Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_09_01~Eft:IIJT ~i 0~ "itllt fDI.A.fillil ~C~~ CV~!§§ilO P!lil M.~lt"fil flltil~ 01'" Titll'.' C BT,Y O ff m--ni rDM.€D i.A\. E ~ACl1 11.tl..lD O r!r ilfl)T l:M.fBEEfD 11,. -~~~ .. AT 7:00 ID -~-I r-I Vil~ crinr.,, t1 A.1Jl COlJ~CII.. Ci1.4.foll3 1fl)§ Meeting called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Suard. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard Chmn. Merl None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Mary Roony, Community Research Director, Sylvia _Root, Recording Secretary Comm. Di Monda pulled Resolutions 92-46. ;. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items: \ Minutes of the August 4, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, Minutes of the August 18, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, Resolution P.C. 92-49, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO BE CALCULATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1170, CONSOLIDATED OFF.-STREET PARKING, THEREBY ALLOWING • A TAKE-OUT AND DELIVERY RESTAURANT ("DOMINO'S") AT 1117 AND 1121 AVIATION BOULEVARD IN THE SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND AVIATION BOULEVARD. •• Resolution P.C. 92-51, A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY A GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO CLOSE FIRST PLACE AND/OR FIRST STREET AT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, WEST SIDE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. ~erl None None None Comm. Di Monda felt this alternate Resolution P.C. 92-49 was too specific, noted a typographical error, q~estioned the truth of item 1 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 "C", acknowledged item "D" as true, and stated paragraph "C" was a possibility. He stated he preferred the first Resolution that was considered be forwarded to the City Council, with Commissioner Suard attending the City Council meeting to further explain the particulars of this item. He objected, stating he was not sure all the Findings had been made, expressed doubts about the "third story"; commenting enough questions had been made to raise the question for additional study. He felt strongly that if 'Mr. Suard did not appear at the Council meeting and explain the issues, the study would probably not be approved. Y Comm. Suard felt the comments were necessary in order to fully inform the City Council of the rational and options related to this Resolution. Comm. Oakes agreed. ,. MOTION by Chmn. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 92-46 as it stands. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Oakes, Suard Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Merl None None MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE the original Resolution P.C. 92~46. Chmn. Merl felt items had been included in the alternate Resolution which had not been discussed during the meeting and did not reflect the actions of the Commission at that time, to which Comm. Di Monda agreed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Phil Wagner, 601 1st Street, furnished photographs to the Commission and stated his objections to a neighboring property on which three unlicensed cars had been parked, dirt dumped and barbed wire fences erected. Mr. Schubach stated Staff would refer this complaint to the Building Department for enforcement actions. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 (continued from July 21, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To continue to September 15, 1992 2 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 Mr. Schubach stated the request was originally continued to allow for plan revisions to base the height measurement from the natural grade, removal of unpermitted fill dirt and provision of additional upward expansion information. Staff had not received resubmitted plans, although the fill dirt had been removed. The architect stated the plans would be ready at the September 15, 1992 meeting. Therefore, Staff asked for continuance. < ~ Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:17 p.m. No one~wished to speak regarding this item, and Chairman Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE NS 92-6 to the meeting of September 15, 1992, to allow the applicant to provide revised.- project plans to the Commission, for its review and consideration. NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. SS 92-1 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL FENCES ALONG VALLEY DRIVE AND ARDMORE AVENUE (continued from March 17, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To set for public hearing. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, explaining the Commission's alternatives and background of the study, Staff's belief that more. than three-feet high fences should not be allowed in :the front yards and proposal being focused to side yards on corner lots. He then discussed proposed exceptions which would apply predominately to the subject streets, as well as several other "collector" streets, commenting allowance of higher walls would better protect property in specific high-noise areas. Staff suggested that a C. U. P. be obtained to allow over-height fencing, and explained associated conditions and provisions. He noted the proposed ordinance would allow property owners to either legalize the unpermitted fences or re-construct the permitted fences or walls. Comm. Marks discussed the requirements of Zoning Ordinance, Section 12.15 with Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:28 p.m. Dan King, 1947 Valley Drive, referenced the block wall built on his property during January 1992, stating he would like his property to also be included and covered. Mr. Schubach responded the ordinance would not affect fences built on public right-of-ways, over which the Public Works Department and City Council had authority. Mr. King requested the ordinance be updated to cover private property. He also discussed with Mr. Schubach the need for justification for the six foot wall in order to obtain a C.U.P. Mr. King requested that a grapdfather clause be included to include the large number of existing non-permitted fences, to which Mr. Schubach responded that they generally were grandfathered. 3 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt the original focus had been on the Valley/ Ardmore corridor, that allowing oversized fences along that corridor, the greenbelt would possibly be enhanced. He thought a designation change, not a C. U. P., was to be used. -ffe.: stated Staff's report was not what he had expected. Mr. Schubach stated the study originated from a request by a property owner with a lot with street frontage on thr ee sides and a six-feet fence height fronting Valley Drive. Staff felt all lots should be allowed review if grant ing was to be given to certain ones. He stated Staff could limit t he review i f the Commission so desired. Comm. Di Monda stated a r eas within the City are qui t e different and very·• special. Therefore, the question of "fairness", is not appropriate when considering dissimilar properties. The Greenbelt corridor was the area, which should be recognized as different from other areas,· - which the Commission wished to specifically deal with at this time. Chmn. Merl confirmed the Commission's focus had been upon the corridor as a parkway. Mr. Schubach stated a factor had been the Ingleside Drive case which prompted the original investigation; indication had been given to the applicant that corner lots (such as his) would be evaluated. He stated corner lots were also an issue. Comm. Di Monda stated the intent was to review the Valley/ Ardmore greenbelt; not to have additional C.U.P.'s. Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. Schubach consideration of .shrubbery or hedges as barriers and, therefore, under the governing Code of 12.15. Comm. Oakes felt too much area was being reviewed, parameters should be reiterated to assist Staff in its review and presentation to the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chrnn. Merl, to DIRECT Staff to bring back a study focusing on Valley /Ardmore, furnish graphic information for the Commission's review, make recommendations as to why and how fencing would be appropriate and what type of landscaping migh t enhance the greenbelt corridor, and to exclude the C.U.P. proc e ss for this item. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corc.m. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None Hone None SS 92-4 SPECIAL STUDY TO RECONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINA.."l'CE BACH TO T HE ZONI NG ORDINANCE, A..1\JD TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDM EN TS TO THE SIGN ORDINll..NCE (continued from May 19 ,· 1992 meetiq,g). Recommended Action: To continue this project for further study. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended further direction regarding · 4 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 the scope and content of changes to the ordinance and continue the hearing. An alternative would be to form a committee which could form a consensus as to what should be done regarding the sign ordinance. He explained the sign ordinance, its regulations and impacts, as well as giving comparisons of the ordinance to those of other cities. Mr. Schubach noted due to the complexity, the report is not totally complete. Recommendation was made to plac e:~ cap on the allowable area for temporary signs and a duration reduction to 60 days; that allowable sign area requ i rements speci£ically state that they are for "permanent" signs and projecting signs-be prohibited. He further itemized Staff's recommendations . .for further changes. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation at 7 :55 p.m. No one,- wished to speak on this item, and Chmn. Merl opened discussion by the Commission at 7:55 p.m. Comm. Suard agreed with Staff's proposed changes and comments, while noting that the City had no illumination limits. He suggested adoption of a statement that the illumination is not to be out of character with the surrounding area, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. Comm. Oakes supported Comm. Suard' s comments. Comm. Suard questioned the practical consequences of projecting sign elimination, the differences between an awning sign and projecting sign s and how the proposed regulation of this item would function. Mr. Schubach stated the monitoring was accomplished through neighbors/ complaints and the C.U.P. process. Comm. Suard recommended that the number of free-standing signs be based upon the number of street frontages to the particular property; Comm. Marks commended Staff's report as being very inclusive, to which Comms. Di Monda and Oakes agreed. Comm. Di Monda stated the original involvement was due to deliberation of temporary banners and signs, and the problems associated with that issue. He felt the sign ordinance should be similar in concept to that of Manhattan Beach's, with attention directed to the illumination issue, a "temporary sign" definition should be included and a review made as to where the signs are being placed. Comm. Di Monda then discussed specific signs within the city, objecting to the possibil i ty of the City becoming a giant bulletin board. • Chnm. Merl concurred that the report was a very comprehensive study. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE SS 92-4 to allow Staff to consider and respond to the Commission's comments made during this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Mr. Schubach estimated this i tern would be brought back during October 1992. 5 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 STAFF ITEMS a. Conceptual design of the Municipal Pier Renovation Project from the Community Resources Department. Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director discussed the prelim- inary pier designs presented by Brian Mi tchell, archit~ct. She stated that, based upon the preliminary designs and suggestions from the Commission, a conceptual framework will resul t which will be used for final design of the pier renovation and ~ preliminary feasibility analysis for project implementationr She then explained the project history and purpose to.the Commission and audience. She stated authority had been received from the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority to allow the City to be written into an upcoming ballot measure for $1,500,000 pier renovation, as well as other immediate funds to initiate this project. She requested candid opinions of the rendering to be reviewed during this meeting. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern regarding skateboarding. Ms. Rooney stated the accommodations required for handicapped person s resulted in access to skat eboarding, although the City did wish to discourage that activity. Comm. Di Monda suggested the City Attorney be contacted for an opinion of this issue. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Ms. Rooney handrails, noting the concerns regarding rusting and visual obstruction. Comm. Di Monda asked if an elevator was necessary if access to the lighthouse was denied. Ms. Rooney responded research could be conducted as one of the options. Comm. Marks stated he was appalled upon receipt of the packet because a budget seems to have been fixed, with no notation as to what the budget constituted; no program or priorities developed. He objected to input being requested of the Commission after the fact. Ms. Rooney responded the actions taken were at the direction of City Council and th~ p~oject had been initially presented to all Commissions and City Council. Mr. Brian Michell, Sazaki and Associates, addressed Comm. Marks statements by requesting the drawings be viewed with specific design suggestions in mind, as well as very conceptual at this point. He asked that the concepts be reviewed and commented upon. He, then, presented three renderings of the proposed pier project, describing each of the renderings to the Commission. Within each of the alternatives, the concepts addressed were: (1) the entrance plaza, (2) the pier length and end. Mr. Michell stated concerns addressed in each rendering relating to the entrance plaza included (1) seating for pedestr1ans, (2) access steps on the north side leading to the beach, (3) connection of the pier to The Strand, and (4) 6 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 maintenance of the utilities in the current positions. He explained that a lifeguard facility was on the south side of the pier, which was not under the City's control. He discussed the elevation grades addressed by the renderings, as well as the concept of steps versus sloped surfaces and traffic patterns with the Corrimission. Comm. Di Monda offered constructive criticism as follows: (1) the pier should continue the geometry of the street leading to the pier or does something unexpected, which is not addressed within the three schemes presented, (2) the seating areas - should take advantage of the views, (3) the glass blocks ar~ inadequate as a focal point, rather a metaphor for the City should be considered, (4) centralized seating areas with trees were a good idea, (5) free standing lights was a good concept · and (6) perhaps a prototype of the lights could be introduced for both the pier entry and the pier, itself. Comm. Di Monda discussed the proposed railing with Mr. Michell and Ms. Rooney. Ms. Rooney stated Staff had expressed concern regarding any type of barrier from a visual and security standpoint. Chmn. Merl stated the concern related to the materials, rather than the specifics, with the concrete piles being maintained. Mr. Michell stated the pier, itself, did not need to be rebuilt; the changes would be for cosmetic purposes. The Commission then discussed different treatments than those suggested with Mr. Mitchell, included expression or concepts which should be incorporated within the pier design. Comm. Oakes felt the adjacent structures should be incorporated into the design concepts and more details should be shown in order to perceive the impact. Mr. Michell stated the only guidelines received was to put a restaurant at the end of the pier. Comm. Oakes felt the materials and proportion was very important to the design, suggesting a theme historical to Hermosa Beach and the uniqueness of Hermosa Beach be considered. Comm. Suard felt keeping "quaint" was important, the glass block would not be appropriate, the light house re fle cted the flavor, integration of the lifeguard house was a "mus t", and integration of the lighting scheme and The Strand improvements was a necessity. He felt PVC pipes might be considered. Chmn. Merl concurred with the Commission's previous statements. He felt Alternative A was too busy, Alternative B was good, but there was potential available with the lighthouse and.handling of the lighting to take advantage of the available views. Mr. Mitchell reiterated the lack of City's control of the lifeguard structure as well as the concerns of that lifeguard station. Comm. Di Monda said the pier should be a continuation of the street, commenting grasses could be incorporated with the sand, the pi~r was extremely important and should be "an experience within itself", with the end of the pier making a·statement. Ms. Rooney commented that input will be addressed during the RUDAT process occurring during Octooer 1992. She suggested the 7 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 Commission architects participate in the RUDAT process. The damage that occurred during 1988 had been repaired. She stated the ideas and suggestions made by the Commission woulq be considered and perhaps incorporated into the project. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation at 9:18 p.m . .• . ~~ Betty Martin, 27th Street, asked if the bathhouses were the responsibility of the City. She suggested showers be.built. Chmn. Merl responded they were the responsibility of the ~ County. Comm. Suard suggested the County be contacted regarding incorporation as part of the overall plans. The Commission, at the request of Ms. Rooney, discussed volunteering its expertise and time towards this project. The Commission's comments could be presented to RUDAT for incorporation, although the Commi ssion has not concurred during all its suggestions. The Commis sion discussed subcommittees to address design and program. Upon request of the other Commissioners, Comm. Marks agreed to serve on a subcommittee _ to address establishment of a program to be discussed by the Commission at its September 15, 1992 meeting. b. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for September 8, 1992 meeting. Comm. Di Monda stated he would be attending that meeting, to discuss the hotel issue. RECEIVE AND FILE c. Planning Department activity report of July, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE e. City Council minutes of July 28 and August 11, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Letter to Air Quality Management District regarding outdoor spray painting. Comm. Ui Monda asked if the A.Q.M.D. could be notified that a problem exists and ask if the complaints received could be investigated, to which Mr. Schubach responded a letter would be forwarded. 8 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 Mr. Schubach stated the City Council had adopted the Commission's recommendation regarding the actions of Multivision, and a letter will be forwarded. Co mr.,. Di Monda noted that realty signs are appearing wi thin the greenbelt area. He felt the City Manager should be rnarl e aware and r ecommended a letter be sent to the South Bay Board of Rea ltors regarding this illegal practice and the ord~nance will be enforced; ~ ADJOURNMENT , .. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 9:37 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the f ore going mi nute s are a true and complete record of the action t aken by the Planning Commission of ·Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 1, 199_~~-. ~ ,,/1/ 1 I-::: µ;f_/ -f11JV~._,e ,l--, . Rod Mer 1 , ,Cha'.irrnan Michael S c hubac h , Secret ary 4/4,. t- Date // 9 P.C.Minutes 9/01/92