Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_11_04MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7: 02 p.m. by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda. Pledge of Allegiance led by Secretary Schubach. ROLL CALL Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl (arrived at 8:15 p.m.) Absent: None Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Directory, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary Vice-Chairman Di Monda assumed the position of Chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of October 20, 1992, Resolution P.C. 92-57, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A PARKING PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND A BAKERY/SNACK SHOP TO INCLUDE RESTAURANT SERVICE AND TO INCREASE OUTDOOR SEATING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 51 7 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA CAFE. Resolution P.C. 92-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOOT BRIDGE TO COVER REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AT 2510 THE STRAND. Resolution P.C. 92-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 65852.2 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comma. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak regarding any i tern not on the agenda. 1 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 PUBLIC HEARING CON 92-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR REMODELING AND ADDITION TO A CONDOMINIUM AT 49 AND 55 8TH STREET. Recommended Action: Permit. To approve said Conditional Use Mr. Schubach stated the applicant proposed enclosing a covered second story balcony on both rear units, resulting in an addition of 122 square feet each. He described the balconies, noted the northerly 8' x 7' area qualified as "open space", and stated enclosure would disqualify those areas. The rear units also contain 252 square feet each of open space at the third level and additional open space existed in excess yard areas. The project would still comply with open space requirements and all other Planning and Zoning requirements. He stated the building height is nonconforming, but the proposed addition had no impact on the height. Staff believed the request was acceptable, unless one of the condominium owners objected. Comm. Marks ascertained previous construction had been completed by permit. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 7:08 p.m. Kevin Jones, 49 8th Street, the west rear unit.. He explained the remodel plans, stating this remodel would not impact neighbors or access, explaining the balcony would be consistent with the lines of the building, and noted that three of the other condominium owners had signed a quorum agreement. He stated the owner of 55th 8th Street would like to wait about one year before starting his remodel due to lack of financing. He presented his original documents to the Commission _for its review and return. Gary Keller, project contractor, stated no open space would be removed, glass doors would be used to enclose the proposed area. He explained these decks fronted on the alley. Rigo Banuelos, 53 8th Street, strongly objected to the proposed project, stated he had not seen the signed agreement, no final votes had been made (to his knowledge) and expressed his concern that only one unit would be remodeled and the other left as is. He requested denial of the request because he felt the other condominium owner would not remodel his unit. He also suggested that if approval were given, a condition be made to require both owners to complete their projects at the same time. Kevin Jones rebutted by stating he wished Mr. Banuelos had responded to him earlier when he had made several attempts 2 P.C. Minutes 11-4-g2 ,.,,, to contact him and obtain his opinion. He stated three owners had agreed and Mr. Banuelos had been inf armed of such, and the project had gone forth through the required procedures. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m. Comm. Marks requested the Planning Dept. confirm the validity of the signatures submitted by Mr. Jones and felt if they were the project should be approved, which was a condition of the C.U.P. Comm. Suard felt the architecture was good, but enclosure would result in a block type of building. Comm. Oakes, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda and Secretary Schubach discussed the difficulty in enforcing a condition requiring both sides being built at the same time or requiring a performance or completion bond being posted. MOTION by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE Staff's recommendation to APPROVE the subject Conditional Use Permit. Failed for lack of a second. MOTION by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, to CONTINUE to December 1, 1992, the subject Conditional Use Permit request, and DIRECT Staff to investigate the feasibility of an appropriate means to insure that both balconies are enclosed simultaneously and to request the other applicant to appear at that meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Oakes, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda Comms. Marks, Suard Chmn. Merl None MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, fo DENY the subJect Conditional Use Permit. After discussion among the Commission, this motion was withdrawn by Comm. Suard, with approval by Comm. Marks. Comm. Suard felt that if windows were installed on the third level, the appearance of a "box" building would be lessened and would be an adequate compromise, to which Comm. Oakes agreed and felt it should be made a condition of approval. Comm. Oakes suggested a motion to CONTINUE to December 1, 1992, the subject Conditional Use Permit request, and DIRECT Staff to investigate the feasibility of an appropriate means to insure that both balconies are enclosed simultaneously, REQUIRE both owners be present at the December 1, 1992 meeting, to request the other 3 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 condominium owners appear at that meeting and SUGGESTED that the applicant add on the south elevation two windows in the nook area, one on each side. Comm. Marks felt the Commission was position, in that it was designing the applicant. Comm. Oakes felt the windows the building design. overstepping its building for the were important to Vice-Chmn. Di Monda reopened the Public Hearing at 7: 4 0 p.m. Kevin Jones, applicant, offered clarification as follows: ( 1) he intended to remodel his condominium prior to the adjacent owner, who was having financial problems and would not commit at this time, and ( 2) he agreed to inclusion of windows on the third floor and he wished to upgrade the building. Both units had been included in this request due to cost, which is to be split by the two units' owners. Gary Keller, project architect, stated the adjacent building was the same height, the balconies had no view and were not visible from the street. Sahai Jones, applicant, stated the balcony was over a garbage dumpster, in the alley and not visible to others. She stated similar units on 7th Street had set a precedent in that only one unit was enclosed, her neighbors could not commit to construction at this time due to finances, but they were very excited about the idea. Rigo Banuelos, 53 8th Street, did not object to the enclosure, but wanted both enclosures completed at the same time to protect the building integrity. No one else wished to speak re~arding this item, and Vice- Chmn. Di Monda closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m. Comm. Marks did not feel enclosure of the upper windows was not necessary, but since the applicant had agreed to the condition, he would support such a motion. Comm. Di Monda felt it very important the Commission be careful when approving balcony enclosures which could result in a decrease of open space. He requested Staff investigate the process completed by the unit of 7th Street which had an enclosed balcony. MOTION made by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, to CONTINUE to December 1, 1992, the subject Conditional Use Permit request, and DIRECT Staff to . investigate the feasibility of a bond or appropriate means to insure that both balconies are enclosed simultaneously, REQUIRE both owners be present at the December 1, 1992 4 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 meeting, to request the other condominium owners appear at that meeting and SUGGESTED the south elevation include two windows in the nook area, one on each side, with consideration of windows constructed on the third floor. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl None CUP 92-14 & PDP 92-9 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO BODY AND PAINT SHOP, TWO REPAIR SHOPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1086 AVIATION BOULEVARD AND 111 PROSPECT AVENUE. Secretary Schubach stated Staff recommended continuance to a specific date and commented upon concerns relating to parking and car storage areas, inadequate employee parking and customer parking provision, proposed development being too intensive, screening of roof equipment, existence of a wood fence rather than a block wall, signage and impact upon surrounding area. Staff felt the landowner was tak- ing a realistic approach to site upgrading and improvement and to also correct past problems and violations. Mr. Schubach described the current site and proposed changes, noting the absence of an integrated design as well as landscaping and filtration equipment details, planning for tandem parking, and the current authorization for limited painting areas only; not full auto painting. Staff suggested a block wall replace the wood fence and the grade behind building #1 be raised to the top of the existing retaining wall. Additionally, it was recommended a covered pole sign or decorative-base ground sign with a maximum height of 10 feet be used. Comm. Marks felt cross sections should become a require- ment prior to submittal to the Commission. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda confirmed cars were painted on site in limited paint areas. Comm. Oakes reiterated the previously-stated concerns of Staff relating to this application. She asked how the thinners and solvents would be handled, noting no paint booth filtration system was in evidence. She also asked if revised plans had been received, to which Mr. Schubach responded he had not, although the architect had met with Staff after receiving the report. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 8:02 p.m. Doug Yates, 119 W. Torrance, Redondo Beach, project architect, stated he had just received the Staff Report. He would like to hear the Commissions concerns. The site 5 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 is well-traveled, the applicant did not wish to build an unattractive building. He noted keys would be available for all cars parked on site, therefore, the tandem parking would not be a problem. He explained the shape and topography of the site, commenting it was a very difficult site with which to work. Due to economics, he requested the retaining wall remain. If the access was only from Aviation, extreme excavation would be required, which is expensive, making the project not viable. He explained the finances of the proposed project and the possible results of changes to the plan. Comm. Oakes felt the plan was esthetically pleasing. She suggested the buildings be combined and located at the back of the lot to allow better vehicle access. Mr. Yates explained a 15' height was necessary at the lower section. Comms. Oakes and Suard discussed relocation of office areas and consolidation of buildings with Mr. Yates. Mr. Yates responded if building #2 were eliminated, the project would become non-existent. Comm. Marks suggested a possible ramp location to Mr. Yates, who felt the "drop" was too steep. Comm. Marks disagreed. Mr. Yates agreed . to review all the comments made by the Commission members. Tonia Beaudet, Hermosa Beach, referenced the video tape she had previously furnished to the Commission. She stated she represented many residents and commented that any improvement of the site would be good. She felt there was no area that was not close to residents. She stated she had no problems with Mike's but detailed the problems experienced with Buck's. She stated, in detail, her opposition to auto body painting, the resultant fumes and requested all paint shops be located away from residential areas. Maurice Beaudet, Hermosa Beach, offered to show a video tape, which was declined by the Commission. He stated "some-thing" was draining from the building to the gutter and requested to see any information relating to impact of this proposed project. He did not believe compliance ins~ections were conducted, asked how the City could allow residents' qualify of like to be diminished and if there was a plan to regulate auto body shops. He stated his opposition to allowing a paint shop to be built. Carlos Saital, 11th Street, stated he did not smell fumes. He stated the current owners are working in an old fashion building and the proposed plans would be a definite improvement. He suggested approval, stating if after construction, fumes still issued, action could be taken. Roger Green, 1101 & 1109 Prospect property owner, stated he had not experienced any obnoxious orders other than the normal ones and had no complaints at this time. He 6 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 supported the application, feeling the proposed plan would be an improvement. Mario tepee, 1120 & 1122 Prospect property owner, stated his support for approval of the application. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Comm. Suard suggested Staff contact A.Q.M.D. to determine the type of system was needed to contain the fumes and toxins. He encouraged the applicant consider of the ideas expressed by the Commission, including stacking devices. He felt all painting should be done inside, only. Comm. Oakes agreed, feeling an inspection should be conducted of interior painting and requesting the expressed concerns be addressed when the Commission next reviewed this issue~ Vice-Chmn. Di Monda stated the Commission had asked the Council to take inspection and enforcement action, but there did not seem to be the will or finances. He noted the City had 15 paint spray booths and the Commission had been of the opinion that that was enough. He could not support an intensification, which this project would do. He agreed the facility was well designed, but felt it would be an over-intensified usage. He expressed surprise at Staff's recommendation for continuance, based upon the multitude of concerns expressed. He stated his conclusion was to deny, based upon the over-intensified use and that it appears to not be in the best interests of the community and City. Comm. Suard felt this application was a chance to set up painting correctly, that this site could serve as an example to others and the application should be approved. Comm. Oakes, Suard and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda discussed in detail their previous statements and thoughts relating to this issue. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda strongly suggested that Staff resolve concerns and provide recommendation for approval or denial before presentation to the Commission. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the possi- bility of renoticing and the associated costs to the applicant or City if the item were continued. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda asked that Staff again review applicable filtra- tion systems and associated costs. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to CONTINUE application CUP 92-14 and PDP 92-9 until the first meeting in January, 1993, directing the applicant to address all concerns expressed by the Commission and Staff, to include hazardous material disposition proce- dures, reduction of the intensified site usage and provision of additional parking. 7 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl None A break was taken from 8:57 to 9:05 p.m. Chmn. Merl assumed the position of Chairman at 9:05 p.m. SS 92-4 --SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE. Recommended Action: amendment. To recommend approval of text Chmn. Merl noted the Commiss ion had received a slightly revised sign ordinance, and asked if Staff had amendments. Mr. Schubach stated the revision noted why the changes were made; mostly for clarification and resulting from the study that had been made and comments from the Commission. Additionally, three changes were made due to new State law requirements. He stated signs could not be required to be moved when there was a change in property ownership or simply sign copy change. If the building is redeveloped, the sign can be requested to be removed. Real estate signs on private property with the consent of the property owner cannot be required to be removed, but can be regulated. Window signs that are not simply posters (not exceeding 10 square feet of window area) will require a permit. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had reviewed ordinances from other cities and tried to maintain consistency with them, and explained some of the other requirements that had been included. Comm. Di Monda noted that page 40, "temporary signs" had an error, suggesting "60 days" should be changed to "60-day allotment". He confirmed with Mr. Schubach that painting on a window was considered a temporary sign, discussing the distinction in window signs and illum- ination would be determined on the amount of lighting, with control would be by timing devices. Mr. Schubach stated no alteration had been made relative to the "green belt". Comm. Oakes and Mr. Schubach confirmed the per- centage of a wall that could be covered with signage, that signs were allowed on second floors, but not above second levels. Comm. Suard confirmed with Mr. Schubach that address numbers are not considered signs and are not addressed by this ordinance, although they are regulated on condominiums. Comm. Suard felt stores and businesses should be required to display address number signs. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:24 p.m. 8 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 Gary Waylon, 1097 Aviation Blvd., Chairman of Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber has worked with the City on this ordinance, with Staff to simplify the business license process and sponsored the RUDAT program. He stated this ordinance would place hardships upon businesses that were trying to attract more sales tax dollars, noting some provisions were not geared toward businesses. He noted the Chamber had received a copy of the ordinance at 3:00 p.m. today, and requested additional time in order to study it. He requested the Commission approve Staff's recommendation to allow further study and to meet with the Chamber members to address its members' concerns. He referenced page 18, paragraph B of the new ordinance, stating he did not see a "30-minute window" in this item, noting he would like to explore the inconsis- tencies within the "illumination" portion. He stated.the Chamber of Commerce would like to be a part of the review of the ordinance and requested sufficient time (within the next two weeks) be given prior to the final enactment of the ordinance. He stated some areas of concern include illumination, sign size and time of closing the signs down. Comm. Di Monda stated this issue had been extensively studied by Staff and was not arbitrary, to which Comm. Oakes agreed and reiterated, noting this proposed ordinance was not as restrictive as some in other cities. Mr. Waylon questioned the inclusion of Santa Barbara within the study and stated, again, the Chamber members wished inclusion within the process. Mr. Schubach noted the document had been given to the Chamber last Thursday, while agreeing that this was not a lot of time for review. Leslie Brighart, co-owner of a sign business, stated she was involved in this issue by being a property and business owner. She felt the City was too restrictive on banners and signs already, without further reduction. She stated the times are tough, felt the business owners were being slighted for esthetic reasons and objected to the decrease from 90 to 60 days and the overall size reduction of the signs. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:38 p.m. Mr. Schubach discussed with the Commission its future agendas. The meeting date of November 17, 1992 was decided upon for inclusion of the item, if continued. Comm. Di Monda disagreed that the ordinance was too restrictive, stating the Commission was trying to bring this ordinance in line with other cities. He explained 9 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 the survey of other cities was to obtain a comparison. He felt Manhattan Beach's ordinances were more description and thought they should be further reviewed by Staff and during any meeting with Chamber representatives. He felt "prohibitive signs" and signs that blocked architectural features should be included in that review. He explained the concerns regarding the size of signs on the sides of buildings, feeling that esthetics played a significant role. He acknowledged the ordinance was very difficult to write. Comm. Di Monda stated he thought Manhattan Beach allowed a maximum of 150 square feet of sign area. Comm. Di Monda stated she would mirror Comm. Di Manda's remarks. She noted she had a problem with the size of signs, noting one-fourth of the building face could be covered by a sign. She suggested that the location of signs might determine the handling of the sign sizes; ie. Pacific Coast Highway might be considered differently than Pier Avenue. Comm. Suard felt the Commission was attempting to keep visual blockage to a minimum and this should be considered by the Chamber of Commerce. He felt the signs should assist people in locating businesses, not detract from the ease of location. He felt if the signs were smaller and uniform, the ease of reading was enhanced. MOTION by Comm. Oakes to CONTINUE SS 92-4, Special Study and Text Amendment to the meeting of November 17, 1992, and that Staff meet with the Chamber of Commerce representatives and also review the Manhattan Beach ordinance as it relates to maximum area of signs and prohibitive signs prior to that meeting. AYES: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None HEARINGS CUP 95-2 & PARK 92-2 1) SIX-MONTH REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 2) MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR THREE ADDITIONAL VIDEO GAMES AT 950 AVIATION BOULEVARD, THE RACER'S EDGE. Recommended Action: 1) To direct Staff to continue to enforce the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit. 2) To approve the requested minor modification. Mr. Schubach stated this review was a routine one. Additionally, the applicant had requested three additional video games. Staff recommended approval, but that the 10 P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 games be installed only after the applicant had complied with all the conditions of approval. Mr. Schubach stated this condition had been met except for the bike rack and trash enclosure. The bike rack has been obtained and a request for permit for the enclosure has been made. Upon installation, they would be in full compliance. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:43 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited members of the audience to speak. Dennis Scanlan, 950 Aviation Blvd., stated the bike rack had been installed, and the owner of the building will be enclosing the trash enclosure within the new future. He stated the three additional games would help the business immensely. No one wished to speak relating to this item. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE the requested minor modification, provided the applicant is in compliance with all the conditions of approval. AYES: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FOURTH QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Recommended Action: appropriate. To direct Staff as deemed Secretary Schubach stated that four time per year, according to State Law, the opportunity to am~nd the General Plan was available. Staff was not recommending any amendments, but if the Commission did, it should make Staff aware. He noted RUDAT and Land Use Element studies were complete and suggested a Workshop be conducted during December, 1992. Comm. Di Monda asked the status of the amendment relating to cul-de-sacs on 1st Place. Mr. Schubach stated it had been referred to the Traffic Engineer approximately two weeks ago. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:55 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited members of the audience to speak. No one else wished to speak relating to this item. Chmn. Merl stated this item was closed. He asked status on the RUDAT report. Mr. Schubach stated the RUDAT study and "rough draft" of the Land Use Element update should be delivered to Commissioners on November 5, 1992. 11 P.C. Minutes 11-04-92 STAFF ITEMS a. Request from Harry Pecorelli for an interpretation regarding the conversion of an existing manufacturing building to residential in an R-2 zone located at 598 First Street. Mr. Schubach discussed Mr. Pecorelli's request for a temporary waiver to allow existing manufacturing structures to be used as his residence. He noted the property had been recently rezoned, described the structures and reiterated Mr. Pecorelli's request to use both structures as a residence which is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The only option he has is application for variances from the set back requirements and allowance of detached structures for a single dwelling. Staff recommended support of the interpretation made by Staff. Comm. Di Monda confirmed the building were non- conforming as to set back requirements and that Mr. Pecorelli wished to use the existing buildings, only remodeling the interiors. He discussed the • proposed layout with Mr. Schubach. There were no questions of Staff, and at 10:01 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited members of the audience to speak. Harry Pecorelli, 752 22nd Street, San Pedro, stated the drawing was not final and only used as a possibility for room arrangement. He was willing to revise the plan to a more appropriate one, if the Commission so wished. He explained he was selling his curr ent resident and hoped to move into the property at 598 First Street, since he had owned it for many years and was currently suffering financial reverses. He explained the buildings had been leased for quite some time, he had not seen the interior during that time and the plans reflected that lack of knowledge as to the exact dimensions of the buildings. He stated due to the shape of the property, compliance to set back requirements would destroy the buildings. He wanted only to remodel the building interiors to make them "livable" as a residence. He explained his efforts made to comply with the City's various requirements and the problems and expense he had experienced so far. Mr. Pecorelli described the condominiums surrounding his property, Fire Dept. access routes, the block wall surrounding his property and asked for consideration and possible waiving of the requirements to allow he 12 P.C. Minutes 11-04-92 and his wife to live on the property which he owns "free and clear". Comm. Marks and Mr. Pecorelli discussed the need for a precise develo~ment plan, as well as the cost for such plan. Comm. Di Monda commented that the Commission had rezoned the area and building, and felt that Mr. Pecorelli's property, perhaps, came under the "50% remodel", which Mr. Schubach disagreed, stating it was a non-conforming use with a remodel of a commercial property to residential. Comm. Di Monda noted that the City was able to determine deviations from the ordinances allowing people to place unwanted signs, cars can be parked on the sidewalk, people to camp in the Community Center, but the same creative thinking had not been applied in this case. He noted the rezoning had now made this property valueless without further, extensive actions being taken. He felt Staff should have put more creative thinking into this request prior to presentation to the Commission. No one else wished to speak relating to this item. Chmn. Merl and Mr. Schubach discussed the surrounding structures, which were new condominiums. Mr. Schubach agreed that Staff would re-examine the Code and pre- sent suggestions to the Commission. Comm. Oakes noted that manufacturing facilities have more restrictive requirements that single-family dwellings, feeling that the non-compliance to set backs would not represent the same hazards that a single-family would. She felt this issue should be considered from that angle. Comm. Suard expanded her statement, noting there were six-feet concrete walls on both sides, Fire Dept. access was available, small sideyard encroach- ment was a good trade off for 20-feet reduction in height, and modifications would require review by the Commission. Comm. Marks and Mr. Pecorelli discussed the adjacent property located in Redondo Beach, the garage door located in the rear building and Mr. Pecorelli's unsuccessful efforts to obtain access from that property. Chmn. Merl stated it was the sense of the Commission to DIRECT Staff re-examine this issue, examine applicable codes and interpretations to resolve this issue and present its findings to the Commission. b. Memorandum regarding 1) Planning Commission December meeting date. 2) City Council/Planning Commission workshop meeting. 13 P.C. Minutes 11-04-92 The Commission agreed the regular meeting will be con- ducted on December 1, 1992, and the workshop meeting could be scheduled on December 3, 1992. Staff was directed to move forward with those dates. The Com- missioners were invited to submit additional agenda items to Staff. c. Status report regarding 1010 17th Street. Mr. Schubach stated the property owner had apparently left town without complying to the Commission's request regarding the swimming pool. The Commission requested that abatement ~rocedures be investigated through a letter to the City Manager. Chmn. Merl • felt there had been a break of faith with what was represented to the Commission. No objection, so ordered. • d. Correspondence to and response from Air Quality Management District regarding inspection of auto body spray paint operations. RECEIVE AND FILE e. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE f. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for November 10, 1992 City Council meeting. Clarification as to members of the Planning Commission attending the meeting and serving as the Commission representative had not been received. The Commission again asked for clarification by the City Attorney. The Commission discussed Comm. Di Monda's experiences during his attendance at the previous City Council. meeting which related to this lack of clarification. Comm. Suard commented upon the recommendation modify- ing the open space in the R-1 zone, summizing the Council wished to increase bulk and not increase the open space of the larger lots. He noted that it appeared that the City Council, at its wish, was using the "bulk vote" (conducted a couple of years ago) in denying the study for the R-1 height. Now, the Council was reversing that, increasing bulk in conflict with that advisory vote in this situation. He felt that it made no sense that the Council went back and forth, at its own descretion, without any logic whatsoever. Chmn. Merl also noted his frustration that the codes were not enforced with regard to the parking across the public right-of-ways. RECEIVE AND FILE 14 P.C. Minutes 11-04-92 g. City Council minutes of October 13, 1992. Comm. Suard noted Item 12, confirming the Commission had sent the Council its recommendation in terms of open-space in the R-1 modification. He felt the City Council, at its wish, used the "bulk" vote and denied the R-1 height study, but approved the decrease in R-1 open space, thereby increasing bulk in conflict with the advisory vote. He felt no logic was being dis- played. The Commission agreed this issue would be brought forward during the meeting with the Council, asking the Council's interpretation of the advisory vote and for direction from the Council. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Comm. Suard reiterated his earlier request that Staff investigate how address signs for commercial buildin~s are being enforced to assure that visible numbering is placed in visible locations. The Commission agreed this would be a Commission policy that it be imposed on all development that comes before the Commission. b. At the beginning and during this meeting, the Commis- sion experienced problems with the microphones, necessitating Comm. Di Manda's use of a substitute, hand-held microphone during the entire meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Commission to adjourn at 10: 38 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 November 4, 1992. ~r"---~=---'-✓--==-~-~-c __ -g~~k Rod Merl, ChaiT Michael Schubach, Secretary I '---,' -e7 \........ Date 15 P.C. Minutes 11-04-92