Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_04_07MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 7, 1992, 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 Comrns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the March 17, 1992 following change: Page 8, Paragraph 4 " ... remodel ... " Planning Comrnission meeting, with the - from . " ... room model ... " to Resolution P.C. 92-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS AMENDED TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVER-HEIGHT WALL AND TO AUTEORIZE THE ADDITION OF PREFABRICATED METAL CANOPIES OVER THE EXISTING DOUBLE-CAR STACKERS ON THE SITE AND THE INSTALLATION OF FIVE TRIPLE-CAR STACKERS, TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS LOCATED AT 2775, 2851, 2901 AND 3001 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Resolution P.C. 92-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA~NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 16' IN DEPTH GARAGE FOR ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING WITH A TWO-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17' AND FOR A BALCONY SETBACK OF 2' RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 3' AND TO EXCEED 65% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AT 620 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-20, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVER-HEIGHT WALL ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINES OF 2954 AND 2960 LA CARLITA PLACE. Resolution P.C. 91-21, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO INITIATE CON- SIDERATION OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-7 AND 10-8 TO CHANGE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. 1 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 - AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 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/CUP 91-26 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR (ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (continued from February 18, 1992 Meeting). Recommended Action: To continue to April 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant has not provided plans to Staff and had requested a cont inuance. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Merl expressed their concerns regarding the repeated continuances of .,.. this item, and discussed the requirement for renoticing with Mr. Schubach. • Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m. Sonia Nichols, 703 1st Street, stated her opposition to a hotel being built near her property, feeling it would create safety problems for the residents' children, with additional traffic and parking problems. She felt the location was not an attractive location for a hotel and the need for another establishment which served alcoholic beverages. Frederick Nichols, 703 1st Street, stated he had previously written a letter to the City regarding the site, noting unsafe conditions, unattractive condition and the use of the site by the homeless. He felt the hotel would create additional parking problems and expose children to public drunkeness. He requested that the next hearing on this matter not be held on April 21, 1992. Ann Lewis, 1st Street, stated the developer had been given enough continuances and that this one should be the last. She stated she had not received notification and questioned the number of people that were aware of this issue. She reiterated her objection to the continued delay of this application. Johnnie Bruce, 846 1st Street, opposed the application and agreed with the previous testimony. She stated she had not been "noticed" and requested copies of the CalTrans and the environmental impact reports. 2 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 . Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Ketz at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Schubach commented that notices were sent to proper.ty owners and tenants within a 300 feet limit and placed in the "Easy Reader". Chmn. Ketz suggested that Ms. Lewis and Ms. Bruce contact the Planning Dept. to determine if they should have received notification. MOTION by Comm. Suard, to DENY the request for continuance, based upon the fact that plans were not presented prior to this meeting as previously requested. No second was obtained and the motion was withdrawn. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to an unspecified date, requiring renotification through the "Easy Reader" and to property owners and tenants as required. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 92-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 807 21ST STREET, 21ST STREET RESTAURANT (continued from March 3, 1992 Meeting). Recommended Action: To continue to April 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated supplemental information indicating an interest in a shared parking plan between the applicant and Sola Motors been received by Staff. Staff recommended the matter be continued to allow the applicant to obtain a completed agreement acceptable to the City and noted the alternative would be to notify the applicant that approval of live entertainment would be denied. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Messrs. Schubach and Lee the possibility of stating on the standards of approval that the applicant must abide by Article 10, rather than listing all of the standard conditions. It was determined that the conditions change with time, and only those conditions applicable at the time the C.U.P. was granted apply. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:26 p.m. Richard Limbasuta, 807 21st Street, discussed his agreement with Sola Motor Works to exchange parking spaces. Chmn. Ketz requested he submit a written form contract executed by both Mess~s. Dispun and Sola. Mr. Lee explained the contract must be in a form that can be recorded against both properties. After discussion, Mr. Lirnbasuta agreed to provide the contract to Staff prior to April 23, 1992 and requested the application be continued to May 5, 1992. 3 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 Kathy May, 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 206, adjacent building owner's representative, expressed concern regarding the parking plan between Messrs. Dispun and Sola. She discussed previous parking agreements between the previous owners of the restaurant and her client Mr. DeMott, and felt the current arrangement would increase current parking problems. She stated the music's noise level disturb the tenants of the adjacent building. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Ms. May the previous parking space negotiations between her client and the applicant, of which she stated she was not familiar. Comm. Di Monda then stated he found the te~timony to be very self serving, but would listen. She reiterated concerns of Mr. DeMott and requested that any parking agreement be reviewed by the Commission and that if there were a change in restaurant ownership, it be mandatory that any parking agreement cannot be canceled. She requested renoticing if the application were to be continued. Comm. Di Monda commented the Commission should not put the applicant in a position in which he would be forced to negotiate with Mr. DeMott for parking space, but noted that if Mr. DeMott were willing to negotiate in good faith and accept the benefits of such an agreement, that action might be beneficial to both parties. Ellen Beeranbaum, 832 21st Street, stated that the music was amplified, the music should only be played inside the building and not in a canvas tent and that the music continued to be played after 10:00 p.m. on week ends. She requested the Commission continue to review the parking situation. Richard Limbasuta, 807 21st Street, stated the applicant's goal was to provide a fine restaurant with good dinner music, but the music would be stopped at 11: 00 p .m. or entirely if the Commission so decided. He e xplained the bass uses a small amplifier, but the piano and drum did not. He discussed the possibility of ·obtaining a parking agreement from both Messrs. DeMott and Sola with the Commission. The required contract conditions were discussed with Mr. Limbasuta, with the Commission suggesting to Mr. Limbasuta that the contract be reviewed by the Planning Dept. and the City Attorney to assure its adequacy prior to its being signed. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:5~ p.m. The Commission encouraged the applicant to try to decrease the level of sound emitting from the canvas room prior to the scheduled hearing. The Commission requested Staff to review the hours of entertainment, the noise level and ways to decrease the noise level, and report its findings at the next scheduled hearing. The Commission also decided a six-month review, rather than a one-year review, should be implemented. MOT~ON by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE CUP 92-2 to the Planning Commission May 19, 1992 meeting to allow the applicant to obtain the requested parking agreement and Staff to review the noise level, hours of entertainment and ways to decrease the noise level. 4 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 92-3/PDP 92-3 CONDITIONAL USE :i?ERM'.IT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL V.AP #23258, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPi-!ENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 628 MONTEREY BOULEVARD .•• Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Precise Development Plan. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. He described the project, including height and slope of property, and compared surrounding structures to the proposed condominium. He discussed a s imi lar , proposed 35-fee t height project previously approved by the Commission; noted specific requirement compliance by this project and stated Staff found the parking requirement inconvenient for residents and guests. He commented that if the Commission should require layout alterations, Staff would recommend a continuance in order to review the revised plans. Mr. Schubach discussed the narrowness of the lot as it related to a curb cut, alley entrance and turning radius and stated - Staff had no objection to using both drive entries in the design solution. He also stated that Staff recommended the plans be revised to include a 24" box tree and shrub sizes be increased to 5 gallons. He noted it was unclear as to what was intended in the courtyard area. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:07 p.:m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia, project architect, felt the two items of concern were the driveway slope and exiting from the property into the alley. He felt the driveway offered good v.isual access, but offered to reduce the slope by raising the garage slab by almost one foot if the Commission so desired. Comm. Marks disagreed, stating vision was obscured directly behind the vehicle exiting the driveway when backing out. Mr. Compton stated side vision was adequate. Comm. Di Monda felt that a 25% slope was an excessive grade. Mr. Compton described the slopes of the alley and the property and referenced similar projects within the City, stating he did not feel the slope was a problem and that it was not an unusual situation. Comm. Di Monda stated the situation being created was not good architectural practice and other architectural solutions were available. Mr. Compton stated he disagreed. Mr. Compton then explained street profiles, existing grade, street cuts and the manner of establishing the overall height limit for this project. Comm. Di Monda disagreed with Mr. Compton as to where the natural grade was, suggesting that natural grade should be :measured at sidewalk level, since the street was at that grade. Mr. Compton stated the adjacent properties had measured in 5 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 the same manner as this project, noted that the properties had been and were being excavated and compared the project's height to the adjacent property structures. Comm. Marks determined the highest level of the building was 138. 7 and the sidewalk was at 100, confirmed by Mr. Compton. Mr. Compton noted the 34' tall building would be located back 24' plus a 5' setback from the sidewalk. Comm. Marks felt the method of measurement was unrealistic to which Mr. Compton stated the height had been established based upon the Building Department's Code interpretation. Comm. Di Monda noted the determination was up to Planning, not the Building Dept, and he felt the measurements had not been taken using the property measurement locations. Mr. Compton disagreed, stating it was difficult to work with two dif ferent interpretations for the height establishment. Comm. Di Monda stated that in 14 months, this was the first project that height measurements were taken from a point that no longer existed, suggesting that the Commission discuss this fact with the Building Department. Mr. Compton disagreed, noting the natural grade did exist. Mr. Compton then discussed the problems created by a 17' setback requirement when a 24' easement is present, stating it was non- sensical and should be changed. He explained the impact of this requirement upo n small, narrow lots and the structures, such as the project with which he was currently working. Comm. Di Monda stated - developers will do as much as possible tp maximize the property's value, while the Commission's job was to assure good architectural practice to maintain and/or increase community and housing value. He noted the City Council sets policy and the Commission assures that policy is maintained. Mr. Compton stated that not only was he an architect, but he was also a resident, and he had never not adhered to good architectural practice. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton then discussed the slope of the driveway , with Mr. Compton offering to decrease the percentage of slope by elevating the garage slab. Coram. Marks felt the building was multi-level with a single stairway, which was very unsafe. He also discussed the lack of adequate open space adjacent to the entertaining or living area, to which Mr. Compton disagreed. He explained that open space was generally put where there was a view, resulting in less bulk, which was desirable. He then discussed interior visibility and access with Comm. Marks. Tom Orley, 5106 Loma Drive, discussed the current neighborhood zoning relating to 40 houses located in an R-2 area surrounded by R-3 areas. He spoke regarding what he considered the injustice to those 4 0 property owners and requested the Commission consider changing and correctly the stated injustice. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., agreed that an inequity was applied to the 40 lots. Public Hearing closed by Chrnn. Ketz at 8:52 p.m. 6 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the common interpretation of height limits when the driveway cuts through the natural grade, with Mr. Schubach stating it generally was measured using the natural grade by joining the front and back property lines with a straight line. Comm. Suard then discussed the Commission's alternatives and the reasons for those alternatives, as well as view blockage issues, with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda noted that this building would be one of the few within the area with a height of 35 feet, noting the City Council is giving the Commission mixed signals. He objected the measuring grade from a point that no longer existed and the parking area slope. Comm. Suard felt that potential view of adjacent buildings would be hindered. Comm. Merl discussed his problem with an ordinance allowing 35' height while waiting for a decision relating to a 30' height, stating the Commission should establish a top priority in hearing and handling applications and decide where changes are necessary and appropriate within the R-3 zone. He stated his problem with the extreme driveway slope and what appeared to be a 38' building. He stated his preference for a redesign of the plan. Upon Mr. Compton's agreement to submit a revised design, he was requested to submit that design to the Planning Department by April 27, 1992. A break was taken from 9:03 until 9:10 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Com.~. Di Monda, to CONTINUE CUP 92-3 to the Planning Commission May 5, 1992 meeting to allow the applicant to submit a revised plan and address the Commission's stated concerns, which includes (among others) building height and point of measurement and slope of the driveway. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Coll'.:IIts. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, S ·;iard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 92-4/PDP 92-4 CONDITIO*A.L USE PER..lliIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23286, A..'l'D PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Precise Development Plan. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to Conditions and noted the alternative to continue the request. He described the proposed project including the appearance, parking requirements, open space, landscaping, building height within the 35' limit, heig·h t of surrounding buildings and compliance to Planning and Zoning requirements. He stated the applicant proposed an averaging method to establish side-yard setbacks rather than using a minimum setback requirement. Mr. Schubach stated the averaging method be used at the Commission's discretion. He 7 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 commented the Commission may wish to impose the building be low at the front of the lot and the full 35' height towards the rear of the lot. He stated the preliminary plans did not include finished floor elevations for Staff verification and noted the "architec- tural projections" were questionable legal encroachments, requiring determination by the Commission if the encroachments into the yard areas are allowable. Staff recommended a condition that perimeter walls or fences be included on revisions .for Planning Dept. review. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:21 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia, project architect, using the drawings, explained the building design elements and projections within the side yard to establish interest. He discussed possible alternatives to the front projections with Staff and the Commission. He stated the actual building height was below the 35' height limit and did not create a view blockage problem to the structures across the street. He expressed his discomfort that the Commission would review projects based upon a possible 30' height limit, which created design problems for the architect who didn't know whether to design to 30' or 35' heights. Mr. Compton stated information had been obtained from CalTrans. Eric Richardson, 4741 Darien, stated his neighbors were not concerned about the height limit. Diana Vidal, 930 1st Street, discussed the i mpact upon her property if the building were built to a 30' height a nd then the property in back of her were allowed to build to a 35' height. She felt she should be allowed to build as high as is currently allowed. Ni~ette McCiustion, 4741 Darien, discussed previous zone changes, change from coillJ.~ercial to residential zoning and the devaluation of her property. She stated if she were required to build to only 30', the building would be a cracker box. She felt the Commission was hurting the property owne::-s and requested the property owners' feelings be considered. She stated she was looking to enhance the property and to live there. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia, project architect, stated the property had been owned by the same family for a long time. The owners wished to live in two units and sell the third. Brian Vidal, 930 1st Street, believed the residents across the street from his property would retain thei r views. He stated the building was old and unattractive, which they proposed to change. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:38 p.m. Co mi.u . Di Monda c ommented upon the 14-degree driveway, requesting a redesign to obtain a gentler slope and enlargement of some of the bedrooms which were extre.mely s.mall. He read the building code denoting the room size allowances into the record. He discussed future development of the hospital site and the adjacent areas, 8 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 which would impact the current project, and reiterated his wish to maintain fairness in decisions pertaining to all Hermosa Beach construction projects. Comm. Merl stated his concerns regarding the setting of a precedent. Mr. Schubach referenced a similar project that had been previously approved by the Commission. He noted this project might be significantly impacted by CalTrans' decision and commented upon Staff's concerns relating granting of permits at this time. Mr. Schubach discussed the length of time necessary to receive CalTrans' decisions. Comm. Suard stated the building was quite bulky, which could be reduced by lowering the height. Chmn. Ketz. also expressed her concerns regarding the building height, but felt that until changes are made, the Commission should continue to approve the 35' height limit. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to CONTINUE CON 92-4/PDP 92-4, DIRECT the applicant to revise the plans based upon the comments made and noted by the Commission during this hearing and the Commission will REVIEW those changes prior to a final decision. This motion was pulled at the applicants' request. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to DENY CON 92-4/PDP 92-4 and to incorporate in this denial all the comments made relating to the project, to include slope of driveway, room size, height and setback. If this item is appealed to the City Council, it may then decide what the issues important to the City are. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, and Suard Comm. Merl, Chmn. Ketz None None CON 91-9/PARK 91-7 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR A MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSE BUILDING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIR- ONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 601 CYPRESS AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve subject Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan, and adopt the Negat ive Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to conditions and noted possible alternative actions. He described the building, parking area and requirements, applicqnt's use intent, current business operation including warehousing, handicapped parking provision, and proposed loading spaces. He stated Staff foresaw no problem with the warehousing use as a secondary use. Staff recommended a condition to establish a maximum manufacturing area and to prohibit conversion of warehouse 9 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 space, with the Planning Director's approve of any use that would occupy the other two suites. He stated landscaping materials should be more clearly identified. Staff did recognize flaws in the proposed plan due to lot size and building footprint and stated concern regarding parking ratio versus structure square footage. Mr. Schubach stated the project represented a positive improvement to the site and street and abandonment and capping of the idle.oil well, and possibly lead to the development of the adjacent property (as discussed in the supplemental information from the City Attorney provided to the Commission). -Comm. Di Monda discussed the parking requirement with Mr. Schubach, determining the project was lacking five of the required spaces. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:05 p.m. Larry Lubow, 644 Cypress, applicant, stated he was an artist, sole owner of the business, rarely employed other people and used 90% of the building for warehousing. He stated his awareness as to the importance of adequate parking provision. He stated realistically only 4 to 5 spaces will be used, he would never exceed the 13 space provision and was willing to sign a covenant to that fact. He discussed the projected use of the building, stated he planned to rent half of the building and discussed his efforts to get the oil well capped and obtain the required soil samples. He distributed his portfolio for review by the Commission. He confirmed his .,. understanding of his rental limitations to Comm. Marks. He felt the parking requirement should be based upon the number of employees, not the building space. Chmn. Ketz discussed the difficulties in administration associated with that suggestion. Mr. Lubow discussed his problems with the building and the uncapped well, while the City has allowed development of the yard by McPherson Co. Mr. Lee noted this was a different issue. He stated the City would not be allowing McPherson Co. to be develop an oil well within 100 feet of a structure and explained the provisions of that agreement. Tom Morley, Loma Drive, felt Mr. Lubow's application ·would result in land-use improvement. He questioned C.U.P. Item No. 2, stating it was not "permanent" enough and requested that it be stated the well had been permanently abandoned. He discussed his concerns relating to Staff's discretionary abilities and requested that statements should be clear as to what is allowable within a particular zone. Mr. Orley requested and received a copy of the City Attorney's letter that was previously referenced. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:20 p.m. Chmn. Ketz discussed the loading space and blocking of handicapped parking space with Mr. Schubach, who expressed concern regarding the use of future tenants and noted the handicapped parking was adequate. Chmn. Ketz felt a problem existed with only 13 parking spaces, of which six were compact parking spaces. She also was concerned regarding the pumber of spaces in relationship to new use. Comm. Di Monda stated the applicant had two compact spaces over the 10 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 allowance, while being five spaces short. He noted this issue was a discretionary matter as to the strictness of interpretation. He suggested the applicant be conditioned to encourage development and when dealing with manufacturing, the type of manufacturing should be reviewed. - Comm. Suard commented upon the supposed problem between the City and Stinnetts relating to the well. Mr. Lee stated this was a separate issue relating to this application only because of the Fire Code because the Stinnetts contend the well is operating. He stated Staff has not asked the Commission to consider abandonment of the well in any way other than that there is a Fire Code prohibition against develcpment as long as the well is in an operating condition. Comm. Merl discussed buildi:-.g design to allow for future parking with Comms. Di Monda and Marks deciding the second level would be best for future parking. The Commiss i on d iscu ssed the possible future site use or change in current usage impact on parking requirements. Mr. Lee noted if the building is built for M-1 purposes, the subsequent user would not have to return to the Commission for approval of any other land use entitlements. If the Commissioner were to define restrictions on current use, that would serve as a future restriction of future modification of usage. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE PDP 91-9/PARK 91-7 subject to Staff's and City Attorney's recommend- ations as to the correct handing of tapping of the well, with a condition that the use of the building is to be for "artist studio, ceramic studio" and all facilities and work areas related to that use; any change in the product being manufactured would require the applicant or new les se.e to present to the Planning Commission an application for approval. This use restriction is to be recorded with the property title. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm.s. Di Monda, Marks, and Merl Comm. Suard, Ch~m. Ketz. No:.:e I~one Mr. Lubow was informed he could contact Staff in order to obtain the implications of the covenant, covenant language, leasing of tenant space options and his ability to appeal the CoI(IIrtission' s decision. SS 86-12 TEXT 11MENDMEK'T TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ADULT USES AND ADOP:('ION Oi<.. Ari '17~NVI~ONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (continued from March 3, 1992 Meeting.) Recommended Action: To review additional data requested and direct Staff to set for public hearing. MOTION by the Commission to CO JTINUE this item to the Commission's meeting of April 21, 1992. No objections, so ordered. 11 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 SS 91-4 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RECON- STRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE this item. No objections, so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Planning Department activity report of February 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for April 14, 1992 City Council meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Comm. Di Monda asked if the study of R-3 and RP zones would affect areas which are to be built to R-3 zone standards, which Mr. Schubach stated would not. Comm. Di Monda referenced the May 5, 1992 meeting and stated the definition of "grade" should be discussed and decided upon. d. City Council minutes of February 25 and March 10, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS The Commission DIRECTED Staff to present a list of studies to be placed on future agendas to the Commission in order to establish prioritization. The list is to include who initiated.the item and when the item was initiated. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 10:58 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 April 7, 1992. ~d?i?W~ Michael Schubach, Secretary ~ n . 'N\~ R -ehristiRe Ke-t.-o ,✓chairman oB~-r 13. f·-1A£KS \)~ 5/13 /1 ')_ Date 12 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92