Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_05_05MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 5, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Vice-Chmn. Marks. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Vice-Chmn. Marks Chmn. Ketz Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl to CONTINUE appro- val of the April 21, 1992 minutes to allow for the following revis- ions: Page 8 -Further detail is to be included relating to the conversation held between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Rosenberger. Page 8 -Further detail is to be included relating to the conversation held between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton. Page 13, third paragraph -Change to read, " ... just stated such height limit would be ... " AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz Resolution P.C. 92-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTIONS 13-7(b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1042 TENTH STREET. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Marks to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 92-25. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz ITEM(S) FOR CONSIDERATION: Resolution P.C. 92-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO STUDY DRIVEWAY SLOPES. 1 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard to ACCEPT Resolution P.C. 92-28. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to addressed the Planning Commission regarding an item not shown on the meeting agenda. PUBLIC HEARING 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 (continued from April 21, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, noting the Commission's previously stated concerns have been discussed with the Police Department and the City Attorney's office. Mr. Lee addressed Conditions Nos. 11 and 14, regarding the imposition of additional security and entry prohibition to people wearing "gang colors". Mr. Lee stated the imposition of additional security is a valid condition, provided evidence supported that the type of use could possibly generate a potential problem. He stated the applicant would then be on notice as to the type of problem that could be generated and type of condition imposed for mitiga- tion. He expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission could delegate to the Police Chief administration of that fundamental policy decision, which is the determination that it is a potential problem that could or should be mitigated. An appeal procedure in the event the Police Chief's decision is contested should be established, noting that currently the Municipal Code does not contain the Police Chief's ability to review and make this type of determination. Mr. Lee stated it was within the Commission's discretion to review and decide if this should be initially determined by the Police Chief, subject to appeal, or if the Commission should review and make the determination, subject to appeal to the City Council. -Vice-Chmn. Marks felt the Commission should review the subject problems, while Comm. Suard felt the Police Chief should handle the problems. Comm. Di Monda agreed with Vice-Chmn. Marks, but noted Condition No. 11 should be rewritten for clarity; the business 2 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 owner should have a right to an automatic hearing without ch~rge, the Police Chief can have emergency power if a problem arises. Comm. Merl questioned the findings; description of the issue that would generate the condition, which Mr. Lee stated it should be documented either in the Staff Report by input from the Police Department or public testimony or Commission testimony. Mr. Lee then discussed Condition No. 14, stating this type of condition posed Consti~utional issues and the City Attorney's office recommended deletion of this condition, as police enforce- ment was a better route to take. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:20 p.m. Denny Scanlan, 831 6th Street, applicant, only a positive attitude since opening with the conditions currently proposed. were from the local area. stated he has experienced his business. He agreed He stated his customers June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, protested giving the Police Chief the authority to order a security person if a problem became appar- ent and the requirement to notify the Planning Commission and wait for a hearing. Comm. Di Monda stated Ms. Williams had taken the information totally out of context, noted the Police Chief current- ly has emergency powers to act. He explained the clause gave the right to request a doorman on a permanent basis, which would impact the subject business. He felt that prior to implementing that type of condition, other conditions to mitigate that action should be considered. He explained the Commission was seeking to implement a clearly-written condition defining the roles and responsibilities. Mr. Lee clarified that the standard for determination as to whether to impose security personnel was embodied within the condition. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:27 p.m. Vice-Chmn. Marks felt Condition No. 11 should be amended to allow the Police Chief to make a decision, with the Planning Commission conducting a hearing to obtain understanding of circumstances. Comm. Suard felt the issue was becoming too complex. Comms. Merl and Di Monda agreed the current wording allowed the Police Chief to act as the situation necessitated, with action by the Commission as required by events. Mr. Lee suggested clarification that the Police Chief would make the initial finding, weight the initial evidence and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Comm. Merl added the Commission's reasons would be from concern that the location could be a potential gathering place for problems and should be monitored. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE CUP 92-5/PARK 92-2 as written, with the designation of responsibility to the Police Chief to be noted in Condition No. 11 as "The Police Chief may determine ... ". 3 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Com1ns. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz CON 92-3/PDP 92-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23258, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 628 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (continued from April 7, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve plans to be provided as supplemental item on Monday, May 4, 1992. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval, stating the applicant had submitted revised plans with the base point height measurement was from the street level along Monterey Drive and the driveway grade was reduced to 15%. He reiterated the Commission's concerns regarding the 35-foot height, potential view blockage and small open space provision. He stated the open space generally met the Policy Statement requirements. Mr. Schubach noted the possibility of view blockage to the east of the property, the existence of neighboring 35-high structures. He noted the plans were submitted late, resulting in distribution to the Commission late also, not allowing enough time for complete reyiew. He suggested a continuance to allow the Commission time to review the submitted plans, site and neighboring properties. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn Marks at 7:36 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Suite 300, project architect, distributed photographs and displayed an artist's rendering of the project. He presented a height survey of the area, compared the structure heights and noted that more than 50% of the lots on the block had been built to a 35 feet height and that the subject block was the one most built up than the surrounding ones. He discussed view blockage projections, using a chart for illustration. Mr. Compton then discussed the ramp modification to the 15% slope requested by the Commission. He noted that he had tested the view from a car on a 25% ramp, which he felt was not problem, and stated a 15% ramp should mitigate the Commission's concerns. He disputed Staff's analysis that the headers had been reduced to minimum code requirements, explaining the heights of the particular rooms and the provision of coffers and heading out of areas to give an additional sense of height. Vice-Chmn. Marks felt the view of an exiting vehicle would be obstructed, to which Mr. Compton disagreed. He explained the tests he had conducted to assure the safety in exiting on the proposed ramp. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton discussed the ceiling heights in the mezzanine area of the rear unit (which was 7 '1" to the bottom of the beams with a 9 1/2" additional height between the beams), Unit A kitchen (7'4"), downstairs bedroom (7'9" with either coffers or beams to be added to give the illusion of additional height), Unit 4 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 A living room (12'), dining room (16'), master bedroom (8'1"), Unit B master bedroom ( 9' 1"), downstairs bedroom ( 8 '1"), dining room ( 16'), kitchen ( 7 '10") and the mezzanine ( 7 '4" of which an open beam ceiling can be added to the plan). Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:51 p.m. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach Staff's ability to verify the view blockage analysis submitted by Mr. Compton, expressing his concerns regarding the potential view blockage of adjacent neighbors. Comm. Di Monda stated his only problem was having received the drawings late, which did not allow adequate time to review them, nor did he have the original drawings for comparison. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Marks, to CONTINUE CON 92-3 to the Commission meeting of May 19, 1992, to allow Staff to conduct an analysis in terms of the view blockage and perform verification of the section drawing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks Comms. Di Monda and Merl None Chmn. Ketz The Motion failed due to a lack of majority. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE CON 92-3 with the conditions recommended by Staff and with verification as to the accuracy of the section drawing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda and Merl Comms. Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks None Chmn. Ketz The Motion failed due to a lack of majority. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CON 92-3 with the conditions recommended by Staff and with verification by Staff as to the accuracy of the section drawing and the accuracy of the view blockage as submitted by Mr. Compton. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Cbmn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz 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 and April 7, 1992 meetings). 5 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval of the 70-room hotel, restaurant with on-sale alcohol and piano bar. He stated the grandfather clause which allows a 40-feet height will soon terminate and an eight-foot high west side wall would require noticing since the . original plans displayed a six-feet wall. Mr. Schubach described the proposed hotel, parking spaces and accommodations, including structure position, square footage and height measurements as noted in the revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated this project is subject to the Precise Development Plan requirements. He stated a determination has not been received by Staff as to whether the project had been "grandfathered" or not, but the City Attorney would discuss this subject. Staff recommended tandem parking stalls be identified for employee parking. Mr. Schubach observed that the revised plans were reviewed for consistency with the guidelines, noting the project was designed to scale, the pool area was relocated, a sauna/work out room is still located on the westerly side of the property which Staff suggested should be relocated by the pool, the project extends to 35 feet only at the P.C.H. frontage, ranging from 32 to 40 feet elsewhere. He discussed the efforts to decrease the appearance of bulk, landscaping plans and buffering of noise by both walls and plants. Cal Trans' requirements and comments have been incorporated in the plans with the exception of wheelchair ramps, which is a condition of approval. He also discussed CalTrans' response to the City's traffic engineer's inquiries. Mr. Schubach stated the plans do not include all the details to enable a final approval of Precise Development Plan, the Resolution of approval includes conditions requiring submittal of required details to the Commission for approval. He noted a reduction in height may alter the plan, but Staff felt enough information had been provided to the Commission to enable a decision at this time. He then stated the Commission's alternatives. Mr. Lee explained his position regarding the grandfather clause by stating a review of Ordinance 91-063 (providing a grandfather clause and lowered structure height to a maximum of 30 feet) , resulted in the determination that a complete package has been submitted to the City by the applicant prior to November 5, 1991. Additionally, by use of the discretionary permit process, changes and revisions were suggested and requested by the City and made by the applicant. Mr. Lee stated the application of this Ordinance is a discretionary call by the Commission and addresses whether or not the most recently submitted plans are a logical extension of the original plans submitted prior to November 5, 1991. Mr. Lee stated the next issue for the Commission's dec·ision was whether or not the deadline provided in the grandfather clause 6 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 applied to this project. He recommended that the deadline provision of the Ordinance should not be applied due to the multitude of changes and revisions required by the City and the long delay in waiting for a response from CalTrans. He recommended two conditions be added: (1) the project must be consistent with the plans approved by the Commission at this time, and ( 2) a 6-month time limit from the date of approval is established in which to obtain a building permit. These two conditions would meet the Ordinance intent. He noted the Commission could limit the height to 35 feet or under if it wished to exercise discretion regarding project esthetics. Comm. Di Monda determined the required landscaping trees were smaller than others previously required on other projects. He stated he wished to discuss more trees in the landscaping plans. Mr. Schubach stated trees are not only decorative, but would serve as noise buffers. Vice-Chmn. Marks noted the number of units had increased and a gift shop, beauty salon and piano bar had been added in the revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated adequate parking was available. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:19 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, 49 South Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, acknowledged the plan changes, noted the major concern regarding 1st Place egress, discussed the creation of more "ocean view" units and bay windows. He explained the revisions to the buildings and room locations using an artist's rendering of the front and back views of the structures. He stated the piano bar would provide a nice place for local adults to go; the lobby, stairway and piano bar locations were planned to avoid noise carrying to the residential zone. Vice-Chmn. Marks confirmed the specific plan revisions made with Mr. Yeh. Mr. Yeh stated that when the project was originally begun, the maximum height limit was 40 feet. He discussed the design of the roof, the subterranean parking and the grade level as they affected the structure height. Mr Yeh also rtoted the restaurant business would financially help the hotel and visa versa. He said if the roof level was reduced to 35 feet, the project would need to be redesigned. ,He felt such a reduction would be unfair, based upon the input received by the applicant during his efforts to obtain the necessary approvals. Mr. Yeh and Comm. Di Monda discussed the exterior finish of the building, with Mr. Yeh noting that stainless steel would be used for the railings and that one piece clay tile will be used. Richard Laraba, owner/builder/developer 705 1st Street, felt the proposed structure height would intrude upon the privacy of his building and the residential zone. He asked if the CalTrans report required a deceleration zone or lane from 1st Street to the hotel entrance, noting the speed of drivers on P.C.H. and the projected increase in traffic on the surrounding streets and expressed concern regarding the safety of residents due to the increase in traffic. He also asked where vehicles were going to park during 7 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 the construction period and thereafter, noting possible resultant inconvenience to residents. Mr. Laraba noted that many residents were not aware a hotel project is planned; no mention was made at the time of the street-closure survey. Comm. Di Monda stated the referenced rear deck was part of the fire exiting and irrelevant with respect to a "view" location, due to its height and location from the property line. He stated the building does not break the 35-feet height limit until approximately 30 feet back • from the property line, and, if the hotel had a flat roof, it would meet height limitations. Mr. Laraba requested a silhouette test be conducted to ascertain the impact on his property's 360 degree view. John McQue, 718 1st Place, read the notification of survey he had previously received, noting hotel construction was not mentioned. He stated he owns three lots and should, therefore, have three votes. Mr. McQue objected to the projected increase in traffic, the vagueness of the survey terminology and requested a redistri- bution of the survey with a more intense description of the plans. He distributed to the Commission photographs for review, requested that the existing wall remain. Sonia Nichols, 703 1st discussed the effect Street. She asked if hotel plans. Street, stated she received no survey. She the change in traffic would have on 1st City residents had been notified about the June Williams, 2065 Hermosa Blvd., stated she opposed the building of the hotel. She felt the adjoining properties had only single-story buildings. She wished to block the construction of the hotel since it will eliminate her ocean view and asked her if she had the ability to do this. Mr. Lee explained the allowable construction under existing regulations and stated Ms. Williams could not prevent construction. Mr. Schubach responded building directly across the street are three stories and the plans are consistent with the general area. She invited the Commission to her home to assess the view blockage. Vice-Chmn. Marks suggested she use the lamp posts as guidelines of view blockage. Ms. Williams stated she had already done that. She stated the City does not need an additional place for adults to go dancing. Harold Anchell, 624 3rd Street, stated a right turn onto on P.C.H. during rush hour from 3rd Street is a nightmare and felt a deceler- ation lane at the hotel entrance was required. He also suggested a time limit be established for the project. He stated the contrac- tor was aware the height limit was going to be lowered, and felt the project should be treated in the same manner as the residential projects are; both should be limited to 30 feet. Paul Olson, 705 First Street, felt the City Council and Commission members should drive on P.C.H. to find out what is going on. He questioned how people coming from the direction of Redondo Beach going to get to the hotel. He stated he has uplifted his property 8 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 and the City is trying to downgrade it, not taking into consider- ation the impact upon the City. He then discussed traffic problems he personally had experienced on Pacific Coast Highway. Ed Mora, 846 1st Street, stated the backlash is already here; a hotel will only magnify the problems. Johnny Bruce, 846 1st Street, stated she and a few other neighbors received the survey, but many other neighbors on the same street side were not. She felt all the neighbors should be notified, when the impact the entire area. She then discussed the increased travel time going to and from work, stating this increase should be considered and protested any additional air pollution that would result. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:25 p.m. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the additional of a traffic light, determining that if one were added, another would need to be removed. Mr. Schubach stated both Cal Trans and Staff had conducted traffic studies. He referenced the previous car dealership that had been at the location, noted the resultant traffic and discussed the traffic pattern than would be generated by a hotel, which would be spread over time, therefore, not requiring a deceleration lane. Vice-Chmn. Marks expressed his concerns regarding the height limit, the single means of egress and the possible increase of traffic on 1st Street. Comm. Merl commented keeping traffic from 1st Street was addressed previously as an objective. Mr. Schubach responded to Comm. Di Monda' s proposed motion by stating the survey would take additional time, if the survey suggested a connection with the hotel, it must be made clear that the hotel and survey are not connected. Comm. Di Monda suggested surveying 1st Place and 1st Street residents' feelings and adding the following verbiage: "There is a potential for commercial development on the corner which might lead to increased traf fie. The City is considering a street cul-de-sac to alleviate the possibility of that problem." Survey denial does not • mean the hotel is also denied. If information isn't immediately available regarding the traf fie signals, an indeterminable amount of time would be required for CalTrans response. Mr. Schubach stated view blockage between three-feet differences are difficult to determine, but Staff would try to make that determination. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the responsibility for site clean-up and maintenance to prevent it site becoming an "eye-sore". Mr. Schubach agreed to contact the Building Department and sug- gested that the public also contact the responsible agent { s) to -assure proper "boarding up" was accomplished and maintained. The Planning Commission suggested to the applicant that he also make sure the site and facilities are well secured prior to the Building Department's inspection. 9 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 1992. ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) (4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) (10) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ASK the applicant to provide more information based upon the concerns the neighbors have expressed in order to review them with the possibility of mitigation; specifically the traffic concerns and school crossing safety; can the traffic lights be relocated to improve safety, REDO the survey regarding putting a cul-de-sac on 1st Place, inform the local residents the specifics as to reasons the survey is being conducted, REVIEW the necessity of a higher buffer wall, REVIEW the possibility of the trash area relocation, DIRECT Staff to obtain police records of some of the adult restaurants within the City for Commission review and obtain the Police Chief's opinion as to how he feels adult restaurants impact police services, DIRECT Staff to obtain more landscape plan clarification, particularly along 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway with respect to the planting size and incorporation of a continuous planting edge along the higher buffer wall, ASK the Public Works Department to provide a diagram or map of traffic flow if 1st Place is made a cul-de-sac, DIRECT Staff to silhouette the building, using the balloon method, to determine the view blockage difference between a 35-feet and 38-feet building and provide the results to the Commission, DIRECT Staff to contact the Building Department, request- ing that proper "boarding up" of the facilities in completed and that such action be addressed immediately. DIRECT Staff to obtain from the Building Department the status of complaints and violations pertinent to this property. Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chinn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz A break was taken from 9:48 until 9:56 p.m. HEARINGS ZON 91-3 ZONE CHANGE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO BRING INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE GE ERAL PLAN, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 598 FIRST STREET (referred from April 14, 1992 City Council). Recommended Action: To recommend approval of a zone change from Open space to two Family Residential (R-2) to subject property. 10 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating rezoning of this property to R-2 would be consistent with the General Plan and the general area. He stated, if zoned. R-2, three units or a density of 19 units per acre would be allowed per the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schubach also discussed the City Council's decision to require additional setbacks, three parking spaces per unit and a reduction in the number of units allowed on neighboring properties, but stated the allowance of only two units on this 128-feet deep by 40 to 45-feet wide property or a density of 12.7 units per acre would not be consistent with the Medium Density General Plan designation for the area. He discussed the diversity of the area, zoning for specific plans on neighboring lots, and then stated Staff saw no strong reasons to reduce the number of units from three to two and did not believe that special zoning for a single lot was necessary. Vice-Chmn. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the specifics of the "S.P.A. 4" designation. Hearing opened by Vice-Chrnn. Marks at 10:02 p.m. Harry Pecorelli, 752 22nd Street, San Pedro, applicant, stated that due to economical reasons, he hoped to return to Hermosa Beach and live on the subject property. He stated he would have many com- ments to make pertaining to the proposed hotel being built adjacent to 1st Street, but would only address his application at this time. He explained the property's past zoning, protested any reduction to only two units, which he felt would devalue his property. He re- quested approval of a zone change to R-2. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the lot depth, stating it could certainly accommodate three units and asked if Mr. Pecorelli would object to a 10-foot setback. Mr. Pecorelli stated he felt the Council was spot zoning him, planned to remodel the current II front II building and the garage to allow him to live in it. He stated he would like to build units at sometime in the future to assure an income for his retirement. He wished to have the latitude to build three units. Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 10:07 p.m. After discussion between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach, it was determined the parking requirement for R-2 zoning was: two parking spaces per unit, plus one additional space for every two units. Comm. Di Monda did not feel parking would be an issue on this par- ticularly large lot. He felt the parking requirement could be increased to one guest parking space per unit and add a condition for consideration of a larger setback (possibly 10 feet) require- ment at the time the tentative map is presented, which would allow approximately 25 feet of available open space. Comm. Merl supported the rezoning based upon the lot size and consistency with the properties east of the subject lot. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda to APPROVE a zone change from open space (OS) to two-family residential (R-2), but to incorporate the requirement for one guest parking space per unit and the condition for an increased setback. 11 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 After discussion with Mr. Lee, the motion was WITHDRAWN by Comm. Di Monda. Mr. Lee suggested that if recommendation to rezoning to R-2 were made, conditions should not be applied to the parcel until the point in time when the owner submitted an application for a devel- opment. The Commission would then have an opportunity, through the C.U.P., to review and establish applicable conditions. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE a zone change from open space (OS) to two-family residential (R-2), as originally recommended by the Planning Commission, and advise the applicant that at the time of submittal of a C. U .P., the Commission will review setbacks and parking to assure conformity with some of the special plan areas in the neighborhood, as well as the standard conditions. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks None None Chmm. Ketz SS 92-3 SPECIAL S.TUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, DEFINITION OF BASEMENTS, AND MINIMIZING BOOTLEG POTENTIAL. Recommended Action: To set for public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated this item was a clarification of an open-space Policy Statement previously adopted by the Commission. This clar- ification requires a percentage of open space at the living area level and "cleans up" previous ordinance language. Vice-Chmn. Marks requested Section 2(b) be changed to read, " ... and directly accessible to primary living areas. Primary living areas include living rooms, dining rooms, combination living, dining rooms and kitchen and family rooms ... ", to which the Commission agreed. - Comm. Di Monda felt that the ability to cover up to 50% of the open space area was excessive. After discussion, Mr. Schubach noted the Commission's ability to hold a public hearing to further discuss any concerns relating to this amendment. Staff was requested to further investigate and provide suggested alterations to the 50% open space coverage allowance. Comm. Suard felt the definition of open space was very confusing and suggested clarification be made in this definition. Addi- tionally, Section 4(e) (2) should be changed to read, " ... of five (5) or more units ... ". He felt that Section 1, Open Space should be based upon a percentage of lot size requirement rather than an absolute square-foot figure. He felt that the smaller the lot, the less the open space requirement should be and the larger the lot, the more the open space requirement should be, which is not the 12 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 case with the current method of specified square-feet requirement. Mr. Schubach stated this major change could be made a part of the HIP Program, which Staff has already been directed to address. Comm. Suard felt Section 1, as written, is an injustice to property owners that can be easily corrected, and wished the change to be made or an explanation as to why it should not be changed. Mr. Schubach agreed to research this question and return with his findings to the Commission. Vice-Chmn. Marks reiterated his concerns from previous meetings relating to the definitions of floors. He felt if it has a roof and a floor area, it is a floor. Mr. Schubach stated this study is to be part of the land-use study. MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Marks, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to DIRECT Staff to set a Public Hearing, to bring back for discussion all suggested changes in addition to those recommended during this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Vice-Chmn. Marks asked the status of the Pier Project, to which Mr. Schubach responded the preliminary design was scheduled to be submitted in June/July 1992. Vice-Chrnn. Marks confirmed that the Beach Drive Parking plan would also be presented during the next, scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the General Plan Land Use Element draft was close to completion. This draft ( and others) would also require the approval of the Coast Commission staff, after submittal by Staff of an explanation as to what has been done to meet the Coast Commission's land use plan. Mr. Schubach explained the steps for approvals by the Coast Commission,. Commission and City Council. Responding to Comm. Suard's question, Mr. Schubach stated inconsis- tencies, not spot zoning, existed within the City, and will be reviewed as part of the land-use element. STAFF ITEMS a. MEMORANDUM REGARDING HOUSING ELEMENT "LOT COVERAGE" CHART. Mr. Schubach explained a request to Staff by the Commission had been made as a result of comments made by the public. He stated the noted chart was being taken out of context. However, when used 13 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 as reference for seven projects, Staff felt it was close to the reality of the projects. Staff noted results in Exhibit A and provided computer-generated charts for the Commission's informa- tion. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed architectural projections, which are not included in the lot coverage computa- tions. Comm . Di Monda noted that it appeared that 65% lot coverage was a great deal more when projects were designed with cantilevered balconies, making the structures appear more bulky. He requested Staff provide schematics of projections for the Commission's review, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. b. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION/CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING. RECEIVE AND FILE. c. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF MARCH, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. d. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR MAY 12, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Mr. Schubach stated ZON 91-3 would return to the City Council. Comm. Di Monda stated he might attend that meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE. e. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. RECEIVE AND FILE. f. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda referenced the appeal of a condominium project presented at the City Council meeting, noting the comments made regarding side yard setback averaging that were in the Housing Element and not in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Schubach responded that the previous Council had requested streamlining (averaging). He stated front yard setback are averaged according to policy and averaging of all setbacks will be included in the Housing Element -as a policy, and will be discussed during review of the HIP Program. Mr. Schubach read the applicable section of the Housing Element. 14 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 Comm. Di Monda, on behalf of the Planning Commission, tnanked the Police and Fire Departments and the volunteers for their excellent efforts and performance during the recent riots. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 10:57 P.M. NO OBJECTIONS; SO ORDERED. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 5, 1992. 011Y/:J/~- Robert B. Marks, Vice-Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 15 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92