Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_11_19•' 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