Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_04_21., MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 21, 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: Comms; Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Merl Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Roger Springer, Assistant City Attorney, Paul Corneal, Building Department 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 April 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, with the following changes: Page 3, Paragraph 2: Correct Motion made by Comm. Suard, which discusses a motion to DENY, but doesn't state that mot.ion was withdrawn and a Motion to CONTINUE then made. Page 10, Final Paragraph: Change the last sentence to read, " ... with only 13 parking spaces, of which six were compact parking spaces, being provided. She also was concerned regarding the number of spaces in relationship to new use." Resolution 92-24: Paragraph "B" is to be rewritten to state that the sideyard set backs do not comply with the literal interpretation, in that the Commission wished to maintain the sideyards as required by the Code. Resolution P.C. 92-22, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR A TWO-STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AT 601 CYPRESS AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23286, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoJDJns. Di Monda, Marks, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None CoJDJn. Merl 1 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 ,. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding an item not on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING L-5 LEGAL DETERMINATION HEARING TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF AN EXISTING 6-UNIT APARTMENT LOCATED AT 1150 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Recommended Action: 5-unit apartment. To determine said property to be legal for Mr. Corneal, representing the Building Department, gave the Staff Report, explaining the history of the original structure and the additional on-site structures as they related to the then~existing Zoning Codes. He stated the options available to the Planning Commission, based upon the information received. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Corneal discussed the location of the single-family dwelling and the four units, as well as the dates of issuance of the permits and the county tax records, which disp1ayed two separate structures. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:06 p.m. Nick Yamamuro, property owner, stated he had just received Staff's report and had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the document. He noted a "window" when the structure could have been made legal in 1954. He stated he had inherited the property, the previous owner had owned the property since 1964. Mr. Yamamuro also stated his understanding that the structures were legal only since 1964 and had collected data with that objective; not realizing that other problems were also involved. Mr. Corneal explained Staff was trying to determine if between 1"954 and 1956 the structures had been legally existing. Mr. Yamamuro stated the separate unit had been a maid's and then a nurse's quart~rs . . . Sheila Donahue Miller, 77 17th Street, asked if the City had the building permits from 1954 and 1955. When Chairman Ketz started to respond, Ms. Miller interrupted her, stating she "did not wish to be interrupted". Mr. Corneal stated the City did have building permits, but was now determinin9 if the structures were le9ally constructed. Ms. Miller requested the Public Hearing be continued in order to allow the applicant more time to obtain additional information. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:15 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed construction possibilities with Mr. Corneal, determining the square footage was the same in 1941 as later and construction could have been legally permitted during the 2 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 1954-56 window. Mr. Springer confirmed the Title Report would furnish a legal description, but a Litigation Guarantee would probably supply the additional, requested information. MOTION b¥ Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE the application to the meeting of June 2, 1992, to allow the applicant adequate time for report review, rebuttal and document presenta- tion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl PDP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH (continued from February 4 and March 17, 1992 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the revised plans addressed the concerns expressed by the Commission and defined those concerns and solutions. He stated the parking had been maximized, Staff believed a complete closure of the exit onto 10th Street would be the best solution, and no additional information had been received as to noise abatement. Mr. Schubach discussed access to an adjacent parking lot area and the associated parking and movement problems. He stated Staff recommended approval of the C.U.P. with conditions or a denial of same due to the applicant's reluctance to address various problems. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:27 p.m. Peter Paladino, Paladino Architects, 215 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, stated five issues existed of which all but two had been addressed, itemizing the actions taken. He stated the noise problem had also been addresses by baffle and insulation instal- lation, which dropped the noise levels, but no tests had been conducted to date. He discussed the acoustical remedies, methods and his qualifications with Comm. Marks. Mr. Paladino explained the rear driveway is used approximately 10 times per day as an employee exit. The driveway is an exit only and not an entrance, but very necessary to the business. Richard O' Bryan, applicant, explained he had conducted his own noise tests, added acoustical material and had further reduced the noise levels by approximately 10-20 decimals. Comm. Di Monda dis- cussed current and proposed parking, as well as exiting. Comm. Di Monda stated realistic parking requirements are necessary and 3 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 suggested parking spaces Nos. 7 through .11 be eliminated, adding 2 or 3 spaces in -the back section, resulting in 8 parking spaces. Messrs. 0 'Bryan and Paladino discussed the parking requirements with Comm. Di Monda. Mr. Paladino asked if the empty employee- parking spaces could be used for customers if less spaces were needed for the employees. Mr. Schubach stated as long as the employees are not parking on the street, the additional empty spaces could be used for drying of cars. Comm. Di Monda again suggested reducing the parking re!quirement burden to a realistic plan, to which the applicant agre_ed. Sahib Nikiam, 10th Street, stated he did not object to the car wash, but he and his neighbors on 10th Street requested that 10th Street be closed, due to the narrowness of the streets and unsafe drivers. He presented a petition requesting that closure to the Commission. Comm. Marks discussed the narrowness of the ·streets and the dead-end streets which resulted in traffic congestion with Mr. Nikiam. Doug Holsinger, 10th Street~·-stated his concerns regarding trafftc on 10th Street. He felt that anything that increases 10th Street traffic will negatively impact the neighborhood. Peter Paladino agreed that the dead-end sign was not visible and suggested the tree in front of the sign be trimmed or make the sign more visible to traffic to alleviate unnecessary traffic. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:50 p.m. Comm. Di Monda suggested that 6 parking spaces during the week and a few more on the week ends be required, with the requirement for striping deleted. He suggested that Resolution 92-4, Section 1, Paragraph 2 be revised to reflect a more realistic parking requirement; Paragraph 5 referred to Public Works Department requirements, to which he suggested Staff provide what those requirements were to the Commission; Paragraph 13 discusses noise emanations, to which he felt it had been made clear that the Commission was asking the applicant to go above and beyond the noise ordinance; Paragraph 16's language should be less offensive or restrictive; a "right-turn only" sign from the business exit onto 10th Street should be considered after obtaining clearance through the Public Works Department. Comm. Di Monda asked that Staff notify Public Works the signage was inadequate and discuss with Public Works the possibility of a "right-turn only" sign. Comm. Marks asked the noise level be verified to assure that it is within an acceptable range. He proposed continuance to allow further investigation of the issues. Chmn. Ketz expressed concern regarding commercial traffic on residential streets and business' employees parking on residential streets. She stated the wording of Paragraph 16 was acceptable to her, but that she was still concerned about the driveway exit onto 10th Street. 4 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Comm. Suard asked ·if a. chain link fence or a card-key· controlled gate across the exit would be feasible in terms of enforcement, to which Mr. Schubach stated both could be operable. Mr. Schubach suggested the "right-turn only" exit might be considered. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to CONTINUEJ,the application to the meeting of May .19, 1992, pending Public Works Department's response to the possibility of a "right-turn only" sign. at the ·driveway, obtain a quantified sound reading to assure compliance with the · noise Ordinance, obtain landscaping requirements from Public Works Department and amendment of the parking plan to include week-end situations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl CUP 92-5/PARK 92-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW SLOT CAR RACING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY STORE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 950 AVIATION BOULEVARD, SUITES A & B, THE RACER'S EDGE. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the requested combination use of hobby shop and slot-car racing is not considered uncommon, in that larger stores combine uses to promote the line of merchandise. He described the plan usage, business orientation and the requirement for adult supervision during all business hours. The business hours were recommended as closure at 10:00 p.m. week-days and 11:00 p.m. week-ends. Staff recommended observation to assure no parking problems existed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:05 p.m. Dennis Scanlan, 831 6th Street, requested the hours be extended during the summer months to 12:00 a.m. on week ends to allow adult participation during the later hours. Mr. Schubach stated the establishment abutted a residential area and recommended an 11:00 p.m. closure on week ends. Comm. Marks suggested consideration of a one-month trial period of week-end closure at 12:00 a.m. Mr. Scanlan asked if four video games would be allowed, rather than the three currently stated. Staff stated that four video machines instead of three would not be a problem. Matt Dodge, 821 6th Street, wanted to know why he was responsible for moving the trash containers, to which Mr. Schubach stated it was the property owner's responsibility because the permit runs with the land. He stated they did not and would not be serving food on premises. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:11 p.m. 5 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Comm.·Di Monda suggested the week-end closing hours · be·extended to 12:00 a.m. and four video games be al lowed on site, with a six- month review by the Commission. He discussed the purpose of Resolution Paragraph 11 with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda felt this article put a burden on the Police Chief and requested the Condition changed to read, in essence, "The Police Chief and/or Planning Department may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may present that fact to the attention of the -planning Commission -at a public -hearing, which may require security personnel paid by the · business." He suggested the. specific language be approved by the City Attorney. Mr. Schubach stated that the Police Chief had expressed the opinion that the Police Dept. should have authority to resolve problems without waiting for a public hearing, but that Comm. Di Monda' s suggestion might be feasible. Comm. Di Monda felt Paragraph 13, prohibition of food and drink or game abuse was a business responsibility and not the Commission's. He questioned Paragraph 14, in total, as being discriminatory, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. Comm. Marks felt it could be used as a management tool. It was agreed to wait for the City Attorney's response regarding this item. Mr. Schubach stated this item had been included in the interest of consistency. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE the application to the meeting of May 5, 1992, and when it is returned to the Commission to AMEND Condition 2 to extend week-end closures until 12:00 a.m., Condition 8(a) to four video games, Condition 11 to assure return to the Planning Commission, Condition 13 deleting the prohibition against food, drink and game abuse, and to obtain the City Attorney's opinion regarding Conditions 14 and 11. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl A break was taken from 8:25 p.m. to 8:33 p.m. SS 92-5 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN R-3 AND R-P ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action: To recommend approval alternatives listed in the Staff Report and Environmental Negative Declaration. of one of adoption of the the Mr. Schubach discussed and summarized the Staff-recommended alternatives regarding the height of condominiums and apartments within the R-3 and R-P zones. He stated the alternatives were consistent with the General Plan Housing Element. Those alternatives were: 6 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 A. B. c. F G H Maintain the R-3 height limit at 35 feet. Reduce the height limit from 35 to 30 feet (or any other acceptable number of feet) Reduce the height limit to 30 feet, but allow the Commission to approve limit-exceeding projects up i•,=- to a 35-feet maximum when it has been demonstrated that surrounding existing buildings are over 30 feet in height . Establish different ·height limits based on the neighborhood area Establish two sets of height requirements depen- dent upon the type of roof design Establish a view protection ordinance instead of changing height limits Reduce the amount of upper floor buildable area instead of change height limits A combination of alternatives Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:40 p.m. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, requested the public hearing be continued until individual noticing to all effected property owners be accomplished. Mrs. Ryan volunteered to assist with the noticing. She asked that if this i tern were not continued that Alternative A be approved by the Commission. Dean Hult, 830 Monterey Avenue, stated the changes would downgrade all R-3 J?roperties. He discussed his plans to tear down and replace his structure, the impact on property taxes that action would have and requested the height limit remain as is, with no change. Sandy Pringle, 747 Monterey Avenue, recently purchased his property with plans to add a bedroom which would result in a 35-feet building height. He requested that all property owners be individually notified and volunteered to help accomplish that Sheila Donahue-Miller, 77 17th Street, property owner of· 2922 and 2920 Hermosa Avenue, stated the property next to her was 35 feet high. She discussed building a pool, her lack of privacy, her previous ability to build six units, down-zoning of her property to R-2, additional cuts will continue to destroy her property value. She discussed the locations of R-3 lots. She noted she was on her third law suit against Hermosa Beach and would now initiate a fourth. Carol Simons, 218 Longfellow Avenue, felt it was essential that the effected property owners be notified on an individual basis. She proposed the eight possible alternatives be place in writing and sent to the property owners for their review. Jim Babliani, 1011 Bayview Drive, felt the much power in the hands of the Commission. with the intention of adding another story, alternatives put too He bought his property and, therefore, opposed any change in the height limitation. 7 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Jim Rosenberger, Bayview Avenue, felt the Commission had changed "from dealing with a scalple to dealing with a shot gun to the whole town in terms of R-3" in the approach. He stated his neighboring building was taller than 45 feet and doesn't want a restriction placed upon himself,.which would result in his being in a "canyon". He suggested a .careful review area-by-area since each section is independent .in nature from the others. He requested the height limit be left "as is" or only those alternatives with flexibility be considered. He felt Alternative A should be left alone, B • and C are not , wise, D through F have merit and G is a combination of all the rest. Comm. Di Monda noted that Alternative C gave a lot of flexibility; 30 feet with descretion to 35 feet height if a possible "canyon" condition exists. In Mr. Rosenber- ger's case, most of the block is built to 35 feet and would allow him the same. Comm. Di Monda stated most of the alternatives did take into fact the problems presented by testimony during this meeting. Mr. Rosenberger acknowledged the possibility of a third-floor setback as a good option, but still felt the Commission should make the City Council aware of the problems being created by mixed zones, which should be reviewed differently than strictly R~3 zones. Mike Fletcher, 414 The Strand, purchased his property with the intention of adding a master bedroom on the second floor. He described the tall, neighboring residents, stating he did not wish to live next to two enormous structures and not be able to add height to his own property. He suggested the Commission consider his problem which is similar to many other property owners and expressed his surprise that only the height, rather than height and bulk, issue was being addressed. He stated height was not targeted by the Ordinance. Mary McGee, 602 Manhattan Avenue, stated she was tired of her property being down zoned. Her neighboring properties' structures are at the 35-feet height. She stated Alternative B gave too much discretion to the Commission. Mr. McGee reiterated her opposition to any change in height limitation. John Rogers, 326 10th Street, stated residents are 10-0 against any change in height restriction based upon the effect upon property values. He discussed the considerable amount of reconstruction within the City and asked the height limitation remain as-is. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., discussed a letter he had written and mailed to property owners and stated the importance of getting as much input as possible. He discussed the resident vote, noting that 65% of the voters were tenants, not property owners, and challenged non-owners' participation in the advisory vote. He stated advisory votes are not law and should not be reviewed as such. He cautioned against "railroading" the height modification into existence. He agreed zoning was incorrect in pockets of the City, but felt the entire R-3 zone should not be changed. He discussed the Commission's and Staff's efforts, but felt they were 8 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 wasted since the City Council already had three votes to change the height limit. He felt that Alte!rnatives C and D allowed an open door and flexibility. He also felt it was absolutely and funda- mentally wrong for the City to suggest or make a modification to anyone's property rights and values without individually notifying that person and noted there were 1800 R-3 zoned property owners which need to be notified. He volunteered to assist in that notification. Conun. Di Monda stated Mr. Compton had read the City Council pretty accurately, but had discussed some items not under the Conunission's control. The Commission could recommend some combination of alter- natives to address everyone's concerns. Conun. Di Monda calculated that removal of five foot from the height allowance would result in the possible loss of mezzinines or approximately 200 sq. ft. of buildable area. Mr. Compton confirmed this calcul ation. Alterna- tive G required greater setbacks, which will probably result in the loss of at least 200 buildable sq. feet. Comm. Di Monda stated the loss of buildable area was the discussion topic and requested Mr. Compton's comments regarding this issue. Mr. Compton asked how a reasonably-sized, saleable unit could be constructed with the loss of square footage or if a restrictive situation would be created, resulting in much less up9rading to older uni ts. Mr. Compton explained the use of a similar set-back requirement to the front and rear of the properties, creating a mezzinine area in the center of the building. He stated this design was not well liked by many people. He felt property owners have property rights and should be heard prior to any decision being made by the Commission. He expressed architects' problems in having t o adhere to a rule that has not yet been c hanged and stated this practice was an unfair requirement. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton further discussed an angled, sky-exposure plane (Alternative G) related to height limits and street width. Mr. Compton supported the sky-exposure plane, stated the first floor would be a garage only , and, if thought through carefully, the problems are turned over before becoming a reality. He stated the lot coverage draft on Staff Report Page 32 is a joke; it will not work, it doesn't relate to a 17-feet setback or open space, and decisions should not be based on inaccurate data. Mr. Schubach stated they were discus sing gross floor area; Staff had the samples used, offered to show those samples to Mr. Compton and to review any examples as to how it would not work Mr. Compton cared to submit. Mr. Compton stated only four members of the audience had received copies of the Staff Report and felt information should be available to the affected residents, all who should be noticed. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, architect, noted the height measurement method was inconsistent and stated clear-cut direction was needed by both the architects and property owners. He felt height alone was not the problem, but rather a combination of items. He suggested the implications of the change be reviewed before taking any actions. 9 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Garrison Frost; 58 Pier Avenue, discussed his concern regarding .the City's image due to the changes in requirements and the City's reputation for giving people a bad time and the difficulty in dealing with the City. He stated less people are now willing to buy property in Hermosa Beach. Jim Perry, 223· Monterey Avenue, stated he intended to rebuild and improve his property and that the arbitrary changes of the building codes has taken square footage away and another change would result in 'the same. He stated 'his neighbor is going into foreclosure on his property due to the City's actions and he, himself, would soon have an unbuildable lot. Jim Gallager, 3314 Highland, agreed with Mr. Frost's previous statements. He stated his 20-year residency has been an on-going struggle to survive because the City does not leave the property owner's alone. He agreed that Hermosa Beach did have a reputation and that the City had a responsibility to let people know what it is doing. He stated not one person for a height reduction had spoken, so why was the City even addressing the issue. He supported Alternative C. George Taylor, 300 Manhattan Avenue, planned to improve his property by the addition of two condominiums and the height limit would make that extremely difficult. He stated that he thought the purpose of communication was to give direction to the Council, not just implement its biases. He then stated his opposition to any change within the height limit and his support of individual noticing. Comm. Di Monda responded decisions must be based upon reality and with fairness. He stated if an Ordinance is well and clearly written with clear criteria, it gives the power and discretion to deviate from the criteria. Architects may submit a preliminary set of drawings to the Planning Dept., which is not as great a burden as it seems to appear. Shirley Castle, 611 Monterey Boulevard, quoted Councilman Edgerton as having said his mind was made up and not going to be changed. She stated it was not fair to the people of City for Councilmernbers to have closed minds. She discussed the lack of light due to tall buildings surrounding her property and asked why she should take a loss on the sale of her property just because the rules have changed again. She stated the residents had paid a lot of money for their land and the City was down zoning their property resulting is loss of property value. She discussed a current law suit and stated the Commissioners and Councilmernbers may end up as part of it. ' Bob Stroffee, 3205 The Strand, reiterated other speakers statements that no one had spoken in favor for reducing the height limit. Bonnie Coke, 1921 Manhattan Avenue, a fourth-generation resident, discussed the down zoning, property growth and change~ she has witnessed in Hermosa Beach. 10 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:41 p.m. Comm. Marks discussed Alternative F with Mr. Schubach, who explained the requirements and methods of measurement . in this alternative. Comm .. Di Monda explained to the audience the procedure to be followed by Staff, the Commission and City Council, including review and renotification requirements., which was confirmed by Mr. Schubach. Chmn. Ketz confirmed with Mr •. Schubach that the Commission would be making recommendation to the City Council regarding alternatives, but not a specific ordinance. Comm.· Di Monda stated that none of the stand-alone alternatives address all of the concerns, assuming the height limit is lowered. A combination of "C" "E" and "G" would be of interest and discussed the impact of these alternatives. He stated that if "D" became a choice, he wished to see a map displaying the areas to be subject to "D" and relative to "G", requested an example based on page 72's chart with graphics of typical lot sizes and lot coverage. Mr. Schubach explained the City Council wished to ~review each individual standard and had started with height. Chmn. Ketz confirmed there had been no direction to review all at one time. Comm. Suard felt there were a lot of interacting forces and this was a very piece-meal method and there were more logical procedures which could be taken. He questioned the Commission's ability to complete a recommendation in the short timeframe and noted specific problems, such as island zoning and "half lots". Comm. Suard stated Alternative "E" would allow leeway in architectural significance, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. The Commission agreed to consider a combination of C, G and E. Comm. Di Monda explained the Commission was only sending ·some type of concept for approval by the City Council, with a lot more to do thereafter, to which Chmn. Ketz concurred. Comms. Marks and Suard did not feel they were in agreement with the alternatives offered. Comm. Marks felt no change should be made to the 35-feet height limit and another nuance to lessen density should be considered. The Commission discussed the height necessary to obtain a three- story building. Chmn. Ketz felt flexibility should be allowed while requiring a 30-feet limit in some areas, the 17-feet setback and Alternative "G" should be further reviewed. Comm. Di Monda suggested a 35-feet height with a set-back at the third floor to push the structure back from the street. Comm. Suard felt part of the equation should include consideration as to what the structure blocks (covered by Alternate C). Mr. Schubach responded to the Commission that Staff could develop rough language incorporating Alternatives C, B, D, E and G. Also, a Minute Order, including the a cover sheet and Minutes, could be forwarded to the City Council. Comm. Di Monda suggested the inclusion of a recommendation to consider the problems experienced by the Commission with noticing, so that everyone receives a notice as this issue progresses, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. 11 P.C.Minutes _4/21/92 MOTION by· Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to RECOMMEND to City Council a combination of Alternatives C, D, E and G; request Staff to review Alternative D and furnish information to the Commission as to its meaning; and to notice all R-3 lot owners. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks None Conun. Merl SS 86-12 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ADULT USES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTD. FROM MARCH 3 AND APRIL 7, 1992 MEETINGS). Recommended Action: To review additional data requested and direct staff to set for public hearing. Mr. Schubach presented the Staff Report, stating that ~ssentially Staff was trying to provide an ordinance that is legally defensible, based upon recommendations from the City Attorneys. He referenced provision of previously requested information by the Commission, including information provided for this meeting. Mr. Schubach asked for a review of the information and direct Staff to set this item for a public hearing to enable a Text Amendment to be written. Comm. Di Monda referenced several Orange County cities which use County standards and asked if those standards could be used by Hermosa City, since more coverage and detail was provided by those standards. He recommended Staff review: Page 29, Section 287, which should be "motel/hotel", Section 288, which should be "/arcade", Section 297, County's looks more inclusive than Hermosa Beach's, Page 32, Section 2, Paragraph 1, establishes 500 feet versus 200 feet, Page 33, Line 7, deals with the number of video machines, as to what that number was based upon, Page 33, Section 21-8, repeal a section of the Municipal Code, apparently no copy of the Code provided, Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the reasons for the apparent lack of adult businesses in Orange County and Orange County's Ordinance definitions. Mr. Schubach stated a 500-feet requirement would preclude any business of this type within the City and is, therefore, illegal. He responded to Comm. Di Manda's suggestions, also stating that if the Commission felt the Orange County's Ordinance definitions were preferable, they could be adapted to Hermosa Beach. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern that the Commission might set ground rules to make it easier for adult businesses to begin in the City. The C.U.P. procedure would enable 12 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 findings to be made relating to the requested use and impact upon the neighborhood. Mr. Schubach stat ed the City Attorney had reviewed and concurred with the recommendations made, but a "fine tuning" should be completed prior to presentation to the City Council. Chmn. Ketz felt such establishments should be at least 200 feet from-the property lines. Chmn. Ketz, Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed the options of 200 feet from the front door or front property line. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:19 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission relating to this item, and the Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:19 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmm. Ketz, to SET SS 86-12 for a Public Hearing for Text Amendment at Staff's convenience. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Conun Merl CON 90-4 A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21950 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1105 CYPRESS AVENUE. Recommended Action: To grant six-month extension. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, noted an error discovered by Staff correcting R-2 to R-3 property built to the 35-feet height maximum. He noted an alternative of extending this issue to only June or July, 1992. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the benefits of filing and Code change impacts upon the project, if no grandfathering is done. Comm. Di Monda suggested this item be extended to June or July, 1992, to be consistent in the handling of other similar projects. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:29 p.m. Cheryl Vargo, applicant's representative, encouraged a six-month extension, stating three months was not adequate to record a map. She stated the developer was not a large one, the building had a 14-foot slope, only a small portion of the building reached the 35-foot limit, the contractor hoped to start in the Fall, and with a six-month extension, the applicant hoped to get the map recorded and the project started. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:30 p.m. 13 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Comm. Suard stated he had a problem in granting an extension when the Commission had just stated such a height limit would be inappropriate. Comm. Di Monda felt that since the other applications had been extended to June 1992, this one should be also. A MOTION was made by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, that in order to be consistent with past practices, to RECOMMEND an extension until June 30, 1992; at which point, another extension could be granted based upon City Council's actions. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Suard None Comm. Merl NR 92-2 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) TO ALLOW AN ADDITION OF A BEDROOM, BATH AND FAMILY ROOM WHICH RESULTS IN GREATER THAN 50% EXPANSION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1042 10TH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant proposed a two-story attached addition and noted the structure is nonconforming due to the detached garage. He stated the addition was calculated to be 68% of replacement value. He discussed the basic determinants and factors of the proposal, noted ample available parking and recommended approval. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:35 p.m. Art Dawson, 1042 10th Street, a long-time resident, explained the current set back requirements and stated he could current accommodate four off-street parked cars. He discussed neighboring one-car garages with less parking space than he has and stated his proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. He presented documents signed by neighbors attesting to his statem~nts. • Larry Highler, 580 21st Street, reminded the Commission Mr. Dawson was not a large contractor and only wished to increase the area of the structure to enhance the living space for his family. He stated the parking was more than adequate. Comm. Marks noted that if the house were sold, the addition could be changed into an apartment and requested a covenant upon the property. Mr. Schubach stated that was usually done by the Building Department through the deed, but could be included as a condition by the Commission. Comm. Di Monda felt a three-foot distance should be maintained between the family room and trash enclosure. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE NR 92-2 with the addition of a covenant prohibiting changing a portion 14 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 of .the structure into an apartment and maintenance of. a three-foot space between the family room and the trash enclosure. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl A break :was taken from 10:48 p.m. to 10:49 p.m. SS 91-4 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED (CONTD. FROM APRIL 7, 1992 MEETING). Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach discussed the background of this item, noting this item was a result of the building inspector's request to the City Attorney for interpretation. Staff has examined the manner of property value determination versus the method recommended by the City Attorney; finding it a difficult situation. Staff felt the method should remain the same or the City Attorney should re- examine the issue. Comm. Suard discussed the establishment of property value with Mr. Schubach, commenting that he would like to see the value raised from 50% to 75%, to which Chmn. Ketz disagreed, which resulted in further discussion by the Commission. Comm. Di Monda requested a comparison of numbers between current buildings and a hypothetical ones using the 50% and the 75%. Mr. Schubach explained the dynamics of land value and stated condominiums and apartments would fall under the same rule. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:55 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd, discussed a six-unit building that had burned down and was replaced with two units. He explained the owner had had insurance to cover loss of structure and rents, so the some of the costs were defrayed. The Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:57 p.rn. Comm. Di Monda felt there was a potential to take property value away from the property owners and requested more information as to how much it would be. Comm. Suard requested the actual percentage applicable to the law suit relating to the six-unit complex discussed by Mr. Compton, and how the percentage was calculated. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE SS 91-4 to allow Staff to obtain the requested information for presentation to the Commission. No objections, so ordered. 15 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 STAFF ITEMS a. Planning Department priority list of studies. Mr. Schubach stated grant monies could be obtained in F.Y. 1992 if this project were slowed. The Staff is very close to completion, with the most of the drafts completed. He explained current status and actions relating to the public right-of-ways. He had.talked to Community Resources regarding the Pier project and noted the schedule was not clear,. with plan s to present the project to the Planning Commission in June or July 1992. The Commission discussed the project schedule dates, determining with Mr. Schubach that the schedule was quite misleading. The February 1992 Joint Meeting was discussed, including the lack of resultant action. Comm. Di Monda confirmed the City Council had voted to approve the Commission's review of off-sale and on-sale of alcohol with respect to Article 10. Mr. Schubach stated the requests of the Council and Commission would be addressed at the same time, and should have been noted in this report. RECEIVE AND FILE. b. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for April 28, 1992 City Council Meeting. Comm. Di Monda stated he might possibly attend the meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the Commission's recommendation would be submitted. Staff was not opposing the Planning Commission. RECEIVE AND FILE. c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Chmn. Ketz stated a special study on the residential open space will be addressed at the next scheduled meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE. d. City Council minutes of March 24, 26, 31, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda referenced the previously reviewed 25% driveway slope which was also a parking area (allowed by the Ordinance) and the 14% slope with a four-foot blend. He discussed the problems associated with slopes, type of vehicle to be used as a standard, 16 P.C.Minutes .4/21/92 .. .. how long should the blend be, to what does it blend, etc. Comm. Di Monda discussed his conversation with Mr. Grove regarding this problem with reference to specific projects. Comm. Di Monda noted that a steeper-that-15% driveway is not precluded, but that it must be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission invited Mr. Gerald Compton to speak regarding this item. - Gerald Compton expressed his concerns relating to the -Yariance aspect of this item, stated Variances are difficult or impossible to obtain, stated that a 25% slope was unreasonable in certain circumstances and requested that it be an "Exception" or a "Condition"; not a "Variance". Comm. Di Monda felt that amount of slope such be highlighted in the interests of safety, ~xpressing concern relating to very steep driveways with no blends, to which Comm. Marks agreed. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent and present it to the Commission at the next scheduled meeting. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to DIRECT Staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent and present it for hearing at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. No objections, so ordered. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 11:19 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 Apri-1 21, 1992 . . •·; /~ /// .I ~~ \c:25 -~-kid k!J / -4?/A~ b: Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary ?if l--':::!k: A l ) '1 C) L, 17 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92