Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_07_21MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY -OF HERMOSA-BEACH HELD ON JULY 21, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Marks. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comms. Marks, Oakes, Suard and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda Chmn. Merl Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary Wilma Burt, Hermosa Beach, requested that the following be pulled: Resolution P.C. 92-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-(b) TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1015 4TH STREET. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Suard, to AP~ROVE the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the July 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting POLICY STATEMENT P.C. 92-2, A POLICY STATEMENT OF "THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INTERPRETING A DO-IT-YOURSELF BREWERY AS A HOBBY SUPPLY BUSINESS AND THEREFORE AS A PERMITTED USE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES. • Resolution P.C. 92-33, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD "DO-IT-YOURSELF BREWERY" AS A PERMITTED USE AND TO ADD DEFINITIONS OF DO-IT-YOURS BREWERY AND HOBBY SUPPLY. Resolution P.C. 92-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND REMODELING TO TWO UNITS WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING TO DENSITY, PARKING, AND SETBACKS, LOCATED AT 1616 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING-COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1100 PACIFIC COAS/l' HIGHWAY #2, EL POLLO INKA. Resolution P.C. 92-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT (LIVE MUSIC) AND DANCING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT 2701 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE BEACH BOYS CLUB. Resolution P.C. 92-41, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754, AND A PRECISE DEVEL- OPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 17TH STREET Resolution P.C. 92-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED PARKING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1314 HERMOSA AVENUE, THE SQUEEZE CUP. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Oakes and Suard None Vice-Chmn. Di Monda Chmn. Merl Wilma Burt, Hermosa Beach, asked if part of the open space was to be the garage roof top. She stated the Council had objected another project which had part of the open space on top of the garage. She objected to allowing this project to have a garage open space allowance, since the same was not granted to others. Comm. Oakes stated this project's garage open space was in addition to the required amount. Mr. Schubach stated this project was a nonconforming remodel, which can be out of conformance with regard to open space, set backs, height, etc. and still go .~P to a 100% increase. Ms. Burt felt this was not pertinent. Mr. Schubach reiterated his statement, noting this was not a new construction. Ms. Burt objected to Mr. Schubach's statements. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant was not deleting, adding on, or making the building more nonconforming than it currently is and no open space was being deleted. He offered to review the plans with Ms. Burt. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda suggested Ms. Burt accept Mr. Schubach's invitation to review the project's plans. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar item: Resolution P.C. 92-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-(b) TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT-VALUE AT 1015 4TH STREET. P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Oakes and Suard None Vice-Chmn. Di Monda Chmn. Merl COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS PDP 92-6 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WAIVER TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A RELOCATABLE CLASSROOM AT 1645 VALLEY DRIVE, HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL. Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development Plan and Waiver. Mr. Schubach stated the amendment was necessary for compliance with Section 9.5-8, and a waiver was also required because the proposed classrooms were only set back 15 feet. He described the proposed location and noted the buildings would appear to be "temporary" in appearance although they would be installed on permanent founda- tions. Staff recommended approval with a condition relating to the air conditioning unit's noise level. Comm. Marks discussed the affiliation between the existing and proposed classroom buildings with Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 7:20 p.m. John Nyberg, project architect, Newport Beach, presented photographs of the existing classroom buildings. He stated it was logical and less expensive to locate the proposed buildings next the to current ones. Comm. Marks suggested relocation of the proposed buildings in order to obtain a 15-feet set backs. Mr. Nyberg stated the current buildings had the same set back as that proposed. Comm. Marks objected to what would appear to be a "wall of buildings". Mr. Nyberg felt the current location was the most feasible in maintenance of expense and appearance. Comm. Oakes objected to the two-foot separation between buildings, to which Mr. Nyberg explained the manufacturer needed that space in order to attach the proposed buildings without using a crane. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Nyberg the proposed six-foot plywood piece which was to be placed between the buildings. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda closed the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. Comm. Suard discussed with Staff the safety aspects of the plywood piece located between the two buildings. 3 P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 MOTION by Comm. Marks to APPROVE PDP 92-6. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Comm. Marks felt the project exhibited poor use of the property, objecting to the proposed wall of buildings. Comm. Oaks agreed, and requested a drawing that would display the appearance of the plywood strip between the buildings. Mr. Schubach suggested the "gap" be filled with a facade. Comm. Oaks suggested the applicant work with the Planning Department, presenting a solution for this "gap" as a condition of approval. MOTION by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE PDP 92-6, with a condition that the applicant satisfy the Commission's concerns by bringing to the Planning Department diagrams showing how the expansion joints work between the two buildings. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Oakes, Suard and Vice Chmn. Di Monda • Comm. Marks None Chmn. Merl Vice-Chmn. Di Monda stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP AT 900 AVIATION BOULEVARD, S & S AUTO- MOTIVE. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, noting the application was submitted in accordance with the amortization ordinance, describing the property and location, building and parking facilities and hours of operation. He noted the applicant _stated the current operation provides "minor" auto repair. Mr. Schubach commented that the applicant's plans were not accurate to scale. On week ends, the lot is used for overflow parking by the adjacent car wash. He stated the business was not a source of major problems and was compatible with surrounding uses. Staff's concerns related to an over-abundance of wall signs and the lack of a ieparating barrier. If the Commission desired landscaping, Staffed suggested it be provided in conjunction with a barrier along the front property line. Mr. Schubach defined the conditions suggested by Staff and the hours of operation recommended by Staff. Comm. Suard and Mr; Schubach discussed the difference in hours of operation between the car wash and this application. Comm. Oakes and Mr. Schubach discussed the signs, which were not in compliance with the current sign ordinance. She suggested an area for planting and commented upon the lot striping. Comm. Di Monda suggested the large curb cut be replaced with a curb and, perhaps, a tree be planted. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 7:40 p.m. P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 'I Steve Urbanczyk, 900 Aviation, explained his understanding that he only had to install a curb, remove most of the signs and contain the garbage dumpster, to which he agreed. He stated he had only seven parking spaces, discussing the measurements with Comm. Marks, and stating the current parking was sufficient for his uses. Mr. Lee clarified that the 10 1/2" length of the spaces, as marked in the submitted plan, is not a legally recognized length within the Code, and he would be asked to re-stripe these spaces. Mr. Urbanczyk stated the car wash had striped them in compliance with the Commission's request. He stated there was no room for any plants at the curb area. He also noted that he would install a six-inch curb, but many children would probably be hurt when exiting the surfboard shop. He felt the curb would be dangerous. Comm. Oakes suggested he plant vines on the north side of the property. Comm. Di Monda confirmed the applicant agreed to the recommended hours of operation. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. Comm. Suard felt the applicant should not be required to perform expensive remodeling, but should clean up the signage. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, to APPROVE CUP 92-10, as stated. Mr. Lee, for a point of clarification, asked if this motLon had an effect upon Condition No. 4 of the proposed CUP. It was determined that Condition No. 4 would remain as is. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conun. Oakes, Suard and Vice Chmn. Di Monda Comm. Marks None Chmn. Merl Vice-Chmn. Di Monda stated this item was approved{ subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. TEXT 92-2 TEXT AMENDMENT TO LOWER THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN R-3 AND R-P ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION. Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff h·ad l?repared a draft Resolution to carry out the directive of the Council and summarized the Resolution and its impact to property owners. He then detailed other cities' height limitations. Mr. Schubach stated the question before the Commission was whether one method should apply in all cases or if another criteria for determining if a project should -be allowed to exceed 30 feet should be considered. Comm. Suard asked if Staff 5 P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 had an estimate of the number of reviews which would be required if allowances for pitched roofs were not allowed, to which Mr. Schubach responded, that in most cases, these situations are currently reviewed. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 7:55 p.m. Shirley Castle, Monterey Blvd., stated the audience could not hear the Commissioners and commented that something should be done about the sound system. She referenced a "Daily Breeze" article which stated the U.S. Supreme Court had deemed that property owner's could not have their property rights taken. She stated· the City was taking away rights every time the properties were down zoned, and referenced her own property as an example. Ms. Castle stated no notices had been sent to R-3 owners, feeling this was an injustice to the residents. She felt this meeting was not an open hearing, because it was not being immediately televised. She suggested that owners of R-3 property also sue, as was done in North Carolina. She requested the Commission "stop the nonsense". Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, felt it was a disgrace that Hermosa Beach had been taken off the air, feeling the cable company had the resources to put "everyone" on television. He noted that he was an unaffected observer who was concerned regarding unneces- sary Code changes, such as this one. He felt the City did not encourage any new construction, but encouraged an excessive "renter" base. He felt new homes would revitalize the City, while stating the current political system discouraged this type of growth. He asked if this proposed action would encourage or discourage poorly-maintained properties to be recycled. He condemned the current political actions being taken within the City, referencing in particular three City Council members. He stated properties owners' rights were being taken away; the proposal was not fair and suggested the proposal be printed in the "Easy Reader". He felt this issue should be left alone and the public should be notified of any proposed actions relating to this issue. - Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 300, strenuously objected to lowing the height limit without notification to all effected property owners. He stated it would cost approximately $600 for the mailing. He noted that many R-3 properties were currently single-family home sites; a lot of people would be pushed into the precise development plan for a single-family home. He felt the report was not complete; feeling this item was a "bone to be thrown to a Council that requires it," but not what the Council or Plan- ning Department wanted. He expr~ssed his concerns relating to the language, noting what could be read would not necessarily what would be enforced, due to ambiguity of language. Upon being asked by Vice-Chmn. for draft resolution specifics, Mr. Compton noted the first "whereas", No. C., stating "compatible" is ambiguous and without structure, which would result in a "hard line" being taken. He questioned "majority" in Item (A),2), asking P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 if this meant 50% +l, and Item (A), 4), asked who would be making the determination. Mr. Compton stated the proposed resolution had some good ideas, but the Planning Department had not been given sufficient time to develop the resolution. He requested this issue be continued. Mary McGee, Manhattan Avenue, stated this down zoning would be a "bag of worms". She discussed her plans to remodel, which was now being changed. She suggested a design review board be established and the height limit not be changed. Ms. McGee stated her strong opposition to lowering of height limits. Comm. Oakes discussed with Ms. McGee the location of her property and her remodeling plans. Gene Dier, 7th Place, stated he agreed with Mr. Longacre's comments, requested that additional rules not be made. He stated the City Council is taking aware the rights of property owners and suggested the property owners get the right to fight back. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, discussed the ambiguous wording, stating more guidance was needed. The stated a 30-feet height limit would not reduce bulk. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. DiMonda at 8:22 p.m. Comm. Oakes agreed with the speakers that the draft resolution language should be clarified. She felt provision should be made to allow property owners in the R-3 zone to build a single-family dwelling without being required to appear before the Commission. Mr. Schubach explained that a precise development plan was not required for a single-family house if the height limitations were being met. Comm. Oakes suggested that skylights be allowed to exceed the 30-feet height limitation. Comm. Suard agreed with some of the speakers. He stated it was better to have new homes and better designs than height limits, but noted i;.hat too many people would take advantage of maximum bulk. He felt the R-1 zone should have been included in the review and this evaluation, to allow homes within that area to build to the three-story limit. After discussion, the Commission members, individually, suggested the following changes: (A) "when all of the ... " changed to "when a majority of the ... ". This suggestion was not unanimous. (A)2) "A majority of buildings" is to be stipulated as a fixed amount, "over 60%" was suggested; change "reasonable" to "a distance of approximately 200 feet" or "a distance of approximately 300 feet radius", (A)3)&4) Both are arbitrary. Should state how and who this will make this determination. These two items should be simplified and either combined, with No. 4 eliminated or changed to read, " ... designed and oriented to ... sunlight, view, air ... ", 7 P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 (A)S)a It was suggested that the plate line be at 30 feet, but was not agreed upon by the majority of Commissioners, as that could be interpreted in many different ways and the issue addressed bulk, not plate line and consider architectural design; Staff is to determine specific, quantifiable guidelines, (A)S)b&c Clarify the language to clarify a step back will be used to reduce the volume. It was suggested these two items be combined, as the issue stated in "d" is addressed in "c". It was suggested that a trade off be allowed: for every 1 foot over the height limit allowed, 2 feet removed from the below bulk; That "bulk" be directly addressed; Staff is to determine specific, quantifiable guidelines, and 3.1. Renumber 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.4 as 3.1.a, 3.1.b and 3.1.c and 3.1.d. Mr. Lee suggested that paragraph (A) the word "generally" be struck, and in Subsection (A) 2) , the Commission consider what a "reasonable distance" might mean and give direction to Staff. Mr. Schubach stated the ordinance had been made general in an effort to allow judgment calls by the Commission in cases where a good project was presented, but the Code did not allow the project to be built. He noted that in the past,-policy statements • had been developed when a consensus had been obtained. Mr. Lee suggested that, in order to give a clearer definition as to the standards that would be used when making decisions, specific numbers be stated rather than general requirements. He felt, In that way, the accusation of "arbitrary" would then be inappropriate. He also suggested the Commission consider CONTINUING this issue to allow Staff to return with a reworded resolution, using the particular matters previously described as examples in terms reduction of mass, bulk and acceptable esthetic architectural design. Mr. Schubach commented that if over 50% were the requirement of buildings on the same block (Item (A)2)], this ordinance would be superficial, as no one would be able to build over 30 feet. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda referenced the suggested change to (A)2), requesting Staff to present, at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, graphics via a City zoning map, as to the impact of 200 or 300 feet distance requirement. He felt the Commission's intention was to protect property owners and ensure that they be allowed to enjoy the same rights as others; there- fore, a review of the graphics was very necessary. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the definition of "block" as it applied to this issue. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda requested that Staff present a determination of impact to stating 40%, 50%, 60~, etc. in Subsection (A)2), using the "block" definition shown in No. 206, to the Commission at its next scheduled meeting in August, 1992. MOTION by Vice-Chrnn. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE TEXT 92-2 to the Planning Commission's first meeting of August, 1992. P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None None Chmn. Merl Mr. Dier volunteered his time and computer programming .to assist Staff in computing the impact of percentages in item (A)2). A break was taken from 9:20 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. SS 92-3 --SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, detailing the background and the Commission's previous stated desire to see open space areas adjacent or accessible to living areas and to make open space a function of lot size. He noted that, pursuant to the Commission's previous comments, Staff had made modification, clarification and minor changes to the open space requirement language. Mr. Schubach then discussed the Commission's wish that required open space should be a percentage of lot size, noting this was consistent with a Housing Element policy statement. He discussed the R-1, R-2B, R-2 and R-3 open space standards and requirements, stating that Staff agreed that making open space a percentage of lot size in R-1 would be a reasonable and fair approach, resulting in more open space on larger lots. He then explained calculations and projected results. Mr. Schubach stated · multi-family projects are currently directly related to lot size, and explained the differences between single- and multi-family project requirements, as well as the specific requirements for multi-family projects. He stated Staff modified the provision relating to 50% multi-family open space coverage, eliminating confusion and to add flexibility in open ~pace area design, while not taking away from open space value. Staff believed a case by case review would be best to discourage unintended use of the provision. Staff suggested a minimum size uncovered area should be required prior to allowing any coverage. Mr. Schubach read the definition of "open space", noting Staff was comfortable with that definition. Comm. Suard asked why there was . a maximum on the R-1 zone open space requirement, to which Mr. Schubach responded the maximum was reasonable, but could be replaced by "14%". Comm. Suard felt the limit should be deleted. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 9:41 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd, Ste. 300, discussed with Mr. 9 P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 Schubach the dimensions associated with R-1 lots. Mr. Compton discussed the walk-street lot access and lack of usable open space, resulting in a small area adjacent to the alley as "open space". He felt the 7-feet front yard set back should be included as open space. Mr. Compton felt that if the front yard set back were used, open space would be automatically provided and this requirement would not represent a problem for small lots. He felt the 14% was reasonable, but was upset that requirements were constantly modified, which results in more nonconformities. He requested that the additional open space not be required only at the ground level in order to make small lots more attractive and more "buildable" to property owners. Mr. Compton expressed confusion relating to the fact that it is fine to have the living space on the ground in R-1, but for multi-family, the open space must be adjacent to the living space. He stated single-family homes are being built upside down, to which Vice-Chmn. Di Monda disagreed, stating condominiums are built upside down. Comm. Oakes stated that open space did not have to be next to the living area in single-family dwellings, discussing the reasons for the open space requirements with Mr. Compton and Mr. Schubach. Mr. Compton suggested that at least one or two of the upper-level decks should be allowed to be covered. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 10:15 p.m. Comm. Marks reiterated Mr. Compton's statements regarding the inconsistency in requiring open spaces adjacent to living space, feeling that flexibility should be established regarding open space at ground level and the upper floors. Comm. Oaks felt maintaining open space at the ground level was very important. She felt ability to give smaller lot owners a break by using percentages was commendable, stating she had not problem with "50% coverage". Comm Suard suggested that -on the smaller lots, the 14% calculation for the ground level only, with the ground level reflecting a decrease as the total unit square footage decreased, with the additional allotted amount being placed in deck space. •• Vice-Chmn. Di Monda stated this issue originated as a response to boxy, bulky buildings with the open space being furnished by flat roof areas. He stated it was morE~ desirable to provide open space adjacent to the primary living areas; there had never been any intention to reduce ground floor, at grade open space in single- family dwelling zones. MOTION by Comm. Suard to APPROVE SS 92-3 with removal of the maximum, when lots are small (under 1500 square feet) calculations will be based upon lot size, but continuing the 14%, with a change in the minimum; maintain the minimum of 210 square feet, but where the living area is above the ground floor, the remainder of the open space could be allocated above the ground level, rather than maintaining the 75% allocation to ground space requirement. The motion failed for lack of a second. 10 P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 Comm. Oakes that the motion was interesting, but felt that most small lots would be nonconforming remodels rather than no construction. MOTION by Comm. Oakes to approve SS 92-3 as written, and with the conditions as stated. The motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, to APPROVE as written, and with conditions, but with the elimination of the maximum of 560 in the R-1 zone. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Marks, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda Conun. Oakes None Chmn. Merl SS 86-12 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ADULT USES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Reconunended Action: To recommend amending the zoning ordinance provisions on adult businesses and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating this matter has returned to the Commissions on several occasions, with Staff making changes, as requested. He discussed the difficulty of establishing these types of businesses within Orange County and other areas. He stressed the importance of understanding the point of this ordinance is that it be as legally defensible as possible, so that if an establishment does come to the City, it can be regulated. Mr. Lee added the distance restrictions of more than 200 feet from the exterior boundaries of residentially-owned property, 1,000 feet from more sensitive uses (such as schools) and 1,000 feet from one adult business to another adult business, were established due to the small geographical area within the City. Mr. Lee stated the 200 feet requirement was the most restrictive that the City could apply and still have a legally defensible ordinance. Comm. Suard discussed possible locations and restrictions with Messrs. Lee and Schubach. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 10:24 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this subject, and the Public Hearing was closed by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 10:24 p.m. Comm. Suard discussed with Messrs. Schubach and Lee the parking requirements for both game arcade and adult business establish- ments. Mr. Lee explained that adult business' clientele would consist of adults with cars, while game arcade's catered more to clientele without cars. Comm. Oakes felt the parking requirement for adult businesses was excessive, to which Comm. Suard agreed. 1 1--= P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 In response to Vice-Chmn. Di Monda's inquiry, Mr. Schubach stated Staff did not believe the parking requirement was unreasonable. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda referenced Section 2, paragraph 6, which stated that all of the establishment must be visible upon entrance. He suggested that a screen or buffer be maintained, with visibility from that point. Mr. Lee suggested that this section be reworded as follows: On the third line, strike out "immediately" and after the word "entrance" and "but shall not be visible as viewed from the outside of the premises." MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oaks, to ADOPT SS 86-12,. with changes to Section 2.7 to read, "provide one off-street parking space per two machines or booths" and Section 2.6 to read, " .... visible upon entrance, but shall not be visible as viewed from the outside of the premises." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS Com1ns. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None None Chmn. Merl NR 92-6 AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 13-7(b) TO ADD GREATER THAN 50% ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 433 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Recom1nended Action: To continue the project. Mr. Schubach stated Staff felt not enough justification for the 35-feet height had been received from the applicant. He stated fill dirt appeared to have been observed on _site. Mr. Schubach explained the property actually consisted of two parcels; one being a separate five-foot strip which has been used by ·the adjacent neighbor, although owned by the applicant. He stated the applicant proposed to use the five-feet section as his rear yard, and stated the neighbor's rights, nor who actually owned the property, had not yet been established. Comm. Marks requested a complete section of the proposed addition and relationship to the rear building be provided. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda invited audience participation at 10:40 p.m. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, architect, stated the issues presented were new to him. He stated the front portion of the house was only 28.5 feet high, had pitched roofs, and the nonconformance was two inches in the front yard and the garage set back. He said the location of the garage was typical of the area. He stated if the roof were flat, the structure would be below 30 feet. He requested approval of this application. He discussed his drawing plans, the . .. . 12 P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 encroachments and current set backs with the Commissioners. Mr. Peha stated he was trying to keep the integrity of the current structure and confirmed the adjacent neighbors would be required to move the fence to their property line. Paul Garhart, applicant, stated the lot was exactly 31' X 50', but his lender had placed the back five feet of the lot under separate title as additional security for the lender. Mr. Garhart has paid property taxes on both parcels for approximately 24 years. He stated the neighbors had been using his property to plant flowers. He wished to build a home in which to retire and he wanted his property back for his own use. He stated his proposed house would still be smaller than most of the surrounding homes. He stated the fill dirt had been brought in to fill a hole, and would supply the survey if the Commission so wished. He stated the house and ~arage had been built to Code and was now declared nonconforming, which he did not understand. Laura Straton, 434 Bayview Drive, had a survey showing the block wall (fence) had been in place since 1966. She felt her back yard, with all plants, would be destroyed when used by the applicant to build upon. She presented photographs of the back yard which she had used for 17 years. She stressed that the lots were three separate parcels. She discussed the necessity of constructing a block wall upon her property, the need for her review as to the property title and stated she planned to discuss this problem with an attorney immediately. Comm. Suard strongly recommended that the legal review be completed prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, to which Ms. Straton agreed. Comm. Marks suggested she check her title report. She stated Mr. Garhart had never used the five-foot parcel, while she had always used it. She also stated Mr. Garhart had brought in and dumped two truck loads on dirt onto his property. Shirley Castle, Monterey Avenue, stated she had seen the four-feet of dirt that was brought in. It is held in place by old pieces of wood and looks like it has been there quite some time. She suggested the Commissioners visit the site and observe the amount of dirt there. Rebuttal Paul Garhart, applicant, stated he had not obtained a grading permit, but would have the dirt removed if necessary. He stated he paid the property taxes and the land was owned by him. Responding to Vice-Chmn. Di Monda's inquiry, he stated he would be agreeable to a design that would allow the trees and land slope to remain. He stated the garage area and driveway were relatively level, and had been built according to Code. Comm. Suard requested information and potential of view blockage. 35-feet tall buildings were found might have a "majority". • r 13 relating to the sur rounding area Mr. Schubach no ·..:ed that many in this area and that the block P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 Vice-Chmn. Di Monda expressed concern in that the drawings did not adequately address the rear yard issue. He stated he would like to see a section or plot plan and to ask the Building Department to visually check out the fill dirt issue. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to accept Staff's recommendation, and CONTINUE NR 92-6 to the Planning Commission's meeting on September 1, 1992, at which time adequate drawings are to be presented, the fill dirt is to have been removed and resolution to the problems of the fill dirt, rear yard and height issues should be completed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Co1D1ns. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None None Chmn. Merl P-1O VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS (continued from 5/19 & 6/16/92 meetings.) Reco1D1nended Action: To continue to August 4, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Mr. Terry would be presenting the Staff Report. He commented regarding the Commission's previous recommendation relating to Planning Commission Conditions, noting Commissioner concern relating to the intent of the motion. Mr. Schubach asked Comm. Suard to explain the motion, particularly Item No. 11, prior to the Staff Report being given. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda invited audience participation at 11:14 p.m. MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes to request Staff defer the Staff Report and accept Staff's recommendation to CONTINUE P-10 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 18, 1992. AYES:- NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Co1D1ns. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None None Chmn. Merl a. Update of the status report regarding fence at 1515 Hermosa Avenue. In response to Vice-Chmn. Di Manda's inquiry, Mr. Terry explained the property owners had cut bamboo to a three-feet height on the east and north sides, but left a post standing. City Staff removed a fence portion. An adjacent neighbor ~ requested that the bamboo fencing on the west side of the property be left in place, which was done. However, a second work order was submitted tQ the field staff, who have not yet P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 responded. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda remarked upon the fact the field superintendent had taken this matter into his own hands and made the matter much more complicated that it should be. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda suggested the property owner be billed for the time spent removing the fence by City employees. Mr. Lee stated if the fence were built within the public right-of-way, that action could be a violation of City Code, a misdemeanor. He felt the City could invoice the property owner for the labor involved in the removal of an illegally-built fence. Mr. Terry explained the Public Works Department's policy relating to this fence removal. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE c. City Council minutes of June 8, , 18, 23, and 30, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Oakes requested an amendment to the R-1 zone, to establish the same height requirements as in R-3, be placed on the Planning Commission's August 4, 1992 meeting agenda, to bring back a Resolution of Intent, to which the Commission agreed. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda stated his understanding that the City Council had voted 4-1 to amend the Municipal Code with respect to parking; to prohibit parking in the front yard if it did not lead to a garage. He suggested the Planning Commission send a memorandum to the City Council at its next meeting, officially asking the Council if the new ordinance being put into effect would include the front yards east of Beach Drive on the walk streets; and does that mean the City will be enforcing the front yard parking prohibition east of Beach Drive. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. Comm. Oakes requested better project representation be submitted to the Commission. She stated the reduced documentation was difficult to read. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda agreed, requesting a written list detailing Staff's hand-out to an applicant, including the materials that are requested from the applicant, be presented to the Commission for determination as to whether a policy or inclusion within • the zoning ordinance should be considered. He noted upon the discrepancies of presentation to the Commission. Mr. Schubach commented the Commission had previously requested smaller-sized plans, but Staff would accommodate whatever the Commission prefers. Comm. Suard asked the status of the video/televised Commission meetings. Mr. Schubach explained the cable company was investigating having a II split-channel II and will furnish a time frame to Staff on July 23, 1992. If the Commission wished to 1 5...., P.C.Minutes 7/21/92 change the meeting to Wednesday, instead, this issue should be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Lee confirmed the necessity of agendizing this issue for future discussion, to which the Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to adjourn at 11:40 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 July 21, 1992. ~ Uon~airman L{~£:ry --- 1?,.,S--?c Date P.C.Minutes 7/21/92