 MOTION by Comm. stifano, no second, to delete the specified conditions in Sections l, #2, 1 #4, 2 #lA, 2 changed to "two subterranean parking spaces", deleted 2 #6. Motion failed. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Peirce, to approve the conditional Use Permit 90-13 with changes to section l, #2 to define immediate area, delete section l, #4 and section 2, #lA, change language of section 2 #4 to state, "signs posted for each of the code-required subterranean parking spaces", Section 1 #3 change "two hours" to "one hour". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoDDns. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Retz CoDDn. stifano None None A recess was taken from 8:50 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. BEARINGS NR 91-3 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7 (B) TO ALLOW A GREATER TRAN 50% EXPANSION TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX AT 41 & 43 4TB STREET. Recommended Action: To. approve said request. Mr. Schubach noted an additional plan correction is necessary, recommending a condition regarding a staircase should be included. He explained building location on the lot, gave a history of building and remodeling of both units, discussed requested additional remodeling and existing nonconformity. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the front-unit bathroom remodeling and lack of adequate side-yard space and access. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Brian Bi gland, owner's representative, 2 6 O 8 Nelson Avenue, stated the relocation of the stairway and third story conditions represent no problems. Comms. Peirce and Di Monda discussed reconfiguration of the side-yard through redesign of the plans with Mr. Bigland. comm. Marks · discussed the proposed staircase location with Mr. Bigland. Ms. Linda Ramm, 41 4th street, stated she wishes to maintain the original floor plan of the house with only remodeling changes to upgrade the home. Public Hearing was closed by chmn. Ketz at 9:10 p.m. comm. Di Monda stated the commission should try to bring the nonconformances into conformance with the existing code as much as possible. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to continue NR 91-3 until the applicant returns to Staff with a redesigned floor plan providing the side-yards as required by the zoning ordinance, city of Hermosa Beach. AYeS: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoDD11s. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, Stifano, Chmn. Retz None None None 6 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 NR 91-4 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7 (B) TO ALLOW REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 50% EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 248 27TB STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach recommended approval subject to conditions, describing the particulars of the property, previous building construction and lot coverage. He stated the Planning commission may wish to deny the proposed addition and put the applicant on notice that the excessive lot coverage should be corrected before any further improvements may be made. Public Hearing was opened by chrnn. Ketz at 9:21 p.m. Mr. chuck Simmons, project architect, 218 Longfellow, addressed the previous rumpus-room addition and the linking deck which created the lot-coverage problem. Mr. Simmons submitted photographs of the deck, explaining the plans, the deck and planter sites. commissioners Di Monda, Marks and Peirce discussed the accessibility requirements along the side of the property which currently is nonconforming with Mr. Simmons. Mr. Bill Gleason, 248 27th street, discussed his garage parking with comm. Marks. Public Hearing was closed by Chrnn. Ketz at 9:33 p.m. Comm. Di Monda stated many nonconformities exists. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to continue NR 91-4 until the applicant returns to Staff with a redesigned floor plan providing the side-yards as required by the zoning ordinance, City of Hermosa Beach. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, stifano, Cbmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CON 89-15 EXTENSION OF THE VESTI.NG TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #;21279 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1038 7TB STREET. Recommended Action: To approve for one-year extension. Mr. Schubach stated staff recommends the one-year extension. MOTION by comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the one-year extension. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, stifano, Cbmn. Ketz Marks None Hone 7 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 STAFF ITEMS MEMORANDUM REGARDING GREENBELT OVERNIGHT PARKING. Chmn. Ketz stated this was a current request for a study regarding public parking areas and the concern regarding recreational vehicles parking overnight in this area made to city Manager and Staff for response. Mr. Schubach said a recommendation suggesting the appropriate department study the matter should be added to the memorandum, if the commission so wishes. comm. Di Monda stated the commission's original request was to ask the council to authorize a study, and commented upon his surprise with the Planning Commission at the length of time that has passed since this simple request for agenda inclusion was made. comm. Di Monda commented upon the city Manager's memorandum, feeling it was a bit of an over-kill in the strongly-worded response, al though he does not disagree with the underlined items. Mr. Schubach commented the response was a co-mingling of city Manager and staff comments. Comm. Di Monda said he would like to attend the city council meeting, discussing the rebuttal memorandum he has written in his name, requesting a postponement be made until his return. MOTION by chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. stifano, to direct staff to place this matter on the August 27, 1991, agenda of the city Council and to direct Mr. Schubach to resubmit for approval to the commission the memorandum changing the language of the third paragraph. AYES: NOES: CoDllns. Di Monda, Peirce, stifano, chmn. Ketz Marks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MEMORANDUM REGARDING JACK-IN-THE-BOX at 1160 AVIATION BOULEVARD. chmn. Ketz stated correspondence has been received stating the disturbance at the Jack-In-The-Box is persisting. An appeal is being presented to City council. comm. Di Monda, stifano and Mr. Schubach discussed the current problems relating to the Police involvement at Jack-In-The-Box. Mr. Schubach noted most correspondence is carbon copied to the City Manager, and the Police Commander will be carbon copied with all complaint correspondence stating non-responsive police action. Mr. Lee suggested standard operating procedures would bring the complaints to Management's attention. ELECTION OF THE NEW CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN. Elected officers to serve for a nine-month period ending May 19, 1992 are Chairman Ketz and Vice-chairman Marks. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF JUNE 1991. comm. Marks asked the status of implementation of the ocean Boulevard parking issue. Mr . Schubach stated this issue will probably not receive attention soon due to understaffing in the Public Works Department. 8 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 comm. Di Monda asked Mr. Lee about the enforcement of the law regarding selective parking and the city of Hermosa Beach's liability. Mr. Lee responded the City of Hermosa Beach may enforce its rules if there is a breach of a City ordinance even though previously having waived these rules in some circumstances. comms. Di Monda, Peirce and Mr. Lee discussed civil rights violation vs. non-entitlement relating to any possible liabilities. Mr. Lee stated additional research would be necessary to define all aspects of civil rights violation liability possibilities. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 20 AND SEPTEMBER 2, 1991. Chmn. stated Diana's Mexican Food and The Parking Place will be on the August 20, 1991 agenda. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1991 Receive and File. COMMISSIONER ITEMS comm. Peirce requested the Marina Liquor's sign placement status. Mr. Schubach stated due to a multitude of reasons, the owner has not yet corrected the sign. Mr. Schubach distributed a booklet, "Parliamentary Rules" to Commissioners. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:19 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 August 6, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, secretary Date .., 9 P.C.Minutes 8/6/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 16, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by chmn. Ketz. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: comms. Di Monda, Marks, stifano, Chmn. Ketz comm. Peirce Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant city Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording secretary After being welcomed to the Commission by Chmn. Ketz, Commissioner stifano stated he would be abstaining from the July 2, 1991 minutes. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. stifano to approve the following consent calendar items: Minutes of the July 2, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution P.C. 91-43, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7 (B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 167 ARDMORE AVENUE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, TRACT NO. 256. Resolution P.C. 91-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 635 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LE MASTER'S GROCERY, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, TRACT NO. 864. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, stifano, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Peirce COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Richard Sullivan, Third street, commented upon comm. Rue's remarks in the Easy Reader, stating city council may create as many Planning Commissions as it deems necessary. Mr. Sullivan stated the ways in which to set policy are through the city council and the Initiative process. PUBLIC BEARING CUP 90-36 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AND DETAILING, AND AUTO REPAIR (SMOG CHECK ONLY) AT 303 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, CONSTANTINE'S. Recommended Action: To continue to August 6, 1991 Planning commission meeting (improperly noticed). 1 P.C.Minutes 7/16/91 3 Mr. Schubach stated staff would assure notices are issued correctly. No one wished to address the commission regarding this matter. Chmn. Ketz stated CUP 90-36 would be heard by the commission on August 6, 1991. CUP 91-10 TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1160 AVIATION BLVD., JACK IN THE BOX. Recommended Action: To approve the modified conditional Use Permit per conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 91-45. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends approval of the modified conditional use Permit with several new conditions added. Jack In The Box is an existing business with commercial-land use to the north, east and west, and residential land use to the south. complaints have been received by Mr. Schubach, resulting in direction to staff for investigation, presentation of a Resolution of Intent, and setting of a hearing. staff felt posting of signs would aggravate the current situation. site review did not find excessive noise, but the parking lot is inadequate to handle drive-thru traffic. staff believes a 90 degree parking with two-way traffic could be incorporated and, as a condition of approval, requires this issue to be addressed with submittal to the Planning Dept. of alternate plans. Additional landscaping will be required within 90 days of approval of the Planning Director. Area residents submitted to Staff a videotape indicating noise nuisance at Jack In The Box. Mr. Schubach said staff recommends a reevaluation of hours of operation limited those hours and decreasing speaker-box volume as conditions of approval. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Phil Singerman, 1224 E. Catella, orange, requested a meeting with staff, neighbors, and police dept. representative to discuss the concerns, implementing these suggestions and conducting a 6-month results review. Mr. Singerman discussed various actions being taken by Jack In The Box management and its willingness to work with others. He discussed the history and finances of this business location, challenging some statements made by residents. Chmn. Ketz questioned the closure time of the diningroom, _to which Mr. Singerman explained security and cleaning requirements. comm. Di Monda asked if Mr. Singerman disagreed with more than one of the 10 conditions. Mr. Singerman disagrees with two conditions. • comm. Marks asked the volume of business done during nighttime hours, to which Mr. Singerman stated.10%, which is about 50% of income. A videotape taken from a resident's private home was shown to the commission and audience. Mr. Raymond Leathers, 1225 11th Place, disagreed with Mr. Singerman's statements and discussed the business operating hours, noise levels and police assistance activities. Mr. Don oleski, 1249 11th Place, explained the circumstances when he took the videotape which was shown and questioned the manner of receiving residents' input, to which Mr. Schubach responded petitions had been received. 2 P.C.Minutes 7/16/91 Mr. Jim Hallead, 1221 11th Place, stated the current conditional Permit use is outdated and inadequate. He discussed current and suggested business operating hours, noise levels, the Planning Commission's Report findings and conditions being experienced by residents. Mr. Richard Sullivan, Third street, expressed his realization of the difficulty of the problem being discussed and suggested that Jack In The Box hire a noise consultant. Ms. Sylvia schular, 1210 11th Place, stated residents are trying to work with Jack In The Box, but still wish them to close two hours earlier. Mr. Joe Flannagan, 1230 Harper, stated every Friday and Saturday, residents are waken by noise from Jack In The Box. Mr. Singerman stated opening the diningroom may solve part of the problem and reiterated the changes that the management has made to accommodate the residents, asking for a joint meeting. Chmn. Ketz, comms. Di Monda, Marks and Mr. Singerman discussed the number of employees working during the evening, on-site management, security measures, noise pollution, customer controls and reduction of business hours vs. financial impacts. Mr. Singerman introduced Messrs. Mian and Graffius, Jack-In-The-Box corp. management, who stated the Company is willing to cooperate as much as possible, but does not wish to shorten business hours due to financial considerations. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 8:10 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt the problem is the drive-thru and that portion should have the business hours reduced, to which chmn. Ketz agreed, suggesting an additional review in three months. comm. Marks suggested a shorter review period. comm. stifano suggested the owners contact the police when problems appear. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to approve staff recommendation with a change of hours of operation to 12:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, drive-thru por ti~n must close at 11:00 p.m., with a three-month or sooner review by the commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conans. Di Monda, Marks and Cbmn. Ketz Conan. Stifano None Conan. Peirce A recess was taken from 8:17 to 8:27 p.m. TEXT AMENDMENT 90-11 TO REQUIRE RELOCATION IMPACT REPORTS (RIR) FOR MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS OR CLOSURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF DISPLACING EXISTING RESIDENTS. Recommended Action: To approve P.C. Resolution 91-41 recommending to city Council a text amendment to zoning Ordinance to require RIR for mobile home park conversions or closures and adoption of an Environment Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach presented Staff Report, stating this matter was continued from June 18, 1991. The city of Carson was contacted pertaining to its requirements 3 P.C.Minutes 7/16/91 relating to its mobile home park conversions and closures, and any current litigation, which Mr. Schubach discussed. coastal zone Provisions was sourced, with information being supplied to the commission. Various local cities and mobile home parks were contacted regarding this subject, with the results being presented by Mr. Schubach. He noted it is the responsibility of applicant to demonstrate applicable provisions are met or exemption qualification. staff believes it appropriate to use the broad definition of mobile homes as proposed in the ordinance, rather than the narrow one of the Civil Code, to allow consideration for at least minimal compensation for displacement of residents who have been in a single location for an extended period. compensation will be based upon resident investment, type of vehicle and site improvements. Mr. Schubach stated a general concept is the concern of the Planning Commis- sion, recommending approval of this recommendation, with the proviso if changes are necessary based upon Legality ordinance, this will be considered by the city council. Comm. stifano and Mr. Lee discussed existing guidelines to establish mobile home value. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Lee discussed appraiser retention and cost payment responsibility. Chmn. Ketz, Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed tenant/owner eligibility for relocation reimbursement. Comm. Di Monda, Messrs. Lee and Schubach discussed proposal language clarification. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:46 p.m. Ms. Marie Horowitz, Marineland Mobile Home Park, space 15, commented upon the compensation expressed by the Ordinance. She discussed the methods of intimidation to tenants by the park owners. Mr. Bill Cloud, 531 Pier Avenue, discussed the devaluation of mobilehomes due to rent increases, inferior mobile home park maintenance, and asked for rent control consideration. chmn. Ketz stated the hearing addresses only a change in status of the mobile home park, not rent. Ms. Mary Tyson, Marineland Mobile Home devaluation of her mobile home, rent subjected to threats and intimidation commission for protection. Park, discussed the increases. she felt by the park owners financing and she has been and asked the Joan stoner, Arcadia, representative from Golden state Mobile owners' League, Regional Manager for Los Angeles county, discussed experiences of ex-tenants of closed mobile home parks, leases and questioned park closure current practice. Ms. Stoner stated G.S.M.O.L. currently re t ains l awyers and lobbiest state-wide. Ms. Mary Christine Pitka, 943 Boundary Place, compared what is happening to tenants to past experiences of flight attendants. Ms. Pi tko 's • mother is currently living in a mobile home park. Ms. Pitko stated concern for the elderly who will be displaced. Ms. Margaret c. Rathman, 40+ year owner(s) of Hermosa Trailer Court, stated she received no June 18, 1991 meeting notice. She questioned on-site value and compensation for only low and moderate income households, stating no other type of land development is penalized as will be park owners. Ms. Rathman stated she and her husband adamantly object to Resolution 91-41 in its present form and concur with all objections priorly presented by legal council for Marineland Mobile Horne Park, including the definition of a mobile home. she defined specific past experiences with tenants including the tenants' financial status. stating her park has 19 spaces of which 90% is R.V.'s, her concern is 4 P.C.Minutes 7/16/91 owners will be required to subsidize tenants who are in a higher tax bracket than the owners. Mr. Schubach stated the commission's action is to establish clarity and is based on state law, which requires a Relocation Impact Report. Also, the commission cannot require only low and moderate income families to be considered under the R.I.R. Mr. Lou Riesek, 531 Pier Avenue, #10, complimented Mrs. Rathman for operating a park with a viewpoint toward owner/tenant partnership. He discussed the city of Hermosa Beach's stated future plans to maintain a mobile home park at the Marineland Mobile Home Park location and asked the City to adhere to these past commitments. He discussed park management's harassment of current and prospective homeowners. Mr. Riesek suggested the verbiage of the Resolution, Section 9B should be, "to compare fair market value to condos of equal number of bedrooms," rather than square footage. Ms. Liza Lueke, Space #6 0, a 5-year resident, bought her mobile home as an investment which has been devaluated. she discussed park management harass- ment of tenants and the problems and requirements of relocation, urging ad~ption of the R.I.R. Public Hearing was closed by chmn. Ketz at 9:39 p.m. comm. Di Monda discussed the definition of a mobile home, stating preference to grandfather owners of R. v. 's current location in parks, maintain concurrence with state and County mobile home definition, not allow additional R.V.'s in an mobile home parks. He also explained the problems associated with rent con- trol and suggested city council review of land-lease options by tenants. Mr. Lee explained Section 1445, Paragraph 7 in response to a question by comm. Di Monda, suggesting that Para. 7, Line 3 be changed to: after "payment, " "in lieu of physical relocation which shall consider the fair market value of the mobile home," appraisal of mobile home vs. comparable abode replacement in lump-sum payment computation. comm. stifano asked if rental amount would be considered into the value, to which Mr. Lee responded although mobile-home land rental is unique, all should be considered within the appraisal process. comm. Di Monda requested further explanation of the appraisal processes. Chmn. Ketz felt compensation to renters of mobile homes discriminates against other permanent-residence renters in the city. Mr. Schubach stated state law would have to be reexamined when taking this into consideration. chmn. Ketz, comm. Marks, Messrs. Lee and Schubach discussed State law relating to senior citizen and other-citizen relocation. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks to continue to September 3, 1991 meeting, for which staff is to obtain language changes and clarification based upon the appraisal. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS CoJIUlls. Di Monda, Marks, Stifano and Chmn. Ketz None None CoJIUll. Peirce SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING ADULT USES. Recommended Action: To direct staff to study this issue further: a. determine a floor percentage amount in definition of adult use. 5 P.C .Minutes 7/16/91 b. obtain a legal opinion to determine if the distance standard from residential areas, public facilities, etc. to adult uses does not interfere with First Amendment rights. Mr. Schubach requested further time to conduct a study by staff. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by chmn. Ketz, to direct staff to study adult uses. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Stifano and cbmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Peirce W-2 WATER CONSERVATION: STATUS REPORT RE: INSTALLATION OF GREY WATER SYSTEMS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO BUILDING CODES. Recommended Action: To receive and file, and to direct staff to report back to the Planning commission on L.A. County and L.A. City's programs to allow use of grey water systems, if and when they are initiated. Mr. Schubach stated during the June 17, 1991 meeting, Planning commission requested further information. The Building and safety Director was contacted, who indicated he would not allow a modification to a plumbing system which created a grey-water system. The L.A. county Dept. Environmental Health als_o stated plumbing system changes to allow grey water is not allowed. Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo were also contacted, which encourage grey water systems, with restrictions. Mr. Schubach then discussed local implementation requirements and concerns. Receive and file. STAFF ITEMS MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR JULY 23, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. chmn. Ketz stated parking in the parkway areas will be discussed at this meeting. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. comm. Di Monda asked the status of the greenbelt parking lot issue, to which Mr. Schubach stated he would contact Public Works as to status. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1991. chmn. Ketz stated commission had received these minutes the evening of July 16, 1991. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda discussed the commission's prior decision to ask city council to consider restricting parking-lot hours. Mr. Schubach stated staff will have available an analysis and memorandum directed to city council at the next scheduled meeting of the Commission. 6 P.C.Minutes 7/16/91 Mr. Lee, responding to comm. Di Manda's previous request, stated a licensed architect need not present at the presentation of plans before the Planning Commission as long as plans have been signed by an authorized professional. comm. Di Monda asked for further information concerning basements for down- zoning purposes from staff. Mr. Schubach stated this is to be discussed during the Housing Improvement Program which still may be on line after the next election, staff is currently checking plans received carefully to assure the definition is being carried out. comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the specifics of the Zoning Code. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 10:28 P.M. Ho ohjections1 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 July 16, 1991. Date 7 P.C.Minutes 7116/91 r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 2, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz comm. Peirce Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant city Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording secretary Commissioner Rue stated he would be abstaining from the May 7, 1991 minutes. -- Chairman Ketz stated she would be abstaining from Resolution 91-40. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Rue to approve the following consent calendar items: Minutes of the May 7 and June 18, 1991 Planning commission meetings. Resolution P.C. 91-40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE HEIGHT IN THE R-3, R-P, R-2, R-2B, C-2 AND C-3 ZONES BE STUDIED AND CONSIDERED FOR CHANGE THROUGH THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, AND NOT BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT, AND FURTHER EACH ADVISORY MEASURE SHOULD DEAL WITH ONE ISSUE WITH MORE PRECISE WORDING. No objections, so adopted. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 635 MONTEREY BOULEVARD , LE MASTERS, Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated this CUP is similar to other off-sale alcohol establishment previously processed pertaining to hours of operation, etc. staff has provided approval of standard conditions with building-appearance, fence-encroachment 1 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 and removal of the telephone booth modifications and conditions. These conditions should be immediately implemented. The establishment is located in a residential neighborhood: therefore, hours of operation must be controlled. The current lessee paid for the application, however, the lessors have stated the lease-term ends as of October 1991. Comm. Rue requested information relating to the lot size and building location, to which Mr. Schubach responded, "25' by 100'", with the building fronting on the property line with an 80' backward extension. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:08 p.m. Comm. Rue asked Mr. Richard Bedolla, 635 Monterey Boulevard, several questions, to which Mr. Bedolla responded: (l) he would discuss with his partner whether the telephone booth would be relocated to the building interior, and (2) the compressor is located at the back, south side of the building and ( 3) the compressor is only operated during the business hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:10 p.m. Comm. Marks noted one letter from Allan Mason has been received complaining about noise. Comm. Rue discussed the problems stated in this letter. Mr. Schubach stated noise levels were tested and do not exceed the noise ordinance levels. MOTION by Comm. Rue_, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve CUP 91-9 and Resolution 91-44. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Peirce CON 89-25 --EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21331 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE. and CON 89-26 --EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP i 21330 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1508 LOMA DRIVE. Recommended Action: To approve said request for one-year extension. Mr. Schubach stated both CUP's were approved as of January 16, 1990. An allowable tract-map extension is currently being requested. comm. Di Monda and Mr. Lee discussed the landscaping requirements. comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach established extensions may be requested up to a total of three years, each of which may be approved or denied. Mr. Schubach stated these extensions would be covered under grandfather clause. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:17 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this request. 2 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:17 p.m. MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve CON 89-25 for a one-year period. AYES: HOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: conuns. Di Monda, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks Hone Comm. Peirce MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve CON 89-26 for a one-year period. AYES: HOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Hone Hone Comm. Peirce HR 91-2 --TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE RESULTING IN A GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 167 ARDMORE AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach said staff recommended request approval subject to Resolution conditions, discussing the structure location non-conformities and rear setback encroachment by a canopy-covered spa for which proper permits must be obtained prior to proposed-addition building permit issuance. Mr. Schubach noted Condition #3 must be changed to add the requirement of a building permit for the spa and canopy located in the rear yard. Mr, Schubach also stated the Planning commission must find the goal's intent and purpose of Article 13 are met in order to approve this request. comm. Marks questioned the height limit of 25' on the first half of the lot, which Mr. Schubach confirmed. Public Hearing was opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:24 p.m. Mr. Vic Robinette, 1725 Monterey Boulevard, applicant's administrator, appeared with Ms. Donna Walsh, 167 Ardmore Avenue, applicant. Mr. Robinette commented upon specifications and willingness to apply for a building permit for the portable-unit spa. comm. Di Monda requested first-floor renovation, rehabilitation and parking specifications. Mr. Robinette stated a new kitchen and stairway are necessary, the project is fully engineered and will be geologically surveyed, and explained the existing retaining wall/garage structure in a dune-sand environment. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve Resolution PC 91-43, with the addition of "and canopy" to condition #3. 3 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CODDllS. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Peirce SS 91-1 --TO EXAMINE ELIMINATING CBORCBES AS A PERMITTED USE FROM THE C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. Recommended Action: To set for public hearing by adopting the resolution of intent. Mr. Schubach stated the purpose is to create a resolution of intent to study the matter and related the issue history. Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:32 p.m. Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, stated her belief that a public hearing would be a waste of public money. She stated that bars and Pacific coast Highway cesspools should be eliminated rather than churches. Ms. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th street, expounded on the history of churches, stating only atheist would consider approval on this item. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:35 p.m. Chmn. Ketz stressed this item is only to be voted as to whether it should be set up public hearing, with a staff study. she felt the council has many studies initiated by the city council and Planning commission currently scheduled which should be addressed prior to this issue. comm. Rue stated the market determines what the use should be. He did not feel c-3 church elimination is a wish move, advising a Receive and File procedure. Comm. Di Monda discussed the lack of taxes and the many services provided by churches. Receive and file. P-10 --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4, 1991 MEETING). Recommended Action: To set for public hearing by adopting the resolution of intent. Chmn. Ketz stepped down from the Chair due to potential conflict of interest. comm. Rue accepted the position of Acting chairman. Actg. chmn. Rue explained the recommended action was recommendation of Alternative #6 and referred to Planning Director's Memorandum. 4 P.c.Minutes 7/2/91 Mr. Schubach defined the contents of his memorandum, stating the matter has direct/ indirect relationship to the circulation element in the General Plan. Further, how implementation is accomplished will have impact upon the open space element. They should be protected as open space and Staff recommends continuance of the April 16, 1991 agreement, essentially the Planning council accept the alternative that allows west-side parking, with no east-side parking on Beach Drive with the modification to allow more than one-car depth parking with barriers established and no parking in the front-yard areas. Mr. Schubach stated additional recommendation is whether implementation is enforcement through vacating of land or encroachment permit process. If vacation is decided upon, additional zoning changes are required. Mr. Schubach then referred to the responsible department, Public works Dept. Staff, Mr. Lynn Terry, for further input. Mr. Terry felt the Public Works Dept. has been able to respond to previously- asked questions appropriately and offered to answer any further questions. comm. Marks asked about the 30' determination. Mr. Terry stated this was an alternative recommendation based upon a driveway minimum requirement of 25'. comm. Marks stated the 30' depth might allow for 3-4 car parking. comm. Di Monda commented upon the 200 maximum vehicle Public Works Dept. determination vs. his actual car counts of 71, 78 and 63 during the previous Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Mr. Terry agreed the actual car counts were very realistic in a normal situation, stating the purpose is to provide the best alternative possible while providing control on properties. The Planning commission asked if the Public Works Staff could provide city council with information pertaining to the number of actually-parked vehicles. Mr. Terry stated if this study is authorized, it can be completed. comms. Di Monda, Marks and Mr. Terry established the lack of encroachment permits at the present time, along with an explanation as to the allowance of some modifications in the open space areas. Mr. Terry explained the water system within Hermosa Beach is owned by a private utility company, who decides water hydrant locations, administered by the city. comm. Rue asked the average lot length, to which Mr. Terry responded city lots average 22' width by ao, depth. Public Hearing opened by Acting-Chairman Rue at 8:01 p.m. Mr. David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, distributed a letter and map from MacPherson oil Company relating to 302 The Strand, which he owns. Mr. Schumacher stated he owns the fee interest in this property of 6,386 sq. ft., not Hermosa Beach City. He stated the right-of-way easement has been abandoned by the City since it has not been used for public use. Therefore, he contends this easement reverts back to him. He questioned the charging of $.SO/sq.ft. ($100 per parking space) for property owners not using the land for profit. 5 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Mr. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, commented he probably agreed that Mr. Schumacher owned the fee interest described on the map, but the public-right- of-way area is a property encumbrance which cannot be used as private property. His mineral rights are unaffected by the encumbrance. The issue before the Planning commission is: What is the appropriate use and how is this use accomplished? Mr. Michael Levitt, 2340 The strand, has lived in this 5-bdrm. house for three years with his family. The garage houses one small car. Mr. Levitt stated the corner lots are unique with characteristics not matched by other lots and may be treated differently. He requested postponement and additional studies be conducted before .establishing area and parking restrictiQns. Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, stated no further parking is available on Manhattan Avenue. She discussed previous deficit studies and asked about the difference between a dedication and an easement pertaining to the lands currently under discussion. Ms. Williams stated the use of these open land areas have been reflected in property selling prices and are considered in the property tax payments. She urged the commission to not deny parking access in those open land areas. Mr. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, gave an explanation as to the differences between "dedication" and "easement". Mr. Ed Nash, 600 The strand, stated he agreed with most of the points made by Ms. Williams. He felt the dissatisfaction of a few has escalated this matter to its current status, in essence making a mountain out of a molehill. Mr. Nash favors either (1) keeping the status quo with the City able to require an encroachment permit and liability insurance or (2) vacate the land, deeding it to the adjacent property owner with parking and building restrictions. Mr. Schubach explained that a portion of the Planning commission's decision was made at the April 16, 1991 meeting. Actg. Chmn. Rue explained that at that meeting the motion made and approved was to continue this item to the meeting of May 21 (which was not continued due to Public Works Dept. delays), at which time staff would provide additional information with focus on Alternative #6 and the implementation of vacation vs. encroachment. staff was to provide details on the following criteria: TWo car maximum, no tandem parking, side-by -side parking, access from Beach Drive , separati on between landscaping and parking areas, landscaping along walk streets, no allowance for recreational vehicles, appropriate depth of parking areas. staff was also to supply information relating to the legal consequences in the event of vacation. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated Item #6, proposed by Public Works Dept., was to change the city ordinance to allow private parking on pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, requiring private use be regulated by revokable encroachment permit and parking fees be paid, no parking allowed near The strand wall. Mr. Pat Corwin, 31 8th street, commented this issue is personal to each resident. He stated he was concerned about preserving the beauty of the walk streets. Mr. Corwin questioned the legality of people other than residents parking in these open-space parking and the problems of unenforced laws pertaining to the open-space parking. Ms. Gloria Walker, 2040 The Strand, requested the commission refrain from voting on the car-parking restriction at this time, pointing out the number of 6 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 cars accessing the area on a daily basis. She questioned the vacation option, stating this option had not been fully explored, and requested an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Alfred Salido, 24th street, stated he would be adversely impacted by the decision to limit parking on the east side. In 1988, his attorney, wrote a letter asking definition of ownership on the property in question to which the city Attorney did not respond. When he contacted Public Works Dept. to clean this property, the response was the area was privately owned. ~e has been instructed to post private "Tow-Away" signs in his area by the parking enforcement agency. Mr. Salido felt the same liability applied to the patios as _well as the parking in these open-space areas, suggesting that the problem can be solved by banning parking when a title change or major renovation is made. Ms. Susan Mc Farland, 25 8th street, hopes the Commission will continue considering the problem of implementation of the first half of the decision made several months ago. She stated she believed this area was in the Loma parking district and parking fees should be assessed. She pointed out the similarity of parking problems and needs of both the landlocked and ocean-view properties. Ms. Viola James, 78 The strand, a 57-year resident, has previously bricked and walled in the disputed area with the city's permission. She described her parking facilities and her personal difficulty which would be experienced if a change is made in her current situation. Ms. Linda Kaye, 2040 The Strand, remarked ocean-view parking is not the same as interior-city parking. she felt people will not park on the sidewalk; residents park in marked areas only. Public Hearing was closed by Actg. Chmn. Rue at 8:38 p.m. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated the Commission voted to continue this item during the last meeting, giving Staff parameters and criteria to address. staff has responded with information. Actg. chmn. felt the information obtained during this meeting should be reviewed by the commission and a motion defined which will be forwarded to city council. comm. Di Monda stated he still feels this area is a walk street which should be landscaped. He is not convinced that Alternative #6 would result in cars being put on the street. Comm. Di Monda commented on previous decisions made by the commission, stating it appeared compromises had been made in the past through zoning and City goals. comm. Di Monda felt Alternative #6 should be refined to state 25', two cars, side-by-side, no tandem parking, no R.V.s, no boats, provide landscaping, etc. comm. Marks stated front-yard parking on the east side should be disallowed, the west side should have a certain depth defined but not limiting the amount of cars, campers and boats being totally eliminated, cars illegally parked should be ticketed. Actg. Chmn. Rue said the Planning Commission has previously discussed the problem of cars parking up to The strand wall for over five years. 7 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Encroachment permits for the walk street yards are required, currently in force. Actg. Chmn. Rue reviewed the requirements of Alternative t 6, also stating that the encroachment fee to allow parking should be the only fee paid, not to include an additional parking fee. A limit needs to be established for the easterly one-third of the right-of-way, 25-30' for an 80' depth property with no limit to the number of parked cars or manner of parking, while promoting landscaping and green areas separated by permanent barriers. Landscaping will be maintained by property owners. No recreational vehicles or boats will be allowed. Fence heights and landscaping types need to be further discussed. Actg. Chmn. Rue asked the Conanissioners' thoughts regarding the landscaping requirements, to which Mr. Schubach responded this was a detail to be discussed later dependent upon the actions to be taken. Actg. chmn. Rue stated his preference for encroachment rather than vacation, since with vacation the city experiences a loss of control. Mr. Schubach stated both methods are feasible in these cases, both having legal consequences which are currently being explored by the city Attorney's office. MOTION by Actg. chmn. Rue, seconded by comm. Marks, to recommend the open space of the walk streets used by corner The strand lots be for private, up to 1/3 of lot to a maximum of 30' parking be allowed, permanent barrier between landscaping and parking, direct access from Beach Drive, parking is for automobile use only, fence height is to be 36", no parking on the east side of Beach Drive, such action shall be accomplished through a vacation or revokable encroachment permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conun. Marks, Actg. Chmn. Rue COIIDll. Di Monda Chmn. Katz Peirce Actg. chmn. Rue vacated and Chmn. Ketz resumed the Chairman position. STAFF ITEMS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF MAY. 1991. Chmn. Ketz requested a copy be given to the Commission by staff of the draft congestion Management Plan. Comm. Di Monda asked if the conanission's definition involvement begins at the updating of the zoning ordinance, to which Mr. Schubach responded definitions will begin during the land-use element. Receive and File. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR JULY 9, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chmn. Ketz stated two items will be discussed: (1) the Lighthouse Cafe, and (2) the Condominium conversion at 23 Barney court. 8 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Receive and File. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JULY 16 AND AUGUST 6, 1991 Chmn. stated the mobilehome issue will be presented. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSI.ON JOINT MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1991 Receive and File. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1991 Receive and File. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda asked if when the zoning analysis is being conducted, will this analysis specifically state when land is being filled in order to avoid the basement rule. Mr. Schubach responded this would be accomplished through the Building Dept., which has the responsibility. comm. Di Monda also asked about chapter 3 of the state Business and Professions code regarding an applicant ability to present a project requiring a licensed professional's signature. Mr. Lee stated he would investigate the questions and present an opinion at the next scheduled Planning commission Meeting. Comm .. Di Monda asked if the Planning commission members felt the green-belt parking area should be restricted to establish control and avoid extended use by recreational vehicles. chmn. Ketz expressed interest in an ordinance to restrict overnight parking in public parking lots, Comm. Rue concurred. Chmn. Ketz asked if camping trailers are allowed to be parked in Hermosa Beach city parking lots, to which Mr. Schubach responded he would contact General services for a specific answer. comm. Di Monda suggested this concept be forwarded to the council for agenda placement to which Chmn. Ketz and comm. Rue agreed. Mr. Schubach will initiate a memo, distributing it during the next meeting for the Planning Commission's review and approval. comm. Marks stated each city should designate an area for recreational vehicle parking. Comm. Di Monda stated creation of an R.V. parking area is-a separate issue. Comm. Rue stated as a result of the Pacific coast Highway parking restrictions, some north-end streets have barriers which are creating difficulty in exiting from local businesses, resulting in automobile accidents. MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 9:18 P.M. Ho objections~ so ordered. 9 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 CER'rIFICATIOH 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 July 2, 1991. Christine Ketz, Michael Schubach, secretary 10 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 -.._ I J MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 4, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Vice-chairman Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Vice-chmn. Peirce chmn. Ketz Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary MOTION BY comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Peirce to approve the minutes of May 21, 1991 with one correction, page 1. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda to approve the following consent calendar items: Resolution P.C. 91-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22305, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 918 15TH STREET. Resolution P.C. 91-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22304, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 930 15TH STREET. Resolution P.C. 91-34, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO AUTHORIZE AN AUTO REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT AT 1402 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Policy Statement P.C. 91-1, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR "COFFEE HOUSES". No objections: so ordered. MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, a resolution to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 91-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENTIRE "BILTMORE SITE" BE DESIGNATED FOR A COMBINATION OF COMMERCIAL USES AND OPEN SPACE; THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION DECISION NOT BE ACCEPTED; AND THAT THE PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED FOR LAND-LEASE RATHER THAN FOR SALE TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR PURCHASE OF OPEN SPACE AND THE LAND BE KEPT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. No objections; so ordered. 1 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 7 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Richard Sullivan, (213) 374-7410, 3rd street, announced July 9, 1991 city Council will be hearing a appeal for the Lighthouse Cafe. He voiced his personal complaints pertaining to the Lighthouse Cafe and invited residents to join him at the July 9th Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR & PAINTING, AUTO SALES, AND GENERAL AUTO REPAIR, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FELDER'S BODY SHOP AND SALES (continued from May 21, 1991 meeting). Mr. Schubach gave staff report. staff recommended approval of this request subject to Resolution conditions and standard Condition modifications as follows: Condition #4 satisfy the Building Dept's. requirements by modifying the enclosed covered patio. condition #5 Allow removable poles at the front of the driveway as long as site access are not affected during operating hours. condition #7 Allow night-use of the building if all doors are closed until 10:00 P.M., allow the car-sales business portion to remain open until 10:00 P.M. Condition #11 Add other types of paints considered safe by the Air Quality commission. condition #14 Allow work within the outside walled-in area for incidental activities, subject to approval by the Director. All doors are to be closed with the exception of the southern-exposure door (with consideration be given to allow the North door to remain open) . Condition #17 Allow long-term storage of covered, registered vehicles awaiting sale. The term "loud and obnoxious noise" eliminated. Condition #21 Allow in-door repair of auto alarms previously ipstalled. Condition #22 Allow installation of burglar alarm with bells, buzzers. Mr. Schubach commented on the landscaping, fencing and parking spaces shown in the revised plans. staff recommends that current parking spaces should be standard size, with additional spaces provided. Hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 7:21 P.M. Mr. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Ave., Ste. 38, representing Mr. Felder, stated a misunderstanding regarding the CUP. Mr. Felder's past and present business remains the same. His current request is to meet his legal obligations in order to continue conducting this same business, and he is willing to comply with condition requirements. 2 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 comm. Rue questioned doors remaining open during business hours, to which Mr. wood responded that doors would be opened and closed as necessary to move cars, with the south-door being open most of the time. Mr. Richard Sullivan, (213) 374-7410, distributed "handouts" to Commissioners and related his discussions/problems with Mr. Felder during the past years, stating Mr. Felder is very accommodating to the local residents. He stated this CUP would determine future handling of similar applications, and that he was disturbed with the differences between the original and modified CUP, regarding the doors, patio, parking and air pollution and "hanky-panky." vice-chmn. Peirce advised Mr. Sullivan of his right to contact the city council or city Attorney, rather than the Planning commission. Mr. Ray Martin, 1255 Corona st., would like to see a CUP condition that no outside auto-body sanding and the "loud noise and obnoxious" statement be reinstated. comm. Marks asked Mr. Martin's involvement, to which Mr. Martin responded he was interested in the European Bodyshop and the work of all body shops within Hermosa Beach. Mr. Schubach pointed out that Felder's was an established, existing business, not a new one, and is being considered as such. Mr. Mark Moreno, corona st., understood the amortization process of the existing CUP' s purpose is to upgrade the business and property values, and wondered if such a plan existed. Vice-Chmn. Peirce stated, yes, and requested Mr. Moreno's suggestions. Mr. Moreno requested the intent on this issue and continuity of requirements, to which vice-Chmn. Peirce responded all auto-body shops would be brought through this process during the next two years to make them good neighbors, not contributing to noise or pollution. Mr. Jack Wood rebutted Messrs. Sullivan's and Moreno's comments regarding loud noise, lack in understanding of Mr. Felder's business operation and hours of operation. Public hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 7:58 P.M. Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the loud and obnoxious noise is controlled through other legal requirements and requested further information pertaining to the covered patio. Mr. Schubach responded the City Building Dept. approved the original covered patio, which later become enclosed, sanding was being performed within the patio. comm. Di Monda commented upon the need of a permit for the enclosed patio and allowance of hand-sanding, hand-painting in open areas by body shops, hazard material storage handling and regulations, and fire code violations, to which Mr. Schubach responded a code provision exists allowing some outdoor auxiliary work, which is visually checked by the staff. Additionally, fire codes and the Fire Dept. monitor hazardous material storage. Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the Commission's function is to ensure that business nuisances are eliminated by the CUP. Mr. Lee stated the CUP process does not waive or release a business from compliance with other applicable laws, regulations or provisions which apply. Businesses must comply with all these requirements. The CUP is to address specific impacts created by the land-use. comm. Di Monda disagreed with body shops being open on Sunday to do sanding. Mr. Schubach responded that each business has a style in conducting business 3 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 and the commission needs to be attuned to business needs in order to retain and obtain businesses. This particular application has 28 conditions. Mr. Schubach has received 12 letters from immediate neighbors stating "let Mr. Felder continue." MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Vice-chmni Peirce to approve CUP 91-4, with the following corrections: Item #4 to read, "Shall be inspected to the satisfaction of the Building Dept," Item #7, change to "personal" rather than "personnel". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conan. Rue, Vice-chmn. Peirce Conan. Di Monda, Marks None Chmn. Ketz Vice-chmn. Peirce asked for alternatives. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve CUP 91-4, with the following corrections: Item #4 to read, "Shall be inspected to the satisfaction of the Building Dept," Item #7, change to "personal" rather than "personnel", Sunday hours must be indoors, and Item #14 eliminate all outdoor hand-sanding. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Rue, Di Monda, Marks, Vice-chmn. Peirce None None chmn. Katz Vice-Chmn. Peirce announced Thursday, June 6, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., the Planning Commission and city council will hold a meeting. T-4 BALLOT MEASURES REGARDING HEIGHT AND HOUSING STANDARDS. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach gave the staff report pertaining to the examination of lowering allowable height in C-2, c-3, R-2, R-2B, R-3 and R-P zones, the grandfather clause, and determine if proposed ballot measures regarding house standards should actually be on the ballot. Staff's recommendation to city council is to lower height as noted in attached resolutions. Also recommended are two methods applying to the grandfather clause: recommend a moratorium and/or request/recommendation that at the time the ballot measure passes in November 1991 that a grandfather clause be included. Mr. Schubach stated a history of actions taken pertaining to these subjects during the past 10 years, listing beneficial and detrimental architectural effects within the particular zones. The staff reviewed Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach height requirements with height restrictions in both residential and commercial zones lower than what the City of Hermosa Beach allows. Both cities use a different measurement method than Hermosa Beach, explained by Mr. Schubach. Approximately 60% of commercial properties would be effected by the ballot measure, an additional 36. 8% will be effected if the specific plan area along Pacific coast Highway is included. Height would be restricted to 35 feet with a few exceptions. A maximum of 40 ft. is allowed in a few special cases to be reviewed by the Planning commission. Mr. Schubach stated the Planning Staff agrees with the wording noted in the 4 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91 city Manager's Report as far as the advisory measures are concerned and if the measures are to be placed on the ballot, and agrees that housing measures need review. If the mandated ballot measure are placed on the ballot and passed, the measures are effective immediately, and already approved plans are not grandfathered. A moratorium with a grandfather clause may be prudent at this time. View blockage potential was discussed by Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 8:37 P.M. Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the subjects for discussion should be ( 1) the city council's process, and (2) comments on the height changes and standards, with the purpose of guiding the commission in its decision. comm. Rue asked if the ordinances as drafted by the city Attorney will go to the city council as recommended, and if so, will the Council change them to which Mr. Schubach responded the council will receive the ordinances which are open to consideration. Comm. Rue stated these are not advisory, but rather an amendment to the zoning code. Mr. Schubach said there are a total of six ballot measures; four mandated, two advisory only, which have gone to the city council and referred back for study, public hearings and input prior to making final judgment. Management-level staff felt this issue should be brought before the Planning commission for input. comm. Rue commented on the lack of backup information to enable a decision by the Planning Commission. comm. Marks asked what stimulated and who created the ballot measure, to which Mr. Schubach responded the council felt the constituents were interested and was voted on by the council. comm. Rue commented the Planning Commission has scheduled to conduct a study on an ongoing basis as the city changes. comm. Di Monda noted the new language in the revision on the housing standards revisory measures is more restrictive to bulk and parking and asked if approval is granted would the Planning Commission's hands be tied or can exceptions be made. Mr. Schubach responded if language was added to indicate an exception rule, but any exception measures must be added at this time. Mr. Jack Brantley, 74 18th street, bought his 1908 home with the plan to build a home utilizing the existing height limitations. If the height limitations are decreased, this will defeat his original purpose in buying his property. smaller, older, high density homes will be perpetualized with adoption of the new limitations. Mr. Raymond Quigley, 442 strand, stated his neighbors have built larger houses than his own. He and others with smaller homes will not have the option to increase living space as has been done in the past, therefore decreasing the value of his property. Vice-chmn. stated the Planning commission has been requested to make a recommendation to city council, who has put the measures on the ballot. Public Hearing was closed by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 8:59 P.M. comm. Di Monda read that the density problem appeared to have been resolved by past council action; the issue of height was the most significant zoning concern and asked if this statement was in the view of the council. Mr. Schubach responded that previously the council wished more density reduction. After staff study, density was determined to be low. council then determined height, bulk problems should be addressed. 5 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 vice-chmn. stated height-determination past practice was to assure architectural diversity. current building practices do not address this diversity goal. In order to modify the zoning code, the process must be followed. However, the verbiage on the ballot is difficult to understand due to the brevity. Therefore, an advisory ballot must be crisp and concise in order to not create additional implementation misunderstandings. vice-chmn. Peirce recommended that rather than fine-tune the particular measures, a summary letter be sent to the city council, to which comm. Rue agreed, stating a letter, Planning commission Meeting Minutes or a resolution be sent to the city stating the Planning Commission does not support the advisory or ordinances because they are simplifications not using the correct process. Comm. Di Monda also agreed, stating that if the city council is looking to reduce the effect of building and obtain more light/air, bulk should be focused upon. Vice-chmn. Peirce stated not enough information had been supplied to the Planning Commission to enable the Commission to make an informed decision at this time and suggested a 10-item questionnaire be placed on the ballot or a sample survey be performed to obtain the information the City council is seeking, to which comm. Di Monda agreed if either option were worded in such a ' way as to obtain pertinent information. comm. Marks stated he was adamantly opposed to reducing height requirements without very serious reasons and consideration. MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by Vice-chmn. Peirce, to approve the resolution the Planning commission strongly disagrees with ballot measures, planning is too intricate to place on a ballot, advisory measures are not specific enough and should be single-issue items, the planning process should be utilized. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monday, Rue, Vice-chmn. Peirce Comm. Marks None Chmn. Katz Recess taken from 9:20 P.M. to 9:29 P.M. P-1O --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommended Action: To continue to July 2, 1991 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the Public works Dept. has not had enough time to completely prepare and submit its report and are asking for a continuance until July 2, 1991. vice-chmn. Peirce asked when the city of Hermosa Beach was going to act upon the current law in effect, to which Mr. Schubach responded a measure from the city Manager discussing the current law was scheduled, but will now not be presented at the next city council meeting for comment. The city Manager will respond to the Planning commission. comm. Di Monda discussed the number of parking spaces in the original report vs. the number which could be obtained and requested the actual number and location of garages which have been allowed to open passed the 20-30 feet point and determination of impact upon businesses dependent upon that parking be supplied to the Commission. 6 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91 . . MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve a continuance until July 2, 1991. No objections; so ordered. CUP 90-18 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO 2 HERMOSA AVENUE, MARINA LIQUORS. Recommended Action: To direct staff to continue to enforce the provisions of the CUP. Mr. Schubach gave staff report. staff has examined site and assured progress was being made on a CUP issued several months ago. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Peirce at 9:35 P.M. Ms. Pamela Ricketts, owner of Marina Liquors, questioned the operating hours stated in the CUP, stating she has business exceptions which should be considered. Mr. Lee stated the operating hours stated on the CUP define the use hours of operation of the building; if the Commission wished to consider a CUP amendment, the owner is required to submit an application amendment to CUP conditions allowing for changed operating hours. Ms. Pamela Ricketts stated the city of Hermosa Beach has not fixed her sidewalk to enable completion of trash container enclosure and requested current status. Mr. Schubach stated Public works Dept. is being contacted. Ms. Pamela Ricketts stated her pole sign was covered under a grandfather clause at her original purchased. Th~s pole has been in place at least 20 years. Mr. Schubach stated that when originally discussed, the approximate 45' pole was established as a problem and was to be reduced in height. Mr. Schubach stated this problem should be discussed through the amendment process. Vice-chmn. Peirce explained the "grandfather" eligibility vs. the conditional Use Permit to Ms. Ricketts, and the intent of the Commission in originally ruling· on the sign height, recommending Ms. Ricketts proceed with the amendment process. Public Hearing closed at 9:44 P.M. by Vice-Chmn. Peirce. CUP 90-2 --RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE CUP FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AT 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, DAN'S LIQUOR. Recommended Action: To recommend approval subject to conditions. Mr. Schubach gave staff report. This matter was presented to council and referred back to commission for comment. staff feels the conditions were revised appropriately, adhering to the intent of the CUP or amortization process. staff recommends the commission agree the rewritten conditions are acceptable to enable resubmittal to City council for approval or denial. Mr. Schubach distributed to Commission a new parking lot design, landscaping and trash dumpster location plan. Vice-chmn. Peirce established that the commission was not to vote on this CUP, but was only to make recommendation as to acceptability of the original or the amended document. 7 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 == Mr. Schubach defined the eliminations from the original document as word changes for clarity purposes, deleted items already part of the Code. comm. Rue offered the basic change listing as follows: (1) Front portion of business which faces west onto Manhattan Avenue is boarded with wood. owner shall paint/restain this -area to make it acceptable. (2) Language regarding the signs has been reworded but the intent is basically the same. (3) Employee signature of receipt of CUP changed to CUP posting only. (4) No sale of sexually-explicit X-Rated videos unless CUP is obtained has been deleted. (5) Measures shall be taken to control loitering on the public sidewalk at all times has been deleted. (6) Participation in the EZ Program has been deleted (at the city Attorney's request). (7) The floor area design has been changed. (8) The Planning Commission may review the CUP and may amend the subject conditions has been deleted (which is already part of the Code). Vice-chmn. Peirce asked about the appearance of the front portion of the building to which Mr. Schubach responded it is an aged, rustic ap~earance. comm. Di Monda requested the a definition of differences between business hours and operations between this and the Marina Liquor stores to which Mr. Schubach responded that different operating hours at originally been requested by these businesses. In the future, the staff will assure that requested hours are adequate. Comm. Di Monda discussed the need for continuity between same or similar businesses, to which Mr. Schubach explained that due to differences at each location (i.e. mixed-use vs. single-use buildings), each must be reviewed based upon that particular location's requirements and requests. Public Hearing was opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 9:53 P.M. Mr. Phil Freeland, Freeland Development consultants, 315 south Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, representing Mr. Duffaut, property owner asked two procedural questions: (1) at the 14th city council Meeting, an issue was raised regarding and _the legality of two Commissioners' presence and length of service on the Commission was questioned, and (2) at the 14th city council Meeting, the Mayor and Council both directed that further response by Mr. Duffaut or his representative was acceptable. Mr. Freeland asked for a definition as to the feasibility of his continued presentation of the Commission Meeting. Mr. Schubach responded that the commission has the ability to make changes, although the Staff is not recommending it at this time. Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the commission would not vote on the CUP during this meeting, but would recommend to city Council regarding the correctness or 8 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 modification of changes made by staff. The first procedural question asked by Mr. Freeland was ruled out of order by Vice-chrnn. Peirce. Mr. Freeland requested the following: (1) Deletion of condition #2 regarding adequate property management due to the staff recommendation wording using the term "adequate management and supervisory techniques" being ambiguous and provides no enforcement measure and an inappropriate requirement in North Hermosa Beach. Comm. Rue asked for alternate suggestions, to which Mr. Freeland responded with a request that this requirement simply be deleted. comm. Marks asked if the store owner was generally on the premises, to which Mr. Freeland responded, "No, a lessee's employee is on site". Comm. Marks commented that an employee only was a weak link. (2) The sign plurals be removed to exclude any ambiguity. There is no current problem with "sign" but is with "signs". (3) Modification of condition #4 by removing the statement relative to a problem with the signs and include the requirement for sign maintenance or repair, since he and Mr. Duffaut do not feel that anything is currently wrong with the signs. comm. Di Monda requested substantiation by pictures to be furnished by the applicant at City Council meeting to which Mr. Freeland stated that was possible. (4) Modification of Condition #5 since the lessee's tenant is not controlled by the property owner. A copy of the CUP may be placed on the premises so that it may be read and understood. Vice-Chrnn. Peirce asked how it would be determined and monitored that the store operator would understand the conditions, and what the objections to Condition #5 were, to which Mr. Freeland responded the CUP would be posted for the employee(s) to read, but the owner has no control over the lessee's employee(s). (5) Deletion of Condition #5 since landscaping which would impact the property appearance is not appropriate on this site. comm. Marks discussed the adjusted plan by the Staff with Mr. Freeland, stating the landscape requirements are minimal and can be achieved by pots. Mr. Freeland stated the owner could place potted trees on the sidewalk. Mr. Schubach stated the landscape shown on the plans are exactly as originally proposed, based upon the on-file plans. Mr. Freeland disagreed. (6) Deletion of condition #7 since it is covered by condition #3. (7) Requested current parking be maintained, since the suggested parking would result in lose of parking spaces and create a visibility problems. Mr. Schubach explained the differences between the plan and the actual site to the commission which included parking and landscaping, stating that he, the city Attorney, Mr. Duffaut and his 9 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91 attorney previously reviewed the tandem parking plan, which is not acceptable. (8) Deletion of Condition #12, which puts undue restrictions on the property owner as a result of the CUP, which should not be the purpose of the Planning Commission. (9) Condition #14, which requires the CUP be recorded and proof submitted to Planning Department, be modified or deleted. Mr. Freeland stated Mr. Duffaut has owned his property for almost 20 years and continues to be intent upon operating a well-run business. Vice-Chmn. asked Mr. Freeland if Conditions 8, 9 and 10 were intentionally deleted from discussion, of which Mr. Freeland stated there was no problem with 9 and 10, but continue to have problems with #8, asking that the requirement for single, clear-wrapped packages be removed. Mr. Freeland stated that no city has the right to determine the packaging of products and cited inconsistency. comm. Di Monda asked in Mr. Freeland suggests combining Items 3 and 7, which Mr. Freeland affirmed. Comm. Di Monda questioned the parking plans and offered suggestions for on-site landscaping, while also explaining the building permit requirements and procedures. Comm. Di Monda and Messrs. Schubach and Freeland discussed options and procedural requirements to change the building use. Mr. Ronald Duffaut, property owner, stated he and Mr. Schubach previously discussed the parking problems/requirements with Mr. Schubach to provide him with a suggested parking plan, of which he has not seen to date. Mr. Schubach responded that previous discussions had been conducted pertaining to this subject. Mr. Duffaut stated he has had previous meetings with his attorney and Mr. Freeland, but the parking situation had not yet been addressed. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Peirce at 10:21 P.M. Mr. Lee suggested Condition #12 read, "The floor plan shall be shown on submitted plans, any changes to the interior which substantially alter the primary use permitted under this CUP shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director". Comm. Rue noted that if the A.B.C. license or CUP is abandoned, the property owner can make permitted changes without commission approval, which was confirmed by Mr. Lee, with stipulations. Vice-chman. felt that nothing should be changed on the recommended CUP or than Mr. Lee's suggestion regarding Condition #12. Comrns. Rue, Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the merits of the parking plan submitted by the staff and condition #14 recording requirements. MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by comm. Rue, to recommend to the city council that except for the modification to condition #12 and combining of Conditions #3 and 7, removal of the statement from Condition #4 after substantiation of current good sign condition, this version of the CUP be accepted as written. 10 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 -. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CUP 91-1 Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Vice-Cbmn. Peirce None · None Chmn. Ketz RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE CUP FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVE., BOCCATO'S GROCERIES. Recommended Action: To recommend approval subject to conditions. Mr. Schubach gave staff report, noted the similarities with CUP 90-2 and stated he has received a letter from Mr. Boccato contesting several of the conditions. Mr. Boccato has paved parking lot, constructed trash container area and requests these conditions be removed. Additional changes/additions in the trash container area are required. staff believes modification and condition language should remain as is; this has been discussed with Mr. Boccato. Responding to Mr. Boccato' s letter, staff notes regarding ( 1) Condition #7 which has been changed to condition #6 and is less restrictive but still maintains some control over potential changes to more intensive uses, ( 2) condition #9, changed to condition #8, requires packaging in see-through bags of individual containers, a requirement of similar business located near the beach, and (3) Condition # 12, changed to Condition # 11, recordation is not difficult nor costly. The city Attorney has suggested the language in condition #6 be slightly changed regarding modifying the store interior without approval. comm. Di Monda asked what Code states height in trash enclosures, to which Mr. Schubach responded it is found in the Municipal code, enforced through the Building Dept. The staff prefers trash enclosures be gated. Public Hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 10:33 P.M. Mr. Phil Freeland, Freeland Development Consultants, representing Mr. Boccato, continues to object to the CUP process for an existing business with a legal A.B.c. license. Mr. Boccato has owned the business for 22 years with no problems and feels this action is illegal. The May 14, 1991 city council Meeting requested Messrs. Freeland and Boccato negotiate with the Planning commission and staff. A trash enclosure gate has been installed. Mr. Freeland requested that condition be removed from the CUP, Condition #3 be deleted as being ambiguous, Condition #5 be modified to posting of CUP only, condition #6 be deleted, Condition #9 should be included as part of Condition #4, no objection to Condition #10 as long as an overall agreement is reached. Mr. Freeland requested the CUP wording be changed to allow CUP recording only. Mr. Lee responded the purpose of the language change to condition #6, Planning Dept. approval would not be required if all permitted use allowed within c-1 Zone requirements were met. Mr. Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan Ave., stated the original CUP should be followed and questioned the CUP process for the different business, stating the exhibited controls are unnecessary. Public Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 10:44 P.M. 11 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91 Vice-chmn. Peirce stated no modifications are required. Comm. Di Monda commented that uniform, standard conditions addressing City of Hermosa Beach concerns and regulation of problems would be beneficial to all. Mr. Lee responded CUPs are on a case-by-case basis, the type of conditions should be different due to the unique situations which require appropriate conditions to mitigate the specific-use impact. Comm. Di Monda requested an explanation of the clear, plastic bag requirement. Vice-chmn. Peirce responded markets using clear, plastic bags for liquor sales enable better enforcement of the liquor laws by making the product visible. comm. Rue stated he felt the trash enclosure and gate was handled in a very innovative manner. MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend approval as submitted, changing condition #6 to correspond with CUP 90-2 condition #12 as amended and collapse Conditions #4 and 9 together. AYES: NOES: Conans. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Vice-Chmn. Peirce None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chmn. Ketz Mr. Schubach stated the CUP would be presented to city council Tuesday, June 11, 1991. Vice-chmn. Peirce announced a meeting between City council and Planning Commission Thursday, June 6, 1991, 7:00 P.M. to discuss various issues to include Ruedat, Greenbelt parking, downtown business parking, Pacific coast Highway parking, nonconforming ordinance, livability ordinance and planning issues vs. policy issues. STAFF ITEMS A) A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO REVOKE/MODIFY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1160 AVIATION BOULEVARD, JACK-IN-THE-BOX. Mr. Schubach stated this issued was discussed at previous meeting, brought back in resolution form. Adjacent Jack-In-The-Box neighbors are concerned and have requested the Commission review the stated problems. staff recommends the Resolution of Intent to examine the matter in terms of possibly revoking the CUP be adopted. MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue. No objections; so ordered. B) PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF APRIL, 1991. Received and file. C) MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAI SON FOR JUNE 11, 1991 CI TY COUNCIL MEETING. No action taken. D) TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. No action taken. 12 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91 . .. • " E) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1991. Vice-chmn. Peirce noted the city council Minutes have improved by furnishing much more information. No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Vice-chmn Peirce and Mr. Schubach commented on the meeting to be held Thursday, June 6, 1991 with the City Council and Planning Commission in attendance. MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Peirce, seconded by comm. Rue to adjourn at 10:55 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1991. Jti-8 Peirce,0 Vice chairman //~u~~ Micliael sc~ubach, secretary Date 13 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91 II U I i > I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 21, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, chmn. Ketz Comm. Rue (Present as of 7:03 P.M.) Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant city Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of May 7, 1991 pulled by Chmn. Ketz for revision and/or correction, Items 6, 7 and 8 contained no Motion, item 9 contained no second to Motion and Item 11 noted no conditions. The Minutes will be resubmitted for approval. MOTION by chmm. Ketz, seconded by comm. Peirce to approve the following consent calendar items: Resolution P.C. 91-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 320 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; Resolution P.C. 91-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO ADD 99 SQ. FT. TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE WITH ONLY ONE PARKING SPACE AT 2467 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WAIVER TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PORTABLE CLASSROOMS AT 1645 VALLEY DRIVE, HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL. Resolution P.C. 91-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH BILLIARDS, FOOD SERVICE, AND RETAIL SALES AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, ON THE BREAK. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comins. Marks, Di Monda, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None Conan. Rue None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Al Johnson, Al Johnson's Karate school, stated although Resolution P.c. 91-29 was approved, neither Mr. Johnson nor the property owners understand why the Conditional Use Permit included additional conditions for which Mr. Johnson 1 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 is not responsible. He requested either an amendment to CUP 91-6 or hearing to rectify this condition. Mr. Schubach said that a CUP is applicable to the land and is the property owner's. The applicant, Mr. Johnson may ask for an amendment or hearing by following the reapplication process. Chmn. Ketz stated Resolution P.c. 91-29 was approved at a public hearing and cannot be addressed at this meeting. To amend this CUP, a formal procedure requiring another public hearing is necessary. comm. Peirce questioned the property owner's responsibility to comply with code requirements, to which Mr. Schubach stated there are current non-compliance problems. Mr. Greg Dahl, Property Manager representing the property owner, said the owner has not received written notification requesting installation of landscaping, automatic irrigation system, fence removal, walls raised, and parking modifications. Mr. Dahl said the highest building codes were maintained during original construction, with upgrades being made as required. chrmn. Ketz stated the non-retail business would require more parking than previously noted and recommended that Mr. Dahl contact staff to explore obtaining an amendment, conditional Use Permit and public hearing. Mr. Don Oleski asked if Agenda Item 14 (b) MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE OPERATION OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX AT 1160 AVIATION, was scheduled for public hearing during this meeting. Mr. Schubach responded, stating this was a memorandum noting complaints received by the staff. The current CUP does not contain the conditions necessary to resolve alleged problems. Chmn. Ketz explained this was not a public hearing item, testimony will not be accepted at this time, and this memo was presented by staff to commission for hearing consideration only. Mr. Jim Hallead, 1221 11th Place, asked if property owners would be notified as to the decision and the rights of the property owners Mr. Schubach responded that residents would be notified through public notice, but may contact the Planning Department regarding the council's decision. Additionally, owners may write to the council or the commission. Mr. Schubach said the Public works Department requested a continuance due to unavailability of necessary data in order to issue a report. P-10 --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS. Chmn. Ketz stated this issue would be continued to June 4, 1991 meeting. PUBLIC BEARING CON 91-1/PDP 91-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 122305 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMI.NIUM AT 918 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 AND APRIL 2, 1991 MEETINGS), and 2 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22304 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 930 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 AND APRIL 2, 1991 MEETINGS). Recommended Action: To approve said conditional Use Permits and Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps. Chmn. Ketz stated CON 91-1/PDP 91-1 would be heard in conjunction with CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 and requested a staff Report. Mr. Schubach said the revised plans submitted April 2, 1991 improved view potential, staggered upper and lower projects, but the concerns regarding identical building design, floor plan, elevation, and lack of integration were not addressed. Applicant had requested continuance in order to revise original plans to 25' height to take advantage of the 30' height limit. The revision maintained the original layout with the upper project's exterior architecture redesigned from a contemporary to Mediterranean style, making the two units distinct from each other. The staggering effect has positively improved the project, which complies or exceeds basic standards, but does not take advantage of the two-lot situation. If council wishes not to approve the project as revised, perhaps a denial based on "not satisfactory" grounds, allowing for resubmittal of revised plans at a later date may be considered. Mr. Lee stated council may elect two alternatives: (1) If mitigation measures adequately address project impacts, the issue may be decided on its merits at this meeting, or (2) take this off calendar, allowing the applicant to resubmit the plans, go through the notice procedure required in a public hearing. Comm. Peirce asked about the specific statements and relationship of the General Plan relating to any two contiguous lots. Mr. Schubach stated that the zoning process and General Statements in the Plan indicate minimum standards which may be exceeded. This is the reason for the conditional Use Permit, which are looked at on a case-by-case basis, maximizing quality. comm. Rue asked if the interior motor ,court was considered open space on the 918 15th street site Plan, to which Mr. Schubach responded that only the footprint of the building is considered in calculating lot coverage. The interior motor court is covered and included. Comm. Rue also noted a lack of height elevations. Mr. Schubach stated the Building Department staff calculates the height to assure conformity with structural plan check via review of plans and on-site visit. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:25 P.M. Mr. Dave Olin, 1233 Hermosa Beach, st. 203, addressed lot-coverage Code requirements and gave several elevation colorings to the Council for review. Mr. Olin stated his client does not wish to consolidate these properties. Mr. Olin discussed associated problems with slope regarding the parking, also stating the high roofs do not conflict with roofs on the lower lot, the buildings are designed to dovetail each other, leaving an 11-ft. setback for light and ventilation for the East-side neighbor. 3 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 cornm. Rue noted the site Plan displayed a 16-ft setback on both projects with a driveway separating the property from the cornmon wall. Applicant stated this was correct and the side yard has an 11-ft. setback. Cornm. Rue asked the applicant if the contemporary-design building had been kept at 25 ft., to which the applicant responded affirmatively, with explanation. cornm. Rue confirmed with Mr. Olin that the Traditional-design building height had been maintained, with addition to the roof area. Mr. Olin stated the building height was dictated by the handrail on the roof deck. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:32 P.M. Cornm. Di Monda stated he felt that the applicant had responded to requests for dissimilar building designs made during May 7, 1991 meeting, but requested that substantial 24" box specimen trees be noted exactly in the CUP. Comm. Rue agreed and noted the applicant had made efforts to alleviate bulk and starkness of the building while adding interest. MOTION by Cornm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve CON 91-1/ PDP 91-1 and CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 with the condition that minimum 24" box specimen trees be included, with the Planning Director's review and approval. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CUP 91-4 Comma. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Chum. Ketz None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR & PAINTING, AUTO SALES, AND GENERAL AUTO REPAIR, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FELDER'S BODY SHOP AND SALES. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt ~egative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated a request for continuance at a mutually-agreed later date had been received and recommended approval of this request. staff recornmends continuance to the June 4, 1991 meeting. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:38 P.M. Mr. Mick Felder, 838 2nd st., owner of Felder's Body Shop, agreed to the continuance to June 4, 1991. Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:41 P.M. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to continue until June 4, 1991. (~ AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CUP 91-8 Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Chum. Ketz None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT 1402 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FOLDED WINGS LTD. 4 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 Recommended Action: To approve Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated the request was made by an existing auto repair business located in a converted, remodeled building. staff recommended that the CUP, subject to conditions in a resolution attached to CUP 91-8 be approved. Applicant business is open to operate from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday only. The requested Conditional use Permit would authorize continuation of business, submitted in accordance with the amortization ordinance. This particular business has not been the source of any reported problems or complaints. Conditions regarding property improvement are necessary to assure compatibility into the future or with change in ownership. submitted plans do not accurately reflect the site and need to be revised. staff concern is that the trash enclosure lacks a gate, storage trailer is stored in the parking lot, debris is on the slope. staff recommends the condition that a view-obscuring gate be installed, the two other concerns be addressed by standard conditions used by past auto-repair businesses. staff also recommends previously-used standard conditions regarding the business operation and recommends hours for repair be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays. The applicant would like the hours altered to 7 : 0 0 A. M. to 7 : 0 0 P. M. , working with the doors closed. staff feels those new hours would not be a problem. Due to business reasons, some cars may be stored on-site more than 72 hours. staff can modify the condition, stating no car may be on site for any extended period of time if it is unregistered. Comm. Marks was concerned about the week-end hours and any objections from surrounding residents, to which Mr. Schubach responded the hours would_be from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Chrnn. Ketz stated that a public hearing will be held to allow complaint or support to be voiced. Public Hearing opened by Chrnn. Ketz at 7:47 P.M. Blane coon, 1402 Pacific coast Highway, owner of Folded Wings, is in agreement with application correspondence received. comm. Rue asked applicant if there was an objection to stating from the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., work will be done behind closed doors; to which the applicant responded the doors cannot be c ·losed while working due to safety hazards. comm. Rue requested an explanation of noise experienced during those hours. Applicant compressor and pneumatic air guns are operated. level, stated problems which may be no hammering is done, Richard Sullivan, 3rd street, commented on possible fumes emitting from the building and acoustics east of Pacific Coast Highway which are amplified. He requested a CUP statement be included which states the doors should be closed when working on engines, but not enforce the statement. Mr. coon stated he has had his business for 13 years and has maintained his business in good condition during this time. 5 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 comm. Rue asked the "painting" be deleted from CUP 91-8 since none is done on site, to which Mr. Coon agreed. Public Hearing closed by chrnn. Ketz at 7:54 P.M. MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve Resolution P.C. 91-34 with the following amendments: Item #4, Painting, be deleted, Item #6, " ... on the premises shall be prohibited, except registered vehicles waiting for repair or pick up may be stored," Item #9, "hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. week days and 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays." chrnn. Ketz commended Mr. coon for being the first to come in under this moratorium and not waiting the two years. AYES: NOES: Conans. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP 91-1/TEXT 91-1 --GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE BILTMORE SITE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/RECREATION, AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO ALLOW 30% OF THE MAXiMUM FLOOR AREA TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES CONSISTENT WITH TBE COASTAL COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action: with the Coastal Declaration. Amending the General Plan and zoning Text to be consistent Commission's determination and adoption of the Negative (A break was taken from 7:55 P.M. to 8:06 P.M.) Public Hearing was continued by Chrnn. Ketz at 8:06 P.M. Mr. Schubach displayed two maps showing the coastal zone boundaries and open-space areas within the coastal Zone. The coastal commission recornmended the General Plan Amendment from medium density residential to general commercial be implemented for a portion of the site, which is to be implemented through a Text Amendment to the specific plan area, and require that a minimum of 30% floor area or more be developed on site for commercial. Mr. Schubach discussed the adoption by council of Resolution ordinance at the meeting of August 14, 1990 and the Amendment requested by the city of Hermosa Beach. The coastal commission approved a modified version of the City's request on March 13, 1991. The Environmental Review committee recommended a negative declaration. If the coastal Commission's recommendation is accepted, specific designations and regulations must be developed to carry out the {- decision, otherwise the city of Hermosa Beach needs to request amendment or reconsideration of that decision. The alternatives considered are: (1) use of the south lots as commercial consistent with the commercial uses which front on 14th street; (2) Mixed use, with residential condominium above ground level commercial, using the strand frontage for commercial; (3) commercial uses on the strand frontage with residential behind, or (4) commercial uses with frontage only on 14th street, 6 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 using 15th street frontage and strand for residential. In staff's judgment, option (1) is clearly superior. conceptual plan blue lines for option (1) were distributed to commissioners for review with an explanation given by Mr. Schubach. Provisions to amend were drafted to allow variation from the staff's conceptual plan as long as criteria are met. The staff's recommendations are as follows: (A) split Biltmore site into two portions, one maintained at medium density and one designated as Commercial/Recreation. Proposed division is shown on map, Attachment A. Amendment of the specific plan is required. Mr. Schubach explained in detail the amendment required and presented some implementation scenarios. Although the development scenario is consistent with the coastal Commission's decision, possible problems and decisions pertaining to how the land is sold and developed were presented. (B) Requesting the Coastal commission to reconsider its conditional approval by changing the 30% commercial floor area to a 40% land area requirement, making the residential and commercial requirements independent, is an alternative, since the current proposal limits the city's and developer's options and restricts residential floor area. Request to change the Coastal commission recommendation would result in this matter not being placed on the ballot. commissioners were asked to consider if this matter should be adopted or put on the ballot, as well as adopted. Mr. Schubach presented a map and synopsis on property acquisition and improvement status, also explaining that one land strip ownership was in question between the Railroad and previous owners. chmn. Ketz asked if the railroad property would be acquired with the rest of the right-of-way when the property ownership decision was made, to which Mr. Schubach replied yes, but the city of Hermosa Beach currently has no claim to it and is not eligible for purchase under the utility Tax. Chmn. Ketz noted the modification in the Text of 4 acres from 4 1/2 acres, which Mr. Schubach affirmed. Comm. Di Monda questioned the feasibility of commercial-use leases as opposed to selling City-owned coastal property necessary to generate enough income to buy other property and asked if a study had been conducted, to which Mr. Schubach responded that due to time restraints, studies had not been conducted, (~ but options have been left open for future study. Mr. Schubach stated that a decision by July needs to be made by commissioners as to adopt and decide to put on the November ballot. comm. Marks expressed his understanding that the land will revert back to a hotel site if no action is taken, which was confirmed. Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 8:30 P.M. 7 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 Mr. Parker Harriet, (213) 379-7196, stated the city of Hermosa Beach is asking for a land-use amendment to a specific-plan area hotel. Prior to an approval for a land-use hotel south of the Biltmore site by the coastal commission, a land-use plan amendment was not done, nor repealed the specific plan-area hotel. There is an inconsistency. Mr. Harriet stated a petition for a 100% open-space park has qualified for the ballot and will be voted upon in November 5, 1991. The Initiative ordinance was read for the record by Mr. Harriett, who also stated the Initiative is not binding on the City of Hermosa Beach, and if the wishes of residents are followed, a park would be established. Mr. Harriet said he has filed two Writs of Mandate against the City of Hermosa Beach and requested they be part of the record, stating the following reasons why the property should not be developed: ( 1) A Government Code states ocean-front property cannot be sold or leased unless found not suitable for a park or beach, and (2) An EIR should be done due to the fact that the 1984 EIR cannot be used as a substitute. Mr. Harriet questioned the propriety of land purchases of the south School site, portions of Valley Park and the "green belt". Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:40 P.M. Comm. Peirce noted the 40% land area is a good compromise, giving the ability to persue each project on a separate basis and seems ideal for mixed-use. staff has stated mixed-use projects are difficult to finance. comm. Di Monda discussed the possibility of selling or leasing the 40% commercial and selling 60% residential in order to buy four acres of open space. Mr. Schubach responded that a study had been completed in 1989. Based upon the 40% / 60% land ratio, there would be $5-8,000,000 available for residential/commercial. Staff is in contact with a commercial broker, who will give more specific figures as to the value. staff's evaluation is based not only on the economic, but the quality of life. Comm. Rue referred to the Resolution Report, section 9.6.1-4 (b)(c) and questioned the original 12 and 14 units being changed to 7 and 9 units, respectively, which was confirmed. Comm. Rue felt the plans were more marketable with the open options being maintained while giving the city of Hermosa Beach more control in project development. Comm. Di Monda ascertained that the decision to sell or lease the property is determined by the city council and requested an explanation as to the mechanics of the residential/commercial land split. Mr. Schubach responded the Coastal Commission requires any amount between 30% to 100%. The staff's evaluation concluded that actually 40% of the land would be required to meet the 30% , requirement. comm. Di Monda stated he did not believe selling the land would be beneficial for the city of Hermosa Beach and felt a 99-year lease would be a better alternative. Chrnn. Ketz commented she did not believe residential use to be appropriate for this site. Comm. Marks stated his belief this area is key property to the city of Hermosa and property usage should be considered. 8 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 comm. Rue asked Mr. Lee the amount of acreage covered by the 60% residential. Mr. Lee responded that 2/3 acre or 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lee separated the issues before the Planning commissions: (1) What is the appropriate use, should the coastal commission's recommendation be conformed to, and (2) What type of transaction is required in order to implement the use of the land. Mr. Lee felt it appropriate for the commission to not only make a recommendation to the types of uses but also in terms of the type of transaction for the council to consider. comm. Peirce stated the commission's vote regarding property percentage is null since it is required that the General Plan be consistent with the coastal commission's decision. Mr. Schubach stated the commission's recommendation would be considered by the coastal commission. Mr. Lee commented that the appropriateness of land leasing residential property is dependent upon the type of development and whether a developer would accept a land lease. An alternative would be to strongly recommend, with respect to residential property, that the city of Hermosa Beach consider a land lease as the property-conveyance method and allow the council or City Manager to structure a transaction to accomplish a land lease, if appropriate economically. Mr. Lee stated land leasing was not an unusual method for cities to structure transactions. Comm. Di Monda asked the effect of a denial by the commissioners, Mr. Schubach responded that GP 91-1/TEXT 91-1 would be sent to the City Council with a recommendation that the coastal commission's decision is not acceptable. comm. Di Monda stated the basic goal is keep city of Hermosa Beach property control, obtain a cash flow with a use compatible with the beach and local businesses, maintain a small open space area, purchase other open space from the monies obtained. The land would revert back to the city at the end of the lease period. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm Peirce, the city council receive the commission's rejection of the coastal Commission's recommendation1 proposal a combination of commercial and open-space land use, with an option for land leasing. staff, at a later point, would conduct a study to determine the land-division percentages. Also, use funds to buy open space. • AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BEARINGS P-10 CoJJDns. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, chmn. Ketz None None None VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS. Recommended Action: continue to June 4, 1991 meeting. Chrnn. Ketz stepped down because of conflict of interest. comm. Peirce assumed the chair. 9 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 MOTION by Comm. Peirce P-10 --Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk streets be continued until June 4, 1991. No objections, so adopted. *** CUP 90-4 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 340 MASSEY STREET, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL. Recommended Action: Approve a permanent additional classroom rather than a portable one. Mr. Schubach stated a temporary structure has been previously requested. request is for a permanent building which would not impact parking. recommends approval of the permanent building on this school property. Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:11 P.M. This Staff Mr. Doug Leach, 119 Torrance Blvd., suite 24, Redondo Beach, Project Architect, feels this application is a permanent solution to the school and parish needs; maintain esthetics and parking. Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 9:13 P.M. MOTION by Comm. Pierce, seconded by comm. Rue, to approve a permanent building rather than a temporary building. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PS 91-1 BOUSE". CoDDDs. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Cbmn. Ketz None None None DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR A "COFFEE Recommended Action: To adopt the policy statement interpreting "coffee house''. to be the category of "snack shop". Mr. Schubach stated coffee stores sell a variety of coffee beans, grounds, perhaps snacks, but no restaurant food or entertainment. snack shops need a conditional use Permit for the parking factor.· Chmn. Ketz asked if anyone was present to speak on this subject, to which she received no response. MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve adoption of the policy statement interpreting "coffee house" to be the category of "snack shop". No objections, so adopted. STAFF ITEMS $PE.ED STUDY FOR SECOND STREET ON HERMOSA AVENUE. Comm. Pierce accepted the staff's recommendation of Receive and File. 10 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE OPERATION OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX AT 1160 AVIATION. Mr. Schubach stated staff had received complaints concerning noise and activity in the Jack-In-The-Box parking lot during evening hours. The applicable CUP is old and not adequate to cover drive-through restaurants are known to have. A memorandum defining the received complaint was previously distributed to Commissioners. The owner does not believe there is a problem.Recommend requesting a formal Revocation (Modification) Hearing or asking staff to conduct further research and issue a report. chmn. Ketz asked about the amount of resident complaints, to which Mr. Schubach responded that one very strong complaint was received resulting in the issue being brought to the commission's attention. Comm. Peirce felt the issue should be investigated. Chmn. Ketz directed the staff to investigate and present a Resolution of Intent, with the setting of a hearing at a later date. chmn. Ketz announced the commission would hold a public hearing, residents within 300 ft. of the restaurant will be notified. staff will research and develop a staff report. MEMORANDUM REGARDING ADDED TOPIC TO CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP, chmn. Ketz stated the topic of nonconforming ordinance was added by the city Council on May 14, 1991 to this workshop, resulting in five topics to be discussed. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR MAY 28, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chmn. Ketz stated the two items scheduled for this meeting are: (l) Lighthouse Cafe reconsideration of the Planning commission's approval of the on-sale general alcohol, and (2) an appeal from on-The-Break. comm. Rue asked if the on-The-Break applicant appealed, which was confirmed. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Chmn. Ketz stated the ballot misuse will be discussed. comm. Marks inquired as to any studies to lower the building heights having been conducted. Mr. Schubach confirmed this, stating draft-form studies will be provided prior to the June 4, 1991 meeting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1991. No action taken. 11 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 7 COMMISSIONER ITEMS comm. Pierce stated he has not received the report stating how many passengers to LAX from Hermosa Beach get on Route 1. Mr. Schubach responded this information should be available for the June 4, 1991 meeting. Comm. Peirce stated he needed this information to ascertain what the cost per person, per trip city subsidy on MAX. Comm. Di Monda asked if the city council should be reminded that the commission recommended the ban on the strand parking be enforced. Mr. Schubach commented a memorandum had been prepared and presented to the city Manager, but to date no response has been received. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to adjourn at 9:26 P.M. No objections1 so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning commission of Hermosa Beach -at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1991. 11r;;x-;a L Michael Schribach, csecretary Date 12 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH May 7, 1991 7:00 p.m. -City Ha11 Counci1 Chambers Meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairwoman Ketz 1. Pledge of Allegiance: Pledge of Allegiance led by Chairwoman Ketz 2. Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Ketz Commissioners Di Monda, Marks, Peirce Absent: Commissioner Rue Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney Jan Scherb, Recording Secretary Section I Consent Ca1endar 3. MOTION by Commissioners Di Monda and Peirce to approve Minutes of April 16, 1991, and, 4. to approve the following Consent Calendar items. (a) Reso1ution P.C. 91-8 approving a Conditional Use Permit to authorize existing live entertainment and dancing in conjunction with an existing bar and adoption of a Negative Declaration at 30 Pier Avenue, The Lighthouse Cafe. , (b) Reso1ution P.C. 91-22 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22560 for a 2-unit condominium conversion at 544 25th Street. (c) Reso1ution P.C. 91-28 intention to study possible text amendments pertaining to the definition and regulation of adult uses. Section II Communications From the Pub1ic 5. Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not re1ated to a pub1ic hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Page 1 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Ms. Cindy Jednak of 1236 Third st., Hermosa Beach read her letter addressed to Hermosa Beach Planning Department. Ms. Jednak's request to operate a coffee house at 1312 Hermosa Avenue had been denied and Planning Director Schubach explained Ms. Jednak wants the coffee house to be a permitted use. We can probably interpret coffee house to be a snack bar and it will be up to the Commission to approve it, Mr. Schubach continued. Director Schubach said denial was a matter of parking, and our Code allows us to review this to determine whether adequate parking is available for that use. Chairwoman Ketz told Ms. Jednak that it sounds like you have to go through Planning staff in order to get on the Agenda. Mr. Schubach told Ms. Jednak he'd look into the matter and had her address and phone number from her letter if we decide to add this to the use list. Section III Public Hearings NOTE: Items 6 and 7 to be heard together. 6. CON 91-1/PDP 91-1 Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Hap 122305 for a 2-unit condominium at 918 15th Street (continued from March 5 and April 2, 1991 meetings). Mr. Schubach stated applicant was not ready with revised plans required by the Planning Commission; the staff had no problems with that. The Commissioners asked if Mr. Schubach felt they were making progress toward goals that had been requested and Mr. Schubach felt that while progress was being made the item had been continued so many times that he would like to see May 21 be the final day for the decision. 7. CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Hap 122304 for a 2-unit condominium at 930 15th street (continued from March 5 and April 2, 1991 meetings). Commissioner Di Monda made a Motion, seconded by Commissioner Marks to continue Agenda Items 6 and 7 to Hay 21, 1991 meeting. Recording secretary reads the votes: AYES: NOES: Ketz, Di Honda, Harks, Peirce None Page 2 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Rue 8. PDP 91-4 --Precise Deve1opment P1an and waiver to a11ow the insta11ation of two portab1e c1assroo:ms at 1645 Va11ey Drive, Hermosa Va11ey Schoo1. Planning Director Michael Schubach stated (Planning) staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. Director Schubach read from the Report: The precise development plan is necessary to comply with Section 9. 5-8 which requires Planning Commission approval of any development on Open Space zoned property. Further, since the portable classrooms do not comply with Section 9.5-5, Building Setbacks (the classrooms are set back from the north property line 15 feet rather than the required 20 feet) a waiver pursuant to Section 9.5-8 is necessary. The subject building have a temporary appearance and general features which make them somewhat inconsistent, in terms of architectural appearance and the type of roof, with the remaining school buildings on the site. The School District indicates that the "relocatable buildings are on permanent foundations; and were installed to replace the previous temporary buildings because of an immediate need due to an increase in the number of students. Their plans are to keep them at this location indefinitely. The School District also notes that have already received all necessary approvals from the appropriate State and Federal agencies. They did not believe city approval was necessary, and still contend that the city has no review authority. The only concern of staff is that the air conditioning uni ts on the southerly side of the building, which faces the residences in the mobile home park, generate noise which is heard from the park. The City has received complaints regarding the noise from these air-conditioning units. staff is recommending a condition that the air conditioning uni ts either be enclosed or relocated to the other side of the building away from the mobile home park. Otherwise, given the existing low intensity building coverage on the entire property, staff does not see any other problems with classroom structures. Page 3 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney said the State Architect's office determines the character of these buildings. They follow their determination of what is applicable, rather than the City's. Chairwoman Ketz asked if there were any questions and Commissioner Peirce commented that these are relocatable buildings; the state Architect cannot call them permanent in the future. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney also spoke and said this was not a variance and did not make them permanent. Commissioner Peirce made a Motion for Approval, seconded by Commissioner Marks for approval of waiver for the setback for the school with the condition that the air conditioning be enclosed or relocated so it does not disturb neighbors. Chairwoman Ketz opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 As no one appeared, Chairwoman Ketz closed the Public Hearing at 7:20. MOTION by Commissioner Di Monda for Approval subject to attached conditions, was seconded by Commissioner Marks. Recording secretary read the votes: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ketz, Di Monda, Marks, Peirce None None Rue Approved with the conditions in the Resolution and it is subject to appeal before the City Council within ten days. 9. COP 91-6/park Plan 91-3 --Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan for a martial arts studio, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 320 Pacific Coast Highway. Planning Director Schubach read from the Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. The proposed studio is located within an existing building, and would occupy 35% of the leasable floor area within the building. The subject site is at the northeast corner of P.C.H. and Third street, and is Page 4 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 abutted by residentially zoned property to the east (R-1 single-Family Residential). The building was previously used by an auto dealer, an auto parts store, and an auto stereo sales and installation business. These businesses have all left, however, and the remaining portion of the building was recently leased to two retail establishments ("Coast Lighting" and a furniture store "Contrasts"). Building Department records indicate the building was remodeled in 1983-84 to add 2280 square feet. At that time parking requirement for retail uses was 1 space per 300 square feet, and there was no landscaping or buffering requirements for commercial properties abutting residentially zones properties. At their meeting of March 21, 1991, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an environmental negative declaration, with a mitigation measure that class sizes be limited to ensure that adequate parking is available. Further, in response to the applicant's proposal to restripe the parking lot increase parking from 22 to 29 spaces including four tandem stalls, staff recommended against the use of tandem parking. The applicant is proposing to operate a Karate studio for the purpose of providing instruction for both adults and children. The interior would include a 900 square foot workout mat, with the remaining area as a retail/waiting area. The applicant has a current clientele of students from its previous location in Redondo Beach and plans to continue the same class schedule. The maximum class size indicated is twelve students (children), while the maximum size adult class is for 10 students. (Note that daytime -classes only occur three days a week, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday at 10:00 a.m., otherwise the remaining classes begin at 5:00 p.m. or later). The applicant also proposes to restripe the parking lot to maximize the number of parking spaces. By using 30% compact spaces the number increases from 22 spaces to 25 spaces. Although the studio is somewhat unique, it falls into the category of "health and fitness center," and, as such, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Furthermore, the parking requirements for a health and fitness center are as follows: Page 5 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 "one space for every 50 square of gross floor are used for facilities offering exercise, fitness or aerobic dance classes, or one space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area for gymnasium type weight lifting and weight training activities". strict application of the above requirement would result in a parking requirement of 45 spaces. It should be noted, however, that this requirement was based on a "worst-case" scenario (i.e. where the majority of space isused for the highest intensity classes; like aerobic dance). Martial Arts classes are typically not nearly as crowded or space intensive. Nevertheless, the only way the proposed use can operate at this location is through approval of a parking plan, pursuant to Section 1169 of the zoning ordinance. This section gives the Planning Commission the authority to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required, if a finding can be made that adequate parking is provided in consideration of factors such as common or shared parking facilities, varied work shifts, and unique features of the proposed use. In this case the common parking lot serves two retail businesses which place demands on the parking lot at different times of the days than the proposed studio. Further the unique features of this use (such as limits on the class sizes, the high percentage of children as students and the partial retail section) could be considered to contribute to less parking demand. As noted in the schedule submitted by the applicant, the classes during the day are primarily for children, and the largest class at night (7:00) p.m. is for 10 adults. Assuming that the peak time for retail businesses is earlier in the day, it seems that adequate parking should always be available. This depends, of course, on the class sizes remaining small. As such, staff is recommending a condition that the class sizes be limited as follows: A maximum of eight (8) adults (age 18 or over) for classes held before 7:00 p.m. A maximum of eighteen (18) adults for classes held at 7:00 p.m. or later. No class, including adults and children, shall exceed a total of twenty (20) students. These conditions will ensure that the few daytime classes be of limited impact and also provides a lot Page 6 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 of room for expansion of class sizes from their currently indicated levels. Although children will still require car trips for drop-off and pick up when enrolled in a class, the parking impact is usually minimal unless the parent/driver is waiting through the entire class period. This will also ensure that the parking lot can handle the peak demands of the martial arts studio in the evenings as 25 spaces should be sufficient to handle the instructors and students in addition to any employees staying late in the retail stores. The currently indicated hours of operation for the two retail businesses are as follows: "Coast Lighting" -10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon-Fri, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sat "Contrasts" furniture store: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mon-Sat Although the current tenants in the rest of the building are appropriate for shared parking in conjunction with the proposed martial arts studio (especially home furnishings stores, which are usually low intensity), there is no guarantee that these will remain, or that hours will stay primarily daytime oriented. As such, staff is recommending a condition that the two adjacent lease spaces be maintained as retail uses, a covenant be recorded as such, and any change in use require Planning Department and/or Planning Commission review. Further, staff is recommending a condition to prohibit the marking and reservation of individual parking stalls for each business. This lot is a common and shared parking lot such that any space is available for any business at any time. An additional concern of staff is related to the overall appearance of the parking lot, and its impact on adj a cent residences to the east. No landscaping exists on the parking lot either for aesthetic purposes or as a buffer from the residences. The lot is bordered by a chain link fence on the Third Street frontage, and a block wall on the east side which ranges from 4-6 feet in height. The SPA-7 zone currently requires that a 5-foot landscaped buffer be provided between commercial uses and residentially zoned property with a minimum of one 24-inch box specimen tree for every 10-feet of length and the zoning ordinance (parking section) requires a minimum Page 7 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 . 1 6-foot high wall where parking lots abut residential zones . Given that this is an existing building all zoning requirements cannot possibly be brought up to code (for example a landscaped strip on the PCH frontage). However, for other items retro-fitting is possible. As such, staff believes that the conditons of approval should require the following: -The provision of a 5-f oot wide landscaped buffer, planted with trees and shrubs, one 24-inch box specimen tree for every 10 feet of length, along the east property line (adequate turning radius exists so no parking spaces would be lost); -The provision of a 6-foot high decorative block wall along the east property line (either all new with decorative split block, or the existing wall with extensions, as long as a textured coating is applied); Installation of a decorative block wall a minimum of three (3) feet high be constructed along the Third Street frontage to replace the chain link fence. staff is including these provisions, with additional statements requiring the submittal of landscaping and irrigation plans and details of the decorative wall for approval by the Planning Director and that the improvements be implemented on the site within six (6) months. Applicant Al Johnson, owner of the business named Al Johnson's Karate School at 3 2 O Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach. Responding to the staff report in which reference is made to the distance between the parking space and the pull up door; there is ample space at this time and I agree to the class sizes and to the rest of the the conditions in the Conditiional Use Permit and of the conditions listed in the Staff Recommendation. As there were no other speakers on this request Chairwoman Ketz closed the public hearing and brought the meeting back to the Commission and asked if there was a Motion. Motion for approval with the conditions attached and seconded by Commissioner Di Monda. We have a Motion and a second approving PC 91-29 as recommended by staff; will all of you record your votes now (using the new voting machine). Page 8 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Recording Secretary reads the votes: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ketz, Di Monda, Marks, Peirce None None Rue The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit with conditions as listed in our packet and it is subject to appeal before the City Council within ten days. 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 91-3 and Parking Plan 91-2 Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendment for on sale general alcohol in conjunction with billiards, food service and retail sales and adoption of Environmental Negative Declaration at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, On The Break. staff Report requests this item be continued to the meeting of June 4th 1991 to incorporate this proposal with the Health Club proposal for the upper floors into a Master Parking Plan Amendment. We do have an alternative tonight and that is to deny the request based on stated community concerns such as the existing saturation of alcohol establishments and bars within the city and potential nuisance of a bar activity and the impact on Police Department resources. Preliminary information on the Health Club indicates that parking would not be sufficient for the proposed restaurant/bar in conjunction with the Health Club. When the Pavillion was originally approved it was envisioned as a mixed entertainment/restaurant and retail center; a billard hall/restaurant/bar, although it involves sports entertainment, seems to be a departure from what was originally presented. Further, the location of the proposed establishment is at ground level with the entrance at the nearest point to the nearest neighboring residential uses to the north. Section 21-13 through 21-15 of the Municipal Code states a Permit from city council is also necessary to allow the operation of billiard tables prior to the issuance of any business licenses (whether this item is approved tonight or not). Chairwoman Ketz opened the public hearing and asked the applicant or representative to come forth. My name is Dee Harris; ·I'm the property manager of Hermosa Beach Pavillion ,at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach. I'd like to start off by saying there is no existing lease for a Health Club, and there may Page 9 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 never be one. I do have a signed lease in effect with Sal Gagliano, owner of On the Break Sports Club and Restaurant. We are one of the many million dollar, upscale sports clubs that are appearing all over the country and billards have become one of the top ten participation sports in the country. Table fees range from $6-12. 00 an hour which eliminates a lot of the bad element. As far as we can see the main concerns of the community are alcohol and security related. The Pavillion currently employs security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and Pavillion management is willing to increase security during the Sports Clubs' peak hours and it is my understanding that our tenant, Mr. Gagliano, is also willing to hire additional security at his own expense, if needed. Apart from one approved beer and wine license in the Pavillion, there are no other alcohol-related establishments in the noticable vicinity, excluding Marie Callendar's. Parking is also an issue and a revised planning plan has been submitted to the Planning Department: do you have any questions? Chairwoman Ketz asked if anyone else would like to speak on this request: I'm Wesley Bush, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. 1) I've been over there (The Pavillion) several times and it seems like they have four floors of parking and no one to park in it; I don't see that parking is a problem. 2) According to figures I received this morning from the City Treasurer,more than 60% of the sales tax our City receives is generated by the businessess on Pacific Coast Highway and as such, 3) I believe they are entitled to more of the Police Department budget. Larry Vaughn, 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 1155, Torrance, CA 90503 addressed the Commission. 1) I am an attorney in Torrance and 2) represent some of the people in the neighborhood 3) I was present at the EIP 4) Police spoke against applicant 5} I would like to read aloud the following letter: May 3, 1991 Mr. Ken Robertson, Chairman Environmental Review Committee 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Robertson: Page 10 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 ~ Since we will be unable to attend the May 7, 1991 meeting, will you please make this letter known at the hearing. We are totally against a pool hall with a liquor license at the Hermosa Beach Pavillion. It would change the atmosphere of the entire neighborhood -and not for the better. Parents would no longer be comfortable in allowing their children to go there. Tenants should be chosen by what they can add to the community -not someone who will disrupt the sleep and possible safety of all of us who considered this a residential neighborhood -not a "bar closes at 2: 00 11 area. Often at 2: oo a.m. is when the fights start plus other crimes that require police intervention - at cost to the city. We are long time residents of Hermosa Beach -51 and 35 years it is very depressing to see how the quality of our city has changed over the last 15 years. Again we say -NO POOL HALL; NO LIQUOR LICENSE!! Thank you. S/ Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Sasine 1641 Raymond Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 I spoke with Kim Dax, President of the Homeowners Association at the Commodore at 1600 Ardmore and they object to the presence of this business because of the alcohol license and the business being open until 2:00 a.m. -there is a substantial amount of objection to this business. Mr. Robert Fishman, a resident of 17 Harbor Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA and owner of one of the units at the Commodore, 1600 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach. 1) Kim Dax asked me to speak on behalf of the 100 owners. 2) We feel this business would encourage children to drink and drive home drunk. 3) With the subterranean parking we have gang fights and drug sales. Gordon Gray who lives and,owns Unit No. 126 at 1707 Pacific Coast Highway (Hermosa surf) adjacent to the Pavillion, spoke to the Commission: 1) I think we're dealing with semantics here. It has been termed a world class sports club; this is a pool hall. 2) My unit borders the wing between the Pavillion and 1707 PCH. I have a young family and am concerned about an increase in noise and crime. Page 11 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Ken Clayton, President Homeowners Association of Hermosa Surf addressed the Commission: 1) Hermosa surf Association objects to the pool hall's serving alcoholic beverages. 2) There's been an increase of graffiti and public urination on our building and the introduction of an alcohol-serving pool hall will aggravate this situation. Commissioner Marks asked Mr. Clayton if he'd find the serving of just beer an alcohol acceptable at the pool hall and Mr. Clayton said he would not (find that acceptable). Mrs. Bee Hill of 1707 PCH, told the Commission she was 1) Upset over the pool hall; things happen there that owners have no control over. 2) I'm alone a lot of the time and I don't need this element being around at night. Mrs. Dora Anderson of 1600 Ardmore, Unit #316, Hermosa Beach opposes the pool hall because 1) I own a unit on the backside of the building and it is very noisy on weekends, especially when the movies get out late and doors are banging which makes it difficult for my child and myself to sleep. 2) The pool hall would increase the present noise volume. 3) There's a different element coming into the community. Garcia's has a full liquor license and Picasso's may have a liquor license. Jerry Compton addressed the Commission with his concerns: 1) Staff report states the use is better on the upper floor than the lower floor. If people are concerned about noise, I'd rather it be out on PCH, rather than on the upper floor where the noise could affect neighboring, residential tenants. 2) Parking required for this use is available. 3) Use itself may or may not be questionable, depending who you listen to. 4) CUP is designed to protect these people from the element they are concerned about. 4) I have been a business advocate in this town; we need the tax revenue. The attorney "representing people in the neighborhood" , I believe, represents Mr. Pocket's Pool Hall in Manhattan Beach and present a good case against this pool hall. 5) I think you need to give a business a chance; make the requirements really tough -but give them a chance. We need business in this town. App1icant's representative, Ms. Dee Harris addressed the Commission. I would like to talk about the hours. The mall closes at 1:30 a.m. every night; there's no 11 2:00 in the morning". As far as "drug sales in the garage", the Page 12 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 (Ii Police Department randomly check out the mall several time a day and as yet I have had no notification of any such activity. It's unlikely we will be responsible for traffic jams. As for a bad element, I've rarely seen a bad element because it costs $6-$12.00 an hour per table, plus food and drinks and in other billard halls I've visited the people are wearing suits and ties. These are very up-scale places and it takes an up scale individual to afford to go there. Commissioner Marks asked Ms. Harris if she was on the grounds at 1:30 a.m. in the morning and was she aware of the noise emitting from the building to which Ms. Harris replied that from time to time she has been on the grounds at 1:30 a.m. and was aware of doors closing late at night and that security guards are there 24 hours to help control noise. Commissioner Peirce said that if we pass this tonight, the City council has to approve the pool hall portion. Mr. Schubach noted the pool hall having the same peak hours as the theatre. Commissioner Peirce asked what is preventing this place from becoming just a bar to which Mr. Schubach answered "nothing"; we could request we bring it back with a list of conditions. Commissioner Di Monda suggested we continue and have Michael (Schubach) come back with a focused EIR. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney told the Commission if you want to move forward with it bring back a focused EIR and conditions for approval. Chairwoman Ketz and Commissioner Di Monda felt there was too much impact on adjoining areas and asked the Commissioners to vote at this time. MOTION by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner Marks to deny resolution. Recording Secretary reads votes: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ketz, Marks, Peirce, Di Monda None None Rue Denied. Subject to appeal to City Council within 10 days. Section IV Page 13 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Hearings 11. HR 91-1 --To allow a 99 square foot addition to nonconforming duplex with only one parking space at 2467 Manhattan Avenue. Recommended Action: to approve this request Staff recommended approval with the certain conditions: that a suitable location be found for trash receptacles prior to the issuance of building permits; that the garage be used only for the parking of vehicles (Resolution P. c. 91-30) . Chairwoman Ketz asked the applicant or representative to come forward. Mrs. Margaret Kemp of 121 Belmont Avenue, Long Beach, CA, owner of 2467 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach explained the house in question had been in the family for many years and had originally been built as a duplex with a single garage. Commissioner Di Monda noted the hardscape next to the house and asked to make a condition that some of the paving be remove and planted with trees. Jim Ingram of 24 70 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach spoke to the Commission about his concern that the remodel of 2467 Manhattan Avenue would not obscure the ocean view from his house. He felt that although the remodeling itself would not affect his view the potential existed for the ordered landscaping/trees to block his view across the street.· Greg Windsor south of the in questions consideration. of 1737 Windsor Avenue (eight blocks property in question) felt the property should receive nothing but favorable Mrs. Kemp agreed to landscape some of (present) hardscape area without blocking Mr. Ingram's ocean view and to relocate the present trash receptacle and garage to be used only for parking of vehicles. Chairwoman Ketz closed the public hearing and brought the meeting back to the Commission. Commissioner Di Monda was in favor of approval with consideration of size, quantity and type of materials to be used in the landscaping with the condition that it doesn't block anyone's view. A 24" box speciman tree was suggested; relocation of present trash receptacle and the garage to be used only for parking of vehicles. Page 14 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Mr. Schubach asked Mrs. Kemp to bring the landscaping plan to be used to Planning Department and we will take into consideration blocking of the ocean view. MOTION to Approve with Conditions by Commissioner Di Monda, seconded by Commissioner Marks. Recording Secretary read the votes: AYES: NOES: Ketz, Di Monda, Marks, Peirce None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Rue Approved with the conditions that a suitable location be found for trash receptacles Drior to the issuance of bui1dinq permits; that the garage be used only for the parking of vehicles (Resolution P.C. 91-30) and that some of the paving next to the house be removed and planted with trees that will not block anyone's view. Subject to appeal to City Council within 10 days. 12. CON 89-24 --Extension of the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20342 for a 30-unit condominium at 226 Manhattan Avenue. Mr. Schubach states that the Planning Staff Recommendations that the C.U.P. be extended one year to May 21, 1992, by minute order. The applicant indicates that the reason for the delay in carrying out the project is due to the current economic situation. Chairwoman Ketz opened Public Hearing. Jerry Compton of 1200 Artesia Blvd., Hermosa Beach, CA said he was architect of the project. We are in plan check to finalize the project. Chairwoman Ketz asked if there were any questions and, there being none, closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Commission Peirce and seconded by Commissioner Marks to approve request as recommended by staff. Recording Secretary read the votes: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ketz, Di Monda, Marks, Peirce None NONE Rue Page 15 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 Recommended action: Extend for one year. Section V 13. Staff Items a. City Council/Planning Commission workshop. The City Council, at their meeting of April 23, 1991, has selected Thursday, June 6, 1991 at 7:00 p .m. to be the City Council/Planning Commission workshop date. The topics remain unchanged as Planning Commission suggested: RUDAT, Greenbelt parking, downtown business parking and PCB parking. b. Planning Department activity report of March, 1991. Commissioner Pierce reminded Planning Director Schubach that he was to write a memo to the city on how many riders used MAX and Mr. Schubach replied it was being done right now and you will have it very shortly. Our amount of cost went from $47,000 to a final figure of $19,000 starting this next fiscal year. We are very reduced in terms of our costs, Mr. Schubach continued, we are still trying to market to TRW which is working; the only reason we haven't got it back together is because we are working with the ballot measure analysis and the new, general plan. There's a lot going on with those particular measures but we'll be getting back to MAX shortly. Commissioner Pierce asked what Boccato' s had appealed on the upcoming Agenda and Mr. Schubach said what was appealed were the conditions. He has submitted a list of adjustments to those conditions; it wasn't that we didn't approve it--it's that the conditions were not satisfactory to Mr. Boccato. c. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for May 14, City Council meeting. Planning Director Manhattan Avenue 4/23/91 meeting. conditional issue. Schubach noted Dan's Liquor at 3232 was on the Agenda ( continued from Director Schubach said this is a 2. Appeal from the Planning Commission's decision of the conditions of approval for a Conditional Use Permit for the off-sale of general alcohol at 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Boccato's Groceries. 3. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 Page 16 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 for a 3-unit condominium conversion at 23 Barney court, 18 & 20 Meyer Court. d. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda for May 21 Planning Agenda. 14. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. C.U.P. for an existing auto repair shop at 1402 PCH, Folded Wings Ltd. 2. C.U.P. for auto body repair and painting, auto sales and general auto repair at 210 PCH, Felder's Body Shop and Sales. 3. 2nd quarter General Plan amendment: a) Biltmore Site. COMMISSIONER ITEMS 15. 1) Speeding on Hermosa Avenue and 2nd; was traffic signal appropriate 2) Discussion of when CALTRANS will restripe PCH 3) When will ticketing begin for cars parked on the Strand. Adjournment Commission voted to adjourn the meeting and Chairman Ketz so moved. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 7, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairwoman Michael Schubach, Secretary ) Dae Page 17 P.C. Minutes 5/7/91 ! i a • MI NU 11:.!:> Ut-I HI:. PL ANN I Nli L:UMM I!:>!:> I UN Ml:.1:.1 I Nli Ut-I HI:. L: 11 Y Ut-Hl:.~MU!:>A BEACH HELD ON APRIL 16, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M .. by Chmn. Ketz Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Al so Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks_. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Michael Sct1ubach_. Planning Director; Edv·rnrd Lee_. Assistant City Attorney_: Naoma Val des_. Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Cornm. Rue_. seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the minutes as amende,j and the ba I a nee of the f o 11 owi n!J consent ca I endar i terns as presented. Planning Commission minutes of April 02_. 1991 as amended by Comm. Di Monda on page 11, paragraph four to read_, " .... J1r. Cleland replied that at U-1e time the project was started, three years ago,. ...... and on page 12, paragraph five to read, " ... Mr. Cleland replied that Pat Ki ll an was the original architect.. .. ". Resolution P.C. 91-17. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR AN AUTO BODV REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHMENT AT l 081 -1087 AVIATION BOULEVARD .. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 49 AND 50, AND THE SOUTHERLV 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48. HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT. Resolution P.C. 91-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF HERt10SA BEACH, CALIFORNIA_, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3127 MANHA TT AN AVENUE, BOCCATO'S GROCER I ES, AND LEGALL V DES CR I BED AS THE EASTERL V 20. 15 FEET OF LOT 12 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 104, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. Resolution P.C. 91-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 TENTATIVE PARCEL f'1AP '20822, FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIU~-1 CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNE\' COURT, LEGALL\' DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT. Resolution P. C. 91-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF HERl'"10SA BEACH, CALIFORNIA_. APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22892 AND PRECISE DEVELOPl1ENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1639 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 11 , J. 11. FLORES SUBDl\i'ISION. Resolution P. C. 91-24. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C0~1MISSION OF THE CITV OF HERMOSA BEACH_. CALIFORNIA_. TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT 'w'ITH BEER AND WINE SERVICE TO ALLOW A SPECIAL EVENT FOR BENEFIT PURPOSES (ANNIVERSARY PARTY) ON APRIL 14, 1991, AND CONTINUING ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL , IN THE OUTDOOR COURTVARD AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE.. CAL I FORNI A BEACH REST AURA NT, AND LEGALL V DES CR I BED AS LOTS 27, 28, 29_. AND 30, TRACT 1564. Resolution P. C. 91-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COt1MISSION OF THE CITV OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A RH)UEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROl"l SECTION 13-7(6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOVv' AN ADDITION TO AN EXIST ING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 239 29TH STREET, AND LEGALL I/ DESCRIBED AS LOT 37, BLOCK 115, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. AVES: Comms. Di Monda, t1arks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUHL IC Jim Rosenberger, 1121 Bay vi evt Ori ve, addressed the Cammi ssi on and urged the Planning Cammi ssi on members to attend the City Council meeting of Tuesday, April 23, 1991 _. because the Council is scheduled to discuss four or more ballot propositions dealing V·titt1 height and land use issues. He stresse,j that this ''1-lc!S not a public hearing; the Council was ready to act and put these. measures on the ballot. Director Schubach responded to Commission questions by statir11~ that he did not kno1,-v if the Council ·vvouM vote to put these items on the ballot at the next rneetin!J, but staff had been instructed to prepare the language and the Ordinance form for discussion . The issues were hvo mandatory height limits for R-2, R-3, and Commercial zones, and P .C. t1i nut.es 4/ 16/91 advisory measures for housing standards and iand use, such as stringiine averaging setbac~~s. The Housing Improvement Program had been put on hold by the Counci1 until they had a vote of the people _. explained Director Schubach. Information on these issues would be avai1able Thursday evening when the Council packets were distributed and at that time copies 'vvould be made available for the Planning Commission. CUP 91-7 --CONDITIO NAL USE PERM IT FOR AN EX I ST I N6 DR I VE-THRU RESTAURANT AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, WIENERSCHNITZEl RESTAURANT_ Director Schubach e~<plained that Wienerschnitzel submitted an application for a C.U.P. in response to a letter sent by tt·1e city as part of the amortization program for uses that require C.U.P.'s that preexisted before the requirement. C.U .P.'s are required for drive- through or take-out restaurants and no record of a C.U.P. 'ft'as found at u-1e time the letters were sent. It was recently discovered, however, that the sub_iect restaurant already has an active C.U .P., granted in 1973. As such , a new C.U.P. is not necessary. The entire submittal fee wil 1 be refunded to Wi enerschnitze I. MOTION to receive and file vv·as so ordered by Chrnn. Ketz vv·ith the consensus of the Cammi ssi on . CON 90-22 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22560 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 544 & 546 25th STREET (CONTINUED FROM 2/ 19, 3/ 19. AND 4/02 MEETINGS) Director Schubach presented the staff report dated April 11, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit and tentative map subject to the conditions in the proposed resolution of approval. At the meeting of April 2, 1991, the Planning Cornm1ssion again continued this request to enable staff to confer •with the Attorney to determine if an acceptable method of guaranteeing the improvements of the front unit, in lieu of actua1ly completing the improvements prior to the final map approval _. could be accomplished . A meeting vv·as held \·Vith staff, the applicant, an official from a performance bond company, and the City Attorney to discuss the matter. Although it \•11as never verified that this method has been used in other locations to guarantee on-site improvements, the 3 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 City Attorney was satisfied that the City v1oul d be adequately protected vv•ith a performance bond. The perf orrnance bond would only be acceptable, however, if a temporary construction easement is granted to the City in the chance the applicant would det"ault on the guarantee, and as such the City, or its designee, could enter upon the property to complete the improvements. As such, a condition is being included to require either the completion of the remodeling, as shown on the plans, and to address the deficiencies noted in the building inspection report prior to approval of a final map, or, that the applicant guarantee seiid improvements with a completion bond in an amount of $75,000 dollars and the recordation of a temporary construction easement, both of which to be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. In response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that his office vv·as satisfied that the performance bond, at one and one half times the estimated value of the improvements, together ·•,'\1 ith the temporary construction easement, that would a1'o'.¥ the City to go onto the property and complete the improvements in case. of default by the appellant, were acceptable and would be sufficient to secure the City·s position to insure completion even tr,ough the Final Parcel Map had been approved. The conditions within the proposed Resolution were acceptable to the City Attorney's office as reviewed. Comm. Di Monda as~~ed if there \,.las a ti me limit to the project? Asst. City Attorney Lee answered that there \¥as no negotiated time limit, but one could be provided in the construction easement if the Commission desired. And, he pointed out that the bond was at the developer's risk. Director Schubach added there V\"as a two year time limit on the Conditional Use Permit. Comm. Di t·1onda questioned if there were a more accurate method of estimating Urn construction cost, such as seeing the actual contract. Chmn. Ketz wished to allow the appellant to respond. Pub He Hearing opened at 7: 15 P.ft by Chmn. Ketz. Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, a partner in the project, addressed tt-1e Corn mission and stated that at the meeting with Di rector-~;chubach, Asst. City At tornew Lee .. and the representative from Urn bonding company, the City's main concern was \•Vith the Condominium Code, new tt,inqs and chanqes that ha,j been acMed. since u·,e house was ~ -. 4 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 buiit, and \.I/hat improvements couid be done so that the house would comply with the Code now . The major problem was ttrn bids that he was getting encompassed everything: kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, toilets, and other items that ,,vere of no concern to the City . Therefor tt1e bids would not be accurate for the City's needs. for this reason , it was decided that the Building Department make the estimate and add a 50% contingency factor. Comm . Marks asked how the figure of $50_,000 had been determined if there were no specifics on what had to be done, and questioned if there 'vvere plans. Mr. Hobbs responded that the items had been specified in the actual physical inspection and that he had plans which had been approved by the Building Department. He continued that bids on the actual improvements would have been abstract bids and not accurate for the City. Di rector Schubact1 explained that the City felt more comfortable with the estimates from tt1e Building Department as that department had the construction knovv·l edge, cost figures and expertise; and was not as likely to make a low bid, therefor the estimate \Atould tre more accurate. Comm. Marks asked if inflation hao been considered . Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that there ·vvas a line itemization of the improvements_: it was part of the housing inspection report; it was Y.lithin the documents provided to the Building Director and used as a basis for his estimate. He continued that the 50% factor was to guard against inflation or contingencies . Mr. Hobbs finalized by saying that he felt the City was protected ·with the performance bond and urged the Commi ss1 on to approve the pro J ect. Public Hearing ·was closed at 7:22 P.M . by Chrnn. Ket.z. In response to Comm. t1arks question of 'flt1ether this type of contract had been done before in Hermosa Beach, Asst. City Attorney Lee answered that he had prepared temporary construction easements before that allovfed City forces to go on private property, but it was unusual for the City to bond for on-site improvements; however, in this case the City was requiring certain 1mprovements to be performed as a condition for the conversion of the duplex to a condominium, and he v·rns comfortable that this was an acceptable arrangement. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Peirce to approve the staff recommendation and approve P. C. Resolution 91-22. 5 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 AVES: NOES: Comms. 01 t1onda, Pierce, Rue, Chmn . Ketz Comm. Marks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Counci 1 \•Vi thin ten days. CUP 90-29 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, ENTERTAINME NT AND DANCING, AN D ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONME NT AL NEGATIVE DECLARAT I ON AT 30 PIER AVENUE, LIGHTHOUSE CAFE (CONTI NUED FROM JANUARY 15, 1991 MEETING). Director Schubach presented the staff report dated April 11, 1991, and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions contained in the proposed Resolution. Si nee the 1 ast meeting of January 15, 1 991 , the app 11 cant has olJtai ned the adv1 ce of an audio expert .. David Covelli, headmaster of audio for the Ahmanson Theatre in regard to sound levels and conttiinment. t1r. Covelli has made the following recommen,jations . To contain mid and high frequencies: 1) "Dutch" door 'v'v'est of the main entrance must be sealed inside and out with weather stripping; 2) replace e~:isting front window with double pane tempered glass_: 3) main P.A . cabinets should be focused from the north and south ends of the room, tilted do·-rm toward t11e seating areas. To contain the l ov•rnr frequencies: l) completel~J eliminate the lov•ter freQuencies from the main cabinets; 2) repair, block-in, and seal the sk!Jlights_: 3) replace crncked panes of glass; 4) r-ecaulk existing panes of glass; 5) ltne u·,e towers below t~,e sl(yli1~hts with velour curtains; 6) l eave the e;<haust fan on at all times; and, 7) instan a sound absorbant deflector bm1rd directly below H1e exhaust fan on south end of the room. In response to staff's inquiry regarding the applicant's plans to implement tt1e proposed corrections, the applicant hes state,j that the4 plan to irnplement all recomrnen,jations , ·-. have completed some and v1i1l complete tt1e remainder within 30 days. A letter from Ms. Carol Rober-ts, regional manager for Hennessey·s Tavern, Inc., indicates that the business is more closely monitoring the volume levels of the performing bands, 6 P .C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 and has improved the voiurne monitoring equipment. ~ne aiso stated that they have even banned t\-vo live bands that were reluctant to keep the volumes down. The Police Department indicates that no complaints have been received so far this year regarding noise, and that the Dusi ness has been managed properly and kept under contro 1. However, it was noted that the past 3-4 months is the slow part of the season, and the real test as to vvhether or not noise and other issues will be a problem \-Vill be in the upcorni n!1 summer months. In regard to the conditions of approval, Director Schubach continued, staff t1as modified the recommended conditions to specifically require that these proposed improvements be made to address noise concerns and completed within 60 da~s. The remaininQ ~ ~ recommended conditions essent i a 11 y remain except: The previous recommendation to require air-conditioning has been removed in recognition of the acoustical w·ork being done and the app Ii cants i ndi cation that air flo·vv is not a problem . However, staff still believes that the use of air conditioning would be advantageous as there will always be temptat1on to open doors and \"lindows ·tthen large crowds are present on hot days or evenings. Further, the hours of operation were an issue brought up by the applicant at the last meeting. Although the applicant has requested unrestricted hours, staff is no\•V recornmendi ng restrictions si mi 1 ar to those imposed by the City Counci 1 on Hennessey's: weekdays from 7:00 P.t1. to 1 :30 A.M._; weetends and holidays from 2:00 P.M. to 1 :30 A.M. Also, staff has modified condition No. 14 to read that an orderly waiting line and doorman be required only for the front door, and that the rear door shall not be used as an entrance, at the applicant's request. In regard to previous condition No. 19_. \,'y"hich was recommending requiring food service from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 PJ1._. the applicant noted Urnt the business is open for breakfast on weekends and that food service is ahva~s available in the summer. Staff has eliminated the condition as food service does not have to be required since this is a bar. As far as the operation of the bar is concerned_. the hours are unrestricted and only subject to State Low. Staff is satisfied that the proposed irnprovernents, if accomplished in accordance wHh the directions given by Mr. Cove 11 i .. vvi 11 serve to reduce the noise i rnpact. Whether or not the noise Vv"ill be re1juced to levels that wouM meet tt1e noise ordinance will be subject to testing in the future. Public Hearing opened at 7:26 P.M. by ctrnm. f<etz. 7 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 Paul Hennessey, owner of the Lighthouse, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that everything \,•vas proceeding on schedule_. he felt that the improvements could be completed within 30 days, but he v-1as grateful the staff had recommended 60 day completion in case of somethinq unexpected. Mr. Hennessey requested unrestricted hours of entertainment. He stated that there ,,vas a 40 year history of jazz entertainment at the Lighthouse, throughout U-1ose 40 years there had never been restrictions on the hours of entertainment _. and it Yv·oul d be very difficult if restrictions vvere imposed on breakfast music, morning auditions or fundraisers starting in the morning hours . Comm. Rue questioned if there could be a compromise that would limit the number of musicians or the volume of noise during certain hours. Mr. Hennessey replied U-1at v•10ul ct be f1 ne vvith hi rn as they norma 11 y only had a trio in for lunch entertainment, but sornetirnes the group would have a friend sit in with them or have someone audition wiU-1 them_. therefor it '•Nas very difficult to limit the size abso 1 ute l y. In response to a question from Comm. ~~ue _. Director Schubach agreed that the primary concern of staff was with the noise issues_. and the type of attraction had a great deal to do w·ith the amount of noise. For example a piano player did not create the same noise l eve 1 that a 1 ar-ge band created. Comm. Marks Questioned the e>~pertise of Davi1j Covelli, if he \•Vas an acoustic en!Jineer, what studies he had done to determine his recommendations'? \ t'lr. Hennessey said that he could not ansvv·er any technical questions; onl!d that Mr. Covelli had done sound checks for l\'vo days; had played the music and taken readings within the building, the results of ··Nhich t·1ad been submitted to the Planning Department. Director Sctmbach responded that r,e was satisfied \•Vith the recommendations submitted by Mr. Covelli as tt1ey \Nere almost identical to the recommendations submitted by another acoustic engineer for a business nearb!J that had been successful. But, the Cit~d st i 11 t·,ad its noise Ordinance for contro 1 and if the design didn't work to reduce the noise levels, the o·vvner coul1j be cited and required to make additional improvements . In response to Comm. Marks question of hm•v Mr. Cove 1l i would work, if he \•voul ct corne back and ta~:e readings to ensure that the noise vvas contained; Mr. Hennessey replied U-,at he had not considered that far in advance, tiut he assumed that reacti ngs woul 1j be ta~(en after everynii ng was completed, and if the improvements were not enough to contain the B P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 sound to an accept ab i e i eve i, then more recommendations vv·ou id be rnade. t1r. Hennessey stated that he ··..vas \Alilling to do whatever it takes to compl!d- Comm. Marks questioned the time frame for completion and v•rns told by t-1r. Hennessey that work was approximately half done, with the more expensive double paned glass and skylight repair still to be done, but he was confident that it v·tould be completed within 30 days. Comm. Rue asked if the dllapidated roof sign could tie restored, since it had been there for a long time. Mr. Hennessey replied that he hoped to restore the sign, already had one bid and had someone working on it. Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . Comm. Rue commented on the unrestricted hours tr,at had been requested by Mr-. Hennessey, to say that he felt 1f the music is contained, it didn't make any ,jifference \•vhen the entertainment starts because the hours of ooerntion for the bar \·Vere not within the Commission's jurisdiction. He continued by saying that exceptions had been made before for o 1 der es tab Ii shments such as the rylerrnai d_. and tie, personal 1 y, did not have a prob 1 em with unrestricted t·1otJrs. He then questioned Di rector Schubach regarding condition 4D to ask how· much time \•Vas given to correct the sound if measurements taken confirmed that the sound vv·as not contained to allowable levels? Director Schubach said that they gave an initial warning letter, then a second ·warning, then the!J i ssuect a citation. The entire process of two 1 etters and a citation coul ct take between one to three months depending on the work load of staff. Comm. Rue questioned staff regarding condition I OA, the roof sign, saying that is was very small, had historical significance, and he ·vvould like to see it restored. Director Sctrntrnch replied tt1at he would have to read tt"1e siw1 Ordinance, as si!Jns 'Nere administered through tt1e Building Department, to determine 1f it were possible to keep the sign, since there now were provisions regarding roof signs and most roof signs \•Vere no J anger permitted. In response to Comm. Rue·s question of the finding of historical value to the roof sign as an overriding factor, Director Schubach stated that it ·vvould not make a difference at tt1is time. ScJ,ubach continued that a text amendment 'NOuld t·,ave to t,e prepared that dealt with historical values, and although signs had not been considered , such an amendment vvas being considered as part of tt1e land use element in regard to structures. 9 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 Director sct1uoach also mentioned that tr1e cay has something in the recently passed non-conforming Ordinance concerning historical buildings, but it didn't say anything i:1bout signs. Comm. Rue commented that ttl1s may be the only sign in tov•m that has been up this long. Comm. Peirce expressed his opinion regarding the hours of operation, the amtdent noise level outside is less in the morning and early afternoon hours than in the evening, due to traffic and more business in the eveninqs, therefor he felt it would be appropriate to a1lov,1 operation in the mornings with restricted use .. such as unamplified music \•Vith no more than three members to a band. Chmn. Ketz stated that she was more concerned with noise than the hours of operation_: st·1e f e 1t if the sound were contained 'vVithi n the building and met the noise Ordinance, then there should be no restrictions. A brief discussion ensued in order to clarify the \•vording for the changes to tt1e proposed Resolution MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chrnn. Ketz to approve P.C. Resolution 91-8, changing condition No. 1 to read, 'The hours for live entertainment shall be unrestricted. A) exceptions to the above are: 1) starting hours for live entertainment shall be 8:00 A.M., throughout the week.; 2) closing hours for live entertainment shall be 1:30 AJ-l , throughout the "vveek; and, 3) a maxi rnum a three entertainers sha 11 be a 11 ov•ted behveen the hours of 8:00 A.t1. and 11:00 A.M., tt1roughout the vvee~(.", an1j amending condition No. 1 OA to read_. "The roof sign shall be removed, or restored if still in compliance V·tith the City sign Ordinance.". AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Peirce None None Mr. Hennessey stepped forward to thank the Commission and say that he intended to complete the \•York \'\1 ithin 30 da~dS, with the exception of the roof sign which could take longer. Director Schubach replied that would be no problem. Ctunn . Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may t,e appealed by writing to U1e City Council within ten days. The meeting recessed at 7:53 PJ1., in order to allow the Public Vlorks Departrnent to set up equipment for its presentation. 10 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/9 t The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M. P-10 --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS . Chmn . Ketz declared a potential conflict of interest due to living in the stud~d area_. and asked Asst. City Attorney Lee to express an opinion . Asst. Citw Attornew Lee stated that Chmn. Ketz had advised him that she owns propertw ~ ~ -· that is directly affected by this decision; under the Political Reform Act and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Committee there is a presumption of a material affect upon the financial interests of Ct1mn. Ketz unless the decision that is reached would be the same for the public generally_: given the fact that the number of parcels represent less than 10% of the City area, our opinion is there is a materifJl affect and Chmn. Ketz should not participate. At this time_. Chmn. Ketz turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Peirce; left Urn ,jais_: and 1 ef t tt1e room. V. Chmn . Peirce requested a staff report. Director Schubach said that the major presentation would be !Jiven by Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, for the Public Works Department, stwwing the problem the City had with encroactur,ent parking on City owned easements along the east and west side of Beach Drive . He continued by suggesting two possible recommendations from staff: 1) use a conditional vacation method to return the unused City land to the public; or, 2) an encroachment permit process as currently used . The biggest concern for the City, affecting many areas other than the walk streets_. ''1°'18S the question of liability. Since it was City property that was being used, the City would be ultimately liable if someone were injured. • Vlt1en an encroachrnent permit is issued, tt1e City requires insurance. If this method is used ior all the parcels oi City o'fmed land no 1N being used by adjacent homeowners, there could be over 1 _.000 encroachment permits_. each 'l'lith an insurance policy , to administer and maintain. Director Schubach suggested that tonight tt1e Comrnission might wish to nsrrow the issue to U1e parking problern on the east and \•Vest sides of Beach Drive _, and if time permitted, discuss how to implement the vacation or encroachment permit question. He felt that if tt1e Commission v·tished to look at some of the other areas of the City, the best decision would be to continue the matter and as~( for a more thorougt1 analysis . 1 1 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 V. Chmn. Peirce as~rnd U-1e commlssion if there \·vas concurrence to decide on ttrn land use on Beach Drive tonigt1t, then focus on the implementation ff time pet-mitted. Lynn Terry, of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, began the presentation with the use of a slide projector and st.ate,j the information was being given to assist the Planning Commission to review and determine ho·vv best to stwjy the issue. Mr. Terry gave background by saying the City Manager's office has received a nurnber of complaints about pat-king along the walk streets. The City Manager has also received complaints about vet1icles parking in "vvhat appears to be "front yards" but is really public right-of-w·ay. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning Cornmi ssi on to review the City's Ordinances and enforcement of parking v-tithi n the setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Pedestrian -...va 1 k streets -...vi tt-li n the City of Hermosa Beach, 1Nhere vehi c 1 e parking is possible in U-1e public right-of-·Y"v·ay, for tt1e most part are those east-west streets located v•test of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand. The majority of these public streets are sixty feet in 'Nidth. Hov•,iever, only the center sixteen feet of tlie street right-of-v-1a~J is paved witli concrete. The remaining right-of- way width is equally divided \¥ith twenty tv...-o feet of public right-of-wa~d t:i"long each side of the walk street. Thls is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200 vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing. In response to a question from Comm Marks, Mr. Terry said that no cars had City permission to park on t~1e public right-of-way. Starting with the General Plan, Mr. Terry continued v·tith his analysis by exple1ining the Open Space Element. The underlying philosoph~d of the Open Space an,j Conservation Element is to preserve and enhance the existin~ green areas, and to increase the total ~ ~ open space areas ·within possible financial ability. • Streets comprise nearl!J one third of u-ie City's area, and considering the small size of private lots and minimal yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" \AfHhin the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed for maximum impact as green areas of liln,jscaped ribbons throughout the City. The stated qoals and policies of the Open Space Element are: 1) To obtain and preserve open spaces 'ftithin the City 1 imits of Hermosa Beach_. sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents. 2) To obtain, preserve, and entrnnce green areas, such as strnet landscape strips, mini-parks and par~=:ways as being necessary to the health and well being of the cornrnuni tl-J. 12 P.C . Minutes 4/ 16/91 3} To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikev·mys, pedestrian routes and trai Is. 4) To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encournge further use of same as pedestrian walkways, malls and plazas_ Streets_. 'v'v'hen closed for vv·hatever reason_. should be retained where. practical and used for shopping ma1ls_. where zoning is appropriate or part of the bicycling and '-l-ialkway system. 5) An!-! street not currentl!-1 needed for vehicular access rna!-1 be landscaped and ~ .. ~ used as t1i eye le and/ or pedestrian v·.iays. The Circulation Element approved by the Cit!d Council on August 14_. 1990_. includes a City Policy that states, "The Cit!J shall maintain its system of walk streets which contributes to neighborhood identity an,j cohesiveness and near the beach provides a safe and attractive access s4stem for pedestrians, which is part i cul iWI 4 important for ~ ~ children, handicapped and seniors. These 1nalk street areas shall be landscaped and lfgMed and also designated as open space"_ t1r. Terry read City Code Section 19-6 l(b), which states, "No operntor of any ·-1e~1icle shall stop_, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle ... \•Vithin any park'.-vay". A Parkv,,ay is defined as, 'That portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk"_ Section 29- 38(2)(d) states, "Parking of driving on wa 1 k streets is strict 1 y prot1i bited". Mr. Terry explained that there is a total of t\-venty five \•Valk streets in the City. Of this number, there are si::< vvalk streets that can only be used by pedestrians and those \·Valk streets \•Vi ll not be 1ji scussed further. There is a total of 568 private properties tr,at face or have frontage on the v·rnlk streets within the study area. t1r. Terry said the majority of those private properties t1ave fenced off the public right-of-v•11:1y and use that hmd as a pert of their front !Jaros. However_, onl~J a fev,, of these property o•,,vners have a City permit to use the public Jani::!. Most of the property O'•Nners do not have permission from the City or' insurance that protects the City from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right-of way. Of the 568 properties along the waif( streets and on the Strand, U1e total number that do not park on the public right-of-vvay are 517 (or 91 %), leaving 51 properties (or 9%) that use the public right-of-way for parking. Of the 51 properties, 19 are on the eflst side of Bettch Drive and have vehicles parked in what would be consiijered the front yard _. and 32 are on the west (or Strand) side of Beach Drive and park in vv·hat would be considered their side yard. Mr. T err!J detailed u-,e nurntier of 1 ocat ions v1here parking is possi b 1 e or occurring by saying there is a total of 69 locations vv·here the parking of vehicles on the public \·VaH( street rig~1t-of-··Nay is possible. Of that number_. 1 B property ov·mers have fenced or bloci(ed off the public right-of-v·niy so ttrnt vehicles can not be parke,j at u-,at location_ 13 P .C. t1i nutes 4/ 16/91 At the remaining 51 locations, vet1ic1es are parked on tt1e v,·aJk street public right-of- v·tay, resulting in appro>{imately 200 parking spaces. All of these properties have garages on a public assess at the rear of the property. That is the only area '.·Yhere vehicles should be allowed access to the propertq_ t1r. Terry showed slides of the proper-ties using public street right-of-way for their private additional parking area. Tt1e concerns of the City were Ii sted as: 1) Liability is a concern because at locations ·where parl<ing is occurring them is no private insurance that protects the City. If someone \•Vl'IS hurt \•Vi thin the 22 feet of public right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. \•\''ith encroachment permits, a $500,000 policy, naming the City as additional insured is required. 2) Some of tt,e adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on Beach Drive along ttrn edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public property, and do not allovv· the publlc to use the public right-of-'Nay. 3) Some of the ad_tacent private property owners have placed signs on n,e public . rigM-of-\•vay stating u,at all oU,ers v·tho park u,ere 'Nill be tovted fl'Nay. Ho'Never., the land is public ri!~ht-of-way and only the City can have a vehicle tov•1ed a·we~J from public right-of-way. 4) The staff has been told that some of the adiacent private propertw owners rent . ~ out parking spaces ·vvithin the public right-of-\•vay during the summer and even year round. This activity is not approved or ackno··Nledged by tt1e City. n-ie adjacent property O\•vner also keeps the parking income for their private use 1f this action is ta}zing place. 5) The use of the public ri ght-of-'vvay., along the vvt=1H: streets, for pEJrking is presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, u-1e Ctty has not enforced the parking code alon!J the walk streets. 6) The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious adverse effect on the parking in the beach area . • 7) Carn and trailers stored in tt1e public rig~1t-of-way adversely affect the aesthetics of tt1e area. B) Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especiall~d the Sea Sprite Motel. f1r. Terry explained that Manhattan Beach ha,j a similar problem and forme,j a \-'v'alk Strnet Study Committee in 1969, Vv'ho recommended .. after a ~Jear long study, that the Cit~d vacate the v~1 a 1 k street ri ght-of-v•,•·ay and thereby a 11 ov•l the use of the vacated proper-ty to revert to u-,e abutting property ov•n,ers. Because of concerns about t-iigt-,er property ta>::es to the adJacent property O\·vners, as a result of the vacated land .. the issue of vacating Uie land '•Nas dropped. Instead, the City of Man~1attan Beach established an encroachment policq. 14 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 The Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works spol<e 1Nith the tax assessor and was advised that a reassessment of the vacated land ¥mulct occur shouJd Hermosa Beach pursue vacating the land. Mr. Terry then listed possible alternatives, giving pro and con arguments for each: 1) Strict enforcement of no parking and not Edlow any parking on tt1e public walk street ri gr1t-of-vv·ays. Pro: The majority of property owners that live along ttie walk streets do not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allm·ving an~d parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property owners equally. Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action 1,,vould in crease t~,e parking demand on ttrn streets in the beach area by apprm<imately 200 vehi c 1 e spaces. 2) Change the City Ordinance and al10 1N private parking on the west side of Beach Drive only, with a City permit an,j parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month 'v'-tith no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping_, no limit on number of spaces, etc.) Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property at four locations in to~vn and tlie present rate charged for that use is $0.50 per square foot per month. Tt-,e estimated revenue to the City ·vvould be $6.,400 per month. The monthly fee vtould ensure tt-iat only needed parking spaces v•,:ould be used_. as owners would be urn•villing to pay for spaces that \-Vere not used. Con: V·lith only a par~dng permit and no other requirements, this alternative 1Nould allov·1 preferential treatment to those private owners \"i1 ho 0 1Nn u-ie 32 corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the par~~ing permit_. an encroachment permit should be reQuired 1/'l'hich would then require landscaping_. insurance and City control over the total public area. The properties on the east side of Beach Drive should not be allovv·ed to park in the public street right-of-vv"ay because they 'l·vould be parking in \•vtrnt is their front yard. 3) Change the City Ordinance and allo 1..v only public parking with meters 'Nest of Beach Dti ve only. Pro: This alternative i·vould increase the City's financial picture by providing additional parking spaces next to the beach that would be in use most of the time. The City ·would receive additional parking meter income frorn these spaces year round, estirnated at $12,800 annual incorne. The City would then control the parking which at this time is not enforced . Con: Of all ttrn alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce the quality of life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach area residences. 15 P.C. l'"linutes 4/ 16/91 4) Not allm•v any parking and use the 22 feet of public t-ight-of-wa!J for- landscaping and to beautif~d the beach area. Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of l1f e by installing large landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the beach area. Also, this would improve the image of the community and "vvould have the largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area. Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and "vvould impact an area that already has a serious pari(ing problem. It appears that this alternative could add approximatel!--1 200 additional vehicles to the on-street parking situation. Thais vrnuld have a serious negative parking impact to the Sea Sprite Motel and t1ickey·s Liquor Store. 5) Vacate the excess public right-of-v•ray to the private property owners on each side of the street. Pro: Tt"lis alternative releases the City from the responsibility for those areas. The Cit!J v11 ould also receive additional taxes from this nevv· private property added to the communi t!J. Con: There \~lould be an added City e~<penditure to accomplish a vacation (i.e. tit I e search, deed recorrjat ion, easement reservation, etcJ A vacflt ion has the potential of increasing the density of the Cit!J and may not be the best choice. 'w'ithout changes to the zoning code, the City could lose control over the development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics of u-1e area ·vvould not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate and be degraded in tl'rn tieach area. Someday the cay may \•Vant or need to use the areas presently in use by the adjacent private property ov·mers. The use of public ri gr,t-of-v·.iay should instead be contra 11 ed and regulated by revocatil e encroachment permits . 6) Change the Cit!d Ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk streets '•Nest of Beach Drive onl!-j, vv•ith the requirement that the · private use be regulated by a revocable encroachrnent permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed only in u-1e easterly one-third of the r-igt"it-of- \•vay v-tith no parking a 11 owed near the Strand v·ta l l. Pro: This alternative v•wuld provide additional revenue_. reduced liability and improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachrnent permits include, ( 1) insurance of $500,00_: (2) that the City also be additionally insured; (3) tnat one- thinj of the public ri!Jht-of-··Nay be landscaped; and, (4) City control. Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the Sea Sprite Motel and Micke~J's Liquor Starn. In summary, Mr Terry said: 16 P .C. t1i nut es 4/ 16/91 a) The opinions among the various department staffs differ on tr1is issue. A single alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the best so 1 ut ion. b) A zoning Ordinance prohibition or encroachment permit condition for the area west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the pub 1 i c street ri ght-of-v•tay areas. c) Some encroachments are long standing and V·lill create a hardship if removed. All current encroachments st10uld receive active restrictions to ,jiscouraqe massive par~(ing areas, stornge of vehicles, driving on \•Yalk streets; and encourage landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. A 11 new encroachments should fallow current permit processes. d) The vacation option needs to be evaluated, although it appears to not be the best so 1 ut ion. Mr. Terry concluded his presentation by saying tt1at tv•rn memos were included: The first from City Manager Kevin Northcraft suggests vacation of the prnperty, including similar public street right-of-wa1J encroacnrnents on rvlonterey and Prospect Avenue, and states, " ... Our attorneys advise that the concept of vacating the land is reasonable to re1juce liability. It 1:!lso recognizes the historical private uses of u,ese properties. The concern about potential future public uses an,j increased density can be remedied by the nature of the vacation, and/or zonin!J ct1an!Jes. For example, the vacation can include covenants that avoid increased bulk and density, preserve utility eat;ements, and require twededication if a future Council chooses. Current zoning then should be clarifie,j to prohibit use of front yewds for parking .... ". The second from Public 'w'orks Director Anthon~J Antich and Planning Director Michael Schubach recommends_. "Select alternative #6 to change the City Ordinance allm·ving private parking on the pedesttwian vvalk streets vvest of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that tt"1e private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment perrnH and that pari(ing fees be paid. In addition, pari(ing sr1ould be al10 1Ned in only the easterly one- third of the right-of-way \Nith no parking allo-wed near the Strand wall". In response to questions_. r1r. Terry rnsponded that there would be apprmdmately 150 parking spaces remaining if alternative #6 where chosen _; the length of tt·,e Strand lots ·vvas an average of 80 feet_: and that no tandem parking had been recornrnended. Comm. Di Monda questioned the figure of one-third of the lot length for parking and said he would prefer a uniform amount, such as tt1e easterly t B to 20 feet instead. 17 F'.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 The Hear1ng 'flas opened at B:47 P.f1. by v. Chmn. Pe1rce. David Schumaker_. 1612 Strand, Hermosa Beach _. addressed the Commission to state that he has owned five beachfront properties in Hermosa Beach, one of \•Vhich was 1:1t 302 Strand, for the past 25 years and that at no time has he ever been told that the property could not be used for parking. He said that he was a real estate appraiser by proiession and felt if the parking v-1ere taken a·-.vay the property would lose 20% of its rnarket value. He urqed the Cornrni ssi on to 1 eave thi nqs as thew were. ~ ~ - Pat Con-vin, 31 EiQhth Street, Hennosa Beach, addressed tt1e Commission to complimented the City on the report; stated he ¥ms a nev\" resident_: that he and his v•.'He had researched the area before they purchased and were pleflsed by the Cit!d Goo ls thE!t clearly stated the desire for beautification and open space _: and _. were told that the City did not allow parking on the publlc wallk street right-of-way. He expressed concern that the City did not enforce its parking la\•Vs; felt concern for the safety of the children in the nei qhborhood due to tr1e "For Rent" si qn for parki nQ on tt·1e south east corner of Beach ·-·-.... Drive, 'Ntiich had four spaces rente,j out; and felt tt1at any type of vehicle could be parked there if somen1ing wasn't done. He asked the City to enforce its m·vn parking la-·NS. Paul Shank, 1838 Strand, Hermosa Beach, ad,jressed the Commission to Sfl!~, as a 13 year resident, he felt this was a ver-y complex issue because each street was different. He questioned the number oj complaints that had been received by the City, and questioned if tr1ere had actually been a problem of liability rather than a perceived potential, 'v'-lhlch is a 1 wa4s present. He continued to sa4 he felt it "vvas un f ust to ct·1arqe parki nq fees and ·-·--._ - that tt"1e cay st"1ould recognize the historical uses of the property , vvhich included par~j ng . He 1Nas strongly opposed to the idea of pub 1 i c parking because of the increase in traffic and congestion_. and felt that 01,imers could settle problems, such as the parking of rec re at i ona l vehicles, among thernse 1 ves. Steve Meadows, former owner of 542 Strand, Herroosa Beach .. currently the 1.:1rciiitect of the project being built on the property, addressed the Commission \•vitJ1 regard to new· construction, sa~~in!~ he coul,j not speak fot-1,,vt·1at has happene,j in the past, but U-1e plannin!~ process should be considered from here on out. He felt alternative #6 \'Vas the best solution e~~cept that there st10u1 d not be a charge for parl(i ng; he f e 1 t peop 1 e paid a premium for corner lots and higher propert!J ta~-~ .. so therefor it \•vas unfair to charge for parkinq. He did agree that parking should be limited to the eastern one-third of the lot. In response to questions, r·-·1r. Meadows stated when he first ha1j his plans for the property approved one year ago, t1e had been told tr1e City land should be strnwn as open area and he could park four cars triere_: but he did not go at-1ead with the project then, so t-iis permit ran out; \•vt1en he \•vent the second time he v...-as told he had to enclof;e the area and no parking ··,·vas allo··Ned. He also responded that the title search t·1ad clearly st1ov11 n ttrnt it 1B P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 was City propert~J, not part or the propert!J that he \·vas seiiing, and there ·Nas no stipulation that parl(ing was allo\ved. John McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Her-mosa Beach, a,jdressed the Commission to sa,J that he was a 50 year resident of Hermosa_. and had lived on Eighth Street for 21 years . For many of the early years, the property on the southeast corner of Beach Drive and Eighth Street vv·as owTIer occupied and vv·e 11 rnai ntai ned , then it 'rlas so 1 d to an out of state investor wtrn tore out the curbs and parked cars on the property, bringing in an extra rental of $2 _.ooo for the parking on City ov·med property. He expressed the opinion of Realtors_. that his own property values are substantially 10\•ver than comparable property in rylemhattan Beach, clue to the la>~ity of parking enforcement in Hermosa. He said U1at ovvner occupied property ·was not a problem, but usually rental property Vv'as, as it caused noise _. congestion and unsightly conditions. He \·Vas concerned with the safety problem 1NHh rental parking, and felt that the City had been vepJ lucky not to t1ave had a serious accident. He concluded by saying that much of the problem was the lack af garage space due to the storage of boats an,j househoM goods in gan:l!Jes. Jim Gierlich, 1900 Strand , Hermosa Beach_. addressed the Commission to explain tt1at he v·rns a 50 year resident of Hermosa _. and a 20 year property owner at that address. \~/hen he purchased the property it v1as advertise,j as having off-street parking and he had photos of the house taken in 1933 showing autos parked in the same areas as toda~J Some years ago _. he continued_. he needed a pennit to rr,ove a fire hydrant in order to have better access to the parking area·_: '-l-tith the assistance of the w·ater company_. he was granted the permit approval by u-,e cay, which shows implied permission, or kno·wle,jge_. by tt-,e City to use the land fot-parking. The mason ~,e chose that location 1,vas the saret~J or the \•vaH( street for his young child, and he e>,pressed gratitude for the barricades on Beach Drive that helps provide that safety. He felt that a beneficial solution, for both the City and the affected residents, could be found since there are so few properties involved. Tom Allen, 1602 Strand , Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to comrnend Mr . Terry for the amount of data in the report_. and say that he _. too _. moved a fire hydrant for parking access_. at a cost of over $10,000. At tr,at tirne, he felt that he had the City's blessing and involvement in the project as ttie City sho'f/ed t1irn how it coul,j be done. He felt the primary issues no·w, are t,eautification an,j parking, and that there \•Vas no correlation bet\Neen beauty and the lack of parking on a property. He mentioned e;-~amples in the sli,jes that had been shov·n-1, that pictured an unsightly property \htithout parking, and a we 11 maintained property 'flith parking . He disagreed vv·ith the idea that the City hljs 1 i ability due to owning the property, ljnd c 1 aimed that the resident owners vvt10 maintain and exercise control of the proper-ty are prirnarny Hable, but H the City \·Vere to take control of the right-of-W8!JS , then the Cit(d would be prirnaril(J liable. He questione,j the ability of tt1e City to spend thousands of dollars on landscaping the proper-ty if they can not afford to fix potholes on Beach Drive . He urged the Commission not to Dase ttieir decision on isolated instances of par~dng abuses an,j stated that he kne\•V of no garages 19 P .C. Mi nut es 4/ 16/91 tr1at were not used for pan(ing as it \.Yas a precious commodity. In response to quest1ons, he stated that he had done extensive landscaping and paving and t-1ad four parking spaces. Susan McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, ad,jressed the Commission to thank the Public Works Department for the report_. stating that she had become invo1ved 'vVith this issue in 1978 when the third curb cut was made in her area for parking; in 1986 she vvent to the City to supply them ··Nith the information on the study and results in Manhattan Beach; tonight v,·as tt·1e first ti me tt-iat a public forum had been r1e 1 d, and she \•Vi st1ed n1e cay to know that this issue V\"as a concern to ttrn residents and users of tt1e walk streets, which vvere the gateways to tt-ie beact-1. Strn said that hvo \•vee~(s ago she had watched a 25 year old tree removed to provide a better par~~ing area for a renter paying $60 per month for the space. And_, in her neighborhood tt"lere is one Strand property that parks 12 cars on the sides of the lot. Vv'ithin a 100 foot radius there are fl ve !~arages not used_. t \hto on the Strand and one that is used as a practice room for a band. She felt that the Comrnission vvould choose alternative #6, and hoped that there was sorr1e rneans to ~1ave owners and renters refrain from par-kinq extni cars in their- area. She asked the Commission to set criteria for the space allov1•·ed for parfcing, to set a definite size limit, such as IO by 20 feet per car-; as one-third of the lot \.Yas too vague a term and could all0\A/ tandem parking on some lots. She also suggested that the areas be used for automobiles on1y, and not allow storage of RVs, boats, or long term auto storage, and that good 1 andscapi ng be re qui red, if possi b 1 e with hedges that shi e 1 d the areas frorn view. Ed Nash, 600 Strand, Herrnosa Beacr,_. addressed the Cornmi ssi on to agree t11at the problem of noise and an unsigt1tly car lot is not pleasant and vv·oul1j precipitate complaints, but he v'lished t~1e Commission to consider the in-compliance, non- problematic properties, such as ~1is, 'Nhere pEirking is seldom used, lendscaping is in_. and $1,000,000 in liability insurance is in force. He asked that something be done about the problems, but he v1ould object to paying for parking that was seldom used_. and did not agree with the one-thit-d lot limit, he felt that one half \•vouM be better. He aske,j the Commission to discriminate betvveen the problem cases and those 1Nho ·were in cornpliance. Thelma Greenvvald, 900 Strand, Hermosa Beach, an,j co-o-..-vner of the Sea Sprite Motel, addressed the Commission to sfly that six and one half ~Jears ago she purchased a 2B unit f acfl it!~ at Ni nth Street and the Strand wi U1 17 parking spaces, later she purchased another property sirnply for parking . She uses four spaces on the right-of-way for parking when her children and grandchildren come to visit and taking that parking now \•vould be a lrnrdst•iip for her. Gail Convin, 31 Eighth Street, Herrnosa Beach , addressed the Commission and remarked that there had been a lot of talk about money and property values, but wt1en they had purct1ased their home they had paid a premium to live on a 1Nalk street. If they didn't 20 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 care about noise, iack of safety for their chiidren, and unsightiy cars parl<ei:1 rn front yards_. U-1ey coul ct have bought a trnme for a lot less money_: they 'Nere not getting '•Nhat they pai ct for. If nothing is done about these conditions when the process is comp 1 eted._. a lot more people might start parbng in their front yard_. because parking truly is at a premium, and man!J of her neighbors needed more parking. Jerry Compton_. G.'w'.C._. Inc ... ad,jressed the Commission and stated that he ·vvas an architect in town and had ,jone a lot of projects that adjoin the 1ight-of-wa~ ar-eas .. and it needed to be brought out that the waH( streets were not U1e only places in Hermosa Beach with public right-of-ways used for the sole benefit of private property m-vner-s. It was his opinion that these areas should not be subsidized by the public_. but belong to the people who use them, \¥ith property taxes paid on them. Originally the right-of-v.,1 ays were to be streets, but the!d were never used for that purpose_. so nO\·V they have become wide easements .. unused by the Cit!d to the point where many owners think the land belongs to them. All of MontereId Boulevard has a 20 foot right-of-way on both sides of the street, in some case::; tt·1e City owns the land up to the t,uilding. v./t1ett·1er parking is allo 1Ned, lar!Je setbacl<s are required, or one-third of the land is to be planted could be restricted by the zoning code. The prot,lem v1ith parl(ing on the right-of-way is that it is not private property, it is not a front yard; if it \¥ere a front yard there could be lav·ts against parking in a front yard. All ares in town should be turned back to the adjacent property owners. Anthony Dre·•Nery, 1540 Strand. Hermosa Beach _. addressed the Commission and stated that most of the concerns he vvas gotng to address had already been said. But one issue t,rought up by Jerry Compton nee,jed to be considered by the Planning Commission and tr,e City Council: ''l'lhy single out the area west of Hermosa Avenue 'Nhen there were so many other areas 'Nith pub 1 i c ri ght-of-\Nay parking? He l isled: r1onterey Boulevard; Pal rn Drive; Bayviev,, Drive_: Circle Drive; Loma Drive; 31st Pl-ace; Valle!J Park; Mant1attan Avenue_: Ocean Drive and probably others .. as streets with right-of-way parking. He also had two questions. First, had the City Attorney reviewed the legality of each recommendation, in particular regarding the vacation of the property_. trie City Attorney should render an opinion. Second, the Cit!J should obtain a title report and a litigation guarantee •with regard to every piece of property it intends to aHect by any action. V. Cr1mn. Peirce responded that the Planning Commission intended to look at all the areas in the City and make their recommendations to the City Council. Eric Castleman_. 336 Strand, Herrno~;a Beach, addressed the Comrnission to sa~d that the CittJ needed beautification, and cars parked anywhere e~,:cept in a garn,~e \-Vhere ugl'::L There should not be parkin!~ allowe,j on tlie ri!~ht-of-vva!J, it shouM be kept an1j landscaped and turned into true open space. Beautify the city and raise everwone·s property va 1 ues. 21 P .C. t1i nutes 4/ 16/91 Howard Longacre, 1221 seventh Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed tt1e commission to say tr1at he did not have a particular position on this question at this time but he \Nould like to list some observations: 1) liability insurance for an encroachment is em amendment to a policy an,j usually can be obtained for little or no cost; 2) regarding the barricades on Beach Drive, there should be barrica,jes on all the streets in tO\·Vn; 3) Manhattan Beach property, without ptu-king, is selling at close to three quarters of a million dollars more than cornparable property in Hermosa_; 4) the City needs to look into the old deeds to the property because he thought that there might be rights granted with the property to the use of tt"1e easements; 5) as a civil engineer-, t1e kne\·V that highvvays, created to fill a need, will be used and create more need _: he thought the same \•Vas true of par~dng. Mr. Longacre then asked for a point of order to say that in his view there v•n:1s a potential conflict of interest on the part of V. Cl1mn. Peirce, v•,iho , he believed, was a business partner of Mayor Sheldon in the ownership of property_. and since Mayor Sheldon owned property in the subject area and would have to dec1are a conflict when it came before Urn City Council_, Mr. Peirce should declare his business relationship with l"tayor Sheldon and step ,jov·m also. George Lanz, 17 Si>~teenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to comment that he lived on the east side of Beach Drive, and if alternative #6 were the choice of the Commission, he saw no rationale frnm the report given for the exclusion of the east side, and encouraged the Commission to make no such restrictions. Parking encroachment on public right-of-way appeared to be a CHy-wi,je problem_. therefor it seerned logical to exarnine t11e the problem in total and not fraqment it as it ·.,.-...-as possible that a different recomrnendation would be found for some ottrnr part of U1e cit~. Adriana Kusion, 192B Stran,j, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to present the concerns of a renter at that address for rive years b!d stating that \•vhen the barricades were down on Beach Drive, it became a highway, During the surnmer rnonths the teenagers would park in the alleys at 2:00 in the morning, drinking and playing their radios full blast, if public parking were allowed this would happen all ~Jear long . She felt taking the barricades do\•Vn for public parking V•r'Ould increase tt·1e chance of an accident and tt1e City's liability. The Hearing ·...vas closed at t 0:00 P.M. by V. Ct1rnn. Peirce, \•Vho wisherj to point out to Uie audience that this was a hearing, but not a pub 1 i c hearing . Responding to a question of the ultimate "1jeep pockets" from Comm. Rue, Asst. City Attorney Lee sai ,j that the City t1a,j the pri rnar!J responsibility and l i abi1 i ty for an!J injury on the prnperty. AltJ1ougr1 tt·,e adjacent propert!d owner would be named in a negligence suit, the Cil!J ·vvoul,j also be named. There vvas a !Jreater r-isk to the City by allowin!J private use of the property V·littwut appropriate covera!J8, because it di,j not relieve the City of its 1i ability H the owner tlas made i rnprovernents. 22 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 V. Chmn. Peirce asked if the City Councii vvanted the entire thing or 'Nouid they accept a piece at a time? Lynn Terry sai,j that he was not sure; because the entire number of properties ¥rns so large, staff was trying to break 1t down into portions that could be handled . V.Chmn. Peirce said that tonight they vvould just consider the land use for Beach Drive and have the implernentation researct·1ed in rnore detail. Asst. City Attorney Lee agreed ttrnt 1Nould be rnost appropriate; ,jepending upon the decision regarding the land use .. the Cittl Attorney·s Office \•vould review the irnplernentation; i.e. if the ,jecision was to allov·t parkin!l, the options of encroachment or vacation could be brought back in more detail. with the various restrictions possible . In response to Cornm. Di Manda's question regarding title search .. Asst. City Attorney Lee ans\•vered that would depend on ttrn land use decision and tt1e implementation chosen. If you -.,,vant to vacate the property then the question turns on \•vho ov·ms the underlying fee on the area once it is vacated. If in fact it lrns been conveyed over by the City, and the City has u,e underlying fee title to the property .. then the decision to vacate would leave the ne:t.t step to sell the property. If the underl~Jing fee belongs to the adjacent property owner .. then vacation would provide automatic reversion back to the propert~J ov•mer. Director Schubach ansvv·ered the question of the possible tax assessment increase to adjacent proper-ty owners in the event of vacation b~J sayin!~ that the arnount '•Nas not knov·m at this tirne, but a meeting \·Vas in the process with the tax assessor for this area to determine that question. Asst. City Attorney Lee stated ttrnt under current law the property in question is public right-of-way, and even though the City had not enforce1j its rights in the past it had the right to begin enf orcernent now of the rules "vvithin the r-1unicipal Ordinances. In t•,is opinion, there w·as no estoppel to prevent the City from beginning enforcement actions to re qui re parking be removed or-the pub 1 i c right-of-way be kept open as re qui red under the present cay Code. He contlnued _. that in regard to \·Vt"1ether or not there vvas some sort of prescriptive easement or prescriptive right that has accrued to each of these property ov·mers t,ecause of the 1 ength of ti me that has passed_. that is an issue that our office 1Nould have to research. t1r . Lee st;:ite,j thi'Jt his prelimini'Jr~J response would be that it v·tould be against public policy to allovv some sort of a,jverse possession to accrue to a pri Vl:ite person over public property. In response to a question from Comm. Marks, Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that the City Attorney·s Office represented the public in general and the City's interest is in ttrn benefit of the public in general. His office would not provide representation to each i ndi vi dual property O'·Nner wt10 may t,e l i eve he had a private property ri grit in putil i c 23 P.C. t1i nutes 4/ 16/91 walkways. If there ·vvas an issue mat tt,e City wanted to ~:no 1N vmat its pos1t1on ,,vas in regard to that issue, tt·,en the direction 1Nould come from the Planning commission or the City Councn to loot into that issue, but it could not come from an individual or a group of = individuals. Mr. Lee continued, that he would issue an opinion in confidentialit!-l to the Planning Commission and/ or the City Council, advising of the CH!/S 1 ega 1 rights \·vith respect to enforcement on these walkways and only in that context. Comm. Rue comrnented that he fell that the General Plan vv·as the overridinQ document for the City. Both Open Space and Parking \•Vere very large factors in that plan, a compromise \•vas needed ~,ere and alternative #6 seemed a decent compromise_. as trying to maintain open space 'NOUld be onerous on all the people 'Nho had the use of the property for many years. Therefor he v·rnuld support: a tv10 car maximum, side by side, with landscape maintained along the walk street _. autos only, no RVs or boats, and maximum height for fences end landscaping . Cornrn. Di Monda pref erred a 1irnit of 1 S to 20 feet on par~(ing, landscape rngulation stipulating no contiguous hardscape, a delineation to prevent autos from moving forward beyond a certain point_. space bet -..-veen street and property, and a request that staff al so pursue vacation proceedings. ,Jerry Compton suggested that parking radius be considered. MOTION by Comn·1. Rue_. seconded by Comm. Di Monda to continue this item to the meeting of May 21, 1991, at 1..vhich time staff vvould provide more detailed inforrnation_, •y•v•ith the understandin!~ that the focus \·Vas on Alternative #6 and U-1e irnplementation of vacation versus encroactm·,ent. It \•Vas f w-ther understood that staff would pro vi de more details on the follo\hting criteric1: tv-to car ma>-~imum_; side by side parking; no tandem parking allowed; access directly from Beach Drive; separation betvveen landscaping and parking area_: landscaping along the w·alk street separating the walk street from par~Jng _: no allowance for Recreational Vehicles such as RVs, boats or others; the purpose of parking is for automobiles only; height of fences and landscaping to be addressed_: and, depth appropriate with turnin!] radius of the alley. In addition, staff was directed to return 1.-vith information pertaining to the legal conseQuence of the possible actions and 1f there would be major tax consequences to tt1e ov·mers in the event of vacation . AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Comms. Rue, Di t1onda, V. D·,mn. Peirce Comm. Marks Chrnn. Ketz None The rneetinQ recessed at 10:22 PJ'l. The Meeting reconvened at 10:25 P.M. 24 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 \ Chmn. Ketz returned to the dais. RESOLUTION OF lt4TEt4T TO STUDY ADULT USES_ Director Schubach presented the staff report saying that this 1Nas originall~J a part of the land use element but the Comrnission had placed it on tr1e list of special studies _. and now would be a !]Ood tlrne to start as the housing element \·Vas on hold. The staff recommendation ·vvas to direct staff as deemed appropr1 ate . Tt1e Hearing vtas opened at 10:28 PJl. by Chmn. Ketz. Howard Longacre_. 1221 Seventh Place _. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to ask exactly what staff was going to study . Di rector Sct1ubach responded that tt1i s studw had been suqqested bW the Citw A ttornew due .,_ .,_ .._ ·-.,_ .... to new case lavv· that made the current City law outdated. The study pertained to locatton in relation to residential areas_. schools and ct1urct1es and any potential impact it might have. MOTION by .Comm Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to approve P. C. Resolution 91-28. AVES : NOES: Comms . Rue, Di r·-·1onda_. Marks_. Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS !tl. City Council / Phmnl no Commission workshop Di rector Schubach and the Cornrni ssi one rs discussed possi b 1 e dates and topics the consensus ··,·vas: The dates offered would all be on a Thursda!d and include: rylfl!d 16 , 1991 _: .June ~ 1 QQ 1 · -d I ·Xi 1 QQ 1 •J, ~~ , on, wUne -~, ~~ . The topics offered would be: Rudat/Downtown Revitalization; Downtown Business Parking _; Greenbelt Par~~i ng; and Pacific Coast Hi 1~hVvfl!d Parking . hl. P1annlng Department Activity Report of Februory, 199 L -../ No action taken 25 P.C . Minutes 4/ 16/91 .cl Memonmdum Regardlng P1annlng Commission Ual sons for 1991 City Council Meeting_ Aprll 23. Director Schubach and the Comrmssioners discussed the proposed ballot measures to be before the City Counci 1 and expressed general di sai:ireement with the 1 ack of public hearings for complex rnatters such as these. MOTION by Ctmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm . Peirce to approve a Resolution asking tr1e City Councn to fo110\¥ the process that is in place in most communities throughout the country to: hold public hearings at the Planning Commission level _: allO\•\' the Planning Cornmiss1on to make recommendotions_: then go to the City Council for a final decision. A'r'ES: NOES: Chmn. Ketz, Comrns. Peirce_. Di Monda, Rue None ABSTAIN: Cornrn. Marks None ABSENT : !tl Chmn. Ketz wi 11 try to attend as 1 i ai son . Inf ormationol MoteriaL No action taken . .tl Tentatlve Future Plannlng Commission Agenda. !l No action taken . City CouncH Minutes of March 11. 12 and 26. 1991. No action Taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda questioned the process for landscaping on pro _i ects that carne tief ore the Cornrni ssi on _. and requested U,at more detail e·d information be given to include: rnore e~<tensive landscape; at least one specimen tree larger than a 15 gallon can_: to avoid contiguous han1scape bet\•1/een driveways folded up side of common \•I/alls betv•.ieen 26 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91 properties; and, to inform the deveioper that the package ··,•vouid be rejected if it 1Nere not comp 1 ete. Comm. Rue asked that renderings be included in the package as he felt a better quality development would ensue if the time and care ·vvere taken to sut,mit renderings _: not as likely to get a common set of plans . Comm. Di Monda asked if some black and vvhite photos of the surrounding area could be included. Chmn. Ketz said the Commission could set the policy of \•vhat it \•vould like to see included in the package. Director Schubach explained that it would be difficult to require renderings_. but it could be suggested that the Com mission would 1 i ke to see a rendering, tt·1e other items vv·oul d not be a prob 1 em. Comm. Di Monda ,Questioned the parking on the Greenbelt and asl<ed if there \1\1 ere any way that the parldng of commercial vehicles or RVs could be banned, he also questioned the enforcement of the existing parking. Director Schubach responded that he would research the issue with General Services and return with more information. A general discussion of the pa ricing enforcement on Beach Drive ensued . Asst. Cit !~ Attorney Lee stated that a meeting 1Nas sct1eduled V·tith tt1e City ~1ana~Jer to vvork on details of enforcement, and there was no problem with enforcing the illegal rental parking. MOTION b!-1 Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Rue-to adjourn 'at 1 i:05 PJ-l No objection_: So ordered . CERTIFICATION I hereby certlf!d that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record or the action taken by the Pl anni n!J Comrni ssi on of Hermosa Beacr1 at the regularly scheduled rneet i ng of April 16, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairman • ~ ~::J > f 9 ~ I Date 27 /' ) //7;#:{#P i--_ t1ichael ScJ1ubacr1_. Secretary P.C. Minutes 4il6/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 2, 1991, AT 7:00 P_M_ IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting ca1led to order at 7:01 P.M.. by Chmn. Ketz Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue . ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks* Also Present: Michael Schubach_. Planning Director_; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Naoma Valdes, Recording Secretary *Comm. Marks arrived at 7:05 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the following consent ca 1 endar items as submitted: Planning Commission minutes of March 19, 1991; Resolution P.C. 91-13. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERt'llT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE GENERAL LIQUOR, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DELI AND MINl-11ARKET, AN.D ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONr·-1ENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "DAN'S LIQUOR". LEGALLV DESCRIBED AS LOT TWO, AND LOT FOUR, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. Resolution P.C. 91-20. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO WITH ONE-ON-ONE TRAINING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AT 131 PIER AVENUE AND LEGALL V DESCRIBED AS LOJ" 22, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT . AVES : Comms. Di Monda, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Marks P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one eppeared to address the Commission CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6 22305 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 91 B 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 19, 1991) CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6 22034 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 930 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 19, 1991) Chmn. Ketz noted that the two above projects wou1d be heard together. Director Schubach gave the staff report, dated March 25, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission again continue this request, to direct the applicant to consider revisions in order to teke advantage of the fact that they have control of contiguous lots. he noted that the Commission had continued this hearing at the request of the applicant so that the design could be revised to take advantage of the applicable 30 foot height limit. Di rector Schubach continued that the revisions submitted essent i a 11 y maintain the original design, the only change was that the upper (930 15th Street) project had been raised to the 30 foot height limit, whiJe the lm•ver, front unit had been kept at 25 feet to improve the views and give more of a staggered effect. Director Schubach said that the use of the shared driveway was not as _critical, since parking was not allowed on that side .of 15th Street .. but the shared driveway was still considered to be more desirable, and, more efficient use of the land would allow more open space, access, and parking. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz David Olin, 1233 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, designer of the project, addressed the Commission and passed a new rendering and view corridor study of the project to the Commission to show changes that had been made. He stated that both he and the owner of the project preferred two 2-una projects as opposed to a 4-unit construction as they considered H more desirable from a rnar~(eting standpoint. He felt a comparison to units cited on Prospect was not va 1 i ct as that was a 1 eve 1 1 ot and the crossf a 11 on this 1 ot was too severe to allow a wider shared driveway to move well across Hie property. 2 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Mr. Olin continued that in order to maximize the view he had narrowed the front building to create a new view corridor, that a line across at a 45 degree angle showed the clear area, and, this created an open effect on both buildings and also with the house to the east of the project. He said that the narrower front building created side yard setbacks of eleven feet as opposed to the required five feet which a11owed more light to the property to the east. Comm. Di Monda questioned the designer on the use of identical plans for the t'vvo separate projects and expressed his concern that more interest could be created on the street if different designs, or at least a central court concept, were used . Mr. 01 in responded that it was the deve 1 oper's desire to have a unified design, and that a central court would span the garages and would be over concrete not over real dirt. Comm. Peirce stated that one of the ideals, when the Condominium Ordinance was written, was to have more lots assembled; by creating larger parcels with a greater number of units more amenities could be included for the owners_: and, two side by side 2-unit projects did not take advantage of the amenities that a larger project could provide. Mr. Olin answered that it was the developer's desire to make smalJer projects as there would be only one other owner in the complex to deal with, thus making it more desirable to a potential buyer, but, in response to Comm. Peirce's request for factual data, stated that he had none. In response to Comm Rue·s request for more specific descriptions of the materials to be used, Mr. Olin listed: tile for the roof decks; skylights in light shafts going a11 the way down to the basement garages.: pipe railing on the balconies; solar tinted glass; stucco elements with accent color wrapping over the top of the roof decks; af"!d, glass blocks used on the stai n-ve 11, entry and other areas. Donald McDougal, 940 15th Street, neighbor, addressed the Commission ancr stated that the survey marker for the project centered on his water meter. He was concerned that the footing for the wall would be on or beyond his property line and could cause damage to his water pipes. He stated that the new project would completely block his view and that the machinery used in c 1 earing the 1 ot had cracked the si dew a 1 k and damaged his shrubbery. He asked for cooperation from the builders with the project. Comm. Marks suggested that Mr. r-1cDouga 1 send a 1 et ter to the architect and the contractor advising them of his concerns regarding the position of his water line. 3 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Responding to a question from Chmn . Ketz, Director Schubach suggested that Mr. McDougal contact the Hermosa Beach Building Department regarding the damage to the sidewalk and other areas, and stated that the footing should be five feet from the property line. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that single family homes are the most desirable residences, and if the homeowner could not afford a single family residence the next choice would be a tvv·o unit condominium as there would be only one other owner. She further stated that staff had never told Mr. Olin of the Ctty·s desire to consolidate lots when he originally started his plans, and that cross access easements in the legal documents of two Condominium Associations could cause legal problems. She suggested that different colors be used on the two projects. The developer_. David Olin, stated that the five foot setback that was to be used applied to only 30% of the property line, the additional 70% would be at eleven feet. Public Hearing continued at 7:36 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm . Rue, to approve the staff recommendation and continue the items to the meeting date of May 7, 1991. Comm. Peirce spoke to the motion by saying that he felt that this was one last attempt to have the developers modify their project to address the concerns raised b!J staff. He then asked if the developers agreement ¥lould be needed to continue the items. Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that it was within the Commission's discretion to choose to continue as there was no legal requirement to decide the matter tonight since the Commission was well within the time restra-ints . Chmn. Ketz responded to Comm. Marks question of the 16 f oat front setback by explaining that a 17 foot setback was only required for garages, the normal setback for front yards was 5 foot, hov-tever the average for thl s street was 16 feet. • AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Comms . Di Monda , Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 90 -22 --CONDIT I ONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6 2 2560 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMIN I UM CONVERSION AT 544 AND 546 25TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM T HE FEBRUARY 19 AND MARCH 19, 1991 ME ET I NGS) 4 P.C . Minutes 4/02/91 Director Schubach gave the staff report dated March 28, 1991 and recommended continuance to the meeting of May 7, 1991, to resolve the issue of the appropriate mechanism for ensuring the completion of the proposed remodel of the front unit. At the meeting of March 19, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this request due to the need to remodel the front unit to meet the requirements of the conversion ordinance. The app1icant indicated that the staff proposed condition, that the remodeling be completed prior to approval of the final map, was not acceptable because financing could not be obtained until the final map is approved because of the way the ownership is recorded. The Commission continued the item for staff and the applicant to research other options, such as bonding the improvements to ensure their completion _, or perhaps returning to a partnership form of ownership so that financinQ could be obtained . The Commission also directed the applicant to provide more detailed plans depicting the architectural features of the project. Director Schubach indicated that the City was still researching acceptable methods of ensuring completion and asked Asst. City Attorney Lee to give more details of the methods under consideration . Asst. City Attorney Lee explained that it is difficult to require a performance bond for on-site improvements lf the City is not the beneficiary. Tv·rn possible alternatives, he continued, were: first, evidence of a completion bond to a lender which would require, in the event of foreclosure, the City would receive notice and have the assurance that either the lender or any successor in interest or assign of the developer would be obligated to fulfill the conditions in order to retain the effectiveness of the final map; or, second, a covenant to be recorded against the property, executed by the developer, that would run yVfth the land to provide that the improvements were to be performed in order to receive the final building permit. He also stated that it was unusual for a lender to require a final map. Comm. Rue asked if the City could withdraw a final map. Mr. Lee assured· him that the City has this right, as it has the opportunity of inserting a "condition subsequent" that would have to be complied with, tt·1at as security for the City, the condition of the final map ·would not be subordinate to the 1 ender's 1 oan . 5 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Comm. Rue inquired as to the iength of time that the project could continue without a final building permit since it is a remodel and occupancy can be maintained during the construction. Director Schubach responded that the time is indefinite, and this is one of the problems the City faces. Comm. Marks asked about a Certificate of Occupancy as a condition of the completion of the project. Comm. Rue responded that a Certificate of Occupancy could only be issued for new construction and this was a remodel. Public Hearing was opened at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he and his wife were partners in the project wah Richard Melograno, a friend of over thirty years. He stated that three years ago he had entered into a contract as joint tenants in common on the property, but only Mr. Melograno·s name appeared on the title. At the present time, he can not borrow money to finance the project, since his name is not on the title. The suggestion that a new partnership be formed is unacceptable to him due to the expense of securing a new loan witt·, his name on title, then refinancing again as soon as the conversion is approved. Mr. Hobbs further stated that he and Mr. Me 1 ograno were wi 11 i ng to pro vi de any documents the City needed to assure that he was in fact an owner. He would also be willing to pull his approved plans from The Building Department to show that he was willing to start the remodel. And, he was prepared to bond and name the City as beneflcia.ry, having been assured by bonding companies that a was a common practice, and could probably be done within two weeks Comm. Rue noted that in the photos of the project the roof pitch was dissimilar. Mr. Hobbs stated that the new roof would be si mi 1 ar to the roof on the back unit when the remode1 was completed. Public Hearing continued at 7:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz MOTION by Comm. Rue, second by Comm. Di Monda to continue this item to the meeting of April 16, 1991, in order to a11ovv U1e City and the applicant to reach an acceptable agreement. 6 P.C . Minutes 4/02/91 AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: comms. D1 Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None - CON 91-3/PDP 91-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP '22892 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1639 PROSPECT AVENUE_ Director Schubach presented the staff report dated March 25, 1991, and recommended that the Phmning Commission approve the conditional use permit, precise development plan, and Vesting Tentative Map *228892 subject to the conditions as contained in the attached Resolution of Approva1. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Prospect Avenue. It is an irregular shaped lot with a slight grade from east to west and currently contains a single family house. The proposed project consists of two detached dwelling units containing 2352 and 2352 square feet respectively. Each unit is two stories above a semi-subterranean garage and contains 3 bedrooms, 3 1 /2 bathrooms, and a roof deck. The lot coverage is 55%, well below the maximum of 65%, height is at the 30 foot limit, adequate setbacks are provided, and the project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. The Public Works Department was consulted regarding the proposed curb cuts and is satisfied ·v·v•i th the design. The only concern of staff is that the project \'\1 ould require the removal of two mature trees of respective 33" and 12" trunk diameter. Staff recommends that comparable mature trees (36" box) be provided elsewhere on the site, and to show this on the landscape p 1 an. Public Hearing opened at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach,representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the developer, Jerry Olguin, was proposing two detached homes on the lot in order to maximize the openness at the corner. The project met all City requirements and that he agreed to provide the two mature trees as requested. Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. 7 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 MOTION by Comm. Pierce, seconded by Comm. Rue to approve the staff recommendation, and Reso1ution P.C . 91-23 with the condition that two mature, specimen trees in 36u box be p1anted on the site. AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Counci1 \'\1ithin ten days. CUP 91-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENT ON APRIL 14, 1991, FROM 3:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. AND CONTINUING ONCE A VEAR THEREAFTER IN THE COURTYARD AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE, CALIFORNIA BEACH REST AURA NT. Director Schubach presented the staff report dated March 25, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment subject to the conditions contained in the proposed resolution. A C.U.P. was granted for a restaurant .,..vith beer and wine in 1978, amended to add square footage in 1984, and amended again in 1985 to add conditions in response to neighbor's concerns about noise and poorly maintained trash receptacles. The outdoor courtyard has never been authorized for seating or service of beer and wine. The restaurant, and other businesses sharing the shopping center, is nonconforming to current parking requirements. The requested C.U.P. would authorize a one-day event, on an annual basis, with the first event scheduled for Sunday, April 14, 1991, from 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.f1. The applicant indicates that this is a party to celebrate their 1 O year anniversary. Proceeds from the party will be donated to a charitable cause in the City of Hermosa Beach. This year the restaurant hoped to raise $10,000 to donate to the Police Department for the purchase of body armor for the Police officers. Although off-street parking is not available to support the number of people expected, staff believes that given the time of day and year, (and the fact that the other businesses in the center, with two exceptions_. will not be open) that the surrounding public parking areas would not be severe1y impacted by this one-time event. In regard to continuing this event on an annual basis, staff is including a condition that the event be held during the same time of day and year (before 7:00 P.M. on a Sunday 8 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 afternoon in April) , and tt1at prior to scheduling, that the Po 11 ce and Fi re Departments be notified at least two weeks in advance and that the Planning Department be notified in writing of the event and what charitable cause would be the beneficiary. Comm . Rue queshoned if anyone had been to the restaurant to check on compliance and ensure that there were no problems , and was assured that staff had reviewed the area and would have noted any non-compliance or problems in the report. Comm. Peirce commented on item #2 regarding maximum occupancy and noted that the main seating inside the restaurant was listed at 76 and the patio at 32 and questioned if this would a11ow enough extra seating. Director Schubach explained that the patio was not the area they were requesting, but the courtyard area outside the front door. Public Hearing opened at 8: 1 O by Chmn. Ketz . Scott Rosenberg, 1734 Pacific Coast Hwy., Hermosa Beach, Marketing Director for Miyama Corp., D.B.A. California Beach Restaurant, addressed the Commission and stated that the staff report had overlooked another level of seating. He explained that the main seating area seats 76, the patio/bar area 32, both on the upper level, and that there was an additional e1rea on the lower level that seats approximately 30 people. Director Schubach agreed the1t the lower area had been overlooked and would be included in the final resolution so the1t it would be posted for maximum occupancy. Public Hearing closed at B: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm Rue, to approve the staff recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-24, with the the fallowing additions: 1) the lower seating area was to be noted and posted_. and 2) the approval was for this year only on a trial basis. If the City considered it a nuisance it wi 11 be reconsidered; if there was .. no evidence of compJaints or conditions that caused a public disruption, the event could be continued. Asst. City Attorney Lee asked that disruption be clarified. Comm. Peirce responded that he considered complaints of residents of excessive noise, too many people, or difficulty in dispersing the crowd to be disruption. AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce_. Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Com mission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 9 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 CON 89-6 --CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP •2oa22 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT, 18 AND 20 MEYER COURT (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 19, 1991 MEETING). Di rector Schubach presented the staff report dated March 13, 1991, and recommended denial of the proposed conversion by adoption of proposed resolution because the existing three dwelling units are not consistent with the density lfmitations of the General Plan designation for the subject site and do not comply with current zoning requirements in regards to density, height, open space and front setbacks. The project 1 ot size is 5281 square feel and contains two attached uni ts of 1794 and 1896 square feet respectively, both with access from Meyer Court, and a separate detached unit of 2233 square feet with access from Barney Court. Six enclosed parking spaces are provided in three two car garages (one is a tandem garage), and four guest parking spaces are located in the setback behind the garages. The three units were constructed as one development in 1987. This was prior to the City's efforts to bring the area into consistency with the General Plan and zoning. At the time of issuance of building permits the zoning was R-2 and the General Plan was Low Density Resident i a J. Subsequently_. after public hearings to resolve the zoning and General Plan inconsistencies before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the area bounded by Barney Court and Meyer Court (known as Area 10) was ultimately rezoned and the General Plan amended to Specific Plan Area No. 2. As a result the S.P.A. now serves as both the zoning and General Plan designations and the allowed density under the S.P.A . allows a maximum of two units on the subject property. The zoning code require that condominium conversions conform to the current city codes, for which the S.P.A. has a density limit of two detached units per lot, a 25 foot height limit, and open space and setbacks consistent with R-1 zoning. This project of three units, two of which are attached, are constructed to the then app1icable R-2 standards in terms of height, open space, and setbacks. As such, the project is non-conforming in all essential elements of the zoning requirements, which is adequate grounds for denial. However, with a finding that the subject buildings are already in existence and, in terms of the effect on the community, that the conversion of these units to owner occupied housing would be a benefit, it is possible that the Planning Commission may find grounds for approval, as owner occupancy is one of the state1j goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan. 10 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 In sum, tr,e existing structure proposed to be converted is severely deficient in meeting current reQuirements of the zoning ordinance and is inconsistent with the General Plan. Staff be 1i eves that the severity of the i nconsi stenci es \•varrant deni a 1, even though staff genera 11 y supports the concept that conversions to home ownership can benefit a neighborhood in that owner occupants are usually more concerned about long term care, maintenance and stability of the property. Public Hearing opened at 8:22 P.t-1. by Chmn. Ketz. Dennis Cleland, 434 28th Street, Hermosa Beach, app11cant, addressed the Commission and explained that this was an existing 3-unit apartment complex that was built to condominium standards and it was his belief that it would be a benefit to the City and the community if it \-Vere allowed to be converted to town house ownership. He also mentioned that part of the code a11ows a contribution from the owner for the possible approval of a conversion; that he had spoken to members of staff and had offered to contribute equipment or cash to the Senior Citizens if this wou1 d be a consideration. Comm. Di Monda questioned why he had not applied for condominiums from the start. Mr. Cleland replied that at the time the project was started, thirteen years ago, the City was starting to rezone and there was consideration of a moratorium on new construction, so it was f e1t that it would be better to apply for apartments, build them, and then apply for conversion, since it was felt that the area would be zoned R-2, medium density. And, that the Planning Commission had recommended medium density for the area but had been turned down by the City Counci 1. Mr. Cleland agreed with Comm. Marks that in essence he had taken a gamble and had lost on the ultimate zoning, but at the time, in R-2 zones, if the lot ¥tas large enough, three units could be built. He further stated that the project was designed to blend in with the neighborhood; the detached unit was nearest the single family homes and was only 25 feel in height and the two attached units were next to the R-3 apartment~. Mike Meyers, 1104 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and disputed some of the statements made by Mr. Cleland, he stated that at the time the owner was turned down for condominiums, but the City had to allow apartments. He then asked for clarification from Director Schubach v·tho said that tMs 'Nas basically correct. There was case law that the City had to allow apartments as long as they conformed to existing zoning and were ministerial (required only a building permit to go ahead), but condominiums were discretionary and required a C.U.P. so therefore could be denied. Mr. Me!Jers continued that he felt the con11ersion should be denied; the project did not meet any of the existing standards and you don't reward someone who would have only been allowed to build two units if he had originally gone for condominiums, but had built as much as he could as apartments and now asks for a conversion. 1 1 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 ' In response to Comm. Rue·s question of whether home ownership promoted a better neighborhood, Mr. Meyers replied that he would rather have apartments so that a precedent would not be set. Jerry Burdick, 1106 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and expressed his concern that it appeared that Mr. Cleland was offering a bribe in order to have his conversion approved. He stated that he was against conversion approval and fell it would be a giant step backward for the community. Jim Moss, 472 36th Place, Manhattan Beach, investor, addressed the Commission and stated that he had invested in the project in order to own a condominium and become a resident of Hermosa Beach . He fell conversion would enhance the neighborhood by allowing home ownership rather than renters. Steve Harris, 23 Barney Court, Hermosa Beach, investor, addressed the Commission and said although he was not involved in the initial phase of the project, it was hls understanding the original request was for condominiums, but that had been rejected. He said that at the time of building the project the neighbors had stopped by and had complimented them on how attractive the new buildings were, and expressed pleasure that the old bullding was being replaced. He further stated that at the time of building, the project was not out of conformHy with the zoning, he and hls partners had agreed to the ne•yv' zoning that now made the project non-conforming. Comm. Di Monda asked who the architect was. Mr. Cleland replied that Patcowen was the original architect of record, but had moved out of town and Jerry Compton was local and had taken over for him . Ruth Brand, 1231 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and dee la red her opposition to the conversion on Qrounds that it contravened the intent and purpose of City Council Ordinance No. 90-1044_i-City Council Resolution No. 90-5398·; and with three owners it could, at some time, open tt1e City for possible litigation. She further stated that the structure ·v·v·as over the 30 foot height limit; that Barney was a one-vvay street; and regarding the in-lieu fees, the monies could be better used to make the structure more compatible with the neighborhood, zoning, and S.P.A. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stressed her opposition to condominiums in a residential area, she stated that in apartments a disruptive tenant could be forced to move but a disruptive 01;vner ,.-...·as there forever. She continued the she was incensed that a staff member or a City Attorney would suggest that a contribution could be made in exchange for a conversion . 12 P .C. Minutes 4/02/91 Comm. Rue asked if Mrs. Elurt knew of in-lieu fees for parking and Senior Citizen housing? She replied that she did but did not approve of them. Asst. City Attorney Lee explained that the in-lieu fees were specifically provided within the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and not a suggestion on any City official's part that would characterize this es a bribe. That it is e section within the City code that allows for conditional approval and considers in-lieu as an off setting factor to approving a project where the Commission, in its discretion, would find otherwise unique advantages and benefits to the community and provides that such offsetting factors would include, but not be 1i mited to, the addition to the City or the donation to the City, or other pub 1 i c agency or non-profit, of funds for permanent use of Senior Citizen, handicapped, or low and moderate income persons; something that would go into a fund or account of the City to provide housing for people in a category that require it. The in-lieu is allowed as an offsetting factor. Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan avenue, Hermosa Beach_. addressed the Commission to ask if there was a schedule for the in-lieu fees . Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that there was no schedule, the City code said that the number of said donated units or the amount of in-lieu ·v-rnuld be established by Resolution of City Council consistent with the policies of the Hermosa Beach General Plan. Director Schubach explained that the State had laws requiring all cities to provide a certain amount of low and moderate income housing and in-lieu is one of the means by which the state allows this to be done. If a condominium conversion displaces lm·v and moderate income uses, the City can require, as a condition of the conversion, that some units be set aside for low and moderate sale and rental. This was done when the Commodore was converted, the in-lieu was required at that time as a means to off set the soci a 1 i rnpact of the conversion. -Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that i n-1 i eu was a prov1 s1 on of the code that the Commission may look at as a relevant factor, to be regarded or not, at the discretion of the Commission and in this case it has been offered by the developer as · a potential offsetting factor. However, the payment of in-lieu, in no way, entitles the developer to a higher density than that allowed by law. Mr. Cleland finalized by saying that he was the one who had read of the in-Jieu fees and sugge_sted their app Ji cation to staff, in order to off er somethl ng to the City beside town homes. The reality is that there are three apartments on the site at this time, conversion will not increase density or parking, and the City will have the benefit of a higher tax base and the new ovvners will have the benefit of home ovmershlp rather than renting, 13 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Public Hearing closed at 9:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Pierce questioned tandem parking in an R-2 zone and asked if Barney and Meyer Courts wou1d be considered a11eys or streets. Director Schubach responded they were streets but he believed the parking was adequate. Comm. Rue fe1t the project had been built to condominium specifications, the project was on the ·1ow end of R-2 zoning at 16 dwe1lings per acre whereas R-1 a1lowed 13 dwellings per acre, that it fell in the buffer area of commercial at the bottom on Pacific coast Highway and R-1 at the top of the hi 11, and f i na 11 y it was a unique project that would not set a precedent. PROPOSED MOTION by Comm. Rue for approval of the C.U.P . and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 for a 3-unit condominium conversion died for lack of a second. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, second by Comm. Di Monda to deny a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 for a 3-unit condominium conversion and approve Resolution P.C. 91-21. AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Rue None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. The meeting recessed at 9:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:29 P.M. CUP 91-1 --CON_OITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF- SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.H_c __ AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, BOCCATffS GROCERIES (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5, 1991 MEETING)_ Director Schubach presented the staff report dated February 26, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions contained in the proposed Resolution. At the meeting of March 5, 1991 .. the applicant requested continuance of this item to have more time for his attorney to study the issue. He also as~(ed that the portion of tt1e 14 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 request pertaining to the sale of adult videos De dropped as he does not.. intend to sell them. The Planning Commission granted the request for continuance and directed staff and the applicant to take a closer look at at the proposed trash enclosure requirement to determine if it would cause the loss of a parking space. The parking stalls are all 7' 6'' by 1 s· and the trash dumpster extends about four feet from the wall, leaving only 2-3"' between the dumpster and the closest stall. Therefor, it appears that a concrete block wall would not be practical as it would cause the loss of a parking space; the only possible type of fence would be a narrow fence such as a chain link with wooden slats, with the gate opening facing the sidev·n~lk. Staff continues to recommend that the dumpster be enclosed as required by the Municipal Code. All references to adult videos have been removed in the proposed Resolution as the applicant has indicated he does not plan to sell such items. Further, due to concerns of the applicant, staff has altered the wording of many of the recommended conditions and removed some unnecessary conditions. Public Hearing was opened at 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Phll Freeland, 315 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills_. representing the applicant, addressed the commission and presented a petition containing 82 signatures, all in favor of Boccato·s Market, and that they were filing for this C.U.P. under protest.. ..... . Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and, speaking as a resident of North Hermosa, expressed his appreciation for the services that were offered by Boccato·s Market: convenience; neighborhood store; cleanliness; 22 years of service; and a delivery service to shut-ins. He continued that Mr. Boccato should not ha Ye to apply for a C.U.P. after 22 years as a conscientious businessman since there were no complaints about his store. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to spealc in favor of Boccato·s Market and Mr. Boccato, and to speak against the requirement forcing him to apply for a C.U.P. She also questioned why the reference to adult videos V'tas on the agenda, and felt that it gave the wrong impression. Chmn. Ketz explaine,j that adult videos had been removed from the Reso 1 ut ion_. but it had been used in the 1 ega 1 noticing, and the agenda uses the wording from the legal noticing. Dennis Cleland, 434 -28th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to speak in favor of Boccato·s Market and asked that nothing be done by the Commission that would force Mr. Boccato out of business. 15 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Mr. Freeiand made his summary and comments on the sixteen ( 16) conditions in the proposed Resolution: # 1) was now de 1 eted; #2) the hours of operation from 6 to 2 \'\1 ere acceptable as those were the hours on the existing A.B.C . license; #3) the conditions on the trash enclosure were unacceptable as (a) it physi ca 11 y would not work as there is on 1 y 5" bet ween the dumpster and the parking stall, barely enough room to open a car door, any infringement on that space would eliminate the parking stall, and, (b) it would be ugly and provide no improvement to the existing situation; and, should it become necessary, they intend to apply for a variance in order to maintain the existing parking; #4) would be acceptable as long as the issue is resolved regarding the parking space; #5) is a problem in acceptance since there has never been a problem with customers at tt1is grocery store_. this type of condition applies to a bar where the customers are drinking on the premises; #6) is not acceptable because the signage is not required by the A.B.C. or the existing A.B.C. 1icense; it would be cumbersome, impact on limited display space, and obtrusive in the conduct of business; #7) is unreasonab 1 e considering the continued number, content, comp 1 exi ty, and scope of the impact of the condition being recommended; and, it infringes on Mr. Bocatto·s personnel practices and has no impact on the proper operation of the business; #8) is unacceptable, as tt1e phrase, " ... any changes to the interior for the purpose of alter-ing the primary use of the market...", is ambiguous; it does not define what t1r. Boccato can or cannot do in regard to interior remodeling vdthout City approval; does it mean that the building can not be used for anything other than a mari~et without prior approval through the C.U.P. process?; there are a number of legal use for the building other than a market allowed in the C-1 zone that do not require a C.U .P. or City approva 1. We ask that it be removed because of ambiguity; #9) is overly broad and arbitrary and gives the City unfettered discretion and unconstitutional authority to cite or revoke the C.U.P.; violations of the zoning or Muni ci pa 1 code have definite pen a 1t i es attached if the person or business is proven guilty; revocation of the C.U.P. must be based on reasonable grounds, not just any violation; the condition is totally arbitrary and by agreeing to it (which is what is required by this C.U.P.), Mr. Boccato is giving up basic Constitutionfll rights; # 10) is redundant and the ref or unnecessary; # 11) there is no problem complying with this condition as Boccato's Market has always prided itself on cleanliness; # 12) is pre-empted by State law; is not a requirement of the A.B.C. license; is discriminatory; how a business packages any item should be a choice of the business; has not been a problem therefor there is no justification for its requirement; 16 P.C. Minutes 4/02i91 -# 13) ts unacceptatlle, unless there ts agreement tly Mr. Bocatto tt1at tt1e conditions are acceptatlle prior to the action to approve the C.U .P., if the conditions are not accepted the C.U.P. cannot be approved; # 14) object to recording an approved C.U .P., should that occur with conditions agreed to by the applicant as that clouds the title to the land and creates a cumbersome problem should the law change or be modified in the future; it puts unnecessary and unreasonab 1 e burdens on the property owner; #' 15) it is arbitrary and unreasonable that the Planning Com mission may amend the P .U.C. or add nevv" condi t 1 ons to it; would not agree to such actions wi tt10ut a public hearing and without agreement to such conditions or amendments; agreement with this condition implies acceptance without any input, and as such is unacceptable; and, # 16) as this may be challenged in court, they would not egree to severnbi 1 i ty. Mr. Freeland continued that they v1ere not applying for the C.U.P., but were being forced to apply and strongly opposed the Commission's approval. In response to Comm . Rue·s question of the possibility of smaller trash containers, Mr. Freeland replied that there were hvo bins there at the present time and were used to capacity, a 1 so, that there was no way to open the binds from the ends, they open from the top . .: In response to Comm . Marks question regarding space from parking stall, Mr. Freeland replied U1at there was 5 inch clearance from the parking stall and the bin was approximately 5 feet wide. Comm. Peirce asked Mr. Freeland if Mr. Boccato intended to fight the condition requiring the trash dumpster to be enclosed. Mr. Freeland responded that he would not say that; he could only say that ft is impossible to enc 1 ose the dumpster due to space restrictions, but Mr. Boccato \-voul d work with the City staff to try to find a solution as long as it did not require losing a parking space . Public Hearing closed at 9:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . Comm. Rue rep 1 i ed to the concerns expressed by Mr. Free 1 and regarding the conditions to be imposed, he felt that #3, trash enclosure, \'\1 as a question of parking versus enclosure and tl)at a compromise could be reached. He did not want Mr. Bocatto to lose a par-king space, but he felt that a was the City's right to improve appearances from the street. Regarding #5, he said that there was a proliferation of alcol1ol related businesses in town and that to be even-handed the City reQuired C.U.P.s, w hich run vvith the land and reQuire a new ovvner to abide with the conditions and provide continuity. 17 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 The signs relating to alcohol are needed to try to keep alcohol use off of the beach and the streets, Comm. Rue continued. If the use of the bullding is changed then the C.U.P. is brought up and must be changed, and that vv"as the rational for the condHions on change of floor plans. The City sign laws must be complied with, he stated, and clear packaging on single containers was a means to address the problem of the pro Hf emf.ion of alcohol use and a larger concern than the store's right to package as it chose. And, finally, regarding recording the C.U.P., it runs with the land and as such is applicable, that all amendments and revocation procedures were public hearings, were legally noticed, and needed substantial findings. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce to approve C.U.P. 91-1, with the following chtmges: condition No. 1 is deleted; and condition No. 5 should be agreed to by staff and the applicant with the understanding that it is the Commission's intent to remove the vi si bi 1 i ty of the trash container from the street. AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-37/PA RK 90-9/PDP 90-10 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING PLAN AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO HODY SHOP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1081-85-87 AVIATION BOULEVARD, EUROPEAN BODY SHOP (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 19, 1991 MEETING)_ Director Schubach presented tt1e staff report dated March 28, 1991, anq recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed C.U.P., P.D.P., and Parking Plan, subject to conditions, including limiting the number of service bays to four (4) by adopting the proposed Resolution. • Since the last public hearing, the applicant has met with staff to discuss what information was needed. Staff advised the applicant to obtain detailed specifications on the spray booth ventilation and filtration system to be used; the overall building ventilation and filtration system; and, to contact the Air Quality l'"lanagement District (AQMD) to ensure compliance with all current standards. Letters have been received from a spray booth company and the applicant's engineer which provide specifications and details to show a spray booth and building ventilation system will be installed and state that these meet or exceed the requirements of the 18 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 AQMD. Further tt is noted that the ]imitations, contained in ruJe 1151, limit the types of paints to those Jow nonvolatiJe organic compounds (V0C) which is stated to have no odor impact. Staff has contacted the AQMD engineer who worked with the appJicant's engineer and verified that the proposed specifications appear to be more than adequate to meet their requirements. Final verification can be provided to the City when the AQMD issues a permit. Staff is recommending a condition that such verification be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Further, staff is incorporating all the recommendations contained in the letter as conditions of approval. While the information provided shows a sincere effort on the part of the applicant to meet or exceed all the standards of the AQt1D in terms of ventilation and the spray booth, the Commission may not be fully satisfied that these standards are necessarily appropriate in this case given the proximity of residential areas since AQMD standards are the same whether or not the surrounding land uses include residences. The complete enclosure within a bu11ding, however, is not always a requirement. Responding to questions from Chmn. Ketz concerning the number of parking spaces, Director Schubach said that all of the service bays inside would be counted as parking spaces; that this business was not like the normal retail business where a customer drove in, parked, made a purchase, and drove off; in a body shop the car was normally handled by an employee and could, therefor, be parked inside while w•aiting for repair. Public Hearing opened at 10:17 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz Jim Marquez, 1860 So. Elena, Redondo Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and said that at the 1 ast meeting they had been requested to return with specific statistical data regarding the adequacy of the ventilation and filtration of the spray booths and of the shop interior. In the interim, the!-1 had engaged a registered ~ , mechanical engineer, who speciaJized in ventilating and emission control, and_, had met with representatives of the AQt1D, who stated that the spray booths to be provided for the body shop met or exceeded their mini mum requirements. Paul Phillips, 702 Strand, Hermosa Beach, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that originaJly they had proposed a sm1:1ller building, but fitter meeting with staff, had enlarged the concept to ensure that all work was done inside. There would be two employees and the owner working in the shop. Abi Nabipur, of Cal Engineering, 1109 Towne Avenue, Los Angeles, representing U-1e applicant, addressed the commission and stated that the painting v1as to be confined within an approved spray paint booth, ·1,1~1ich is a self-contained e~<haust system capable 19 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 of removing all airborne paint through its filters. He explained that the odor was caused by the paint and when the minute paint particles were caught, the odor was removed. In addition, Mr. Nabipur continued, a ventilation system would be installed in the shop with additional filtration to catch exhaust fumes and any solvent. fumes. There would also be warning sensors to determine when the filters needed to be changed, and only environmentally harmless, AQMD approved paint would be used. Responding to questions from Comm. Peirce concerning odors, Mr. Nabipur said that the spray booth and the additional carbon filters would remove all odors. If there was a question as to the effectiveness of the filtration, he stated that the exhaust system could be tested at the discharge point of the building. Mr. Marquez added that the AQMD had an enforcement arm and a 24 hour hotline that encouraged residents to call with complaints. Comm. Rue questioned the solvents used to dry paint as to odor and volatility, as 'tlell as the possibility of an auto owner bringing in a special paint that was not approved by the AQMD. Mr. Nabipur responded that all products used, including primers and solvents had to be approved by the AQMD, and that the new paints could match anything that had been used before. Director Schubach stated the reason a general filtration system was required for the general shop was that small jobs might not be done in paint booths. Responding to Comm. Rue·s question of why there is odor from existing shops_. Mr. Nabipur replied there probably was no regulation when they started and therefor they did not have the advanced filtration systems used today, which have 95% effective filters and are used in hospitals to screen viruses. Edie ~vebber, 1201 El even th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Comrni ssi on and requested that the City regulate the number of auto body shops allowed_. and questioned: 1) 'Nhat are the numbers for existing erni ssi ons? 2) how many body shops meet the criteria set by the AQMD for paints and emissions? 3) how many use high volume/low pressure appHcation systems? 4) how many use closed containers for clothe and paper disposal? 5) how are these Hems disposed? Showing a photograph of the intersection of Aviation Blvd. and Prospect Ave., Mrs. Viebber stated that this intersection \Alas the fourth most dangerous in Hermosa Beach. 20 P .C. Mi nut es 4/02/91 With a volume of 38,800 cars per 24 hour period, there had been eight accldents in the eleven month period from January 1, 1990 to November 30, 1990. The proposed auto body shop would be the fourth in this four block area ( there are three existing shops), and it would be located only 150 feet from this intersection_. Mrs. Y./ebber continued, and asked that the request be denied. Jim Rizzino .. Sixth Street .. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to request denial, and questioned what monitoring was used to ensure compliance as fumes and odor were evident now. Dr. Bernard Winnaker, 1232 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and di sp 1 ayed a photo showing that the proposed body shop would be 100 feet from his home and stated: 1) the quality of his life would be jeopardized by up-wind effluents that could leak from the shop; 2) the 5% of the particles that were not trapped by the filters would cause degradation to the air he had to breathe; and, 3) concerned for health hazards since there was no assurance there would be no contaminants, and urged denial of the project. David Ling, 1130 and 1130 1 /2 Seventeenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he could sme1l paint from Pacific Coast Hwy. He added that another body shop would not support the long term objective stated by the Planning Commission to encourage home ownership in Hermosa Beach, since the pro1if eration of body shops would not bring nev-t residents to the City. In response to Mr. Ling·s question concerning changes to this proposal from European Body Shop as opposed to their previously denied project, Director Schubach responded that there need not be a change; if a certain amount -of time had elapsed, they could reapply; but, this was different in size, equipment, and the scope of operations. Mr. Ling continued, that the City needed to control the proliferation of body shops due to the negative public hea 1th and safety image they created. Wi tt1out compliance from existing shops, it was hard to determine what the impact of another shop would be, tt,eref or he urged a moratorium until compliance is met. Director Schubach responded that there was an Ordinance in effect that vvou1d require a C.U.P .. for the existing shops within two years. That the AQMD did not require the stringent measures that were required by the City for new shops, suct·1 as indoor containment of a1l paint and priming. Currently the AQMD allowed one gal1on of paint to be sprayed outside of the paint booth and that was were most of the priming was done. The Fire Department does check to determine that the paint used by the shops is acceptable to the AQMD. 21 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Maurice Bouday, 1203 Eieventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to display photos of the area, question the information obtained and speak of the problems with existing body shops in the area. Tanya Bouday, 1203 El even th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and questioned: 1) if the properties in the chemical emissions caused cancer? 2) what happened if the sensor ma 1 functioned? 3) how the disposable filters would be disposed? 4) urged denial of the proposal. Comm. Peirce stated theat the Commission could do nothing about the conditions of the existing body shops and suggested that the residents take their complaints to the City Council. Ray Martin, Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and expressed concern in regard to: 1) original plan had parking at nineteen spaces, now it appeared to be only fourteen; 2) the ten foot setback to the residences in the rear did not appear to be adequate; 3) the term "state of the art" was vague; 4) the staff report said the size of the building Vy'as too large for the lot size _: 5) the AQt1D required identification of schools within 1,000 feet of the proposal, the bilingual school on Prospect ·vvas 1/4 mile away; 6) the chemicals in paint may affect the health of the children that live in Urn area on Eleventh Street; 7) the amount of paint that the AQMD allowed to be sprayed outdoors equaled 52 cars painted outside per day from the 13 body shops in Hermosa Beach; 8) other Cities only allow this type of business in light industrial z_ones; and, 9) European Body Shop has been "red tagged" for painting at their current location for a year. Eric Ling, Seventeenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that he has worked in auto paf nt shops and knows that the paf nt contaminates can not be contained totally, the primer is usually applied outdoors, and he opposes the application. Martin Moreno, 1326 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to agree with the other residents in opposition to the proposal, because he feels the City is saturated with auto shops and there should be limits. The property is too small, the street too dangerous, and the site too close to the residential zone. Mr. Moreno added that he favored a moratorium and felt this business should be a in light industrial zone. 22 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Dr. Bernt ce u ndow, 1232 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Com mt sst on to say that the Commission should be concerned with the health, safety, and beauty of Hermosa Beach and this project improved none of these areas . Al Hodges, 1020 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to express the concern that the area was too crowded for another body shop. Paul Phillips spoke in rebuttal by saying that this was not a new shop but the relocation of an existing shop; they had enlarged the building to comply with the staff request to contain all of their work indoors; they were the only ones who were offering a solution to the problem; they had been directed by the City Council to reapply; and they were being judged by the standards of the poorest examples of the body shops. Abi Nabipur repHed that the only 100% filter was a cement block wall; the 95% filter that they were proposing was used in hospitals; cancer studies had not shown a link with paint fumes; and asked to let this project be a model for the other non-compliance shops. Jim Marquez stated that this was not a high volume business, perhaps one or two cars a day; and that no ott1er auto shop has been asked to meet these conditions, which met or exceeded the AQMD standards . The PubHc Hearing was closed at 11 :25 P.M. by Chmn . Ketz . Comm . Rue asked if, at their present location between 5th and 6th Streets on Pacific Coast Hwy., another body shop could come in and use the facility? Director Schubach explained that European Body Shop was currently under the master C.U.P., and as such were in non-compliance as the site was too small and much of the work had to be done outdoors, therefor, it was unlikely that another shop could use the site. Comm. Peirce stated tr1at the applicant had answered the questions raised by the Commission regarding the technical means of suppressing odors from spray painting, and had redesigned the building to be in compliance with the work to be done, for those reasons he supported appro,,al of t~1e project. PROPOSED MOTION by Comm. Peirce to approve Resolution P.C. 90-37 died for lack of a second. MOTION by Comm Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to deny Resolution P.C. 90-37 due to the prolif eratlon of body shops in the area, the potential for fumes, the pro~<imlty to heavy traffic, and concerns regarding parking and the use of work bays for auto storage . 23 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: . Comms. Rue, Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Peirce None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council \>Vithin ten days. Chmn. Ketz stated that due to the lateness of the hour, all items from No. 15 would be suspended to the meeting of April 16, 1991, if there was no objection from the Commission. Hearing no objections, so ordered. When questioned by audience members about the placement of Item No. 15 on the next agenda, Director Schubach answered that there were three public hearings_. so it would be the fourth i tern on the agenda. NR 90-7 --NONCONFORMING REMODEL TO ALLOW GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 349 29TH STREET_ Director Schubach presented the staff report and recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions, by adopting the proposed Resolution. The applicant is proposing a remodel and addiUon to an existing nonconforming duplex and conversion of the duplex to a conforming single dwelling unit. Altt1ough this will make the use conforming in terms of density requirements, the structure would still be a nonconforming structure because the existing garage does not include a third guest parking space, the turning radius is slightly deficient, and the existing building is slight 1 y nonconforming to the rear and front yard requirements. With the parking stall width of 10.75 feet, the turning radius requirement would be 19 feet, however due to the setback of 2.7 feet and substandard alley width of 15 feet the turning area is only 17.7 feet. The nonconforming yard requirements are: rear yard, 2.7 rather than 3 feet; front yard , 4.5 rather than 5 feet; and the side yard is allov-table by being within 10% of the requirement at 2.8 rat~rer than 3 feet. The lot size is 2416 square feet in an R-2 zone with a General Plan designation of medium density. The existing building size is 1398 square feet in two units (900 and 498 sq. ft. respectively); the proposed addition is 1050 square feet (remodel area of 1093 sq. ft.) resu1ting in a house of 2448 square feet, with a proposed increase in valuation of 98.5%. 24 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Although section 13-7(b) 11mHs the amount of expansion for a nonconforming structure to 50%, it also allows the Planning Commission to determine that the goals, and the intent and purpose, of this article are being met, thereby allowing greater than 50% expansion. The applicant has stated that the lot coverage would be reduced to meet the 65% maximum requirement, included as a condition in the proposed Resolution. Other wise, the proposed building conforms to all remaining zoning and planning requirements in terms of garage dimensions for existing structures, open space, and the setbacks for the portion of the building being added. The applicant is proposing to bring the use of the property into conformity with density requirements, and the existing nonconformities are not particularly unusual or severe. In response to a question regarding possible bootleg rental by Comm. Peirce, Director Schubach answered that staff always examines remodels for that potential. Public Hearing opened at 11 :50 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Greg Grinnell, 349 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to explain that the property had been purchased in 1982. The duplex was appealing since the rental income allowed them to move into Hermosa Beach, they were prepared to remodel several years ago, but were prevented by the moratorium and subsequent loss of duplex rental income. They supported the zoning and code changes by the City. Responding to a question on the elevations by Comm. Di Monda, Mr. Grinnell stated that the exteriors were stucco 'Nith 'Nood 'Nindows. Public Hearing was closed at 11 :53 P.M. by Chmn.-Ketz MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, second by Comm. Peirce., to approve Resolution P.C. 91-25. AVES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce referred to the photo of the body shops in the Aviation/ Prospect area and noted that the fence on tt1e souttn•vest corner did not obscure visibility of the wrecked cars from the street. He requested that enforcement of the body shop compliance with 25 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 the code be given a higher priority as that condition had not changed for at ieast eight months . Director Schubach explained that it was a lengthy process, including two noncompliance letters, schedu1ing wHh the CHy Prosecutor's office, and enforcement of complaints by the Building Department. MOTION by Comm . Rue , seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 11:58 P.M. No objection; 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 April 2, 199 t. 0vJ--AO ~ rc=-s 011 -L Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 26 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 5, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Rue• Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney: Sally White, Recording Secretary (*Comm. Rue entered Council Chambers at 7:05 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve as submitted the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of February 19, 1991: Resolution P.C. 90-84, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTDOOR DINING AND THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT 200 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 117, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. There being no objection to approval, so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 91-1/PDP 91-1 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22305 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 918 15TH STREET CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22304 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 930 15TH STREET Chmn. Ketz noted that the two above projects would be heard together. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 5, 1991, and recommended that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 2, 1991. He explained that staff had received a letter from the applicant requesting that the matter be continued. Mr. Schubach further noted that only today staff had gone to the project site and discovered that the on-street parking spaces which were thought to be legal parking are actually posted with "No Parking" signs. Consequently, another parking space is not needed for this project. 1 P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 MINUTES OF 11IE PLANNING COM.MISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 19, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN nIE CITY HALL COUNCll, CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Marks,Rue,Chmn.Ketz Comm. Peirce• Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (*Comm. Peirce entered Council Chambers at 8:08 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR (Tilis item was approved at the end of the meeting so that Comm. Peirce could vote; however, it is included here for clarity.) Several corrections were made to the minutes of February 5, 1991: All roll call votes referring to Comm. Aleks shall be amended to delete his name, since he had previously resigned from the Commission; Page 16, last paragraph, Resolution number should be changed from P.C. 91 • 16 to P .C. 91-18, since there was a duplication in the numbers. A correction was made to Resolution P.C. 91-11, Condition No. 14: "Four paper racks are presently standing on the parkway in front of the business illegally. They filli\U be removed." MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve as amended the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of February 15, 1991; Resolution P.C. 91 ·11, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE GENERAL LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MARKET AND DELI, AND TIIE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 101 HERMOSA AVENUE, MICKEYS DELI, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; Resolution P.C. 91 -12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH. CALIFORNIA, TO DENY AV ARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 1WELVE (12) FOOT GA.RAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN (17} FEET AND FOR A PARALLEL SPACE BEHIND THE GARAGE TO COUNT AS A REQUIRED GUEST PARKING SPACE AT 1010 OWOSSO AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 10, TRACT 5826; Resolution P.C. 91-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH. CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTSIDE DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANTS .AND TO INCLUDE THE SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES APPROVED PURSUANT TO THE C.U.P.S FOR EACH RESTAURANT WITHIN THE HERMOSA PAVILION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A PORTION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH; 1 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 5, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Marks. ROIL CAIL Present: Absent: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz Comms. Aleks, Rue Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney: Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve as submitted the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of January 15, 1991; Resolution P.C. 91-6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, PICASSO'S ITALIAN CAFE, LEASE SPACE LOCATED IN THE NORfHEASTERN PORfION OF THE PAVILION AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORI'ION OF LOT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A PORTION OF Wf 14, BWCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH: Resolution P.C. 91-7, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A GAME ARCADE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEASE SPACE NO 112, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORrION OF WT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A PORfION OF LOT 14, BWCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH: Resolution P.C. 91-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A DAY NURSERY /PRESCHOOL WITH A MAXIMUM OF THIR1Y-FOUR (34) CHILDREN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 44 HERMOSA AVENUE, BEACH SHORES PRESCHOOL, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LITTS 2 AND 3, BWCK 41, FIRST ADDmON TO HERMOSA BEACH: Resolution P.C. 91-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALWW THE SALES OF MOTORCYCLES AND PARTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH MINOR MOTORCYCLE REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, DESCRIBED AS Wf 18 AND PORfION OF Wf 19, WILSON AND LIND'S TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue 1 P.C. Mlnutes 2/5/91 3 n '\ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 15, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROIL CAIL Present: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Absent: None • Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 1991; Resolution P.C. 91-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22666 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PI.AN FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 36 15TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 30, BLOCK 15, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; Resolution P.C. 91 -2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADULT VIDEO AND MAGAZINE SALES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, COAST LIQUORS, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS Lars 1 AND 2, AND WESTERLY 16 FEET OF Wf 3, HURD'S OCEAN VIEW; Resolution P.C. 91-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OFF- STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS' ADDillON TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; Resolution P.C. 91-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDillONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON- SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, #206 AND #207, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A POITTION OF LOT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A POITTION OF Wf 14, BWCK 81, SECOND ADDmON TO HERMOSA BEACH; Resolution P.C. 91-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1559 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE D, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 1, TRACT 9203, AND LOTS 11 -18 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 80, SECOND ADDillON TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; 1 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 2, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Paul Yoshinaga, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the following consent calendar items: Planning Commission minutes of December 4, 1990; Resolution P .C. 90-98, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALWW A GARAGE SETBACK OF 16 FEET RATIIER TI-IAN TIIE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND TO ALLOW TIIE SUBSTANDARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET TO BE COUNTED AS A GUEST PARKING SPACE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1734 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, ANGELA HEIGHT TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-101, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALWW OFF- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITII A CONVENIENCE MARKET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 828 HERMOSA AVENUE, JAY'S MARKET, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS WTS 19 AND 20, TRACT 1564. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Comm. Rue discussed Resolution P .C. 90-103, Condition No. 5, stating that the intention of the Planning Commission was to require landscaping whether or not the newspaper racks are relocated. Chmn. Ketz directed staff to modify the wording in C0ndition No. 5 of Resolution P.C . 90-103 to clarify that landscaping is indeed required whether the newspaper racks are relocated or not. MOTION by Comm. Rue. secorided by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 90- 103, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 2 HERMOSA AVENUE, MARINA LIQUOR. AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BWCK 42, FIRST ADDffiON TO HERMOSA BEACH. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None 1 P .C. Minutes 1/2/91 3 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-25 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HABASH AUI'O DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested conditional use permit, based on insufficient parking for the combination of the proposed auto sales lot and the detailing business. As an alternative, staff recommended approval of a master conditional use permit for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing businesses. At the meeting of December 4, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request for consideration of a master CUP for the property in question and also based on the fact that neither the applicant nor the landowner was present for the hearing. Staff does not feel that the site can support these two distinct businesses because of the lack of customer and employee parking. However, if the Planning Commission is comfortable making a finding, in consideration of the detailing business' proposed use of a service to pick up and deliver all customer vehicles, and that the auto bays should count toward the parking requirement, then adoption of the proposed master CUP resolution would be appropriate. The proposed master resolution incorporates all conditions from the existing CUP for auto sales as well as suggested additional conditions for mitigating the impacts from the proposed auto detailing business. Mr . Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce related to the use of a valet service at this business, explained that even though the City does have a code enforcement officer, strict enforcement of a valet service would be difficult to monitor over a long period of time. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant was sent a notice informing him of the date and time of this hearing. He stated that the applicant has not contacted the Planning Department regarding this matter, and he was unaware of the reason for the applicant's absence. Public Hearing closed at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. ·Rue recalled that the reason this hearing was continued from the last meeting was to allow the applicant and the landowner an opportunity to be present to discuss this matter; however, he noted that they did not appear and he therefore felt denial would be appropriate. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to deny the request to allow the operation of an auto detailing business in conjunction with an existing auto sales business at 825 Pacific Coast Highway, Habash Auto Detailing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None (The applicant arrived later in the meeting, and the public hearing on this item was reopened. See Page 16 of the minutes.) 2 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 CUP 90-23 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS UNTil, DARK AT 200 LONGFELLOW AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 16 AND NOVEMBER 20, 1990) Mr. Schubach stated that as of Thursday. December 27, 1990, staff had not received an affidavit of noticing from the applicant. The applicant was contacted by staff who was told that the letters had been sent out; however, no proof of mailing has been received. He further noted that he saw no one in the audience to speak on this issue. Mr. Schubach suggested, therefore, that this matter be continued. He explainedthat staff has implemented a new policy whereby the proper mailings will now be done by staff, upon payment by the applicant for postage and paper. Comm. Aleks noted concern that this matter will again be continued, and he felt such a practice is a waste of staff's time. Mr. Schubach explained that staff is hoping to avoid these problems in the future, since staff will now be doing the mailings. Public Hearing opened at 7: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 19, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 90-21 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22666, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 36 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 18, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission continue this request to the meeting of February 5, 1991, to require the applicant to re-design the project so that access is provided from the alley only. This project is located in the R -3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3692 square feet. . The existing use is as a single-family dwelling. The proposed density is 23.6 units per acre . Seven parking spaces are provided, and two on- street parking spaces will be lost. 880 square feet of open space will be provided . The environmental determination is categorically exempt. } The subject property is located immediately to the east of parking lot "F" which is part of the Biltmore Site. The lot width tapers from 41 feet at the street frontage to 35 feet along the alley, and it is basically flat. The proposed structure consists of two units containing approximately 2100 square feet each, and each unit has four bedrooms and three and a half baths. These units are three levels and include a roof deck. The side yard areas are proposed to be raised four feet above grade so that the bottom level can qualify as a basement pursuant to the building code. The advantage of qualifying as a basement is that only one exit is required to all levels, rather than the two exits that would be required for a three-story structure. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, pipe railings. glass block, and dark anodized aluminum windows. The design mixes rounded comers with standard square 3 .· P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 corners which will somewhat soften the impact of the bulky structure. The combination of features gives the building a contemporary art deco appearance. Parking is provided in two, two-car garages oriented to both the alley and the street. The proposed street access results in a curb cut that would eliminate two existing on-street metered parking spaces. Three guest spaces are provided in the setback areas behind the garages to provide required guest parking and to replace the two lost on-street spaces. As the Commission is aware, the adopted Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element of the General Plan, implement policy 4.9 states: "Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front on both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on-street curb cuts and preserve available parking." Also, the condominium section of the zoning ordinance, under "Purpose," states that the ordinance is to promote certain standards including: "(d) A layout of structures and other facilities to effect consetvation in street, driveway, curb cut and other public or quasi-public improvements .... " Given these established policies, the Planning Commission clearly has the authority to require alley-only access. In stafrs judgment, it definitely should be required in this case, given that two public parking spaces would be lost. Further, these two spaces are very close to the beach on a street which does not have very much available parking. Also, since it is a flat lot with adequate width, providing parking with access from the alley can be accomplished rather easily and can be done so in a manner that provides as much off-street parking as is being proposed. Recently, the Planning Commission has allowed projects to access from both an alley and a street. However, in those cases an ovezwhelming factor in making that determination was that the alley sides of the lots were at a much higher grade than the street side, thus making it difficult to provide access via a driveway because of the slope involved. Also, in both of those cases the lots were only 30 feet wide. Staff also noted that the project architect was 'notified of these City policies regarding access on December 11, 1990, to give him adequate time to revise plans to meet staffs concerns prior to the scheduled hearing date. The applicant, however, has chosen to take this proposed design to the Commission. The project complies with most other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage calculates to be 65 percent: adequate open space is provided in private decks; and the height is right at the 35-foot limit. However, plans need to indicate the ground-floor storage. Another. staff concern relates to the proposed ground-floor family rooms, which could easily be converted to bootleg units since a bathroom and doozway exit are located at that level. Since the parking lt::vel design needs to be completely changed to bring in access from the alley only, the plans should be revised and returned to the Planning Commission at a later date. I Mr. Schubach stated that, if so desired by the Commission as an alternative, the requested project may be approved by adoption of the proposed resolution of approval, which includes a condition to require that doozway access to the ground-floor bedrooms be eliminated. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained the setback requirements, stating that there must be a 17-foot setback from a street; however, alleys are not required to have the 17-foot setback. Public Hearing opened at 7:23 P.M . by Chmn. Ketz. 4 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 1 Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that when he discussed this project with City staff last summer. no mention was made of the fact that there was a problem with the access for this project: (2) stated that, so far as he is aware, there is no City ordinance in place requiring alley-only access: (3) explained that he has no objection to the alley-only access concept, however, he does object to such a requirement when it is not actually a law: (4) said that he had no idea that such a requirement would be imposed on new projects. and he noted that others will have difficulty in determining what is and what is not required for projects in the City; (5) discussed the parking problems in the City, especially as they relate to parking for small single-lot projects which will ultimately have too much concrete in order to provide for the parking. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) discussed his project, stating that one entire side is landscaped: (2) discussed the lower-level access, stating that he was attempting to provide patio access: (3) said that the parking requirement was placed on this project without his prior knowledge, and he did not feel this was an appropriate condition; (4) felt that if the alley-only access is to be a requirement in the City, public hearings should be held at the Planning Commission and City Council levels, and it should be fully discussed and analyzed. Mr. Compton went on and: (1) stated that he has worked on many other projects that have a single access, and he noted that it is difficult to make tum-arounds on such projects: (2) stressed that the staff-proposed parking would result in a sea of concrete: (3) said that the proposed project will be quite nice, noting that the west side has a ten-foot setback due to the large lot size; (4) felt that the design is quite interesting; (5) commented that the two units have been separated in the middle so that there is a single-family feeling to the units. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) discussed the existing street parking and handed out a parking analysis prepared by his staff; (2) stated that. with a slight modification to the plans, the project could be built with the loss of only one on-street parking space: (3) noted that the project was initially reviewed by staff with no comment made about the alley-only access: (4) noted that staff made no mention of the problem until early December, which did not allow the applicant time to revise the plans: (5) commented that the alley-only access requirement has been implemented without benefit of public hearings, and there is no ordinance currently in place related to .that requirement. • Mr. Compton continued and: ( 1) suggested that there be a zoning code revision if the City decides to implement the alley-only access requirement on projects: (2) stated that he very closely monitors City Council and Planning Commission actions so that he is well informed as to City requirements: (3) said that it is very difficult to work in this City because there are so many requirements: (4) commented that the Circulation Element is very comprehensive and has too many requirements which have not been incorporated into the City codes: (5) discussed how changes are made in this City. and he stated that it is not reasonable to expect people to keep abreast of all the new requirements. Mr. Compton concluded by discussing the on-street parking which will be lost, and he stated he would be willing to accept a condition requiring that no more than one on-street parking space be removed. Public Hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue discussed general plan implementation policies. He stated that he was unaware of how the alley-only access requirement evolved, noting that that requirement is only a policy, not an ordinance. He felt that if such a requirement is to be imposed, it should go through public hearings. Chmn. Ketz pointed out, however, that the general plan amendments were addressed during public hearings, and the plan was adopted . She did not feel it would be appropriate to have every single element of the general plan adopted as ordinances. 5 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Comm. Rue stated that it is difficult for people to begin projects when they are not aware of all the requirements. He felt that a city should not be run by its general plan; rather, the code should be the guiding document. If it is desired to implement general plan items, he felt that l they should be addressed in public hearings first and then adopted as ordinances. Comm. Aleks noted concern that the applicant was unaware of the alley-only access requirement, commenting that the applicant was informed only on December 11 that there was a problem with the parking. He therefore agreed that a public hearing should be held to address the alley-only access requirement. noting that it would be difficult to apply such a requirement in all cases. Comm. Peirce felt that this project should have alley-only access. He continued by discussing the bootleg potential of this particular project, noting that it would be a prime candidate for a bootleg conversion even if the outside door were removed. He noted that the "family room" is quite large, almost 500 square feet, has a full bathroom at that level, and there is a large closet. He stated that he could not support approval of the project, based on its bootleg potential and based on the proposed parking. Comm. Peirce, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that even if the door w ere removed from the lower level, he would still oppose the project, explaining that the interior entryway could be modified, and the area would still be completely self-contained. He could not be convinced that a family room needs a full bathroom, stating that the only reason for a full bath would be the desire to use the room as a bedroom. -Comm. Peirce stated that even if the lower level were modified, he could not support this project, based on the proposed parking. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained the enforcement procedures and penalties for bootleg use. Comm. Aleks noted concern over the potential bootleg use, stating that the possibility could be reduced by requiring the size of the bathroom to be reduced and by requiring the shower to be removed from the bathroom. Public Hearing reopened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Compton explained that the owner will occupy one of the units, and the lower level was designed to accommodate the owner's mother. It was then decided to have the same configuration in the other unit. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission, the bathtubs can be removed from the lower-level bathrooms. Mr. Compton shared the Commissions' concerns related to bootleg conversions in the City, noting that such uses benefit no one. Public Hearing closed at 7:55 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Chmn. Ketz stated that she could not support this project, based on the fact that she strongly favors the alley-only access. She felt that there should be better communications between architects and City staff, and she suggested that mandatory preliminary meetings be held so that staff can let their concerns be known before detailed plans are prepared. Mr. Schubach explained that such meetings are held; however, he suggested that written concerns can be provided to applicants, and copies can be maintained on file by staff. Mr. Compton stated that it is very difficult for people to understand the requirements of the City. 6 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Comm. Rue suggested that written handouts be provided to applicants so that they are fully informed of the requirements. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolution P.C. 91-1, with the following modifications: (1) that the downstairs bathtub be eliminated, and the size of the bathroom be reduced to include only a toilet and sink: and (2) that only one on-street parking space shall be removed, and the applicant shall be required to pay for any realignment of parking spaces. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Rue Comm.Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None None Comm. Rue hoped that as much on-street parking as possible can be retained in the City. Chmn. Ketz agreed and suggested that that item be discussed by the Commission. PARK 90-7 -PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 415 PIER AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested parking plan. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 3239 square feet. The current use is as a one-story medical office. The floor area is 1600 square feet. There are four legal parking spaces. The proposed addition is 1145 square feet, which results in a requirement of 14 parking spaces. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 5, 1989, denied a similar request for a parking plan and variance to allow the second-story addition. On October 10, 1989, the City Council sustained the Planning Commission decision on appeal. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of September 20, 1990, recommended denial of the request and recommended that approval only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepai:ed to address cumulative impacts of any further similar projects. The applicant is requesting to construct a second-story addition to an existing medical office building. Instead of requesting a variance, the applicant has revised the request as a parking plan oajy. The suggestion is that the parking deficiency of ten spaces (14 required versus 4 available) can be justified by the use of a combination of ride sharing, public transit, and the leasing of parking for employees at Plaza Hermosa. The commercial building is currently nonconforming to parking. Four standard-sized parking spaces are available off the alley. Under current requirements for the existing structure, eight spaces would be required. The applicant indicates that as many as ten cars can actually be parked behind the office if parking in tandem, assuming a parking space size of eight feet by fifteen feet. The concerns previously noted by staff and the Planning Commission are still valid: How can the City effectively enforce the ride-sharing/public transit/off-site parking proposal? What happens when the business changes? How can the City legally stop the use of the second story or enforce the ride-sharing program to the new business? What about the precedent that would be set? Can the downtown area support additional building square footage without parking? Will it have a negative impact on other existing businesses that depend on an available supply of parking? 7 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Further, in staffs judgement, this proposal does not fit within the scope of the provisions of Section 1169 pertaining to parking plans for the following reasons: (1) The proposal does not \ address the issue of the impact of additional customer parking. Even if this addition is for l personal office space and storage only, it will free up additional space downstairs and potentially increase the number of customers; (2) The feasibility and continued use of the ride- sharing program is questionable for an employee staff this small; (3) The amount of the requested deficiency is rather severe (four spaces instead of fourteen) and as such, the immediate impact on adjacent businesses could be severe; and (4) the suggestion to use some of the public parking at Plaza Hermosa is not feasible, as that parking was provided for public use as part of the development agreement with the City. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the legal requirement for a compact parking space is seven and a half feet by fifteen and a half feet. Public Hearing opened at 8:06 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has appeared before the Commission previously on this item; (2) stated that the applicant is a pioneer and wishes to propose an alternative; (3) said that the City is not willing to face the severe parking problem; (4) discussed the basic precepts of parking in the City, stating that the parking is for people visiting the City's business areas. Mr. Wood continued and: (1) said that there are ways to solve the parking problems in the City; (2) said that the way to reduce density is to zone more areas commercial; (3) discussed the configuration of the City's commercial areas; (4) noted that most of the lots in the City are very small; (5) explained that the applicant is a very well-known doctor who has many patients from out of state, who do not even drive to the office; rather, they are picked up and driven to the office. Mr. Wood went on and: (1) stated that the applicant needs additional room for record storage; (2) noted that the applicant has no desire to expand his business, and he is willing to sign a document attesting to that fact; (3) commented that the applicant and several of his employees do not drive to work; (4) stated that the applicant is willing to do anything to have this project approved; (5) said that the automobile rules everyone's lives in this day and age; (6) said that the applicant will help the City solve its parking problem. Mr. Wood went on and: (1) asked that the Planning Commission designate a subcommittee to discuss the options with himself and the applicant; (2) said that the applicant will be in business for another 15 years, and he is sincerely attempting to solve his problem as well as help the City's parking problem; (3) stressed that Hermosa Beach businesses cannot provide 'parking _ on-site and be competitive with other local businesses; (4) stressed that parking must be provided without the use of conventional methods; (5) noted that there are parking problems only on the weekends and in the summer. Mr. Wood continued and: (1) suggested that flexible methods be implemented to attack the parking problems; (2) said that if the City wants to improve the parking, parking districts should be provided throughout the commercial areas on lots as they become available; (3) discussed the concept of buying lots for use as parking; (4) again raised the issue of his meeting with a Planning Commission subcommittee to tackle the parking problem. Comm. Marks asked what proposals have been submitted related to the parking for this proposed project. Mr. Wood stated that: (1) the applicant will guarantee that a specified number of his employees will not drive to the site; (2) it is impossible to expect patients to park in the rear of this site; (3) all four of the existing parking spaces will be left for patient use, and the spaces will be 8 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 patrolled: (4) every step will be taken to ensure that patients will not park on the street: (5) the applicant is very interested in reaching a compromise as to the parking. Mr. Wood went on and: (1) stated that patients could be picked up and shuttled to the business: (2) said people could be required to sign affidavits stating that they will not drive to the office. Comm. Marks noted that the area is already very congested, and the proposed expansion without the required additional parking would exacerbate the problem. Mr. Wood stated that if clients do park in the other business' parking spaces, the other property owner will complain, and tickets could then be issued to violators. Comm. Marks suggested that Mr. Wood contact a parking specialist to address the parking problem for this business. to which Mr. Wood countered that the solution is to provide remote parking for the business. Mr. Wood stated that the applicant can control his employees: therefore, enforcement is somewhat easier. He stated that covenants can be placed on the property to ensure compliance. He stressed that innovative solutions must be implemented in the City. Comm. Marks again urged Mr. Wood to consult a parking consultant to address the problem of having a certain amount of space and only a certain amount of parking space. He felt that a request for a 70 percent expansion without providing additional parking is not appropriate. Mr. Wood stated that many other businesses in town do not have the required parking. He said that in order for businesses to succeed in the City, innovative parking arrangements must be considered. He felt that the answer lies in providing remote parking. Mr. Wood, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that, for whatever reasons, patients will simply not park in the rear. Dr. Johnston, owner of the property next to the proposed project site, addressed the Commission an<;l: ( 1) explained that. contrary to Mr. Wood's assertion, there is no professional jealousy between him and the applicant, stating that on occasion he has even loaned medical equipment to Dr. David; (2) stated that the proposed second-story addition would have a serious financial impact on his business: (3) said that Dr. David's practice has grown tremendously over the years: (4) explained that his is the only building on the street with a sideyard; (5) stated that for some reason people do not want to travel down the sideyard to park in the rear. Dr. Johnston continued and: (1) noted that Dr. David's property has no sideyard, therefore, people will not drive around to the back and then walk to the front of the building: (2) stressed that there is no jealously here; his main objection relates to the financial impacts to his business; (3) said that many of his patients are elderly and in pain and are not able to park a distance away and walk to the office; (4) noted concern over enforcement of innovative parking arrangements. such as valet service and/or shuttle service to the office; (5) noted concern over the fact that the business could be sold, and the new owner may not want to utilize valet parking; (6) said that he was contemplating selling his business to another doctor, however. the other doctor decided against the purchase due to the lack of parking in the area: (7) stressed that parking is a problem all the time in this area. Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that even in the evening there is a parking shortage in the area of the proposed project; (2) concurred with staffs recommendation to deny this request; (3) urged the Commission to use the same reasoning that was used when this project was previously denied; (4) stated that there is nothing wrong with trying to improve one's property. however. the required parking should be provided, possibly underground: (5) noted that the proper parking is not available for the proposed project. 9 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) questioned what will happen if this project were approved and the current owner sold the property: (2) stressed that the proper parking must be provided, either through the use of car stackers or through the demolition of the ground floor of the building so that it could be used for parking. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue , Hermos a Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) agreed that innovative parking methods must be utilized to mitigate the severe parking problems in the City: (2) stated that it might make sense to try an innovation in this case: (3) stressed the importance of making the commercial areas viable , noting that businesses provide most of the taxes that maintain the infrastructure of the City: (4) discussed various methods by which the parking problems could be addressed: (5) discussed the project at hand, stating that the applicant might reduce the size of t he proposed addition, or he might consider the use of triple stackers. Mr . Wood stated that there is a back door at the applicant's office, and people could use that entrance if so desired. He encouraged the Commission to form a subcommittee to meet with him to address the parking problem for this proposed project. He stressed that he is trying to take positive steps in regard to this project. Public Hearing closed at 8:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz . Comm. Rue agreed that there are severe parking problems in this City. He addressed Mr. Wood's suggestion that the Commission designate a subcommittee to find a solution for this project's parking problems and stated that the Chamber of Commerce has formed a committee to address parking concerns and the VPD is taking steps also. He stated that he does not have the time to sit on another committee to address this applicant's problems. He did agree, however, that something must be done about the problem. Comm. Rue stated that the purpose of the Commission is not to serve as deal brokers: rather, they are a planning body. He wanted to see parking improvements and stated that he would lend his support: however, he felt it is inappropriate for the applicant to ask the Commissioners to spend additional time on this project. He suggested that the applicant present a concrete proposal which can be addressed by the Commission. Comm. Peirce felt it would not be appropriate to allow businesses to expand without providing parking. He stated that most "innovative" solutions are only short-term remedies. He felt that long-term parking solutions must be accomplished by the City. He stated that maintaining a parking plan over a number of years is not feasible. Comm. Aleks stated that it is not appropriate to allow this business to expand without providing additional parking, noting that there is already a severe parking problem in this area. He felt that a parking plan would be difficult to enforce. Therefore, he could not support approval of this project. Chmn. Ketz felt that long-term specific solutions are necessary for this area, ,u1d she did not feel that the proposed parking plan would be a long-term solution. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91 -3, denying the parking plan request at 415 Pier Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks , Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct staff to send a letter to the VPD and Chamber of Commerce requesting that parking updates be sent to the Commission. The letter should also indicate the Commission's concerns and interest in this matter, and the fact 10 P.C . Minutes 1/2/91 r that the Commission lends its support to the program. The Commissions' interest relates specifically to the downtown area, Pacific Coast Highway, Pier Avenue, and Hermosa Avenue. No objections; so ordered. Recess taken from 8:59 P.M. until 9:08 P.M. CUP 90-24 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY THE A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 400 PIER AVENUE, COAST LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in a SPA zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 10,324 square feet. The building size is 4085 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store and mini convenience store. There are 14 parking spaces (shared with the 'The Laundry Basket" laundromat). Coast Liquor is located on the northeast comer of Pacific Coast Highway and 4th Street. It shares the building with one other business, a laundromat, occupying 60 percent of the building space. The liquor store is open from 7:30 AM. until 12:00 AM. during the week and until 2:00 AM. on the weekends. Coast Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a conditional use permit subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance. At their meeting of November 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to place the refuse cans inside an enclosure and to reduce window signage to the maximum of 20 percent. They also advised the owner that hard core pornography would not be allowed and because of past AB.C. violations, it was requested that the owner participate in the EASY Program. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales, and if approved would allow the sale of adult videos and magazines. Staffs concerns relative to the video sales are major in nature. The proposed use of a liquor store/video sales could be a dangerous trend for wholesale opening of these types of businesses to mixed usage in establishments that service neighborhoods. Because of the proximity to residences, within one hundred feet, and the possible availability to minors for sale, it is felt by staff that this is not a proper mix of businesses. Also, Section 10-5 of the zoning ordinance states the sale of adult videos should be greater than 100 feet from residential property. Staff has no intention of infringing on first amendment rights, but feels such usage is inappropriate. According to the City Attorney, since the proposed video sales are only a small portion of the business, incidental to alcohol sales, the City does not have the authority to deny the sales. As such. staff recommended that the video sales must remain incidental to the liquor store/convenience store and should not represent more than 10 percent of the sales. Since this is an existing mini market/ general alcohol sale business, staff felt that the sale of alcohol should be allowed to continue. subject to the proposed conditions which are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions related to the trash and the signage. The standard conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. Also, the Police Department has requested that an additional standard condition be included to require alcohol sale establishments to participate in the EASY 11 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Program. Finally, staff did not endorse the mixed usage and felt that video sales in a liquor store is inappropriate. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained that this business is within 100 feet of residential usage: however, according to State law, the p r oposed sale of videos does not constitute an "adult" use, which is prohibited within 100 feet of residential areas. He explained that an "adult" business devotes most of its sales to "adult" materials; this business does not. The City, therefore, cannot condition this business as an "adult" establishment. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce related to the signage, stated that some of the signs have been removed at Coast Liquor. • Comm. Peirce noted concern over excessive signage at other businesses, and he hoped that the code will be enforced in regard to signs at this business. Public Hearing opened at 9 :14 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Patterson, 400 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission and stated that he has read the conditions and has no objection to them. He also noted that the signage is now in compliance with the City's requirements. He further stated that he will comply with the EASY Program requirements. Debbie Lube, 843 3rd Street. Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the proliferation of adult uses along Pacific Coast Highway. She felt that it is not appropriate to allow adult materials to be sold in areas which are so close to residential areas. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, suggested that the Commission regulate the hours of businesses of this type in order to discourage such use. He felt that adult businesses are not in the best interests of the City. Public Hearing closed at 9:18 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Yoshinaga, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce related to regulation of the hours of operation, stated that the hours of operation for a business of this type can be regulated. Comm. Rue, noting that he is not an advocate of X-rated movies, stated that it is important. however, to acknowledge first amendment rights. He stated that the proposed conditions address the concerns of staff: therefore, he could support approval of the request. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's -recommendation, Resolut~on P .C. 91-2, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-26 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MONKEE'S RESTAURANT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. 12 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 This project is located in SPA 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The lease space size is 3600 square feet inside and 1438 square feet outside. The current use is as a restaurant under construction. The proposed restaurant is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the second level, which is the same level as the theaters. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject to a parking plan. This space was originally identified for restaurant purposes. At their meeting of August 9, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and further recommended that a condition be included to require that the outside dining area be clearly separated from the outdoor public areas to prevent pass-through of alcoholic beverages. The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine and spirits for consumption on the premises. subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will also apply to the State A.B.C. Department for a license. The floor plans show that a small bar area is included for seating of patrons waiting for a table and would also allow for non-dining customers to purchase a beverage. Staff has no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of CUP. Those conditions include the restriction that at least 50 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods (a maximum of 50 percent for alcohol sales). Staff also recommended a condition that a permanent structure be installed to separate the outside dining area from the public area. The business is contained inside the existing mall, and the applicant has indicated that the hours of operation would be from 11:00 A.M. to midnight on weekdays, and until 1:00 A.M. on weekends. Staff further recommended a condition to limit the operation to these requested hours. Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area. is not considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments, and adequate parking is available. Also, the primary function of the business would be as a restaurant which fits in with the original designation for this floor within the Pavilion. Additionally. the mall maintains its own security patrol during its operating hours: therefore, additional police patrol should not be necessary. Comm. Aleks, explaining that he lives within 300 feet of the project site, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item. Public Hearing opened at 9:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Dee Harris, property manager of the Pavilion, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the Pavilion has its own security and parking area on site; (2) stated that, at the request of the City, a plexiglass wall will be built around the patio dining area: (3) noted that signs will be posted advising that the patio area is only for use by Monkee's patrons: (4) explained that Monkee's is a four-star Chinese restaurant with two other locations in Southern California; (5) stated that patrons must enter through the restaurant itself in order to get to the patio dining area; (6) explained that the door shown on the plans is for exit purposes only on the patio; (7) commented on the bar area, noting that the applicant has not stated that the bar is absolutely necessary, however, the other locations have a bar so that people can have a drink while waiting for their table. Public Hearing closed at 9:28 P.M. by Chmn Ketz. 13 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Comm. Peirce favored a quality restaurant corning in to the City: however, he noted concern over the separate bar area and questioned whether the City really needs another bar as part of a restaurant. He stated that he would have no opposition if the bar served only beer and wine; however, he objected to a bar with a substantial number of seats selling hard liquor. He did not feel such a use would be appropriate at the Pavilion. Comm. Rue noted that many other restaurants in mall areas have general alcohol sales. He did not feel that the bar area is that large, and he noted that the applicant has restaurant experience at other locations. He said that most upscale restaurants do have bars, and he could therefore support approval of the request. He felt that it is important to make this center a success. Comm. Marks noted that bars are an integral part of a restaurant's business: he therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to manipulate this business. He stated that he has been to another Monkee's, and it is a very nice establishment. Chmn. Ketz agreed that a bar is an integral part of a nice restaurant, especially when people are waiting to be seated at a table. Comm. Peirce pointed out that the resolution allows 50 percent alcohol sales. He felt that for an occasional use, 50 percent seems to be a high percentage. Mr. Schubach explained that 50 percent is a standard condition for hard liquor: beer and wine sales are allowed to be a maximum of 35 percent of the total sales. He stated that the percentages were suggested by the AB.C. Comm. Peirce felt that 50 percent is excessive. Comm. Rue stated that this establishment could not be construed as a full-scale bar. Comm. Peirce noted the long hours of operation, and he did not feel most people would be dining after 10:00 P.M. He noted concern that people would be corning in late and ordering only drinks. Comm. Rue shared Comm. Peirce's concerns: however, he stated that this is an upscale restaurant, and he did not feel it constitutes a full-scale bar. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-4, as written. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Peirce Comm. Aleks None CUP 90-27 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1559 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BROOKLYN BRICK OVEN PIZZA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 26, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in SPA 8, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lease space size is 1500 square feet, and its current use is as a restaurant. 14 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 The restaurant is located within Plaza Hermosa in building "C" on the first level below the Warehouse. The restaurant occupies the space that was initially Bagel Buddies, which was allowed because the center has more than adequate parking for the mix of uses. At their meeting of November 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration. The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine and/ or consumption on the premises, subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will also need to apply to the State AB.C. Department for a license. Staff had no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of CUP. Those conditions include the restriction that at least 65 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods, and a maximum of 35 percent from the sale of beer and wine. The location is part of an existing shopping center, and the applicant has indicated that the hours will be from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and until 11:00 P.M. on weekends. Staff also recommended a condition to limit the hours of operation to these requested times. Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area, is not considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments. Also, plenty of adequate parking is available. Additionally, the primary function of the business would still be as a restaurant, which fits in with the original plans for Plaza Hermosa. Staff noticed that the restaurant occasionally places tables up on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant. This would not be permitted, as it blocks the sidewalk which is necessary for pedestrian access. As such, staff included a condition prohibiting outside seating and/or outside service of alcoholic beverages. Comm. Aleks, explaining that he lives within 300 feet of the project site, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item. Public Hearing opened at 9:39 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Robert Udovich, 535 Gravely Court, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he has no opposition to the proposed conditions as recommended by staff. Public Hearing closed at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue noted that this business has been in operation for more than a year, and he wished the app),icant success. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-5, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None • Comm. Aleks None Chmn. Ketz noted that Mr. Habash (applicant for Agenda Item 6) was now present in the audience at this time. 15 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 CUP 90-25 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST IIlGHWAY, HABASH AUTO DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1990) (This matter was heard earlier in the meeting. See Page 2.) MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to reconsider the public hearing held on this matter. Comm. Aleks expressed concern that this matter is being reopened at this time, noting that someone had left council chambers after the item was voted upon earlier in the meeting. He stated that it is possible that public testimony would have been given had the person known that the matter was going to be reopened. Mr. Yoshinaga stated that this matter can be continued to a future date and renoticed so that interested citizens can be available to provide public testimony. As an alternative, the Commission can stand on the decision made earlier in the meeting. Mr. Schubach stated that, if the Commission decides to reopen and continue this hearing, the applicant would have to pay for postage and paper for the renoticing. The applicant would not, however, have to pay another hearing fee. (VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER:) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 5, 1991, with the matter to be renoticed (costs for postage and paper to be paid by the applicant). No objections: so ordered. • MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AT 555 PACIFIC COAST IIlGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 27, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to strictly enforce the conditions of the subject conditional use permit. Between August 15, 1989, a.-id December 14, 1989, the Plannh,g Commission considered this CUP. One of the 29 conditions imposed by the Commission specified that there be an annual and a mid-year review. Staff continued by outlining the findings of the inspection. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to direct £taff to strictly enforce the conditions of the subject conditional use permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None a) Memorandum Re2ardln2 City Council/Plannln4 Commission Workshop The dates of February 21 and February 28 were suggested for the workshop. 16 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 Topics suggested for discussion included downtown business parking; an update on RUDAT activities: and where people in the City are going, as related to the transportation issue. b) P~ Department Activity Report for November 1990 No action taken. c) Memorandum Regarding Plannlm! Commission Liaison for January 8. 1991. Meetlru! No one will attend as liaison. d) Tentative Future Plannlru! Commission Agenda No action taken. e) City Council Minutes of November 27. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue suggested that a letter be sent to the City Council advising them of the poor sound quality over the cable transmissions. Comm. Rue asked for an update on the City's recycling activities, to which Mr. Schubach responded. He also explained that the recycling program is overseen by the Building Department. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue. to adjourn at 10:05 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 January 2, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairman ~/ .. /ht;:-/ / / /7 f_,_.k:J7/? ///4(!-J✓--~ Michael Schubach, Secretary 17 P.C. Minutes 1/2/91 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None CITY COUNCll. REFERRAL -CON 90-16, 17, 18. AND 19/PDP 90-4, 5. 6 AND 7 -CONDfflONAL USE PERMITS. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS #22634-37, AND PRECISE DEVEWPMENT PLANS FOR FOUR TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUMS AT 138-142, 144-148, 150- 154, AND 158-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach stated that the City Council at their meeting of January 8, 1991, considered an appeal of the four two-unit condos at 138-160 Manhattan Avenue, previously approved by the Planning Commission. The subject project was referred back to the Planning Commission for comments and recommendations on the modifications in the floor plans and exterior appearance. , The overall layout and site plan were not changed, and the changes reflect an effort by the applicant to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass of the structures. The exterior was designed to be more architecturally pleasing. There were some very minor changes to the plans, and the railings will now be pipe railings. Comm. Rue discussed the colors and asked whether any color changes would be subject to planning director approval, to which Mr. Schubach explained that it is not necessary to obtain approval for color changes. Comm. Rue asked whether the actual materials to be used are the same as those shown on the plans: to which Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant has been requested to use the same materials as depicted on the plans. Comm. Rue wanted to ensure that there are no major deviations from what is shown on the plans. He felt it is important that different materials be used so that the building facades are broken up. He said that the applicant need not use the exact materials as shown: however, they should be substantially the same as depicted. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue , to approve the revised architecture, with the additional recommendation that substantially the same materials as shown on the plans be used. AYE S : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms . .AJeks, Marks, Rue Comm. Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-35 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ENCLOSE OUTDOOR DINING AREA AT 49 & 53 PIER AVENUE, CASABLANCA RESTAURANT IN LORETO PLAZA Mr. Schubach req~ested that this item be continued to the meeting of February 5, 1991, because this agenda already contains several public hearings. The applicant was notified of staffs desire for a continuance and will send out public notices for the meeting of February 5, 1991. 2 P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91 ) (I Public Hearing opened at 7: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Shirley Castle, Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed approval of this request. She questioned how approval could be granted since the property in question is public open space that belongs to the City. MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this item to the meeting of February 5, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz Comms. Marks None None CUP 90-28 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PRESCHOOL WITH MORE THAN TWELVE STUDENTS AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 44 HERMOSA AVENUE. BEACH SHORES PRE-SCHOOL Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 8, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The lot size is 4800 square feet. The building size is 1680 square feet, and the outside play area is 2580 square feet. There are three parking spaces. The current use is as a day nursery. The existing conditional use permit for the day nursery was granted by the Planning Commission on April 10, 1967, for a maximum of 20 children. The current owners took over the operation of the nursery approximately nine years ago, and according to the owners it was already licensed by the State for up to 34 children. At their meeting of November 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration. The owners of the preschool were notified of the need for a CUP amendment by the City's code enforcement officer after a routine inspection where it was discovered that they were operating with approximately 25 children, five more than the maximum number of children authorized by the existing CUP. The CUP amendment is necessary to authorize the continued operation of the day nursery for more than 20 children. Staff has verified that the owners currently have a license from the State Department of Social Services for up to 34 children. Three parking spaces are located off the alley, and the applicant indicates that there are three employees. The parents pick up and drop off the children from Hermosa Avenue. This parking situation is obviously not adequate, nor is the use of the metered parking spaces for pick up and drop off. Nonetheless, it has operated this way for several years without any major problems. The original CUP was approved with six parking spaces. three in tandem behind three spaces. Since that time, the depth of the parking area has been reduced to 18 feet to expand the outdoor play area. Since the lost three spaces were in tandem, staff is not particularly concerned with the removal of the spaces. Although the parking and circulation for this business are not ideal, it has been in operation since 1978 and staff does not anticipate that even at maximum capacity any significant detriment to the surrounding areas would occur. However, the maximum number of children 3 P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91 (/ should not exceed 26, unless additional parking is provided since the number of employees would increase, and the additional number of pick ups and deliveries. would be significant. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the staff-recommended number of 26 students was an arbitriuy number. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that the applicant had a CUP allowing for 20 children when the applicant obtained a license from the State allowing for 34 children. He explained that the State does not always pay attention to the number of children allowed by the CUP. Public Hearing opened at 7:19 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Isabel Currie, operator of the business for nine years, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she has worked closely with the City in regard to this business: (2) said that she was allowed to operate with the three parking spaces, since the ratio is one teacher per twelve • children: (3) said that when she took over the business, she was not aware that she needed to apply for a new CUP: (4) said that she obtained permission from the City to move the fence in order to obtain more square footage for the inside of the building: (5) said she did not realize that the CUP specifies a maximum of 20 children. Ms. Currie continued and: ( 1) said that there have been no problems associated with the school since she has been operating it; (2) explained that she needs only three parking spaces for the business: (3) said that there are no problems with the Department of Social Services related to this school: (4) stated that she plans to have 34 children at the school: (5) explained that she does not own the property, but she has the first right of refusal to purchase it. Ms. Currie went on and: (1) stated that she has added no square footage to the building since she has run the school: (2) explained, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, that the school is cleaned by a professional Janitor service who come in on the weekends and during the evening after the school itself is closed. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, stated that the City has received no complaints related to the operation of this business. Public Hearing closed at 7:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce asked whether it is acceptable to have a lessee apply for the CUP rather than the owner. Mr. Lee stated that there is not a problem with approval of this CUP, explaLn.i.11g that leases typically give lessees the right to use property for a specific lawful purpose. MOTieN by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-9, allowing for a maximum of 34 children. Comm. Rue noted that there have been no problems with the business, and no complaints have been received. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None 4 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 n !I CUP 90-19 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SALES . OF MOTORCYCLES, ACCESSORIES, AND REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST lilGHWAY, SOUTH BAY CYCLES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested amendment for motorcycle sales and parts sales, subject to conditions: however, denial was recommended for the request to allow major repairs. On October 23, 1990, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend the zoning code to allow motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales in the C-3 zone. subject to a conditional use permit, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Previous to that amendment, the code already allowed motorcycle repair subject to a CUP. The effort to amend the zoning code to include motorcycle sales and parts sales was initiated by the City Council after it was determined, in response to the request of South Bay Cycles to open a business on P.C.H., that a separate category was necessary to distinguish motorcycle sales and parts sales from automobile sales and part sales. On August 21, 1990, the Planning Commission denied the request of South Bay Cycles for a motorcycle repair business because of the proximity of residential uses and the non-mitigable noise impacts that would result from the proposed use. The request, however, was appealed to the City Council and it was approved at their meeting of September 25, 1990, subject to several conditions. The reasonthe repair business was approved for only "minor" repairs was because of the nature of the applicant's request. The business was originally presented as a business of primarily motorcycle sales and parts sales with minor repairs to allow installation of chrome parts and other types of accessories sold at the location. It was not presented or considered as a repair business for general repair of motorcycles. Staff recommended approval of the sales and parts sales because the business would be subject to the same strict conditions imposed by the Council on the "minor" repair aspect of the proposal, and in staffs judgment, the repair aspect is the more intense part of the overall use of the site. Further, the sales of motorcycles and parts would be limited to inside the building, in the front show room, and outside display would be strictly prohibited. However, staff does not believe that the location or the size and the design of the building is appropriate for full general repair. The repair of exhaust systems, the rebuilding of engines and other moving parts requires greater storage areas, and results in a host of other problems such as noise and fumes, the storage and use of petroleum-based products and other potentially hazardous materials, and the potential for junk motorcycle parts to accumulate on the site. Further, the applicant has not provided any explanation of the extent of repair activities envisioned, nor has he discussed the potential volume of business. Withou~ such information, allowing full general repair would open the door for many activities that potentially could not be adequately controlled or monitored. In regard to the proposed conditions, they are essentially the same as what the Council imposed on the "minor" repair business. So far. according to the code enforcement officer, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed conditions which have to do with signing the property to inform patrons not to park motorcycles in the rear of the building, not to ride on nearby residential streets, and not to rev up engines. However, the condition to place a chain or other impediment, to be monitored by an attendant, to restrict motorcycles from using the rear parking area has not been implemented. Further, a noise study and traffic study were required by the Council, and the noise study was submitted only today: therefore, staff has not had an opportunity to study the report. Staff 5 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 suggested that a continuance might be desired if the applicant wishes ,to have the results of the noise study taken into consideration on this request. The City, otherwise, has not noticed any major problems with the business since it has opened, and no complaints have been received from nearby residents. Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. William Campbell, 640 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that a noise study was done using a very loud Harley-Davidson when the readings were recorded: (2) stated that it is necessary for the business to be able to conduct full repair services: (3) continued by discussing the noise report, explaining that very loud tools were used, and the noise did not exceed the maximum requirements: (4) in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that the noise readings were taken with all doors and windows closed. Comm. Peirce pointed out that the noise study does not contain information related to the maximum noise level when motorcycles leave or approach the business. He stated that the , report contains only an average, not the maximum reading. Mr. Campbell explained that he was informed that all readings are in conformance with the City's requirements. Comm. Aleks pointed out that the readings were taken indoors with all doors and windows closed. He questioned whether actual repairs would be done inside with doors and windows closed. Mr. Campbell stated that doors are kept closed, explaining that the business has an indoor water filtration system. Comm. Rue recalled that when this applicant originally appeared before the Commission, it was not his desire to do major repairs. Mr. Campbell explained that customers are now coming in asking for repairs. The way the CUP currently reads, even minor repairs cannot be done on any moving parts. He explained that if he can do repairs, he intends to give the City a break on its motorcycle repairs. He further noted that no problems or complaints have arisen since this business has opened. Mr. Campbell, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that even though loud impact tools were measured in the noise study, those types of tools are not normally used in Harley- Davidson repair. He explained that other, quieter tools are actually used for the repair. Comm. Rue noted, however, the the CUP runs with the business, and there could be problems if the business is sold to someone else wl.o wants to do repairs using very loud equipment. Mr. Campbell stated that he is well aware of the fact that he would be shut down immediately if his business were not adhering to the requirements. He stressed that he is making an attempt to comply with all City regulations. He also noted that he has installed more than 60 baffies on motorcycles in the City: therefore. he has contributed to noise reduction in the City overall. He said that much of the noise problem emanates from other businesses in the area. He asked only for an opportunity to prove that he can succeed and comply with all requirements. Grady Pheiffer, 2323 W. 229th Place, Torrance, spoke in support of the request. He explained the types of tools used in the repair of motorcycles, stating that there will not be a noise problem. He felt it is important to have this type of service in the City, and he said that this is a very attractive business. He urged the Commission to give its support to this business. 6 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 (I Raphael Bourdieu 710 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, spoke in support .of the request. He noted that the applicant has kept his word to the City in complying with all requirements. He stated that this is one of the best shops in the City, and the noise levels have not been excessive. He urged the Commission to give the applicant an opportunity. Public Hearing closed at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that since the noise study was received late, he would prefer not to comment on the results until after he has had an opportunity to study the report. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the City does now have a noise meter when people who can operate it. Comm. Rue felt that the CUP contains enough conditions to have some real "teeth." He noted that there have been no problems during the five months this business has been in operation; therefore, he was inclined to support approval to see how the business does. He further noted that there are many neighborhood watchdogs who will report any violations. He stated that he could therefore support even the request for major repairs. Comm. Aleks stated that he does not need a study to prove to him that the highway is already very noisy. He felt that major repairs would exacerbate the noise problem. He felt that because of the additional impacts to the surrounding area and neighborhoods, major repairs would not be appropriate at this location and would be a negative factor for the area. He agreed that the business is making an attempt to comply, and he sympathized with the applicant's plight; however, he could not support this type of business in the area. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, stated that the City does maintain a record of noise complaints; however, he was not aware of how long the records are actually maintained. In regard to this specific business, he was aware of no complaints; albeit, the business is not now doing major repairs. Mr. Schubach, for the benefit of the new commissioners, explained the process which is undertaken by the City related to noise complaints. Comm. Peirce stated that he was in support of motorcycle sales and parts sales; however, he could not support approval of major repairs, based on the fact that there would be increased noise. Comm. Rue questioned whether it would be advisable to continue this matter so that the planning director could study the noise report. Comm. Peirce stated that only two numbers are missing from the report: the peak noise levels and the actual noise level of a motorcycle leaving the business . He felt that both of those numbers would be quite high: therefore, he did not feel a continuance is necessary. He stated that his decision can be made without those numbers, noting that major repairs would greatly increase the noise intensity in the area. He also noted that during the hot summer months, the doors and windows will be opened for ventilation, and that will exacerbate the problems. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution 91-10, to allow the sales of motorcycles and parts in conjunction with minor motorcycle repair at 638 -640 Pacific Coast Highway, with the inclusion of the condition prohibiting major motorcycle repair. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue Chmn. Ketz None None 7 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 /I Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE DINING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MRS. GARCIA'S Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 8, 1991, and recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of February 5, 1991, and that it be re-advertised as a master conditional use permit for all outside dining within the Hermosa Pavilion. At their meeting of December 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and further recommended that the outside dining for Mrs. Garcia's be clearly separated from other outside dining areas. The committee also recommended that the application be processed as an amendment to Mrs. Garcia's CUP to allow outside dining rather than pursuing a master CUP. Although this was advertised as an amendment to the Mrs. Garcia's CUP pursuant to the staff environmental review committee, staff now believes that the master CUP concept to control all outside dining is more appropriate. Staff felt that the master CUP would be beneficial as it would address the distinct issues associated with outside use, such as late night noise and passing of alcohol outside the designated areas. Also, the total square footage of all outdoor areas, regardless of the operators, is limited due to the approved parking plan for the whole center, and the current management has rearranged where the outside dining is to be located. Furthermore, one of the proposed outside areas is a common divisible area for potentially more than one restaurant operator. Since this item was only advertised as an amendment, it is necessary to continue the request to properly advertise it as a master conditional use permit. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M.by Chmn. Ketz. Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) described the outdoor dining areas, stating that there are three locations, two of which are for two specific restaurants and which are not accessible to others: the other outdoor dining area is for other restaurants' patrons: (2) stated that the outdoor dining areas will be clearly demarcated as to which area is for which restaurant: (3) explained that there is a security firm at the location: (4) stated that there is ample parking: (5) stated that ·walls will be constructed to separate the dining areas from passersby: (6) stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, that if staff feels it necessary to continue this matter, she has no objection. Comm. Rue stated that he would like to see plans of the area before making a final decision on this request. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this item to the meeting of February 5, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None 8 P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91 .\ CUP 90-31 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. PICASSO'S PIZZA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 8, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in S.PA. 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The size of the leased space is 2773 square feet inside. The current use is as a restaurant under construction. The proposed restaurant is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the second level on the east end of the building facing P.C.H. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject to a parking plan. This space was originally identified for restaurant purposes on the approved parking plan. At their meeting of December 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended , an environmental negative declaration. The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises, subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will also be required to apply to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control office for a license. The plans also show a small outdoor balcony area to be used for outside dining. Although this area was not identified for dining on the original parking plan for the Pavilion, the Pavilion management is willing to trade away a portion of the outside dining area on the northwest portion of the building to allow this area to be used. The issue of the outside dining for the entire Pavilion, including this balcony, will be addressed in a master CUP for the outside dining. The floor plan and seating plan show that there will be seating for approximately 64 people indoors and up to an additional 24 outdoors. A small bar area with four bar stools is also shown. Staff has no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of CUP. Those conditions would include the restriction that at least 65 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods, and a maximum of 35 percent from beer and wine sales. The business is contained inside the existing mall, and the applicant has indicated that the hours would be from 10:00 AM. to 1:00 AM. Staff is also recommending a condition to limit the operation to these requested hours. Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area, is not considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments, and adequate parking is available. Also, the primary function of the business will be as a restaurant, which fits in with the original designation for this floor within the Pavilion. Additionally, the mall maintains its own security patrol during its operating hours, meaning that additional police patrol should not be necessary. Chmn. Ketz, noting that Comm. Aleks lives within 300 feet of the proposed project site, stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this item. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained that there is adequate parking at this facility. Public Hearing opened at 8:10 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. 9 P.C . Minutes 1/15/91 Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that the staff report is very clear; (2) described the location of the proposed restaurant: (3) stated that there will not be a full bar, noting that only four bar stools are proposed to a ccommodate people waiting fo r a table; (4) explained, in response to ques tions from Comm. Rue, that the balcony is adjacent to P.C.H , and s he is not allowed to cover it in any way, per the requirements of the conditional use permit Public Hearing closed at 8 : 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce. to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91 -6, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce , Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Comm. Aleks None CUP 90-33/PARK 90-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR VIDEO GAME ARCADE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. PAVILION ARCADE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 7, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in S .P A. 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The leased space size is 1070 square feet. The space is currently vacant. The proposed game arcade is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the first level, the same level as a beauty salon, a beauty and hair products retail store. and retail stores for compact discs and athletic shoes. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject to a parking plan. This space was originally identified for retail use. At their meeting of December 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and further recommended that conditions be included to require a maximum occupancy sign, to prohibit school children during school hours, to restrict loitering, to enforce a dress code to restrict gang attire, to provide a bike rack in a convenient location, and to install sound proofing. The requested CUP would allow the operation of a video game arcade at the subject location. Pursuant to the zoning ordinance. a "game arcade" with five or more machines is permitted only with the benefit of a CUP. This would be the second "game arcade" with five or more machines in the City; the other is located at 344 Pacific Coast Highw::y and operates under a CUP granted in October of 1982. A parking plan is required because the code requires one parking space for every 75 square feet of "recreation or amusement establishment." The subject location was permitted for retail, which carries a parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet. As such, the proposed use creates a parking deficiency. The parking plan provisions, however, allow the Commission to permit less than required parking based on the "unique features of a proposed use." Staff felt that for the proposed arcade, given its orientation to youths who do not drive, a finding can be made that it would not generate a parking demand any greater than retail. In regard to the bike rack location. the Pavilion management recently has decided to provide the bike rack that is required as part of the overall parking plan on the same level as this arcade near the entrance from level 6 of the parking structure. P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91 .. Other concerns associated with a business of this type relate to the proper supervision of the business to prevent loitering, noise, overcrowding, and/ or boisterous activity. For example, the CUP for 344 P.C.H. contains several conditions to ensure that appropriate supervision is in place. The proposed location within the Pavilion has the advantage of being located within a larger facility with adequate lighting and security personnel. In anticipation of these concerns, the applicant has indicated that a uniformed employee will be on the premises and that strict rules will be enforced to prohibit smoking, bringing in food or drink, loitering, loud and abusive language, and horseplay. Further, a dress code would be enforced, and a school time policy of not allowing unaccompanied school age children. The proposed hours of operation during the off season are from 10:00 AM. until 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and from 10:00 AM. until midnight on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays. Also proposed are on season hours to be open until midnight daily and until 1:00 AM. on weekends. Staff is recommending a condition that year round hours limitations be imposed. pursuant to the proposed off season hours. Also, the plans depict the use of the existing fluorescent lighting fixtures which appear to provide adequate lighting. Staff recommended conditions similar to the other game arcade, to require uniformed adult supervision. compliance with the noise ordinance, police security if complaints arise, and to prohibit school age children during school hours. and is additionally recommending conditions to have a dress code regarding gang attire, a requirement that the adult supervisor be at least 21 years old, and that the front door be kept closed to minimize the noise impact into the hallway. Chmn. Ketz, noting that Comm. Aleks lives within 300 feet of the proposed project site, stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this item. Public Hearing opened at 8:18 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach. applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that all of the requirements have been outlined to the operator, who agrees to comply; (2) stated that the operator has agreed to hire additional security during peak hours; (3) stated that carpeting will be installed to mitigate the noise: (4) explained that a uniformed person will be on guard; (5) stated that the other arcade has had no problems with the police; (6) stated the "No Loitering" signs will be posted. Ms. Harris continued and: (1) passed out diagrams depicting the project site and continued by discussing the location of the arcade; (2) explained that a bike rack will be installed on level 6, so that kids will be more inclined to use it; (3) described how the patrons will get to the bike rack and stated that the rack will be very visible; (4) commented that there will also be a walkway to and from the bike rack. Comm. Rue noted concern over the dim lighting in the area and the possibility that teens could loiter and drink or use drugs. He also noted concern over the area being kept clean. Ms. Harris went on and: (1) responded to comments by Comm. Rue related to the lighting, and stated that she agrees additional lighting could be installed; (2) stated that she personally checks the lights, and they all work; (3) stated that she would not oppose a condition requiring extra lighting; (4) explained the security system in place and described how the guards make their rounds of the Pavilion; (5) stated that the owner is aware of the acoustical requirements; (6) explained that the operator of this business has another extremely successful arcade in Redondo Beach, and there have been no problems at that location. 11 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 Comm. Peirce suggested that a sign be posted indicating "No Bike Riding" near the entrance of the arcade near the stairs or elevator, to which Ms. Harris agreed and stated that she will post several signs. Comm. Rue asked questions about the security system, to which Ms. Harris responded by giving details about the operation of the system and how the guards patrol the area. Comm. Rue asked how the guards would deal with unruly teenagers, to which Ms. Harris explained that the security guards would ask the off enders to leave the premises. If they did not leave, the police would then be called. Comm. Rue asked whether the security guards are able to contact someone for help in the event trouble arises, to which Ms. Harris explained that telephones are located throughout the area. Each officer also carries a beeper. She noted, however, that there have been no gang problems to her knowledge. She said that the biggest problem involves kids throwing the flower pots off the railings. Comm. Rue expressed concerns over the safety at this location, to which Ms. Harris responded that the security force is outstanding at this location. Public Hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue noted that Ms. Harris has agreed to install additional lighting. He also noted concern over the safety of the security guards, stating that they should be able to reach someone in the event of an emergency. Chmn. Ketz agreed that safety is an important factor. She noted that Condition No. 7 addresses the issue of lighting. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-7, with the following modifications: (1) that Condition No. 7 be modified to include wording requiring that additional lighting be installed in the downstairs retail arcade; (2) that a "No Bicycle Riding" sign shall be posted at the entrance to the arcade at the parking level and at the east P .C.H. side; (3) that the security personnel have a means of communicating, preferably by radio or a walkie-talkie system, with other security guards and the office in the event of an emergency. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue related to the future need for additional bike racks, explained that the CUP contains a provision that would allow for the requirement of additional bike racks in the event they become necessary. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None Comm. Aleks None CUP 90-29 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL. ENTERTAINMENT. AND DANCING. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 30 PIER AVENUE, THE LIGHTHOUSE CAFE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1991, and recommended approval of the proposed conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lease space size is 2639 square feet. The current use is as an existing restaurant/bar with live entertainment. 12 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 ) The location is on the south side of Pier Avenue, five properties east of The Strand. Parking is either metered street parking or off-street City parking lots. At their meeting of November 21, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration. The requested CUP would authorize the continued on-sale of alcohol, the continued use of the restaurant. the live entertainment permit, and dancing. Staff has several concerns related to the existing appearance and operation of the business that would necessitate further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of CUP. Those conditions would include the restriction that at least 50 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods, a maximum of 50 percent from the sale of all alcoholic beverages. Additionally, this location has a long history of police and fire violations relating to crowd control and noise pollution. The exterior of the location, although a brick facade. could stand repainting/sanding. The famous "Lighthouse" sign over the business is both faded and extremely rusty, possibly even dangerous to pedestrians below, as one of the braces is missing. Inside, the location could use air conditioning so that all doors could be closed during performances. Double front doors could be installed to help shield sound. and double paned windows should be mandatory for noise pollution rather than the present single pane windows. Finally, some sort of sound absorbing materials such as that used at the End Zone nearby should be utilized to absorb the sound of live presentations. The location is one of three similar types of establishments, all vying for customers in a very crowded area in one small block less than 1000 feet long. The business ordinarily is open during the summer months from 4:00 P.M. until 1:30 A.M. Maximum occupancy occurs on most evenings between 8:30 P.M. and 1:30 AM. The manager of the location has specified the following hours of operation: 8:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. Monday through Thursday: 6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. on Friday: and 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. on Saturday and Sunday. In an attempt to keep conformity in the area, it is staffs opinion that the Lighthouse hours should be substantially the same as those imposed on the End Zone, its nearest similar competitor. The End Zone's hours are: 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. weekly. Live entertainment is permitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 AM . Thursday through Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day. Staff recommended approval of the request with restrictions regarding hours of operation: since breakfast is served, those hours shall be 8:00 A.M. until 1 :30 A.M. Allowing the Lighthouse to open earlier, no great impact should be realized by the one hour difference. Since live entertainment is the usual cause for noise pollution, it is recommended that the Lighthouse entertainment hours be restricted to essentially the same hours as the End Zone, Thursday through Sunday, 7:00 P.M. to 1:30AM. Double paned windows and doors would seem to be an absolute necessity to bring the Lighthouse in line with the improvements that the End Zone has made to control noise • pollution. Additionally, based on the statements of the Police Department, it would seem that these changes are absolutely necessary. Since the downtown area is so heavily impacted, these additional requirements and restrictions are believed to be reasonable by staff. Public Hearing opened at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Paul Hennessey, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) referred to staffs recommendation that the brick facade be repainted or sanded, and stated that he did not know what that meant, to which Mr. Schubach explained that that was merely a suggestion, not a requirement: (2) asked why the Lighthouse was being compared to the End Zone, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the businesses are similar: (3) stated that the hours of the two businesses 13 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 are different ; (4) discussed the entertainment at the Lighthouse, stating that the hours have been unrestricted for 40 years, and it would not be possible to _ continue oper ation if a limitation of hours is imposed; (5) continued by discussing the hours currently in use at the business, stressing that this is an entertainment club . Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) disagreed with Comm. Rue , by stating that he does not feel there is a noise problem at this business; (2) stated that the noise is addressed in a number of the other conditions; (3) stated that he has never heard any complaints related to this business, other than one about the noise from the back door; (4) stated that the back door n ow has a doorman, and people can exit from that door; however, people are asked to enter through the front door; (5) explained that there are no police records of citizen complaints related to the noise. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) discussed Condition No. 4b and stated that air conditioning is neither necessary nor feasible at this location, noting that the building is not hot and there is adequate ventilation; (2) in response to questions from Comm. Marks, discussed his crowd control methods; (3) discussed Condition No. 4c and stated that it would not be feasible to install a double door in the front alcove area or to install double paned windows to replace all r, single glassed area, and such an arrangement would not be possible; (4) discussed Condition No. 4d and stated that there is no point in providing an acoustical back-drop behind the stage to absorb sound from the bands, due to the configuration of the stage and the fact that it does not help reduce noise in any event. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Marks related to the percentages of food sales to alcohol sales, and he stated that the numbers vaxy depending on the season, but the alcohol sales are usually about 85 percent of the total sales; (2) noted that the Mermaid does not have percentage restrictions imposed on their operation. Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) discussed Condition No. 5 requiring that screens shall be installed on all exterior windows, and he stated that there are no operable windows at the ground level; (2) asked for clarification on Condition No. 10a which requires that the "dilapidated roof sign shall be removed"; (3) stated that the sign is part of a historical building, and he questioned what staff wants to have done to the sign; (4) discussed Condition No. 14a and explained that they do not want to have the rear used for entrance; (5) discussed Condition No. 15 and stated that he is not aware of any City loitering ordinance, but he noted that he would be happy to enforce any laws related to loitering. Mr. Hennessey noted that the Lighthouse is world famous, and he displayed a Japanese tour booklet with a photograph of the establishment. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) r eferred to Condition No . 16 and stated that he is not familiar with the EASY program, however, he is willing to comply, but he noted that he already takes great steps to ensure that no liquor is sold to minors; (2) referred to Condition No. 19 related to the hours of food service operation, and he stated that he does not want to be bound to certain specific hours for food service , noting that food is available at all times when they are open: (3) noted that the hours specified in Condition No. 19 are incorrect; (4) explained that breakfast is served in the summer from 8:00 AM . on; (5) noted that music is available during the breakfast hours . Comm. Peirce noted that the Commission had not been provided with any interior plans of the Lighthouse. He asked how many seats are allowed, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the Fire Department does have occupancy limits. Mr. Hennessey stated that when he remodeled several years ago, he was allowed to have over 240 people . However, a year and a half ago, the number was adjusted to approximately 140 people. 14 P .C. Minutes 1/15/91 ... Mr. Schubach stated that the staff environmental review committee minutes indicate that the allowed occupancy is 117 . Comm. Peirce stated that there appears to be confusion over the allowed occupancy number. He also wanted to see an interior layout of the business. Mr. Lee stated that the minutes of the staff environmental review committee minutes specify a maximum of 117 occupants. He noted that the Fire Department oversees the occupancy limits. Comm. Peirce asked Mr. Hennessey's opinion about the letter dated January 10, 1991, submitted by the Police Department related to the myriad problems at the Lighthouse, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that he had not seen a copy of the letter. Mr. Hennessey, in response to questions from Comm . Peirce related to Condition No. 4c, stated that he does not feel it is physically possible to install a double door in the front alcove due to the configuration of the area. He understood staffs concerns related to noise emanating from the business: however, he noted that a number of other conditions relate to the noise . He stated that it is possible that a sound engineer would find that staff's recommendations are not appropriate. Comm. Rue asked if Mr. Hennessey would prefer to have a sound consultant come in to make findings before conditions are imposed on the CUP, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that that would seem to make the most sense. Pete Mangurian, 52 11th Street. Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has owned his property for twenty years, and the noise from the Lighthouse has never stopped: (2) said that the Police Department has not been able to control the noise: (3) said that the noise comes through the windows and travels quite a distance: (4) stated that there is an open transom, and the noise comes through it; (5) noted that he has complained to the police on numerous occasions, and nothing is ever done: (6) commented that even though rules are passed, they are not enforced: (7) stated that the bars have an adverse impact on the downtown area: (8) said that the noise is much worse when the rear door is open: however, even if it is closed, the noise is unbearable. Mr. Hennessey again addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that much of the noise that is attributed to the Lighthouse is, in fact, from other sources: (2) stated that he has several letters from the enforcement officer stating that the Lighthouse is in compliance: however, he did not bring the letters to the meeting, since he was not aware that noise is a problem: (3) thought that they were in compliance since the police had not informed him othexwise: (4) noted that noise meter readings have been taken at the Lighthouse: (5) described the interior configuration of the business, stating that the noise must travel a great distance before it goes outside: (6) in response to questions from Comm. Peirce related to the comments in the letter from the police , stated that he was unaware of the concerns of the police, since he had received letters stating that he was in compliance. Mr. Mangurian again addressed the Commission and stated that much of the noise comes from radios: however, a great deal of the noise emanates from the bars. Public Hearing closed at 9: 16 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that the letter from the police seems to be incomplete, noting that all the documentation has not been provided to the Commission. He noted that the applicant is unaware of the noise problems, and he felt it would be beneficial to have written documentation on the issue. Mr. Schubach stated that this item could be continued, and he would request written documentation related to the noise complaints. 15 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 Comm. Rue favored a continuance so that the applicant could retain a noise consultant. He felt that the applicant should be given a chance to study ways to reduce the noise. Comm. Peirce pointed out, however, that the applicant does not acknowledge there is a noise problem. He stated tha t the n oise comes right out the front of the business. He felt that if double paned windows and doors are not installed , the noise will not be reduced. Comm. Aleks agreed that the Lighthouse is noisy. He wanted to see the business continue, though, noting that it is a local institution. Comm. Marks felt it would be beneficial for the applicant to retain an acoustical engineer so that methods of noise containment and reduction can be addressed t o satisfy the requirements of the City. Comm. Aleks favored retention an acoustical engineer to be selected by the City and paid for by the applicant. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained that the noise requirements are clearly outlined in the code. Mr. Hennessey stated that he would retain a noise consultant: however, he would prefer to hire someone himself, with the City having the right to reject the choice, if so desired. Mr. Schubach agreed that such a method would be easier than going through the City process. Mr. Hennessey stated that he would present the choice to the City before the study is done so that the City can concur with the choice of who will be hired. Comm. Rue suggested that the applicant meet with staff prior to this item being heard again before the Commission. In this way, the applicant would be clear as to what is required. Mr. Hennessey stressed that this business cannot operate with limitations on the hours of operation. He continued by explaining, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, that during the breakfast hours, appropriate music is played, not loud big band music. He explained that this is the oldest established club in the area. Mr. Hennessey stated that he does not want to go through the expense of having a sound study done, only to come back and have limitations placed on his hours of operation. He said that Condition No. 1 is the most restrictive of all the conditions. Comm. Aleks stated that he would have no opposition to unrestricted hours of operation, so lo n g as no disruptive noise is emanating from the busi11ess. Cmr..m. Peirce concurred, as did Chmn. Ketz. Cmnm. Rue discussed the percentages related to the sale of food versus alcohol. He felt that such a condition is not necessary at this business, noting that the Mermaid does not have such a requirement. He felt that there is good supexvision at the Lighthouse: therefore , such a condition is not necessary. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks related to the percentages, gave background history on why such a condition came into being. Comm. Peirce explained that the condition was imposed in an attempt to prevent the proliferation of bars: however, he did not feel it is necessary in this case. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of April 16, 1991, for the purpose of allowing the applicant time to retain an acoustical consultant: and for the purpose of the applicant meeting with staff regarding the conditions 16 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 prior to appearing again before the Commission; further, to recommend that the sound engineer work closely with the City. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Recess taken from 9:33 P.M. until 9:41 P.M. STAFF ITEMS a) Interpretation of Condition No . 2A of the Conditional Use Permit for 1018 Hermosa Avenue, Comedy and M3aic Club Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1991, and requested the Planning Commission to interpret Condition No. 2A of the CUP for the Hermosa Beach Comedy and Magic Club. The subject condition reads: "Entertainment shall be permitted only as an ancillary use to the restaurant use with performances limited to stand-up comedy or magic acts, acoustic music, or entertainment dancing." Webster's defines "acoustic" as "of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not electronically modified." Mr. Lacey, the applicant, is requesting an interpretation because of his concern that a strict reading of "acoustic music" would prohibit amplified music. The subject condition reads precisely as motioned by Comm. Rue at the meeting of August 7, 1990. The condition was a modification of the staff-recommended condition which specifically stated "non-amplified acoustic music." As such, it appears that the Planning Commission motion intentionally deleted the words "non-amplified." However, it is not clear if the intent was to exclude other types of amplified music such as electric guitars or electronic keyboards. Comm. Rue recalled that the Commission had no objection to amplification of some instruments. He noted that. by their very nature, some instruments are amplified. Chmn. Ketz did not feel that the Commission made a distinction between "amplified" and "acoustic." She felt that the Commission's intent was to allow amplified music. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to add wording to the condition specifying that electric guitars and electronic keyboards shall be allowed. No objections; so ordered. Mike Lacey, 1018 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) recalled the discussions which took place on this matter previously, and stated that it would be appropriate for the condition to state that "amplified entertainment" shall be allowed; (2) recalled that he and the Commission discussed the issue of entertainment dancing as well as customer dancing, but he noted that the condition was not included, apparently through an oversight; (3) explained that the minutes of the next Planning Commission meeting contain a correction to the resolution; however, the correction (to allow customer dancing) was not incorporated. Comm. Rue recalled that Mr. Lacey's comments are correct, that it was the intention of the Commission to allow both entertainment dancing and customer dancing. Chmn. Ketz concurred. • 17 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91 C ( Mr. Lacey discussed the alcohol versus food sale percentages. He stated that a full menu is offered to customers, and food is a large part of the business. He stated that the wording in the CUP is not very clear related to the percentages. He noted concern over compliance with this condition. Mr. Lee halted Mr. Lacey's comments related to the percentages, noting that this matter was advertised only as an interpretation. If the applicant desires to discuss the percentages, the matter would need to be renoticed and opened for public hearing. Mr. Lacey explained that he is not requesting an amendment related to the condition: rather, the resolution was returned to him with percentages differing from what he understood were imposed on this business. Mr. Schubach stated that it should be 65 percent food sales and 35 percent alcohol. He stated that staff would check into the matter. Mr. Lacey stated that he does not want to change anything: he merely wants a clarification of the condition related to the percentages. Mr. Schubach explained that with the amortization process, the newest conditions in place are imposed in the conditional use permits. - Mr. Schubach stated that he would look into the matter of the percentages and bring it back to the Commission as a staff item. b) Tentative Future Plannin2 Commission J\2enda No action taken. c) City Council Minutes of December 11, 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue asked about the study regarding parking on alleys. to which Mr. Schubach replied that several staff members have been out ill , but the study will soon begin. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:02 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 January 15, 1991. ,......., ~ . (_/-!!5/~l--~ ~ ~ Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach;·Secretary Date 18 P .C. Minutes 1/15/91 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-34 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 101 HERMOSA AVENUE. MICKEY'S LIQUOR AND DELI Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 17, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 2600 square feet; building size is 24 70 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store, market, and delicatessen. There are no parking spaces. Mickey's Deli is located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at 1st Street. It is a two-story building with a second floor area of about 896 square feet which is used for storage. The deli/liquor store is open from 7:00 AM. until 11 :00 P .M. weekdays, with extended hours to 2:00 AM. on Friday and Saturday nights only. Mickey's Deli is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a conditional use permit, subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance. At their meeting of November 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to place the trash dumpster inside an enclosure and to alleviate the parking on the public right-of-way on the south side of the building. The police department has requested that Mickey's participate in the EASY program and also that they package single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that the contents are easily visible. The Public Works Department has requested that Mickey's employees cease parking on the public right-of-way on the south side of the building where illegal public phones have been installed; and that on the east side, the paper racks, if on public property, be removed. The requested CUP would authorize continued general alcohol sales at this location. Staffs concerns relative to this location are minor in nature. The proposed use of a liquor store/deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage, as it has operated there for more than twenty-five years . Since this is an existing business with no history of police problems according to the patrol division, staff believes that the sale of alcohol should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions which are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions relating to trash and parking. It appears that the trash enclosure could be located along the west wall of the building on Beach Drive right at the property line; a survey may be necessary to determine the property line. Regarding the parking on public property and telephones on pubiic property, this problem is not limited only to this site. As such, these issues are being addressed by the Public Works Department through staff reports to the City Council and Planning Commission, with the ultimate policy and enforcement procedure yet to be determined. • • 2 P.C . Minutes 2/5/91 Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mike Mance, 29256 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he had read the conditions and agrees to comply with them. Comm. Marks questioned whether it would be appropriate to impose a condition specifying a date by which all conditions should be in compliance. Mr. Schubach explained that such a condition could be added; however, he had no concerns over this business or the applicant's intention to comply with all conditions. Public Hearing closed at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C . 91-11, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-35 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ENCLOSE OUTDOOR DINING AREA AT 49 AND 53 PIER AVENUE, CASABLANCA RESTAURANT IN LORETO PLAZA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 24, 1991, and recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. The approximate size of the existing restaurant is 2500 square feet inside and 380 square feet outside. The restaurant is currently operating with a Type 41 alcohol license, which allows for beer and wine in an eating establishment. • On September 4, 1990, the owners of Loreto Plaza requested that the City consider a lease/license agreement to enclose the aerial walkway /bridge which crosses City property for additional seating space for the Casablanca Restaurant within Loreto Plaza. The walkway area has already been approved for outside dining pursuant to a CUP granted on January 10, 1977. The Planning Commission also approved an amendment to the CUP in 1978 to allow service of general alcohol; however, the business has never obtained a full service alcohol license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control. Thus, the CUP has not been executed and is now null and void. The recent request was forwarded to the Council for consideration, and the Council on October 23, 1990, directed that the request be processed as a CUP amendment prior to taking action on the lease agreement. Two aerial walkways connect the second floors of the western and eastern portions of Loreto Plaza. The northerly walkway connects Casablanca's banquet facilities and restrooms with the main portion of the restaurant. The walkway is currently partially enclosed with windows on the north and a canvas awning on top. The applicant would like to completely enclose this area with a predominantly glass enclosure. The submitted plans also show the use of the entire area for tables. 3 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 The CUP granted in 1977 contains a condition that at least a five-foot walkway be provided ) along the walkway. This walkway is clearly necessary so that customers and employees can conveniently travel to the banquet room and restroom from the main portion of the restaurant and back. Otherwise, it would be necessary to use the southerly aerial walkway. As such, staff felt that the use of this enclosed area for seating should only be permitted if an adequate walkway is maintained. Staff therefore recommended a condition that a five-foot aisle be clearly marked to perpetually maintain access. The applicant has indicated that this is not a problem and stated that the plans incorrectly show tables filling the whole space and blocking the access. Otherwise, staff had no further concerns and recommended only that the CUP conditions be upgraded to include all currently applicable standard conditions for restaurants with beer and wine service and to include conditions that require the City to be insured from any liability because of the use of City property for outside dining purposes. These types of conditions requiring insurance are typical of the CUPs previously granted for other outside dining a r eas on City property. • Obtaining the CUP amendment is only the first step prior to approval for outside dining. Since the walkway is located on City property, approval is also necessary from the City Council for the appropriate lease agreement for use of City property. Public Hearing opened at 7: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jerry Newton, 2041 Circle Drive. Hermosa Beach, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that he does not propose to enclose a bridge that is owned by the City; (2) said that. pursuant to a written agreement in 1975, the property owner was given the right to construct the bridge between the two adjoining buildings; (3) continued by explaining that the bridgeways themselves are not owned by the City, and the proposal is to enclose a bridge which is privately owned but which is in City airspace; (4) continued by discussing the configuration of the building and walkway. Mr. Newton continued and: (1) explained that he is not proposing to change any use of the walkway; (2) noted that the restaurant has been in existence since 1976, and the bridge is already three-quarters enclosed; (3) stated that he is now proposing to completely enclose the area: (4) said that he has no problems with the staff-imposed conditions. other than Condition No. 2 pertaining to hours of operation: (5) explained that he would someday like to have a breakfast service; therefore, he asked for approval to open at 6:30 A.M. in order to accommodate breakfast service; (6) stated that he did not feel a breakfast service will have a negative impact on the surrounding area. noting that the restaurant is quite a distance from any residential areas. Mr. Newton, in response to questions from Comm; Marks, stated that no additional parking is proposed, explaining that patrons use the parking lot behind the plaza. Shirley Castle. Monterey. Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and opposed approval of the request, stating that the proposed use would take away from the public open space area. She stressed that the bridge is covering an area which should be returned to a public parklet. She also opposed approval because there is not adequate parking for the site. She urged denial of the project based on the negative impacts it will create. Public Hearing closed at 7:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach, in response to question from Comm. Peirce, explained that this business is in the Vehicle Parking District. and the parking area behind the building is intended to provide parking for the surrounding businesses. He stated that this use has already been approved; the request is now to enclose the area. He explained that no additional square footage is being proposed. 4 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Comm. Marks asked questions related to why this business does not need to provide additional parking, to which Mr. Schubach explained that since the proposal does not increase square footage, additional parking is not required. Comm. Marks noted concern that the enclosed dining area might draw more customers, thereby creating an impact because of the increased usage. He therefore questioned whether additional parking should be required. Mr. Lee explained that the use of the balcony area has already been approved for outdoor dining. Enclosure of the area will not increase the square footage: therefore, there is no legal requirement to require additional parking. Comm. Marks felt that the enclosure would allow for year-round use even in bad weather, as opposed to partial use, such as during the summer months only. Mr. Schubach explained that in Southern California, w e ather conditions are not normally taken into account, since heaters can be installed in uncovered patio areas. Mr. Schubach stressed, in response to Comm. Marks' concerns, that no increased square footage would be allowed unless all required parking is provided. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91 -15, with one modification: that Condition No. 2 be amended to read: 'The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:30 AM. and 1:00 AM. daily." AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Rue, Aleks Chmn. Ketz noted that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-31 --MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR OUTSIDE DINING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. HERMOSA PAVILION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 15. 1991) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 17, 1991, and recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. • At their meeting of January 15, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this request for advertisement as a master CUP for all outside dining at the Pavilion. The parking plan which governs the use of the Pavilion originally allowed up to 19,450 square feet of restaurant space including outside dining. Staff has calculated that, based on the approved plans and the agreement to reduce outside dining by 1000 square feet, the final amount of outside dining is approximately 3530 square feet. The original plans show all the outside dining located along the southerly end of the upper floor. The current operators, however, have agreed to lease the balcony facing Pacific Coast Highway to Picasso's for outside dining. This area is approximately 500 square feet . In addition, the outside dining area adjacent to the area approved for Monkee's restaurant is approximately 1230 square feet. As a result, only 1800 square feet is left for the large outdoor dining area located toward the southwest comer of the upper floor, about 1100 square feet less than what is shown on the original plans. • • 5 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 The applicant would like this area to be available to Mrs. Garcia's and perhaps to other restaurants which might locate on the upper floor. ) Given that the outside dining areas have been rearranged, staff proposed that the CUP for outside dining specifically limit the distribution of outside dining as follows: balcony facing P.C.H. (Picasso's). 500 square feet ; south end, ease of aisle (Monkee's). 1230 square feet ; and southwest comer (Mrs. Garcia's and common), 1800 square feet, for a total of 3530 square feet. Any future changes to the total would require Planning Commission approval through an amendment to the parking plan and CUP . A minor modification of the distribution of the outside dining may be approved by the Planning Director so long as the total is not increased. The only other emphasis of the master CUP. in stafrs opinion, should control how these outdoor dining areas are separated from other outside public areas, and to control the hours to prevent late night noise which would impact nearby residential areas. As such, staff recommended a condition that all outside dining areas be clearly separated from other public areas and other outside dining areas by barriers to prevent the pass-through of alcohol, and to control the movement of people between these areas. Staff also recommended that outside dining areas be closed by 9:00 P.M. on weekdays, and by 10:00 P.M. on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays. This will ensure that noise generated from concentrations of people will not impact nearby residents late at night. Otherwise, the outside dining areas are subject to the conditions in the CUP corresponding to the subject restaurant. As such, if the restaurant were granted a general alcohol CUP, the conditions of the CUP would apply to all areas, inside and outside, in addition to the conditions of the master outside dining conditional use permit. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, property manager, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that all three restaurants which will be used for outdoor dining have obtained approval for alcohol; (2) passed out drawings depicting the project site; (3) pointed out the locations of the proposed outdoor areas; (4) explained that stainless steel walls with glass inserts will be placed near Monkee's and at the perimeter of the general outdoor dining area, and there will be double doors for entering and exiting; (5) explained that planters will be used to divide the general outdoor dining space. Ms. Harris continued and: (1) stated that there is 24-hour security and parking facilities; (2) noted that she has read and agrees with all of the staff-recommended conditions with the exception of the condition relating to hours of operation: (3) requested permission to have outdoor food sezvice until 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and 11:00 P.M. on weekends; (4) explained, in response to questions from the Commission, that there will be waitresses stationed at the outdoor dining areas to sezvice all customers; (5) discussed the almost 1000 square-foot area which faces the residential area, stating that that area is not approved for restaurant use and noted that planters will be placed to discourage people from going to that area, and security will also ensure that people will not go there . Ms. Harris continued and: (1) stated that she hopes to lease some space to an exercise club and to use the 1000 square-foot area (which is not allocated for outdoor dining) for exercise bikes, if possible; (2) said that the 1000 square-foot space is not currently used for anything; (3) noted that signs will be posted advising that there shall be no loitering; (4) said that adequate signage will also be provided to guide customers to the outdoor dining areas. Public Hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. 6 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-14, with one modification: that Condition No. 3 be amended to read: "Service of food and beverage to customers in the outside dining areas shall cease at 10:00 P.M. on Sunday through Thursday, and at 11 :00 P.M. on Fridays, Saturdays, and National Holidays. All customers shall be cleared from the outside areas by no later than 30 minutes after the end of food and beverage service." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-25 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HABASH AUTO DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 1991) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1991. Staff recommended denial of the requested CUP based on insufficient parking for the combination of the proposed auto sales lot and detailing business. As an alternative, the Commission could approve a master CUP for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing businesses. Since the first of the 1991, several spot checks have been made at this business. The code enforcement officer has noted on several occasions that two or more vehicles were being worked on outside in the driveway area in front of the two bays which are allotted to Mr. Habash for cleaning. This is clearly in violation of proposed Condition No. 2 which strictly prohibits work outside of the bays. On January 30, 1991, an inspector from the Building Department made an inspection and discovered an illegal wall being built inside one of the bays. No permit has been obtained, and the plans have not been approved by either the Building or Planning Departments. This wall has been "red tagged" by the Building Department. On January 31, 1991, the Planning Department received a hand-delivered letter of complaint from two nearby residents. The substance of the complaint is that Habash Detailing has been: washing cars outside; dumping alleged illegal substances into the gutters; and causing major parking problems with the vehicles being cleaned, since the vehicles are parking on the street in the residential neighborhood. The letter also detailed at length instances of employees from the shop racing up and down their residential street in cars that are there to be cleaned. It would appear that Habash Detailing has knowingly ignored most of the dictates of the Planning Commission and has alienated some of the neighbors. Both planning and building staff have observed work taking place outdoors, in violation of the City requirements. It seems clear that the business is not operating as proposed. The combined violations of City zoning ordinances, the proposed CUP. and the parking problems caused by this business leave serious concerns that this business will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, which is already impacted. It should be noted that one of the City Council's goals is to reduce commercial/residential conflict, and staff felt that approval of this CUP would therefore be counterproductive. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. 7 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Jay Habash. 683 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the parking, stating that there is ample parking on 8th Place: (2) stated that cars are not being washed outside at any time; (3) stressed that he is complying with all City-imposed requirements: (4) explained how the cars are picked up for detailing, noting that they are not parking on the public street: (5) noted that there are problems with littering caused by the Tender Box, and he cleans up the trash and washes down the sidewalk; (6) said that the cars are washed at the car wash, not on-site. Mr. Habash continued and: (1) stated that at no time do his employees race up and down the streets: (2) said that he has had no driving accidents; (3) noted that he knows his neighbors, and they get along fine, and there are no problems or complaints; (4) explained that he intends to comply so that his insurance premium goes down, and he noted that his million-dollar policy is quite expensive: (5) said that no hazardous materials are being used; (6) noted that he is a long-term resident, and he is trying to have a successful business. Mr. Habash continued and: (1) discussed the free-standing partition which has been put up; (2) stated that cars are taken to the car wash and brought back to be buffed; (3) was given copies of the photographs taken by the code enforcement officer, to which he explained that he had not seen them before. Mr. Habash and the Commissioners discussed the photos and plans and: ( 1) Mr. Habash explained that the photo of the "abandoned" auto is not on his space; (2) in response to a request from Comm. Marks, Mr. Habash outlined on the plans the exact location of his business; (3) discussed the wall, to which Mr. Habash explained that the wall is in one of the bays; (4) Mr. Habash explained that his customers do not park at the site, noting that the cars are picked up for work from the dealerships and then returned by one of his employees. Mr. Habash went on and: (1) said that he has two employees; (2) stated that he and the employees park on the inside parking lot, which is perpendicular to 8th Place: (3) • said that only one person actually parks, however, since the others ride their bikes; (4) said that the hours are from 8:00 until 5:00 Monday through Friday and 8:00 until 3:00 on Saturday; (5) stated that no power tools are used outside at this business; (6) in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that he is unaware of any parking limitation signs on 8th Place. Ken Haas, landlord of 825 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the lot is kept clean and cars are kept off the residential streets; (2) stated that he is unaware of any signs indicating parking limitations on 8th Place; (3) noted that Mr. Habash has been a good tenant, and he has had no complaints from anyone about Mr. Habash; (4) said that he owns the property, including the used car lot. Comm. Peirce ref erred to the plot plan and asked questions related to the parkL11.g, to which Mr. Haas replied that there are at least 12 parking spaces which are used by both the car lot and the auto detailing shop. Mr. Haas explained that he drew the plot plan: however. he noted that it is not to scale. Mr. Haas explained that Mr. Habash has made an agreement with the operator of the used car lot to use some of their parking. Comm. Marks asked questions related to the space at the rear of the property, to which Mr. Schubach explained that that area is a required setback used as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses. It was further noted that that area cannot be used for trash enclosures. Comm. Peirce noted that there is a possibility that a shared parking arrangement is being discussed between Mr. Habash and the operator of the used car lot. He stated that the parking issue is a main factor in this decision. 8 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Mr. Haas agreed that parking is an important issue, but the situation is not as bad as it appears on the drawing. Public Hearing closed at 8: 10 P.M . by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. &hubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that this is a request for a master conditional use permit. He explained that staff recommended denial of the proposed use: however, the alternative is to approve the master CUP for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing businesses. Mr. Schubach explained that the auto detailing use would require three parking spaces. He stated, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, that the parking spaces depicted on the plot plan are not legal, since they meet neither the size requirements nor the turning radius requirements. He stated that it has been noted in the past that that area has been used for displaying cars for sale. Comm. Peirce noted that it is admirable that the applicant is making an effort to have a successful business, and he commented on the manner in which cars are brought to the business. He noted, however, that there is not even adequate employee parking; therefore, he found it difficult to support approval of the request. Chmn. Ketz was not convinced that the available on-site parking would support both businesses as well as customers. She noted that this is a heavily impacted area. and she questioned whether parking would always be available on the streets. Comm. Marks discussed the plot plan and asked questions about the dimensions of the areas depicted. He stated that it is important to have plans which are drawrl to scale. He felt that there is a possibility that the area in the rear could be used for additional parking; however, it would first be necessary to have the plans drawn to scale in order to ascertain the proper sizes. Mr. Habash explained that the lease agreement has not yet been finalized. He stated, however, that he would have a scale drawing prepared. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the meeting of March 5, 1991, for the purpose of allowing the applicant time to have a scale drawing prepared. The drawing shall also depict all buildings, walls. fences, parking spaces, and tenant space. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue VAR 90-5 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 12-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND TO ALLOW A PARALLEL GUEST PARKING SPACE BEHIND THE GARAGE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1010 OWOSSO AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 17, 1991, and recommended denial of the requested variance. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a lot size of 3200 square feet . The building size is 2700 square feet. The subject property is a comer lot located at the southeast comer of Owosso Avenue and 10th Street, and it fronts on 10th Street. It is a rectangular-shaped lot of a typical size for the area, and it downslopes away from the front of the lot. • • 9 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 ,\ The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of September 20, 1990, recommended a negative declaration, but recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request because of the request for variances from the height limit and the open space requirement. Since that time, the applicant has modified the plans to limit the needed variances to parking setback and to allow parallel guest parking. This was accomplished by providing open space behind what was previously a third garage space, resulting in a shortage of parking unless the parallel space is counted as a guest space. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling which would contain about 2700 square feet of living area within three levels. A variance has been requested to allow the garage to access from the side of the lot. Owosso Avenue , rather than from 10th Street. because the applicant states that the slope renders a 10th Street garage impossible. The applicant has also indicated that the access from the side would be beneficial since it is the lower side of the lot, and this way he will be able to maximize building square footage. The problem arises, however, because the lot is 40 feet wide which does not allow for a 20-foot deep garage and the required 17-foot setback in addition to the 5 -foot setback requirement. Staff disagreed with the applicant that garage access from 10th Street is impossible. In fact, it would be a rather simple design solution and would meet the code requirements. Accessing via 10th Street is the only option for most of the adjacent lots on 10th Street. and evidence that it is not possible. In addition, another alternative is available whereby the Owosso Street. access could be used if the garage is oriented to face in a northerly direction rather than directly facing the street and the 17-foot setback would not be applicable. In this way, cars would enter a driveway area and tum right into the garage stalls, and three stalls could easily be provided, either three inside or two inside and one outside. Under this scenario, the applicant could meet code requirements and would also meet his objective of accessing the property from Owosso. The only drawback is that most of the ground-floor level would have to be used for driveway area for turning radius and the garage itself, leaving a smaller basement area. Nonetheless, a house of over 2500 square feet could easily be constructed. Staff further noted concern over the proposed 12-foot setback, as it may result in cars parking straight-in and thus cars might overhang onto the sidewalk. Avoiding this situation was the primary reason for adopting the 17-foot setback requirement. The code only recently was amended to allow for parallel guest parking, btit only for garages on an alley where blocking sidewalks is not a concern. Given that this reques t in volve s completely new construction and, further,· that options are clearly available to meet code requirement and build a functional house, staff did not believe a variance is justified. Further, there is nothing unusual, unique, or extraordinary about the physical characteristics of the subject lot. Public Hearing opened at 8 :26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Robert Citelli, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that remodeling is prohibitive in cost, and new construction seems more feasible; (2) stated that impacts to the neighbors and the neighborhood were taken into account when this project was designed; (3) commented that this lot is unique in that this is a comer lot, and large setbacks will be implemented in the project; (4) discussed parking and stated that there is a nine-foot setback, and the garages proposed are similar to the current garages; (5) said that cars do not currently park in the drive and hang out onto the sidewalk, therefore, he did not foresee that happening with the new project. Mr. Citelli continued and: (1) said that the proposed plan makes good use of the lot, which is sloped and is on a comer; (2) explained that a wall and commercial property abuts one side of P .C. Minutes 2/5/91 his property: (3) said that his neighbors are in support of this project and the plans as designed, as well as the parking on Owosso: (4) submitted to the Commission five letters of support from his neighbors: (5) said that the neighbors are in agreement that this plan will not adversely impact the views, parking, or noise in the area. Mr. Citelli went on and: ( 1) again stated that this lot is not common. in that it is on a corner and it has a slope; (2) felt that denial of this project would deny him a property right enjoyed by others in the area; (3) discussed the option of the garage on 10th Street, explaining that the neighbors are concerned over that option for reasons of noise. parking, and safety of children; (4) said that the neighbors favor parking on Owosso; (5) said, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, that a third garage cannot be built because there would not be adequate open space; (6) to which Comm. Peirce countered that the house itself could be smaller to accommodate a third garage. Larry Harris, 1200 Aviation Boulevard, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) responded to questions from Comm. Marks related to the location of the garage, and explained that the garage is outside of the footprint of the basement; (2) continued by discussing the location of the proposed garage; (3) discussed with Comm. Marks the plans as related to open space and the location of the garage; (4) displayed renderings of the project. Mr. Harris continued and: (1) discussed the staff-proposed alternatives, explaining that those alternatives did not take into account the neighborhood itself: (2) discussed the alternative of the garage facing 10th Street. stating that no one favors that placement, since the living area would be displaced and thereby would push the walls out into the setback area: (3) stated that Owosso is considered a sideyard. not a front setback; (4) said that a garage on 10th Street would have an adverse impact the Owosso side, because the building would need to be relocated; (5) discussed the various setbacks for this project. Mr. Harris went on and: (1) stressed that this is a unique lot because it is on a comer; (2) said that corner lots have more sunlight and ventilation than inside lots; (3) said t}:lat he has been sensitive to the area. and the building has been stepped back; (4) said that the Owosso setback is larger than is required; (5) commented that this is a very nice design. and approval of the variance would enable living space on the two upper levels. rather than having living space on the basement level. • Mr. Harris continued and: ( 1) urged the Commission to look favorably on this plan: (2) said that the 12-foot setback is not as big an issue as it appears on first glance; (3) noted that other homes on Owosso have the same situation as this project, and those projects have 11-foot garage setbacks: (4) said that this project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood; (5) did not feel that cars will park in the drive and hang out over on the sidewalk, noting that he has not seen anyone else in the area doing that; (6) stated that there is no proof ·that cars hanging out on the sidewalk have been a problem in this neighborhood. Mr. Harris went on and: (1) noted that neighbors have submitted letters of approval for this project; (2) stated that other property owners in this area are enjoying property rights which this owner would be denied if the variance is denied: (3) said that relocation of the garage would necessitate a rearrangement of living space, sunlight, and ventilation; (4) noted that neither the applicant nor the neighbors favor this project being built with the minimum setbacks; (5) discussed the staff report, and stated that it would be impossible to have the garage on 10th Street and retain the living space arrangement. Mr. Harris continued and: (1) explained that the minimum sideyard is four feet, not five feet as stated by staff; (2) stated that the staff proposed parking would increase the mass of the project. since the building would have to be built to the minimum setbacks; (3) discussed the drawings he had on display depicting the project and potential mass: (4) said that other property owners in this area enjoy rights which this owner would be denied, to which Comm. Peirce countered that those properties were constructed under a different set of code requirements; (5) said that 11 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 he was unaware of any other similar variances granted for projects such as this in the R-1 zone on a corner lot. Mr. Harris continued and: (1) again stressed that this is a unique lot with good potential; (2) urged the Commission to entertain approval of this request. Kevin Epstein, 1070 10th Street, Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets the code requirements; (2) stated that the applicants are not trying to maximize the project: (3) felt that this is a good proposal which will benefit the neighborhood: (4) stated that approval of the variance will be good for the area. Jeff Greene, 922 10th Street. Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that it is important that the City guidelines be adhered to so that developers have guidelines under which to work: (2) did not feel that there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances in this case: (3) said that the 17 -foot setback is a requirement which must be dealt with in the design of projects: (4) urged the Commission to uphold the requirements of the City. Public Hearing closed at 8:58 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce asked how the Commission would know what will be built on this lot if this variance is approved. Mr. Schubach explained that a variance runs with the land: therefore, another project could be built unless a condition were imposed requiring that the submitted plans be built. Mr. Lee explained that the variance would be granted based upon the representation of the submitted plans. If another set of plans were submitted through the building permit process, it is possible that the mitigation measures of this project would not be included in new plans: therefore, it is important that the plans be consistent so that the representations made here are consistent. Comm. Peirce noted that the applicant does not desire to build garages on 10th Street, and he felt that another garage could be added on the side street. He could see nothing unique or extraordinary about this lot. In response to the applicant's assertions that others in the neighborhood are enjoying certain property rights. he noted that those projects were built under different code requirements. He noted that this project must conform to the current code requirements, as would the other properties if they were built or remodeled now. Chmn. Ketz could see no unique or extraordinary circumstances related to this lot. She said that there are many corner lots. and if they were that unique, the code would need to be amended to accommodate them. She commented that this project might be too large for the lot, and it should be redesigned. She could not support approval of the variance request, explaining that she cannot make the findings as required by law. MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve stafrs recommendation, Resolution P .C. 91-12, denying a variance to allow a 12-foot garage setback rather than the required 17-foot setback and to allow a parallel guest parking space behind the garage at 1010 Owosso Avenue . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks. Peirce. Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks. Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 9:03 P.M. until 9:08 P.M. 12 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 NR 90-5 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARDAT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28. 1991, and recommended approval of the 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 9270 square feet, and the existing building size is 1916 square feet. The proposed addition is 996 square feet, or a 49 percent increase in valuation. There are two parking spaces. At their meeting of July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission denied the same request for an exception by a 3 to 1 vote, based on the fact that the proposal did not meet the then current terms of the ordinance which allowed an exception only when 75 percent of the block has similar or lesser nonconforming sideyards. Since that time Section 13-7(b) (3) has been amended to give the Planning Commission the authority to grant exceptions when: "the Planning Commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required setback is minor and necessary for the logical extension of a wall and that the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards in the block as defined by the zoning ordinance." This amendment was adopted by the City Council on November 27, 1990. At the,meeting of July 3, 1990, the Planning Commission approved the request for a variance to allow the addition with a slightly deficient parking stall of 17 feet. 3 inches. rather than the required 18 feet. The applicant is proposing a second-story addition to the existing ohe-story single-family dwelling which would increase the floor area of the house from 1916 square feet to a total of 2912 square feet. The portion of this project under consideration involves a second-story addition above the existing den's south wall which has a nonconforming side yard which ranges from 3.21 feet to 3.28 feet. The length of the encroaching wall is only about 22 feet. Allowing the second story to also encroach into the otherwise required side yard of 4.5 feet will allow the construction of a second story flush with the first-story wall. Staff previously has field checked and measured side yard setbacks on the subject lot and found that 50 percent of the lots on the block have similar or lesser conforming side yards. Under the previously applicable requirement that at least 75 percent have similar or lesser side yards, there was no choice but to recommend denial. The current ordinance, however. gives the Planning Commission the authority to grant an exception when the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards of the block. Staff felt that such a finding can be made. Staff also felt that the proposed continuation of the south wall only for the length of the existing encroachment is minor and is also necessary for the logical extension of the wall. Hearing opened at 9:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Peggy Kersulis. 1781 Valley Park Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and requested approval of the request so that they build their project straight up, rather than having to dip in as was previously suggested. Hearing closed at 9: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Chmn. Ketz. seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-16, as written. 13 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 AYES: NOES : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Peirce None Comms. Aleks , Rue Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CON 90-20/PDP 90-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409. AND PRECISE DEVEWPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 6 19 10TH STREET (REFERRED BACK FROM JANUARY 8 1 1991, CITY COUNCIL MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 29, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council base their decision on satisfying the neighbor to the east and to provide the setback to a point which would minimize view blockage. Staff estimated this to be approximately a seven-foot minimum. As an alternative, the Commission could recommend by minute order that the Council sustain Condition No. 2, requiring an average front setback of 10 feet, with a minimum of 7 feet. Staff noted that they had received word from the neighbor to the east that the neighbor has no objection to a seven-foot setback, if the waterfall feature remains as shown, and the corner of the building is set back seven feet . Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that the Commission can either make a new recommendation, or they can stand by their initial recommendation on this matter. Hearing opened at 9: 16 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jeff Greene , 922 10th Street. Manhattan Beach, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he would be happy to mention the original submittal, however, he preferred to discuss only the issue at hand ; (2) stated that he designed with the five-foot setback in mind; (3) stated that Council directed that talks take place with the neighbor in an attempt to minimize any impact to the view; (4) stated that they have met with the neighbor to discuss the project. and he continued by discussing the footprint of the project in relation to the setbacks; (5) said that adjustments have been made to the project in order to preserve the view. Mr. Greene continued and: (1) said that the arc of the front of the building was reduced by six inches, effectively pulling the building back six inches, however three -inches were s till impinging on the neighbors' view; (2) explained, therefore, that the arc was pulled back another three inches. allowing for an almost 90-degree view for the neighbor; (3) continued by explaining what would happen if the building were pulled back ten feet; (4) displayed a drawing of the proposed project; (5) discussed the windows and the building itself as they relate to the neighbors' view. Mr. Greene continued and: ( 1) said that the neighbor agrees with the current plan; (2) stated that this project now meets with the intent of the Council to meet with the neighbor to work out an agreement; (3) discussed the waterfall, stating that it is easier to install the water feature now rather than having to install it later, and noted that if so desired it can be used for landscaping rather than a waterfall at the current time . Carl Janssen, 625 10th Street, neighbor of the proposed project, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the issue of the ten-foot setback is important on this street; (2) stated that he would prefer a ten-foot setback on the proposed project so that his view is not lost; (3) noted concern over the proposed waterfall, noting that the State is in a severe qrought; (4) noted that water features are troublesome to maintain; (5) said that the applicants have made an attempt 14 P.C . Minutes 2/5/91 to meet with him to resolve this problem; (6) in response to questions from Comm Marks, discussed the location and configuration of his house and the street. Hearing closed at 9:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach stated that the staff recommendation is to recommend that the Council base its decision on the fact that the neighbor to the east is now satisfied with the setback and the fact that his view will be preserved by use of the 6 foot, six inch setback. He explained that the Commission is only being asked to comment on the waterfall protrusion, not any of the other setbacks. Jeff Greene explained that the waterfall portion was redrawn and brought back; nothing else has been changed. He noted that the plans have already been approved, and the only issue in question is the waterfall feature protrusion which has been pulled back to satisfy the concerns of the neighbor. Comm. Peirce stated that he has not changed his mind on his original recommendation of the ten-foot setback. He stated that it is commendable that the applicant has met with the neighbor; however, he did not feel it would be appropriate to set a precedent with this case. He felt that the rules and regulations must be adhered to. Chmn. Ketz stated that she would support approval of the compromise of seven feet, noting that the neighbor to the east has been satisfied. She noted, however, that approval of the compromise would unfortunately mean that other setbacks on the street could be less than ten feet. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Marks, to recommend that the 10-foot setback be retained, as originally recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce Chmn. Ketz None Comms. Aleks, Rue CUP 90-5 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE. GOLDEN LION LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1991, and recommended that the Commission direct staff to continue to strictly enforce the provisions of the conditional use permit which was adopted on November 26, 1990. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 2. 1990, several Commissioners expressed concern regarding the lack of progress at this project, and a condition to report back as to the progress by January 1991 was added to the conditions of approval. Mr. Schubach stated that it appears that the owner of the property and the owner of the business are now working together to comply with all statutes of the conditional use permit. He stated that the applicants have until March 1, 1991, to comply with all conditions. If compliance is not met by that time, a citation can be issued. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. 15 P.C . Minutes 2/5/91 FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1990, and stated that it is time to schedule general plan amendments. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission or City Council may request general plan amendments. At this time, no private projects have been submitted, and staff had no suggestions for areas to be considered. If the Planning Commission desires to discuss potential amendments, staff should be directed to start the process at this time. Chmn. Ketz stated that there were no recommendation from the Commission at this time. STAFF ITEMS a) Setback Interpret ation at 501 and 517 Hermosa Avenue Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 5, 1991, and recommended that the alley side of the lot be interpreted as the front yard, the Hermosa Avenue side as the side yard, and to use the alley setback requirements for the front yard dimension. This issue has arisen in response to a request to the Building Department to construct two separate single-family dwellings on Lot 22 (parcels 24 and 25). The setback requirements in the R-3 zone are not clear for the rear half-lot. Pursuant to Section 11 -1 of the zoning ordinance, when an ambiguity exists with respect to yard requirements, it is the Planning Commission's duty to set forth findings and interpretation by resolution. Said resolution must ultimately be adopted by the City Council. The subject lot is a half lot with frontage on Hermosa Avenue and the alley known as 6th Court in the R-3 zone. Section 603 pertaining to front yards in the R-3 zone requires a setback as shown on the zoning map. Neither the Hermosa Avenue nor the 6th Court frontages have such a number on the map due to the fact that they are normally rear and side yards . Pursuant to Section 233, the definition of "front lot line" is the line separating the lot from the street, which would mean that Hermosa Avenue would be considered the front. However, it also states that in the case of a corner lot, the front lot line shall be the line separating the narrowest street frontage from the street. Therefore, if 6th Court were considered to be a street, it would be the front . Because of these ambiguities, staff is unable to make a legal determination. -Nonetheless. staff felt that the most logical interpretation, in order to be consistent with other lots on the block, would be to consider the 6th Court side the front and require the same setback required for the alley side on the other lots on the block (three feet on the ground floor, and one foot on the second floor) and to consider Hermosa Avenue the side yard, resulting in a setback of 10 percent of the width, or 3.36 feet . Mr. Lee concurred with staffs interpretation and recommendation on this issue. He noted that this recommendation pertains to this project only, explaining that these matters are addressed on a case-by-case basis. MOTION by Comm. Peirce , seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-16, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Aleks, Rue 16 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 b) P~ Department Activity Report for December 1990 Comm. Peirce asked questions about MAX ridership and subsidies. to which Mr. Schubach gave a brief update. Comm. Peirce wanted to know how many riders are from Hermosa Beach. c) Tentative Future Plannlnlf Commission Menda No action taken. d) List of Completed Projects for Inspection Mr. Schubach explained that Commissioners can make arrangement to see the interiors of completed projects if they so desire. e) City Council Minutes of Januruy s. 1991 No action taken. COMMISSION ITEMS Comm. Peirce commented on the League of California Cities meeting, to which Mr. Schubach noted that funds are available for Commissioners who wish to attend. Chmn. Ketz asked about HIP (Housing Improvement Plan) nominations, to which Mr. Schubach gave a brief update. Comm. Peirce asked about the joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop which was to take place, to which Mr. Schubach _explained that the Council has requested that the meeting be postponed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded byChmn. Ketz, to adjourn at 9:54 P.M. No objei:;tions: 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 February 5, 1991. •• ~.., / / ~ ~ ----------7 ~ #--~ ---------==:c..._ _____ _ Christine Ketz. Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary ~ I 'J. /j<\ 1 Date 17 P.C. Minutes 2/5/91 Resolution P.C. 91 -15, A RESOLUTION OF 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE DINING AND ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT TO ALLOW TIIE ENCLOSURE OF THE OUTSIDE DINING AREA LOCATED ON THE AERIAL WALKWAY WITIIIN LORETO PLAZA AT 49 PIER AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 22, 23, AND 24, BLOCK 13, HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT; Resolution P.C. 91-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-7(C) (3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING WALL NONCONFORMING TO TI-IE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE , AND LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, 1RACT 15546; Resolution P.C. 91-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO INTERPRET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A "HALF-LOT" IN TIIE R-3 ZONE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1101 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO AMBIGUITIES IN THE CODE, LOCATED AT 517 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS TIIE NORTHERLY 4 7.5 FEET OF LOT 22, BLOCK 6, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz None Corrnn. Rue None COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-22 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22560 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONOOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 544 AND 546 25TII STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 12, 1991, and recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of March 19, 1991, so that the applicant can revise the project to provide adequately dimensioned parking spaces and to submit the physical report as required by Section 7.2-21(b) of the zoning ordinance. This project is located in the R -lA zone, with a lot size of 7466 square feet. The existing living area of the front unit is 2460 square feet; existing living area of the rear u nit is 2084 square feet. Three parking spaces currently exist, and five are being p roposed for the project. The subject property contains two existing units attached at the garage level. Three enclosed parking spaces are located between the units, accessed from the side. The two units were constructed in 1964. The rear unit was remodeled and enlarged in 1990 by the addition of a second story. The front two-story structure is proposed to be remodeled to add a roof deck, entry area, interior upgrades and a new roof. The plans are currently in plan check in the Building Department. The applicants wish to convert the existing dwellings to condominium ownership. The zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for condominium conversions and sets forth the standards for review of such requests. The zoning code includes a provision that " ... the Planning Commission shall require that condominium conversions ... conform to the current requirements of the City codes .... " (Section 2 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 7 .2~30). As such, the first step is to determine whether these existing dwellings meet cu1Tent zoning requirements. Staff. therefore, has reviewed this request for confonnance with the zoning code as it applies to the R -lA zone and to condominiums. The dwellings, as depicted on the plans, generally conform with zoning requirements except for parking dimensions. Two of the proposed parking spaces are shown at 8 feet, 2 inches wide. rather than the required 8 feet, 6 inches. The one along the driveway can easily be corrected, but the one adjacent to the rear dwelling is bounded by the east wall of the house and the property line and thus would require a further remodel. The two proposed parking spaces are not currently being used for parking. Another deficiency is that the plans do not indicate any storage areas toward meeting the storage requirements. The plans otherwise conform to lot coverage, setbacks, height, open space, turning radius requirements. and all other zoning standards. A further requirement of the condominium conversion section is that a tenant assistance plan be provided. Given that these two units are owner occupied, this section is not applicable. However, staff felt that a proof of ownership and a signed affidavit should be provided to verify that the occupants are indeed the owners. Another requirement is that a physical report " ... detailing the structural condition of all elementcs of the property including foundation, electrical, plumbing. laundries, utilities , walls, ceilings, windows, recreational facilities, sound transmission of each building. mechanical equipment, parking facilities, and appliances ... " is required as part of subuuttal (Section 7 .2~ 21[b)). The applicant has been notified of this requirement and is requesting that this be applied as a condition of approval. Staff does not feel this would be appropriate given that the code specifically requires this physical report as part of the submittal, and, as such, the infonnation in the report may bear upon the Planning Commission's decision. In regard to the deficient parking stall width for the parking space in the rear, it should be noted that when the remodeling vians were submitted in April of last year, the applicant was advised that the required parking stall widtl1 is 8 feet, 6 inches. The plans were approved at that time, however, because he was not applying for the conversion, and the additional space was not necessary for obtaining building pennits. As an alternative to another remodel to the rear unit to create adequate width for the parking stall, the applicant may request a variance. Staff, however, does not see the justification for such a variance since there is clearly room on the site, through building remodels, to provide the required parking. . • · -• Finally, on August 25, 1988, the Building Department notified the applicant of a violation due to the fence located in the public right-of-way in front of the lot. To this day, although a pennit to correct the violation has been obtained, the fence has not been removed. Comm. Rue stated that he would like to see exterior elevations of the project before final approval. He noted that the buildings currently look very dissimilar. Public Hear:irlg opened at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission and: (l) stated the proof of ownership will be provided as requested by staff; (2) described the two proposed units, explaining that the units meet all requirements of condominium use: {3) stated that the applicants desire to upgrade the units by remodeling, and both units will then be very similar; (4) discussed the required physical report, stating that it is a very expensive document to provide, therefore, the applicants would like this requirement to 3 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 be included as part of the conditions of approval; (5) stated that when the project is .finished, ) both units will be very similar as related to the age and the amenities. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) discussed parking. stating that the applicants were aware of the guest parking requirements from the very beginning; (2) gave background history of the rear unit and its parking dimensions; (3) stated that the issue of the rear parking did not come to light until after the plans were submitted; (4) explained that the wall was moved one foot as requested by the City so that the parking would conform; (5) discussed the new plans, stating that the new wall was tom down during construction and moved in, in order to comply with the guest parking requirements of the condo ordinance. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that staff's recommendation to again alter the wall is somewhat harsh; (2} said that the guest parking space is currently being used for parking: (3) said that the proposed parking dimension is not unheard of; (4) said that the parking does meet the intent of the code; (5) explained that the applicant made an attempt to comply with the laws that ensted at the time. Ms. Srour continued and: ( 1) discussed the front parking space, stating that it is easy to comply with all requirements: (2) was informed by Mr. Schubach that the parking space in the rear is also too short. to which he added that staff can study this issue further. Cbmn. Ketz asked why the applicant did not obtain a CUP prior to commencement of the remodel, to which Ms. Srour explained that she suspects there was a communication problem which resulted in the current problem. Ms . Srour stressed that there has been no intention to circumvent any code requirements. Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued so that staff can further study this matter. Ms. Srour asked for direction from the Commission on this project, in light of the fact that staff is requesting a physical report. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that a variance is required for the parking: therefore, a decision cannot be made at this time. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, that the ph:ysical report is necessary so that staff can set forth conditions of approval. Ms. Srour stated that she could understand staffs concerns; however, she pointed out that these units are not attached at the second level She stated that sound attenuation is very important, but again, she noted that no li'Ving areas share common walls. Mr. Lee explained that the physical report is a requirement of the condominium ordinance: therefore, the requirement cannot be waived unless the code is amended. Mr. Schubach. in response to comments from Comm. Marks, explained that the City does not make pro'Vision for compact parking spaces in residential zones. Ms. Srour st.a.ted that, had they known, the applicants would have applied for a variance at the outset. At this time, however, she asked for input from the Commission as to whether this proposal meets the intent of the condominium ordinance. Mr. Schubach st.a.ted that if the wall problem is corrected, a variance would not be necessary. Public Hearing continued at 7:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. 4 P.C. Minutes 2 / 19/91 Comm. Rue stated that the application appears to be fine; however, he had several concerns related to the appearance of the front unit, noting that it does not have the same architectural design as the rear unit. He noted that condos should have cohesiveness of design, especially as related to age and appearance of the buildings. He felt that the open space and heights are acceptable, and he noted that the only problems appear to relate to the parking. He explained that a variance would be necessary in this case for the parking. He then questioned whether other cities have provisions for approving "minor variances." Chmn. Ketz expressed concern over the size of the parking spaces, particularly since this project was started before the applicant applied for the conditional use permit. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this item to the meeting of March 19, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cornms. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Peirce CUP 90-23 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS UNTIL DARK AT 200 LONGFELLOW A VENUE, LA PENITA #2 (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 10/ 16/90, 11/20/90, AND 1/2/91) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 9, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission· approve the proposed CUP amendment with the following change: Outdoor dining including service of beer and wine shall be limited to 9:30 AM to 8:00 PM during daylight savings time, and 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM during Pacific Standard Time. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The applicant is presently operating a Mexican restaurant with service of beer and wine and outdoor dining. A residence is located upstairs. On June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a beer and wine conditional use permit. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended the adoption of a negative declaration for the project. The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for outside dining for the "Shrimp Pot" at this address on April 6, 1976. Currently, the restaurant is restricted to outdoor dining from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Staff felt that the hours could be expanded so long as the noise ordinance standards are not violated. An amendment to the current conditions would prohibit noise exceeding the noise limits, and any violation would result in an immediate limitation of the hours of operation. Further, the applicant must agree that the City's monitoring of the noise is adequate evidence that excessive noise is occurring and therefore the hours of operation would be reduced to the original hours of 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM if a violation occurs. Because there are currently two CUPs, one for outdoor dining and one for beer and wine, staff has combined the two CUPs via this amendment into one comprehensive CUP which supersedes the other two. It should be noted that the parking area is in need of restriping; the stripes are almost obliterated. Comm. Rue discussed Condition No. 2(a): "At any time noise that violates the City's noise ordinance is generated by the subject restaurant, it shall be cause to limit the hours of 5 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 operation to 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM in the outdoor dining area." He noted that one incident would ) be sufficient to force the restaurant to go to the shorter hours. Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Gilbert Orozco, 16826 Denker Avenue, Gardena, representing the applicant, Mary Orozco, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that with the exception of the striping, all conditions have been met; (2) stated that the applicant has read and agrees with all of the proposed conditions; (3) stated that he is aware that one noise violation shall be cause to limit the hours of operation on the patio. Public Hearing closed at 7:36 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that since no square footage is being added to this business, no additional parking is being required . Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that noise is monitored boiji on a complaint basis and on a regular enforcement basis. Comm. Rue questioned whether Condition No . 2(a) is too onerous, noting that an isolated instance of patrons becoming too noisy could be cause for reducing the hours of operation on the patio. Mr . Schubach stated that the City is interested in chronic noise problems, not one-time incidences. He noted the importance of enforcement. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-99, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Peirce Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY THE A,B,C. AND FOR ADULT VIDEOS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3232 MANHA.TIAN AVENUE. DAN'S UQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 21, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested CUP. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C -1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The lot size is 4320 square feet. with a building size of 2982 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store, mini market, deli, and X-rated video sales. There are seven parking spaces. Dan's Liquor is located on the southeast corner of Manhattan Avenue at 33rd Street. It is a single-story building with diagonal parking south of the building. The business is presently operating from 7:00 AM until 2:00 AM daily. Dan's Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance which has not obtained a CUP. It should be noted that this business began the CUP process in January of 1990, but the store was sold in the summer of 6 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 J 1991 and the subsequent owner has stated he was unaware of the requirements to complete the CUP process. There has thus been a lengthy delay. At their meeting of February 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to submit a sign plan that conforms with the present code along with a new plan for the layout of parking and for a trash enclosure. The Police Department requested that Dan's Liquor participate in the soon-to-be-implemented EASY Program and to sell single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that the contents are easily visible. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales at this location. The proposed use of a liquor store/deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage while operating there for over 20 years. However, the request to sell X-rated videos does not seem appropriate for a business located in a residential neighborhood. Staff is also concerned with the existing diagonal parking layout which results in cars regularly parking over the public right-of-way. Further, the trash dumpster should be enclosed with an approved masonry enclosure with a screened gate after approval by the Planning Director as to location on the property. It appears the trash container could be located along the west wall just below the storage area in the southernmost portion of the parking lot. The boarded up front window area on the west side could use sanding and painting. Also, in the parking lot, landscaping would be provided along the west wall of the southern portion of the property. Otherwise, since this is an existing business with no major history of police problems according to the records, staff felt that the sale of alcohol and a deli should be allowed to continue. subject to the proposed conditions, which include standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions relating to parking, the trash dumpster, signs, and landscaping. Also. the recommended conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. The Police Department has also recommended a condition to require this business to participate in the EASY Program. Staff felt that X-rated videos might possibly be acceptable in such a business, but that X-rated is out of the question in this case because of the business' proximity to homes and children. However, because of case law, the City can only regulate such uses when they are a minor part of the business. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Ronald Duffaut, property owner, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has only recently become aware of the CUP requirement; (2) explained that he received the staff report only last week; (3) explained that he has been unable to contact the business owner to discuss this proposal; (4) asked that this matter be continued in order that he might have an opportunity to study the issues and meet with the business owner; (5) explained that the ownership of this property has recently been changed. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has no objection to a continuance as requested by the property owner. 7 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 Edie Weber, 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked at what point a minor usage of adult videos becomes a major usage; (2) asked who monitors such usage; (3) questioned the ramifications of such a usage. Mr. Lee responded by explaining that case law does not specify an exact percentage as to what constitutes an adult usage. In some instances, 50 percent has been used to categorize an adult usage. Mr. Schubach explained that a code enforcement officer monitors the usage of X-rated videos, and the City can conduct an audit of the inventory if deemed necessary. Mr. Duffaut stated that he will work with the business owner in an attempt to discontinue the use of X-rated videos. Public Hearing continued at 7:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to continue this hearing to the meeting of March 19, 1991, so that the owner can have time to study the matter. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Peirce Comm. Rue conunented on the parking and asked whether the parking could be done in a parallel fashion as opposed to diagonal. He noted safety concerns over the current diagonal configuration. CUP 90-37 /PARK 90-9/PDP 90-10 --CONDITI ONAL USE PERMIT. PARKING PLAN. AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO BODY SHOP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1081-1085-1087 AVIATION BOULEVARD, EUROPEAN BODY SHOP Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 13, 1991, and reconunended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed CUP. PDP, and Parking Plan, subject to conditions, including limiting the number of service bays to four by adoption of the proposed resolution. Staff suggested an alternative recommendation that the request be denied, with the finding that the site is inadequate in size for an auto body repair and painting business. The City Council, at their meeting of October 23, 1991, sustained the decision of the Planning Commission, on appeal, to deny a similar request because of concerns that the proposed size of the building was not adequate for storage of wrecked vehicles, plus work areas and storage of parts, and thereby the exterior parking lot would inevitably become the area for storage of wrecked vehicles and be an eyesore. Although Council denied the request, it directed the applicant to further discuss alternatives with staff to address their concerns. The applicant has resubmitted the request with a modification in the plans to construct a much larger building. The proposed interior service area is approximately 57 percent larger than the previous proposal and contains nine service bays rather than the previously proposed four. This appears to indicate that the intent is not to satisfy the issues of inadequate vehicle and parts storage and outdoor work activities, but instead to build an oversized body and fender shop. The applicant has met with staff to discuss the alternative to enlarge the building. Although staff believes that an even larger building would be possible and that a larger site would be 8 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 more appropriate ibr this type of use, the proposal appears to be satisfactory if there is compliance with the conditions of approval. A parking plan is necessary because the strict applicatio11 of the code-required parking is based on building square footage. At one space per 250 square feet, the requirement in this case would be 18 spaces. Staff felt that a finding can be made to allow a sum total of 16 spaces rather than the 18 in this case because a significant amount of the building will be dedicated for parking purposes, not work areas. This is only possible, however, if some of the service bays are eliminated and dedicated to parking and storage of vehicles only, The submitted plans depict using all the interior area for service bays during operating hours. Staff felt that to make the findings for a parking plan and to appropriately control the scale of the business operation, a portion should be left for parking and vehicle storage only. As such, staff recommended a condition that the service bays be limited to four, and that the remaining interior space be used for vehicle storage/ parking, meaning that the other five spaces would be for vehicle storage and parking only, not for work areas. The new plan also includes a large area for parking and storage of vehicles overnight. This is an added benefit of the larger building, but by itself does not address the need to provide parking during the day which again indicates the applicant is not trying to address the concerns stated above. The only way these concerns can be addressed is by limiting the number of service bays. The new plans have reduced the rear setback to five feet. The minimum required by the code is ten feet for a two-story building adjacent to a residential zone. Although the zoning to tbe rear is commercial, it is used re~identially; therefore, staff included a condition that the plans be revised to show a ten-foot setback. This will allow for adequate room for substantial trees to grow. In addition. staff recommended a condition that doorway access be provided to the rear to allow for access to the landscaped area for maintenance purposes. It should also be noted that the new plans provide for a six-foot block wall along the rear of the property and for a six-foot-high fence along the front consisting of tubular railing and a concrete block base. Staff included conditions that these walls be constructed with decorative materials to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. In regard to the concerns over noise, the work areas will be completely enclosed in a concrete block building, and windows and doors shall be closed when work activities are being conducted. For assurance, a condition is included that adequate ventilation be provided to ensure comfort and safety while the doors are closed. Also, the hours of operation Will be limited Monday through Friday to between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM and Saturdays from 9:00 AM to2:00PM. • The release of fumes and odors will be subject to the most current requirements of the Fire Department and the Air Quality Management District. However, with the close proximity to dwelling units, state-of-the-art methods of eliminating odors are necessary and must be shown in detail on revised plans. Staff felt that the new design, in conjunction With the proposed conditions, should adequately mitigate the many concerns associated with this type of business to a level to make the business compatible with the surrounding area. Staff is aware that a saturation of auto body repair shops already exists in the area. and that many problems have yet to be resolved with the operation of these businesses. Although adding another shop does not appear to be a step toward jm.proving the area, the construction of a shop with the type of building and site improvements proposed by this applicant may show that this type of use can be compatible with the area and set an example for the existing shops. This would require diligence on the part of the City to ensure that conditions are being followed, and the willingness of the busines.c; to comply with all of the conditions at all times. 9 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 Mr. Schubach. in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, stated that the proposal calls for seven parking spaces outside and nine indoor service bays. Staff is requesting the removal of five of the indoor service bays. In any event. there would be a parking deficiency of two spaces, since 18 spaces are required. Public Hearing opened at 8:05 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jim Marquez. representing the applicant, addressed the Conimission and: (1) stated that the present location of the body shop is at 505 l / 4 Pacific Coast Highway, and the applicant is requesting to relocate the business pursuant to the City's amortization requirement$; (2) stated that it is desired to enlarge the size of the structure so that the outdoor area is not used for storage of vehicles: (3) explained that the outdoor area will at no time be used for storage of vehicles or parts: (4) said that four service bays will be adequate, and the applicant will retain the other five bays for the storage of vehicles: (5) discussed the setback, stating that a ten-foot setback at the rear will be retained for use as a buffer. Paul Phillips, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stressed that all conditions will be met by this business; (2) noted that the Commission bas the power to re\tiew this business to ensure that all conditions are being met; (3) noted that because the building bas been enlarged, only 16 parking spaces are available; (4) noted that a ten-foot setback at the rear will be provided; (5) felt that this business can be an asset to the City and can serve as an example to other businesses; (6) in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that he feels this business can meet all air emission requirements. Edie Weber. 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and (1) discussed requirements in other cities for businesses such as this: (2) asked for an emergency moratorium until the City can decide in which zone businesses of this type should be located; (3) fel t that this business does not meet the current requirements for air emission standards; (4) n oted concern over the proliferation of businesses of this type in the area; {5) noted concern over illegal spot painting. especially near residential areas. Ms. Weber continued and: (1) noted concern over the appearance and safety of businesses of this type; (2) noted concern over environmental and pollution control; (3) wanted current emission figures for businesses such as this in the City; (4) noted concein over the nealtb and safety of residents; (5) stressed that nothing has changed with any of the currently existing body shops in the City, noting that problems have not been corrected. Ms. Weber went on and: (1) discussed methods used by body s}lops and noted concern over their safety; (2) stated that many regulations are in place and all should be adhered to by auto body shops; (3) discussed penalties available for \Ti.olation of the air quality standards; (4) noted concern over fumes, parking. traffic, safety, air, and noise so close to the residential areas. Ray Martin, 1255 Corona Street. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed approval of this auto body shop; (2) stated that the area is already too congested; (3) noted concern over wrec k ed vehicles on the site: (4) urged the City to clean up that area of the City by not allowing another auto body shop; (5) noted concern over noise and paint fumes. Bernard Winnaker, 1232 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over the number of auto body/repair shops in the area: (2) noted concern over the noise emanatiIIg from these establishments; (3) stated that the quality of life in the City would be degraded by approval of this project. Martin Moreno, 1326 Cororta, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) opposed the proposed project, noting that there are already too many such businesses in the area; (2) noted concern that the auto body shops are not adhenng to all requirements. 10 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 Maurice Bouday, 1203 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed approval of the request; (2) noted concern that the issue of this body shop keeps coming up, and he asked for the City to make a decision on this matter; (3) discussed the water purification system, and he noted that the State is currently in a severe drought; (4) discussed AQMD standards and questioned what policies will be implemented; (5) noted concern over air quality and odors emanating from the business; (6) expressed concern over the harmful effects of breathing paint fumes; (7) agreed that a moratorium would be appropriate until such time that the City arrives at a policy on these types of businesses. Tanya Bouday, 1203 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) n oted concern that this issue keeps being continued, and she questioned whether citizens are really informed on this matter; (2) opposed approval of this project, especially since there are already 12 other similar businesses in the City; (3) urged the City to take action against those other businesses that are in violation of the requirements. Danice Lendl, 1232 Corona, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed approval; (2) noted concern over the air quality in the area; (3) stated that she has had respiratory problems recently, and she questioned whether it could be related to business es of this type. Ray Sutton, 1225 Corona, Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the parking and noted concern over whether there will be adequate parking for both employees and cars being serviced; (2) discussed the rear setback and asked whether it will affect the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Phillips, on behalf of the applicant, again addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that this business is a member of the community, and it is the only business which is preparing a strategy to deal with the problems; (2) asked what action is being taken against those other businesses which are not in compliance; (3) noted that they are not asking to add another body shop in the City, they are only attempting to relocate an existing business; (4) stressed that this is the only business attempting to map out a plan to deal with the problems. Mr. Marquez again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this is not a service garage; (2) stated that all AQMD requirements are being met; (3) noted that a state-of-the-art system is being used; (4) stated that this business is unfairly being compared to other businesses which are not in compliance; (5) explained that it is the intention of this business to comply and be a viable part of the community; (6) said that this business is an example of how other businesses should be operating. Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce asked staff for an update on what is happening with other similar businesses in the City, to which Mr. Schubach explained that these business are part of the amortization process, and the businesses have two years in which to comply with the requirements. City staff has investigated other similar business to ensure that they are in compliance; if they are not complying, citations will be issued requiring that the owners appear in court. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that so far as he is aware, businesses must conform to AQl\ID requirements as soon as they are adopted. Mr . Schubach stated that staff is attempting to ensure that all paint fumes stay inside the building so that fumes do not permeate the air. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated tliat he is not aware of how often the AQMD sends inspectors to the City. He noted that the AQMD does not have the manpower to continually monitor the City; therefore, the City is attempting to implement its own enforcement procedures. 11 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 Comm. Peirce noted that this use is one which is pennitted in the zone for which it is proposed. l He therefore did not feel a finding can be made to prohibit the use at the site. He did, however, feel that the business can be conditioned so that it is more attractive and more compatible with the neighbors, and he felt that the applicant has already taken steps in that regard. He felt that a recommendation could be made to the City Council that a moratorium should be imposed based on the currently existing number of similar businesses in the area. Comm. Peirce stated that the issue of the size of the business needs to be addressed. Comm. Rue discussed the issue of paint fumes. dangerous solvents. and air quality. He noted that he is not well-versed in these topics, and he would feel more comfortable with more information on those issues. He questioned how effective state-of•the-art technology actually is as related to air quality. Mr. Schubach stated that staff was planning to contact air pollution experts to ensure that the proposed state-of-the-art technology is adequate. He stated that, if so desired, the information could be presented to the Commission for study before any approval is recommended. Comm. Rue agreed that this business is being penalized because of other similar businesses which are not in compliance. He again noted that he would like additional information on air quality before making a decision on this matter. Chmn. Ketz noted concern over counting the indoor parking in the overall parking calculations. She also felt that once indoor bays are constructed, there is no guarantee that they will be used for parking. She noted concern over the overall parking layout and parking enforcement. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the meeting of April 2, 1991, for the purpose of obtaining additional information on the air quality standards, dangers from emissions, and the effectiveness of the proposed air filtration system. The information may be presented either by staff or by a qualified expert. Comm. Peirce stated that the main concern relates to the nearness of this business to the surrounding neighbors, especially in light of the prevailing winds which can carry particles and odors to the residential areas. Comm. Rue felt that it is the responsibility of the Commission to be concerned with health and safety issues, as well as issues of planning. He felt that the issue of where these types of businesses can be located is quite relevant. Comm. Peirce, for the benefit of the applicant. pointed out that the • Commission is uncomfortable with the number of bays proposed for the inside of the building. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Comm. Rue also requested information related to the requirements imposed by other cities on businesses of this type. CON 89-9 --EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20820 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIDM PROJECT AT 632 6TH S'.1RE--1IT Mr. Schubach recommended that the request for a one-year extension be approved. The reason for the request is based on the current economic situation. He suggested, however, that it be continued for no more than one year, since requirements can change. 12 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91 Hearing opened at 8:58 P.M. byChmn. Ketz. Rod Merle, 485 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that this is not an appropriate time to coilllilence work on this project, and he requested a one- year extension as recommended by staff. Hearing closed at 8:59 P.M. byChmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to approve the extension of Tentative Parcel Map #20820 for a two-unit condominium project at 632 6th Street, for one year, to June 6, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms.Marks,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz None None None a) Memorandum Regarding Parking Along Beach Drive Mr. Schubach stated that this item would be continued to March, explaining that the Director of Public Works has been absent from the City. b) City Council /Planning Commission Workshop Mr. Schubach stated that this matter will be brought back for discussion at a future meeting. c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for February 26. 1991. City Council Meeting No one will attend as liaison. d) Tentative Futw:e Planning Commission Agenda Comm. Rue asked that the Commissioners be provided with the actual legal opinion related to adult videos. e) City Council Minutes of January 22. 1991 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue suggested that the Commission again address the permitted use list for the commercial zone. Comm. Peirce requested an update on the HIP program, to which Mr. Schubach explained that formation of the committee has been postponed by the City Council. Comm. Rue requested that the Commissioners be provided with minutes from HIP meetings, once they are underway. Chmn. Ketz asked whether Manhattan Beach has a provision allowing for "minor variances," to which Mr. Schubach responded that he will look into the matter. 13 P.C. Minutes 2 / 19/91 Comm. Peirce asked whether the City has obtained a report from the census. to which Mr. ) Schubach replied in the aff'lrmative and stated that additional information will be available in July. Comm. Peirce discussed how many MAX riders are actually from Hermosa Beach. He wanted additional information on how much money is being spent per rider in the City. Comm. Peirce asked when Cal Trans will install red curbing along Pacific Coast Highway, to which Mr. Schubach replied that there could be a delay of up to two years. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 9: 13 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 February 19, 1991. 14 P.C. Minutes 2 / 19/91 Mr. Schubach asked that the Commissioners provide input on this project, especially in regard to the overall architectural appearance of the projects. He explained that both projects are identical; however, they were requested as two separate projects. Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:05 P.M . by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one appeared to speak on either of these projects. Mr. Lee explained that it would be appropriate at this time for Commissioners to express their views on the overall architectural features of the projects so that staff can discuss the issues with the applicant. Chmn. Ketz commented that the main issues relate to potential view loss and setbacks. Comm. Rue stated that with the two lots, he was surprised that the open space was not combined. He noted that overall lot coverage is under the allowed maximum. He felt that the projects could be consolidated, and that attempts could be made to make the projects less intrusive bulkwise. Chmn. Ketz favored staffs suggestion that there be only one driveway for the projects. Comm. Rue noted that there is no view preservation ordinance; however, he felt that the views can be made more attractive. He did not feel this project, as submitted, takes advantage of the maximum potential view. Comm. Marks asked whether it is necessary that there be a second means of egress from the third level, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative and stated that he would check into the matter further to ensure that that requirement is met. Comm. Peirce stated that all four units are identical. He felt that more can be done to make the projects more attractive, both to potential owners as well as to the City. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staffs recommendation to continue the public hearing to the meeting of April 2, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 91 -1 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONNECTION WITH AN EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, BOCCATO'S GROCERIES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 26, 1991, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The lot size is 3850 square feet, and the building size is 2800 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting grocery store. There are five parking spaces. Boccato's Groceries is located on the southwest comer of Manhattan Avenue and 32nd Street. It is the only use of the lot. The store is open from 9:00 AM. until 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and from 10:00 AM. until 8:00 P.M. on Sundays. The applicant indicates that the store is open until midnight daily during the summer. 2 P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 Boccato's 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 January 17, 1991, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant to enclose the trash dumpsters behind a view-obstructing fence and gate. and to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales and if approved would also allow the sale of adult videos and magazines. Staff is concerned with the proposal to add adult video sales. The proposed use of a liquor store/video sales could be a dangerous trend for wholesale opening of these types of busines ses in establishments that service neighborhoods. Because of the proximity to residences, within a hundred feet, and the possible availability to minors for sale, it is felt by staff that this is not a proper mix of businesses. Also, Section 10-5 of the zoning ordinance states the sale of adult videos should be greater than 100 feet from residential property. According to the City Attorney, since the proposed video sales are only a small portion of the business, incidental to the alcohol sales, the City does not have the authority to deny the sales. As such, staff recommend that any adult video sales must be incidental to the grocery store/liquor sales and should not represent more than 10 percent of the sales. Staffs only other concerns are related to the appearance of the parking lot. The existing tv.ro trash dumpsters are completely exposed to view and should be screened. Further, the parking lot striping is severely faded and the surface is uneven and in need of repair. Otherwise, since this is an existing grocery store/general alcohol sale business, staff felt that the sale of alcohol should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions. The conditions are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions related to the trash dumpster and the parking lot surface. The standard conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. The Police Department has als o requested that a standard condition be added to require alcohol establishments to participate in the Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth (EASY) Program. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that the requirement to screen the trash enclosure is a provision of the municipal code, not the zoning ordinance: however, staff has been including it as a standard condition in CUPs. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce related to what the requirements for the pavement would be if this business were not applying for a CUP, explained tha t businesses are required by the parking ordinance to maintain their parking lots in a reasonable condition. • Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Marks, stated that no complaints have been received related to the hours of operation for this business. He noted, however, that several letters have been received from people who oppose this business having to obtain a CUP. Comm. Marks noted that this application had been filed under protest. and he asked for clarification on what this means. Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant was required by the City to apply for a CUP under the City's amortization process within two years of notice. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz. at 7: 17 P.M. 3 P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 Phil Freeland, 315 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, representing the applicant. addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that the applicant is applying for this CUP under protest because he does not feel it is a legal requirement to obtain the CUP; (2) said the business has been in operation for 22 years and is legally "grandfathered in" because a CUP was not previously required; (3) said that the business has caused no problems in the past; (4) asked for a written legal opinion from the City Attorney related to the legal requirement for obtaining the CUP; (5) said that it is not within the purview of the City to require a CUP for a business already licensed by the State ABC and one which is in operation. Mr. Freeland continued and: ( 1) discussed the City's reasoning for the CUP requirement; (2) said that this business was licensed by the ABC long before the City applied alcohol sales requirements; (3) said that the business is compatible in its neighborhood; (4) objected to the recommended conditions as suggested by staff, explaining that the applicant feels many of the conditions are unreasonable, especially since this business has been in operation for many years; (5) said that if the CUP is denied because an agreement cannot be reached in regard to the conditions, and the business is subsequently forced to close, it would be a case of inverse condemnation. Mr. Freeland continued and: (1) stated that the City does not have the right to close the business without paying just compensation; (2) stated that he was not certain of the City's position on this matter; (3) asked for a written clarification; (4) asked that this hearing be continued for 30 days so that the attorney for the applicant can further study the matter and determine a course of action; (5) noted that the applicant would like to withdraw the portion of the request relating to adult videos, and all references to adult videos in the CUP. explaining that the applicant has no desire to sell such materials. Comm. Marks asked whether Mr. Freeland or the applicant had met with staff to discuss these issues, to which Mr. Freeland replied that over the past two years they have always maintained that Boccato's is a legally grandfathered use. He said that they have been in contact with City staff over the past two years regarding the requirement that they must apply for the CUP. He also noted that the applicant had received a letter from the City Attorney six months ago. Mr. Freeland stated that the issue is not that the applicant does not understand the requirement; rather, it is that the applicant objects to the requirement. Mr. Freeland, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding which of the specific conditions the applicant disagrees with, stated that the applicant disagrees with all of the conditions, except the one which pertains to maintaining the property in a neat and clean manner. Mr. Freeland, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that they also object to the requirement that the trash area be enclosed. He explained that an enclosure would necessitate the loss of one on-site parking space. He said that since there are only five spaces. the loss of one space would be a substantial impact. He stressed that there is very little on- street parking, and any loss of on-site parking would be quite detrimental to this business. Mr. Freeland, in discussion with Comm. Peirce, stated that there is no way whatsoever to enclosure the trash area without the loss of one parking space. Comm. Marks asked whether the applicant has met with staff to discuss another possible location for the trash, to which Mr. Freeland replied in the negative. He noted, however, that they are open to options. Mr. Lee. in response to a request from Chmn. Ketz, discussed the City's legal stand on this issue. He stated that it is legally appropriate to bring such use within the conditional use permit process as allowed under the amortization ordinance. He stated, however, that since this is a use which was in effect prior to the CUP requirements, the Commission cannot impose conditions so stringent that it would force the business to terminate. He explained, however, 4 P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 that reasonable conditions can be imposed which would mitigate adverse impacts created by the business. Mr . Lee continued by discussing past correspondence between his office that the applicant. He stated that alcohol-related conditions are preempted by State law, and he noted that no conditions in the CUP regulate the actual use of alcohol: rather, the conditions address the environmental issues raised by such use, not the actual sale of alcohol. Mr. Lee stated that the City is on good legal foundation in terms of moving forward with this conditional use permit. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission, his office would prepare additional material on this request. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, explained what would happen if the CUP were approved, and the applicant did not agree to the conditions. Comm. Rue suggested that the matter be continued so that the applicant and staff can discuss the issues. Public Hearing closed at 7:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue encouraged the applicant to come to an agreement with the City and try to come to an understanding of the conditional use permit process. He felt that it is important for the applicant to understand the City's position on this matter. Comm. Peirce felt that the only condition at issue is that relating to the trash enclosure. He did not feel it would be appropriate to have the City Attorney spend a lot of time and money preparing more information. He stated that laws are laws and should be complied with. Comm. Rue noted, however, that it is important for the applicant to understand the procedures. He felt it is worth an effort to reach such understanding to avert potential legal problems in the future. Comm. Peirce stated that he would agree to a one-month delay: however, he stressed that he did not want the City Attorney to spend money on further work. Comm. Marks stated that the only physical problem relates to the trash enclosure. He suggested, therefore, that the applicant meet with staff to resolve that problem. Chmn. Ketz agreed that she would like to see the applicant and staff come to a resolution on this problem. MOTION by Comm. Rue. seconded by Comm. Marks, to continue this item to the meeting of April 2, 1991, so that the applicant and staff can discuss these issues in an attempt to reach an agreement. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 90-25 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. HABASH AUTO DETAILING (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 12/4/90. 1/2/91. AND 2/5/91) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 25, 1991, and recommended denial of the requested CUP based on insufficient parking for the combination of the proposed auto sales lot and detailing business. 5 P.C. Minutes 3 /5 /91 Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative, to approve a master CUP for the combination of the auto sales and auto detailing business. Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant has now submitted a new plan with a scale drawing which shows that the parking has been realigned to the south property line. • He pointed out the changes on the plan.and noted that the applicant asserts that there is now adequate parking. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has discovered on several occasions that cars are being washed in the area designated as a detailing area. It was also noted that an interior wall is still in place which was not allowed. Staff felt that, overall, the site is too small for the proposed location. Staff also noted concern over cars being washed outdoors and cars being parked in the area designated for work area. Staff had concerns over the general overall operation of this business, especially since there is another business at the location. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that nine parking spaces are required for the two uses. There are seven outside, and two are within the rear of the building. He explained that the required parking has now been relocated to the south property line. Public Hearing opened at 7:46 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jay Habash, 683 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he received a letter notifying him that the garage area cannot be blocked; (2) state_d that the property owner has given him spaces 2, 3, and 4 for parking for the detail shop; (3) stated that he has a 24-month lease agreement for the three parking spaces: (4) passed out a copy of the lease agreement; (5) discussed the plans, explaining that cars are no longer being washed outdoors, only indoors, and no motor work at all is done on the premises. Mr. Habash continued and: (1) stated that there are no problems with this business and the other business on site; (2) noted that there is plenty of parking in the area; (3) stressed that he keeps no more than three cars on the lot at any one time; (4) explained that the cars block the way of no one; (5) stated that he has a letter from the surrounding neighbors who do not oppose this business, and he handed in the letter with the signatures. Mr. Habash went on and: (1) explained that when the owner comes in, he needs to have access to the garage; (2) said that he can park in that fourth space so long as the owner is not there getting into the garage; (3) stated, in response to a question from the City Attorney, that he has a 24-month master lease with the property owner, and the master lease runs for the same length of time as the parking agreement; (4) said that he works on no more than three cars at any given time, and there are no more than three cars there at a time; (5) stated that he is in agreement with everything the City is asking him to do; (6) said that he began all car washing indoors one week ago; (7) stated that he uses no power equipment at all outdoors. Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that the business now appears to be much smaller than was originally submitted. He felt that the business would be viable if only three cars are on-site at any given time. He noted that enforcement is important. He felt it would be appropriate to give the owner an opportunity to operate, and there can be a review in three months. Comm. Peirce noted concern that cars would be stored while other cars are being worked on. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Marks, explained that one parking space is required for each 1000 square feet of lot size. Chmn. Ketz referred to Condition No. l 7(a): "The small air compressor used for dislodging items from dashboards, etc., shall be the only use of any air compressor equipment." She 6 P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 asked whether the applicant requested this, or whether it was a staff-recommended condition. Mr. Schubach explained that the condition was added after staff observed the operation of the business. Mr. Schubach. in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, explained that there is not a condition requiring the doors to be closed during work because the doors face the highway. and staff did not feel noise would be a problem. Comm. Peirce referred to Condition No. 11: "Because of the lack of customer parking, the auto detailing business shall be conducted such that customer vehicles are picked up from the customer's location and delivered back to the customer: a maximum of three (3) vehicles shall be on the premises at one time for detailing." He wanted to ensure that this condition is met. Mr. Lee suggested that the parking agreement be revised to specify the number of cars being committed to his use under the agreement He also suggested the addition of a condition requiring that the applicant provide continuing evidence of the availability of parking for his continued use: otherwise, there would be an automatic termination of the conditional use permit. Comm. Peirce wanted to prevent cars from blocking the front access. He also noted concern over the number of cars to be stored that are not being worked on. Mr. Habash stated that the provisions of his insurance do not allow him to store cars overnight. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve P.C. 90-100, with the following amendments: ( 1) a condition shall be added requiring that the applicant provide continuing evidence of the availability of parking for his continued use: otherwise, there would be an automatic termination of the conditional use permit: (2) there shall be a three-month review of the business. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-20/PARK 90-5 --REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1106 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1991, and recommended that the Commission direct staff to pursue enforcement of the CUP as necessary and to strictly enforce the required improvement for parking in the rear by June 3, 1991. On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and parking plan to allow a health and fitness facility (weight training) by adoption of Resolution 90-63. The Commission also requested a six-month review. The approval was subject to several conditions, most notably, a requirement that the rear area along the alley be improved to provide five parking stalls by June 3, 1991: that the business provide validation for the public parking lots: and that bicycle parking be provided inside the building. Staff inspected the site on February 28, 1991, and discussed the conditions with Mr. Mccolgan. The rear area adjacent to the alley has not been improved yet, but Mr. McColgan indicated that he is aware of the requirement and is in the process of preparing plans to carry out the improvement by the June 3 deadline. 7 P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 Mr. Mccolgan also indicated that he provides validation for customers who park in the public parking lots, noting that he validates no more than a dozen in a day. He further noted that the majority of his customers walk or ride bikes. Bikes are parked inside the building. Also, pursuant to Condition No. 7, 800 square feet of the interior shall be used for retail sales and the reception entry area. Although it is hard to determine if this is precisely being followed, several pieces of equipment are displayed for sale toward the front of the building as well as clothing and other accessories that are displayed behind the reception counter. The business is in compliance with all other conditions, except that staff has n ot received evidence that the CUP has been recorded with the deed. Hearing opened and closed at 8:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation. No objections; so ordered. CUP 90-8 -REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE. COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1991, and recommended that the six-month review be postponed an additional six months. On August 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and parking plan to allow expansion to the Comedy Club. One of the conditions was to require a six-month review. The plans for the expansion are currently in plan check, with building permit issuance pending. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to conduct a review until the project is completed. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue the review an additional six months. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a) Planning Department Activity Report for January 1991 No action taken. b) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for March 12. 1991, City Council Mee~ No one will attend as liaison. c) Tentative Future Planning Commission ~enda Comm. Rue asked for an update on the land use element, to which Mr. Schubach replied that staff is currently working on the land use study. Mr. Lee distributed copies of the legal opinion relating to regulation of adult videos. He suggested that the Commissioners read the materials, and they can discuss it at the next meeting. 8 P.C. Minutes 3 /5 /91 d) City Council Minutes of February 12. 1991 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce asked how much money the City contributes to MAX each year, to which Mr. Schubach replied that he is not certain of the exact amount. Chmn. Ketz gave a brief update on the activities of RUDAT. She said that the study is going well. and a fundraiser is being planned for the near future. Comm. Peirce asked about the installation of a red curb along the highway, to which Mr. Schubach replied that he does not have a definite time yet. Comm. Rue asked for an update on the recycling program, to which Mr. Lee explained that progress is being made. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the water shortage. Issues covered were possible use of "gray water" which could be used for recycling: spilled sewage: efforts of "Heal the Bay" to save Santa Monica Bay: the procedures which must be undertaken to increase water rates: and rationing. The Commissioners favored a recommendation to the City Council that the City support the efforts of "Heal the Bay." MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to send a letter to the City Council asking that the Public Works Department be directed to prepare a draft ordinance to allow "gray water" to be recycled. No objections: so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 8:33 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 March 5, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairman 9 // / ,- J,,/ Michae Schubach. Secretary ,/ .. /· P.C. Minutes 3/5/91