Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_01_21MINUTES 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