The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC_Minutes_1992 Except 3-17MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON DECEMBER 1, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Vice-Chinn. Di Monda. Pledge of Allegiance led by Secretary Schubach. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Marks, Suard, Vice Chmn. Di Monda Comm. Oakes (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Chmn. Merl (arrived at 7:13 p.m.) None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 4, 1992, Planning Commission Minutes of November 17, 1992, Resolution P.C. 92-65 to approve a Parking Plan to allow less than required parking, thereby allowing a chiropractor's clinic within the Ocean Plaza office building at 2615 Pacific Coast Highway. Resolution P.C. 92-66 approving a Conditional Use Permit to authorize auto repair at 2212 Pacific Coast Highway ( Sola Motor Works). Comm. Suard pulled Resolution P.C. 92-67, requesting conditions be included regarding canvas maintenance. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by. Comm. Marks, to_ APPROVE the Minutes of November 4 and 17, 1992, and Resolutions P.C. 92-65 and 92-66. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None None Chmn. Merl (arrived 7:13 p.m.) Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed Resolution 92-67, determin- ing adequate conditions were included regarding maintenance of all canvas materials. Resolution P.C. 92-67 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan to allow automotive service (paintless dent removal) in conjunction with an office and to allow tandem parking, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 150_0 Pacific Coast Highway_. 1 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda, to APPROVE Resolutions P.C. 92-67. AYES: NOES: Comm.·Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Di Monda None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chmn. Merl (arrived 7:13 p.m.) Chmn. Merl assumed the Chairman position. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak regarding an item not placed on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS CUP 91-22 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, 24-HOUR OPERATION AND TANDEM PARKING FOR MOTORCYCLES, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1100 THE STRAND (continued from August 18th and SeDtember 15, 1992 meetings). Recommended Action: To deny the request. Mr. Schubach outlined the previous reasons for continuance of this application which included noise being created within a patio glass enclosure with no sound proofing, police concerns regarding allowance of 24-hour service, possible congestion resulting from the take-out window and lack of commensurate parking facilities. He stated a proposal to mitigate those concerns had not yet been received by Staff, resulting in Staff's recommendation for denial. Comm. Marks again requested that precise, to-scale drawings be submitted by the applicant, requesting this be made a requirement. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:15 p.m. Peter Mangurian, 5 2 11th Street, announced he would be a City Council candi date next year. He apologized for the bar and street noise, as well as corruption in the area, stating drug sales within downtown and other parts of Hermosa Beach was being pro~ected. He stated he was not selling drugs, nor "paying off". He felt air conditioning was not necessary, stating that if the windows were "cracked", it would become cold within the building. He stated he would not need entertainment amplification. He said the statement that he was not willing to limit the scope of expansion was a lie, commenting he did not want the City's inability to rectify the downtown problems to be taken out of him, as he had not created them. He felt nothing would be done by the Police Dept. until the City Council changed, noting he had called the Police Dept. many times regarding noise, with no results. He said if his business was going to be run decently, he needed help from the City. When asked by Comm. Suard, Mr. Mangurian stated no one had asked him to limit the scope of his request. Comm. Suard noted this 2 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 I request had been discussed in detail at the last Public Hearing on this subject. Comm. Oakes confirmed that the applicant was still requesting 24-hour take-out service, bar, dining, living enter- tainment and tandem motorcycle parking. Mr. Mangurian explained the bar could not remain open after 2:00 A.M. Comm. Oakes expressed the Commission's concerns relating to noise, noting that nothing had been done to correct it. Mr. Mangurian stated he did not intend to have loud noise, he would keep the volume down. However, he stated he could turn the volume up and asked what the Commission would do about it. Comm. Oakes confirmed that nothing in writing had been submitted regarding the plans of operation. Mr. Mangurian stated the take-out service was basically for the week ends and all operations would close no later than 2:00 A.M. Mr. Mangurian stated the Commission members were politically appointed and took orders from the people who appointed them. He stated the Commission could give him the opportunity to help clean up the downtown area or perpetuate the current drug problems resulting from the City's policies. He noted that by his business being a "dump", which was unnecessary, the adjacent residents' properties depreciated by 10%. He suggested that maybe the Council would be changed next year by the voters. Mr. Mangurian stated a policeman had told him the downtown area would be cleaned up when the Council gave its permission to do so. He felt one policeman with one ticket book could clean up the downtown area and noted the Commission had the power to help authorize that clean up. Mr. Mangurian stated the problem was being perpetuated by design, noting he lived with the problems on a daily basis and the police did nothing about it. He discussed the lack of manageability of people on drugs, noting the only way to stop the drug situation was to change the Council. Responding to Chmn. Merl, Mr. Mangurian stated he did not' want to operate 24-hours per day, but wanted the possibility at a. later date without having to go through the C.U.P. process. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chairman ·Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:29 p.m. Comm. Suard stated the Commission had previously ·asked the application be refined, with supplements, definition and narrowing of the request for better understanding, which had not been done. Comm. Suard, based upon the information before the Commission, proposed the request be denied. Chmn. Merl noted the difficulty in determining exactly what was being proposed by the applicant, expressing concern regarding the lack of clarity. Comm. Oakes felt the applicant had not made an effort, as previously requested. Comm. Di Monda commented that the City and Commission did not condone what was happening in the downtown area, the Police Dept.'s refusal to issue tickets for violations or any dealing in drugs. He noted the applicant was asking for cart blanch to do whatever he wanted to, whenever he 3 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 wanted, suggesting the applicant presented this issue and his other problems to the City Council. MOTION by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE Staff's recommendation to DENY the request. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Chairman Merl stated this item was denied, subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. CON 92-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR REMODELING AND ADDITION TO A CONDOMINIUM AT 49 AND 55 8TH STREET (continued from November 4, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, noting the previous concerns expressed, noting the applicant had responded to the Commission's request by submitting correspondence which had been given to the Commission. He noted the clear approval of the deck enclosure by the property owner of 55 8th Street, even if it stands alone, and clarified he could not commit to enclosing his own deck at the same time. The owner: of #47 also e xpressed support. Mr. Schubach said the Commission must review the merits of the request, understanding only one balcony might be enclosed, and discussed the Condition added by Staff. He then discussed a similar, previously-approved project at 44 7th Street. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the basis for the 1990 approval of the deck enclosure at 44 7th Street. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:35 p.m. Kevin Jones, 49 8th Street presented a thorough disclosure document and presentation, noting the efforts made in the preparation and detailed the information of that report, design and supporting documentation. He discussed the Homeowners Association's CC&R's, definitions and rule-enforcement processes. Mr. Jones reviewed the process of his application and presented a petition in support of his project signed by local residents. He also discussed his efforts to receive response and the lack of any response to his requests and communications by the property owner of #53. Mr. Jones also discussed recent precedents set on projects on 7th Street and the front decks of his own building, which he felt were rel evant to his project. He noted the person currently objecting to his project had been a major beneficiary when the front decks were enlarged, commenting the objection was that of one single person, not representing the Homeowners Association quorum. He reiterated 97% of his neighbors were pleased and strongly supported his plans, feeling the project would be beneficial to the 4 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 building and not affect the area. He stated he was willing to remove a window from the plans, if the Commission so wished, but felt a window on the third level was not necessary and was outside the scope of his original request. He noted he would do whatever was requested by the Commission. He also stating his design had no impact on views, was consistent with the building design and should be reviewed as an addition, by itself, and reiterated the approvals of the neighbors and the Homeowners Association quorum. Comm. Suard congratulated Mr. Jones on the excellent presentation and documentation which addressed all the concerns previously expressed by the Commission. He then discussed with Mr. Jones Ms. McFarland's previous involvement in the design of the building and her current support of Mr. Jones' plans. Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. Jones particulars as to location of those residents who had and had not signed the petition which Mr. Jones had presented. Comm. Di Monda determined the project totaled 123 square foot, being "about" 7 feet wide. Comm. Di Monda felt it would be less than 7 feet, not meeting minimum room-size requirements. Mr. Schubach stated the plans had been submitted for review, with no comment having been received. In response to Comm. Marks inquiry, Mr. Jones stated the adjacent homeowner was not in a financial position to begin such a project. Rigo Banuelos, 53 8th Street, commented upon the excellent presentation by Mr. Jones, noting his concern was that both units complete the proposed project at the same time. He stated Mr. Jones had previously agreed to that condition and was taking advantage of the fact that ownership had changed. He reiterated his concerns regarding maintenance of building integrity and his request that both units be enclosed at the same time. Mr. Banuelos outlined the processes completed when his balcony was enlarged, noted that both front balconies were completed together, and felt the back ones should have the same requirement. Responding to Comm. Oakes inquiry, he described the modification to the balconies at the front of the building, which were completed . at the same time. Comm. Di Monda determined the drawing he was reviewing was incorrect, as it did not show the wrap-around balconies. No one else wished to speak regarding this i tern, and ·chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. Comm. Oakes and Mr. Schubach discussed open space requirements of the entire building. Mr. Schubach stated open space was not an issue in this application, which had 308 square feet. Comm. Suard presented his concerns regarding the inadequate open space requirements of the R-3 zone and suggested that City Council address this issue in order for the Commission to obtain its sense of direction. However, he did not wish to inconvenience the property owner and acknowledged there was little opposition to the project. He felt there was a deficiency in the Zoning Regulations. Comm. Di Monda agreed, feeling that the 7th Street project should 5 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 not have been allowed. Repeated enclosures would decrease light and air which would decrease the area value. He felt proposed room did not meet the minimum room-size requirements expressed his opposition. the the and MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Chmn. Merl, to APPROVE this Conditional Use Permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Chmn. Merl Comm. Di Monda, Oakes, Suard None None Chairman Merl stated this item was denied, subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. CUP 92-25 CONDITIONAL USE PE RMIT TO ·AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING GENERAL AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT 602 FIFTH STREET , BOB CREECH AUTO REPAIRING. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Chmn. Merl excused himself from participation due to conflict of interest and exited the Chambers. Vice-Chmn. Di Monda assumed the position of Chairman. Mr. Schubach stated the request would authorize the continued use of the property for auto repair, subject to conditions and was submitted in accordance with the amortization ordinance. He noted R.V. repairs were conducted outside as R.V.'s would not fit into the buildings. Outdoor work activity violated the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated parts and equipment could not be stored in required parking facilities or outside the main buildings if not screened from the public. He described the condition of the buildings and sheds, recommending a trash enclosure be provided and detailed the recommended hours of operation. He stated the small site is a good example of site inadequacy, noting the·business was an existing development and discussed specific and standard conditions to the C.U.P. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Di Monda at 8:24 p.m. Ken Loomis, 602 5th Street, introduced himself and his business, noting he had bought the property in 1979 after having worked there many years. He continued with general repairs and had worked on motorhomes since their introductio n in the mid-'50's. He explained other businesses would not work on motorhomes, noting they could not be worked on inside a building due to their size. Mr. Loomis stated his customers had a problem with parking enforcement and described the available area parking, requesting leeway for short-term parking. Mr. Loomis addressed the conditions as follows: ( 1) Everything he did is in violation to the zoning ordinance since the M-1 Zone Use had been changed. Mr. Schubach 6 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 confirmed the business had a "legal nonconforming" status, ( 2) Could a portable shed be used in place of a block wall; could his 2-3 trash cans, drums and an occasional box be contained in his building as he did not need a dumpster, (3) He objected to striping the pavement, noting the city was responsible for repairs of the cracked pavement in the public right-of-way, (4) He suggested his current storage shed be repaired, not replaced or painted, ( 5) Vehicles sometimes remained on site until the repairs were paid, (6) It was not possible to do all work inside the building due to the size of the R.V. 's, nor to complete estimates in a 15-minute time period, (7) He asked if the Commission expected him to buy car covers for the motor homes and felt the 72-hour limit was unrealistic, (8) A bell on his telephone was necessary so he could hear it when he was outside the shop, and (9) his signs had been on the building since it was built. Mr. Loomis stated he had received the notice the day prior to Thanksgiving, which gave him no time to review and discuss the conditions with Staff. He stated his trash was located out of view at the back of the lot, but that he would like to clearr the area and make it more usable. Comm. Marks and Mr. Loomis discussed parking in the front area, with Mr. Loomis stating customers would not park their R.V. 's immediately next to the building. Comm. Marks suggested Mr. Loomis discuss his suggestions regarding the sheds with the Planning Dept. Comm. Di Monda suggested Mr. Loomis meet with Staff to resolve the issues and his questions. He felt a dumpster was a Municipal Code requirement, which was outside the jurisdiction of the Commission; the metal shed, storing of vehicles and striping of the lot could be discussed with Staff. Comm. Di Monda explained the reason for some of the other conditions being included, noted those requirements which were outside the Commission's jurisdiction and noted that Condition 14 should read " ... no exterior .bells, buzzers ... " Mr. Schubach agreed clarity of Condition 14 was needed and agreed that many of the items could be resolved or explained to the applicant. • Rick Bernstein, 519 5th Street, presented letters of support from neighboring residents. He stated the business is a goo_d and supportive neighbor, with recycling of materials, little noise or dirt. He felt the business was of benefit to the area. Marvin May, 2230 The Strand , 20 year resident, stated the Commission should be reas onable since the business had been at that location for over 50 years and the residents had grown around it. He stated Bob Creech Auto Repairing was a good neighbor. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Vice-Chmn. Di Monda closed the Public Hearing at 8:36 p.m. Vice-Chmn Di Monda stated he agreed with the testimony, the business had been in its location a long time, the neighborhood had 7 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 changed and the Commission would continue an issue such as this to allow resolution to everyone's satisfaction. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to CONTINUE this application to February 2, 1993, to allow the applicant to discuss solutions and resolutions to the items in questions, and DIRECTED Staff to meet with the applicant to work out those details. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: A break was the meeting seated. Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard None Chmn. Merl None taken from 8:52 to 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting Chmn. Merl returned to with all Commissioners CUP 92-20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AN. EXISTING GENERAL AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT 525 CYPRESS AVENUE, JOHNSON'S BRAKE. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had not found the business to be a source of any problems, with no complaints received. The shop performed only brake repairs by appointment, with only one repair space being utilized. Staff was concerned with the risk of intensification of the site and included conditions to ensure the same level of operation into the future. He discussed the opportunity to combine trash receptacles with neighboring properties being offered to the applicant. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:03 p.m. Albert Castillon, 525 Cypress Avenue, agreed with the Staff Report except, due to the lack of work, "drive-in" vehicles are. being accepted. He stated he repairs three cars per day. He stated he did intend to use at least one more spot for cars. He stated he did not have a trash bin; he used his neighbors. Comm. Oaks suggested and the Commission agreed to change the requirement to " ... or a maximum of three cars ... " Mr. Schubach noted the provisions enabling Mr. Castillon to add additional parking and space and agreed that two small businesses could share trash receptacles. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:07 p.m. Comm. Di Monda requested Condition 12 be amended to read, " ... no exterior bells ... " or similar appropriate terminology be used and Item 1. (a) shall read, "Repair work activity shall be limited to a maximum of three vehicles.", to which the Commission agreed. Mr. Schubach stated Condition 12 should read, "There shall be no bells, buzzers, or similar apparatus that can be heard beyond the 8 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 property line." This particular condition will be changed in C.U.P.'s in a uniform manner. MOTION by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE CUP 92-20 with the addition of the changes as discussed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Chairman Merl stated this item was approved subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. CUP 92-21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE TOP AND UPHOLSTERY BUSINESS AT 619 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, GEORGE & AL'S AUTO TOP SHOP. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated this was similar to the previous item, the same conditions had been provided. He noted a potential security problem between the two buildings and suggested a fence be installed. The condition regarding a trash container could be modified if the applicant could place his trash inside the building and such storage met the Municipal Code. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:12 p.m. Ralph Werneli, 1617 Beach Avenue, Torrance, found no problem with most of the conditions, agreed to install a gate or fence, but questioned the required manner of parking area resurfacing. Mr. Schubach stated a skincoat, repair of potholes and restriping would be sufficient. Mr. Werneli stated his 2-3 cans of trash are kept inside the building at all times until picked up. He stated placing an enclosure outside would be difficult for the trash truck to pick up and requested this condition be deleted. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:14 p.m. Comm. Di Monda requested that Condition 12 be standardized, as previously discussed during this meeting, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. Responding to Comm. Di Monda, Mr. Schubach stated the "15 minutes time limitation for estimates" was a standard requirement and had been acceptable to other mechanics in the past. Comm. Oakes questioned Condition 7, the ·agreement regarding trash containment. Mr. Schubach explained the applicant wished to store his containers inside his building; Staff recommended he comply with Municipal Code, as it was not a major contributor to outside debris. Comm. Oakes requested this condition be change to state the applicant may maintain his trash receptacles within his -build- ing if such storage meets Code and Building Dept. requirements. 9 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 MOTION by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE CUP 92-21 with the changes noted. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Merl stated this item was approved subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. CUP 92-15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REPAIRS, PARTS AND ACCESSORIES, AND ADOPTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 828 PACIFIC COAST CYCLES. MOTORCYCLE SALES, OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL HIGHWAY, SOUTH BAY Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated a public notice to residents within a 300-feet radius had been completed, but the property lines used were based on the legal description provided. The adjacent parking lot is not indicated as owned by the same property owner. The City Attorney has indicated the parking lot must be included. Approximately a dozen property owners must be also notified. The public hearing can be continued to a date certain, or testimony may be heard at this meeting with a tentative approval recorded and continuation of the public hearing to a future date for the purpose of noticing. Mr. Schubach then gave the Staff Report, described the proposed relocation and business remodeling and operations. He stated a lift was proposed to lower the cycles from the parking lot to the floor below. Staff did not cons i der the change in sales to be an intensification of the use, but did not believe the proposed employee parking stall location acceptable or necessary. ·Since the ~roposal is essentially the same as that approved by.City Council in 1991, Staff recommended the same or similar conditions be applied. Mr. Schubach then defined the additional recommended Conditions. With the recommended mitigating conditions,. Staff did not object to the proposal. Responding the Comm. Di Manda's question, Mr. Schubach stated motorcycles could be brought into the building from Pacific Coast Highway through the front door, but was precluded since there was no curb cut. Chmn. Merl confirmed the action options open to the Commission. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:26 p.m. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Ste. 38, stated the applicants had no particular objection to the conditions -of approval and submitted a letter acknowledging the problems of incomplete noticing. He stated the business had performed well enough for the Council to waive its 6-month review procedures. Mr. Wood explained that the partners were . splitting, with Miko purchasing the property arid 10 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 becoming a partner. Mr. Wood explained the State had no compelling reason to allow a curb cut on the State highway and the City prohibited the cycles traversing the sidewalk. Be explained the method of moving the cycles using an electric-powered forklift. He noted a unique opportunity was present since the business had previously operated under the CUP for an extended period of time, and no one had complained about the business in the past. He described the type of customers and their bikes, summarizing that Hermosa Beach could use more businesses such as this. Comms. Di Monda, Oakes and Mr. Wood discussed various methods considered relating to the motorcycles' entrance into the building, as well as the associated traffic and noise problems. Comm. Marks requested plans that displayed grade elevations. Mr. Woods objected to the request as not having been required. Mr. Woods stated the Building Dept. had withheld permit approval until after the Planning Commission meeting. He requested communi- cation to the Building Dept. stating the Commission had no objec- tion to the applicant assuming all liability and a permit being issued, so that construction on the handicapped bathroom facilities and display room could begin. Messrs. Woods, Schubach and the Commission discussed the applicants construction plans and the problems experienced in obtaining the permit. Dale McClinton, 940 8th Place, stated the character of the neighborhood had not changed, but noted the area was less desirable due to the increase in traffic on 8th Place and the resultant vehicular noise., He requested multiple restrictions to ~educe the noise levels of traffic and motorcycles which would result: 1) instructions should be given to employees as well as meetings being held, 2) customers are to be told to not test vehicles on rocal streets, and 3) access must be from Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Di Monda responded Mr. McClinton' s suggestions which were appropriate were already included in the CUP. Mr. McClin~on felt that considerable changes had been made to the original CU~. Mr. Woods invited Mr. McClinton to tour the proposed location in order to address his concerns. Jerry Snyder, 710 Hermosa Avenue, supported the application. He felt that Miko was sensitive and considerate to the residents, with the business contributing to the area and community. John Granacki, 8th Street, disagreed that the operation was quiet. He stated 8th Street had a lot of traffic noise, which was like a canyon which echoed and vibrated. He objected to doubling the volume if two CUP's for motorcycle shops existed. He discussed the noise generated by motorcycles and objected to another CUP being issued. Jean McGreevy, 8th Place, 40-year resident, saw many problems for the local and longtime residents if the CUP were approved. She felt the location of that business in a residential areas would be an ongoing nuisance to long-time residents. She discussed baffling 11 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 the motorcycles, construction of a 6-feet block wall, planting of trees for buffering, limiting the types of repairs, parking code violation, need for security guards, the view of the parking lot. She stated her neighbor will be disturbed by the vehicles in the parking lot and the accidents on 8th and 9th Streets will increase and should be considered. Burt Sourer, 844 9th Street, 30-year resident, objected to receiving the notice one day before a holiday and the week end, feeling the notification system was defective. He opposed approval of the CUP, noting that about two accidents happen a week on 9th Street. He requested this issue be continued to allow neighborhood participation at the meeting. Joanne Hall, 830 8th Place, owns the property adjacent to the parking lot. She objected to construction of the six-feet wall because she would then be "closed in" and the parking lot would still be under her window. She felt her property would decrease in value if the CUP were approved. -Phil McGreevy, 840 8th Place, felt the business should not be located in the residential area, objecting to the noise created by the motorcycles. He felt prospective buyers would not buy these homes if a motorcycle repair shop were located next to the houses. Beverly Wood, 940 8th Place, stated she disagreed with Mr. Schubach. She stated 8th Place is a narrow street, of which two cars cannot pass if a car is parked at the curb. _She felt a traffic study should be conducted, expressed her concern that a CUP currently exists and another might be issued which would result in increased noise levels and unsafe conditions for pedestrians. She noted a correction: signs should be placed on 8th Place, not 8th Street. She also objected to the signs placed in the winddw of the proposed site, the tile removed from the building and the. sense that some sort of approval had already been received by the applicant. Mr. Schubach stated the new proposed CUP had been changed. Staff could reword the conditions for clarity, if the Commission so wished. Comm. Di Monda suggested the "old language" in Condition 17 be incorporated, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. Comm. Oakes suggested the condition referencing the manner of "loading" be deleted. Mr. Wood explained the only truck that would be loading would be a "wrecker", which is little larger than a pick-up truck. Ms. Wood, requested that Condition 24 be included in th~ new CUP. Mr. Schubach stated this was not a necessary requirement, but that it could be included. Ms. Wood referenced Condition 25, requested that it be included, also, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. She discussed the six-feet fence and driveway modification, requesting the residents and a petition signed by 62 residents be considered when the Commission makes its decision. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, stated the only problem he had was with noise, asked if the noise ordinance was actively enforced, 12 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 were there records, and commented upon the levels of noise currently within his residential area. He stated he had no problems with two-wheel vehicles, but suggested a moratorium until the noise issue was settled. Leslie Beal, 920 8th Place, asked if the curb on the north side could be painted red and that the employees could be prohibited from parking on 8th Place, feeling it would become too congested. Greg Tucker, 850 8th Place, said the motorcycles cost about $30,000, felt 8th Place was a very dangerous street and noted the complaints stated were to deflate the traffic problems on 8th Place, not to prevent the applicant from doing business. He requested that a traffic study be conducted. Rebuttal Lars Viklund, 223 Avenue B, Redondo Beach, applicant, felt the business would not contribute to the noise problem, noting the neighbors of his current shop had never complained. He stated noise studies had been conducted , with no problem. He said that he considered all the neighbors and hoped the neighbors considered him. He stated his customers did read the signs and were considerate of the neighbors. Jack Wood stated the business had operated over one year without complaints being received. He noted the applicants had no objections to the proposed conditions, misunderstanding about the block wall was evident, signs would be posted, customers would not be allowed to go up 8th Street and were not interested in going up and down 8th Place, show bikes would not enter under their own power. He invited the residents to tour the store and see the signs. He reiterated his request that the Building Dept. be told the Commission had no objection to the restrooms being constructed. Miko Sorrobi, applicant, invited the neighbors to visit and see the type of business he has, requested his business be allowed to open and, if he is not a good neighbor, then close him down. He stated it was not fair to be accused of something that he had not done yet. He stated he was a good neighbor and wanted to conduct his business. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl continued the Public Hearing at 10:40 p.m. The Commission again discussed its options for action with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Oakes suggested the applicant obtain a permit for existing use improvements, keeping this separate from this issue. Comm. Di Monda confirmed with Mr. Woods that Mr. Grove, Building Dept. had been Mr. Woods contact. Mr. Woods asked the Commission to state that it did not have any objection to tenant improvements as long as they did not imply approval of the CUP, stating he believed he could then solve the a pplicants' problem. He noted the 13 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 bathroom would take at least 30 days to build, which should not be wasted. Comm. Di Monda stated he would like the Commission to send a letter to the City Manager telling him the Commission wished Bill Grove would enforce the rest of the Municipal Code with· the same enthusiasm that he seems to use in denying what appeared to be the rights of the applicants, who wish to improve existing tenant space at their own risk. Comm. Di Monda stated he did not understand why the Building Dept. could not enforce the sign ordinance, the ordinance against barbed wire and other items, as well. Responding to Comm. Oakes questions, Mr. Wood stated the previous property owner had signed the building permit application and a fee was accepted. Mr. Wood said he did not wish a problem to be created, as Mr. Grove was one of the more cooperative Building Directors of any of the cities Mr. Wood had dealt with. Comm. Oakes confirmed that the action was simply tenant improvement, feeling the applicant should be able to simply submit a bathroom plan to obtain the permit. Mr. Wood stated he had previously done exactly that; although the check was accepted, no permit was issued even though it has been through plan check and the corrections finished. The Commission then discussed the possible actions it should take, with Comm. Di Monda stating the Building Dept. had no right to deny the permit, if the applicant was willing to take the risk. Mr. Wood again asked a letter be sent indicating that the Planning Commission that it had no problems with someone doing tenant improvements to an existing use, provided it did not imply that the CUP was approved and the applicant understood he was accepting all the risk. Chmn. Merl and Comm. Oakes felt the Commission should have no problem with the issuance of such a letter as long as it was understood no presumption of rights were given and it was not part of the CUP. Comm. Marks objected, stating he thought Bill Grove should be given the opportunity to respond. Chmn. Merl thought the posture taken by the Commission was appropriate, although it would be interesting to find out what·· Mr. Grove's objections were. Comm. Di Monda stated that if the statements made were correct, Mr. Grove was not doing his job and was making policy. Comm. Oakes stated the Commission could state that anyone could go into any building, pull a permit for the same use and the Commission would have no objection, since this was self evident. Comm. Marks objected to an interim statement being made, to which Comm. Oakes disagreed, stating it would not be an interim statement. The Commission agreed to send the letter, noting the one objection, while also inviting Mr. Grove to respond to the Commission. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Schubach the various actions to be taken by the residents and the Commission to improve street safety on 8th Place. Comm. Oakes asked that a memorandum be directed to the Traf fie Engineer and Public Works Dept., asking that they examine any problems resulting from the issue of people traveling 14 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 the street and/or parking, if a red curb along Casey's side of the street should be installed due to the difficulty of the inter- section. Chmn. Mer l summarized the request by requesting that comment be made by the Traffic Engineer relative to the circula- tion problem. Comm. Suard felt the Commission should also direct Staff-to address the additional concerns expressed. Mr. Schubach stated Staff would send a memorandum to the City Manager, which would be directed to the Public Works Dept., with the Traffic Engineer being requested to examine the matter and concerns. Comm. Di Monda felt it was a reasonable request by the residents and could be treated as a separate issue, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. Mr. Schubach discussed the conditions in the original CUP that had been deleted, including addressing muffler noises, stating he would investigate the deletions and re-enter any necessary conditions. Comm. Di Monda stated the requirement for employee signatures had been removed from all CUP' s, which should remain deleted. Comm. Suard requested 1) a copy of the letter referenced in prior Condition 25 (page 3, noise study), 2) more information as to how the noise from Harley Davidsons are determined to be excessive, 3) whether it would be possible to condition that all vehicles leaving the shop must meet the noise standards, 4) information regarding any complaints to the Police Dept. , 5) accident records for the southern end of Pacific Coast Highway to see if 8th Street does have more accidents that the others and 6) Staff is to question the current property owner behind the shop to find out if there are any current noise problems. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE CUP 92-15 to January 5, 1993. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARING Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None CON 90-8 --REOUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PER1"1:IT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 626 7TH STREET. Recommended Action: To grant a six-month extension. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended a six-month extension for the CUP and tentative parcel map by minute order. The applicant continued to experience financial difficulties and requested an extension. Mr. Schubach described the proposed project and noted the Commission could extend the expiration date for a tentative map for a period up to three years, ending June 19, 1993. Staff had found nothing in the overall project design to cause reason for 15 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 denial. Comm. Marks observed the original approval was given at least 2 1/2 years ago and objected to granting another extension. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed project did meet all of today's standards. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation. No one wished to speak on this subject. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE Staff's recommendation to grant the requested six-month extension. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl Comm. Marks None None Chairman Merl stated this item was approved subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. TEXT 92-4 --TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF REQUIRE- MENTS FOR OR TO PROHIBIT SECOND UN I TS PURSUANT TO STATE GOVERNMENT CODE 65852.2 (referred back from the November 10, 1992 City Council meeting. Recommended Action: appropriate. To recommend to the City Council as deemed Mr. Schubach noted supplemental information (altered wording, as requested by the City Attorney) had been included in the Commis- sioners' packets. Mr. Schubach out l ined the history of the progress of this item through the Commission and Council. The Council referred this item back to the Commission, as required by law, for the Commission's comments on totally prohibiting second units. He then detailed Staff's three recommended proposals and the City Council 's recommendations. He stated that Staff recom- mended proposal #3, with Alternative #A, as it was all encompassing and the City Attorney had approved the terminology. Comm. Di Monda asked if Staff could include in Page 2 of ~he report the traffic volume on Pacific Coast Highway and what would happen to this highway if almost 3,000 more units were allowed. Also, he wished included what the statistics would be with 17,500 trips per day, mentioning quantity of different air particulants. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had looked into this and explained the factors that would need to be included in the formulas that must be used. He suggested that Staff supply a sample, which Comm. Di Monda thought would be important information, since the City was already in violation of E.P.A. and Federal requirements. Comm. Di Monda also commented upon the increase in trash and the decrease in available land fill, which should be addressed in this report on Page 3. Page 4 should also mention the development pattern within the City; where old buildings are built on the lot lines and present associated problems for Police and Fire Depts. 16 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 Comm. Suard discussed the lack of any mention of increased parking problems with Mr. Schubach, who acknowledged this was a difficult ~roblem. Comm. Suard felt allowance of additional units would increase the current parking problems. He stated his support of proposal #3, and suggested an addition to the last line to read, " ... immediately and/or retroactively ... ". Chmn. Merl invited audience participation. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, stated his support of proposal #3. Responding to Mr. Longacre' s 9uestion, Mr. Schubach stated that three cities had adopted similar programs. Mr. Longacre felt residents were currently "packed like sardines". No one else wished to speak on this subject. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE Staff's Recommendation #3, but with the proposal previously approved by the Commission to serve as the back-up, contingency proposal. If Recommendation #3 is refused by the State, this back-up p ropos al is to be immediately and/or retroactively applied. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Chmn. Merl announced that due to the extended duration of this meeting, the following Staff Items would be continued to. the next Planning Commission meeting: a. Report from the City Treasurer regarding sales and use tax. b. Memorandum regarding the City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting. c. Planning Department activity report of October, 1992! d. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. e. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for December 1, 1992 City Council meeting. f. City Council minutes of November 10, 1992. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Suard .wished to add to the "Staff Items" agenda items that were previously discussed, which included: 1) communications between the City Council and Planning Commission, 2) the hotel, 3) the use of the Planning Commission, 4) greenbelt parking. Mr. Schubach stated those items related to Land Use and RUDAT had been included. Both subjects covered many subjects and would.take a 17 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 great deal of time to thoroughly discuss, to which Chmn. Merl agreed. Comm. Di Monda suggested that another meeting with the City Council be scheduled. The Commission agreed that increased communications were necessary and requested the items be agendized. Comm. Marks asked the status of public park and right-of-way along Beach Drive. Mr. Schubach said the subcommittee was still active, but had not decided upon a conclusion at this time. Comm. Di Monda stated the Building Director had requested a letter from the City Attorney authorizing the removal of the barbed wire, which is not allowed by Municipal Code. Comm. Di Monda requested a memorandum to the City Attorney which requested a letter authoriz- ing the removal of the wire be directed to the Building Director from the City Attorney. Comm. Di Monda also requested a memorandum to the City Manager requesting a reminder be written by the City Manager to the Police Chief stating the police do not seem to be <JOing through the greenbelt parking lot, which has overnight park- ing of vehicles. Comm. Di Monda also requested a very specific memorandum be sent to the Building Director pertaining to the Lighthouse CUP which is going to appear before the Commission. This memo should ask, under the '91 UBC, what is 1.a) the occupancy load of that type of use group, what is the use group and what are the exiting requirements (both corridor and exit door widths in inches. ) Be requested the exact size requirements in inches of these exits based upon occupancy and load, and what the exact size of the corridor and exit door as they exist at this time. Comm. Di Monda requested another memorandum be sent to the City Manager noting that at 542 The Strand, a permitted curb cut and apron, as well as an illegal parking lot has been installed. The permit had been issued in July 1992. Comm. Di Monda stated he understood no parking permits were to have been issued; a permit should not have been issued to allow cutting a curb on City property. He wished an explanation as to how such a permit was issued. Comm. Oakes asked the status of tree trimming in the greenbelt area. Mr. Schubach stated this issue had been discussed, with the determination made that certain trees could not be trimmed, as they would be traumatized and die. The greenbelt area has been cleaned of mattresses, etc. The police have been requested to patrol that area. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, stated the Cable split channel was functioning. He announced the meeting was being shown live and would be replayed Wednesdays and Fridays at noon. The agendas are being shown by Multivision on Thursday and Friday evenings. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 11:37 p.m. No objections; so ordered. 18 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 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 December 1, 1992. P ~ ~~~L ~ Rod Merl, Ch~ Michael' Schubach, Secretary l-19-f/J Date 19 P.C.Minutes 12/1/92 --; 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Marks. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard Chmn. Merl None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Comm. Di Monda pulled Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 1992, and requested that Page 10, Paragraph 4 be changed to _read, "Comm. Oakes stated ... " Comm. Suard requested the following changes: Page 1, change the "Vote" to delete Comm. Suard from "Abstain" and include his vote within the "Ayes". Page 13, Paragraph 5, change to read, " .. available, small sideyard encroachment was a good trade off for 20-feet reduction in height, and modifications ... " Page 14, Item f. add his comments relating to the Council questioning the motivation without any cause. Page 15, Paragraph 1, line 3, change to read, " ... study, but approved the decrease in R-1 open space, thereby increasing ... " Commissioner Items include as Item (b) the discussion regarding the microphones. Comm. Suard felt this subject and the problems experienced should be included under Commissioner Items to assure that the City Council would be made aware of the problems experienced by the Commission. The Commission requested the minutes be revised and presented for review and approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the Resolutions for adoption. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chinn. Merl None None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak regarding an item not placed on the Agenda. 1 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 PUBLIC HEARINGS PARK 92-8 PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW CHIROPRACTOR Ql"P'lCl!i IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING NON-CONFORMING TO PARKING AT 2615 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Actionz To approve said Parking Plan. Mr, Schubach stated the building is currently non-conforming in its parking requirements, noting medical facilities are required to have parking at a ratio of one space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The applicant is proposing to lease about 2,300 square feet of space. With this proposed change in use, the entire office building must meet the current parking requirements. The office building is currently 35 spaces deficient and would increase that deficiency by two spaces, if the applicant's parking ~lan is approved. Mr. Schubach noted the existing uses are light in parking demand, the incremental parking demand increase could be easily absorbed and the clinic would tend to have peak activity during the evenings. He stated the parking space information furnished by the applicant was inaccurate. Comm. Suard referenced the Resolution, Section I, Item 2, correcting 140 to 133 parking spaces, to which Mr. Schubach concurred. Comm. Oakes discussed a business usage breakdown with Mr. Schubach and expressed her concerns regarding future "same-ty~t use" applications, Mr. Schubach stated each application is examined on a case-by-case basis. Comm. Di Monda det~rmined that there was not a master c.u.P. for the building and suggested that in the future buildings be reviewed for the purposes of amortization. He felt the requirements of Resolution Section I, Items 2 and 3 were not the responsibility of the applicant. Mr, Schubach stated the C.U.P. ran with the land, which involved the landlord's participation and acknowledgement. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:11 p.m. Dr. Julie Honaker-Brown, 201 Herondo Street, Redondo Beach, stated that 100-130 parking spaces are available at any one time. She felt this location was the best place, with the best parking situation, for expansion of her business. Mr. 'l'om Turobi, project broker, noted the poor economics, the necessity to fill empty buildings with tenants and the ~ssociated benefits to the landlords and the City. He stated most of the available parking is not used by the other tenants; noting that 140 parking spaces was the correct number according to the landlord. He stated his support of this application. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chairman Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. 2 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 MOTION by Comm, Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE Staff's recommendation. Comm. Oakes reiterated her concerns regarding future businesses that would perhaps impose more parking requirements on the site. While encouraging businesses to locate within the City, she stated her hesitancy in approving this application because of the possible future impact on other building tenants. Comm. Di Monda confirmed with Mr. Schubach that the change in use resulted in this review of the parking requirements. • AYESs NOESr ABS'l'AINr ABSENT1 Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Ch.mn. Merl None None Hone Chairman Merl stated this item was approved subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting, CUP 92-18 CONDITIONAL USE PBRMI'l' TO AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING AUTO BODY SHOP ANO PAIN'l', AND INSTALLATION OF CELLULAR PHONE, AUTO ALARMS ANO STERIOS AT 620 SECOND STREET, OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER, Recommended Actions To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report. This C.U.P. would authorize continued operation of the business, subject to conditions. Fire Department reports stated the establishment met AQMD operating standards. Mr. Schubach noted previous testimony received which stated outdoor work activity had been noted. Additionally, outdoor work activity of some spray painting and framework adjustments was presently conducted in a designated parking space. He •noted the applican~ had stated the framework machine was only used. about three times l?er months and the space wae used for parking of customer vehicles while awaiting parts, which ·is a zoning violation. Staff is recommending continued public right-of-way landscaping maintenance rather than requiring on-site landscaping (which will also require approval by the Public Works Dept.) Mr. Schubach discussed Staff's recommended conditions and hours of operation, and discussed the difficulties of this type of business located upon such a small site. Comm. Oakes asked why there were so many auto/body shops located with the City. Mr. Schubach discussed the major car dealerships located within the City in the past and rresent, which probably resulted in this abundance. Comm. Oakes · fe t they were a result of the City's allowance of spray painting, noting that many other cities did not. She requested Staff investigate the implications of this policy, address issues of spray and drainage and present its study results to the Commission. Mr. Schubach recommended this 3 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 subject be brought up during the Land Use portion of the Joint Meeting with City Council. Comm. Oakes reiterated her request for a study, feeling the City was very small, with commercial and residential properties having to be mixed. Comm. Suard discussed the lack of AQMD enforcement, stating he felt the City should initiate and implement an enforcement program. He stated that if these C.U.P.'s are to be allowed, included should be a mechanism to assure compliance by bi-annual, unannounced reviews. He felt these businesses should be encouraged to be good neighbors; and such effort should start with this C.U.P. He questioned Reso- lution Item 12, which excluded particles and toxins. Mr. Schubach noted the applicant met all AQMD standards, noting the City assures compliance of AQMD and Fire Department requirements (Items 11, 12, 13 and 14). Comms. Suard and Oakes discussed with Mr. Schubach results of previous "spot reviews" of this type of business, including this particular business places its waste in barrels, which are emptied by an authorized waste disposal company. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the fact that the C.U.P. would run with the land and that Staff is recommending "resident- ial" zoning. Mr. Schubach stated the City Attorney had stated approval of this C.U.P. would not guarantee future permanency if the zoning was changed. Mr. Schubach confirmed to Comm. Oakes that the signage was not being reviewed during this hearing, but it could be included as a condition. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:36 p.m. Mr. Gary Bolsajian, 620 2nd Street, stated he, his father and brother were partners in the business, bought in 1984 and had been in compliance with all AQMD and Fire Dept. requirements. He stated only partial, limited painting within the approved booth. He said outside painting had not ever been done. He discussed the pride his business had in its relationship with neighbors and customers, with the site well maintained. Waste materials were d_isposed of in accordance with State and Federal laws. Mr. Bolsajain stated he agreed and complied with the majority of the conditions. He requested as addition to Condition #3 as follows: allow taping, masking, stripe tape and attach adhesive holdings outside the building. He felt this would not cause an annoyance to surrounding residents. He also requested the ability to align cars on the frame ramp, stating use of the ramp was of utmost im~ortance to him. He requested that Condition #6 be changed since cars sometimes are parked over 7 2 hours due to insurance appraisals and parts having to ·be ordered. Condition #7 should be changed since he only has one employee. Condition #12 would be too expensive for his business. He has been gathering information but has not found an affordable alternative. He stated that compliance to Condition # 14 would "kill" his business. He cannot operate with both garage doors closed, noting the condition was not practical, nor safe. He stated that all painting was done 4 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 within the booth and the building, itself, should not be turned into a giant spray booth by closing all doors. He disagreed with Condition #22 since the condition would not change the way the business is operated but would cost a lot of money. He. felt the condition was costly and served no purpose. He stated the neighbors did not feel it was a necessity to screen the ducts on top of the building. In response to Comm. Oakes comments and questions, Mr. Bolsajian explained that no solvents go into drains, methods used when partial spray painting and methods of disposal of waste materials. Curt Louw, 571 2nd Street, stated he couldn't ask for a better neighbor than Olympic Auto Center. He felt his own children made more noise and the residents and other businesses polluted the area more that the business did. He also stated he made never smelled an odors coming from the applicant's shop. He felt it was comfort- ing to know the applicant was available if his wife needed any help, opposing changing the face of the building and suggested the Commission visit to location if they wanted to see a well run business. Jim Prescott, neighbor, lives right below the applicant and has not experienced any problems. Jim Dominquez, 56 32nd street, is a Federal officer and sleeps in the daytime and has never experienced any problems with the applicant's business. He felt the building should stay . the way it is and the business was a good example of every square inch of the property being used properly. His four-year son visits with Gary and George Bolsajian and is treated extremely well. He stated he was surprised at the conditions placed on an existing business, noting the building was clean, neat and well kept. Elinore Reisling, neighbor, lives across the street. She has never experienced an problems with the business relating to .noise, odors or traffic. She felt it was comforting to have them there in the daytime. She stated her support of the C.U.P. Greg Reynolds, 1428 Hermosa, watched the building being constructed. He stated the business was the best of neighbors, giving security to the neighborhood during the daytime, as well as accepting packages for the neighbors, loaning tools and being good friends with the residents. He has experienced no noise or odors, felt the building was clean and a lot nicer than a lot of the houses. He stated harmony between residents and business was needed and this business was a perfect example of what should be. He requested that restrictions not be placed on this local business, as it is an asset to the community. He also stated he had never seen painting being done outside the building. Bob Colter, 627 2nd Street, stated the business created no exces- sive noise, the signs are fine, no painting was done outside the building, no odors are produced and the duct work on top of the 5 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 building is not a problem. The applicant is a good neighbor and contributes to a crime-free street. He supported the application. Steve Peterson, lives next door to the body shop, his family sold the property to the applicant. He has never seen painting being done outside the building and felt this was a body shop that the City should ensure stays, because they are "doing one hell of a job". Eric Stieman, Hermosa Beach resident, takes his car to the applicant's shop because it is such a well-run business. They do a first rate job at a reasonable price and are an asset to the community. He had never seen a body shop so nicely laid out and ran. He suggested the Commission consider the hard economic times and asked the restrictions be very limited. Mary Lou Boyd, neighbor, agreed with everything that had been said. She felt the new condominiums and townhouses built in the City were more offensive than Olympic Auto body, which contributed to the welfare of the community. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m. Comm. Marks commended the speakers for their testimony, Commission a fuller picture. Chmn. Merl noted the environment between this business and the community. suggested the applicant work with the Commission to understanding and acceptance of the conditions. giving the cooperative Comm. Marks come to an Comm. Suard suggested the following: Condition #3, add the ability to perform masking, taping and attaching molding, Condition #6, add the words, "part delivery or any other service-related delays", Condition #14, working with Staff, perhaps only those · doors surrounding the booth needed to be closed, Condition #22 could be eliminated in that testimony stated the duct work was not displeasing, to which Chmn. Merl and Comm. Oakes concurred. Mr. Schubach suggested one door could remain open, other body shops that have screened ductwork are not going to be happy if this site does not, but can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Condition #3 could not be changed to allow outdoor work activities as it would be a zoning violation; which is ' also true for allowing storage on the parking lot. He suggested any reference could be omitted in Condition #3, and if a complaint were received in the future, it would be addressed as a zoning violation. Parking could be revised to allow the equipment to be stored. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE this application to January 19, 1993, to allow the applicant to work out the details of the Conditions with Staff's assistance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chinn. Merl None None None 6 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 CUP 92-19 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT '1'0 AUTHORIZE AN EXISTING GENERAL AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT 2212 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SOLA MOTOR WORKS. Recommended Actions To approve said Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated the request would authorize the continued use of the property for auto repair, subject to conditions and was submitted in accordance with the amortization ordinance. He discussed the visual impact, which was minimal, described the extensive landscape background visible from Pacific Coast Highway and noted that Staff recommended continued maintenance of the onsite landscaping. Staff's concerns were the graffiti potential and the lack of a trash enclosure and recommended a condition be added to assure removal of graffiti on a continued basis. Mr. Schubach stated this site is used by the 0 .2.lst Street Restaurant" for overflow parking after 6:00 p.m. and on weekends. Sola's has an agreement to use the restaurant's parking before 11: 00 a .m., which is not a requirement. Staff recommended a ·condition requiring the parking agreement be made a condition in the c.u.P. The shop does not include body work or painting. Staff also recommended repair activity be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7t00 p.m. with allowance for vehicle pickup and drop-off before or after those hours. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:27 p.m. Javier Sola, 2212 Pacific Coast Highway, stated he tried to keep the property as pretty as possible, his shop was designed as a service facility with one-day turn-around, was the only one with an ocean view, he catered to the South Bay area and kept the vehicles clean. He stated he agreed with Staff's recommendations. He referenced a sketch by Mr. Jerry Compton of the proposed trash enclosure, which he would build as soon as possible. He objected to Resolution Item 10, stating he had no control over customers parking on the street when dropping off a car and did want to be penalized for their actions. He requested this item be rewritten to make it less restrictive. Mr. Schubach explained Staff's intent when writing the condition, which was to assure parking availabil- ity for the residents, etc. Mr. Sola stated it was against his interest to park vehicles on the street due to the increased liability. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 300, distributed a sketch of the proposed trash enclosure, stating it would have a five-feet wall which would match the present back wall. He also requested Item 10 be rewritten or deleted, noting that unforeseen problems could occur. 7 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:36 p.m. Comm. Oakes felt it was one of the tasteful auto repair shops that she had seen. Comm. Suard suggested a condition be added that if any changes to the current parking agreements were made, the Commission would be notified. MOTION by Comm. Oakes, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE this application with modification to Condition #10 to state, "Usage of residential streets and/or Pacific Coast Highway for employee parking or s toring of customer vehicles is prohibited. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Chairman Merl stated this item was approved subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this mee~ing. CUP 92-17 /PARK 92-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR AUTOMO- TIVE PAINTLESS DENT REMOVAL, PARKING PLAN FOR TANDEM PARKING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1500 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, DENT WIZARD. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan subject to requiring standard building enclosure for work area, and adopt the Environmental Ne9ative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the Commission had been provided with a supple- ment, which was a page of the Resolution, defining the correction made in Items 7 and 7.a. He stated the applicant has an existing business recently moved to the subject location. The central office is a dispatching center, but wishes to include on-site service to one customer at a time, with primary emphasis remaining as a central office coordinating the mobile technicians. No painting is involved, parking is provided in tandem with the service area providing two service bays, which is adequate to meet requirements. Staff does not believe that work activity or automotive service should be allowed in the proposed canvas canopy, but rather enclosed within a building, and proposed conditions regarding signs. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the proposed non-permanent canvas structure, which Staff felt was not the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Oakes confirmed the office structure existed on-site at the present time. Mr. Schubach stated the canopy would be a "tent-like" structure. Comm. Di Monda referenced Condition #8, discussing the maximum parking and employee limitations with 8 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 . ' Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda confirmed Staff was requesting a "garage enclosure" rather than "canvas". Comm. Marks confirmed that no teaching would be done on site. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:53 p.m. Clay Smith, 1705 Flagler Avenue, Regional Manager for Dent Wizard, West Coast, stated only one employee would be in the office at any time, with only one parking space being used. A technician would use another parking space if coming to the office, and the car being worked on would be inside a structure. He stated if he worked on five cars in one day, that would be a lot. He described his operations in Beverly Hills (including a canvas tent), as well as the mobile services. Mr. Smith displayed the tools that would be used and demonstrated how they worked when removing dents. He stressed that no buffing or painting would be necessary. He described the site, noting cars are basically hidden from view and the canvas addition was necessary to keep mist and water from the cars, which must be clean before work can be performed. He stated that all he needed was the canvas top to protect the cars. He described previous tents he had used, made with P.V.C. pipe. He stressed only one employee was usually on site during business hours and one car was repaired at a time. He preferred that a structure not be required since it would be an extensive, expensive addition to the building. Comm. Oakes stated she wished to see a picture of the proposed tent. Mr. Smith stated he could provide a picture of the one in Beverly Hills, but it was inside an enclosed structure and would not be a good representation of the proposed one. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m. Comm. Marks felt the canvas cover or a mobile unit would be satisfactory, rather than requiring a structure to be built. Comm. Di Monda referenced the ordinance requirements which requires certain work to be performed indoors. He stated the change of use would require an appropriate enclosure. Comm. Suard suggested the authority to approve or disapprove the canvas structure be delegated to the Planning Director and the Commission approved the application, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. Comm. Di Monda requested that photographs of tents be submitted to the Commission, so that a precedent would not be set; and the business be allowed to operate inside the facility in the interim, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. Comm. Suard stated that unless a structure was built, work could not be performed. Comm. Di Monda felt this application was mis- classified as a use, noting the Commission had not previously addressed this type of operation. Comm. Suard felt Staff could review the currently-existing tent and decide its adequacy. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Merl at 9:18 p.m. 9 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 Clay Smith, 1705 Flagler Avenue, stated his timeframe was to begin operation as soon as possible. He did not want to incur the expense of building a building when there was a less expensive method that could be used. Crunn. Merl stated the Commission must adhere to the requirement that this activity needed to be enclosed. He reiterated the structure located in Beverly Hills would be nothing like the proposed one. He suggested he provide~ detailed drawing, to which Chmn. Merl approved and requested a material sample. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:27 p.m. Comm. Oakes noted this operation was singular, involving no machinery, did not need to be enclosed. She stated these were the reasons the Commission was considering the proposed tent. Comm. Marks felt the operation was extremely clean and should not be required to confirm to certain regulations as are other body shops with machinery, noise and possible pollutants. Chmn. Merl confirmed the Commission concurred, but wished to see the proposed tent. Mr. Schubach responded that other types of business also wish to put work outs ide , which is not allowed by the City. Comm. Di Monda stated he would not support a canvas wall. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE this application with delegation to the Planning Director to approval or disapprove the esthetics and adequacy of the structure. If the structure was found to be inadequate, the Planning Director would refer this issue to the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl Comm. Di Monda Comm. Marks None Chairman Merl stated this item was approved subject to appeal to the City Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. A break was taken from 9:35 to 9:41 p.m. Chmn. Merl reconvened the meeting with all Commissioners seated. SS 92-4 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE (continued from November 4, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To continue to January 19, 1993 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had compared the City's existing and proposed ordinances to those of the City of Manhattan Beach's. He detailed the matrix information and Staff's meeting with the Chamber of Commerce. He stated any additional input from Commis- sioners and audience would be analyzed and presented .at the Commission's January 19, 1992, meeting. 10 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 . . Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:46 p.m. Dallas Yost, 65 Pier Avenue, thanked Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach for their attendance and participation at the Chamber of Commerce's meeting. He stated he had talked to about 20 downtown business owners and suggested that small, uniform signs be allowed at a level viewable to pedestrians. Jerry Compton, 12 0 0 Artesia Blvd. , Ste. 3 0 0, was pleased to see that many of the issues that had been objected to by• business owners had been changed. He supported signs adjusted to pedestrian orientation and suggested a pedestrian district be designated within the downtown area which would allow such small signs. He discussed the difficulty in identifying the stores when walking. He objected to the ordinance that did not allow identification of businesses located above the second floor and requested that this issue be reviewed. He felt that the differences between vehicular and pedestrian orientation should be closely reviewed, since the current ordinance precludes existing buildings without a five-feet setback from having a pole sign. He questioned the limit of pole signs to 10 or 15 feet, requesting clarification. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl continued the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. Comm. Oakes felt the signs on Pacific Coast Highway should be similar to that of Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach, the neighboring cities, suggesting more lenient signs in that area than that in the downtown area. She suggested that the ordinance address different requirements for the different areas of the City, allowing those on the highway to be competitive with the adjacent cities. She complimented Staff's efforts, but felt the recommenda- tions be limited to the downtown area along Hermosa and lower Pier Avenue. Comm. Di Monda stated RUDAT had resulted in the suggestion that special signs be developed for the downtown area, of which the A-frame signs were acceptable if they were removed a:t the end of the hours of operation each day, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. She felt that areas other than downtown should not automatically be allowed to have A-frame signs. She also favored illuminated signs in the downtown area being allowed to remain "on" almost all night, to alleviate the area becoming dark. She felt redefinition was needed for those stores that didn't have adequate room, necessitating a permanent window sign. Comm. Di Monda felt the intent of the sign ordinances of other adjacent cities should be reviewed and adopted for assure future clarity. He suggested the definition for a ground sign should include "monument sign". He questioned the definition of a projecting sign, noting the parallel section was irrelevant. He felt "it's intended to be displayed for a limited time only" should be deleted, and that elaboration was needed in the description of "banner" signs, which needed to be changed to prohibit excess 11 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 interpretation. He felt that Manhattan Beach had a reasonable section on "prohibited signs", which could be utilized in Hermosa Beach's ordinance, with the addition of "b, c, d, e, f, h, j, k". Open space signage should be included, and care must be taken. Support- ing small, projecting signs, he fedt it should be done when and if a pedestrian zone is established in the downtown area, and that the signs be uniform in size and graphics. The ordinance could provide for small, projecting signs when the pedestrian areas are in the downtown area. He noted the lack of signage limitations in -the residential areas. Comm. Di Monda also noted that it was unclear as to the appeal process relating to sign reviews, requesting clarification. Comm. Suard suggested adding after Definitions Section 28.A-3, Awnings, "copy that is not parallel is prohibited". Mr. Compton referenced the matrix just pr·ovided to him, noting three items needed comment. Chmn. Merl noted the hearing was closed and requested Mr. Compton note those items and provide the information to the Commission. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to CONTINUE CUP 92-2 to January 19, 1993, to allow further input to be obtained and presented to the Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARING Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None CUP 92-2 --SIX MONTH REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 807 21ST STREET, 21ST STREET RESTAURANT. Recommended Action: To direct Staff to continue to enforce the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated the establishment no longer has entertainment and no complaints had been received by Staff. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation. No one wished to speak on this subject. RECEIVE AND FILE. STAFF ITEMS a. Memorandum regarding City Council/Planning Commission joint workshop meeting. 12 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 After discussion, the meeting date of December 8, 1992 was chosen. No objections, so ordered. Comm. Oakes requested that the new park or plaza area be included in the agenda. Mr. Schubach stated the Stand walk and the plaza area were land use items and should be placed within the land-use revision topic. Comm. Suard suggested that the policy regarding parking on the public right-of-way, Commissioner roles in providing information to the City Attorney or City Council and the study regarding residential development limits should be also included. Comm. Marks wished the Ocean Drive issue also included. b. Planning Department activity report September, 1992. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the inspections of auto/body shops under the Code Enforcement provisions. Comm. Suard did not feel that enough was being done in terms of auto/body painting inspections, requested a copy of an inspection report, feeling that the inspections should be "beefed up". Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach commented that those shops with C.U.P.s were inspected each quarter. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed "recovering permit authority from the Coastal Commission" and its ramifications, as well as "oil drilling" status. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the decrease in Dial-A-Ride participation by '---Hermosa Beach residents. RECEIVE AND FILE c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for November 24, 1992 City Council meeting. The Commission recommended that the City Council review that portion of the Planning Commission tape prior to their meetings, if it has questions. RECEIVE AND FILE e. City Council minutes of October 27, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda suggested that Staff produce a listing of cities that do not allow paint spraying and include the reasons as to why. After receipt and review, the Commission might consider revision of the ordinance. 13 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 • ( C l ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Merl, to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete r ecor d o f the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 17, 1992. Rod Merl ;thai~n /'1 -I '--°7 l_ Date 14 P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 MINUTES 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 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1992, AT 7:01 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Oakes. ROLL CALL Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chinn. Merl Absent: None Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Directory, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE the following Consent Calenda+ items: Minutes of October 6, 1992, Resolution P.C. 92-54, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMEND- MENT TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TH STREET. Resolution P.C. 92-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A RETAIL/AUTOMOTIVE BUILDING _AND. AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1414 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Resolution P.C. 92-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO INITIATE A TEST AMEND- MENT TO PROHIBIT OR ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS PURSUANT TO STATE GOVERNMENT CODE 5852.2. Resolution P.C. 92-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10 REGARDING STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS AND REVISE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. 1 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 AYBS1 NOBS1 ABSBN'fa ABS'fAIRa Comm. Di Monda, Mark ■, Oake•, Cbmn. Herl None None comm. Suar4 CQJOWHICATIQNS FROM THE PUBLIC Jim Ro•enberger, 1121 Bayview Drive, wrote a letter which he read into the Commission's records to ·avoid confusion. He strongly objected to the political commenta ·made by a _ Commissioner. He requested the Commission redeem itself with regard to "bootlegs", while noting the Major dur- rentlr owned a "bootleg" unit, by sending a letter to the Counc l requested support of the Commission'• action. PUBLIC HEARING YAB 92-3 --VARIANCE TO B1JeOH SECOND LBYEL SALLffAJ iQ CQYIR REQUIRS;P OPSN SPACB AND ADOPTION or AN EHYIRQHMENtAJ. HlliGM'IVB DECLARATION AT 2510 TRI STRAND. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant proposed a covered foot bridge connecting two sections • of the second story to provide direct access between sections. The building is non-conforming to open space requirements; with the proposed bridge further decreasing the open space. Staff agreed that impact to neighbors and open space was minimal, but noted the bridge would add structure bulk. Staff felt the requirements to make a finding could not be met, as the bridge would be for convenience rather than for unusual physical characteristics. Staff recommended denial. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7214 p.m. Michael Kent, project architect, stated the proposed additional would allow ciroulation of visitors without disrupting the residents. Many relatives and friends etay with them. When the owners brought the property, they did not know it was non-confirming. He stated the lot and house square footage, noting that 1315 square feet was open space, The owners wish to make the house floor plan usable and convenient for them. Comm, Oakes discussed the placement of a hallway door with Mr. Kent, who stated it was for the residents' privacy, with the study being used as an office. Comm. Marks determined the hallway would be used often by guests, in order to avoid the study. Comm. Di Monda felt the design could be better, noting other lay outs could be used to solve some of the problems. He explained the reason a a finding would or would not be made. 2 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 Bd McDowell, 2510 The Strand, detailed his personal · history, noting he has retired in Hermosa Beach. He stated granting the Variance would help the house "work", noting he has many house guests. Joyce McDow•ll, 2510 The Strand, explained the functioq of the "study", and the convenience the bridge would represent. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7129 p.m. Comm. Oakes noted the Commission must think about the entire community, ae well as individual needs. The pro- posed bridge boxed in the building, which was contrary to the open apace requirements. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Kent the legal requirements to which the Commission adhered when granting approvals. Comm. Di Monda felt the project did not qualify for a finding of unique or special circumstances. He felt if an open space decrease were allowed, then the surrounding area residents had that same right. Chmn. Merl noted thia application seemed minor, but the Commission has an obligation to make the findings~ without such findings, the grantin9 of a Variance had no basis. While aupportive of remodel~ng, he felt the finding• could not be made in this instance. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE Staff's reoommendation to DENY a variance to allow a second-level hallway to cover required open space and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2510 The Strand. AYBS1 NOBS1 AB8BNT1 ABSTAIN1 Comm. Di Monda, Mark ■, Oakes, Suard, ·c1uun. M•rl Non• None None Chmn. Merl stated this action was subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92•16 & PP 92-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANP PARK-ING PLAN AMBNDMENTS TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP TO CONYJ!iRT TO A RESTAURAHT WITH INCREASED OU'l'DOOR SSATING, WITH NO N>PITiOHAL fMKING AND AN ADOPTION OF AN ENYIRQNMINTAL NEOA'l'IYI DECLARATION A'1' 517 PIER AYBNVI, HERMOSA CAll, Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval based on previous decisions made by the PlannJ .. ngr Department. He 3 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 discussed the project background! previous actions by the Commission, and noted the appl cant would not increase floor space, but was requesting additional tables in the private property located behind the sidewalk. He discus- sed the nonconformity of the parkipg, noting the proposed change to a restaurant would increase the parking require• ment. Mr. Schubach noted similar requests had been recently approved, noting the high percentage of walk-in and/or bicycle traffic. He commented upon the continued focus upon the bakery/snaok shop. Staff recommended Conditions to include construction of a barrier, provision of a bicycle raok and limited hours of operation. Comm. Di Monda questioned the fact that restaurant parking is based upon the gross square footage (including restrooms, kitchens, halls, etc.), not the number of seating. He felt parking should be based upon the number of seats and questioned the number of seating becoming an issue. Mr. Schubach noted the establishment was primarily a bakery; seating would create the possibility of a future restaurant. Comm. Di Monda felt that, at some point, seating should be reviewed. Comm. Marks determ.ined the distance from the building front to the ourb as approximately 10 feet, with possible encroachment into the sidewalk area. Comm. Oakes expressed concern regarding the trash area capacity, to which Mr. Schubach responded that area met current requirements, further discussing the possible requirements with Comm. Oakes. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7147 p.m. Jim Lienghot, 517 Pier Avenue, explained he was from Viet Nam, had bought the bakery two years ago, his customers were primarily walk-ins or road bicycles, noted that during the evening hours and that he would not be competing for parking spaces. He also stated his bakery was located near publio parking facilities. He asked that he r eceive a fair decision and hie application be approved in order to improve his business. comm. Oakes discussed current seating and the requested increase with Staff and Mr. Lienghot. Eight seats are currently in place; the area will be made level and additional seating provided. Sidney Leothor, adjacent property owner supported the application. He stated he would allow four of his parking spaces to be used by Mr. Lienghot. He approved the changes being made downtown, stating a ffsense of neighbor- hood" was returning. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chinn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7156 p.m. 4 r.c. Minutes 10-20-92 Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. Schubach the sanitary conditions required and reviewed by the Health Department. Comm. Oakes felt adequate parking was available within the area, and was pleased to see additional "night-life" bus- inesses increasing. She expressed concern regarding the esthetics of the proposed barricade. Comm. Di Monda sug- gested acceptable materials be specified; i.e. s twisted aluminum, iron, etc. Comm. Oakes requested the proposed barricade be presented as a Review Item to the Commission prior to installation. Comm. Suard suggested imposing a limitation in the use of paper products within the outside seating area, equivalent to that imposed upon Java Man. ' KOTIOH by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE application CUP 92-16 and PP 92-6 with the oonditions recommended by Staff and the changes as discussed1 the railing will be resubmitted as a Review Item and paper products within the outside seating area will have the same limitations as imposed upon Java Man. AYBSs NOBSI ABSENT1 ABSTAIN• Comm. Di Monda, Marke, Oakes, Suard, CbJDn. Merl None None None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. Tanya Bode, Hermosa Beach resident, presented to the Commission correspondence and videos for its review prior to the next scheduled meeting. TA 92-t TEXT AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT QR ESTABLISH REOUIREHENTS FOR TBS CRBATXON OF SBCONP UNITS PURSUAN+ TO S1'A'l'B OQYERNMBNT coos 65852,2. Mr. Schubach stated State Government Code Section 65852.2 set forth the requirements and defined "second units" with the apparent intent to address the housing supply and affordability problem by encouraging cities to allow second units in existing developed areas. If cities do not allow these units, the opportunity is created •for local residents to obtain looal government approval. Mr. Schubach noted two C.U.P. requests for second units in single-family dwelling areas had been received, which must be approved/denied pursuant to set criteria, or adopt an ordinance within 120 days. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had prepared two alternative ordinances, presented as Alternatives A and BJ_ of which he detailed, as ·well as the methods of applicat on for each, for the Commission. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the 5 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 energy given by Staff to this proposed ordinance, which creates the ability to turn some sections into multi- family areas, rather than investigation findings to pre- clude the second units from occurring. He asked if the General Plan needed to be amended; noted the City's density, parking prob l ems and impact upon City services. He also asked if the City Council was aware of this item, why nine years had passed prior to this item being addressed, and commented the Commission should have had the opportunity to review a pam~hlet covering this subject and issued by the League of Cities. Comm. Di Monda stated this item was not initiated by the Planning Commission, but that it was being presented again. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern that the Commission would be reacting to an application which is arguable as to if it falls under the ordinance, already, feeling it might allow those people with "bootleg" units to legitimatize them. He felt the issue was being rushed, and perhaps in the wrong direction. Mr. Schubach stated the item was initiated by Planning Staff; the correction would be made prior to submittal to City Council. He stated little energy had been expended, since this was an amendment to the Code allowance, which required allowance be made for "granny units". He explained the hardship in assuring the occupant was over 62 years of age, noting if the person was 61, they did not qualify. Other cities had felt age limitation was not a good idea and had initiated appropriate ordinances. He stated Staff was simply eliminating the section was stated, 11 62 years of age," changed "640 square feet". to "700 square feet" to qualify one-bedroom units. He stated the current terminology in Section B could cause serious problems if taken to court. Mr. Schubach then explained the action time limits and the procedures necessary to process this amendment, noting the lack of time in which to make the necessary findings. He felt current actions would not exclude future opportunities to review the issues and take appropriate actions. Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed the provisions for bachelor-type units within the R-2 and R-3 Zones versus the proposed unit space of 700 square feet. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:25 p.m. Betty Martin, 257 27th Street, requested the terminology be changed, to which Mr. Schubach responded that it had been and that she had an "old" copy. She commented the tenants were supposed to be related to the property owner, to which Mr. Lee responded single-family resident tenants did not have to be "blood" related. He noted the City 6 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 could include provision that onlr owner-occupant could make application for the second unit, which would provide restriction. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m. Comm. Oakes confirmed with Mr. Schubach the approximate location of the impacted lots and that parking require- ments must be met by the entire lot if a second unit was built. Comm. Suard determined the City had approximately 52% R-1 lots, other cities' "norm" was a lot higher, and suggested this would be a reason for exemption. Mr. Schubach noted the risk was in being challenged, defining the particular item requirements for prohibition of second units. Mr. Lee stated State Law required specific finding of adverse impacts be made, which included specific factual support. He stated the ordinances are sent to the Dept. of Housing and Community Development and closely reviewed by housing applicants. He explained the difficulty in developing those findings within the short time frame. Mr. Lee underscored the point that the opportunity to develo~ an ordinance is lost if not completed within the specific time limit, which had prompted Staff to take action on this item. He discussed the possibility of readopting another ordinance with the specific findings requirements, noting the review of the second units would probably be under the State provisions. He had found that the Appellant Court was usually very harsh on cities for taking actions which would lessen housing opportunities and/or prevent second units. Mr. Lee stated the purpose of the suggested terminology was to make it legally defensible. He recommended adoption of an ordinance with the "most teeth" at this time, stating the Commission must ask itself if the standards were reasonable and tough enough. Comm. Oakes felt adverse effects would be created if second units were allowed, which would perhaps justify exemption. She stated Hermosa Beach was a small city with small lots. She suggested higher numbers be used. Mr. Schubach stated findings would be necessary in order to implement Comm. Oakes suggestion, and that perhaps the courts would find it unreasonable. Chmn. Merl concurred, stating the findings would need to be extremely specific. Comm. Di Monda compared Beverly Hills to Hermosa Beach, commenting that city did not allow people sleeping and camping on the street, truck trailers parked on the street and had homes located on 6 to 20 acres. He expressed 7 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 concern that the report was insubstantial, while the impact on the City's quality of life would be high. He strongly opposed adoption of the Text Amendment, request- ing a comparison of other cities defense against this same problem, as well as notation as to which were successful, not successful and why. He also discussed with Mr. Lee the City's options as to future actions if the amendment were approved. Mr. Lee stated he did not see prevention from adopting an initial ordinance under Subdivision A, and subsequently, after Staff has had adequate time to develop s~ecific adverse impacts that could be created by second units, amend the Municipal Code to preclude second units. Mr. Schubach stated most cities had adopted Sec- tion A and expressed concern that, with the short notice, findings would be legally defensible. • Comm. Marks clarified that the State would overrule the City's Master Plan and Zoning Plan, allowing over- population, to which Messrs. Schubach and Lee agreed, givin9 examples of previous requirements by State a9enc1es. Comms. Di Monda, Oakes and Mr. Schubach then discussed the impact upon reasonable, required o~en space. Comm. Di Monda requested that Staff investigate the actions taken by Manhattan Beach regarding open space requirements. Mr. Lee stated that if the Commission were to adopt Subdivision C, it instruct Staff on a priority basis, to investigate and present findings within the time limit. . Comm. Suard suggested obtaining an advisory opinion from the State regarding the excessive multi-unit problem, other cities be queried, and work on a Subsection B ~roposal. Mr. Lee felt the State's response would be that it was a legislative decision based upon individual facts related to the community, which the City must supply. Comm. Suard suggested the request be made. He felt the State's Section 5, limiting to 30% of living area, could be added to the "700 square foot" Section, resulting ~n a state-ment, "The second unit has a maximum floor area of 700 square feet and cannot exceed 30% of the existing living area." Comm. Marks suggested this item be used as a means of leverage to clean Hermosa Avenue, illegal second uni ts would be made to comply or close. Mr. Lee stated the question as to whether or not "bootlegs" (which are not a legal usage) are second units can be addressed through the local ordinance; a code enforcement issue. Comm. Marks noted that many "bootleg" units are separately metered and easily identified. 8 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 MO~IOH by Comm. Oakes to ADOP~ TA 92-4, Text Amendment, Alternative A, with addition of from the State Code Section B.1, "the unit is not intended for sale and may be rented," Section 5, "any increase in the floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30% of the existing living area" and change Subsection A first paragraih, third line to read, " ... unit to an existing single-fam ly dwelling". Motion failed due to lack of a second. Comm. Di Monda hoped that after passing Alternative A, Alternative B would be reviewed. He stated the Condominium Code established a limit of 900 square feet, rather than the 700 square feet being recommended for this action. Mr. Schubacn stated another 700 square feet provision was in the Condominium Code. Comm. Di Monda stated he wished the square footage to be 500. Mr. Schubach stated if 700 square feet was required! it would be chanaed prior to presentation to City Counc l. Comm. Di Monda referenced State Ordinance, Line Item tC.7, noting the architectural re,1riew was in the Condominium Code but not the R-1 Zone second units. Mr. Schubach agreed, stating it would be covered through the c.u.P. Mr. Lee suggested architectural review in the R-1 Zone be included as a provision, if the Commission so wished. Comm. Oakes agreed to an amendment to the motion. AMENDED MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to ADOPT TA 92-4, Text Amendment, Alternative A, with addition of from the State Code Section B.1, "the uni~ is not intended for sale and may be rented," Section 5, "any increase in the floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 301 of the existing living area", change Subsection A first paragraph, third line to read, " ••• unit to an existing single-family dwelling" and include a provision to require architectural review relating to second units within the R-1 Zone. AYl!:81 HOES1 ABSBNTI ABSTAIH1 Comm. Di Monda, Mark•, Oakea, Suard, Chmn. Merl Hone Hone Hone MOTION by Comm. Di Monda that the Planning Commission send a letter to the City Council asking it to reconsider the open apace study forwarded to it by the Planning Comrnisaion1 specifically pointing out this Ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated that had been already included at the Council's next scheduled meeting, asking that the study be done. Comm. Di Monda requested a letter be sent stating that if a percentage of open space is required, that the 9 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 single-family home character be preserved, because of thia ordinance. The Commission concurred with this request. AMSNDED MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to direct Staff to present to the Commission ordinances cast by other cities (Carmel, Beverlr Hilla, Santa Barbara) that have attempted to deal w th this issue, include the Dept. of Housing and Community Development opinion and contact the League of California Cities. Ho objection•, so ordered. A break was taken from 9:20 to 9130 p.m. UIWUQS CON 90-16, 17, 18, 19 --EXTENSIONS FOR EXPIRED CQNPitIQHAle yss PBRHJ;s FOR FOUR TtfQ-UNIJ CONDOMINIUMS. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended a six-month extension by minute order, discussed previous Commission and Citr Council action relative to this item and stated the app icant had experienced difficulty obtaining finan- cing. He stated the plans had been plan checked and approved for building permit issuance, with the only remaining obligation being the building permit ·fee payment. He explained the findings the Commission could make by minute order. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9s37 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited members of the audience to speak. No one wished to speak relating to this item. Comm. Suard noted that all three proposed atruotures were designed to a JS-feet height. Comm. Di Monda referenced a previous presentation made which established it was _.cornpa- tible with the surrounding area, and the plans did .conform to the intention. Comm. Oakes felt this was important to reference. Comm. Mark• eetabliahed this would be the first extension. HOl'ION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Marl, to APPROVE Staff'• reoommendati,on to extend the c.u.p. for six months, to January 22, 1993, by minute order. AYBS1 NOBSa ABSBNl'I ABBTAIHI comm. Di Monda, Hark ■, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Herl None None None 10 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 SS 92-7 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 116O(D) OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING DRIVEWAY GRADES. Mr. Schubach stated Staff was asking the Commission to choose one of the recommended alternatives and direct Staff to schedule a text amendment for public hearing. He discussed previous actions by the Commission, as well as the concern regarding driveway grades. He discussed the exception allowed by Section 1160 (d), noted the intent would be achieved by providing blends or transitions to eliminate potential of vehicles scraping the ground. No specific guidelines are available, therefore, determining if ground scraping would occur is not an easy task. Inconsistency in application is possible as the Planning Commission is the decision maker in the cases of condom- iniums or precise development plans. He then detailed the proposed Alternatives A, B, C and D to deal with the problem, noting that Staff generally supported Al terna- tive D, but would like to conduct further research before making a specific ordinance recommendation. He then discussed Alternatives Band C, noting Alternative A did not seem appropriate, given the small lots and varying sloping lots. Comm. Marks felt the criteria should be the vision level from the vehicle; suggesting landscaping be maintained at a certain height and, based upon the setback from the beginning of the building, the corner should be a clipped at a minimum of 45 degree angle, for vision purposes. He felt Staff address that potential problem, noting the situation was dangerous, allowing no vision of pedestrians or oncoming vehicles. Mr. Schubach stated that criteria could be established if Alternative B were used. Comm. Di Monda felt the criteria could be established with the use of Alternative D. He stated that when the review is made, Staff present concise information to the Commission, as some County and City documentation is confusing. Comm. Oakes liked the idea of a graduated scale. She did not feel this was a Planning Commission issue, but rather the decision should be based on facts, suggesting an appropriate formula be decided upon. Comms. Oakes and Di Monda agreed that "25%" was excessive. Comm. Oakes stated railings and walls should be included in the review and supported Alternative D. Comm. Di Monda felt all the information should be returned to the Commission, noting that Culver City's written description dealt with Paragraph I and other cities probably addressed the same issues. Comm. Oakes felt the decision should be completed at the level of the Public Works or Planning Departments, not at the Planning Commission level. Chmn. Merl felt the issue of vision and slope had merit. The Commission agreed it currently did not have enough information. 11 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to study Alternative D and to incorporate the comments made by the Planning Commission. No objections, so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Schubach noted the special study November 4, 1992 meeting hearing is still under study and will not be presented. Chmn. Merl stated the tradition of one meeting held in December would probably be followed, to which the Commission agreed. Comm. Di Monda suggested a note be sent to the Council reminding them the Joint Meeting should be held in December, and asking them to set a date. The Commission agreed it would be available the first Thursday in December. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Memorandum from Bill Grove, Building Director, regarding design limitation:s for professionals. c. City Council minutes of September 22, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Memorandum from Carol Williams, Senior Building Inspector regarding a permit issued for an addition and roof deck at 926 Monterey Blvd. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Comm. Oakes requested the base of the trees along the greenbelt be trimmed up to a height that would afford visibility beneath the trees. This would help stop people from sleeping under those trees at night. The Commission requested a a letter be sent to the City Manager, which explained the situation and requested the trees be trimmed up to a reasonable height. b. Comm. Marks requested the status of the Ocean Drive parking situation. Mr. Schubach stated it had been postponed, was still under consideration and the subcommittee had not finished with its review. Comm. Marks noted the project had been ongoing for two years 12 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 and expressed his concern since parking enforcement was not taking place; the problem was not being solved. Comm. Di Monda stated the subcommittee had met with the community, but needed four to six weeks before a report could be completed for the City Council. c. Comm.· Di Monda requested a memorandum be sent to the City Manager asking if a competition for the design of the pier could be put into motion. He noted the concept had been very well received with the design community and a lot of interest has been expressed. He wanted to get some motion going, and asked if the Planning Commission needed to become more involved. Comm. Suard thought the competition was a good idea and suggested the Beach Reporter be used, as it had cooperated in other competitions, previously. d. Comm. Di Monda noted Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street (across from the Mobile Station) had barricades erected there to prevent left turns. He stated the area was an embarrassment; trash, falling signs, broken plastic items. He felt barriers should be placed correctly, with landscaping, ground cover, etc. He requested a letter be sent to the City Manager regarding clean up of this area, to which the Commission agreed and directed Staff to comply with this request. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Commission to adjourn at 10: 08 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 October 20, 1992. /2 /1 . --? ,A,,,-:-.P (._,,·· I -J /J ,:,r ,,,. 1 -~_j'/,~ -74Z?k/?f21.~- Rod Merl, Chai~man Michael Schubactt, Secretary (•• -rJ -5/7 ( ; . --- Date 13 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1992, AT 7:01 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, C,hmn. Merl Comm. Suard Michael Schubach; Planning Directory Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Comm. Marks requested that Staff investigate and report back to the Commi ssion the status of the parking study being conducted by the Public Works Dept. MOTION by Comm. of Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks,. to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of September 15, 1992, Resolution P.C. 92-52, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 13-7 (b) TO ADD GREATER THAN 50% ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 433 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 92-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ELIMIN- ATE SECTION 7.2-27 REGARDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDO CONVERSIONS. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Cbmn. M~rl None Comm. Suard None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wi shed to speak regarding an item not included on the meet i ng agenda. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 92-12 & PARK 92-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TH STREET, LA PLAYITA 1 P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 Recommended Aotio111 To approve the request. Mr. Schubach stated this application is to allow the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with _an existing restaurant and additional dance floor area for a restroom without additional P.arking. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He then presented an alternative to approval. Mr. Schubach stated service of beer and wine would be cons i stent with the restaurant service, explain- ing it had not been previously obtained due to the Health Department's requirement for separate male/female bath- rooms. Outside bathrooms and indoor storage space are proposed. Mr. Schubach discussed Staff's concerns regarding the restaurant's location in an "impacted area," but noted this was an existing restaurant within that area, with the change having limited impact on the existing operation. Therefore, it was felt that no additional parking was needed.Staff recommended the restaurant be allowed to stay open until 11:00 p.m. due to the operation being a restaurant and in a residential area. An alternative to listing the conditions was discussed, which would allow future Section 10-7 amendments to apply. Mr. Schubach then outlined the improvements made by the applicant and noted no complaints or other problems had been experienced since the outside dining area had been opened. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:10 p.m. June Williama, Manhattan Avenue, stated the restaurant would be helped if windows were allowed along the alley way and requested the Com.mission approve allowance of the windows. Chmn. Merl stated such approval was outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, to which Ms. Williams agreed, but thought such a declaration would ferhaps influence the Board of Housing Appeals. CoIOJne. D Monda and Oakes reiterated such appr oval would be outside the authority of the Commission. Ms. Williams stated the applicant would be arriving at about 7:30 p.m. After discussion, at 7:15 p.m., the Commission agreed to CONTINUE this item to the end df the Public Hearings in order allow the applicant the opportunity to testify. CUP 92-13 & PDP 92-8 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Action1 To approve the request. 2 1)\\'' ·::'>S (~. P.c. Minutes 10-6-92 • . : -·--. s~ ~: -~ Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He highlighted the minor changes noted in the "supplemental" received by the Commission, noting the front door access proposal should include two steps rather than using a handicapped access ramp. He described the pro~osed construction, business operation and facilities, not1.ng a C.U.P. is required to authorize the automotive uses and a P.D.P. amendment is required since a small portion of the building height exceeded the f iret tier limit. Staff did not see this building as causing significant view impacts, given the height of existing buildings nearby, and the number of parking spaces was more than adequate. He discussed a condition to mitigate potential traffic intrusion concerns, the proposal that a 6-feet high block wall be constructed which would include landscaping, as well as landscaping at the front of the ·property, proposed decorative base/pole cover for the sign and sign specifications. He stated the project was con- sistent with ~lanning and zoning standards and satisfied design guidelines, while noting doubt that the storage capacity was adequate . Comm. Di Monda recommended the block wall finish be the same as the building (Page 7.3), to which the Commission agreed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7126 p.m. Alan Glaser, 1414 Pacific Coast Highway, project developer, stated the structure would appear to be a retail building while being used for automotive uses and requested approval of the application. He felt .the proposed uses and building design would be an asset to the city, the building would serve as a noise buffer. Comm. Marks commented Mr. Glaser on the building design. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Glaser handicap design require- ments as they related to this building and landscaping of the site. He stated the tenants wished the sign as tall as possible and requested approval of a 10-feet monument- style sign. He also wish to lower the planter walls to allow banking of dirt in the front landscaping area. • Comm Di Monda discussed with Mr. Glaser usinq the original design of a 42-inch wall, the 18-inch curb and allowing the sign to be higher. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Glaser the building signs, which would be back-lighted metal cans with plastic-front le~ters. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. 3 P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 Comm. Di Monda requested Staff assure the landscaping is ample and the block wall be the same finish as the build- ing. Comm. Oakes suggested landscaping continue across the front and be planted with a specific "bushy" plant. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE application CUP 92-13 and PDP 92-8 with the changes to the rear block wall and landscaping. AYESs NOES1 ABSENTS ABSTAIN: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakea, Chinn. Merl None Comm. Suard Hone Chmn. Merl stated this application had been a\>proved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92-12 & PARK 92-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN SNVIRON- MENA/U, NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TB STREET. LA PLAYITA At 7:41 p.m., Chmn. Merl reopened the Public Hearing. Harold Cohen, applicant, apologized for being late. Comm. Di Monda suggested a licensed person sign the drawing, to which Mr. Cohen agreed. Comm. Marks expressed concern regarding the open area leading to the bathrooms. Mr. Cohen responded he had no other option and had a five-feet high fence for security purposes. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. MO'l'IOH by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE CUP 92-12 & PARK 92-8 with the condition the drawings must be signed by a licensed professional·.· AYES& HOESs ABSEHTs ABS'l'AINs Comm. Di Honda, Harks, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard Nona Chmn. Merl stated this application had been a~proved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. • Due to the number of audience ~articipants, Items 9 and 10 were switched on the agenda, with Commission consent. CUP 91-26 & PPP 91-5 CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 70-ROOM HOTEL TO RECONSIDER THE HEIGH'l' OF A BUFFER WAI,1, AND BUILDING HEIGHT AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, , ~ i -f t:.\~-.... _:-=~~-{4 _ --·· P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 -.... ~ .... .. Recommended Actions approval. 'l'o sustain Planning Commiaaion Mr. Schubach discussed the background of this item, including the applicant's notification that he wished outdoor seating in conjunction with the piano bar be considered and the Commission's decision to require a 12-feet wall on the property. He discussed •the alternatives available and the City Council's and Commissions' s previous actions, He stated if a tall, free-standing wall were to be installed, it would impact the appearance of the hotel; an 18-foot high wall would be e9uivalent to a two-story buildin~ at the property line, with a wide base, substantial footings or support columns. Based upon the advice of the City Attorney, the Commission had allowed the proposed height to be grandfathered. He stated if the design were decreased to a height of 35 feet, the roof would have a lower pitch or be flat. Also, the applicant had relocated the bar due to the noise factor and had identified the outdoor seating area. Mr. Schubach noted that Staff did not see a problem with the outdoor seating area, but the Commission might wish the area enclosed. Chmn. Merl clarified that the wall and building heights were being considered at this meeting. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:56 p.rn. Jeremr Yeh, 49 So. Catalina Ave., Pasadena, presented a build ng elevation drawing, stated the design was an excellent one and the status structure would draw "high- class" customers. He felt it was illogical to invest the necessary large amount of money in a badly designed building, which would result if the roof were lowered. His investors would not invest in such a project. He stated the economy and real estate market is poor, explaining the hotel business would be only a projected 60% occupancy and the other on-site businesses were nec- essary for success. Mr. Jeh felt views would · not · be blocked and stated if the wall were required to be taller, the business would fail, since hotel occupants did not come to look at a wall. Comm. Marks noted the rooms did not face the ocean. Mr.-Yeh stated a view was available to the rooms. Pam McHew, 718 1st Place, stated the Commission should not allow the project, noting many excellent hotels already exist within the City. She supported the higher wall to assure privacy for the neighbors, decrease noise levels and maintain property values. She discussed the applic- able ordinance and a petition signed by 49 people, stating she and others would stop the project as their neighbor- P.C. Minutes 10-6~92 hood would be •iwrecked" if the project goes through. Comm. Oakes confirmed with Me. McHew that Ms. McHew had purchased three of her four properties while knowing they were adjacent to commercial properties. Ms. McHew discussed with Comm. Oakes the existing separation wall, proposed business, the possibility of other commercial businesses and their impacts. Comm. Oakes noted the structural requirements of an 18-feet high wall and stated her preference for landscaping rather than such a wall. Comm. Di Monda stated Ms. McHew was requesting the Commission deny the project based upon discretionary power. He a .eked what he • reaction • would be if the Commission exercised discretionary power relating to her properties. She stated this had already happened ·to her. Comm. Di Monda stated her property could be impacted in the future if the Commission chose to use "its discretion- ary power. " • Jerry Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, stated he lost property rights through down zoning, noting it was unique to have commercial and residential properties side-by-side. He stated residents were vocal and acted as "de factortt for the Zoning Board or Planning Commission, noting it was not a~propriate for residents to try to stop development within the commercial area. He supported Staff 'e recom- mendation, opposed Ms. McHew's statements and urged approval by the Commission. Gary Waylon, property owner within Hermosa Beach, stated his approval of the Commission's actions and the City of Commerce's endorsement of the project. He stated business will listen to the community through the dollar vote. Rick Learned, 1727 Monterey, stated the business community supported this project, stated satisfaction with the Comm- ission's previous actions and noted support of the project. .. _. John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Avenue, Chairman of Hermosa Beach Restaurant and Tavern Owners Assoc., commended the Commis- sion on the thoroughness and thought that had went into the project and thanked the Commission for its change in the manner of handling of business within the City. He stated new businesses should be welcomed. Patricia Spiritus, 115 Longfellow, stated her support of the project. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8129 p.m. Comm. Di Monda addressed the issues requested by the City Council relating to (1) the City Attorney's position, (2) P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 height limit (noting the applicant had lowered the hei~ht limit resulting in Comm. Di Manda's dissatisfaction with the building's appearance), (3) 18-feet high wall (of which he was not convinced was necessary and would not use discretionary power to impose that requirement) and { 4) stated he d.1.d not feel the Commission should act as an economic Board as the success or failure of a business did not relate to Planning Commission decisions. He supported Staff's recommendation. Comma. Marks and Oakes also sup- ported Sta-ff' s recommendation. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. APPROVE Sta££' s recommendation to sustain Commission approval. Oakes,• to Planning AYES1 NOES: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None ABSENT: ABSTAIN1 Comm. Suard Nona Chmn, Merl stated the Commission's action reconfirmed its original decision on the items sent for reconsideration. SS 92-8 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEX? AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10 REGARDING STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS AND REVISE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Recommended Actions To recommend approval of text amend- ment. Mr. Schubach stated this study was to consider amendment to Section 10-7 and 10-8 and to change mandated conditions within Article 10. He discussed the background and the proposed draft relating to the alcohol amendment; .with a distance of 100 feet from residents as the minimum requirement, prohibition of alcohol sales with gasoline sales, and the Commission's approval being necessary prior to the Police Chief's requirement of a doorman at establishments. Staff recommended minimum standard pro- visions for other conditionally permitted uses be changed to recommended conditions. Comm. Oakes discussed the Police Chief's response to the suggested amendment change relating to his authority with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda noted that this change would allow the City to review C.U.P. revocation based upon problems brought forth by the necessity of a doorman being reg_uired. Comm. Di Monda noted the way the amendment was written, the busin- ess owner would be deprived of procedural due process, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. . · Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:42 p.m. P.c. Minutes 10-6-92 Jim Listener, 2715 ELLOESTY, noted a 25,000 sq. ft. shopping center was exempt from the 100-feet minimum requirement. He discussed the possibility of loophQles bein<1 found, resulting in alcoholic sales and customer parking next to residents. He requested the amendment be rewritten. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, did not want the distance changed, or if it is, it be changed to 200 feet. She did not want more liquor stores within the City, feeling the impact upon residents was not offset by the taxes received. The existence of liquor stores is not conducive to the entrance of quality retail stores. John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Beach Avenue, said that Ms. Williams was imagining problems and there was no reason to assume problems are caused b,Y sale to adults with no back-up history. He stated nice restaurants have liquor licenses. He urged the Commission this item carefully. Many liquor stores also supply -bread, milk, etc., to the neig}:lborhood and function as part of that neighborhood. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8151 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the allowances and restrictions of "grandfathered" liquor stores, estab- lishing the restrictions and that the c.U.P. "runs with the land." Comm. Di Monda suqgested the Commission review retail operation requirements and close those require- ments, which would make it difficult small closed businesses without parking to reopen. Comm. Oakes felt the parking impositions, alone, would wipe out many of the small neighborhood markets regardless of the sales of liquor, while encouraging the "7-11" type of store. The Commission discussed with Mr ., Schubach the exempt_ion from 100 feet distance allowed to the large shopping centers. MOTIOH by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oak~s, to recommend APPROVAL of the text amendment with the deletion of Section I and to change Zoning Code, Section 10-7, Sub- section 8 to read, in essence, " ... the Police Chief can authorize and require a doorman and then must submit a report of his concerns regarding the problems which required a doorman to the Planning Commission, automati- cally initiating a C.U.P. review by the Commission. The owner must expeditiously appear before the Planning Commission to submit resolution to the stated problem." AYES1 NOE81 ABSENT1 ABSTAIN& Comm. Di Monda, Mark•, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard None -. P.c. ~inutes 10-6-92 HEARINGS RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO PROHIBIT OR ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS PURSUANT TO STATE GOVERN- MENT COOE SECTION 65852.2. Recommended Actions To adopt proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had examined State Code and discovered a provision requiring cities to allow second units in the R-1 Zone or to (1) create an ordin~nce setting certain standards, (2) all conditions must be met as stated in the State Law, (3) applicable Health, Safety and Welfare reasons must be cited as to the prohibition or (4) a certain area within the City must be set aside which allows the second units. After discussion wi th the City Attorney, it was decided to examine two options. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:17 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. James Listener, 1015 4th Street, felt this item would apply only to large lots which would be able to supply acceptable parking. He stated it was restrictive, had not be used during the past 10 years, the City has an ordi nance and suggested that no action be taken at this time. Mr. Schubach responded the City was not covered, as the State has adopted a new law which the City must address. No one else wished to speak relating to this item. Comm. Di Monda noted the numerous revision dates (including 1983) and requested that the City Attorney be made aware and answer how the City handled this item during the recent past. Mr. Schubach not~d the amendments, which were being discussed during this meeting, were recent, with the subject item being added in 1990. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to ADOPT a Resolution of Intent to study a text amendment regarding the creation of second units. AYE81 NOES1 ABSENT1 ABS1'AIN1 Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard None REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXPIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUMS. Mr. Schubach stated S tate law in clear regarding extension of tentative. maps,, bu t no~.c.u.P.'s. The applicant felt • "' :•: ~ .... ~ ,·, -•' . • ·:l ~ ':. -g P.C .. Minutes 10-6-92 his situation was uni9ue as his only remaining step was to pay the building permit fees. The City Attorney felt the grandfather clause did not apply in this case, also the applicant felt it did. The Commission could grant the extension, and, if so, the grandfather clause would apply . The Commission could take a straw vote to approve or the Commission could decide to require a re-submittal for project review under current ordinances. There were_no questions of Staff, and at 9:25 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. Jerry Olquin, 1235 2nd Street, distributed and described photographs of tall buildings located near the 1;>roposed site area and presented a plot plan to the Commission. He stated he would have paid the fees necessary to avoid the c.u.P. expiration if he had been aware of the requirement. He stated confidence that the project could now move for- ward and would be in conformation with adjacent properties and comply with the most current building requirements. He explained that by the time he had been able to put the project financing together, the C. U .P. had expired and requested an extension be granted. Ne stated he had over $500,000 already sunk into the project and would probably have to declare bankruptcy if the project did not 90 forward. He stated his deadline was the middle of this month. Mr. Olquin explained to Comm. Marks that he used to, but no longer processed plans, himself. He hired this done in order to utilize his time in other ways. Comm. Di Monda explained the Planning Commission's intent was not to hurt developers or business people. He felt this reaction was hysterical and led by a local architect who felt the Commission was "out to get" everyone. He reminded everyone this was definitely not the acti on of the Commission. He reviewed the built-up area ver11Jus the proposed plan, r ecommending a finding be made that this proposal met the intent of the new ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated Staff would return with a report withi_n a two week period. Chmn. Merl concurred with Comm. Di Manda's suggestion, feeling this item was brought to the Commission based upon a technicality. Comm. Oakes also concurred, expressed the wish that an example was .not being set, but felt this item had simply been an oversight and the project would comply with the current ordinance. MO'l'ION by the Commission to make the finding that this request for extension met the intent of the new ordinance and APPROVE the extension of the expired c.u.P. for four two-unit condominiums. No objections, so ordered. P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 ---j .. STAFF ITEMS a. ~entative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Request from City Treasurer to hold public hearing regarding decreased commercial sales tax revenue. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:55 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited testimony. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, felt the Planning Commission did not have the authority to expend public hearing funds unless authorized by the City Council and that .the memo should have been directed to the Council. The audit was an ongoing practice, with the same audit firm having been used. She stated the Chamber had already met with the City Manager to discuss ways to improve the business license process. - She stated it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to relay the memo to the Council, feeling this was not the proper time, nor place. Comm. Di Monda responded that during this meeting, the Commission was asked to step outside its jurisdiction, and now it was being told this item was not within its authority. He did know whl the City Treasurer thought this was necessary, but fe t that appointed commissions did have a responsibility to elected officials. He supported the re9uest by the City Treasurer, as other elected officials, when in the interest of the City, the Commission was re9uested to perform certain actions. If the City Council directed the Commission not to move forward with this item, it would be within their right. Mr. Schubach stat~d . funding was available for public notice in Easy • Reader. Comm. Di Monda felt the request was to come in front of the Commission and hear public testimony about the City can do to assist business. Public noticing would not be necessary, as people could speak not the "Communications" section of the agenda. After discussion among the Commission members, the Commission felt the City Treasurer should be notified the Commission felt it would be more appropriate that a ~resentation be made under agenda Section 5. No objections, so ordered. c. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for October 13, 1992 meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE P,C. Minutes 10-6-92 . . d. Memo regarding Planning Commission meeting date change on 11/3/92 due to the election. •• The Commission agreed to meet on November 4, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE Planning Department activity report of August 1992 . RECEIVE AND FILE f. Memo regarding R/UDAT meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE g. City Council minutes of September 8, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER I'l'EMS a. Sub-committee for municipal pier design. Comm. Di Monda expressed interest in holding a competition for the design of the ~ier project. He felt this would cost nothing, new ideas would be obtained and, perhaps, this would help formulate what the community wished for the pier area. The winner might receive the designation of Associate Architect. The Commission requested that Mary Rooney report as to the Coastal Commission's response to this concept. Comm. Marks was requested to review the outline he had previous!¥ presented, add any new ideas or concepts and distribute the revised outline to the other members of the Commission, to which he agreed~.-.. Comm. Di Monda asked for addition definition as to 24-inch and 36-inch box trees, to include size, .. height, cost, burden to developer, etc. Mr. Schubach agreed that Staff would supply this information. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern regarding the La Playita design, handicapped requirements and City liability in commercial projects. He suggested an agenda item to discuss a requirement that commercial projects are to be signed off by a licensed profes- sional who is knowledgeable so that the burden is not completely upon the Building Dept. 12 P.c. Minutes 10-6-92 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Commission to adjourn at 10: 17 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 October 6, 1992. Michael Schubach, Secretary /0-20-?2- Date 13 P.C. Minutes 10-6-92 .. "" ~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 "l l f"f 11 II 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 ., n •I 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 I 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 .. MINUTES 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 ,, . . , MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 7, 1992, AT 7:11 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeti.ng called~to order at 7:11 p.m. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Suard. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Marks, Oakes, Suard and Chmn. Merl Comm. Di Monda Michael Schubach; Planning Directory Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary Chmn. Merl introduced Commissioner Oakes as a new member of the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items with the following changes: Minutes of June 16, 1992 Page 3, Line 1 -CHANGE " .. trash area was too small .. " TO " .. trash area obstructed side yard access .. " Policy Statement P.C. 92-2, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF- ORNIA, INTERPRETING A DO-IT~YOURSELF BREWERY AS A HOBBY, SUPPLY BUSINESS AND THEREFORE AS A PERMITTED USE IN COM- MERCIAL ZONES. Page 2 refers to another document. This item was referred to the July 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, at which time to reference document is to be provided, with an added notation that State and Federal Laws regarding this subject are being referenced. Resolution P.C. 92-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, PARKING PLAN TO· ALLOW EMPLOYEE PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH. Resolution P.C. 92-31,_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 250 SQUARE FEET ADDITION TO A NON CON- FORMING TRIPLEX AT 336 THE STRAND AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAID VARIANCE AT 336 THE STRAND. 1 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 Resolution P.C. 92-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROV- ING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #.2328'6 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REVISED PLANS FOR A THREE-UNIT :CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Di Monda None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Roger E. Bacon, 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, stated that Alpha Beta had vacated his property and he had explored other revenue avenues, which included the parking of cars on his property. Due to the slowness in completing the processes required by the City, he had lost the parking contract. He suggested the City review "temporary usage" to gain revenue for the town. PUBLIC HEARING CON 92-6/PDP 92-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 17TH STREET (continued from June 16, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional ·use Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Devel- opment Plan. Mr. Schubach stated this previously heard item was brought back due to site problems which the applicant had tried to correct . Mr. Schubach referenced the soil engineering report, site photographs, a Building Department report, revisions submitted by the applicant which provided open space more than adequate to comply with the new Policy Statement and the removal of the on-site trailer. He noted the resolution of approval included a condition that . the CC&R's be corrected, that a 7-feet minimum clearance be provided for vehicles and three 36" box trees were clearly depicted. . He stated the Building Department was working with the applicant's engineer regarding the issue of filling the abandoned swimming pool without a permit to obtain satisfactory soil studies prior to issuing a grade J?ermit. Mr. Schubach stated he had not had the opportun- ity to review the soil report. 2 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:22 p.m. Jacob Mierop, 1218 6th Street, corrected the Staff Report, stating the pool had not been filled, the dirt was con- tained within an 8 feet in length, 4 feet in height area adjacent to his neic;rhbor' s property. He stated he had made an agreement w1. th his neighbor, Ms. Ford, that he would pay for a new block wall in lieu of any damage to the wood fence. Mr. Mierop agreed to remove any fill that was on his pro~erty and restated his intent to use the dirt to only fill the pool. Mr. Mierop discussed previous actions he had taken, as well as his driveway slope, fin- ished floor height and ventilation of the ground-floor bedroom with Comm. Oakes. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, owns property directly across the street from the proposed construction site. He stated removal of the trailer was appreciated. He requested that construction debris be removed from the basement. He felt that enough dirt to fill the pool, as well as the concrete planner, and had been level out in the front yard. He expressed his concern regarding neighborhood protection from the resultant termites. Jacob Mierop, 1218 6th Street, rebutted the dirt had been leveled in f rent of the structure in order to remove it from the fence area. He stated only dry wall was in the basement. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. Chmn. Merl and Mr. Schubach discussed the removal of the dirt, as well as steps taken by the Building Department to assure removal of that fill dirt and its report relating to this issue. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant would have to remove the soil, fill in the pool in order to meet the conditions of approval. Chrnn. Merl commented the.re- port received from the Building Department did not appear to meet the Commission"s previous requests. Mr.· Lee stated the soil report received by the Commission addres- sed the issue of the uncompacted fill brought onto the site, however, it did not state exactly what would happen. He suggested it was appropriate for the Commission to consider a continuance until a more detailed Building Department report has been received by the Commission. Mr. Schubach reiterated the actions taken by the applicant to date. Comm. Marks suggested removal of the soil· be made a condition prior to issuance of a building p~r~it, to which the Commission agreed. Termites should be . automatically removed when .the wood is removed from the • site. Comm. Oaks requested that clearance of the driveway .3 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 ( ( l and the ventilation of the rear unit back bedroom be made part of the conditions of approval. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE the project as proposed, with the stipulation that prior to obtaining permits the applicant provides evidence to the Commission that he has cleared the earth, filled the swimming pool and rectified any stated proposed structure problems in terms of required light, air, ventilation, and height over driveway, at which time the Commission will approve issuance of building permits. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92-7 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY #2, EL POLLO INKA. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the app licant is requesting approval for the on-site sale of beer and wine, as well as approval of live entertainment with musicians playing Peruvian music. Seating is for a maximum of 64 customers with musicians being located in the front of the building. He outlined the recommended hours of entertainment, as ·well as operation, noting this location is part of a large shopping center. Life entertainment would be limited to a maximum of two.performers and non-amplified acoustic music on week ends only, ceasing at 10:00 P.M. Comm. Suard discussed condition #7 with Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:51 p.m. Will Neivez, applicant's representative, introduced · the applicant, Shirley Felner and stated they would stipulate to the _conditions of approval. He . requested the enter- tainment hours . be expanded to include every day of the week primarily between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. He stated the Peruvian musicians have special wind instru- ments and a drum, and explained where the musicians would 4 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 j be located within the restaurant. He noted the "family" did have three other operations. !?,: • Roger Bacon, ilOO Pacific Coast Highway, as the property o wn er, discussed his pleasure with leasing to the appli- c ant, noting the cleanliness, food, bakery and exce llent o perat ions of the other establishments owned by the f am ily . He felt the entertainment would be very low- keyed, with no amplification. Wesley Bush, Chamber of Commerce, stated his pleasure with this type of restaurant. He felt the music was unique and the operation was well-run. Don Haggerty, 1550 Prospect, felt many previous restaur- ants have been unable to obtain a beer and wine license, and therefore went out of business. He supported approval of the application. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 p.m. MOTION b¥ Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE application CUP 92-7, with an amendment to Item #10 to allow the Peruvian type of music every night of the week. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Di Monda None • Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED PARKING, AN D ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1314 HERMOSA AVENUE, THE SQUEEZE CUP. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the bu siness would be primarily the sale of Italian Ice. Staff believed the bus iness emph asis was for snack food and qu ick service, with a large percentage of the customers being pedestrians and am~le public parking available; a ll of which would justify reduction o~ the parking requirements . He stated the previous business had a 4 space requirement, while this one would require 10 space s and noted the available options. Mr. Schubach stated Staff supported waiving the requirements, but commented it would be_ necessary that the 5 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 business be conditioned to be maintained as a snack shop. Staff also recommended exterior site improvements. ~ . Public Hearing·-opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:05 p.m. Joe Iacopino, applicant, stated the conditions were acceptable. He explained he and his family had owned a similar business for many years. He stated he would change the sign on the back of the building and paint the rear of the building if it were necessary. He agreed to sharing of the trash can with his adjacent neighbor. He explained the Italian Ice was an old family recipe and would be made on site. Wesler Bush, Chamber of Commerce, discussed the problems experienced by small businesses and stated the Chamber of Commerce's support of this application. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. MOTION b¥ Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE application cup 92-8, as s~ated. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO APPROVE THE EXISTING DANCE AREA AND TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT TO EXCEED DINNER MUSIC LEVEL AT 2701 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE BEACH BOYS CAFE. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment. Mr. Schubach described the current building and previous businesses at this location, as well as the building remodeling and improvements which included painting, resurfacing of the parking lot, ventilation improvements, installation of a sound wall and valet parking being currently offered. He discussed the issues for the Commission"s consideration. While noting that noise impact was .still a concern, Staff saw no wisdom in allowing dancing with recorded music but not with live music. Mr. Schubach explained the conditions which were included to address the issue of both potential noise generated_by 6 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 both music and patrons. He discussed the impacts to parking, noting the additional off-site parking would appear to satisfy the added demand and recommended a condition be included that provided off-site parking during the evenings during live music performances, complementary valet parking be provided and a copy of the parking agreement be maintained in the Planning Dept. 's files. Staff did not object to the requested change in hours, but did have concerns regarding the allowance of daily entertainment to 1:30 a.m. Mr. Schubach noted con- ditions to require a "NO PARKING" sign and a gate to the trash dumpster and addressed Staff's capability to conduct noise measurement tests. Comm. Marks discussed the enclosed location of the music with Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:20 p.m. Steve Jacobson, 2701 Pacific Coast Highway, corrected Staff's report information regarding the additional parking agreement, noting he had a month-to-month agreement with the landlord of the parking area .. He stated that the additional· parking was not a requirement but that he had wished to be a good neighbor by offering the additional parking and remodeling the building and im1;>roved the air conditioning machinery to reduce the noise level. Mr. Jacobson explained that dancing with live entertain- ment would be advantageous ·because it would attract an older clientele. He stated that with a "D.J.", a younger audience is attracted, resulting in louder music and noise. He felt elimination of the "D.J." format and im1;>lementation of live entertainment would reduce the noise. Mr. Jacobson stated he currently had parking for 47 cars, and with the parking agreement, 200 additional spaces would be available. He requested that valet parking not be required each evening due to a lack of business on Mondays and Tuesdays. Valet parking is provided from • Wednesday through Sunday. Comm. Oakes expressed concern regarding a short-term ~arking agreement and noted her approval that valet parking provided that clientele exit from the front door, therefore alleviating noise to the neighbors to the back .of the site. Mr. Jacobson reiter- ated that he currently met the on-site parking require- ment and had had no complaints regarding the current live music. He stated if anyone had a complaint, he wanted them to come to him so that he could current any problems. Ruth Sullivan, 2954 La Carlita Place, stated she could hear voices from the parking lot. She discussed her 7 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 confusion relating to Staff's report and discussed the placement of the speakers within the restaurant with Mr. Schubach. Mr •. '~ Schubach reiterated that Staff would be conducting on-site acoustical analyses. She expressed the wish that the doors and windows remain closed during the hours of music, as stating within the C.U.P. Chris Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, felt that live music negatively altered the character of a neighborhood and requested that Staff monitor the establishment. . He requested that noise in the early morning hours be reduced or eliminated. Gayle Duggan, area lessee, stated there was a huge difference between this restaurant and the previous ones. She noted the music was no problem, the clientele was entirely different, valet parking was beneficial and supported approval of the application. Richard Sullivan, 2954 La Carlita Place, encouraged the Commission to deny the application, noting an acoustic survey was warranted and stated his opposition to allow- ing this type of business within the area. Don Haggerty, 1550· Prospect, suggested approval of the C.U.P. with a 1:00 A.M. closure and if there were no problems for a period of six months, changing the hours of operation to closure at 1:30 A.M. He felt this business was of benefit to the City. He stated the applicant should not be penalized for ~he previous owners' actions. Steve Jacobson stated he had had live entertainment and had not received any complaints. He would respond to any complaints received. He stated the Police Dept. felt he had done an excellent job in eliminating the noise.· He stated he can't completely control the general public but continued to take action and remain "good neighbors". He reiterated the issue was not whether he could have danc- ing, but if dancing would be permitted with live enter- tainment. Patrick Howe, representing the applicant, stated Item· 15(c) contained rather threatening wording, and requested it be amended to allow a 90 to 120 day grace period if the parking agreement were terminated. This time ~eriod would allow the applicant to obtain other parking, since parking is such a problem within Hermosa Beach. He also stated the current on-site parking provided matched that of the previous business. Mr. Howe requested amendment of Item 11, in that it was not economically feasible, nor war- ranted due to the down turn in volume, that a valet service be utilized every day of the week. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 p.m. 8 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed Staff's capability to monitor the noise levels ~nd the extent of the mo~itor- ing that would~be conducted by Staff during the six-month test period. Comm. Suard requested that Staff check to assure that Mondays and Tuesdays are not overc rowded as far as val et parking was concerned and asked if Item Nos. 7 and 20 should be coordinated in terms of after-closure parking lot noise, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. Chmn . Merl supported the six-month review period , agreed that it was illo gical to allow dancing t o recorded mus ic but not live entert ainment. Co mm. Oake s expressed her concerns relating to t he-parking lot short term agreement issue. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative: if ·the parking could not be provided at the adjacent property, the app licant could re stripe his existing parking, allowing for "stacking" with the valet 1;>arking as an alternative. Chmn. Merl r equested that if parking is disrupted, the applicant wou ld notify Staff, supplying a proposal a ddress ing the problem , and a review by the Commission could be conducted within 30 days. Mr. Lee clarified that termination of live entertainment woul d no t commence until 60 day s after t he termi n ation of the par k ine:, agreement. Comm. Oakes requested that the nois e within the park ing l ot also be addressed, s ince residents had lodged c0mplaints, to which Chmn. Merl agreed. Mr. Lee asked for clarification of Item 15 (A), Page 8 , as to whether the _E>arking agreement would be rec orded aga inst property o r if the current agreement was acc eptable. The applicant was directed to obtain a minimum of a six-month term parking agreement, with a possibility o f a 3 0-day notice terminat ion and notif i- cation to the City, allowi ng the applicant a 60-day period in which to provide replac eme nt parking. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded b y Comm. Suard, to APP ROVE Staff's recommendation relating to appl ication 9 2 ~11, wi th the following amendments: ( 1) Item # 11 -valet parking will be required Wednesdays through Sundays; every other day t hat the parking lot is filled, valet service mu st be provided , (2) Item #1 5(A) -the minimum parameters for the parking arrangement is a six -month term of lease with a 30 day notice of termination by either party, wi t h the City to be notified if the agreement is to be t erminated, (3) Item # 15 ( C ) within 30 days of receiving notic e of parking ag re ement termination, the Planning Commi ssion shall review that action, and thi s item shall p r ovide a 60 day period to enable the applicant to provide substitute addi tional parking if the parking agreement is terminated, and (4 ) the addre ss of the park i ng lot shall be omitted to allow the applic ant to o btain an agreement at another location. 9 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None ~omm. Di Monda· None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. HEARINGS NR 92-3 --AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 13-7(b) TO ADD GREATER THAN 50% ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1015 4TH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach explained the east side yard is only 2.6 feet wide at its narrowest point, instead of the required minimum of 5 feet, resulting in the non-conformity; and only one ~arking space is available, to be corrected with the addition of a two-car garage. He described the pro- ~osed addition, open space, grade and planted area, stat- ing Staff's only concern was the proposed added area was designed to allow conversion into a second unit, including its own access, its own stairway access to a bedroom and a wet bar. The applicant expressed his willingness to place a restriction on the property to limit it to one unit. Mr. Schubach stated the existing non-conforming side yard setback did not appear to be severe and the size of the addit ion and resulting house size would be moderate in scale. He stated the Commission must make a finding that the goals, intent and purpose of Article 13 were being met prior to approval. Staff recommended approval. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:13 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. Lance Widman, 1015 4th Street, bought the property in 1976, and, due to family expansion, now wishes to enlarge his home. Since the purchase, he has continually upgraded the structure. He stated the remodel would be an add on to the rear with no demolition to the current structure, noted the lot is "combined", is approximately 5,000 sq. ft. with an 1, 10 0 sq. ft. livable space structure. He discussed the non-conformities, noted the rest of the property and . structure were conforming, the parking would be brought into conformance and stated his proposed addition exceeded the "50% of value" allowance. Mr. Widman agreed to sign a dead restriction to assure· no bootleg unit would exist. He stated the P.roposed deck would be immediately accessible from the family room. H~ 10 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 corrected the Staff Report in that no wet bar is planned, b:ut :z;:ather a designated "bar area". He stated the side yard setback would be the only remaining non-conformity, and the proposed addition was consistent with development within the neighborhood. Mr. Widman introduced the project architect, who did not speak. Comm. Oakes and Mr. Widman discussed the width between Mr. Widman• s property and his adjacent neighbor. Mr. Widman stated the maximum building height would be 25 feet and described the architectural treatment of the stairwa~ and building exterior. Comm. Suard discussed the possibility of Codes changes to allow a pitched roof on the proposed addition. Mr. Widman had discussed this with Staff, noting it was not possible and the plan had been designed accordingly, to which Mr. Schubach explained further. The Commission agreed the non-conformity was minor; efforts to blend the structure had been looked into. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE application NR 92-3 for exception to Section 13-7 (b) as stated. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks,· Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None· Comm. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been a~proved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. A break was taken from 9:32 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. NR 92-4 --AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 1162 TO ADD 250 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING TWO-UNIT PROJECT NON-CONFORMING TO PARKING, DENSITY AND SETBACKS AT 1616 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant proposed to add a bath-· room and walk-in closet, a 250 sq. ft. addition, and an interior remodel of the unit along Bayview Drive. He explained the property and structure non-conformities, noting density, parking and setback non-conformities were no severe or unusual for the area and would not intensify the situation. Mr. Schubach noted addition parking space was available to the south of unit B if the storage structure was removed and recommended such a condition. He stated the Commission must make a finding that the goals, intent and purpose of Article 13 are met prior to approval. 11 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 There were no questions of Staff, and at 9:43 p.m., Chmn. M~rl ,invited the applicant to speak. ~· Tim Meenan, f66 Manhattan Avenue, co-owner, stated the stairs would probably remain in place, rather than moving an outside wall three inches to sup~ort the upstairs bedroom. Comm. Marks and Mr. Meenan discussed access to the current stairway and plan elevation. Mr. Meenan described the lot size and existing structures, as well as the non-conformities in the side yard. He stated the proposed remodel conforms in every respect and stressed no demolition would be conducted. He stated the 1938 build- ing would be very expensive to remodel} it would be less expensive to demolish and rebuild, but they could not do that due to the building ordinance restrictions. Mr. Meenan stated the property had been zoned R-3 when he and his brother purchased it, but the zone had since changed. There are three standard sized and one compact parking spaces on site. He stated exterior efforts (stucco, windows) would be made to ·enhance an architectural blend. John Meenan, 166 Manhattan Avenue, Unit B, discussed with Comm. Marks the intention to locate a deck on the west side. Chmn. Merl confirmed the only increase in living area space would be the addition of a walk-in closet and bathroom. Comm. Oakes confirmed the unit B would be increased only 40 sq. ft., with a total remodel of the interior. Chmn. Merl and Mr. Schubach discussed the addition of a parking space in the side yard encroachment area. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE application NR 92-4 for exception to Sect~on 1162, as stated. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Di Monda None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved; subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. STAFF ITEMS a. Correspondence regarding the sign at Palm West Escrow. Mr. Schubach distributed photo9raphs to the Commis- sion. Gail Duggan discussed with the Commission its inability to act upon this item. It was explained to Ms. Duggan compliance to the variance application 12 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 procedure was necessary. Wesler Bush, Chamber of Commerce, stated his understanding that the Chamber of Commerce would also be part of the planning process, requesting notification to the Chamber prior to any action being taken. Mr. Schubach detailed actions . taken to date, stating the Chamber of Commerce would receive notification in a timely manner. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Request for inclusion of a tattoo parlor in C-3 zone permitted use list. The Commission discussed with Messrs. Schubach and Lee potential classifications in which tattoo ~arlors could be included as a permitted use, initiation of a new classification or notification to applicant that he should restate his request with the City Council. A majority of the Commission agreed to initiate the consideration of an amendment to add "tattoo parlors" as a permitted use or a conditionall¥ permitted use by directing staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent, and notify the applicant the fee is $340. No objections, so ordered. c. Update of the status report regarding fence at 1515 Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Schubach stated he had been notified the fence has been completely removed on the Hermosa Avenue and • walk-street side, but a portion remains on the west side, which is to be removed July 8, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Planning Department activity report of May, 1992 .. RECEIVE AND FILE e. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for July 14, 1992 City Council meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE f. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE g. City Council minutes of May 26, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS None ..: 13 P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Cdfurnission to adjourn at objections; so ordered. •• CERTIFICATION 10:27 p.m~-No ·s 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 meet~ng __ of_. July_ 7, 1992. .✓,!/4,. ,J ~ /_lf--4 ~~ ??l;/1'//,W 0-- RGd Mer I, Chairman 1 ,, Mic , Secretary ✓Ay~ /?f/L Date 14 .: P.C. Minutes 7-7-92 ~INUTl:S 01'" TIit VUNNIN6 CO~ISSION ~l:1:TIN6 01'" TIit CITY 01'" 111:l]~OSA 131:ACll 111:LI) ON .JUNI: 1E, 1~~~" AT 7:00 V-~-IN TIit CII'Y IIALL COUNCIL Cll~l31:DS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard and Chmn. Merl None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items with the following changes: Minutes of the May 19, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, Page 9, last paragraph, change "This limitation ... " to "The 30-feet limitation ... " Minutes of the June 2, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, Page 2, Variance 92-2, change " ... 2550 ... " to " ... 250 ... " Resolution P.C. 92-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE LEGAL USE TO BE A FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1150 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AT 1017 AVIATION BOULEVARD, KING-BEAR AUTO CENTER, change "C. The development as conditioned, posses no threat .... " to "C. The development as conditioned, poses no threat ... ", change "8. . .. fro ... " to "8. . .. for ... ", delete the second " ... areas or any other location on the premises shall be ... ", Section III, change each "it's" within this section to "its". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, *Suard and Chmn. Merl None *Comm. Suard abstained on June 2, 1992 Minutes, Resolution P.C. 92-27 and Resolution P.C. 92-30 None 1 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 3 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING VAR 92-2 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 250 SQUARE FEET ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING TRIPLEX AT 336 THE STRAND AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAID VARIANCE AT 336 THE STRAND (continued from June 2, 1992 Meeting). Recommended Action: To deny requested variance. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed addition would maximize view potential, raise that portion of building height to th'e 35-feet maximum and connect with the existing roof deck. He commented the non-conformity is related to density and structural aspects: lot coverage, unit sizes, private open space, front setback, north side setback and parking. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed project com- plied with basic zoning requirements and the non-conforming ordin- ance, noted the one space per unit parking complied with Section 1162 allowing the addition. A variance is necessary, because under current R-3 zoning, the maximum density is 33 units per acre. He stated the Commission must determine if there were grounds for a variance and if the non-conforming use should be allowed any expansion. Mr. Schubach then detailed the findings that must be made in order to qualify for a variance and noted the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance ( surrounding property rights, structure sizes, view and light blockage). Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended denial due to the first finding required for variances, not Staff found nothing about the property's physical characteristics that were exceptional or unique. He noted the second requirement would become moot without the first finding. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:15 p.m. Ken McDonald, project architect, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, pre~ented and discussed project photographs, addressing the variance findings requirement as it relating to the property topography and side-by-side in-filling. He felt a variance was necessary for his client to enjoy the same rights as his neighbors and felt granting the variance would not be detrimental to the neighbors or area or adversel¥ affect the General Plan. He felt the proposed project was within the "spirit" of the General Plan and presented no increase in density beyond that which is 19% over dense or lot coverage while increasing open space and living area. He stated parking is not an issue, the area profile would be maintained (not raised). Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. McDonald the roof area, determining the stora9e area had been deleted, the open deck would have an open trellis with a clear he.:i.ght of 7'6" to 7'9". Comm. Marks noted the 2 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 trash area was too small, to which Mr. McDonald responded that it was an existing condition, but the property owner would be willing to comply with any suggested improvement. Eric Castleman, 336 The Strand, applicant, confirmed the location of the trash area was pre-existing. He compared an analogy between his property and senior citizens he cares for on a daily basis, stating the project would realize the building's full potential and extend its longevity, not alter the building character nor create any new problems and not change density. He felt the building could be enhanced and should not be torn down. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chrnn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. Comm. Di Monda stated the architect had previously discussed this proposed addition. He commented that the 30-feet height limitation being currently considered, the substandard size of the lot and apartments and the lack of parking had not been subjects of that previous discussion. Comm. Di Monda stated his lack of support was due to those three issues, feeling two units on the property would better serve the City, given the lot size. Comm. Ketz felt there were no findings made in support of a variance. Comm. Suard supported remodeling of older units, but felt he could not support a variance due to the view blockage and increase in density. Comm. Marks stated his support of Staff's recommendation. Chmn. Merl stated an affirmative finding was necessary to grant a variance, which was not the case, although he was definitely in favor of the remodeling of older structures. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Marks, to follow Staff's recommendation and DENY the request for a variance to allow 250 square feet addition and an Environmental Negative Declaration for a non-conforming triplex at 336 The Strand. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None Chrnn. Merl stated this item was denied, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CON 92-4/PDP 92-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23286 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REVISED PLANS FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. (Referred back to Planning Commission by City Council action to deny "without prejudice"}. Recommended Action: To review revisions and determine if adequate to comply with concerns of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Schubach stated Staff suggested the revisions be reviewed to determine if adequate to comply with previously stated concerns. 3 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 He then discussed the background, recommendations for changes and the actual changes made to this item, as well as previous action taken by the Commission and City Council. Mr. Schubach explained the options available to the Commission. He stated the modifica- tions made to the plan are minor and responded to only the City Council's specific concerns. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed view maintenance provisions. Mr. Schubach stated a corner cut off requirement has been met by the revised plan, with a drive way slope having a longer distance and lesser slope. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:39 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 300, project architect, presented and explained photographs and renderings of the project. He felt the height situation was reviewed and agreed upon by the City Council that there was no problem. He presented an rendering of area structure heights to the Commission, noted the proposed project (due to building slope) would be 20-25 feet at the street level with the back being 35 feet and stated most of the buildings would not have an impact on view. Comm. Di Monda confirmed that the project was at basically 30'5" and the slope then takes it to 31 '3" with Mr. Compton. Mr. Compton then explained the amount of care that had been taken in the development of the building plans and compared this proposed project to the existing ones within the area and previous project plans. He felt this type of development would provide a much safer traffic situation, noting the garage area provided a 28-feet turn radius, allowing any size car to maneuver and "head out" of the driveway. Mr. Compton and Comm. Di Monda discussed internal down spouts and overflows located within and without the structure. Comm. Di Monda suggested the building mass could be visually reduced by different stucco textures and color on the exterior of the building, which Mr. Compton agreed to consider. Comm. Marks and Mr. Compton discussed the planned landscaping, as well as the areas possibly to be landscaped by the owners, and the building footprint determina- tion. Brian Bedall, 930 1st Street, Apt. #4, stated a lot of· work has been completed to meet the stated requirements. He felt the building will be attractive and the area will be improved. No one else wished to speak regarding this i tern, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:01 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt the changes are beneficial, safer, an effort had been made and expressed his changes made. He requested that a Condition planter box be added, as it should have been. the driveway is pleasure with the requiring a 24" MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CON 92-4/PDP 92-4, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #23286 and Precise Development Plan with revised plans for a three-unit condominium project at 1901 Pacific Coast Highway, with a change to Paragraph 4 adding a Condition to require a 24" box tree. 4 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chinn. Merl None None None Chmn. Merl stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CON 92-6/PDP 92-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754. AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 17TH STREET. Recommended Action: To continue to July 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended continuance to allow the applicant to revise plans to comply with the open space Policy Statement and provide a revised landscape plan. He then detailed previous actions taken by the Commission, described the proposed units. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed project complied with all zoning requirements, but is not consistent with the policy requiring substantial open space adjacent to living areas. Mr. Schubach discussed complaints received by the· Building Department; ie: an on-site travel trailer, dumping of dirt on the property. He stated the owner had been contacted and the issues must be resolved prior to a building permit issuance. Comm. Di Monda asked if Staff's word processor had "standard conditions" entered. He stated the Resolutions do not always include the same conditions. Mr. Schubach stated he would assure the "24" planter box requirement" was included in future Resolu- tions. Comm. Marks stated Sheet 7 was incomplete. Comm. Ketz noted the previous C.U.P. had required a 36" planter box, not a 24" one. The 36" planter box should be a requirement. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:07 p.m. Jacob Mierop, 118 6th Street, requested a continuance to July 7, 1992, to which Mr. Schubach responded if the revised plans were received by Staff by June 27, 1992, the July 7th date was possible. Candace Ford, 1002 17th Street, referenced a letter she had written which requested action be taken prior to a permit being granted. They were: clean up the property, remove the dirt and reinstate the natural ground level, fix the fence which was damaged by trucks, removal of vermin, reimbursement for her expense in removing subterranean termites on her facing property, addressing the problem of the swimming pool and a large palm tree which serves as a home for birds and vermin which has damaged adjacent property. She stated four feet of dirt (in piles, but covering the lot) had been brought in and dumped. 5 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Mike Welch, 1004 17th Street, confirmed Ms. Ford's statements. He stated the dirt level is 4 to 6 feet over 2 / 3 's of the ·back yard and the pool has water in it and represents a danger to children. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, property owner of 1007, 1015 and 1017 17th Street properties. He stated 20 to 30 truck loads of dirt had been brought in, the soil has not be compacted and there are no retaining walls. He stated at least two stop-work orders have been put on the property, which have been ineffective. Mr. Gray felt that owners' rights should be reinstated equal to Condominiums by rezoning the properties to allow present property owners to also be able to rebuild or build Condominiums. He felt prior to granting the C.U.P., a retaining wall should be built, house trailer immediately removed and swimming pool filled. He requested that condominiums be painted two different colors and that during construction, the material and dumpsters not be allowed to be parked on the street. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 8:25 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed the dumping of dirt, the pool and the trailer on the property with Mr. Mierop. Mr. Mierop stated the pool did have water, had a fenc •:! around the pool, dirt had been dumped on the property at his orders, but additional dirt had been dumped by others in spite of the fence and lock that he had had installed. He explained how the dirt is to be used to fill the pool and stated the problems would be taken care of. The trailer was being removed the next day. He stated the dirt was piled in the back yard, but was not four feet high, had been there over one year. Comm. Di Monda requested the dirt be removed immediately. Comm. Marks requested the dirt be removed as soon as possible. Mr. Mierop stated he had not received information from Staff and had not been aware of the stated problems. Comm. Di Monda stated he thought July 7, 1992 was too soon to allow for soil removal, the pool being filled, soil compacted and to obtain a geology report. Mr. Lee stated the problems that have been noted are within the scope of the Building Department to resolve. If the matter were continued, the problems could be addressed by the applicant and the Building Department Staff could verify the actions taken. Then a determination as to project merits could be addressed and the C.U.P. could be approved, denied or continued. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Seward, to CONTINUE CON 92-6/PDP 92-5 to the Planning Commission's July 7, 1992 meeting, REQUEST the Building Dept. to respond to the Commiss ion with a report stating opinions, status and problems of thi s issue, including the actions taken to remedy those problems and REQUEST the applicant assure that the soil is removed, the pool filled and the soil compacted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None 6 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 CUP 92-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COFFEE HOUSE r AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 157 PIER AVENUE, JAVA MAN. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to Condi- tions. He explained the Conditions and options available to the Commission. Mr. Schubach then detailed the proposed changes to the existing C.U.P., stating Staff felt the business should be required to provide additional parking to compensate for expansion and mitigate any impact, a low railing or other device be provided to clearly delineate outside seating and stop encroachment into the right-of-way and that private use of public right-of-way is not appropriate as this is a major corner and has heavy pedestrian usage. Mr. Schubach confirmed to Comm. Marks that lot nos. 15 and 22 were under the same ownership. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:40 p.m. Dave Owen, 1233 Hermosa Ave., Ste. 203, project designer, 'felt that the building has been vastly improved, stating the expansion was very simple. He explained the expansion of a deck and additional seating area. He stated the applicant is willing to give up use of the public space and will not pursue use of that area. Mr. Owen stated the deck was being proposed due to the substantial grade change on the lot and the planter would perhaps have a different Rick Hankus, 157 Pier Avenue, stated he has created a non-smoking, non-drinking environment for primarily pedestrians which was of immense benefit to the downtown area, improved the corner and gave residents a place to go instead of driving to other cities. He stated his business was a nice opening to the downtown Hermosa Beach area. Comm. Suard congratulated him on the ambiance created at that corner. Mr. Hankus stated he currently had nine part-time employees, six of • which lived locally and three that parked at least two blocks from the business. Comm. Suard and Mr. Hankus discussed future parking spaces, one of which would be available for $50. per month. Mr. Hankus stated he did not want to accept the liability associated with use of public right-of-ways. Comm. Di Monda suggested a bicycle rack be fitted near the building rather than a parking space, which Mr. Hankus thought was a good idea. Tommy Steel, 726 Palm, felt Java Man offered outdoor seatin9 with a nice environment, helping to turn the City into a walking city. He supported approval of the C.U.P. Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, stated Public Works Dept. completely agreed with Planning Dept. Staff's comments; ie: a low barrier between tables and public right-of-way. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, asked the purpose of the 18" public right-of-way. The Commission responded the right-of-way was 7 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 four feet wide. She thought the area was only 18", which was insignificant. She supported approval of the C.U.P., asking that a condition be added prohibiting the use of paper plates or·cups. Susan McFarland, 25 8th Street, recommended approval of the C.U.P. She felt the business was very specific, catering to a walk-in trade, which was not a tourist-related business which did not offer alcohol. She felt the seven parking space requirement should be removed prior to approval, as parking is available in other areas. Ann Cummings, 930 exactly what was support. 14th Street, felt this needed in the downtown type of business area and stated was her Dick Mccurdy, 1113 Valley Drive, supported C.U.P. approval, noting the impact on other local businesses has been for the better. Rick Linnen, 1727 Monterey, supported approval, stating this type of business was needed within the City of Hermosa Beach. Dave Owen, during rebuttal, asked for Staff's assistance with establishment of an acceptable low railing or other device. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 9:04 p.m. Comm. Di Monda did not view the request as an expansion, but rather providing outside seating. He felt no parking spaces were neces- sary, but again suggested a bike rack be installed and a barrier or low railing be not a part of the conditions. Comms. Ketz and Suard agreed a railing was not necessary. Comm. Suard expressed concern regarding parking, suggesting a total of two parking spaces be required. Chmn. Merl concurred with Comms. Di Monda and Ketz. He felt the business helped the community and was important to the downtown area. He stated he would have no problem in approving use of the right-of-way area and allowing the applicant, at a later time, the ability to pursue that option with the City Council and the Public Works Dept. Comm. Marks felt a bicycle rack should be a requirement. Comm. Di Monda felt the applicant should be able to serve coffee at the outside tables and clean them thereafter, suggesting that restriction be lifted, to which Chmn. Merl agreed. After discussion between Mr. Lee and the Commission, it was determined conditions could not be changed without notice, service could not be given to the outside tables while not allowing the same service at indoor tables; cleaning of the tables is allowed. Asked by Comm. Di Monda, the applicant stated he would like to have table service, as it would help the customer flow and service quality. Comm. Di Monda asked if this issue could be continued· to allow re-noticing and the use of three tables in the outdoor area could be continued during that time. The applicant agreed to this proposal. Mr. Lee stated instruction as to Condition changes would be appropriate at the continued Public Hearing, noting that direction 8 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 was currently needed in order to define for Staff the scope of re-noticing. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz to CONTINUE this item to allow for renotification, DIRECT Staff to revise Section I, Page 6, deleting the third sentence starting with, " ... the boundary between ... " , deleting paragraph 2 , change paragraph 4 to read, "A sign shall be posted in a conspicuous location," and delete Page 7, paragraph 7. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl Comm. Suard None None Comm. Suard noted his disapproval was regarding only the parking situation. Ch.mn. Merl confirmed outside service of tables would continue during this period of continuance. A break was taken from 9:18 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. CUP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH (continued from 2/4, 3/17, 4/21 and 5/19/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating the City Traffic Engineer did not support allowing a right turn out of the driveway. Staff believed closure of the 10th Street driveway was a preferable alternative, with "left-turn only" and "exit only" signs as an alternative. Noise readings had been obtained but were difficult to read due to the high levels of noise caused by traffic. Supple- mental information indicated a violation of the noise ordinance. A compressor and a high-pressure water hose are being used, contri- buting to the noise levels. This violation requires corrective action be taken. Staff recommended the applicant contact Staff to assist in the resolution of this problem. The applicant must assure the noise level is reduced to acceptable levels. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:29 p.m. Peter Paldino, project architect, 215 Pier Avenue, addressed the noise level and drive way issues. He state the noise readings were taken with the blower off, with a 58 to 61 Ob's reading as a result of highway noise, and with the blower on, with a 63 to 69 Db's reading, both over the maximum allowable. He questioned the 55 Db' s requirement, feeling it was a low standard. Mr. Paldino described the efforts made by the applicant, stating he felt the block wall would be expensive to build and not particularly effective. Mr. Schubach explained the basis of the "55 Ob's 9 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 standard", noting the applicant had to reduce the noise level to the ambient {58-61 Ob's), but the noise levels must be reduced to Code required levels. Comm. Di Monda stated the ambient noise level would be dependent upon the time of day the tests were taken. He discussed the current enclosure and noise level reduction with Mr. Paldino, who stated there remained one more internal mechanism can be addressed to reduce sound which would be addressed within 30 days. Mr. Schubach stated another reading could be taken after completion of that correction, if the Commission so desired. Mr. Paldino requested the drive way remain open as the drive way is used only for exiting of detailed cars, with a maximum of 6 to 7 cars per day. He stated if the drive way were closed, the detail- ing portion of the business will also be closed. Richard O'Bryan, 1000 Pacific Coast Highway, stated the equipment is below ground level and is enclosed, with awnings hung to prevent noise from escaping. He stated the noise levels have been reduced by 5 to 7 Ob's. He stated the Police Dept. had "passed" the noise level as being within the ambient sound level and that additional muffling had been accomplished since that time. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had not used the 1990 Police reports, which stated the applicant was in violation, because it was felt they did not take the ambient at a location that Staff was satisfied with. Comm. Di Monda discussed use of a remote vacuum to reduce noise with Mr. O'Bryan. Comm. Marks suggested the two open ends be enclosed with "strip" plastic, to which the applicant expressed concern relating to possible damage to the cars. Comm. Di Monda discussed the number of complaints received by Staff with Mr. Schubach. Although not a large outcry, neighbors up the street stated they heard more of the noise than those adjacent to the establishment because the nois1e traveled upwards. Mr. Lee stated that City Code provided that when commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses, the Dba noise level could be 60 Ob's between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and at 55 Ob's after 10:00 p.m. This should be considered in relationship to the ambient. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 9:50 p.m. Comm. Marks felt another opportunity to lessen the noise level should be given to the applicant. Comm. Di Monda felt a continuance was inappropriate, feeling the Commission should give suggestions for correction, approve the C.U.P. and review the situation in six months' time. He then itemized the· areas of concern which would be reviewed during the six month review. He suggested a noise level reading be conducted at 5:30 p.m. as he did not feel he knew what the ambient noise levels really were and felt Staff should provide additional ambient noise level information. He also felt the actions taken to date were of benefit to the community and the applicant had made an honest effort to resolve the issues. 10 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Comm. Suard stated the applicant would be required to adhere to the Code requirements. He felt a reading of the ambient noise level on a Sunday morning was just as important as a 5:00 p.m. reading, noting residents should have their "quiet time". MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE C.U.P. 91-18, deleting Paragraph 3, Sentence (b) and allowing the drive way to remain open, with a chain and a left-turn only sign, Page 5, Paragraph 11 to be changed to allow the operation of vacuum cleaners as long as the City noise ordinance requirements are met, Page 5, Paragraph 13, delete item (a) and replace with a statement requiring a six-month review and to DIRECT Staff to obtain more Oba information relating to the noise levels at this location at 5 : 0 0-5 : 3 0 p. m. week days and on Sunday mornings, in order to resolve this problem. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chinn. Merl Comm. Marks None None Chmn. Merl stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR CON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL {continued from 2/18, 4/7 and 5/5/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To continue to a specific date. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant still needed to provide additional information which had been delayed, in part, by an illness in the developer's family, necessitating his being out of the country. He stated addition or relocation of a traffic signal has been opposed by the Traffic Engineer and would probably be opposed by Cal Trans, which has approved the proposed plan and submitted traffic study as adequate. Mr. Schubach discussed the responses received from a survey regarding a street closure, of which the majority supported ( 36/20). He noted the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans had indicated no opposition to the street closure, but a public hearing and general agreement by residents and businesses, as well as a General Plan Amendment would be necessary. Mr. Schubach noted records of incidence f rem other adult restaurants is highly variable; similar restaurants have had few incidents. Staff had attempted to float balloons to measure height but the test was affected by turbulence. Staff did find little difference between 35 and 40 feet, in that the view would be obstructed with either height or expansion of an existing building on First Street to the west of this location. Mr. Schubach stated Staff did not believe a wall higher than 6 feet is necessary; the applicant would be advised if the Commission felt a higher wall was needed. Staff also did not believe the hotel would create any 11 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 changes in pedestrian circulation within the cross-walks currently existing. The property notified of the necessity to clean the site and would be taken care of by the end of June, 1992. area, with area owner has been has indicated it Mr. Lee noted a concern that under the permit streamlining act, a set period of time is established in which to approve/deny a project, explaining the amount of time as it related to this project. He explained the difficulties relating to this project, stating the maximum date in which to approve/deny this project would be mid-August 1992 (unless the applicant asked for another time extension). • Comm. Di Monda asked what constituted "general agreement" among residents. Mr. Lee responded residents would have the opportunity to protest either vacation or closure, and the City Council has the right to make the decision. Comm. Di Monda felt this statement in the Staff Report was misleading, to which Mr. Lee offered to further research and present the particulars to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda noted the notice was advertised as "recommended for continuance". Chmn. Merl felt the project had been continued many times and now should be addressed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 10:10 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, 49 So. Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, applicant's representative, explained the delay was due to the applicant's father's d~ath, which necessitated the applicant leaving the Country prior to leaving instructions. Mr. Yeh requested an extension of time until probably July 1992 in order to discuss .the Commission's concerns with the property owner, who is scheduled to return at that time. He felt the property could be best served by the placement of a hotel on it, rather than a shopping center or other purposes. Phil Wagner, 601 5th Street, stated his surprise that a project of this magnitude was being considered so close to his property. He felt other residents were not aware of the proposed project. He then discussed the type of clientele a hotel would generate, the projected increase in traffic which he felt would have a negative impact and explained traffic would have to pass in front of his property if the hotel is built. He requested that heavy trucks be prohibited if construction of the hotel is approved. Mr. Schubach stated a copy of the survey would be given to Mr. Wagner. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, stated a November 1991, which set the height limit at the requirements of a "grandfather clause" should be the height limit on this building. been granted to this project during a public building is "wide open". "vote" had been taken 35 feet. He discussed and stated he felt 35 No special rights had meeting. He noted the Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 10:21 p.m. 12 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 The Commission discussed with Mr. Lee the 35-feet height limit, which did not apply to this particular project due to the City's continued direction given to the developer, and the project should be "grandfathered". Comm. Di Monda discussed his concern regarding the continuances, noting that the "streamlining act" is not being violated if the applicant requested another continuance, which Mr. Lee confirmed. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm.-Di Monda, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to the Planning Commission August 4, 1992 meeting. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Merl suggested Staff convey to the applicant the Gommission probably will not allow further continuances. Comm. Suard noted the applicant was waiting for determinations from the Commission relating to trash enclosure placement and wall height. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had committed to clean up the site. The Commission wished to monitor clean-up progress and completion. HEARINGS CON 90-8 A REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 626 7TH STREET. Recommended Action: To grant six month extension. Mr. Schubach referenced difficulty in construction due to the economy. He discussed previous action taken by the Commission, described the project and property location, stating the proposed project was in the R-2 zone and is consistent with the open space 'policy statement. Staff recommended approval of the requested six-month extension. Mr. Schubach stated State law would limit the amount of further extensions. He wished the applicant to under- stand this limitation on any future extensions. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Staff's recommendation and APPROVE a six-month 90-8. Suard, to extension AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chinn. Merl Co.mm. Marks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None accept of CON CON 90-20 A REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 10TH STREET. 13 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Recommended Action: To grant six month extension. Mr. Schubach referenced difficulty in construction due to the economy. He discussed previous action taken by the Commission, described the project and property location, stating the proposed project was in the R-2 zone and is inconsistent with the open space policy statement as this open space is on the loft level decks. Mr. Schubach commented the Commission must decide between granting the extension based on approved plans or requiring modifications regarding the open space. Staff recommended approval of the requested six-month extension as this was the first request for an extension. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Merl, to accept Staff's recommendation and APPROVE a six-month extension of CON 90-20. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chinn. Merl Comm. Marks None None PS 92-1 POLICY STATEMENT TO DETERMINE THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR A DO-IT-YOURSELF BREWERY. Recommended Action: To classify the proposed do-it-yourself brewery as "hobby supply" and initiate a text amendment to add "do-it-your-self brewery" as a permitted use. Mr. Schubach reiterated Staff's recommendation and noted the Commission's alternatives. The State Alcoholic Beverage Control has ruled this business would not require a license. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stated the business would .not be regulated, but the beer produced must be for personal use only. He stated the applicant requested the Commission declare business to be a hobby supply business, which was within the purview of the Commission, subject to City Council's confirmation. He then explained the determinations to be made by the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated no detailed floor or parking plans had been submitted. He noted the differences between this proposed business and other hobby stores, stated Staff had reservations in stating brewing of beer was a hobby and noted the brewing processes and equipment which could result in emissions and odors being released. Staff supports and encourages businesses an enhancements of downtown business activity, but is not convinced this classifi- cation would be prudent. The recommended definition and policy statement would be an interim measure, permitting the proposed business to operate prior to final adoption of a text amendment. He stated a cautious approach would be consideration of sponsoring an amendment adding this business to the permitted use list with a C.U.P. requirement, which would require the application to submit an application. He referenced a letter from the City Manager in support of this proposed business. 14 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 Comm. Di Monda discussed draft Policy Statement, I. (e) with Mr. Schubach, stating I. (a) , (b) , ( c) and ( d) should be deleted, as these paragraphs are covered by I.(e). Mr. Schubach stated removal of those paragraphs would delete any City-level enforcements and control. Mr. Lee stated the Stated and Federal regulations could be adopted by reference as the local regulations, of which para- graph I. ( e) doesn't necessarily apply. After discussion between Messrs. Lee and Schubach and Comm. Di Monda regarding the issue of enforcement, Chmn. Merl suggested "adoption by reference''. Comm. Di Monda suggested the parking requirement be deleted since a major parking lot was located within 50 feet. Messrs. Schubach and Lee suggested a parking code be maintained for this business. Comm. Ketz stated an individual site was not being reviewed, but rather a category, to which the Commission agreed. Comm. Suard discussed his concerns regarding regulation of emissions, to which Mr. Lee responded with information regarding A.Q.M.D. authority and enforcement. Comm. Di Monda felt the parking requirements would be redundant, stating he had a problem listing what is already within the zoning ordinance and referenced general retail and hobby shop current parking requirements. Chmn. Merl invited the applicant to speak. Patricia Spiritus, 115 Longfellow, said she hoped to have judged competitions, but would not have a tasting room. She confirmed the brewing area will have a maximum of 10 kettles of approximately 10 gallons each. The "yeasty" odors will be contained via a hood filtration system. She stated appointments will be made for the two-hour process. Comm. Di Monda felt that the Commission should not be analyzing all businesses and creating bureaucratic paperwork, but should be looking at the businesses to determine which could be put into existing permitted uses. He felt this business qualified as a "hobby" shop. He stated that if Staff was confused regarding what a potential business would be listed as, it should be brought to the attention of the Commission, but saw no need to list what is adopted by reference (which should be sufficient). He felt the parking requirement would be met by the parking lot across the street from the proposed business. Comm. Ketz asked what the City's recourse would be if odor became a problem. Mr. Lee responded a complaint could be filed with the A.Q.M.D., who has specific regulations and personnel for investi- gation. Mr. Lee agreed to present State Regulations which gave authority to the A.Q.M.D. to regulate odors. Comms. Marks and Di Monda discussed the parking issue. Mr. Lee reiterated the Commis- sion's determination during this meeting was only whether or not the do-it-yourself brewery should be classified as a hobby supply/ retain use, with parking being addressed by the applicant at a later date when he/she asked for a variance or presented a parking plan. Mr. Lee referenced "Requirements subsection F", which is not 15 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 specifically called out in the State and Federal regulations. He stated it might be advisable for local purposes to have this as a requirement and recommended additional verbiage, "Do-it-yourself breweries shall be considered the same as hobby shop", subject to the same requirements. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to FIND that a "do-it-yourself brewery" is a "hobby shop", allowing the _applicant to continue the requirement permit process and Staff can bring back a Text Amendment of their concerns at their convenience. AYES: NOES: Conuns. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chinn. Merl None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None P-10 VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE {continued) from May 19., 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To review Staff's report to City Council and confirm Planning Commission recommendation. Comm. Di Monda fe lt the Commission might wish to give alternatives in its recommendation to the City Council. The Commission agreed this item should be continued. Mr. Schubach commented the Council could require this item prior to further review by the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Ketz, that due to the lateness of the hour, this item be CONTINUED to Planning Commission's July 21, 1992 meeting. No objections, so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Correspondence from MultiVision regarding cablecasting Planning Commission meetings. The Commission jointly expressed its incredibility over the letter content. Mr. Schubach stated the implementation had been postponed for a short period to allow City Council review. He stated he would present the Commission's comments and the Commission members could attend the Council meeting. He stated that MultiVision had stated essentially that Manhattan Beach City Council comes first, with this Commission second. The Commission discussed the possibility of changing the meetings to Wednesday evenings, reaching no decision. Comm. Suard felt Hermosa Beach is currently scheduled and Manhattan Beach should reschedule their requested time, unless the reason for change was a valid one. RECEIVE AND FILE 16 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 J ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11:18 p.m. Ho 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 June 16, 1992. Rod Merl; Ch Date 17 P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 ,· .. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 2. 1992. AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl Comm. Suard Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, F. Paul Corneal, Building Inspector Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary Comm. Di Monda pulled the May 19, 1992 Minutes, requesting Page 7, Paragraph 7, the conversation between himself and Mr. Terry be almost verbatim. Comm. Di Monda stated Mr. Terry had written a report in the Planning Commission's name which did not reflect the vote the Commission had made, and he wanted this fact clearly displayed in the minutes. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 92-10 and P.C. 92-29. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl None None Comm. Suard MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz to APPROVE Minutes of April 21, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl None None Comm. Suard COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to addressed the Planning Commission regarding item not shown on the meeting agenda. an 1 P.C.Minutes , 6/2/92 ~ PUBLIC HEARING L-5 LEGAL DETERMINATION HEARING TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF ANY EXISTING SIX-UNIT APARTMENT LOCATED AT 1150 MANHATTAN AVENUE (continued from April 21, 1992 meeting.). Recommended Action: To determine said property to be legal for five-unit apartment. Mr. Paul Corneal, Building Inspector, gave the Staff Report, stating the Building and Planning Department had not received any additional rebuttal information during the continuance period. He stated that department's opinion was the site was legal for a five-unit apartment building. Comm. Marks understood the property was legal for four units, to which Mr. Corneal responded by describing the on-site buildings and the five-unit legal status. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:07 p.m. Ron Christianson, 2513 Harriman Lane, Redondo Beach, proper~y manager, stated the property was purchased by the previous owner in 1965, with the current owner inheriting it in 1991, and title information was impossible to obtain. He questioned the accuracy of the real estate listing and referenced a July 1941 remodel permit. He stated the unit could have been legal due to the change in requirements over the years, no one was aware of what had been done or told to the listing real estate agent. He felt that not enough information was available to allow a legal determination at this time. Comm. Marks stated the tax records would reflect the property listing, to which Mr. Christianson stated it was shown as a rumpus room, but that the unit had existed for over 30 years and was now being questioned as a legal residence. Comm. Di Monda stated an entire unit existed and questioned the purchase of that property wi t h a real estate agent's disclosure of an illegal unit, to which Mr. Christianson stated the owner who had purchased the property 30 years ago was deceased and no pertinent facts are available. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 7:15 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to DETERMINE the property located at 1150 Manhattan Avenue to be legal for a five- unit apartment building. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl None None Comm. Suard VAR 92-2 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 250 SQUARE FEET ADDITION TO A NON-CONFORMING TRIPLEX AT 336 THE STRAND AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAID VARIANCE AT 336 THE STRAND. 2 P.C.Minutes 6/2/92 Recommended Action: To deny requested variance. Mr. Schubach described the current buildings, the history of construction of those buildings, discussed the proposed addition, noted the non-conforming use with only one parking space per unit and noted the Staff Environmental Review Committee's belief that there were no grounds for a variance. Mr. Schubach then described the proposed addition and explained the non-conformities. He com- mented the addition of a deck would provide additional open space, the granting of the variance would not adversely effect the General Plan or be materially detrimental or injurious and the parking was sufficient for the Planning Commission to allow the 250 square feet addition, but the variance was necessary due to the non-conforming use. He stated the two issues for consideration were: ( 1) were there grounds for a variance and (2) if a non-conforming use should be allowed any expansion at all. He then explained the request determinants and stated the applicant felt he would be gaining rights the surrounding property owners currently have which impact upon his property. Mr. Schubach noted the property currently has the best access to ocean views ,and construction might result in view obstruction of other properties. Mr. Schubach stated denial is recommended to the the first finding required for variances, in that Staff finds nothing exceptional or unique about the property physical characteristics. The current ordinance requires one unit on the property, which would restore the applicant's rights he stated he is being denied. He noted the number of existing area nonconformities and parking problems, recommending denial of this application. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:22 p.m. Ken McDonald, project architect, requested this item be continued since only four Commission Members were present. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and at 7:24 pm, after UNANIMOUS APPROVAL (4-0) by the Commission, Chmn. Merl CONTINUED the public hearing to June 16, 1992. CUP 92/9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR AT 1017 AVIATION, A.K.A. 1205 BONNIE BRAE, KING-BEAR AUTO CENTER. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit. ~r. Schubach stated a C.U.P. is currently required with a temporary operation agreement having been granted with the understanding that ,continued operation was pending the Commission's action. • He noted the current business is located in a building that was used for auto repair by the previous tenant and had adequate parking facilities. Mr. Schubach noted the complaints received regarding compressor noise emition, explained the applicant was willing to provide soundproofing and a timer to eliminate compressor cycling during business hours. He discussed Staff's concern regarding the 3 P.C.Minutes 6/2/92 lack of trash enclosure, an existing chain link/barbed wire fence and the recommendation for new landscaping and hours of operations of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Public Hearing opened by Chrnn. Merl at 7:26 p.m. Bernard Robins, applicant, explained due to the lack of trash, he wished to provide a small enclosure with four trash cans. At the time of pick-up, the trash would be "bagged" and placed at the curb. This would keep the large trash truck from entering the property and preserve one parking space. Mr. Robins noted the compressor had been on the property for 17 years, it used to be used for raising lifts but currently was only being used for handheld tools and did not understand why complaints were currently being received. The 5-hp, 80 gal. compressor is in a separate metal building which will be soundproofed. He stated the compressor could not be moved inside the building due to lack of room or on the roof as a new steel structure would be required to support the weight. Mr. Robins agreed to remove the barbed wire but requested that the cyclone fence remain. He explained that an additional wall was behind the fence and landscaping could not be planted at the fence location. Landscaping was only at the front of the building. H. Finnenberg, property owner, purchased the property in 1973 and had received a complaint regarding the compressor. He was told by the City that he had only to make sure it did not start during the night, which he did. He stated his wish to cooperate with the complaining neighbor. Mariano Alvarez, 1212 Ocean Drive, stated his bedroom is located next to the compressor. He works nights and is continually awakened by the compressor. He suggested the c9mpressor be relocated. Steve Slimmons, 1220 Ocean Drive, stated he was concerned about the parking, in that the employees park on the street. He requested that business parking be limited on Bonny Brae and redistributed to other area streets. He stated that although he also hears the compressor, that was not his primary concern. Charles Ernst, interested party, stated soundproofing could be place within the compressor room to satisfy Mr. Alvarez'. sleeping problem. He felt the noise problem had been over exaggerated and explained how the compressor worked and how often it "came on". He ,acknowledged it made noise when it was on, but stated it did not turn on very often. He stated time and effort had put expended to upgrade the facility and objected to the removal of the fence. He requested that the hours of operation be changed on Saturdays to be 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Comm. Marks suggested the compressor not be turned on until 12:00 p.m., to which Mr. Ernst objected as it would 4 P.C.Minutes 6/2/92 not allow work to be accomplished prior to that time, expanding his statements by explaining how a compressor worked. He reiterated a sound retardant would be supplied in the compressor building and a container would be built to assure trash would not be visible. Comm. Marks and Mr. Ernst continued to discuss noise levels and relocation of the compressor, with Mr. Ernst requesting that a noise level reading be taken in order to establish the necessary for relocation of the compressor. Joan Richmond, no address given, challenged the right of the Commission to force closure of businesses on Sundays. Mr. Lee responded the imposed condition related to proper time, place and manner, not prohibitions having to do with any religious require- ments or functions. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Schubach explained an oversight had been made which was noted in the Staff Report but not in the Resolution. The Standard Conditions should include landscaping requirements as to the type of materials to be placed in the on-site planter box and the rear-building setback area plantings. He noted the barbed wire and chainlink fence is not allowed by the Zoning Code. He requested the addition of: Condition 4. Landscaping shall be provided in the front, rear, and existing planter box. Type of material shall be approved by the Planning Director, and landscaping maintained. by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to APPROVE recommendations with the requested change of Saturday hours to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and addition of Condition MOTION Staff's business No.4. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comins. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Chmn. Merl None None ComIR. Suard a. REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REGARDING AN YOUTH CENTER AS A PROPOSED USE AT 329 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Mr. Schubach explained Staff was seeking direction relating to this ;item. He explained the proposed business, noting the Code did not , provide a category that "fit" this usage. He noted Code categories 1 that were close, but not exact. He asked if the use should be added, defined and a Text Amendment initiated or if definition should fall within the current categories. Comm. Marks discussed ' possible parking requirements with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda suggested these activities might be located at the Com- munity Center, noting the Community Center was available to provide 5 P.C.Minutes 6/2/92 this type of proposed activity, to which Comm. Ketz agreed. Chmn. Merl invited Mr. Neiswonger to speak regarding this item. Christopher Neiswonger, 13708 Cordarry, Hawthorne, stated the basic business nature was a "coffee house" to which the Community Center would not suffice, as this business will be open most days and evenings, will cater to the late-teens, is not necessarily religious in nature, will do counseling referrals, provide a place to "hang out" other than the beach, will not serve drinks, but will provide a form of entertainment (not staged events). He felt the referral service · was necessary as a moral obligation. While not being a major part of the business, nor sponsored by any youth organization, it would offer a less hostile environment for the younger people. Mr. Neiswonger stated he had never identified himself with any youth organization, but rather a place for "kids" to hang out prior to curfew and a place for adults after curfew. Mr. Schubach noted caution is necessary regarding the allowance of entertaining because it could be out of control. Mr. Neiswonger responded to Mr. Lee's question by stating he expected to be a "for profit" business, but that would be based upon receipt of donations, only. Chmn. Merl noted to solicit money, an organization must be established, to which Mr. Lee agreed that a permitting process in terms of solicitation was required. Mr. Neiswonger explained the property owner was willing to rent the property to him at under market value, but declined to give names and addresses of people that would support his efforts in this endeavor, as he hadn't written them down. He discussed his reasons for choosing Hermosa Beach as a site with Comm. Marks. Chmn. Merl established that entertainment, per se, required a permit. Mr. Schubach noted that Mr. Lee had suggested the business be considered a "coffee shop". Comm. Ketz stated this operation sounded similar to other coffee shops and shouldn't necessarily be treated any differently. Comm. Di Monda stated the proposed business was changing as Mr. Neiswonger was speaking and suggested Mr. Neiswonger r econsider the nature of the business for represen- tation to the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to RECEIVE and FILE. No objections, so ordered. Comm. Di Monda suggested Mr. Neiswonger return to the Planning Director at a later date with a definition of business which would be more clear. Chmn. Merl's recommended that Mr. Neiswonger also check the very strict and precise County requirements relating to • donations and funding, which was outside the jurisdiction of the ,Commission. b. STATUS REPORT REGARDING FENCE AT 151 HERMOSA AVENUE. Staff was requested to continue follow up and initiate a memorandum to the Commission every two weeks, assuring the 6 P.C.Minutes 6/2/92 Deputy City Manager is still in the process of writing the property owner. RECEIVE AND FILE. c. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF APRIL, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. d. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Chmn. Merl noted another item, as well as the issue regarding 336 The Strand, had been added to the proposed June 16, 1992 agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE. e. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 12 AND MAY 14, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda requested the Planning Commission send a letter of complaint to the City Manager regarding the De puty City En~ineer, Mr. Terry, regarding the Beach Drive Parking r eport , in which Mr. Terry admitted to putting information into the report which was his opinion and not the Commission's opinion. Comm. Di Monda felt this action was highly improper. Comm. Marks agreed with this requested action. Comm. Ketz expressed her concern because the action had taken place a year ago and Mr. Terry did not include the minutes for review by the Commission. Mr. Schubach noted that a different action had previously been taken to which Mr. Terry did not refer. Mr. Schubach stated Mr. Terry had not been aware of that action, and further, it was the final recommendation which Mr. Terry was discussing. • MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to DIRECT Staff to send a letter of complaint to the City Manager. No objection, so ordered. Comm. Di Monda stated the Beach Drive Report still has not been written. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to DIRECT Staff to send a letter of complaint to the City Ma nager asking him to inform the Deputy Engineer that a high priority ·has been established for this item, that the Deputy Engineer should work on items sent to him by Council and Commissions prior to working on self-sugges ted items, not the other way around. No objection, so ordered. • 7 P.C.Minutes 6/2/92 Mr. Schubach commented it was his understanding that Mr. Terry haa been awaiting the approved minutes from the previous Commission meeting in order to obtain the information necessary to provide to the City Council. However, it was indicated previously that submittal to the Commission prior to the Council was requested. If this could not be done, a memorandum to the Commission should have been forthcoming; which was not done. Chmn. Merl stated that historically, it has been problematic to get information or action on the subject matter. The Commission wished to be expeditious in dealing with this matter. Comm. Di Monda discussed the possibility of meeting with the Coastal Commission regarding the green belt issue. After discussion, the Commission decided that Comm. Di Monda should represent himself and not the Commission at such a meeting. Comm. Marks discussed RUDAT, referenced the May 21, 1992, at the Lighthouse. Comm. Ketz, who had attended the meeting, discussed the actions of that meeting. She then referenced the City Council liaison and discussed the L.A.T.C. Subregional Incentive Program with Mr. Schubach. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Merl, to adjourn at 8:30 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 June 2, 1992. Rod Merl, Chairman Date 8 P.C.Minutes· 6/2/92 ..... MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 19, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Merl. ' ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comms~ Di Monµa, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to (1) CONTINUE the April 21, 1992 Minutes to allow expansion of paragraph 2, Page 9, and APPROVE the following Consent Calendar items : Minutes of the May 5, 1992 Planning Commission meeting Resolution P.C. 92-23, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23258, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 628 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 92-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING.A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW AN AMUSEMENT ARCADE (SPECIFIC TO SLOT CAR RACING) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INCIDENTAL SALE OF SLOT CARS AND RELATED ITEMS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 950 AVIATION BOULEVARD (SUITES A &B). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, and Suard None Chmn. Ketz None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH (continued from February 4, March 17, and April 21, 1992 1992 Meetings). 1 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 3 (1) Recommended Action: To continue to June 16, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the Police Department, due to its involvement in riot containment, had not had the time to assist Staff with the requested noise metering. Staff recommended continuance to allow the Police Departm~nt the time necessary. Public ~earing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:03 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Ketz closed the Public Hearing at 7:03 p.m. MOTION b¥ Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE this item until the Planni ng Commission's June 16, 1992 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 92-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20876 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AT 612 TENTH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. Comm. Di Monda absented himself from this item because he was noticed due to being within the 300 feet area. Mr. Schubach stated the already-constructed building had received an approved C.U.P. in 1989, but had not obtained a Certificate of Occupancr, nor the final map. He described the project, noting substantial compliance with Zoning standards. Mr. Schubach furnished the landscape plan to the Commission for perusal. Comm. Marks felt that a three story building with one exit was an unsafe structure. No one wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Ketz closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CON 92-5, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20876 for a two-unit condominium subdivision at 612 Tenth Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks Comm. Di Monda None Chmn. Ketz stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. 2 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 CUP 92-2 · CONDITIONAL .USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 807 21ST STREET, 2ND STREET RESTAURANT (continued from March 3 and April 7, 1992 meetings). Recommended Action:-To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the Negative Declaration. Mr. Schuba~h stated this item had been continued to allow.a parking agreement to be obtained and limits on noise levels and hours of entertainment to be reviewed. He stated a parking agreement had been obtained which is satisfactory. Staff recommended { 1) the hours of entertainment be limited to 10:00 p.m. daily, (2) the musicians be limited to only acoustic instruments, with indirect amplification and (3) a six-month review. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:13 p.m. Richard Limbasuta, 807 21st Street, stated he agreed with all the conditions except the limited hours of operation. He stated customers do not start arriving until after 7:00 and requested the hours of entertainment be increased allow music until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Art Mackey, musician, stated only one small speaker would be used; the noise level has been not been a problem in the past. He stated dinner music is being played; it's very subdued. Comm. Marks noted that the music was being limited due to resident complains of noise. He suggested an application be submitted after six months, when the residents are satisfied with the level of no i se. Comm. Di Monda discussed methods of amplification ( specifically through a microphone) with Mr. Mackey. • Paul Amarelus, 123 33rd Street, spoke in support, stating he enjoyed soft jazz music during dinner. He noted the bass beat is very low and expressed his surprise that complaints r~garding noise were received. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:20 p.m. Comm. Suard did not see a difference between amplification through a microphone or direct amplifier. He felt amplification of the bass should be allowed since noise limitations were already established, extend the hours of entertainment to 11: 00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Comms. Merl, Di Monda and Chmn. Ketz agreed. In respond to Comm. Di Monda' s inquiry, Mr. Schubach discussed Staff's intent relating to Condition No. 16. Mr. Schubach noted a six month review with two specific changes to be considered at that time, as well as any other problems which might occur. Comm. Di Monda discussed tracking to determine the effectivity and/or success of mitigation measures, requesting this item be returned to the Commission in six-months. Comm. Di Monda referenced page 6, No. 13, discussing with Mr. Schubach the inclusion of conditions relating to Public Works, Fire Department, etc. requirements. Comms. Merl and Di Monda felt redundant conditions should be eliminated; many of which were established through State and City • 3 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 f "• , r .' l codes .•• Mr~: Lee . explained .why redundancies were present within the C.U.P.s amd the issue was discussed among the Commission and Staff. Mr. Lee suggested ··a provision in all C.U.P.s be added stating, "There shall be compliance with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code", to which the Commission agreed. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE CUP 92-2 to allow live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant, and adoption of a . Negative Declaration at 807 21st Street, 2nd Street Restaurant, subject to conditions to include: (l) removal · of Condition No. 13 and replacement by the statement, "There shall be compliance with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code", (2) Condition No. 9 be revised with the hours of entertainment to be from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, and from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.rn. on Sundays through Thursdays, (3) Section II, Paragraphs 7(d) and 13 be deleted, and (4) to include language within Paragraph 16 to assure this item will definitely return to the Commission for review in six months. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comma. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated this item was approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. HEARINGS CON 90-7 A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22156 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 829 15TH STREET. Recommended Action: To grant a six-month extension. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval of extension of the C.U.P. to November 15, 1992 and the Parcel Map to June 15, 1993. He detailed the project-approval history, described the structures and explained the difficulties experienced by the applicant in obtaining financing. The term "lis pend ens" was explained by Mr. Lee for the Commission's information, noting it appeared to have been filed in error and would be removed, clearing title and allowing the applicant to possibly obtain his requested loan. Responding to Comm. Marks inquiry, Mr. Schubach stated this project had not been "grandfathered", and without the extension being granted, the applicant would have to reapply. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:42 p.rn. Raymond Levert, 12741 Bellflower Blvd, Downey, explained that at the time he pulled the print, he discovered the lien against the previous property owner. He explained the actions taken to remove the lien and to obtain a construction loan. Mr. Levert discussed the hardships that will be experienced if the extension is not 4 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 approved. He stated he did not submit the original plans and the original plan check expired. He bought the property December 1, 1991 and resubmitted the plans during April 1992. The lis pendens had been recorded December 10, 1991. Mr. Lee explained the process of· f -iling a II lis pendens 11 • Comm. Di Monda requested that support documentation be supplied to the Commission if this request is again presented in six. months. Additionally, as a general rule, documentation covering similar requests should be supplied. to ::the Commission. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:49 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE a six- month extension of CON 90-7 C.U.P. and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22156 for a two-unit condominium at 829 15th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: P-10 Cornms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE. Recommended Action: To reaffirm the conditions approved by the Planning Commission at the July 2, 1991 meeting. Mr. Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, gave the Staff Report, noted this item had previously been heard by the Commission on April 16, 1991. He itemized the progress of this item through the Commission and City Council, noting the Council's decision to concentrate on Beach Drive, alone. He itemized the conditions p·reviously approved and requested reaffirmation by the Commission; then he itemized the conditions previously approved. Using a display map, Mr. Terry discussed the affected lots and discussed current parking of vehicles upon those lots. Comm. Di Monda noted an actual count of the amount of cars parking on those lots had not been obtained. Mr. Terry stated the average number of cars on both sides of Beach Drive counted during July, August and September of 1991 was between 60 and 70, not 200 as initially stated (which was based upon a compaction of properties). Comm. Merl and Mr. Terry discussed the timing for project completion and the approval of necessary encroachment permits. Comm. Marks and Mr. Terry discussed the number of corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:00 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., represented a client at 542 6th Street. He suggested the City vacate the land which would result in putting the land back on the tax rolls, obtain tax revenue and the City would not need to obtain insurance for that land. He stated the City could impose building and parking restrictions. He 5 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 discussed tp.e possibility that encroachment permits would not: be obtained and the current insurance liability. Mr. Compton felt the entire City should be reviewed as to land vacation, resulting ·in additional revenue for the City. He stated of the 32 east side corner lots, 15 are being utilized ·and of the 32 on The Strand, 29 are being utilized. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton discussed the approval history of Mr. Compton's client's project and compared the parking pattern and situations within Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. Comm. Marks and Mr. Compton discussed the impact upon the property owners if the land were vacated. Susan McFarland, 25 8th Street, distributed three photographs for the Commission's review after determining they had not previously received copies. She stated she had been concerned and involved in the walk street situation since 1978, noting the situation has escalated to include illegal curb cuts, walls removed and illegal vehicle entry and parking on the front portion of the walk streets. She requested a "strong review" of this situation be immediately conducted and that enforcement of vehicle violations be immediate. Chris Waggerman, 19 8th Street, stated the parking problems are continuing to increase, with landscaping being removed to enable more parking. She had been involved in this issue since 1978 and supported Staff's recommendation. She requested that "no parking" at all corners be implemented and enforcement be immediate. She asked that laws not remain in the "books" if they are not going to be enforced. Jim Listener, 2715 Eloesty, stated the nicest lots in town were those on the walk streets east of Beach Drive and west of Hermosa Avenue. He commented he did not understand why parking lots would be put in front of the views. He felt the City Council had sent the message that parking lots in front of natural settings were not wanted and supported Staff's recommendation. Chuck Sheldon, 800 The Strand, discussed the lengt~'of testimony regarding this item and noted the substantial differences in parking ordinances and topography between Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. He felt it was erroneous to compare the two cities. He discussed the complex issues associated with land vacation by the City and felt the Planning Commission did not have sufficient data to currently make a decision. He stated he and other residents were concerned about the City's position regarding the issue of vacation and assumed land title. He noted the 65 years of use by the property owners and protested the removal of the owner's parking rights. He stated he submitted plans to the Building Department in 1985 which showed no guest parking except at the rear of the lot, which were approved. He discussed parking with Comm. Marks, stating he had not and does not consider parking on the rear of the lot illegal. Comm. Marks and Mr. Terry discussed the choice to not enforce parking requirements in that area until the City Council took its final action. Mr. Terry noted that prior to that decision parking requirements were enforced. - 6 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 Paul Shank, 1838 The Strand, said his property is a corner lot with parking on the east side and landscaping on the west. He felt the previous extensive review and analysis had been a superb compro- mise. Be felt residents were entitled to parking because when the properties were purchased, parking was allowed. He sympathized with the situation on 8th Street, but felt that a "witch hunt" should not begin because of one situation. Jean English, 30 13th, stated her parents have owned the property at 2240 Strand since 1956. She presented a photograph of cars parked at that address in 1940. She explained that two lots were together with a garage on only one. If the parking allowance was removed, her parent would have no parking on her lot. She stated the garages cannot be entered from Beach Drive. She was against "vacation". Pat Corwin, 31 8th Street, stated he had reviewed the City's plans prior to the purchase of his property. He discussed the rental of properties and the associated abuse. He suggested the City's overall plan be reviewed to assure methods in which to beautify the City and increase safety. Jim Rosenberger, Bay View Drive, asked that Paul Shank speak in his stead. Chuck Shank, 800 Strand, expressed concern for safety on the lots on Beach Drive and corner lots, noted the importance of the port- able barriers, and protested allowing public parking within the residential area. Comm. Di Monda stated that at the current time, anyone may park on a corner lot on the west side of Beach Drive without being ticketed by the City. Mr. Shank stated he and his neighbors had purchased the properties at a higher premium with the understanding that the parking was available to them. H~ felt the suggested compromise was very fair. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:50 p.m. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Di Monda agreed the Commission had previously left the decision as to an encroachment permit or vacation up to the Council's determination as to the best interests of the City, which Mr. Terry confirmed as true. Mr. Terry stated that particu- lar agenda item of the report he wrote, the indication had been to go one way or the other, not specifying as to which. Based upon further Staff analysis, Staff recommended the encroachment permits be the preferred method. Chmn. Ketz then commented that the statement at the top of the page of Mr. Terry's report was not true and were not conditions the Commission had approved at that meet- ing, which Mr. Terry confirmed. Mr. Terry stated the Commission had approved the encroachment permit or the vacation; therefore, Staff recommended the encroachment permit be the correct method. Comm. Di Monda asked why the Commission received a Staff Report in which it stated the Planning Commission had said something when Mr. 7 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 Terry knew the Staff Report's • the conditions, stated he was respond. Commission had not said it. He objected to the statement that the Commission had approved all of as this was known not to be a true statement. He astounded by this, to which Mr. Terry did not Comm. Di Monda then addressed "vacation", (a) explaining the tax benefit to the City would be minimal and the City would maintain more control and the ability to protect the land by keeping ownership and having restrictions, (b) the City Attorney bad stated the City does own the property and (c) the idea is to keep the land open. He stated Staff Report Item 6 was to specifically exclude boats, motor homes, campers and trailers, which is missing, adding a stipulation that all work in the public right of way will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated commercial property has not been specifically addressed. No. 9 should include the walk streets and clarification that the designated area is the east side of Beach Drive to and including Hermosa Avenue. Comm. Di Monda proposed that commercial properties should be pulled as a separate study, 23rd Street should be an exception and any other areas within the City that have structures front ing on public right-of-ways should be reviewed. Although Mr. Terry disagreed, Comm. Di Monda maintained that the subject area consisted of the east side of Beach Drive up to and including Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Lee responded that the noticing had been applicable to the public right-of-way along Beach Drive, which could be reasonably extended to Hermosa Avenue. He stated that clarification to include Hermosa Avenue would not represent a problem. Comm. Suard and Mr. Lee discussed the City's possible liability, the encroachment process and its control of the use of the public right-of -ways, as well as adequate conditions applied in terms of insurance, structures, safety, etc. Mr. Lee stated it was unclear at this time as to actual ownership of subject land title, but noted that the general rule is prescriptive rights will not apply to public-owned property. If the property owner did ~ot choose to maintain the public right-of-way, the City had that responsibility. Comm. Suard asked .why encroachment had been chosen over vacation, to which Mr. Terry responded that if the City vacated the property, it would lose control as far as future possibilities, which should remain open. Comm. Suard and Mr. Lee discussed property evaluation conducted by the County Tax Collector's Office, which would not allow the land to be vacated to the property owners with a fee bein~ charged based upon land value. Mr. Lee suggested the Commission consider the administration of encroachment permits, allowing use of public right-of-ways versus the continuing need for public purpose for the walk streets and make its decision based upon those considerations. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE the following vehicle parking on public right-of-way conditions and proposed separate studies. 1. Allow the open space of the walk streets to be used .by the Strand corner lots for private use. 8 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 3. Establish that 1/3 of the public right o~ way is to be landscaped. 4. Require that a permanent barrier is to be installed between the landscaping and the parking. 5. Require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive. 6. Establish that parking is for automobile use only; boats, motor homes, campers and trailers are prohibited. 7. Require fence height within the public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height. 9. Establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive to and including Hermosa Avenue at the walk street right-of-ways. 10. All work within City right-of-ways and applications for encroachment permits will be reviewed by the Planning Commis- sion prior to work start up. 11. The existing properties west of Beach Drive that currently sub- stantially confirms to the standards established by the Commission and administered by Staff will be allowed to apply for encroachment permits and continue to use the property in the manner it is currently being used. Additional encroachment permits will not be issued in order to prohibit additional parking in the public right-of-way. 12. The commercial properties along The Strand will be pulled and a separate study conducted. 13. The properties that have been built fronting a walk street and having the walk street as the only access to the garages will be pulled and a separate study conducted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corruns. Di Monda, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz Corrun. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz then brought forth for discussion Item No. 2, establish- ment of a maximum distance allowed for parking from Beach Drive and Item No. 8, establishment of allowable private use through a revocable encroachment permit. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the establishment of a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking, with a two-vehicle parking maximum. The 30-feet limitation does not apply to the maximum distance of properties which meet the qualifications under Condition 11. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corruns. Di Monda, Suard and Chmn. Ketz Corrun. Marks and Merl None None 9 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 Chmn. Ketz felt the vacation issue was extremely complicated and recommended the Commission move forward on the encroachment permit, to which the Commission agreed. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. establishment that a private use is to revocable encroachment permit. Suard, to APPROVE the be allowed through a AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Commission DIRECTED that the revised Vehicle Parking on Public Right-of-Way along Beach Drive recommendation be returned to the Commission for review at its June 2, 1992 meeting. A break was taken from 9:42 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. SS 92-4 SPECIAL STUDY TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE AMEND- MENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had presented the existing ordinance to the Commission for its review and decision as to parameters. Upon receiving input from the Commission, Staff will then focus its study on the areas and issues of greatest concern. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:51 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Ketz closed the Public Hearing at 9:51 p.m. Chmn. Ketz felt placement into the Zoning Ordinance would g i ve bette r control, to which Comm. Merl agreed. He suggested a review of neighboring cities' ordinances. Comm. Di Monda agreed, stating the business people of Hermosa Beach should not have any more burdens placed upon them than those in neighboring cities. He noted the sign ordinance fees and fines were the responsibility of the City Council, which would make a determination that it felt was fair, to which the Commission agreed. Mr. Schubach suggested Staff create a matrix {comparison chart) going across the board, to include what is done or not done by Hermosa Beach and similar cities. Comm. Di Monda requested the sign ordinance be given to the Commission, as well as that of another city that is located a distance away (i.e. Santa Barbara, etc.) for review prior to the June 2, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach agreed to obtain the requested information for the Commission. Comm. Suard stated the new sign regulations should be clear, not redundant and consolidated for easy understanding by the local business and any other affected people. Comm. Di Monda.criticized 10 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 the definitions in general, stating all definitions should be brought to the "front", including the sign ordinance. Comm. Suard stated he would furnish additional written comments to Staff, in order to save time during this meeting. STAFF ITEMS a. Election of the new Chairman and Vice Chairman. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Merl, to CONDUCT AN ELECTION to fill the positions of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. No objections, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to ELECT Comm. Merl as Chairman, Planning Commission, 1992-1993. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoJDJns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to ELECT Comm. Di Monda as Vice-Chairman, Planning Commission, 1992-1993. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoJDJns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None b. Correspondence from Building Department regarding 125 Pacific Coast Highway. RECEIVE AND FILE c. Memorandum regarding Planning CoJDJnission liaison for May 26, 1992 City Council meeting. Comm. Di Monda stated a change the manner of handling is needed, noting that the City Council is not made aware of the liaison presence, the liaison is not on the agenda, an information packet is not forwarded prior to the meeting, and yet the liaison is expected to speak during the meeting with no information on hand. The Staff Report should state the liaison intention to attend and an information packet furnished to that person for review. The Commission agreed with these state- ments. Mr. Schubach stated the liaison is to be a member of the majority who voted on the particular issue. Mr. Schubach stated the packet(s) would be sent to a liaison prior to the meeting. Mr. Lee explained that prior to the City Council meeting, the Council Members would review the Planning Commission's minutes 11 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 and would be aware as to the discussion and decisions made by the Commission relating to the particular items. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE e. City Council minutes of April 28, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Request by Commission Di Monda regarding the fences at 26th Street & Hermosa Avenue and 16th Street & Hermosa Avenue. Comm. Di Monda noted the Staff Report addressed this issue. A bamboo fence had been erected without approval, although it is very attractive. A six-feet high wall that was previously noted had been approved. Mr. Schubach explained the complaint procedure, noting the complaint had been forwarded to the Building Department for handling. He will update the Commission as information is obtained. Comm. Marks suggested that forms be completed by the public prior to speaking on any issue to the Commission. The form should include name, address, subject, who they are representing (if anyone) and whether he/she is an opponent or proponent. Chmn. Ketz felt this was a very good idea and noted other cities currently follow this practice. Mr. Schubach stated that the practice had been previously implemented and that it did not work well because people did not wish to complete the forms. Comm. Marks also suggested a "phone-in" capability for the viewing audience. The Commission felt too many problems could result as far as caller verification, etc. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to adjourn at 10:13 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 19, 1992. Christine Ketz, Chairman >\c~ I G 1. l °' ,~, 1- Da.tle 12 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 5, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Vice-Chmn. Marks. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Vice-Chmn. Marks Chmn. Ketz Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl to CONTINUE appro- val of the April 21, 1992 minutes to allow for the following revis- ions: Page 8 -Further detail is to be included relating to the conversation held between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Rosenberger. Page 8 -Further detail is to be included relating to the conversation held between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton. Page 13, third paragraph -Change to read, " ... just stated such height limit would be ... " AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz Resolution P.C. 92-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTIONS 13-7(b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1042 TENTH STREET. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Marks to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 92-25. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz ITEM(S) FOR CONSIDERATION: Resolution P.C. 92-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO STUDY DRIVEWAY SLOPES. 1 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard to ACCEPT Resolution P.C. 92-28. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None Comm. Merl Chmn. Ketz COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to addressed the Planning Commission regarding an item not shown on the meeting agenda. PUBLIC HEARING CUP 92-5/PARK 92-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW SLOT CAR RACING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY STORE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 950 AVIATION BOULEVARD, SUITES A & B, THE RACER'S EDGE (continued from April 21, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, noting the Commission's previously stated concerns have been discussed with the Police Department and the City Attorney's office. Mr. Lee addressed Conditions Nos. 11 and 14, regarding the imposition of additional security and entry prohibition to people wearing "gang colors". Mr. Lee stated the imposition of additional security is a valid condition, provided evidence supported that the type of use could possibly generate a potential problem. He stated the applicant would then be on notice as to the type of problem that could be generated and type of condition imposed for mitiga- tion. He expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission could delegate to the Police Chief administration of that fundamental policy decision, which is the determination that it is a potential problem that could or should be mitigated. An appeal procedure in the event the Police Chief's decision is contested should be established, noting that currently the Municipal Code does not contain the Police Chief's ability to review and make this type of determination. Mr. Lee stated it was within the Commission's discretion to review and decide if this should be initially determined by the Police Chief, subject to appeal, or if the Commission should review and make the determination, subject to appeal to the City Council. -Vice-Chmn. Marks felt the Commission should review the subject problems, while Comm. Suard felt the Police Chief should handle the problems. Comm. Di Monda agreed with Vice-Chmn. Marks, but noted Condition No. 11 should be rewritten for clarity; the business 2 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 owner should have a right to an automatic hearing without ch~rge, the Police Chief can have emergency power if a problem arises. Comm. Merl questioned the findings; description of the issue that would generate the condition, which Mr. Lee stated it should be documented either in the Staff Report by input from the Police Department or public testimony or Commission testimony. Mr. Lee then discussed Condition No. 14, stating this type of condition posed Consti~utional issues and the City Attorney's office recommended deletion of this condition, as police enforce- ment was a better route to take. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:20 p.m. Denny Scanlan, 831 6th Street, applicant, only a positive attitude since opening with the conditions currently proposed. were from the local area. stated he has experienced his business. He agreed He stated his customers June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, protested giving the Police Chief the authority to order a security person if a problem became appar- ent and the requirement to notify the Planning Commission and wait for a hearing. Comm. Di Monda stated Ms. Williams had taken the information totally out of context, noted the Police Chief current- ly has emergency powers to act. He explained the clause gave the right to request a doorman on a permanent basis, which would impact the subject business. He felt that prior to implementing that type of condition, other conditions to mitigate that action should be considered. He explained the Commission was seeking to implement a clearly-written condition defining the roles and responsibilities. Mr. Lee clarified that the standard for determination as to whether to impose security personnel was embodied within the condition. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:27 p.m. Vice-Chmn. Marks felt Condition No. 11 should be amended to allow the Police Chief to make a decision, with the Planning Commission conducting a hearing to obtain understanding of circumstances. Comm. Suard felt the issue was becoming too complex. Comms. Merl and Di Monda agreed the current wording allowed the Police Chief to act as the situation necessitated, with action by the Commission as required by events. Mr. Lee suggested clarification that the Police Chief would make the initial finding, weight the initial evidence and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Comm. Merl added the Commission's reasons would be from concern that the location could be a potential gathering place for problems and should be monitored. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE CUP 92-5/PARK 92-2 as written, with the designation of responsibility to the Police Chief to be noted in Condition No. 11 as "The Police Chief may determine ... ". 3 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Com1ns. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz CON 92-3/PDP 92-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23258, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 628 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (continued from April 7, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve plans to be provided as supplemental item on Monday, May 4, 1992. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval, stating the applicant had submitted revised plans with the base point height measurement was from the street level along Monterey Drive and the driveway grade was reduced to 15%. He reiterated the Commission's concerns regarding the 35-foot height, potential view blockage and small open space provision. He stated the open space generally met the Policy Statement requirements. Mr. Schubach noted the possibility of view blockage to the east of the property, the existence of neighboring 35-high structures. He noted the plans were submitted late, resulting in distribution to the Commission late also, not allowing enough time for complete reyiew. He suggested a continuance to allow the Commission time to review the submitted plans, site and neighboring properties. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn Marks at 7:36 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Suite 300, project architect, distributed photographs and displayed an artist's rendering of the project. He presented a height survey of the area, compared the structure heights and noted that more than 50% of the lots on the block had been built to a 35 feet height and that the subject block was the one most built up than the surrounding ones. He discussed view blockage projections, using a chart for illustration. Mr. Compton then discussed the ramp modification to the 15% slope requested by the Commission. He noted that he had tested the view from a car on a 25% ramp, which he felt was not problem, and stated a 15% ramp should mitigate the Commission's concerns. He disputed Staff's analysis that the headers had been reduced to minimum code requirements, explaining the heights of the particular rooms and the provision of coffers and heading out of areas to give an additional sense of height. Vice-Chmn. Marks felt the view of an exiting vehicle would be obstructed, to which Mr. Compton disagreed. He explained the tests he had conducted to assure the safety in exiting on the proposed ramp. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton discussed the ceiling heights in the mezzanine area of the rear unit (which was 7 '1" to the bottom of the beams with a 9 1/2" additional height between the beams), Unit A kitchen (7'4"), downstairs bedroom (7'9" with either coffers or beams to be added to give the illusion of additional height), Unit 4 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 A living room (12'), dining room (16'), master bedroom (8'1"), Unit B master bedroom ( 9' 1"), downstairs bedroom ( 8 '1"), dining room ( 16'), kitchen ( 7 '10") and the mezzanine ( 7 '4" of which an open beam ceiling can be added to the plan). Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:51 p.m. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach Staff's ability to verify the view blockage analysis submitted by Mr. Compton, expressing his concerns regarding the potential view blockage of adjacent neighbors. Comm. Di Monda stated his only problem was having received the drawings late, which did not allow adequate time to review them, nor did he have the original drawings for comparison. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Marks, to CONTINUE CON 92-3 to the Commission meeting of May 19, 1992, to allow Staff to conduct an analysis in terms of the view blockage and perform verification of the section drawing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks Comms. Di Monda and Merl None Chmn. Ketz The Motion failed due to a lack of majority. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE CON 92-3 with the conditions recommended by Staff and with verification as to the accuracy of the section drawing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda and Merl Comms. Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks None Chmn. Ketz The Motion failed due to a lack of majority. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CON 92-3 with the conditions recommended by Staff and with verification by Staff as to the accuracy of the section drawing and the accuracy of the view blockage as submitted by Mr. Compton. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Cbmn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR (ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL {continued from February 18 and April 7, 1992 meetings). 5 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval of the 70-room hotel, restaurant with on-sale alcohol and piano bar. He stated the grandfather clause which allows a 40-feet height will soon terminate and an eight-foot high west side wall would require noticing since the . original plans displayed a six-feet wall. Mr. Schubach described the proposed hotel, parking spaces and accommodations, including structure position, square footage and height measurements as noted in the revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated this project is subject to the Precise Development Plan requirements. He stated a determination has not been received by Staff as to whether the project had been "grandfathered" or not, but the City Attorney would discuss this subject. Staff recommended tandem parking stalls be identified for employee parking. Mr. Schubach observed that the revised plans were reviewed for consistency with the guidelines, noting the project was designed to scale, the pool area was relocated, a sauna/work out room is still located on the westerly side of the property which Staff suggested should be relocated by the pool, the project extends to 35 feet only at the P.C.H. frontage, ranging from 32 to 40 feet elsewhere. He discussed the efforts to decrease the appearance of bulk, landscaping plans and buffering of noise by both walls and plants. Cal Trans' requirements and comments have been incorporated in the plans with the exception of wheelchair ramps, which is a condition of approval. He also discussed CalTrans' response to the City's traffic engineer's inquiries. Mr. Schubach stated the plans do not include all the details to enable a final approval of Precise Development Plan, the Resolution of approval includes conditions requiring submittal of required details to the Commission for approval. He noted a reduction in height may alter the plan, but Staff felt enough information had been provided to the Commission to enable a decision at this time. He then stated the Commission's alternatives. Mr. Lee explained his position regarding the grandfather clause by stating a review of Ordinance 91-063 (providing a grandfather clause and lowered structure height to a maximum of 30 feet) , resulted in the determination that a complete package has been submitted to the City by the applicant prior to November 5, 1991. Additionally, by use of the discretionary permit process, changes and revisions were suggested and requested by the City and made by the applicant. Mr. Lee stated the application of this Ordinance is a discretionary call by the Commission and addresses whether or not the most recently submitted plans are a logical extension of the original plans submitted prior to November 5, 1991. Mr. Lee stated the next issue for the Commission's dec·ision was whether or not the deadline provided in the grandfather clause 6 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 applied to this project. He recommended that the deadline provision of the Ordinance should not be applied due to the multitude of changes and revisions required by the City and the long delay in waiting for a response from CalTrans. He recommended two conditions be added: (1) the project must be consistent with the plans approved by the Commission at this time, and ( 2) a 6-month time limit from the date of approval is established in which to obtain a building permit. These two conditions would meet the Ordinance intent. He noted the Commission could limit the height to 35 feet or under if it wished to exercise discretion regarding project esthetics. Comm. Di Monda determined the required landscaping trees were smaller than others previously required on other projects. He stated he wished to discuss more trees in the landscaping plans. Mr. Schubach stated trees are not only decorative, but would serve as noise buffers. Vice-Chmn. Marks noted the number of units had increased and a gift shop, beauty salon and piano bar had been added in the revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated adequate parking was available. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:19 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, 49 South Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, acknowledged the plan changes, noted the major concern regarding 1st Place egress, discussed the creation of more "ocean view" units and bay windows. He explained the revisions to the buildings and room locations using an artist's rendering of the front and back views of the structures. He stated the piano bar would provide a nice place for local adults to go; the lobby, stairway and piano bar locations were planned to avoid noise carrying to the residential zone. Vice-Chmn. Marks confirmed the specific plan revisions made with Mr. Yeh. Mr. Yeh stated that when the project was originally begun, the maximum height limit was 40 feet. He discussed the design of the roof, the subterranean parking and the grade level as they affected the structure height. Mr Yeh also rtoted the restaurant business would financially help the hotel and visa versa. He said if the roof level was reduced to 35 feet, the project would need to be redesigned. ,He felt such a reduction would be unfair, based upon the input received by the applicant during his efforts to obtain the necessary approvals. Mr. Yeh and Comm. Di Monda discussed the exterior finish of the building, with Mr. Yeh noting that stainless steel would be used for the railings and that one piece clay tile will be used. Richard Laraba, owner/builder/developer 705 1st Street, felt the proposed structure height would intrude upon the privacy of his building and the residential zone. He asked if the CalTrans report required a deceleration zone or lane from 1st Street to the hotel entrance, noting the speed of drivers on P.C.H. and the projected increase in traffic on the surrounding streets and expressed concern regarding the safety of residents due to the increase in traffic. He also asked where vehicles were going to park during 7 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 the construction period and thereafter, noting possible resultant inconvenience to residents. Mr. Laraba noted that many residents were not aware a hotel project is planned; no mention was made at the time of the street-closure survey. Comm. Di Monda stated the referenced rear deck was part of the fire exiting and irrelevant with respect to a "view" location, due to its height and location from the property line. He stated the building does not break the 35-feet height limit until approximately 30 feet back • from the property line, and, if the hotel had a flat roof, it would meet height limitations. Mr. Laraba requested a silhouette test be conducted to ascertain the impact on his property's 360 degree view. John McQue, 718 1st Place, read the notification of survey he had previously received, noting hotel construction was not mentioned. He stated he owns three lots and should, therefore, have three votes. Mr. McQue objected to the projected increase in traffic, the vagueness of the survey terminology and requested a redistri- bution of the survey with a more intense description of the plans. He distributed to the Commission photographs for review, requested that the existing wall remain. Sonia Nichols, 703 1st discussed the effect Street. She asked if hotel plans. Street, stated she received no survey. She the change in traffic would have on 1st City residents had been notified about the June Williams, 2065 Hermosa Blvd., stated she opposed the building of the hotel. She felt the adjoining properties had only single-story buildings. She wished to block the construction of the hotel since it will eliminate her ocean view and asked her if she had the ability to do this. Mr. Lee explained the allowable construction under existing regulations and stated Ms. Williams could not prevent construction. Mr. Schubach responded building directly across the street are three stories and the plans are consistent with the general area. She invited the Commission to her home to assess the view blockage. Vice-Chmn. Marks suggested she use the lamp posts as guidelines of view blockage. Ms. Williams stated she had already done that. She stated the City does not need an additional place for adults to go dancing. Harold Anchell, 624 3rd Street, stated a right turn onto on P.C.H. during rush hour from 3rd Street is a nightmare and felt a deceler- ation lane at the hotel entrance was required. He also suggested a time limit be established for the project. He stated the contrac- tor was aware the height limit was going to be lowered, and felt the project should be treated in the same manner as the residential projects are; both should be limited to 30 feet. Paul Olson, 705 First Street, felt the City Council and Commission members should drive on P.C.H. to find out what is going on. He questioned how people coming from the direction of Redondo Beach going to get to the hotel. He stated he has uplifted his property 8 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 and the City is trying to downgrade it, not taking into consider- ation the impact upon the City. He then discussed traffic problems he personally had experienced on Pacific Coast Highway. Ed Mora, 846 1st Street, stated the backlash is already here; a hotel will only magnify the problems. Johnny Bruce, 846 1st Street, stated she and a few other neighbors received the survey, but many other neighbors on the same street side were not. She felt all the neighbors should be notified, when the impact the entire area. She then discussed the increased travel time going to and from work, stating this increase should be considered and protested any additional air pollution that would result. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 9:25 p.m. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the additional of a traffic light, determining that if one were added, another would need to be removed. Mr. Schubach stated both Cal Trans and Staff had conducted traffic studies. He referenced the previous car dealership that had been at the location, noted the resultant traffic and discussed the traffic pattern than would be generated by a hotel, which would be spread over time, therefore, not requiring a deceleration lane. Vice-Chmn. Marks expressed his concerns regarding the height limit, the single means of egress and the possible increase of traffic on 1st Street. Comm. Merl commented keeping traffic from 1st Street was addressed previously as an objective. Mr. Schubach responded to Comm. Di Monda' s proposed motion by stating the survey would take additional time, if the survey suggested a connection with the hotel, it must be made clear that the hotel and survey are not connected. Comm. Di Monda suggested surveying 1st Place and 1st Street residents' feelings and adding the following verbiage: "There is a potential for commercial development on the corner which might lead to increased traf fie. The City is considering a street cul-de-sac to alleviate the possibility of that problem." Survey denial does not • mean the hotel is also denied. If information isn't immediately available regarding the traf fie signals, an indeterminable amount of time would be required for CalTrans response. Mr. Schubach stated view blockage between three-feet differences are difficult to determine, but Staff would try to make that determination. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the responsibility for site clean-up and maintenance to prevent it site becoming an "eye-sore". Mr. Schubach agreed to contact the Building Department and sug- gested that the public also contact the responsible agent { s) to -assure proper "boarding up" was accomplished and maintained. The Planning Commission suggested to the applicant that he also make sure the site and facilities are well secured prior to the Building Department's inspection. 9 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 1992. ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) (4) ( 5) ( 6) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) (10) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ASK the applicant to provide more information based upon the concerns the neighbors have expressed in order to review them with the possibility of mitigation; specifically the traffic concerns and school crossing safety; can the traffic lights be relocated to improve safety, REDO the survey regarding putting a cul-de-sac on 1st Place, inform the local residents the specifics as to reasons the survey is being conducted, REVIEW the necessity of a higher buffer wall, REVIEW the possibility of the trash area relocation, DIRECT Staff to obtain police records of some of the adult restaurants within the City for Commission review and obtain the Police Chief's opinion as to how he feels adult restaurants impact police services, DIRECT Staff to obtain more landscape plan clarification, particularly along 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway with respect to the planting size and incorporation of a continuous planting edge along the higher buffer wall, ASK the Public Works Department to provide a diagram or map of traffic flow if 1st Place is made a cul-de-sac, DIRECT Staff to silhouette the building, using the balloon method, to determine the view blockage difference between a 35-feet and 38-feet building and provide the results to the Commission, DIRECT Staff to contact the Building Department, request- ing that proper "boarding up" of the facilities in completed and that such action be addressed immediately. DIRECT Staff to obtain from the Building Department the status of complaints and violations pertinent to this property. Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chinn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz A break was taken from 9:48 until 9:56 p.m. HEARINGS ZON 91-3 ZONE CHANGE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO BRING INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE GE ERAL PLAN, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 598 FIRST STREET (referred from April 14, 1992 City Council). Recommended Action: To recommend approval of a zone change from Open space to two Family Residential (R-2) to subject property. 10 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating rezoning of this property to R-2 would be consistent with the General Plan and the general area. He stated, if zoned. R-2, three units or a density of 19 units per acre would be allowed per the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schubach also discussed the City Council's decision to require additional setbacks, three parking spaces per unit and a reduction in the number of units allowed on neighboring properties, but stated the allowance of only two units on this 128-feet deep by 40 to 45-feet wide property or a density of 12.7 units per acre would not be consistent with the Medium Density General Plan designation for the area. He discussed the diversity of the area, zoning for specific plans on neighboring lots, and then stated Staff saw no strong reasons to reduce the number of units from three to two and did not believe that special zoning for a single lot was necessary. Vice-Chmn. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the specifics of the "S.P.A. 4" designation. Hearing opened by Vice-Chrnn. Marks at 10:02 p.m. Harry Pecorelli, 752 22nd Street, San Pedro, applicant, stated that due to economical reasons, he hoped to return to Hermosa Beach and live on the subject property. He stated he would have many com- ments to make pertaining to the proposed hotel being built adjacent to 1st Street, but would only address his application at this time. He explained the property's past zoning, protested any reduction to only two units, which he felt would devalue his property. He re- quested approval of a zone change to R-2. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the lot depth, stating it could certainly accommodate three units and asked if Mr. Pecorelli would object to a 10-foot setback. Mr. Pecorelli stated he felt the Council was spot zoning him, planned to remodel the current II front II building and the garage to allow him to live in it. He stated he would like to build units at sometime in the future to assure an income for his retirement. He wished to have the latitude to build three units. Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 10:07 p.m. After discussion between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach, it was determined the parking requirement for R-2 zoning was: two parking spaces per unit, plus one additional space for every two units. Comm. Di Monda did not feel parking would be an issue on this par- ticularly large lot. He felt the parking requirement could be increased to one guest parking space per unit and add a condition for consideration of a larger setback (possibly 10 feet) require- ment at the time the tentative map is presented, which would allow approximately 25 feet of available open space. Comm. Merl supported the rezoning based upon the lot size and consistency with the properties east of the subject lot. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda to APPROVE a zone change from open space (OS) to two-family residential (R-2), but to incorporate the requirement for one guest parking space per unit and the condition for an increased setback. 11 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 After discussion with Mr. Lee, the motion was WITHDRAWN by Comm. Di Monda. Mr. Lee suggested that if recommendation to rezoning to R-2 were made, conditions should not be applied to the parcel until the point in time when the owner submitted an application for a devel- opment. The Commission would then have an opportunity, through the C.U.P., to review and establish applicable conditions. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE a zone change from open space (OS) to two-family residential (R-2), as originally recommended by the Planning Commission, and advise the applicant that at the time of submittal of a C. U .P., the Commission will review setbacks and parking to assure conformity with some of the special plan areas in the neighborhood, as well as the standard conditions. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks None None Chmm. Ketz SS 92-3 SPECIAL S.TUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, DEFINITION OF BASEMENTS, AND MINIMIZING BOOTLEG POTENTIAL. Recommended Action: To set for public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated this item was a clarification of an open-space Policy Statement previously adopted by the Commission. This clar- ification requires a percentage of open space at the living area level and "cleans up" previous ordinance language. Vice-Chmn. Marks requested Section 2(b) be changed to read, " ... and directly accessible to primary living areas. Primary living areas include living rooms, dining rooms, combination living, dining rooms and kitchen and family rooms ... ", to which the Commission agreed. - Comm. Di Monda felt that the ability to cover up to 50% of the open space area was excessive. After discussion, Mr. Schubach noted the Commission's ability to hold a public hearing to further discuss any concerns relating to this amendment. Staff was requested to further investigate and provide suggested alterations to the 50% open space coverage allowance. Comm. Suard felt the definition of open space was very confusing and suggested clarification be made in this definition. Addi- tionally, Section 4(e) (2) should be changed to read, " ... of five (5) or more units ... ". He felt that Section 1, Open Space should be based upon a percentage of lot size requirement rather than an absolute square-foot figure. He felt that the smaller the lot, the less the open space requirement should be and the larger the lot, the more the open space requirement should be, which is not the 12 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 case with the current method of specified square-feet requirement. Mr. Schubach stated this major change could be made a part of the HIP Program, which Staff has already been directed to address. Comm. Suard felt Section 1, as written, is an injustice to property owners that can be easily corrected, and wished the change to be made or an explanation as to why it should not be changed. Mr. Schubach agreed to research this question and return with his findings to the Commission. Vice-Chmn. Marks reiterated his concerns from previous meetings relating to the definitions of floors. He felt if it has a roof and a floor area, it is a floor. Mr. Schubach stated this study is to be part of the land-use study. MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Marks, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to DIRECT Staff to set a Public Hearing, to bring back for discussion all suggested changes in addition to those recommended during this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks None None Chmn. Ketz SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Vice-Chmn. Marks asked the status of the Pier Project, to which Mr. Schubach responded the preliminary design was scheduled to be submitted in June/July 1992. Vice-Chrnn. Marks confirmed that the Beach Drive Parking plan would also be presented during the next, scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the General Plan Land Use Element draft was close to completion. This draft ( and others) would also require the approval of the Coast Commission staff, after submittal by Staff of an explanation as to what has been done to meet the Coast Commission's land use plan. Mr. Schubach explained the steps for approvals by the Coast Commission,. Commission and City Council. Responding to Comm. Suard's question, Mr. Schubach stated inconsis- tencies, not spot zoning, existed within the City, and will be reviewed as part of the land-use element. STAFF ITEMS a. MEMORANDUM REGARDING HOUSING ELEMENT "LOT COVERAGE" CHART. Mr. Schubach explained a request to Staff by the Commission had been made as a result of comments made by the public. He stated the noted chart was being taken out of context. However, when used 13 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 as reference for seven projects, Staff felt it was close to the reality of the projects. Staff noted results in Exhibit A and provided computer-generated charts for the Commission's informa- tion. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed architectural projections, which are not included in the lot coverage computa- tions. Comm . Di Monda noted that it appeared that 65% lot coverage was a great deal more when projects were designed with cantilevered balconies, making the structures appear more bulky. He requested Staff provide schematics of projections for the Commission's review, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. b. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION/CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING. RECEIVE AND FILE. c. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF MARCH, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. d. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR MAY 12, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Mr. Schubach stated ZON 91-3 would return to the City Council. Comm. Di Monda stated he might attend that meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE. e. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. RECEIVE AND FILE. f. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda referenced the appeal of a condominium project presented at the City Council meeting, noting the comments made regarding side yard setback averaging that were in the Housing Element and not in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Schubach responded that the previous Council had requested streamlining (averaging). He stated front yard setback are averaged according to policy and averaging of all setbacks will be included in the Housing Element -as a policy, and will be discussed during review of the HIP Program. Mr. Schubach read the applicable section of the Housing Element. 14 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 Comm. Di Monda, on behalf of the Planning Commission, tnanked the Police and Fire Departments and the volunteers for their excellent efforts and performance during the recent riots. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 10:57 P.M. NO OBJECTIONS; SO ORDERED. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 5, 1992. 011Y/:J/~- Robert B. Marks, Vice-Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 15 P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 ., MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 21, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms; Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Merl Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Roger Springer, Assistant City Attorney, Paul Corneal, Building Department Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, with the following changes: Page 3, Paragraph 2: Correct Motion made by Comm. Suard, which discusses a motion to DENY, but doesn't state that mot.ion was withdrawn and a Motion to CONTINUE then made. Page 10, Final Paragraph: Change the last sentence to read, " ... with only 13 parking spaces, of which six were compact parking spaces, being provided. She also was concerned regarding the number of spaces in relationship to new use." Resolution 92-24: Paragraph "B" is to be rewritten to state that the sideyard set backs do not comply with the literal interpretation, in that the Commission wished to maintain the sideyards as required by the Code. Resolution P.C. 92-22, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR A TWO-STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AT 601 CYPRESS AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23286, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoJDJns. Di Monda, Marks, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None CoJDJn. Merl 1 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 ' ,. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding an item not on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING L-5 LEGAL DETERMINATION HEARING TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF AN EXISTING 6-UNIT APARTMENT LOCATED AT 1150 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Recommended Action: 5-unit apartment. To determine said property to be legal for Mr. Corneal, representing the Building Department, gave the Staff Report, explaining the history of the original structure and the additional on-site structures as they related to the then~existing Zoning Codes. He stated the options available to the Planning Commission, based upon the information received. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Corneal discussed the location of the single-family dwelling and the four units, as well as the dates of issuance of the permits and the county tax records, which disp1ayed two separate structures. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:06 p.m. Nick Yamamuro, property owner, stated he had just received Staff's report and had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the document. He noted a "window" when the structure could have been made legal in 1954. He stated he had inherited the property, the previous owner had owned the property since 1964. Mr. Yamamuro also stated his understanding that the structures were legal only since 1964 and had collected data with that objective; not realizing that other problems were also involved. Mr. Corneal explained Staff was trying to determine if between 1"954 and 1956 the structures had been legally existing. Mr. Yamamuro stated the separate unit had been a maid's and then a nurse's quart~rs . . . Sheila Donahue Miller, 77 17th Street, asked if the City had the building permits from 1954 and 1955. When Chairman Ketz started to respond, Ms. Miller interrupted her, stating she "did not wish to be interrupted". Mr. Corneal stated the City did have building permits, but was now determinin9 if the structures were le9ally constructed. Ms. Miller requested the Public Hearing be continued in order to allow the applicant more time to obtain additional information. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:15 p.m. Comm. Di Monda discussed construction possibilities with Mr. Corneal, determining the square footage was the same in 1941 as later and construction could have been legally permitted during the 2 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 1954-56 window. Mr. Springer confirmed the Title Report would furnish a legal description, but a Litigation Guarantee would probably supply the additional, requested information. MOTION b¥ Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE the application to the meeting of June 2, 1992, to allow the applicant adequate time for report review, rebuttal and document presenta- tion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl PDP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW EMPLOYEE PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH (continued from February 4 and March 17, 1992 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the revised plans addressed the concerns expressed by the Commission and defined those concerns and solutions. He stated the parking had been maximized, Staff believed a complete closure of the exit onto 10th Street would be the best solution, and no additional information had been received as to noise abatement. Mr. Schubach discussed access to an adjacent parking lot area and the associated parking and movement problems. He stated Staff recommended approval of the C.U.P. with conditions or a denial of same due to the applicant's reluctance to address various problems. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:27 p.m. Peter Paladino, Paladino Architects, 215 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, stated five issues existed of which all but two had been addressed, itemizing the actions taken. He stated the noise problem had also been addresses by baffle and insulation instal- lation, which dropped the noise levels, but no tests had been conducted to date. He discussed the acoustical remedies, methods and his qualifications with Comm. Marks. Mr. Paladino explained the rear driveway is used approximately 10 times per day as an employee exit. The driveway is an exit only and not an entrance, but very necessary to the business. Richard O' Bryan, applicant, explained he had conducted his own noise tests, added acoustical material and had further reduced the noise levels by approximately 10-20 decimals. Comm. Di Monda dis- cussed current and proposed parking, as well as exiting. Comm. Di Monda stated realistic parking requirements are necessary and 3 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 suggested parking spaces Nos. 7 through .11 be eliminated, adding 2 or 3 spaces in -the back section, resulting in 8 parking spaces. Messrs. 0 'Bryan and Paladino discussed the parking requirements with Comm. Di Monda. Mr. Paladino asked if the empty employee- parking spaces could be used for customers if less spaces were needed for the employees. Mr. Schubach stated as long as the employees are not parking on the street, the additional empty spaces could be used for drying of cars. Comm. Di Monda again suggested reducing the parking re!quirement burden to a realistic plan, to which the applicant agre_ed. Sahib Nikiam, 10th Street, stated he did not object to the car wash, but he and his neighbors on 10th Street requested that 10th Street be closed, due to the narrowness of the streets and unsafe drivers. He presented a petition requesting that closure to the Commission. Comm. Marks discussed the narrowness of the ·streets and the dead-end streets which resulted in traffic congestion with Mr. Nikiam. Doug Holsinger, 10th Street~·-stated his concerns regarding trafftc on 10th Street. He felt that anything that increases 10th Street traffic will negatively impact the neighborhood. Peter Paladino agreed that the dead-end sign was not visible and suggested the tree in front of the sign be trimmed or make the sign more visible to traffic to alleviate unnecessary traffic. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:50 p.m. Comm. Di Monda suggested that 6 parking spaces during the week and a few more on the week ends be required, with the requirement for striping deleted. He suggested that Resolution 92-4, Section 1, Paragraph 2 be revised to reflect a more realistic parking requirement; Paragraph 5 referred to Public Works Department requirements, to which he suggested Staff provide what those requirements were to the Commission; Paragraph 13 discusses noise emanations, to which he felt it had been made clear that the Commission was asking the applicant to go above and beyond the noise ordinance; Paragraph 16's language should be less offensive or restrictive; a "right-turn only" sign from the business exit onto 10th Street should be considered after obtaining clearance through the Public Works Department. Comm. Di Monda asked that Staff notify Public Works the signage was inadequate and discuss with Public Works the possibility of a "right-turn only" sign. Comm. Marks asked the noise level be verified to assure that it is within an acceptable range. He proposed continuance to allow further investigation of the issues. Chmn. Ketz expressed concern regarding commercial traffic on residential streets and business' employees parking on residential streets. She stated the wording of Paragraph 16 was acceptable to her, but that she was still concerned about the driveway exit onto 10th Street. 4 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 - Comm. Suard asked ·if a. chain link fence or a card-key· controlled gate across the exit would be feasible in terms of enforcement, to which Mr. Schubach stated both could be operable. Mr. Schubach suggested the "right-turn only" exit might be considered. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to CONTINUEJ,the application to the meeting of May .19, 1992, pending Public Works Department's response to the possibility of a "right-turn only" sign. at the ·driveway, obtain a quantified sound reading to assure compliance with the · noise Ordinance, obtain landscaping requirements from Public Works Department and amendment of the parking plan to include week-end situations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl CUP 92-5/PARK 92-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW SLOT CAR RACING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY STORE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 950 AVIATION BOULEVARD, SUITES A & B, THE RACER'S EDGE. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the requested combination use of hobby shop and slot-car racing is not considered uncommon, in that larger stores combine uses to promote the line of merchandise. He described the plan usage, business orientation and the requirement for adult supervision during all business hours. The business hours were recommended as closure at 10:00 p.m. week-days and 11:00 p.m. week-ends. Staff recommended observation to assure no parking problems existed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:05 p.m. Dennis Scanlan, 831 6th Street, requested the hours be extended during the summer months to 12:00 a.m. on week ends to allow adult participation during the later hours. Mr. Schubach stated the establishment abutted a residential area and recommended an 11:00 p.m. closure on week ends. Comm. Marks suggested consideration of a one-month trial period of week-end closure at 12:00 a.m. Mr. Scanlan asked if four video games would be allowed, rather than the three currently stated. Staff stated that four video machines instead of three would not be a problem. Matt Dodge, 821 6th Street, wanted to know why he was responsible for moving the trash containers, to which Mr. Schubach stated it was the property owner's responsibility because the permit runs with the land. He stated they did not and would not be serving food on premises. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:11 p.m. 5 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 - Comm.·Di Monda suggested the week-end closing hours · be·extended to 12:00 a.m. and four video games be al lowed on site, with a six- month review by the Commission. He discussed the purpose of Resolution Paragraph 11 with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda felt this article put a burden on the Police Chief and requested the Condition changed to read, in essence, "The Police Chief and/or Planning Department may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may present that fact to the attention of the -planning Commission -at a public -hearing, which may require security personnel paid by the · business." He suggested the. specific language be approved by the City Attorney. Mr. Schubach stated that the Police Chief had expressed the opinion that the Police Dept. should have authority to resolve problems without waiting for a public hearing, but that Comm. Di Monda' s suggestion might be feasible. Comm. Di Monda felt Paragraph 13, prohibition of food and drink or game abuse was a business responsibility and not the Commission's. He questioned Paragraph 14, in total, as being discriminatory, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. Comm. Marks felt it could be used as a management tool. It was agreed to wait for the City Attorney's response regarding this item. Mr. Schubach stated this item had been included in the interest of consistency. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE the application to the meeting of May 5, 1992, and when it is returned to the Commission to AMEND Condition 2 to extend week-end closures until 12:00 a.m., Condition 8(a) to four video games, Condition 11 to assure return to the Planning Commission, Condition 13 deleting the prohibition against food, drink and game abuse, and to obtain the City Attorney's opinion regarding Conditions 14 and 11. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl A break was taken from 8:25 p.m. to 8:33 p.m. SS 92-5 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN R-3 AND R-P ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action: To recommend approval alternatives listed in the Staff Report and Environmental Negative Declaration. of one of adoption of the the Mr. Schubach discussed and summarized the Staff-recommended alternatives regarding the height of condominiums and apartments within the R-3 and R-P zones. He stated the alternatives were consistent with the General Plan Housing Element. Those alternatives were: 6 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 I j l A. B. c. F G H Maintain the R-3 height limit at 35 feet. Reduce the height limit from 35 to 30 feet (or any other acceptable number of feet) Reduce the height limit to 30 feet, but allow the Commission to approve limit-exceeding projects up i•,=- to a 35-feet maximum when it has been demonstrated that surrounding existing buildings are over 30 feet in height . Establish different ·height limits based on the neighborhood area Establish two sets of height requirements depen- dent upon the type of roof design Establish a view protection ordinance instead of changing height limits Reduce the amount of upper floor buildable area instead of change height limits A combination of alternatives Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:40 p.m. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, requested the public hearing be continued until individual noticing to all effected property owners be accomplished. Mrs. Ryan volunteered to assist with the noticing. She asked that if this i tern were not continued that Alternative A be approved by the Commission. Dean Hult, 830 Monterey Avenue, stated the changes would downgrade all R-3 J?roperties. He discussed his plans to tear down and replace his structure, the impact on property taxes that action would have and requested the height limit remain as is, with no change. Sandy Pringle, 747 Monterey Avenue, recently purchased his property with plans to add a bedroom which would result in a 35-feet building height. He requested that all property owners be individually notified and volunteered to help accomplish that Sheila Donahue-Miller, 77 17th Street, property owner of· 2922 and 2920 Hermosa Avenue, stated the property next to her was 35 feet high. She discussed building a pool, her lack of privacy, her previous ability to build six units, down-zoning of her property to R-2, additional cuts will continue to destroy her property value. She discussed the locations of R-3 lots. She noted she was on her third law suit against Hermosa Beach and would now initiate a fourth. Carol Simons, 218 Longfellow Avenue, felt it was essential that the effected property owners be notified on an individual basis. She proposed the eight possible alternatives be place in writing and sent to the property owners for their review. Jim Babliani, 1011 Bayview Drive, felt the much power in the hands of the Commission. with the intention of adding another story, alternatives put too He bought his property and, therefore, opposed any change in the height limitation. 7 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 I J 1 Jim Rosenberger, Bayview Avenue, felt the Commission had changed "from dealing with a scalple to dealing with a shot gun to the whole town in terms of R-3" in the approach. He stated his neighboring building was taller than 45 feet and doesn't want a restriction placed upon himself,.which would result in his being in a "canyon". He suggested a .careful review area-by-area since each section is independent .in nature from the others. He requested the height limit be left "as is" or only those alternatives with flexibility be considered. He felt Alternative A should be left alone, B • and C are not , wise, D through F have merit and G is a combination of all the rest. Comm. Di Monda noted that Alternative C gave a lot of flexibility; 30 feet with descretion to 35 feet height if a possible "canyon" condition exists. In Mr. Rosenber- ger's case, most of the block is built to 35 feet and would allow him the same. Comm. Di Monda stated most of the alternatives did take into fact the problems presented by testimony during this meeting. Mr. Rosenberger acknowledged the possibility of a third-floor setback as a good option, but still felt the Commission should make the City Council aware of the problems being created by mixed zones, which should be reviewed differently than strictly R~3 zones. Mike Fletcher, 414 The Strand, purchased his property with the intention of adding a master bedroom on the second floor. He described the tall, neighboring residents, stating he did not wish to live next to two enormous structures and not be able to add height to his own property. He suggested the Commission consider his problem which is similar to many other property owners and expressed his surprise that only the height, rather than height and bulk, issue was being addressed. He stated height was not targeted by the Ordinance. Mary McGee, 602 Manhattan Avenue, stated she was tired of her property being down zoned. Her neighboring properties' structures are at the 35-feet height. She stated Alternative B gave too much discretion to the Commission. Mr. McGee reiterated her opposition to any change in height limitation. John Rogers, 326 10th Street, stated residents are 10-0 against any change in height restriction based upon the effect upon property values. He discussed the considerable amount of reconstruction within the City and asked the height limitation remain as-is. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., discussed a letter he had written and mailed to property owners and stated the importance of getting as much input as possible. He discussed the resident vote, noting that 65% of the voters were tenants, not property owners, and challenged non-owners' participation in the advisory vote. He stated advisory votes are not law and should not be reviewed as such. He cautioned against "railroading" the height modification into existence. He agreed zoning was incorrect in pockets of the City, but felt the entire R-3 zone should not be changed. He discussed the Commission's and Staff's efforts, but felt they were 8 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 wasted since the City Council already had three votes to change the height limit. He felt that Alte!rnatives C and D allowed an open door and flexibility. He also felt it was absolutely and funda- mentally wrong for the City to suggest or make a modification to anyone's property rights and values without individually notifying that person and noted there were 1800 R-3 zoned property owners which need to be notified. He volunteered to assist in that notification. Conun. Di Monda stated Mr. Compton had read the City Council pretty accurately, but had discussed some items not under the Conunission's control. The Commission could recommend some combination of alter- natives to address everyone's concerns. Conun. Di Monda calculated that removal of five foot from the height allowance would result in the possible loss of mezzinines or approximately 200 sq. ft. of buildable area. Mr. Compton confirmed this calcul ation. Alterna- tive G required greater setbacks, which will probably result in the loss of at least 200 buildable sq. feet. Comm. Di Monda stated the loss of buildable area was the discussion topic and requested Mr. Compton's comments regarding this issue. Mr. Compton asked how a reasonably-sized, saleable unit could be constructed with the loss of square footage or if a restrictive situation would be created, resulting in much less up9rading to older uni ts. Mr. Compton explained the use of a similar set-back requirement to the front and rear of the properties, creating a mezzinine area in the center of the building. He stated this design was not well liked by many people. He felt property owners have property rights and should be heard prior to any decision being made by the Commission. He expressed architects' problems in having t o adhere to a rule that has not yet been c hanged and stated this practice was an unfair requirement. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton further discussed an angled, sky-exposure plane (Alternative G) related to height limits and street width. Mr. Compton supported the sky-exposure plane, stated the first floor would be a garage only , and, if thought through carefully, the problems are turned over before becoming a reality. He stated the lot coverage draft on Staff Report Page 32 is a joke; it will not work, it doesn't relate to a 17-feet setback or open space, and decisions should not be based on inaccurate data. Mr. Schubach stated they were discus sing gross floor area; Staff had the samples used, offered to show those samples to Mr. Compton and to review any examples as to how it would not work Mr. Compton cared to submit. Mr. Compton stated only four members of the audience had received copies of the Staff Report and felt information should be available to the affected residents, all who should be noticed. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, architect, noted the height measurement method was inconsistent and stated clear-cut direction was needed by both the architects and property owners. He felt height alone was not the problem, but rather a combination of items. He suggested the implications of the change be reviewed before taking any actions. 9 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 J l l Garrison Frost; 58 Pier Avenue, discussed his concern regarding .the City's image due to the changes in requirements and the City's reputation for giving people a bad time and the difficulty in dealing with the City. He stated less people are now willing to buy property in Hermosa Beach. Jim Perry, 223· Monterey Avenue, stated he intended to rebuild and improve his property and that the arbitrary changes of the building codes has taken square footage away and another change would result in 'the same. He stated 'his neighbor is going into foreclosure on his property due to the City's actions and he, himself, would soon have an unbuildable lot. Jim Gallager, 3314 Highland, agreed with Mr. Frost's previous statements. He stated his 20-year residency has been an on-going struggle to survive because the City does not leave the property owner's alone. He agreed that Hermosa Beach did have a reputation and that the City had a responsibility to let people know what it is doing. He stated not one person for a height reduction had spoken, so why was the City even addressing the issue. He supported Alternative C. George Taylor, 300 Manhattan Avenue, planned to improve his property by the addition of two condominiums and the height limit would make that extremely difficult. He stated that he thought the purpose of communication was to give direction to the Council, not just implement its biases. He then stated his opposition to any change within the height limit and his support of individual noticing. Comm. Di Monda responded decisions must be based upon reality and with fairness. He stated if an Ordinance is well and clearly written with clear criteria, it gives the power and discretion to deviate from the criteria. Architects may submit a preliminary set of drawings to the Planning Dept., which is not as great a burden as it seems to appear. Shirley Castle, 611 Monterey Boulevard, quoted Councilman Edgerton as having said his mind was made up and not going to be changed. She stated it was not fair to the people of City for Councilmernbers to have closed minds. She discussed the lack of light due to tall buildings surrounding her property and asked why she should take a loss on the sale of her property just because the rules have changed again. She stated the residents had paid a lot of money for their land and the City was down zoning their property resulting is loss of property value. She discussed a current law suit and stated the Commissioners and Councilmernbers may end up as part of it. ' Bob Stroffee, 3205 The Strand, reiterated other speakers statements that no one had spoken in favor for reducing the height limit. Bonnie Coke, 1921 Manhattan Avenue, a fourth-generation resident, discussed the down zoning, property growth and change~ she has witnessed in Hermosa Beach. 10 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:41 p.m. Comm. Marks discussed Alternative F with Mr. Schubach, who explained the requirements and methods of measurement . in this alternative. Comm .. Di Monda explained to the audience the procedure to be followed by Staff, the Commission and City Council, including review and renotification requirements., which was confirmed by Mr. Schubach. Chmn. Ketz confirmed with Mr •. Schubach that the Commission would be making recommendation to the City Council regarding alternatives, but not a specific ordinance. Comm.· Di Monda stated that none of the stand-alone alternatives address all of the concerns, assuming the height limit is lowered. A combination of "C" "E" and "G" would be of interest and discussed the impact of these alternatives. He stated that if "D" became a choice, he wished to see a map displaying the areas to be subject to "D" and relative to "G", requested an example based on page 72's chart with graphics of typical lot sizes and lot coverage. Mr. Schubach explained the City Council wished to ~review each individual standard and had started with height. Chmn. Ketz confirmed there had been no direction to review all at one time. Comm. Suard felt there were a lot of interacting forces and this was a very piece-meal method and there were more logical procedures which could be taken. He questioned the Commission's ability to complete a recommendation in the short timeframe and noted specific problems, such as island zoning and "half lots". Comm. Suard stated Alternative "E" would allow leeway in architectural significance, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. The Commission agreed to consider a combination of C, G and E. Comm. Di Monda explained the Commission was only sending ·some type of concept for approval by the City Council, with a lot more to do thereafter, to which Chmn. Ketz concurred. Comms. Marks and Suard did not feel they were in agreement with the alternatives offered. Comm. Marks felt no change should be made to the 35-feet height limit and another nuance to lessen density should be considered. The Commission discussed the height necessary to obtain a three- story building. Chmn. Ketz felt flexibility should be allowed while requiring a 30-feet limit in some areas, the 17-feet setback and Alternative "G" should be further reviewed. Comm. Di Monda suggested a 35-feet height with a set-back at the third floor to push the structure back from the street. Comm. Suard felt part of the equation should include consideration as to what the structure blocks (covered by Alternate C). Mr. Schubach responded to the Commission that Staff could develop rough language incorporating Alternatives C, B, D, E and G. Also, a Minute Order, including the a cover sheet and Minutes, could be forwarded to the City Council. Comm. Di Monda suggested the inclusion of a recommendation to consider the problems experienced by the Commission with noticing, so that everyone receives a notice as this issue progresses, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. 11 P.C.Minutes _4/21/92 MOTION by· Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to RECOMMEND to City Council a combination of Alternatives C, D, E and G; request Staff to review Alternative D and furnish information to the Commission as to its meaning; and to notice all R-3 lot owners. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks None Conun. Merl SS 86-12 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ADULT USES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTD. FROM MARCH 3 AND APRIL 7, 1992 MEETINGS). Recommended Action: To review additional data requested and direct staff to set for public hearing. Mr. Schubach presented the Staff Report, stating that ~ssentially Staff was trying to provide an ordinance that is legally defensible, based upon recommendations from the City Attorneys. He referenced provision of previously requested information by the Commission, including information provided for this meeting. Mr. Schubach asked for a review of the information and direct Staff to set this item for a public hearing to enable a Text Amendment to be written. Comm. Di Monda referenced several Orange County cities which use County standards and asked if those standards could be used by Hermosa City, since more coverage and detail was provided by those standards. He recommended Staff review: Page 29, Section 287, which should be "motel/hotel", Section 288, which should be "/arcade", Section 297, County's looks more inclusive than Hermosa Beach's, Page 32, Section 2, Paragraph 1, establishes 500 feet versus 200 feet, Page 33, Line 7, deals with the number of video machines, as to what that number was based upon, Page 33, Section 21-8, repeal a section of the Municipal Code, apparently no copy of the Code provided, Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the reasons for the apparent lack of adult businesses in Orange County and Orange County's Ordinance definitions. Mr. Schubach stated a 500-feet requirement would preclude any business of this type within the City and is, therefore, illegal. He responded to Comm. Di Manda's suggestions, also stating that if the Commission felt the Orange County's Ordinance definitions were preferable, they could be adapted to Hermosa Beach. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern that the Commission might set ground rules to make it easier for adult businesses to begin in the City. The C.U.P. procedure would enable 12 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 II " ,, findings to be made relating to the requested use and impact upon the neighborhood. Mr. Schubach stat ed the City Attorney had reviewed and concurred with the recommendations made, but a "fine tuning" should be completed prior to presentation to the City Council. Chmn. Ketz felt such establishments should be at least 200 feet from-the property lines. Chmn. Ketz, Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed the options of 200 feet from the front door or front property line. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:19 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission relating to this item, and the Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:19 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmm. Ketz, to SET SS 86-12 for a Public Hearing for Text Amendment at Staff's convenience. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Conun Merl CON 90-4 A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21950 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1105 CYPRESS AVENUE. Recommended Action: To grant six-month extension. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, noted an error discovered by Staff correcting R-2 to R-3 property built to the 35-feet height maximum. He noted an alternative of extending this issue to only June or July, 1992. Comm. Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the benefits of filing and Code change impacts upon the project, if no grandfathering is done. Comm. Di Monda suggested this item be extended to June or July, 1992, to be consistent in the handling of other similar projects. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:29 p.m. Cheryl Vargo, applicant's representative, encouraged a six-month extension, stating three months was not adequate to record a map. She stated the developer was not a large one, the building had a 14-foot slope, only a small portion of the building reached the 35-foot limit, the contractor hoped to start in the Fall, and with a six-month extension, the applicant hoped to get the map recorded and the project started. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:30 p.m. 13 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 Comm. Suard stated he had a problem in granting an extension when the Commission had just stated such a height limit would be inappropriate. Comm. Di Monda felt that since the other applications had been extended to June 1992, this one should be also. A MOTION was made by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, that in order to be consistent with past practices, to RECOMMEND an extension until June 30, 1992; at which point, another extension could be granted based upon City Council's actions. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Suard None Comm. Merl NR 92-2 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) TO ALLOW AN ADDITION OF A BEDROOM, BATH AND FAMILY ROOM WHICH RESULTS IN GREATER THAN 50% EXPANSION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1042 10TH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said request. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant proposed a two-story attached addition and noted the structure is nonconforming due to the detached garage. He stated the addition was calculated to be 68% of replacement value. He discussed the basic determinants and factors of the proposal, noted ample available parking and recommended approval. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:35 p.m. Art Dawson, 1042 10th Street, a long-time resident, explained the current set back requirements and stated he could current accommodate four off-street parked cars. He discussed neighboring one-car garages with less parking space than he has and stated his proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. He presented documents signed by neighbors attesting to his statem~nts. • Larry Highler, 580 21st Street, reminded the Commission Mr. Dawson was not a large contractor and only wished to increase the area of the structure to enhance the living space for his family. He stated the parking was more than adequate. Comm. Marks noted that if the house were sold, the addition could be changed into an apartment and requested a covenant upon the property. Mr. Schubach stated that was usually done by the Building Department through the deed, but could be included as a condition by the Commission. Comm. Di Monda felt a three-foot distance should be maintained between the family room and trash enclosure. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE NR 92-2 with the addition of a covenant prohibiting changing a portion 14 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 i = of .the structure into an apartment and maintenance of. a three-foot space between the family room and the trash enclosure. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl A break :was taken from 10:48 p.m. to 10:49 p.m. SS 91-4 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED (CONTD. FROM APRIL 7, 1992 MEETING). Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach discussed the background of this item, noting this item was a result of the building inspector's request to the City Attorney for interpretation. Staff has examined the manner of property value determination versus the method recommended by the City Attorney; finding it a difficult situation. Staff felt the method should remain the same or the City Attorney should re- examine the issue. Comm. Suard discussed the establishment of property value with Mr. Schubach, commenting that he would like to see the value raised from 50% to 75%, to which Chmn. Ketz disagreed, which resulted in further discussion by the Commission. Comm. Di Monda requested a comparison of numbers between current buildings and a hypothetical ones using the 50% and the 75%. Mr. Schubach explained the dynamics of land value and stated condominiums and apartments would fall under the same rule. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:55 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd, discussed a six-unit building that had burned down and was replaced with two units. He explained the owner had had insurance to cover loss of structure and rents, so the some of the costs were defrayed. The Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:57 p.rn. Comm. Di Monda felt there was a potential to take property value away from the property owners and requested more information as to how much it would be. Comm. Suard requested the actual percentage applicable to the law suit relating to the six-unit complex discussed by Mr. Compton, and how the percentage was calculated. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE SS 91-4 to allow Staff to obtain the requested information for presentation to the Commission. No objections, so ordered. 15 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 STAFF ITEMS a. Planning Department priority list of studies. Mr. Schubach stated grant monies could be obtained in F.Y. 1992 if this project were slowed. The Staff is very close to completion, with the most of the drafts completed. He explained current status and actions relating to the public right-of-ways. He had.talked to Community Resources regarding the Pier project and noted the schedule was not clear,. with plan s to present the project to the Planning Commission in June or July 1992. The Commission discussed the project schedule dates, determining with Mr. Schubach that the schedule was quite misleading. The February 1992 Joint Meeting was discussed, including the lack of resultant action. Comm. Di Monda confirmed the City Council had voted to approve the Commission's review of off-sale and on-sale of alcohol with respect to Article 10. Mr. Schubach stated the requests of the Council and Commission would be addressed at the same time, and should have been noted in this report. RECEIVE AND FILE. b. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for April 28, 1992 City Council Meeting. Comm. Di Monda stated he might possibly attend the meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the Commission's recommendation would be submitted. Staff was not opposing the Planning Commission. RECEIVE AND FILE. c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Chmn. Ketz stated a special study on the residential open space will be addressed at the next scheduled meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE. d. City Council minutes of March 24, 26, 31, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda referenced the previously reviewed 25% driveway slope which was also a parking area (allowed by the Ordinance) and the 14% slope with a four-foot blend. He discussed the problems associated with slopes, type of vehicle to be used as a standard, 16 P.C.Minutes .4/21/92 -------- .. .. how long should the blend be, to what does it blend, etc. Comm. Di Monda discussed his conversation with Mr. Grove regarding this problem with reference to specific projects. Comm. Di Monda noted that a steeper-that-15% driveway is not precluded, but that it must be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission invited Mr. Gerald Compton to speak regarding this item. - Gerald Compton expressed his concerns relating to the -Yariance aspect of this item, stated Variances are difficult or impossible to obtain, stated that a 25% slope was unreasonable in certain circumstances and requested that it be an "Exception" or a "Condition"; not a "Variance". Comm. Di Monda felt that amount of slope such be highlighted in the interests of safety, ~xpressing concern relating to very steep driveways with no blends, to which Comm. Marks agreed. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent and present it to the Commission at the next scheduled meeting. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to DIRECT Staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent and present it for hearing at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. No objections, so ordered. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 11:19 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning . Commission of· Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of Apri-1 21, 1992 . . •·; /~ /// .I ~~ \c:25 -~-kid k!J / -4?/A~ b: Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary ?if l--':::!k: A l ) '1 C) L, 17 P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 7, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS / Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comrns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the March 17, 1992 following change: Page 8, Paragraph 4 " ... remodel ... " Planning Comrnission meeting, with the - from . " ... room model ... " to Resolution P.C. 92-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS AMENDED TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVER-HEIGHT WALL AND TO AUTEORIZE THE ADDITION OF PREFABRICATED METAL CANOPIES OVER THE EXISTING DOUBLE-CAR STACKERS ON THE SITE AND THE INSTALLATION OF FIVE TRIPLE-CAR STACKERS, TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS LOCATED AT 2775, 2851, 2901 AND 3001 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Resolution P.C. 92-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA~NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 16' IN DEPTH GARAGE FOR ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING WITH A TWO-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17' AND FOR A BALCONY SETBACK OF 2' RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 3' AND TO EXCEED 65% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AT 620 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 92-20, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVER-HEIGHT WALL ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINES OF 2954 AND 2960 LA CARLITA PLACE. Resolution P.C. 91-21, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OF INTENT TO INITIATE CON- SIDERATION OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-7 AND 10-8 TO CHANGE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. 1 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 - AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR (ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (continued from February 18, 1992 Meeting). Recommended Action: To continue to April 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant has not provided plans to Staff and had requested a cont inuance. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Merl expressed their concerns regarding the repeated continuances of .,.. this item, and discussed the requirement for renoticing with Mr. Schubach. • Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m. Sonia Nichols, 703 1st Street, stated her opposition to a hotel being built near her property, feeling it would create safety problems for the residents' children, with additional traffic and parking problems. She felt the location was not an attractive location for a hotel and the need for another establishment which served alcoholic beverages. Frederick Nichols, 703 1st Street, stated he had previously written a letter to the City regarding the site, noting unsafe conditions, unattractive condition and the use of the site by the homeless. He felt the hotel would create additional parking problems and expose children to public drunkeness. He requested that the next hearing on this matter not be held on April 21, 1992. Ann Lewis, 1st Street, stated the developer had been given enough continuances and that this one should be the last. She stated she had not received notification and questioned the number of people that were aware of this issue. She reiterated her objection to the continued delay of this application. Johnnie Bruce, 846 1st Street, opposed the application and agreed with the previous testimony. She stated she had not been "noticed" and requested copies of the CalTrans and the environmental impact reports. 2 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 . Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Ketz at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Schubach commented that notices were sent to proper.ty owners and tenants within a 300 feet limit and placed in the "Easy Reader". Chmn. Ketz suggested that Ms. Lewis and Ms. Bruce contact the Planning Dept. to determine if they should have received notification. MOTION by Comm. Suard, to DENY the request for continuance, based upon the fact that plans were not presented prior to this meeting as previously requested. No second was obtained and the motion was withdrawn. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to an unspecified date, requiring renotification through the "Easy Reader" and to property owners and tenants as required. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CUP 92-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 807 21ST STREET, 21ST STREET RESTAURANT (continued from March 3, 1992 Meeting). Recommended Action: To continue to April 21, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated supplemental information indicating an interest in a shared parking plan between the applicant and Sola Motors been received by Staff. Staff recommended the matter be continued to allow the applicant to obtain a completed agreement acceptable to the City and noted the alternative would be to notify the applicant that approval of live entertainment would be denied. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Messrs. Schubach and Lee the possibility of stating on the standards of approval that the applicant must abide by Article 10, rather than listing all of the standard conditions. It was determined that the conditions change with time, and only those conditions applicable at the time the C.U.P. was granted apply. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:26 p.m. Richard Limbasuta, 807 21st Street, discussed his agreement with Sola Motor Works to exchange parking spaces. Chmn. Ketz requested he submit a written form contract executed by both Mess~s. Dispun and Sola. Mr. Lee explained the contract must be in a form that can be recorded against both properties. After discussion, Mr. Lirnbasuta agreed to provide the contract to Staff prior to April 23, 1992 and requested the application be continued to May 5, 1992. 3 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 Kathy May, 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 206, adjacent building owner's representative, expressed concern regarding the parking plan between Messrs. Dispun and Sola. She discussed previous parking agreements between the previous owners of the restaurant and her client Mr. DeMott, and felt the current arrangement would increase current parking problems. She stated the music's noise level disturb the tenants of the adjacent building. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Ms. May the previous parking space negotiations between her client and the applicant, of which she stated she was not familiar. Comm. Di Monda then stated he found the te~timony to be very self serving, but would listen. She reiterated concerns of Mr. DeMott and requested that any parking agreement be reviewed by the Commission and that if there were a change in restaurant ownership, it be mandatory that any parking agreement cannot be canceled. She requested renoticing if the application were to be continued. Comm. Di Monda commented the Commission should not put the applicant in a position in which he would be forced to negotiate with Mr. DeMott for parking space, but noted that if Mr. DeMott were willing to negotiate in good faith and accept the benefits of such an agreement, that action might be beneficial to both parties. Ellen Beeranbaum, 832 21st Street, stated that the music was amplified, the music should only be played inside the building and not in a canvas tent and that the music continued to be played after 10:00 p.m. on week ends. She requested the Commission continue to review the parking situation. Richard Limbasuta, 807 21st Street, stated the applicant's goal was to provide a fine restaurant with good dinner music, but the music would be stopped at 11: 00 p .m. or entirely if the Commission so decided. He e xplained the bass uses a small amplifier, but the piano and drum did not. He discussed the possibility of ·obtaining a parking agreement from both Messrs. DeMott and Sola with the Commission. The required contract conditions were discussed with Mr. Limbasuta, with the Commission suggesting to Mr. Limbasuta that the contract be reviewed by the Planning Dept. and the City Attorney to assure its adequacy prior to its being signed. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:5~ p.m. The Commission encouraged the applicant to try to decrease the level of sound emitting from the canvas room prior to the scheduled hearing. The Commission requested Staff to review the hours of entertainment, the noise level and ways to decrease the noise level, and report its findings at the next scheduled hearing. The Commission also decided a six-month review, rather than a one-year review, should be implemented. MOT~ON by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE CUP 92-2 to the Planning Commission May 19, 1992 meeting to allow the applicant to obtain the requested parking agreement and Staff to review the noise level, hours of entertainment and ways to decrease the noise level. 4 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 92-3/PDP 92-3 CONDITIONAL USE :i?ERM'.IT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL V.AP #23258, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPi-!ENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 628 MONTEREY BOULEVARD .•• Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Precise Development Plan. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. He described the project, including height and slope of property, and compared surrounding structures to the proposed condominium. He discussed a s imi lar , proposed 35-fee t height project previously approved by the Commission; noted specific requirement compliance by this project and stated Staff found the parking requirement inconvenient for residents and guests. He commented that if the Commission should require layout alterations, Staff would recommend a continuance in order to review the revised plans. Mr. Schubach discussed the narrowness of the lot as it related to a curb cut, alley entrance and turning radius and stated - Staff had no objection to using both drive entries in the design solution. He also stated that Staff recommended the plans be revised to include a 24" box tree and shrub sizes be increased to 5 gallons. He noted it was unclear as to what was intended in the courtyard area. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:07 p.:m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia, project architect, felt the two items of concern were the driveway slope and exiting from the property into the alley. He felt the driveway offered good v.isual access, but offered to reduce the slope by raising the garage slab by almost one foot if the Commission so desired. Comm. Marks disagreed, stating vision was obscured directly behind the vehicle exiting the driveway when backing out. Mr. Compton stated side vision was adequate. Comm. Di Monda felt that a 25% slope was an excessive grade. Mr. Compton described the slopes of the alley and the property and referenced similar projects within the City, stating he did not feel the slope was a problem and that it was not an unusual situation. Comm. Di Monda stated the situation being created was not good architectural practice and other architectural solutions were available. Mr. Compton stated he disagreed. Mr. Compton then explained street profiles, existing grade, street cuts and the manner of establishing the overall height limit for this project. Comm. Di Monda disagreed with Mr. Compton as to where the natural grade was, suggesting that natural grade should be :measured at sidewalk level, since the street was at that grade. Mr. Compton stated the adjacent properties had measured in 5 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 the same manner as this project, noted that the properties had been and were being excavated and compared the project's height to the adjacent property structures. Comm. Marks determined the highest level of the building was 138. 7 and the sidewalk was at 100, confirmed by Mr. Compton. Mr. Compton noted the 34' tall building would be located back 24' plus a 5' setback from the sidewalk. Comm. Marks felt the method of measurement was unrealistic to which Mr. Compton stated the height had been established based upon the Building Department's Code interpretation. Comm. Di Monda noted the determination was up to Planning, not the Building Dept, and he felt the measurements had not been taken using the property measurement locations. Mr. Compton disagreed, stating it was difficult to work with two dif ferent interpretations for the height establishment. Comm. Di Monda stated that in 14 months, this was the first project that height measurements were taken from a point that no longer existed, suggesting that the Commission discuss this fact with the Building Department. Mr. Compton disagreed, noting the natural grade did exist. Mr. Compton then discussed the problems created by a 17' setback requirement when a 24' easement is present, stating it was non- sensical and should be changed. He explained the impact of this requirement upo n small, narrow lots and the structures, such as the project with which he was currently working. Comm. Di Monda stated - developers will do as much as possible tp maximize the property's value, while the Commission's job was to assure good architectural practice to maintain and/or increase community and housing value. He noted the City Council sets policy and the Commission assures that policy is maintained. Mr. Compton stated that not only was he an architect, but he was also a resident, and he had never not adhered to good architectural practice. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton then discussed the slope of the driveway , with Mr. Compton offering to decrease the percentage of slope by elevating the garage slab. Coram. Marks felt the building was multi-level with a single stairway, which was very unsafe. He also discussed the lack of adequate open space adjacent to the entertaining or living area, to which Mr. Compton disagreed. He explained that open space was generally put where there was a view, resulting in less bulk, which was desirable. He then discussed interior visibility and access with Comm. Marks. Tom Orley, 5106 Loma Drive, discussed the current neighborhood zoning relating to 40 houses located in an R-2 area surrounded by R-3 areas. He spoke regarding what he considered the injustice to those 4 0 property owners and requested the Commission consider changing and correctly the stated injustice. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., agreed that an inequity was applied to the 40 lots. Public Hearing closed by Chrnn. Ketz at 8:52 p.m. 6 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the common interpretation of height limits when the driveway cuts through the natural grade, with Mr. Schubach stating it generally was measured using the natural grade by joining the front and back property lines with a straight line. Comm. Suard then discussed the Commission's alternatives and the reasons for those alternatives, as well as view blockage issues, with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda noted that this building would be one of the few within the area with a height of 35 feet, noting the City Council is giving the Commission mixed signals. He objected the measuring grade from a point that no longer existed and the parking area slope. Comm. Suard felt that potential view of adjacent buildings would be hindered. Comm. Merl discussed his problem with an ordinance allowing 35' height while waiting for a decision relating to a 30' height, stating the Commission should establish a top priority in hearing and handling applications and decide where changes are necessary and appropriate within the R-3 zone. He stated his problem with the extreme driveway slope and what appeared to be a 38' building. He stated his preference for a redesign of the plan. Upon Mr. Compton's agreement to submit a revised design, he was requested to submit that design to the Planning Department by April 27, 1992. A break was taken from 9:03 until 9:10 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Com.~. Di Monda, to CONTINUE CUP 92-3 to the Planning Commission May 5, 1992 meeting to allow the applicant to submit a revised plan and address the Commission's stated concerns, which includes (among others) building height and point of measurement and slope of the driveway. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Coll'.:IIts. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, S ·;iard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 92-4/PDP 92-4 CONDITIO*A.L USE PER..lliIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #23286, A..'l'D PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Precise Development Plan. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to Conditions and noted the alternative to continue the request. He described the proposed project including the appearance, parking requirements, open space, landscaping, building height within the 35' limit, heig·h t of surrounding buildings and compliance to Planning and Zoning requirements. He stated the applicant proposed an averaging method to establish side-yard setbacks rather than using a minimum setback requirement. Mr. Schubach stated the averaging method be used at the Commission's discretion. He 7 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 commented the Commission may wish to impose the building be low at the front of the lot and the full 35' height towards the rear of the lot. He stated the preliminary plans did not include finished floor elevations for Staff verification and noted the "architec- tural projections" were questionable legal encroachments, requiring determination by the Commission if the encroachments into the yard areas are allowable. Staff recommended a condition that perimeter walls or fences be included on revisions .for Planning Dept. review. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:21 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia, project architect, using the drawings, explained the building design elements and projections within the side yard to establish interest. He discussed possible alternatives to the front projections with Staff and the Commission. He stated the actual building height was below the 35' height limit and did not create a view blockage problem to the structures across the street. He expressed his discomfort that the Commission would review projects based upon a possible 30' height limit, which created design problems for the architect who didn't know whether to design to 30' or 35' heights. Mr. Compton stated information had been obtained from CalTrans. Eric Richardson, 4741 Darien, stated his neighbors were not concerned about the height limit. Diana Vidal, 930 1st Street, discussed the i mpact upon her property if the building were built to a 30' height a nd then the property in back of her were allowed to build to a 35' height. She felt she should be allowed to build as high as is currently allowed. Ni~ette McCiustion, 4741 Darien, discussed previous zone changes, change from coillJ.~ercial to residential zoning and the devaluation of her property. She stated if she were required to build to only 30', the building would be a cracker box. She felt the Commission was hurting the property owne::-s and requested the property owners' feelings be considered. She stated she was looking to enhance the property and to live there. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia, project architect, stated the property had been owned by the same family for a long time. The owners wished to live in two units and sell the third. Brian Vidal, 930 1st Street, believed the residents across the street from his property would retain thei r views. He stated the building was old and unattractive, which they proposed to change. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:38 p.m. Co mi.u . Di Monda c ommented upon the 14-degree driveway, requesting a redesign to obtain a gentler slope and enlargement of some of the bedrooms which were extre.mely s.mall. He read the building code denoting the room size allowances into the record. He discussed future development of the hospital site and the adjacent areas, 8 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 which would impact the current project, and reiterated his wish to maintain fairness in decisions pertaining to all Hermosa Beach construction projects. Comm. Merl stated his concerns regarding the setting of a precedent. Mr. Schubach referenced a similar project that had been previously approved by the Commission. He noted this project might be significantly impacted by CalTrans' decision and commented upon Staff's concerns relating granting of permits at this time. Mr. Schubach discussed the length of time necessary to receive CalTrans' decisions. Comm. Suard stated the building was quite bulky, which could be reduced by lowering the height. Chmn. Ketz. also expressed her concerns regarding the building height, but felt that until changes are made, the Commission should continue to approve the 35' height limit. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to CONTINUE CON 92-4/PDP 92-4, DIRECT the applicant to revise the plans based upon the comments made and noted by the Commission during this hearing and the Commission will REVIEW those changes prior to a final decision. This motion was pulled at the applicants' request. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to DENY CON 92-4/PDP 92-4 and to incorporate in this denial all the comments made relating to the project, to include slope of driveway, room size, height and setback. If this item is appealed to the City Council, it may then decide what the issues important to the City are. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, and Suard Comm. Merl, Chmn. Ketz None None CON 91-9/PARK 91-7 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR A MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSE BUILDING, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIR- ONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 601 CYPRESS AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve subject Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan, and adopt the Negat ive Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to conditions and noted possible alternative actions. He described the building, parking area and requirements, applicqnt's use intent, current business operation including warehousing, handicapped parking provision, and proposed loading spaces. He stated Staff foresaw no problem with the warehousing use as a secondary use. Staff recommended a condition to establish a maximum manufacturing area and to prohibit conversion of warehouse 9 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 space, with the Planning Director's approve of any use that would occupy the other two suites. He stated landscaping materials should be more clearly identified. Staff did recognize flaws in the proposed plan due to lot size and building footprint and stated concern regarding parking ratio versus structure square footage. Mr. Schubach stated the project represented a positive improvement to the site and street and abandonment and capping of the idle.oil well, and possibly lead to the development of the adjacent property (as discussed in the supplemental information from the City Attorney provided to the Commission). -Comm. Di Monda discussed the parking requirement with Mr. Schubach, determining the project was lacking five of the required spaces. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:05 p.m. Larry Lubow, 644 Cypress, applicant, stated he was an artist, sole owner of the business, rarely employed other people and used 90% of the building for warehousing. He stated his awareness as to the importance of adequate parking provision. He stated realistically only 4 to 5 spaces will be used, he would never exceed the 13 space provision and was willing to sign a covenant to that fact. He discussed the projected use of the building, stated he planned to rent half of the building and discussed his efforts to get the oil well capped and obtain the required soil samples. He distributed his portfolio for review by the Commission. He confirmed his .,. understanding of his rental limitations to Comm. Marks. He felt the parking requirement should be based upon the number of employees, not the building space. Chmn. Ketz discussed the difficulties in administration associated with that suggestion. Mr. Lubow discussed his problems with the building and the uncapped well, while the City has allowed development of the yard by McPherson Co. Mr. Lee noted this was a different issue. He stated the City would not be allowing McPherson Co. to be develop an oil well within 100 feet of a structure and explained the provisions of that agreement. Tom Morley, Loma Drive, felt Mr. Lubow's application ·would result in land-use improvement. He questioned C.U.P. Item No. 2, stating it was not "permanent" enough and requested that it be stated the well had been permanently abandoned. He discussed his concerns relating to Staff's discretionary abilities and requested that statements should be clear as to what is allowable within a particular zone. Mr. Orley requested and received a copy of the City Attorney's letter that was previously referenced. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:20 p.m. Chmn. Ketz discussed the loading space and blocking of handicapped parking space with Mr. Schubach, who expressed concern regarding the use of future tenants and noted the handicapped parking was adequate. Chmn. Ketz felt a problem existed with only 13 parking spaces, of which six were compact parking spaces. She also was concerned regarding the pumber of spaces in relationship to new use. Comm. Di Monda stated the applicant had two compact spaces over the 10 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 allowance, while being five spaces short. He noted this issue was a discretionary matter as to the strictness of interpretation. He suggested the applicant be conditioned to encourage development and when dealing with manufacturing, the type of manufacturing should be reviewed. - Comm. Suard commented upon the supposed problem between the City and Stinnetts relating to the well. Mr. Lee stated this was a separate issue relating to this application only because of the Fire Code because the Stinnetts contend the well is operating. He stated Staff has not asked the Commission to consider abandonment of the well in any way other than that there is a Fire Code prohibition against develcpment as long as the well is in an operating condition. Comm. Merl discussed buildi:-.g design to allow for future parking with Comms. Di Monda and Marks deciding the second level would be best for future parking. The Commiss i on d iscu ssed the possible future site use or change in current usage impact on parking requirements. Mr. Lee noted if the building is built for M-1 purposes, the subsequent user would not have to return to the Commission for approval of any other land use entitlements. If the Commissioner were to define restrictions on current use, that would serve as a future restriction of future modification of usage. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE PDP 91-9/PARK 91-7 subject to Staff's and City Attorney's recommend- ations as to the correct handing of tapping of the well, with a condition that the use of the building is to be for "artist studio, ceramic studio" and all facilities and work areas related to that use; any change in the product being manufactured would require the applicant or new les se.e to present to the Planning Commission an application for approval. This use restriction is to be recorded with the property title. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm.s. Di Monda, Marks, and Merl Comm. Suard, Ch~m. Ketz. No:.:e I~one Mr. Lubow was informed he could contact Staff in order to obtain the implications of the covenant, covenant language, leasing of tenant space options and his ability to appeal the CoI(IIrtission' s decision. SS 86-12 TEXT 11MENDMEK'T TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ADULT USES AND ADOP:('ION Oi<.. Ari '17~NVI~ONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (continued from March 3, 1992 Meeting.) Recommended Action: To review additional data requested and direct Staff to set for public hearing. MOTION by the Commission to CO JTINUE this item to the Commission's meeting of April 21, 1992. No objections, so ordered. 11 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 SS 91-4 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RECON- STRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE this item. No objections, so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Planning Department activity report of February 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for April 14, 1992 City Council meeting. RECEIVE AND FILE c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Comm. Di Monda asked if the study of R-3 and RP zones would affect areas which are to be built to R-3 zone standards, which Mr. Schubach stated would not. Comm. Di Monda referenced the May 5, 1992 meeting and stated the definition of "grade" should be discussed and decided upon. d. City Council minutes of February 25 and March 10, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS The Commission DIRECTED Staff to present a list of studies to be placed on future agendas to the Commission in order to establish prioritization. The list is to include who initiated.the item and when the item was initiated. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 10:58 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 April 7, 1992. ~d?i?W~ Michael Schubach, Secretary ~ n . 'N\~ R -ehristiRe Ke-t.-o ,✓chairman oB~-r 13. f·-1A£KS \)~ 5/13 /1 ')_ Date 12 P.C.Minutes 4/7/92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1992, AT 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order. at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Merl. ROLL CALL I Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the February 4, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, with the following changes: SECTION: STAFF ITEMS (c) to be redone in its entirety to include a complete, adequate outline of all discussion by the Commission, including quoted memorandum information, all comments, cited Sign Ordinance Sections regarding changes relating to this particular issue, citing definitions established within the Ordinance to include materials that temporary and permanent signs are made from. Resolution P.C. 91-73, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHILDREN'S DAY CARE CENTER FOR THIRTEEN OR MORE CHILDREN AND AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE AT 739 LONGFELLOW. AVENUE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. • ;Resolution P.C. 92-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COND!TIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20554 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 2902 HERMOSA AVENUE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Robert Udovich, 1559 Pacific Coast Highway, distributed to the Commission copies of a letter from Round-Table Pizza to Mr. 1 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Schubach, explained the letter content, referenced a parking survey previously conducted and other correspondence, and discussed the reasons for his petition for Mr. Schubach's resignation or termination. PUBLIC HEARING PDP 91-5 • --PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 64-ROOM HOTEL AND 3,336 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (continued from November 19 r December 3, 1991, and January 7, 1992 meetings). Recommended Action: To continue to March 17, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated this application had been continued several times due to a previous revisions to comply with Commission requests. A · continuan ce is requested due to additional details currently requiri ng completion. Mr. Schubach stated he was very conf i dent t his application would be available at that meeting. He stated this item would be renoticed if the Commission wished. Commissioners Di Monda and Merl discussed the reasons for the previous continuances. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:10 p.m. Ann Lewis, 834 First Street, requested that public notices be again issued. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:11 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to CONTINUE the application to the meeting of April 7, 1992, to include direction to Staff that renotification be performed. • AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None PDP 91-10 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW A DUPLEX AT 122 FIRST STREET (continued from January 7, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To continued to March 3, 1992 meeting for applicant to submit revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated due to the fact that problems still exist within the revised plan, requiring additional corrections, the applicant requested a continuance,. He stated Staff has seen the plans prior to this meeting. 2 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:12 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this application. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:12 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to CONTINUE the application to the meeting of March 3, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None CON 92-2/PDP 92-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP :#21667, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1051 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Development Plan. Mr. Schubach stated the plan generally meets all Code requirements. The revised plans would be examined by Staff to assure requirements compliance. Commissioner Di Monda noted the absence of a require- ment for 24" box tree landscaping and requested the Condition be added. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:14 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., project architect, s·tated the applicant had reviewed and agreed to the Conditions. Comm. Marks and Mr. Compton discussed the access/egress on the one staircase in the two-story bu ilding, which included subterranean and mezzanine levels. Comm. Marks felt this was an unsafe condition. Mr. Compton stated no living area was at the Basement level, explained the 17' set back requirements versus available living space and building square footage, and that open space decks were outside the mezzanine level. Comms. Marks and Di Monda discussed the Commis- sions previously stated wish to maximize deck space adjacent to main living areas versus the submitted plan with Mr. Compton. Coirun. Di Monda discussed the possibility that similar future pro j ects could include a landscaped, usable rear yard area, to which Mr. Compton replied this had been done in the past and will be in the future. Comm. Marks and Mr. Compton discussed the projected sales price of the units. David Walfram, 1036 Monterey, discussed the difficulty of the on-street parking on Monterey, commenting that new construction eliminated more street parking, asking if parking entrances could be on Bay View instead of Monterey. Chmn. Ketz noted that this particular application would provide addition of-street parking and that the grade difference made entrance from Bay View impossible. 3 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Ian Smith, 669 4th Street, asked if the Commission was concerned regarding the residents of the current building which is being replaced with the new project. He comm ented that one resident had lived there 17 years and that the building was "very we.11 kept". He also mentioned the lack of area on-street parking. Loren Davis, Manager, 1100 Monterey Blvd., stated the new buildings will block the views, there is currently a parking problem and more on-street parking is being taken away. During the past two years, buildings ;are allowed to be too large. Jerry Compton rebutted by stating past developments had been built with under-utilization of parking requirements, resulting in the current parking problems. He felt every property owner should be allowed to have a curb cut, noting the Code now requires a lot of off-street parking. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:35 p.m. Comm. Di Monda stated that until the City Council makes a decision regarding views and building heights, the Commission does not feel current applications should not be addressed and the Commission does not have a legal right to prohibit property owners from using their property as long as the requirements are met. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE the application with a change in the Condition Use Permit, Paragraph 4, to include 24" box trees as part of the landscaping plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corruns. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Corrun. Marks None None CUP 92-1 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE TWO AUTO REPAIR BUSINESSES AT 323 AND 325 ARDMORE AVENUE. Recommended Action: To approve said Master Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Schubach stated this was an amortized C.U.P. Staff is attempting to impose some regulations on types of business which may cause problems. This business is located in a residential area but has experienced no problems within the neighborhood. The applicant also works on some small racing cars, his own and others, behind closed doors. Mr. Lee noted this business is within the context of "grandfathered" use~ if the business changed or closed for a 90-day period, it would lose its-legal nonconforming status. Mr. Schubach noted the Commission would only be approving auto repair, not allowing an enlargement of usage. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:49 p.m. 4 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Robert Catalano, applicant, stated he had reviewed and agreed with the Conditions. He referenced a petition signed by his neighbors requesting driveway striping not be required. He discussed the types of fire-fighting equipment he had with Comm. Marks. He stated his building nee~ed a new roof. Jerry Compton, architect, 1200 Artesia Blvd., stated the applicant wished to blend in with and enhance the adjacent residential properties, while being across the street from manufacturing buildings,, He commented the applicant wished to cut costs and install the roof at the same time the other required Conditions were being completed, noting the roof rafters would only bear the roof, itself. Mr. Compton wished the Commission to .determine whether the new roof would be a structural modification or not. He requested a continuation if the Commission was going to request an elevation and to relieve the applicant of additional public hearings and associated costs. Mike Dimiko, 559 3rd Street, stated the applicant had been an outstanding business resident with extreme concern regarding his neighbors. He asked for clarification of Condition #9 regarding customer drop off and pick up. The Commission agreed this Condition needed clarification. He also asked that striping not be required. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:06 p.m. Chmn. Ketz determined striping is a normal requirement, but can be waived. Comm. Di Monda determined that only 11 parking spaces were required, suggested the stripes not be required but landscaping be required, if the change is acceptable to the owner. He stated that the Commission does not have a legal right to prohibit property owners from using their property as long as the requirements are met. Mr. Schubach stated the Commission, if it didn't believe that changing the roof style was in violation of the nonconforming section of the Code, the Commission could request an interpretation from Staff, make a policy statement confirmed by the City Council and issue a building permit. The roof change could not be approved with the C.U.P., unless unusual grounds were evident or it was determined to not be a modification. Mr. Schubach commented that if an additional fee is required, it would be for a Variance, requiring completion of the Variance procedures. Mr. Lee confirmed that Mr. Schubach suggested to the Commission that a C.U.P. could be granted with Conditions which would have no effect upon the roof line; Mr. Catalano could return for a Code interpretation regarding the roof-line change by requesting same from the Planning Department. It a Variance for non-conforming building was required, procedure must be followed, including fee payment. Chmn. Ketz confirmed interpretation could be made by the Commission at the continuance date time. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE the C.U.P. application, with the following changes: The property is 5 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 located in Rl Zone, single-family residential, (A) change "to authorize" to "to regulate the prior legal existing use", Item 9 change to read, "Customer pick up and drop off will occur between the Monday through Saturday authorized hours of operation, auto-body repair and painting is prohibited and landscaping will be required in lieu of parking area striping. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: j Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None Chmn. Ketz stated the question regarding the roof would have to be presented to the Staff with a request for interpretation by the Commission. PARK 92-1 PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW DELIVERY SERVICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ROUND TABLE PIZZA IN VONS MARKET AT 715 PIER AVENUE, PLAZA HERMOSA. Recommended Action: To approve said Parking Plan. Mr. Schubach presented project history, noting the delivery issue was not approved. When, due to deliveries, a restaurant inter- pretation was made, a parking plan was required, of which requirements are not enforced by the Planning Department. He discussed upper and lower level parking, employee use of customer parking spaces, parking lot usage change, the more intense use which required a revised parking plan, the applicant's request for approval of its revised parking plan, relief from strict parking requirement application as not unusual for businesses of this size, parking problems created by patrons of Hermosa Pavilion. Staff recommended Conditions that deliveries by completed from behind Vons or in the lower level, to which the applicant is not totally responsive, and employees park in the lower level with extended time parking allowance. Staff believes adequate space is available to support parking and unloading in the area behind CVS Drugstore and Aaron Brothers Art Mart. Comm. Di Monda asked Mr. Lee about the validity of unsigned permits, to which Mr. Lee responded the Minutes would reflect the actions of the Commission and/or City Council which constituted formal action by the City. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:19 p.m. Peter Kugler, Director, Design & Construction Services, Round Table Pizza, 4742 Segregate Ave, Pleasanton, discussed the Staff report, stating they could abide by the Conditions, but requested relief from the after-8:00 p.m. parking requirement, preferring to use the 6 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 underground parking garage for security reasons. He stated a total of four vehicles are being used for delivery and food deliveries arriving once weekly. Peter Harris, 1100 Monterey Blvd., discussed the perpetual parking problems in the lot and the misuse of compact parking spaces, using his own experiences as illustration. He stated parking was a problem until after 10:00 p.m. June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Ave., discussed her observations of Vons parking lot during the last several weeks, including many cars making deliveries, trucks parked in the red no-parking zone due to lack of parking. She felt cars and trucks should park behind the store. Robert Udovich, parking problems discussions with judgment. 1559 Pacific Coast Highway, again discussed the within the parking lot area and his previous Staff, requesting the Commission make' its own Diane Udovich, 1559 Pacific Coast Highway, asked that no more compact spaces be allowed in the parking lot area. Murna Marshall, 360 33rd Place, stated the Pavilion blocked off its parking structure, resulting in it customers parking at the "Vons" parking lot. She discussed locked access of parking structure, robberies and the lack of safety within these structures. The access from the lower parking area is an open area next to Aaron Brothers. Robert Udovich, 1559 Pacific Coast Highway, discussed the costs to his business by allowing Round Pizza to operate and the impact upon small business owners. Jim Wesner, 2715 Eloesty, hoped the previous parking plan to convert many parking spaces to compact would not be adopted, since compact spaces are difficult to enter and exit. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, did not want more compact parking spaces in the parking lots. Richard Lucy, 2916 Tennyson Place, stated a parking problem exists because people are reluctant to park at Pavilion parking structure. He felt compact parking spaces do not work, delivery trucks are using parking spaces, and the "parking problem" was really a reluctance to walk any distance. Peter Kugler, Director, Design & Construction Services, Round Table Pizza, 4742 Segregate Ave, Pleasanton, felt the majority of the customers were already Vons customers. He felt the existing parking stalls were being under utilized, stating they would be willing to move the delivery vehicles to the lower levels, and requested leniency regarding hours. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Kugler the fact that Round Table Pizza was a tenant of Vons. 7 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at-8:42 p.m. Comm. Merl commented upon the major parking problem at Vons parking lot, especially on week ends. He expressed concern over the lack of security and delivery trucks using convenient parking spaces. Comm. Di Monda agreed with Comm. Merl. He felt that the City should not enforce parking problems at Vons and Pavilion; but, rather, they should work out their own problems. He commented upon Vons' att~tude in not sending a representative to the meeting and expressed concern they might try to lease additional business usage within its property, and the Vons adverse effect on other businesses. He stated Proposed parking behind Aaron Bros. is unacceptable. He stated Vons is currently violating the C.U.P. and based upon the intensified use, adverse effect on businesses, etc. he did not support this issue. Comm. Suard agreed with both CoIDins. Merl and Di Monda, adding Vons is acting as an inappropriate landlord and expressed his concern regarding the current parking problems. He asked Staff to view the parking area during peak times. Mr. Schubach stated Staff believed Pavilions is causing the ~arking problems. Comm. Marks suggested Vons develop solutions to its problems and then meet with Staff. Chmn. Ketz .felt the Pavilion 2-hour parking should be enforced. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to DENY the Parking Plan and to DIRECT Staff to do whatever is within Staff's power to ensure that Round Table Pizza and Vons be brought into conformance with the existing Parking Plan. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Schubach stated it was his understanding if the City Council upholds this decision, Round Table would be noticed and possible renoticed that the parking plan had been denied, and if violations occur, fines will be levied and the business possibly closed. A break was taken from 8:55 until 9:05 p.m. CUP 92-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADMENDMENT TO ALLOW FIVE NEW TRIPLE-HIGH CAR STACKER$, AND TO AMEND CERTAIN CONDITIONS AT 2775, 2851, 2901 AND 3001 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, VASEK POLAK AUTO DEALERSHIPS. Recommended Action: amendment. To approve said Conditional Use Permit Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stated Staff recommended approval and presented an alternative to denial of allowing the applicant to present another location plan. He discussed and 8 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 described the proposed stackers and proposed metal canopies over existing stackers, visibility to residents and highway, and proposed locations. He stated the applicant had resolved most residents' problems at this time, and defined specific problem areas and the solutions. He noted previous Minutes discussed two-level stackers. Staff recommends sufficient landscaping on adjacent residents' property be provided to obscure direct view of the stackers, to be resolved between residents and applicant. Staff also recommended late-night delivery limitations, and that no changes nqt shown on the approved plans may be made. He stated if the Resolution were not adopted, Staff had no objection to the canopies being approved as a minor modification. Mr. Schubach then ex1;>lained an adjacent neighbor's plan for fencing and discussed this plan with the Commission. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:16 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., representing Mr. Polak, who was under the impression a building permit was in place which covered the stackers. Based upon that impression, triple stackers were ordered at the same time as the two stackers were ordered. This is at issue. He stated and detailed the Conditions that had been met except for striping and pavement signing, which will be completed by February 22, 1992. He presented a C. U. P. copy signed by all employees to the Commission. The triple-car stackers mitigation could be through fencing, which Mr. Compton proposed and described, stating the applicant was willing to install the fence and a fashea as a compromise. He pointed out the landscaping would be on someone's property, the applicant could provide the greenery. He stated the canopies were important to protect the applicant's investment. He discussed additional future stacker locations, plans for fencing, planting areas and the retaining wall, requesting the Commission's opinion. After discussion with Mr. Compton, Comm. Marks asked for a cross-section drawing for clarification, expressing concerns for the residents' views. Comm. Di Monda asked if further requests for higher stacker units would be received in the future, to which Mr. Compton -responded he believed three-level were the tallest manufactured. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton discussed possible stackers locations. Comm. Suard confirmed the canopies were made of rust-resistant material. Mr. Compton discussed with Comm. Di Monda and explained the need for, and manner of, car movement on the property and stackers, including fire lane blockage and car rotation. Mr. Carson explained that the movement of cars resulted in damage and expense to the applicant. Arlene Howl, 2966 La Carlita Place, thanked the Planning Department for its effort. She suggested compromise; noting her two-year research in property separation from the dealership. She wishes to under-ground her wires to build a separation screen, noting she needed an easement from the dealership. She wishes to work on the separation between her property and the dealership, noting the noise and traffic problems which currently exist. She stated she wished to take a proactive stance. 9 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Chris Howl, 2966 La Carlita Place, thanked the Planning Department and the Commission, explained his previous correspondence and noted his lack of knowledge relating to the previous ordering of triple- stackers. He felt a permanent visual screen would be more workable than landscaping and requested he have input in the installation of the screen. Richard Sullivan, 2954 La Carlita Place, noted the stackers are fairly noisy, making loud banging noises when the cars are moved. He stated >he wished to build, at his expense, a wall and requested the hours of stacker operation be limited, excluding week ends. Derek Kleasak, 744 Longfellow, noted 4 of 29 C.U.P. Conditions he felt were in noncompliance: 1) Item 23, exterior lights which are very bright and should be turned off in the evening hours, 2) Land- scaping, he wants landscaping between his property and the dealer- ship, 6) Adequate on-site parking, employees are parking on Long- fellow, and 12) Noise and Car Alarms, the alarms go off frequently. He requested these items be addressed. Arlene Howl, 2966 La Carlita Place, asked how provisions were determined. Mr. Schubach stated Building Department decision and determination. wind that design was an Richard Lucy, 2916 Tennyson Place, felt this was an opportunity to review previous C.U.P. Conditions, and stated his complaints relating to employee parking and street travel. He stated conditions had improved on 30th Street, but increased in the surrounding area. He stated the cars are being test driven on residential street. J.C. Agagianian, Jr., 2802 Tennyson Place, discussed the community involvement of the dealership and the actions taken to improve neighborhood conditions. He urged mutual efforts to resolve the problems, address the residents' problems and find solutions. Arlene Howl, 2966 La Carlita Place, agreed that Mr. Polak had done many fine things, stated she was not talking about the person, but rather the dealership. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., stated the undergrou.nd wiring was agreeable with Mr. Polak, he has not seen an easement request, the neighbors should contact the dealership if car loading or resident street usage is occurring and bothersome and the lights could be adjusted. He stated the dealership is not opened until 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, and vehicles will not be moved until 10:00 a.m. or after 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays, if these times were approved. The applicant was not aware of employees parking on Longfellow. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:16 p.m. Comm. Marks determined the alley had been vacated to Mr. Polak three or four years ago with Conditions, with Mr. Polak owning the adjacent land strip. 10 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Chmn. Ketz confirmed the,triple-stackers were proposed to be placed in a previously defined double-stacker area. Co~. Suard determined the canopies could not be additionally soundproofed. Comm. Di Monda reiterated the only items being considered were the five triple-high car stackers and the canopies, to alleviate any misunderstanding. He suggested the neighbors be contacted to reach an agreement for landscaping, while stating that while recognizing Mr. Polak's contributions to the City, technology must be reined in, with perhaps a building being built to house the cars. Chmn. Ketz disc1Jssed the height of a fence able to screen the neighbors with Mr. Schubach, requesting Staff to review the issue with Mr. Polak and the residents. When a solution is reached to the neighbo rs ' satisfaction, then Staff was directed to present that to the Commission. The Commiss i on directed the Planning Director to review landscaping requirements and present to the Commission, landscape and fencing plans, as well as hours of operation of stackers. Mr. Lee suggested the matter be continued to allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors, provide alternative plans, meet with Staff and present to the Commission for final approval. A MOTION was made by Chmm. Ketz to APPROVE the request on the Condition that it is screened from the adjacent neighbors and it is just for the five car stackers and the canopy covers, some type of landscaping screening, and that the hours of operation for the stackers will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on week days, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Merl, to CONTINUED CUP 92-3 to March 17, 1992 at which time the applicant is to have submitted a screening plan and hours of operation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated the City Council-directed consider a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element for a bike way extension from 24th Street to the City limits and relocation in front of the dwelling units, which would result in Grant inclusion for The Stand repair. Comm. Merl requested the Commission be given the 11 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 opportunity to review the improvement plan , stating it was the most important Public Works improvement. Comm . Merl also requested the Commission be given the opportunity to review the Capital Improvements proposal for the new pier entrance and noted no relationship between the two projects had been identified. Chmn. Ketz discussed with Mr. Schubach and determined this plan amendment will be forwarded to Environmental Review Committee during March 1992, Planning Commission during April 1992 ,· and City Council d~ring May 1992. Comm. Suard suggested a questionnaire and adequate notice be sent. Mr. Schubach stated the General Plan will be noticed in the newspaper as standard procedure, allowing the schedule to be followed. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to DIRECT Staff to conduct the environmental assessment and schedule for public hearing an amendment to the Circulation Element regarding the route of the Strand bike path. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Chmn. Ketz None Suard None a. Consideration of initiating a moratorium on R-3 lots in locations adjacent to R-2 & R-1 zones, and study of lowering height. Mr. Schubach stated this item was requested by the Commission regarding restricting maximum development of R-3 lots that may obstruct R-1 and R-2 zoned lots. He stated the moratorium had expired, with the City Council opting to make no changes to the Zoning Ordinance in terms of height. The proposed moratorium would effect three areas: ( 1) area bordered by Manhattan Blvd. on the east and Hermosa Blvd. on the west, (2) area bordered by Monterey Blvd. to the beach, and ( 3) area east of Pacific Coast Highway along Fifth Street east of the commercial area. He noted the Housing Improyement Program was turned down by the City Council. Chmn. Ketz and Mr. Schubach discussed the fact that during the moratorium some buildings had a 25-feet height limit. Comm. Di Monda thought the City Council had wanted to deal with the issue one at a time and felt HIP was too broad. He preferred the Commission being able to deal with view blockage by establishing a moratorium on all construction over 30 feet in all areas. He suggested R-3 height could then be lo~ered throughout except where blocked by taller R-3 zone buildings. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Di Monda agreed this option should be reviewed. Comm. Merl expressed reservations regarding moratoriums, preferring the study be dealt with. Comm. Di Monda addressed Comm. Merl's concerns and stated the moratorium would only be for buildings over 30 feet, and would 12 P.C.Minutes _2/18/92 prevent rushed, incomplete plans being presented. Comm. Marks agreed with Comm. Di Monda's statements. Comm. Merl reiterated his concerns relating to moratoriums. Comm. Suard felt that 25 feet heights in the R-1 zones was not adequate to build two story and garage/basement area buildings, suggesting all residential R-1 and R-2 zone buildings be allowed to reach the 30 feet height level. Comm. Di Monda felt this would create additional view blockage. Chmn. Ketz noted this would be a different issue. Mr. Lee suggested a grandfather provision be considered, explaining the various a~pociated considerations. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to RECOMMEND to the City Council a moratorium for construction over 30 feet throughout the City until the Planning Commission can aqdress the view blockage issues throughout the R-3 zones, especially those that abuts R-2 and R-1 zones; all approved projects prior to this agenda item would fall under a grandfather provision. AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Merl ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None b. Letter from La Paz Restaurant at 1095 Aviation Boulevard regarding Parking Plan. Mr. Schubach stated Staff received a letter stating the Church of Christ cannot offer the parking to the La Paz Restaurant. The applicant is not able to meet the C.U.P. Condition, other parking did not seem feasible, but the Commission may amend the condition, if it so wished. Mr. Lee noted Staff suggested that the Commission provide other direction as to how applicant might meet the required condition, not necessary to waive the condition. Chmn. Ketz stated the applicant must been the requirements of the C.U.P. Comm. Merl felt the Commission had previously agreed the need for the parking spaces was marginal, which would be a variance. Comm. Di Monda did not feel the clientele would be driving to the restaurant, noting that restaurants on Pier Avenue cannot furnish parking. Mr. Schubach noted the applicant's options would be discussed with him. RECEIVE AND FILE. c. Memorandum regarding status of Strand wall project and review of the future Capital Improvement Programs by the Planning Commission. Chmn. Ketz requested the Commission be given the opportunity to review this issue. Comm. Merl felt it was a major project, being crucial the Commission review it and have input. He felt the pier entrance should be integrated with this issue. Mr. Schubach stated Staff would assure presentation to the Commission. RECEIVE AND FILE. 13 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 d. Memorandum regarding Greenbelt Parking Lot and Signs on Hotel Hermosa. Mr. Schubach stated, at the Commission's direction, memos had been submitted to the City . Manager regarding resolving the Greenbelt Parking issue progress, with copies sent to Public Works Department. The City Manager responded the project is just one month behind schedule. Comm. Di Monda stated his understanding is that Parks and Recreation Department will probably not receive this item unti} the end of March, the Commission would not receive it until the end of April, 1992, noting that "everyone had dropped the ball" and that he was tired of promises which are not fulfilled. He felt this lack of action was an insult to the entire community. Comm. Marks agreed, and then asked the status of the Ocean Drive project. Mr. Schubach explained the Ocean Drive issue had been presented to the City Council at the February 11, 1992, resulting in much debate, the City Manager did receive a parking space study, with a study being continued. Mr. Schubach was DIRECTED to contact Mr. Glickman to obtain a status report. Comm. Ketz stated he did not understand why the project was being delayed. MOTION b¥ Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to DIRECT Staff to immediately send a memorandum to the City Manager, copying the entire City Council, reminding the City Manager that he attended the Joint Meeting, took notes, Mr. Glickman was in attendance, the Commission was to receive this project in February 1992, the Parks and Recreation Department schedule and request that someone physically give the drawings (which are sitting in Public Works Department) to Parks and Recreations Department prior to its next meeting (the end of February 1992), noting the City Council will make the decision as to the lot size. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None e. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for February 15, 1992 City Council meeting., Chmn. Ketz stated this was for the Text Amendment to make the sign ordinance a part of the zoning ordinance. Comm. Di Monda stated he would attend, if possible. f. Tentative Future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE. g. City Council minutes of January 18, 25 & 28, and February 1, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. 14 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 Mr. Schubach stated, regarding the Round Table Pizza issue heard earlier during this meeting, if that establishment wished to refrain from deliveries, the delicatessen portion of the restaurant would be able to continue operation, due to the definition of "restaurant". Mr. Lee explained the issue is whether or not the Commission would allow a delicatessen within a market is a separate use which creates a more intense usage of the property, not the ownership of the establishments. Comm. Merl felt this issue should be reviewed and brought back to the Commission. Chmn. Ketz felt a definition of uses, not who holds the leases, was necessary. Comm. Di Monda discussed the parking requirements of multi-establishment versus single-use establishmentB with Mr. Lee. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern relating to subleased space, the parking requirements and whether the Commission can stop a boutique operation. Mr. Schubach explained the problems with the current Zoning Code definitions. Mr. Lee distributed a memorandum addressing the question of torte liability, stating the "bottom line" is that he did not believe there was any torte liability. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Suard stated, for medical purposes, he would not be able to attend any meetings in March 1992. Chmn. Ketz noted an exception would have to be made by the City Council, confirmed by Mr. Schubach. Comm. Di Monda asked that at the March 3, 1992 meeting, the Policy Statements be brought back for review and possible text amendment; specifically, now that there is no longer a HIP program, the deck space adjacent to livin9 areas. Comm. Merl asked that at the March 3, 1992 meeting, Pavilion issue should be discussed by the Commission, feeling it is not a permanent problem, but the Commission should be aware of the conditions. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 11:30 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 January 21, 1992. 1 . , 1 I (~ . ---/f,,t~ -· /2# / ~ PJ_ ~ 3/~[q--:, / y,->~=A<1/,/~·:("'/ ~ Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary·---- Date 15 P.C.Minutes 2/18/92 \ • SYL 1) I A RCIIJT TEL N0.310-832-7770 Feb 13,92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 4, 1992, A'l' 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY BALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Merl (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Comm. Suard (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to appro~.·e the following Consent Calendar items, with a correction in Resolution P.C. 92-3, Page 2, No. 4, to read, "Certificate of Occupancy". Minutes of the January 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution P .C. 92-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A SECOND UNIT, AND APPROVING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THIS ADDITION OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 840 FIFTEENTH STREET. Resolution P.C. 92-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE DESIGN OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND/OR PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, and Chmn. Ketz None None Comms. Merl and Suard COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PDP 91-10 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PUN TO ALLOW A DUPLEX AT 122 FIRST STREET (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 7 , 1992 MEETING). Recommended Action: To continue to February 18, 1992 meeting for applicant to submit revised plans. 1 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 SYLVIA ROOT TEL N0.310-832-7770 Feb 13,92 Mr. Schubach stated the Staff recommended continuance to the February 18, 1992, meeting, due to complications with the existing side yard of 2.45 feet and the house width, the applicant needed additional time to complete new plan revisions. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-10 to the Planning Commission Meeting on February 18, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Marks, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Di. Monda None Comma. Merl, Suard CON 92-1/PDP 92-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20554, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 2902 HERMOSA AVENUE. Recommended Action: To ap~rove said Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Development Plan. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, describing the property, location, existing structures and proposed project. He stated the project is consistent with the area, complies with Planning and Zoning requirements, was designed with various setbacks and ~rejections, and complied with applicable code requirements including a recently adopted policy statement relating to open space requirements. Mr. Schubach noted the applicant wished to provide access from both the street and alley, necessitating an additional curb cut on Hermosa Avenue. The loss of one space street parking would be offset by additional driveway parking. He coro.mented the March 1989 project approval included driveways at both Hermosa Avenue and Palm Drive. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:11 p.m. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, representing Mr. and Ms. Douglas Clark, discussed the analysis submitted to the Commission, described in detail the proposed project and aspects of the pro- posed structures. She stated the two units would have a total of seven controlled parking spaces. Comm. Marks determined with Ms. Srour that an elevator room was shown on the plans. Vivian Hoffman, 3002 Hermosa Avenue, 28 residents protesting the project. miniums have a maximum height of reviewed. submitted a petition ·eigned by Ms. Hoffman requested condo- 30 feet and that Zoning be Wilma Burt, Hermosa Beach, felt no buildings should be allowed to 2 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 :3·y·L 1,.}IA R:Cil]T TEL ND.310-832-7770 Feb 13,Sl2 9:19 F'.04 have a height of over 30 feet. She felt the area was being changed into a rental area rather than a private residential area, also suggesting the Zoning Ordinance be reviewed. Elizabeth Srour rebutted by stating the project met all Codes currently in existence, is very attractive and will be compatible with adJacent properties. She commented upon the high purchase price of property within Hermosa Beach, and stated the owners are a family of five and wish to have a large home, as well as a rental unit. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:24 p.m. Comm. Di Monda provided a map to the Commission, noting R-1 pro1rerties along The Strand and, then, immediately adjacent R-3 zoning, with R-2 and R-1 followin9. He discussed the misplacement of the R-3 zoning, resulting in view and light blockage due to the height limits. He suggested the plans be revised to drop the building by five feet, to allow other views to be maintained. He questioned allowing the project to be completed as long as the question regarding the R-3 zoning area remained. Comm. Suard seconded Comm. Di Monda' s views and discussed the possibility of a moratorium. Mr. Schubach suggested the matter be referred to the City Council or continued to consider a moratorium or area rezoning. Mr. Lee explained the moratorium restrictions and stated the Commission may request consideration by City Council of a moratorium and noted the issues relating to continuance: i.e. be the time limitations in which the City must act upon project approval or disapproval. He offered to investigate the ability to condition a moratorium and report back to the Commission. Mr. Lee stated another available alternative to the Commission was to consider the merits of the application and either approve or disapprove the application. Comm. Suard asked for the applicant's views toward reducing the building height. Comm. Merl stated he felt the project conformed to all require- ments; the Commission should base its decision upon the project merits and separate th.e review of zoning from this project. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:32 p.m. Elizabeth Srour stated reduction of the building by five feet would be extremely complicated, result in loss of interior space and require a total redesign. She determined that a single-family dwelling would not require appearance before the Commission, noting the unfairness and impact to the applicant, all requirements had been met by the project and that the project was now ready to move forward. She asked this project be treated as had others previously before the Commission. · Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:24 p.m. Chmn. Ketz stated the Commission had the option to approve or deny the request, continue the request with recommendation to City 3 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 -.:,1 L \i lH ,"",UUi I t. L 1 ·i ;_, .. :, 1 U -O ,:, L -( f ( I..) Council a moratorium on R-3 area development until concerns are reviewed and decided upon. Mr. Schubach commented that if the Commission continued the project to a date-certain, no additional costs would be experienced by the applicant. He stated a C.U.P, is valid for a two-year period. Comm. Marks noted the applicant had completed a great amount of work which met codes and had been accepted by Staff. In response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, Mr. Lee explained the general rule in California in respect to vested rights is that a valid building permit and substantial amount of construction be completed; a valid C.U.P. alone does not constitute vested rights. Mr. Lee referenced and explained a recent case law which has started to change that rule, recommending the Commission and City Council review the status of each project in reference to a moratorium implemented after project approval. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE CON 92-1/PDP 92-1 for a one-year valid period with all conditions recommended by Staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Chmn. Retz None Comm. Suard None MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to ask that the City Council review zoning of R-3 areas, specifically this project's R-3 zone, and any R-3 areas that are ''islands" within R-1 and/or R-2 zo ni ng areas and direc t the Commission, or that the City Council issue a moratorium to allow Staff time to study and respond to the Commission. AYES: NOES: Comma. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Commis sion directed Staff to describe the subject area in a way that distinctively makes a differenc e from the other areas and submit that description to the Commission prior to submission to City Council. CUP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH. Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach discussed the history of this application, noting the long term existance of the gasoline station and automatic car wash 4 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 S;'y{_ I,.) I A F:DDT TEL ND.310-832-7770 that had been on the site, a valid C. U. P., the existence of a non-complying canopy and detail work being conducted, with subsequent Variance request denial. The site was purchased in 1990, with improvement being made thereafter, including a partially automatic/handwash operation. Mr. Schubach said the -applicant proposed to relocate the canopy and adequate parking remains a problem. A landscape bumper strip and a revised parking plan showing parking changes have been proposed by Staff. He discussed resident complaints received by Staff and explained the impact of the detailing, parking and exiting opera.tions and requirements. Some suggested conditions included a revised parking plan to include employee parking, prohibiting employee parking on the street, provision of street trees and dense landscaping, full enclosure of the car wash except entrance and exit, and limitation of hours of operation. Mr. Schubach noted cars should be driven by employees, therefore the circumstances are acceptable, with a limited access to the car-waxing operation in the rear. Comm. Merl noted that on week-ends, cars are being parked on an adjacent lot and that exit from that lot by backing the cars out was very dangerous. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had not been aware of that situation, but felt use of the adjacent lot was an illegal use, suggested Conditions be added addressing the use of that lot. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the requirement for 17 parking space requirement for employees. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:07 p.m. Ken McDonald, project architect, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, #307, stated a noise test had been conducted and trees had been planted. He stated additional landscaping could be accomplished to decrease the noise factor. The majority of the employees use a bus rather than cars, allowing more available parking. He suggested that several parking configurations be submitted for review and approval by the Commission. He stated the hours of operation -are 8: 00 a.m. -6:00 p.m. in the summer and 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.rn. in the winter. Richard O'Bryan, applicant, stated he was not aware o -f the non- conforming status when he purchased the property. He stated the employee parking was well below ten. After discussion between Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach, it was suggested a revised parking plan which perhaps included stacked employee parking would be necessary. Mr. O 'Bryan stated he could accommodate 17 parking stalls. He discussed exiting onto 10th Street and explained the problems associated with closure of that exit, noting his willing- ness to assur-e --signage stating "Exit Only". s. J. Lennox, property owner 845 10th Street, felt the noise had increased, not decreased. He stated that cars from the car wash were parked on 10th Street and opposed approval of the application. David Nakiwa, 10th Street, stated he hears the carwash every dar, noise has not decreased, on-site parking is always full, traf fie exiting is dangerous, and detailing is done every day. He opposed 5 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 approval of the application. He approved blocking off 10th Street and closure of the car ramp onto 10th Street. Mr. Dunlap, 830 10th Street since 1956, felt the noise wasn't excessive and the parking problems being experienced was due to the number of rental properties on the street, not the car wash. Mike Galeata, 902 10th Street, agreed with David Nakiwa's statements, commenting upon the traf fie speed due to cars coming from Aviation Blvd., stating the traffic is being unnecessarily increased. He stated there are more property owners than renters living on 10th Street. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Schubach explained that equipment had been installed without prior approval by the Building Department, but were purported to have reduced the noise level. Staff has not received any additional complaints and thought the problem to have been resolved. Howeve:r:, upon site inspection, Staff had concluded additional reduction by enclosing the canopy area was necessary. Comm. Marks confirmed that Staff's suggestion to not allow employees to park on 10th Street should be reinforced. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the property history dating back to 1971 and noted six parking spaces were required in 1989. He felt the 10th Street exit could probably be closed and sympathized with residents regarding the noise levels, but stated he had a problem with requiring 17 parking spaces for a non-chan9ed property usage. Mr. Schubach again suggested a revised parking plan with stacked parking spaces be submitted to the Commission. Comm. Merl fe-lt the landscaping should have been completed previously and expressed concern regarding the traffic problems, including required safety and supervision, which should be addressed. Chmn. Ketz stated her agreement and outlined the options available to the Commission. Comm. Suard discussed possible canopy closure with acoustically-saturated material. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:45 p.m. Mr. O'Bryan, applicant, requested a two-month continuance to conduct research in acoustical materials and allow the • architect sufficient time to complete revisions. Mr. McDonald, architect, also requested the two-month continuance, stating he had other clients and needed the additional time. Comm. Marks confirmed with Mr. McDonald that the issues were: noise, closure of the canopy, restriping of the parking lot, parking in the adjacent parking lot and possible closure of the 10th Street exit. MOtION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE CUP 91-18 until this item until March 17, 1992, at which time a revised parking plan, with at least 12 -parking spaces and closure of 10th Street exiting, is to be submitted to the Commission. 6 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None A break was taken from 8:57 until 9:03 p.m. CUP 91-21/ZON 91-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DAY CARE CENTER FOR 30 CHILDREN AND TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT SOUND WALL PURSUANT TO SECTION 1215(6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 739 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, O.K. CORRAL DAY CARE (continued from November 19, 1991 meeting). Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit with adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration, and deny the zone change. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to Conditions. He stated the retaining wall is on public property and that a taller, private fence, planted with ficus vines, is recommended to be built. He noted an alternative to approval would be to Continue the issue until a traffic evaluation could be completed. Mr. Schubach noted the zone change is unnecessary and, therefore, denial is recommended. He noted a maximum allowance of 28 children, but stated a condition is that a license be obtained which would determine the amount of children allowed at this facility. Mr. Schubach further discussed parking requirements, hours of operation, traffic impact, fencing and remodel of interior structure, and noted the differences between the proposed business and the previous day center at the same location. He also stated the noise impact is of concern, to be decreased by fencing and landscaping, and partially mitigated through the conditions of the C.U.P. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:13 p.m. Bill Beck, 124 Harkness, stated he concurred with the C.U.P. except for the playground hours. He requested an time earlier than 9:30 a.m. to allow children on the playground. Mr. Beck acknowledged a parking problem exists whether he is there or not. He stated he had a gas-meter vault on the corner and, therefore, could not comply with fencing suggestions, but will be setting the fence back and adding landscaping and will have a very nice "look" from the street. He stated he was in favor or the C.U.P. Commission Marks suggested he ~put a coping on top of a wall, to which Mr. Beck agreed. Comm. Di Monda discussed the apparent lack of toilets in the plans with Mr. Beck, who stated facility must be adequate to qualify for a license. Comm. Suard determined the Center would qualify for only 25 children. Chmn. Ketz discussed with Mr. Beck his wish to open at 6: 30 a .m. Mr. Beck stated the parents must bring the children into the building and sign them in·, parking their car during that process. 7 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 S'•/L I.) I A F:IJ[IT TEL N0.310-832-7770 Feb 13,9~ r:i:-;,3 F·.□7 care center. He stated a petition in opposition had been submitted had been submitted to the City Council. He stated the Center was in the center of traf fie bedla.m and that it had not planned adequate parking spaces and requested a traffic study be completed prior to any decision. Wilma Burt, Hermosa Beach, opposed approval of the child care center, feeling the door was being opened to other centers and traffic problems would increase. She questioned the number of proposed employees, parking spaces and facilities versus the number of children that will be attending the Center. Mel Takata, 738 Longfellow, discussed use of his driveway by unauthorized vehicles, the fact that fewer children will attend this Center than the previous one, lack of area parking spaces, and urged the Commission to consider the traffic problems within the area. He suggested that permanent resident-only parking be considered as an alternative. Mr. Takata felt that Mr. Beck had had strong indications that the application would be approved, which bothered him. He stated he was glad a zone change was not being recommended. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:38 p.m. Comm. Merl and Mr. Schubach discussed the possibility and method of obtaining preferential parking for residents. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Merl agreed that a parking problems existed on the street. The requirement for liability insurance was discussed by Comm. Merl with Mr. Lee stating it was not a condition of the C.U.P. since the operation was on private property. Mr. Lee explained the liabili- ties for the use did not extend to the City and discussed ramifi- cations with the Commission, offering to further investigate and return with his findings to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern that implementation of liability insurance would extend to condominiums and other issues, to which Chmn. Ketz agreed. The Commission directed Mr. Lee to investigate and present his findings at the next scheduled Commission meeting. Comm. Di Monda stated this day care center meet al·l the requirements and will be different than the previously submitted plans; the Commission is not approving a I?lan with inadequate equipment or facilities. He stated the residents can apply for permitted parking, which would probably help alleviate parking problems. MOTION by Comm, Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the C. U. P. to allow a day care center, with Conditions, landscaping changes to include angled fence at the pro~erty corner as a safety measure, with...-adjustments to Item #11; business hours of 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and allowing children to play outside on the playground beginning at 8:30 a.m. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None 8 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 . . STAFF ITEMS a. Memorandum regarding the status report at 126 Manhattan Avenue. Chmn. Ketz noted the Building Department made no progress and no further effort to obtain final approval. Mr. Schubach stated Staff would follow this issue to assure it will be progress in the proper manner. Comm. Di Monda asked if the final map be approved prior to the property being placed in escrow. Mr. Lee stated that is a function of disclosure to the potential buyer. b. Memorandum regarding staff recommendations. Chmn. Ketz stated this referenced the Commission's request to know in advance if Staff intends to change its recommendations forwarded to City Council. Mr. Schubach stated he submitted this memorandum for the Commission's information and would notify the Commission if any Staff decisions were altered. c. Memorandum regarding Hotel Hermosa sign approval. Mr. Schubach believed notice will be forwarded to the ·city Manager stating the permit should not have been granted and should be rescended. If the property owner is dissatisfied, he may appeal the decision. Mr. Lee stated his office and the City Manager's is aware of the issue and the question as to whether or not a reasonable interpretation had been made, with no opinion to the City Manager issued to date. He felt it appropriate the property owner be put on notice. Chmn. Ketz asked if the Commission could appeal it to itself, to which Mr. Lee stated the Planning Commission is the appeal body, but the Commission does not expressly have the right to be the a~grieved party. Mr. Lee had not issued an opinion as to the right to appeal at this time, with discussions having just started. Chmn. Ketz noted, in the sign ordinance, page 336.50, it states a banner must be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee acknowledged the valid point, but needed to return with an opinion, noting the Code ambiguity. Chmn. Ketz noted, under the Design Section of the Code, Material 336.38, stated the materials from which a sign could be made; metal, glass, approved plastic or wood. Mr. Lee stated the Attorney's Office needs to further study the issue before an opinion may be given, but that the Code is clear in that the administrative interpretation and ~nforcement is with·the building official, subject to appeal. He acknowledged and explained the lack of clarity in the Code. Comm. Di Monda noted that correspondence showed that a suggestion was made to the hotel operator that a permanent 9 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 sign, noting that Mr. Grove initially interpreted the Sign Ordinance as a temporary sign, found himself with an enforcement problem and offered his own solution to the hotel operator, resulting in the involvement of a multitude of City officials, to resolve the created problem. Mr. Lee suggested the Commission may wish to close any policy loop holes by suggesting Ordinance changes. Comm. Merl pointed out that the sign could have been made of wood and would have then.been acceptable. Mr. Lee noted that Staff interprets on a day-to-day basis the Ordinances, giving practical meaning to those 'ordinances. The Commission may increase clarity and review procedures of the ordinances or make Code Amendements if they so wish. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Lee discussed the Commission's wishes, with Mr. Lee reiterating the Commission had asked the Planning Director to raise the issue with the City Manager's Office, that had been completed, the Sign Ordinance is within the jurisdiction of the Building Official, the City Manager can question the administrative i nterpretation with the Building Official, and the Commission's position is well known relating to this issue. He noted the Commission could suggest that counsel review the Sign Ordinance, but under present conditions, it is being handled under Administration, and appropriately so. Comm. Merl felt the Sign Ordinance should be revised, put into the Zoning Ordinance, but stated it was clear the sign was improper by definition. He felt the ordinance was clear and that the decision regarding this sign was incorrect and needed to be addressed, requesting to see copies of adjacent cities' sign ordinances. Mr. Merl suggested the Commission request the City Council initiate a Text Amendment to the Municipal Code to make the Sign Ordinance a part of the Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Suard noted the current sign will deteriorate quickly and suggested prior to a replacement sign being installed, the Commission should be able to approve or veto. Comm. Di Monda suggested that once new text is in place, an amitorization period on all signs of this type to have them removed. Mr. Lee agreed this would be appropriate. He commented that if the City Manager's Office determined the sign stands, the Commission could ask council to review the issue and ask the matter be brought up on appeal to the Commission. Comm. Merl disagreed in that the article states, "ap~roval by the Commission". Mr. Lee stated a determination as to "sign" or "banner" needed to be made in relation to this particular issue, again noting the ambiguitie~ of the Sign Ordinance. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl to approve the Memorandum. 10 P.C.Minutes .2/4/92 AYES: NOES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None d. Memorandum regarding the joint workshop meetings. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had contacted the School Board regarding meeting dates and presented the School Board's preference of March 5 and 26, 1992 for the meetings. He stated the preferred meeting date, as well as the meeting topics would be presented to the City Council. He stated the Chamber of Commerce had agreed to meet jointly with the Planning Commission on May 7 or 14, 1992 and requested the Coill11)ission select the meeting date and topics to be discussed. The Commission decided to meet with the School board on March 26, 1992 at 7:00 p.m.; topics to be the green-belt relationship, traffic circulation and the school properties which are supposed to be park areas. The Commission decided it had no date preference in which to meet with the Chamber of Commerce; topics to be according to the Chamber of Commerce's preference, but to include bagging of meters and subsequent impact on downtown business, and discuss a completion of a study to install windows for cross ventila- tion in the City Hall Council Chambers with a Public Works Department representative included in the meeting. Mr. Schubach stated the information would be immediately forwarded to the Council, with responses brought back to the Commission. e. Planning Department activity report of December 1991. RECEIVE AND FILE. f. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for February 11, 1992 City Council meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Staff's recommendation is exactly the same as the one presented to the Planning Commission. g. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. RECEIVE AND FILE. h. City Council minutes of January 14, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE. 11 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 COMMISSIONER ITEMS The Commission DIRECTED Staff to send a memorandum to the City Manager expressing the Commission's displeasure at the delay in its receipt of the green-belt parking lot plans, noting that previous direction made during the joint meeting of City Council and Planning Commission has not been followed. Comm. Marks stated Mr. Glickman had promised to present the plan at the February 18, 1992 Planning commission meeting. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to present a report giving current status of The Strand improvements. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to initiate a memorandum to the City Council requesting the Commission be an informal part of the planning phase for major capital improvements by receiving infor- mation from the Building Department relative to its intentions and allowing the Commission to respond with informal recommendations. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to initiate a memorandum to City Council requesting it issue a Public Policy that the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Projects should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, upon the Commission's request. • The Commission DIRECTED Staff to submit the Capital Improvement Budget to the Commission to allow the Commission's determination as to items wished to review. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to investigate the condominiums located on the former South School site, which appears to have a maintenance problem. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to adjourn at 10:44 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the fore going minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of February 4, 1992. ~A-~ sr3tq2.. 1;~ Christine Ketz, Chairman Date 12 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 21, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 6:59 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Suard. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Minutes of the January 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution P.C. 92-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAY NURSERIES, PRESCHOOLS, AND AFTER SCHOOL CHILD CARE FACILITIES WITH THIRTEEN OR MORE CHILDREN AS A CONDI- TIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE R-1 ZONE, AND AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 10 TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR SUCH FACILITIES, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Resolution P. C. 92-2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTIONS 13-7(a) AND (b) TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AND THE REMOVAL OF MORE THAN 30% OF EXTERIOR WALLS Ar-1542 GOLDEN AVENUE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PDP 91-11/NR 91-8 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND UNIT ON A R-2B LOT AT 840 FIFTEENTH STREET. Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development Plan. 1 P.C.Minutes 1/21/92 Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, stating Staff recommended APPROVAL subject to Conditions. He described the property lot, current building and proposed construction of 76% of replacement value and discussed the existing nonconforming side yard setback. He stated two necessary minor plan corrections noted by the Building Department are included as Conditions of Approval: ( 1) the rear-unit deck space is more than 50% covered and ( 2) the mezzanine floor area exceeds 1/3 of the room below. The _applicant has indicated he will correct both. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:05 p.m. Robert Garstein, project architect, 2175 w. 236th Street, stated he and the applicant had reviewed and agreed with the Conditions, presenting plan changes to the Commission for review. Commissioner Marks noted the rear retaining wall was on an adjacent neighbor's property. Mr. Garstein stated the wall belonged to the neighbor and discussed a drafting error on the drawings. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:09 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the application with the Conditions stipulated in the Staff Report. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARINGS Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chinn. Ketz None None None CON 89-8 A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20620 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1344 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Recommended Action: To grant six-month extension. Mr. Schubach stated the Planning Commission had previousiy approved six-month extensions for similar properties and believed it appro- priate to grant this extension. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:11 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:11 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to approve a six-month extension of this application. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None 2 P.C.Minutes 1/21/92 SS 91-5 EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM OF VAPORS AND ODORS DUE TO THE OPERATION OF BUSINESSES AND STUDY OF POSSIBLE METHODS FOR ALLEVIATING THE PROBLEM. Recommended Action: To direct staff to set for public hearing. Mr. Schubach discussed Staff's conclusions, noting decisions would be based upon a case-by-case basis. He noted the difficulties in obtaining A.Q.M.D. inspectors in a timely manner to their office location, the limited number of inspectors, the difficulty in determining objectionable odors, limitations on emission levels and compliance means selection by business owners. He stated if the City decided to mandate the emissions, ~otential pitfalls do exist, which he explained. He stated the Chief Prosecutor's Office had indicated that any local procedural regulations could potentially create a conflict. The City could enroll Staff Members in the A.Q.M.D. violation training courses at no cost, but limit staff training to only emissions produced from local operations, or obtain an outside consultant funded by an special impact fee, to assist the A.Q.M.D. staff. He then discussed the method of fines and regulatory procedures, with the City working closely with the A.Q.M.D. Staff. He stated this program is a new concept, the City of Hermosa Beach would be a "Guinea pig'', and the A.Q.M.D. Staff is very enthusiastic. Mr. Schubach discussed the methods of odor determination with Comm. Marks. Comm. Di Monda determined the trained City Staff would carry out the enforcement, with Mr. Schubach suggesting the trained personnel be from the Fire, Planning and Building Departments, with the Planning Department holding the responsibility due to businesses having C.U.P.s. Comm. Di Monda noted the projected paint-booth conversion figures of $25,000 and $40,000 and requested clarification prior to the Commission making a decision. Additionally, Comm. Di Monda requested additional information be obtained as to what is involved in training, equipment, type of A.Q.M.D. assistance, procedures, how many forecasted calls per day will be received by the City, the cost to the City and the impact on local businesses. Cornms. Merl and Di Monda discussed the equipment needs and staff training with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Merl discussed his concern relating to the fact that no quantifiable devices used, noting that objective criteria would need to be established. Comm. Suard discussed the extent the City would take enforcement with Mr. Schubach. Chmn. Ketz stated more information must be obtained and presented prior to the Commission making a decision. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:31 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:31 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to DIRECT Staff to obtain and present to the Commission more information relating to the cost, impact fees, training and enforcement areas of this proposed Special Study. 3 P.C.Minutes 1/21/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Coffllns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None PS 91-4 POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DESIGN OF CONDOMINIUMS AND RESIDENTIAL PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN REGARDS TO OPEN SPACE AND BASEMENTS. Recommended Action: To adopt the policy statement. Mr. Schubach stated the Commission had directed Staff to prepare Policy Statements addressing concerns relating to designer residential projects relating to open space. He stated these guidelines and general policies relate to basements, grade levels and open spaces to include roof decks, courtyards and areas adjacent to primary living areas. He also defined an additional proposed statement applying to the design and layout of extra rooms commonly located on ground floors. Comm. Di Monda felt a Text Amendment should be made for Items A and B. He did not agree with Item C in that he felt bath and laundry facilities shou ld be allowable, upon Commission's review and approval, within a bottom floor (basement). Chmn. Ketz felt that full bathrooms should not be allowed and felt a Policy Statement was more appropriate than a Text Amendment. Comm. Marks expressed his concern regarding "vagueness" and felt that enough criteria should be included to assist the designer and alleviate any "boot legs". Mr. Schubach noted all the issues will reappear as future Text Amendments when reviewed as a part of HIP. Comm. Suard disagreed with the concept of determining a basement, feeling the height limit requirement was adequate, the Commission should be determining second-floor exit requirements, not whether a floor is a basement or first floor. Comm. Marks noted the natural grade prevails in the determination of a basement, to which the Commission agreed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:44 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:44 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE as Policy Statements Item A as written, request Staff investigate Redondo Beach's similar situations and. decisions, wait for H.I.P., at which time this would be included or written in as a Text Amendment; ADOPT Item B as a Policy as written; APPROVE Item C after striking the last sentence relating to nonallowance of laundry facility, thereby allowing laundry facilities in a basement. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Coffllns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None 4 P.C.Minutes 1/21/92 STAFF ITEMS a. "Designing Without a Blueprint" --an article in Los Angeles Times for Planning Commission's information from Councilman Edgerton. Chmn. Ketz stated this article discusses the lack of design standards and control within Los Angeles. She stated Hermosa Beach has a lot more design controls. Comm. Suard agreed with the article that old, beautiful buildings are being replaced by "boxes", feeling that the City of Hermosa Beach should rethink its policies relating to the redesign of the older buildings. b. Correspondence and ·response regarding the fence height along Valley Drive at 2830 -2832 Ingleside Drive. Mr. Schubach explained the property was sided by three streets with the nonconforming wall not substantially impacting the neighbor- hood. He requested a Variance due to the unusual lot. He discussed the owner's cost in relocating the wall and the fact the new wall exceeded the maximum allowable height. He requested direction from the Planning Commission. Chmn. Ketz noted this common occurrence of walls in that area. Comm. Di Monda felt it should be decided if walk streets were streets or part of the park system and noted the "side yard" in question was actually a back yard. He felt a Text Amendment specifically addressing that type of lot and covering the walk street situation should be initiated, with a case-by-case determination as to whether yards were side or back yards. He felt the existing wall should be allowed to remain with landscaping required. Comm. Merl agreed a Text Amendment is required. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Di Monda discussed establishing a baseline determination of existing fencing in this area. Mr. Lee suggested the presumption is that lots facing a walk street has an adjacent front yard, when that might not be the case and that perhaps a Text Amendment to eliminate walk streets as the front of the house is appropriate and that landscaping not be a Condition until a Text Amendment were adopted. Comm. Merl felt a retroactive Policy Amendment should be established. Comm. Di Monda felt Staff to review the three-sided lots. Chmn. Ketz felt all lots on fronting on Valley Drive should be reviewed. The Commission discussed the existence of nonconforming fences and the manner to control future building, determining that a listing of existing fences should be made for future reference. Mr. Lee commented that the property owner should be noticed that his fence is in violation of the City Municipal Code at the present time~ although action is not being currently taken, this fence could be subject to future enforcement. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to DIRECT Staff to develop a Text Amendment dealing with the issue of the three- sided lots and lots, in general, that front along Valley Drive in terms of the fencing, and REQUEST that auring the study period a moratorium on enforcement be in effect until the end of the study period. 5 P.C.Minutes 1/21/92 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Com1ns. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None None c. Planning Department activity report of November, 1991. RECEIVE AND FILE. d. Memorandum regarding Planning Com1nission liaison for January 28, 1992 City Council meeting. Comm. Di Monda stated he probably would attend and speak on Item #2 at the meeting, requesting that when a denial appeal is presented, the Commission receive Staff's recommendation prior to the hearing. Mr. Schubach stated that if and when Staff had a recommendation, the Commission would be made aware of it, discussing the difficulty due to changes made by the applicant. Comm. Di Monda felt the appeal should be made to the Commission before being presented at the City Council meeting, to which Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Merl agreed, with Chmn. Ketz DIRECTING Staff to forward such recommenda- tions to the Commission, to which Mr. Schubach agreed, if they are available. The Commission and Mr. Schubach discussed a previous application denied by the Commission and presented to the City Council. Mr. Lee stated nothing prevents an applicant's correction of problems and addressing the Commission's concerns to the City Council on the appeal, with Staff identifying the considerations for project approval. He stated at that point in time, it was a function of the City Council to make the decision to approve, deny or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. e. Tentative future Planning Com1nission Agenda. Comm. Di Monda asked about the Green Belt project. Mr. Schubach stated he has contacted Public Works Department, and will do so again. Comm. Suard asked if the City Council/School District/ Planning Commission March meeting was being addressed. Mr Schubach stated that two meeting dates were proposed. He will confirm the dates for the Commission. f. City Council minutes of December 10, 12 and 23, 1991. RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Di Monda asked about the Hermosa Hotel temporary banner to which Mr. Schubach responded the banner had been approved as a permanent sign. After discussion, the Commission felt the banner should not have been approved as a permanent sign, should be removed, and DIRECTED Staff to present this issue to the City Manager's Office, then, guides could be _presented in terms of the application of the Code. The Commission .also agreed a Text 'Amendment to move the regulation for signs within the Zoning Code and provide for the Commission's ultimate regulation of the signs 6 'P.r..Mim,+,,,_~ 1 /?1 /Q? ., prohibit permanent banners in the City should be initiated; with banners being allowed for a 30-day period only. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to DIRECT a letter to the City Manager to the effect the Commission has become aware of what we believe is a violation of the sign ·ordinance by definition; a sign that is defined as temporary, by definition, obtained permanent approval, and the Commission would appreciate an administrative review. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None Comm. Di Monda asked for progress relating to a previous building C.U.P. application, to which Mr. Schubach stated he would review and report status to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 8:46 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 January 21, 1992. Christ~ne Ketz,-Chairman ·-/ ~~( Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 7 P.C.Minutes 1/21/92 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 7, 1992, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Suard and Chmn. Ketz None Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks to approve the following consent calendar items: December 3, 1991 Minutes Resolution P.C. 91-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22886 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 143 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-69, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT RESULTS IN A TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH A SETBACK OF 3.5' RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17' AND REDUCES THE GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE TO LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 200 SQUARE FEET AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3104 INGLESIDE DRIVE. -· Resolution P.C. 91-78, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2 6 9 7 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, "A. S. A. P. MUFFLER & BRAKE". Resolution P.C. 91-79, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1040 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 91-80, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW COMMON PARKING BETWEEN 1095 AND 1063 AVIATION BOULEVARD TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO A RESTAURANT AT 1095 AVIATION BOULEVARD. Resolution P.C. 91-81, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VESTING TENTATIVE 1 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 ) PARCEL MAP #23246 FOR THE DIVISION OF TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO THREE LOTS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROSPECT AVENUE AND REYNOLDS LANE. Resolution P.C. 91-82, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2, RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PARCEL AT 64 10TH STREET. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. 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 HEARING PDP 91-10 --PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW A DUPLEX AT 122 FIRST STREET. Recommended Action: To continue to February 4, 1992 meeting for applicant to submit revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommends a continuance. The applicant requested this continuance due to discovery of a nonconforming side yard, for which the second unit's size must be reduced, chan<Jing the plans. Comm. Di Monda asked Staff to report on the historical value of the house at the February 4, 1992 meeting. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m. No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to continue this application until the February 4, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard and Chmn. Ketz None None Comm. Merl Commissioner Merl arrived at 7:06 p.m. PDP 91-5 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 64-ROOM HOTEL AND 3,336 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 19 AND DECEMBER 3, 1991 MEETINGS). 2 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 Recommended Action: To continue to February 18, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended continuance to allow the applicant to revise plans in response to comments from the Building, Public Works, Fire and Planning Departments. Mr. Schubach described the site and the changes of the most recent plan submittal. He stated Staff was satisfied as far as traffic impacts, but had recommended right-turn area improvement and a right-turn only restriction onto First Place and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Schubach noted the ·applicant proposed construction of a separate restaurant and a 64-room hotel, describing the parking plans, hotel height and finished site plans. He stated the applicant has requested a C.U.P. to serve alcohol at the restaurant, which Staff would recommend approval as long as standard conditions are applied by the bonafide restaurant. The project is subject to Precise Development Plan requirements and Ordinance design guideline. Mr. Schubach stated Staff reviewed this project for consistency, discussed the observations made and the resultant additional conditions/changes recommended by Staff. Mr. Schubach said Staff believes it would be premature for the Commission to take action on this project, as the applicant needs additional time to respond to Staff's many comments and to provide a traffic analysis to the City's satisfaction, and to allow Staff to consult . with other Departments. He recommended that all concerns of the Commission be made clear in any motion made. Chmn. Ketz asked when CalTrans is expected to respond with project comments. Mr. Schubach stated Staff will be contacting an agency out of the Governor office to expedite the ·response at the Commission's direction, noting the initial response was made approximately three months ago. Commissioner Di Monda asked that full-sized project drawings be provided in the future and if First Place closure was discussed. Mr. Schubach discussed previous proposals for closure, but stated the residents were opposed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn Ketz at 7:19 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, applicant's representative, displayed · a proposed project drawing, discussed with Comms. Di Monda and Marks the manner of parking for both the restaurant and hotel, ~lan changes, hotel and pool site location, utilization of view, building access and the type of customers expected. He stated the plans were a result of projected financial investment, monitoring of costs and future profit considerations and would benefit the City of Hermosa Beach. Comm. Marks noted traffic flow diverged onto one area. Comms. Di Monda and Merl requested plan consideration to allow better utilization of scenic views, swimming pool, signage design and decrease in the appearance of restaurant separation. Comm. Suard felt architectural significance would be experienced with the current plan and discussed pool relocation. Chmn. Ketz felt the access to First Place should be eliminated if it wasn't going to be improved and expressed concerns about the type of signage. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, requested that recommendations for continuance, it not be· printed on the public notice. He challenged the "grandfather" clause being applied and plan changes, stating he felt the plans were of a "motel", not a "hotel". He expressed his concerns that CalTrans is "trashing" the town and increases in traffic. 3 P.C.Miriutes 1/7/92 Wilma Bert, 1152 7th Street," likes the idea of a hotel but is opposed to the changes proposed, noted the "grandfather" clause is not applicable, and objected to additional area traffic and impact on residents. Robert Schubert, 553 21st Street, objected to another hotel in the area, discussing the current economical impact on existing hotels. Hue Lai, 3100 Marywood Drive, Traffic Engineer, stated the rate of increased traffic due to the hotel would be low and compared the rate to commuter and commercial traffic and the hours of impact. After discussion with Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Marks, Mr. Lai offered to review the on-site traffic flow and closing of First Place. Howard Chen, owner/developer's representative, stated the project will be over $5 1 000,000, discussed the investment potential, resell value and previous plan reviews, resulting in the proposed plan being presented. He stated the swimming pool was a minor problem and could be removed from the plans. John McQue, 718 First Place, owner of three properties on First Place, stated he experiences parking, traffic and turning problems on First Place and First Street. He felt closure of First Place would be a good option and the existing 20' wall should remain to afford blockage from commercial. Public Hearing continued and brought back to the Commission by Chmn. Ketz at 8:25 p.m. Chmn. Ketz noted Staff's recommendation to continue. Comm. Di Monda discussed the definitions of "hotel" and "motel II with Mr. Schubach, with Mr. Schubach stating the plans meet the II hotel" requirements. Comm. Di Monda felt it should be classified as a "motel" since no hotel services were offered. He suggested the Commission review the definitions, consider making First Place a cul de sac after surveying the residents, and asked the City Attorney to provide an opinion on the previously mentioned grandfather clause the next time this issue is discussed. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to contact residents through a questionnaire obtaining their opinions as to First Place .closure at one end. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5 to February 18, 1992, with presentation to the Commission of full-size plans, a materials board, the City Attorney's opinion regarding the grandfather clause being p~esented on that dat~. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None None None TEXT 91-3 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DAY CARE FACILITIES FOR MORE THAN 12 CHILDREN AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN ALL RESIDEN- TIAL ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 4 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 Recommended Action: To recommend approval of the text amendment and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach discussed the history of this Text Amendment, noting day care centers with more than 12 children are permitted only in the C-1, -2, and -3 zones with a C.U.P. He stated expanding day care centers into the residential areas would allow more day care centers, expressed concern relating to traffic and noise, noted additional recommended conditions and suggested additional parking requirements, and recommended approval of the Text Amendment due to the flexibility offered for case-by-case review and determination. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Woods, 731 Longfellow, felt this process was conducted to allow one child care center to open in his neighborhood, stating there are currently adequate child care centers available. Wilma Bert, 152 7th Street, did not agree with the ability to open child care centers any place within Hermosa Beach, no fencing is required, nor is an age limit of six years old mentioned or licensing required. She was against approval of the Text Amend- ment. Tom Goodwin, 736 Longfellow, opposed the recommended action. He explained the parking problems experienced by his neighbors and himself. Jeff Barnell, 722 Longfellow, questioned the number of required parking spaces, noting the parking problems being experienced by residents. Bill Beck, applicant, supported the Text Amendment. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:49 p.m. Commissioner Suard confirmed a C.U.P. would be required if the Text Amendment were approved. Chmn. Ketz discussed with Mr. Schubach the State standards for open space at day care center, as well as additional parking requirements tied to the number of teachers or children rather than defining a specified number. Comm. Suard felt additional requirements in terms of buffers were needed. Mr. Lee noted under State Statute, requirements are imposed and admin- strated by the County prior to license issuance and retention. Comm. Di Monda commented the issues are whether to allow extended day care use within the City with a C.U.P. and the adjacent-to- commercial lots requirements. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Merl, to ADOPT TEXT 91-3 with a change of Section 2, Number 1, to read, "A Minimum of one parking space for every seven children" and the addition of Section 2, Number 5 to read, "All day care centers shall meet State statutes and be licensed". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz None Comm. Marks None 5 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 Mr. Schubach noted the City Council Public Hearing of this item will be held in approximately one month, with a notice of hearing being published in the local newspaper(s). A recess was taken from 9:02 to 9:08 p.m. HEARINGS CON 90-8 A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARC EL MAP #22100 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 626 7TH STREET. Recommended Action: To grant one year extension. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant is requ es ting an extension due to the present state of the economy. S taff r ecommends this extension in order to give the applicant time to record the final map. He noted a similar request was previously granted only a six-month extension. Comm. Suard determined with Mr. Schubach that the application is within compliance with the current code. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:10 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this item. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:10 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt the period of one-year should be reduce to six-months as was granted to the other applicant. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to MOVE to extend CUP for a six month period, to June 19, 1992. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Katz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None NR 91-7 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 50% EXPANSION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1542 GOLDEN AVENUE. Mr. Schubach described the proposed remodel, property location and current buildings. He outlined the significant improvements proposed by t he applicant and explained the deficienci e s of the side y ard and garage setback, stating exceptions are nece s sary. Mr. Schubach stated it appeared , from the site visit, i mpact is minima l. The Commission must ma ke a Finding that the goa l s, intent and purposes of Article 13 are being met if it approves this request. Staff believes this finding can be made, allowing a sound structure to be maintained and expanded with the current noncon- formities not significant or unusual for the neighborhood. Comm. Marks asked that a longitudinal study be included for review, noting first floor columns separated by a pool. Comm. Di Monda 6 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 discussed Mr. Grove's comments, noting the plans do not reflect noted changes. Mr. Schubach stated the changes will be made, as a condition in meeting the requirements. Comm. Di Monda wished to see final plans prior to making a decision. Comm. Suard requested more information regarding the setback and adjacent properties. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:21 p.m. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, architect, stated the foundation will be a pad footing below the pool level, explained the lack of stress on the pool walls, and noted the addition of reverse windows on both stories. He noted the shifting of the area homes, with the last survey being completed in the early 1900's. Comm. Marks and Mr. Peha discussed extending the landing length in front of the door way for safety and usage. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:26 p.m. Comm. Marks as if everything was in conformance to present standards, to which Mr. Schubach responded on those item mentioned in the Staff Report are not in conformance as far as zoning requirements. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE NR 91-7, allowing an addition and remodel greater than 50% expansion to a single family dwelling location at 1542 Golden Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ss 86-12 Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks None None SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING ADULT USES. Recommended Action: To set for public hearing for text amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated this study was requested by the Planning Commission and considered a priority. He stated Staff reviewed the legal case law regarding adult uses, other cities and most current model ordinance provided by the American Planning Association and are presenting to the Commission suggested changes pertaining mainly to adult theater, book store and video store uses which cannot be prohibited from the City. Definitions, conditions of approval and permitted uses reviewed and updated by Staff. Mr. Schubach defined additional changes relating to massage parlors and out-call services (with are not protected by the First Amendment and not being protected by the City), which have been referred to the City Attorney, who will furnish Staff with a legal opinion. Mr. Schubach asked for suggestions and recommendations from the Commission. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:31 p.m. Wilma Bert, 1152 7th Street, questioned the priorities of items being addressed by the Commission and stated her adamant oppos- 7 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 i ~ ition ordinances being opened for "cruddy" businesses on Pacific Coast Highway, such as massage parlors, pawn shops, check cashing or bail bonds businesses. She stated C.U.P.'s are unorganized and unchallenged. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:36 p.m. Chmn. Ketz noted the Commission is amending the current ordinance and the City is restricted by law and must allow these businesses. Mr. Lee commented the text changes relating to video stores which had adult materials are part of the reason the issue was-raised, explaining Staff's and the Attorney's Offices intent is to assure restrictive ordinances on the books that will withstand attack and to regulate adult business uses. Mr. Schubach responded the amendment will make the ordinance much tougher. Comm. • Di Monda stated the Commission is not inviting those businesses into the City. Chmn. Ketz commented that 100 feet from the exterior wall should be increased to 200 feet, as it is in other cities. She felt parking requirements should be included in the report and C.U.P.'s should be required of the video rental stores. Mr. Lee explained the 100 feet recommendation which complies with a case law which discusses having a reasonable opportunity within zoning to allow for First Amendment protected businesses. After discussion, the Commission requested that Staff return with a report defining the meaning as far as land available for potential uses if an increase from 100 to 200 fe et were adopted and supply infor.mation as to what other, neighboring cities are doing. Mr. Schubach agreed the distance would be changed to linear rather than radius. . The Commission discussed "adult use zone clustering" with Messrs. Schubach and Lee, deciding not to direct Staff to investigate further. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to report the •percentage of commercial to residential property in the Renton Case city, in order to conduct a comparison with Hermosa Beach. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to direct Staff to prepare the Text Amendment, prepare and present the requested reports relating to changing the 100 feet to 200 feet and the Renton Case for further study. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz Comm. Marks None None MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON TO JANUARY 14, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chmn. Ketz stated at the City Council Meeting (1) the Test Amendment to require relocation impact reports for displacement of mobile homes, (2) the Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision relating to a Master Conditional Use Permit Amendment for paint at spray booth at 501 and 555 Pacific Coast Highway, European 8 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 Bodyshop, and (3) reconsideration of the Planning Commission's approval of a Variance to allow a remodel and second-story addition at 3104 Ingleside Drive will be discussed. No one wished to discuss these items at this time. Receive and File. LIST OF COMPLETED PROJECTS FOR INSPECTION. Chmn. Ketz stated in the past Commissioners have requested a listing of project addresses upon project completion so that a plan/project comparison may be done. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Chmn. Ketz stated two hearings are scheduled at the Planning Commission's January 21, 1992 meeting and a large agenda scheduled for the February 4, 1992 meeting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 1991. Receive and File. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Ketz asked if, since the height requirement is changed from 40 feet to 35 feet, must the requirements be changed in the S.P.A. areas, to which Mr. Schubach responded that had been done. Comm. Di Monda noted the differences between the hotel and Mr. Schubach noted the definitions are in the Land Use Revision, along with modification to require the same amount of parking requirements for both hotels and motels. After discussion, the Commission DIRECTED Staff to revise the hotel and motel defin- itions, as well as parking requirements, and present them to the Commission as part of the Land Use Revision, projected for presentation in June 1992. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed a car dealership which has an "auto pawn" sign which Staff is requesting removed. Comm. Suard and Chrnn. Ketz discussed Mr. Longacre' s complaint, noting that once an item is agendized, the Commission must open it for testimony whether it is continued or not. Comm. Merl suggested rewording of the Public Hearing Section. Mr. Schubach commented that an item recommended by Staff for continuation may not be continued and testimony taken. The Commission DIRECTED Staff to include a general statement on Public Hearings saying that testimony will be accepted for all Public Hearings that are Noticed if interested parties who would like to give testimony are unable to attend the scheduled Continued Public Hearing meeting. 9 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 J I Chmn. Ketz discussed with Mr. Schubach applicant and Staff preparations to be completed prior to setting of a public hearing. Mr. Schubach confirmed that due to required time limits, public hearings are noticed well in advance, but after notice and during review, if problems arise or the applicant wishes to change his plans, a request for Continuance is made. Comm. Merl expressed his concern regarding the public's participation being unnecessary limited due to item continuances, resulting in the public's perception that testimony is not necessary invited. Chmn. Ketz noted that testimony is welcomed even if an item is continued. Comm. Di Monda stated it is best for all if the Commission is able to review plans as soon as possible to allow the applicant to become aware of what the City is looking for and alleviate future changes and problems, thereby decreasing the applicants' risks. Mr. Lee noted and explained the due process requirements for applicants and suggested the applicants bring _Plans to Staff, asking for Staff input, suggesting the public hearing should be set after the applicant has received Staff input and feels he/she is ready for public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated Staff has been in- formed by City Council and the previous City Manager to be very cautious as to what is told to people over the counter and pointed out the need for additional communication from the Commission as to what the Commission wants and is looking for. Mr. Lee stated Staff is well within its limits by noting to applicants concerns expressed by the Commission in the past on similar projects. At the public hearing, the Commission evaluates and makes its determination. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to adjourn at 10:30 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 January 7, 1992. Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secreta'.'ry Date \ I 10 P.C.Minutes 1/7/92 ..