HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_07_02MINUTES 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