Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 08.15.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 15, 1989, AT 7:00 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ingell. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue Comm. Peirce (Excused) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the minutes of August 1, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121279 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1038 7TH STREET DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, GLORIETTA VILLA TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION P.C. 89-4 AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46903 FOR AN 11-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 603 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 131 AND 133, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION P.C. 89-18 AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A 10-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 540 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS l P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 A PORTION OF LOT 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISION, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS --NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, AND RELATED ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121198 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 801 BARD STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 3, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a three-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 74.5 by 62.4 feet. The current use is as a four-unit apartment. The environmental determination is categorically .exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct three attached condominium units. The three proposed units contain 1987 square feet each, with two bedrooms, a loft, and three and a half baths. The proposed structure has two stories and a loft above a partially subterranean garage. Proposed architectural features that are noted include glass block windows, stucco exterior, and a steel space frame structure. This mix of features gives the building a contemporary appearance with the flavor of the international style. The project provides the minimum front yard setback required for condominium projects of five feet, and the setback is staggered at five, seven, and nine feet for the three units. The average setback along this block of Bard Street is approximately 3.6 feet, with setbacks ranging from zero to 12 feet. Lot coverage calculates to be approximately 66 percent, which exceeds the maximum allowed 65 percent. Staff has included a condition that the plans will have to be revised to correct this problem. Also, given the scarcity of landscaping on the site, this additional one percent should be used for landscaping. The plans meet or exceed all remaining planning and zoning requirements. Private open space for each unit is provided on first and second floor decks and on the loft level decks. Countable open space only includes the second level and loft level decks, and it calculates as 302 square feet per unit. 138 square feet of common open space is provided in the excess rear yard areas located to the rear of Units A and B in the form of a paved walkway. Given that this walkway provides access to the main entry of each unit is 2 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 adjacent to residential lots and has this excess width, staff believes that additional landscaping should be provided along the property line, and a condition to this effect has been included. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Six parking spaces will be provided in enclosed garages, and six guest parking spaces are provided in the 17- foot setback area. No existing on-street parking will be lost as parking is currently prohibited on this side of the street. The proposed development will result in the removal of two specimen sized trees currently located in the front yard area between the garages. Both trees appear to be healthy and they are certainly positive attributes for the streetscape. A major revision to the design could save both of these trees; however, staff believes that in this instance requiring the replacement of specimen size trees elsewhere on the site would be appropriate. Staff has included a condition that the required landscape plan provide for two specimen size trees or to perhaps provide for the saving of one of the trees and provide landscaping, including trees along the west property line. While the subject lot is a corner lot with over 4600 square feet (created by a deeded lot division), the surrounding residential area along Bard Street in Tract 2002 consists of slightly less than average lot sizes of 3300 square feet on 30-foot wide parcels. The lots are primarily developed with two-family and multi-family structures, and their size would allow construction of two-unit projects on individual lots or five units on combined units. Comm. lngell asked about the location of the trash facilities. Mr. Schubach explained that the location of the trash facilities is addressed during the plan check to ensure that they meet all requirements. He noted that the trash facilities are noted on the first page of the plans. Comm. Ingell noted that the plans indicate there is plenty of room for the storage area. Public Hearing opened at 7:13 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that this project is located in the R-3 zone, which would allow three units. She stated that this project will be compatible with other projects on the street. Ms. Srour stated that this proposal meets all the development requirements of both the zoning code and the condominium ordinance. She said that the project will comply with all requirements. The architect will work with staff in regard to the 66 percent lot coverage to ensure that the project meets the 65 percent allowed. Ms. Srour stated that each of the units is very similar in size and amenities. She stated that the garages are oversized, and there will be ample storage room separate from the garage. There is also a separate laundry area. There is also a trash area. Each unit will have a dumbwaiter. Each unit complies with the open space requirements, and there is actually more open space than noted; however, it could not be counted because it is covered. Ms. Srour stated that there are substantial yard areas in the rear which can be used for landscaping. 3 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Ms. Srour discussed the site plans, stating that the project is staggered; therefore, at the the ground level the setback will be 17 feet, going up to 19 feet, and then 21 feet. She noted that the setback is substantial and will provide relief for the street. Ms. Srour stated that each unit has two guest parking spaces which will be controlled by the units themselves. She noted that the guest parking exceeds the requirements. Ms. Srour stated that there is also a staggered setback at the rear of the project, which is in excess of the code requirements. Ms. Srour discussed the trees on the property and stated that it is the intent of the designer to provide substantial landscaping, and they will work with staff on the issue of the trees. Ms. Srour stated that there are presently four units on this site. She stated that this is a very attractive project and asked for Planning Commission approval at this time. Public Hearing closed at 7:18 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue stated that this project is very well designed and meets all of the requirements. He also favored the proposed landscaping. Comm. Ketz favored the staggered setbacks, stating that it will break up the project. Comm. Ingell was pleased with the parking. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 89-60, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE ALCOHOL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2455 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY -INTERNATIONAL LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. This project is in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The present use is as a general alcohol, off-sale, establishment. The floor area is 2000 square feet. On March 26, 1971, this liquor store started business under the name of Dutch's Liquor Store. On May 17, 1989, Mr. Brian Jong Pak, previous owner of the business, applied for a conditional use permit as a result of the City's amortization ordinance. On June 1, 1989, Mr. Dong Sook Lee, new owner, acquired the business from Brian Jong Pak. On June 22, 1989, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for the project. 4 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 The International Liquor Store is one of the eight Package Liquor Stores which are being operated as off-sale alcohol beverage establishments without conditional use permits. Section 10-8 of the zoning ordinance requires alcohol establishments to obtain conditional use permits to regulate their operations. In following the amortization ordinance directions, International Liquor was notified to obtain a permit for its business activities. This liquor establishment is an existing store which has been in business for at least 28 years. The store sells beer, wine, hard liquor, dairy products, and an assortment of other miscellaneous products. The store is housed in an older building, built approximately 30 years ago. The property has been field checked by the staff who observed the following: (1) the parking has been modified from the original approval and needs to be restriped properly; (2) the asphalt in the parking lot has pot holes and cracks; (3) there are trash dumpsters and newspaper displays located in an inappropriate area, blocking the pedestrian path; (4) there is a planter located along the east side of the store which is filled with trash, and it is not maintained with landscaping; (5) the exterior of the building is in need of paint, and there are areas that have been repaired but not painted; and (6) there are large signs on the windows which do not comply with the City's sign ordinance. The police report covering the last five years shows three incidents of grant theft, one sale to minors, and one burglary in addition to a handful of other minor security or disturbance incidents. The Building Department has also been contacted and indicates there have been no building or zoning violations within the last year. Since this general alcohol establishment is an existing business located along the busy Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Corridor and does not appear to be causing any major problems with the neighborhood, staff believes the business should be authorized by this conditional use permit to continue its operation, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:22 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. No one appeared to address the Commission. Mr. Schubach, noting that the applicant was not present, suggested that this item be continued until later in the meeting. Chmn. Rue stated that this matter would be continued until a later time in the agenda. (See Page 16.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE AUTO BODY SHOP AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 555 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY z. E&:E AUTO BODY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this conditional use permit until all zoning violations and other CUP violations are abated. This project is located in the C-3 zone with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The present uses are: auto repair, auto body, auto rental, and a flower shop. The floor area of expansion is approximately 2000 square feet. 5 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for this project and recommended that, if approved, conditions requiring spray booths for painting and required compliance with all CUPs for the property be included. Also, concern was noted about the storage of junk cars on the site. The applicant has already expanded the body shop operation into the adjacent building area located towards the northeast portion of the property without approval. They are applying to legalize the operation as requested by the Building Department. The subject building area was previously a Jaguar auto repair shop, and the change of use to the more intensive use as an auto body repair shop requires a conditional use permit. No building expansion is proposed. This operation is one of several businesses operating on the property, which includes several auto repair shops, an automobile rental business, and a flower shop. The "Cheap Wheels" auto rental agency received a conditional use permit in 1986. Staff has inspected the property and determined that the conditions of the previous CUP for the auto rental agency are being violated. For example, the "customer" parking area required for the auto rental agency is marked for customer parking for the ''Flower World," and the required parking area for rental vehicles is being used to store new cars for the South Bay Nissan dealership. Also, parking areas and driveway areas are being used for the storage of derelict vehicles and for the storage of automobile parts and debris, both taking away parking and blocking internal access. Essentially, the plans submitted with this application is not an accurate depiction of what is occurring at the site. Although failure to comply with the CUP is not necessarily tbe...x:esponsibility of the E&E Auto Body, the business is partially contributing to the problems. Whether or not the change from the Jaguar auto repair to auto body will increase or decrease non­ compliance is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, in staff's judgment, it clearly constitutes a more intensive use of the property. Staff believes that the City should not authorize a more intensive use when a property is so far out of compliance with its current CUP as well as the zoning ordinance. Granting of this CUP should not be considered until significant steps are taken by the owner to bring the property into conformance. In regard to the noted violations, staff will begin CUP enforcement procedures immediately. The operation of the body shop in the expanded area would have to be halted until this matter is resolved. Also, if there is no response, the City would eventually pursue revocation of the CUP for Cheap Wheels. It should be noted that most of the violations are not only CUP violations, but also zoning code violations. Mr. Schubach noted that many problems are occurring at this site because there are several shops operating. Therefore, he felt that there should be one conditional use permit for all of the establishments, with the possible exception of the flower shop. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that he was not certain of the exact number of lots at this site; however, the uses are constructed over the lot lines; therefore, the entire property can be under one CUP since it is being maintained as one unit. Comm. Ingell noted that Planning Commission approval should also be contingent upon approval by the AQMD, Building Department, and Fire Department. 6 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Mr. Schubach stated that such a condition could be included if so desired by the Commission. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Eytan Levy, 555 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Levy discussed the junk cars and stated that in the rear there is a parking lot which has recently been cleaned out. He stated that the junk cars were left there, as well as oil and grease, by the Jaguar business. He was unaware that he needed a permit. He cleaned the floor, painted the outside, cleaned the parking lot, and got the painting area up to spec. Mr. Levy stated that he has attempted to make the site clean, stressing that the junk cars have been removed. Mr. Levy stated that no one else is parking in his area, noting that Cheap Wheels has no connection with this business. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that the owner of the property would need to become involved in this matter; especially since it is being suggested that there be one conditional use permit for the entire property. Mr. Levy stressed that the junk cars have been removed. The spray area is now up to code and painting is done inside only. No work is done outside on the street. He felt that this is one of only two businesses up to code in regard to the painting. Chmn. Rue noted that Building Department, Fire Department, and AQMD approval will all be necessary for this project. Mr. Levy stated that he is aware of the requirements. Mr. Levy discussed the sign at the property. He stated that he did not install a new sign; he merely repainted the existing sign. He said that the business is on P .C.H; although, it is in approximately 20 feet from the street itself. He showed photographs depicting the site in question. He stated that the sign is necessary because the shop is located in so far from the street. Tom Long, 412 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he works for E&E Auto Body. He stated that they have just installed a new ventilation system in the paint shop. He said that they are probably one of the only paint shops now using VOC approved material which is approved by the AQMD. He noted that new requirements will be going into effect in January 1990; however, this shop will be in compliance with their equipment. Mr. Long was unaware of the need to have one permit for all the uses. He felt that they should be broken up, noting that there are several body shops along this block. Scott Alden, 646 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is not necessarily against approval of the request; however, he noted concern over what appears to be consistent violations at this site. He had no problems with the expansion, but he feels that the City should enforce certain things, such as allowing no work to be performed outside the shop. He noted that in the past there has been a lot of work outside the shop which is dangerous. He also stated that there is no sidewalk around the site; therefore, if cars are being worked on outside, pedestrians must walk in the street to get around the site. 7 P.C. Minutes 8/15/89 Mr. Alden said that working outside on the cars also creates problems because there is a continual flow of water down the street, some of which contains paint. He noted concern over possible chemical waste being discharged into the sewer system. Mr. Alden noted that in the past cars were parked at the site for several weeks at a time, which he feels is against the parking ordinance. Mr. Alden did concur that the fenced-in yard has been cleaned up somewhat, and he assumed that the remaining cars will soon be moved. Mr. Alden discussed the issue of the dumpster on 6th Street which is usually overflowing with trash. He felt that that should be moved to the fenced-in yard area. Mr. Alden noted concern over a continual flow of what appears to be antifreeze or oil down the street; however, he was not certain where the material is coming from. He further questioned whether the paints used are in compliance with AQMD and EPA standards. He noted concern because of the number of auto body shops in this area. Mr. Levy stated that there is antifreeze discharge; however, it is not coming from E&E Auto Body since they do not use antifreeze. He stated that it is coming from the mechanic. He stated that E&E only washes cars; however, the cars are not washed on site; they are taken to the self-serve car wash across the street. Mr. Levy stressed that there will be no outside work on the cars. He stressed that the cars are taken across the street to the self-serve car wash. He stated that there are only four or five remaining junk cars, and he is trying to get rid of them. He said that they were left behind by the Jaguar business. He did note, however, that there are problems in getting rid of those cars because he does not have the pink.slips, on them. Mr. Levy said he has been there eight years, and he wants to clean the area and have all the junk cars gone. He stated that he wants to improve the site, and he has just begun to make improvements. He has just recently learned of the need to obtain the proper permits. Mr. Levy, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that he has been in contact with the owner of the property. The owner also wants to clean up the site. Mr. Lee stated that he has discussed with Mr. Schubach the matter of one conditional use permit for the entire parcel. He cautioned that the request for this particular CUP must be based on the merits of this business only as opposed to a consideration of the violations of the other uses on the site. He felt that this problem may have arisen because of the multiple uses on this site as well as the shared parking situation on the common areas. He noted that it is difficult to determine where the violations are occurring. He noted that in light of this problem, staff has suggested that this matter be continued so staff and the property owner and applicant can discuss the matter. Mr. Lee noted that it was suggested that the leases be written so that each use is defined. In this way, it will be easier to determine possible violations within a certain area. Mr. Lee noted, however, that the Commission must make a decision on this CUP based on the merits, on whether or not the applicant can meet the conditions, and whether or not there are violations related to this particular use. 8 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Chmn. Rue asked questions relating to the CUP running with the land and whether or not the CUP relates to each specific area or to the entire area. Mr. Lee explained that the CUP is related to this particular address. The Commission will be granting a CUP for a specifically-defined portion of the property, and all the other conditions are separate with respect to the E&E premises. He noted that a problem occurs, however, because of the shared areas in the front and the parking in the rear. It is therefore difficult for the City to determine who is is violation since no one will admit anything. Comm. Ingell asked whether there could be one overall CUP with other CUP's under it. Mr. Lee stated that that might be a possible option, noting that the majority of uses are of an automotive nature and most of the conditions imposed are similar. Each of the lessors could be specific as to what is under their control. Chmn. Rue noted that Mr. Levy has been making attempts to improve his business. He noted that it is important that the property owner be involved in this matter so that the matter can be resolved in a timely fashion. Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant has already expanded and has been informed that the use should be halted until the matter is resolved. He suggested an alternative, however, in that so long as the applicant is making an attempt to comply, the use can continue. During the time that improvements are being done, the property owner can be informed that the City is contemplating one CUP for the site in conjunction with this request. The owner can then be requested to appear at a meeting to answer questions. Mr. Levy, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, discusse,d.ibe paint booth, stating that a new ventilation system has been added to the closed paint room. They are attempting to keep the paint booth as air tight as possible. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that he did not know whether the paint booth meets the code requirements. He noted that the Fire Department and AQMD would need to investigate. He said that things of this nature would be worked out as the progress proceeds. He noted that a new booth will be installed, and it must meet code requirements. Comm. Ingell noted concern over the applicant spending additional capital prior to the approval being granted. He also noted that he would like to incorporate into the CUP the standards set forth by the Building Department, Fire Department, and AQMD. Chmn. Rue asked whether the sign could be grandfathered in. Mr. Schubach stated that the sign ordinance specifies that if an old ex1stmg sign is altered in any way, it must conform to the current requirements. In this case, when the sign was repainted it was considered to be a new sign, and it became non-conforming with the current ordinance. Comm. Ingell suggested that applicants be made aware of the fact that if they change existing signage, it could then become nonconforming. Mr. Schubach stated that the Building Department is giving out that type of information to applicants. 9 P.C. Minutes 8/15/89 Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, said that staff will require a site plan designating the locations of all uses on the site. Comm. Ingell noted concern over water and waste materials emanating from this site, stating that there must be a plan to address these issues. Mr. Schubach explained that that issue is addressed by the Building Department. Comm. Ketz noted that staff will inspect this property again before the matter comes back to the Planning Commission. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this matter to the first meeting in October; further, to recommend that there be one master overall CUP for this property. Also, that the Easy Reader advise when the matter will again be heard, and that the property be renoticed; however, it is not necessary to do another public mailing. Mr. Levy had no objection to a continuance of this matter. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce Public Hearing continued at 7:59 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE MINIMUM TI-IREE-,,FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR BALCONIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2214 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 7, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 1840 square feet. The present use is as a single-family dwelling. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a second-story deck in the front yard extending five feet, six inches from the front of the building all the way to the front property line. The required front yard for this lot is 10 percent of the 67-foot depth, or 6.7 feet. Section 1212 of the zoning code allows exceptions to front yard requirements for balcony encroachments of a maximum of only 36 inches (three feet) from the required front setback. Therefore, the applicable front setback for a balcony encroachment on this lot is 3.7 feet (6.7 feet minus three feet). The subject lot is rather small (1840 square feet) relative to surrounding lots (2300 to 5500 square feet). Also, its front setback of 5.6 feet exceeds the average for the block (from Park Avenue West), which is about three feet. It should also be noted that the front balcony on the lot to the west (2216 Monterey) extends to within one foot of the property line. This balcony was permitted prior to the text change relative to balcony setbacks which previously allowed them to extend to one foot from the property line. However, it appears that the building inspector who approved the one-foot setback was 10 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 '---" mistaken because the old ordinance, like the current ordinance, allowed only a three-foot encroachment into the required front setback. In staff's judgment, however, the lot size is not so exceptionally or extraordinarily small that the zoning requirement takes away a substantial property right enjoyed by others. Surrounding properties, except for the mistake noted, do not enjoy a privilege to encroach into yard areas to create additional space beyond what the lot will yield. In staff's opinion, the provision of open space is often a trade-off between interior floor space or exterior space, and in this case the interior space has been maximized toward the front of the lot at the expense of exterior space. Additionally, in regard to the ocean view, it appears that a small balcony could be constructed which meets the requirements which would allow some view. Also, staff is concerned that the proposed encroachment would be incompatible with existing and future neighboring setbacks and could have an impact on the appearance of the street and upon the light and air of adjacent neighbors. Therefore, the proposed encroachment has the potential to be detrimental to surrounding properties. Staff feels that other alternatives might be available for providing open space, although it is difficult to make any conclusions from the plans submitted. For example, the use of a roof deck or a floor plan remodel to allow for deck space could be explored. Regardless of whether or not any other options are available, the use of the front yard area all the way to the property line for a deck overhang should not be considered as an alternative. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Helene Lohr, 2214 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach,. applicant addressed the Commission. She stated that she has owned the house for two years. Two years ago, she was told she could go further than they are currently proposed. However, since that time, they have been downzoned from R-2 to R-1. She did not proceed at that time because of the expense involved. Ms. Lohr stated that they have now been prompted to add the balcony, in part because of all the new construction behind them. She has a small backyard; however, with the new construction, most of the light and air will be blocked off because of a new three-story house built on a grade. Ms. Lohr stated that she was surprised to learn that staff felt her additional two and a half feet of balcony would encroach on the other neighbors' light, since hers has just been taken away. Ms. Lohr stated that she did not understand the setback rules, especially since all of the other houses go out to within six feet of the curb. She has a driveway at her house with parking in front; therefore, there is no front yard. Ms. Lohr said that the house was built in 1965, and she did not know what the zoning rules were at that time. Ms. Lohr stated that staff noted that this project would encroach on the light and air space of neighbors. She showed pictures showing that, in fact, the only thing which would be blocked would be the view of the house to the side of them. There is a flower bed between the houses; therefore, the project would not be near the neighbor's house. She passed out the photos depicting the site. 11 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Ms. Lohr stated that Monterey Boulevard has only two other two-story houses which do not have balconies; therefore, she did not feel approval of this project would set a precedent. Ms. Lohr asked to have a little extra space. She stated that she is willing to work with staff in order to reach a compromise. She stated that staff suggested a roof deck; however, there is no place for roof access due to the configuration. Ms. Lohr stated that reconfiguration of the floor plan of the house in order to accommodate a deck would be very, very expensive. Ms. Lohr noted that her other points were submitted in the form of a letter. Chmn. Rue stated that this is a difficult matter. Noting staff's objection to the variance, he asked whether staff feels there are any exceptional circumstances because of the small lot size. He noted that the placement of the house precludes otherwise available options. He asked staff's opinion. Mr. Schubach stated that the request is minor; however, the problem arises because of the configuration of the house on the lot. He noted that the applicant could have a small balcony. He did not feel that something should be allowed to extend to less than a foot of the property line. In this case, the request is to go almost right to the property line. Chmn. Rue discussed the site plan and asked about the property lines depicted as welJ as the dimension lines. He asked for clarification. Mr. Schubach noted that the lines in question are actually the rights-of-way, not the property lines. He said that the setback is five feet, six inches .fr-om the property line to the garage door. There is twenty-five feet to the face of the building, and twenty feet to the property line Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, discussed changes in the code relating to front yard setbacks, stating that this requirement was made somewhat more stringent when it was changed. Mr. Schubach, at the request of Chmn. Rue, clarified the plans. He stated that the front yard appears much larger than what is there because of the width of Monterey. Comm. Ingell noted that the wall on the adjacent property is in the public right-of-way. Mr. Schubach stated that the wall is in the right-of-way and the owner most likely has obtained an encroachment permit. Comm. Ingell noted that the applicant's property has almost a 17-foot setback; they also have what appears to be four parking spaces; however, in reality there are only two parking spaces because the other spaces are in the right-of-way. He questioned whether the applicant could obtain an encroachment permit for parking in the driveway. Mr. Schubach stated that there are certain conditions which must be met for one to obtain an encroachment permit. He noted, however, that the driveway is currently being used for parking, and that the homeowner must have access to his property. He stated that he did not feel it is necessary to obtain a permit for the parking. 12 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Comm. lngell noted that this street is very wide and it is not likely that it will ever be widened. He questioned why the land cannot be deeded back to the homeowners. Mr. Schubach noted that previous planners felt it would be prudent to maintain the width to provide broad open space along the street. Comm. Ketz felt that there are unique conditions, in that this is a very wide street; and this lot is substantially smaller than others on the street. Comm. lngell stated that the house to the right appears to have a large front yard in the encroachment. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the variance based on the following findings: (1) the lot is smaller than other lots in the area; (2) the automobile access is from Monterey which is from the street, which is unlike other properties directly adjacent to this property; (3) approval of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare; (4) approval of the variance would create no view blockage; (5) the front setback is larger than average; and (6) there are other encroachments along the street which are to the property line. Comm. lngell could not support the balcony encroaching right to the property line. Ms. Lohr stated that her basic concern is that they have something of a comfortable size which is functional. She stated that she is willing to work with staff and the Commission in order to reach an appropriate decision. Chmn. Rue questioned whether the extra one foot would make a great difference. He noted that the deck must be usable. He noted that a deck must. be, a minimum of seven feet before it can be counted as open space. Comm. Ketz did not feel that a five and a half foot deck is excessive. She also felt that this is a unique situation. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue concerning the location of the posts on the deck, stated that the center of the posts appears to be two feet, three inches from the property line. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce Chmn. Rue clarified that the variance has been granted, and the deck can be constructed to the property line. Public Hearing closed at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NON­ DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 8, 1989. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending to the City Council that a precise development plan procedure be adopted. 13 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 At the September 27, 1989, meeting, the City Council requested that the staff study design standards and the review process in conjunction with requiring a precise development plan. Currently the City has discretionary review over certain types of uses such as condominiums and liquor establishments, via a conditional use permit, but does not require discretionary review over such developments as hotels, no matter how large they may be. As a consequence of having no discretionary review, certain projects that may have significant environmental impacts are exempted by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and cannot be assessed by the City for additional environmental impacts. By requiring review of these projects, it would allow some opportunity to impose additional conditions of approval beyond the minimum zoning standards; it would also allow for environmental assessment and where needed, an environmental impact report. This process would work to improve the quality of proposed development in many respects. Staff provided information on other cities which have a discretionary review process; i.e., Torrance, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Lawndale, Rolling Hills, Palos Verdes, and Hawthorne. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the amount of staff and Commission time which would be involved, stated that he did not feel a great deal of time would be expended as a result of this text amendment because almost all projects are condos of between two and six units at this time. He noted that no apartments have been built in several years. He explained that condos require discretionary review. He stated that the target is commercial and manufacturing; however, there has been no new manufacturing use in many years. In regard to commercial, hotels would now be reviewed before approval. He continued by explaining that an attempt is being made to remedy inequities between reviews for apartments and condos. Chmn. Rue noted concern over the statement in Section 3, Projects Requiring Review, " ... remodels and expansion of less than 1500 square feet in any zone shall require submittal of plans for Planning Commission approval." He questioned how much staff time and Commission time would be involved. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, stated that the Building Department would have actual figures on the number of commercial and residential remodels. He stated that the 1500 square foot figure could be adjusted if so desired by the Commission. Chmn. Rue stated that he would like to know the impact that that requirement could create. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Comm. Ketz, stated that this review would require noticing and a public hearing. Chmn. Rue noted that a big concern of the City is that projects are going in with no discretionary approval, and they can be very large, bulky, and eyesores. He asked whether certain projects can be keynoted to trigger a discretionary approval. He questioned whether all remodels and projects need to be approved. He said that most cities use a figure of 15,000 square feet. He suggested that the actual figure be addressed. 14 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Mr. Schubach noted that specific plan areas will require special review. He continued by discussing various remodels which have been occurring in the city, stating that most of them are not very large. Mr. Lee stated that other cities use a site plan review process, where the majority of the site plans are subject to staff review. Criteria have been set for sensitive uses which trigger the full review process by the Planning Commission. If there is a concern over commercial uses, he said he could provide additional information as to what other cities use to trigger a review and full hearing process. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that almost all projects in this city would trigger the review process because so many commercial uses are so close to residential. Mr. Schubach stated that a section could be added whereby the majority of projects go through an administrative review process; however, certain sensitive projects could trigger the full review process. He said an administrative review board could be created to review the projects. Public Hearing opened at 8:40 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Sandra Pfister, 903 8th Street, asked whether this review process is an attempt on the part of the City to enforce the new general plan so that everything in the City will be in conformance. Mr. Schubach explained that this is an attempt to ensure better quality projects and allow for case-by-case study of projects to ensure that commercial and residential uses do not conflict. The Commissioners went through the actual resolution section by section. The following changes were recommended: (1) Section 2, Purpose and Intent: . "The purpose and intent of requiring Precise Development Plan review is to achieve a high level of quality, compatibility, and harmony with the community's .... " (2) Section 3, Projects Requiring Review, "In order to achieve the purpose of this Section, it is considered necessary to require that the use of land, and erection, construction or location of buildings or structures in any zone with the exception of single-family residences .... " (3) Section 7, General Procedures, "Application for Precise Development Plan review shall be filed and approval given prior to the issuance of buiJdin~rmi ts .... " Comm. Ketz felt that the ordinance will tighten up development loopholes in the City. Carl Moore, 1100 Loma Drive, noted concern over overpromise on what the Commission can do here, especially in the criteria for denial. He noted that there are many frustrations of working with the zoning ordinance. He noted that the main objective is to get at incremental growth in the City. Public Hearing closed at 8:53 P .M. 15 P.C. Minutes 8/15/89 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-62 as amended above. Chmn. Rue noted concern over the fact that the impacts are not known in regard to the amount of time necessary. He stated that he would like information from the Building Department in regard to the actual number of projects which would be involved. Mr. Schubach suggested that the motion be approved with the condition that staff consid~r the number of projects and bring that to the attention of the City Council so that they can decide whether the square footage should be changed or when the review process should be triggered. He said that information could be presented as to how many cases would be triggered depending on the various square footages. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Ketz as second, to follow Mr. Schubach's recommendation as noted above. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE ALCOHOL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2455 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, INTERNATIONAL LIQU9RJC:ONTINl.fED FROM l:AR.I..IER IN THE MEETING-SEE PAGE 5) Chmn. Rue noted that this matter had been continued from earlier in the meeting. Dong Sook Lee, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the new owner of International Liquor. He said that the prior owner was Brian Jong Pak. In response to a question from Comm. Ingell, he stated that he understands what needs to be done at this property. He answered several questions regarding the hours of operation of this business. Mr. Lee continued by answering questions concerning the hours of operation, stating that the hours Sunday through Thursday are 9:00 AM until 12:00; and Friday and Saturday the hours are 9:00 AM until 2:00 AM. Mr. Schubach and Mr. Lee discussed the hours. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to continue this matter to the first meeting in October so that the applicant can have someone read him the resolution and explain what is necessary (because of an apparent language problem). He noted that the hours of operation in the resolution differ from those given by Mr. Lee. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce Comm. lngell stated that he would like to have this matter noticed again before it is brought back to the Commission. He said he would like to set a policy statement that when matters are continued, they be noted again in the Easy Reader; however, a formal mailing will not be required. 16 P.C. Minutes 8/15/89 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to set a policy statement that matters that are continued shall be renotified in the Easy Reader and the property be posted again; however, a formal mailing is not necessary. (Policy statement to be effective with the matter of International Liquor.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE OPENING OF THE DOOR ON BORDEN STREET AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 7:00 AM AND 6:30 PM AS PART OF A PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HOPE CHAPEL AND PACIFIC PLAZA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 8, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue to allow opening the door on Borden Street during the specified hours and to allow issuance of an additional five keys, for a total of 15 keys to Loomis & Eyck. Currently there is a mutual agreement between Hope Chapel and Pacific Plaza regarding 15 parking spaces. Hope Chapel provides 15 parking spaces during weekdays in exchange for use of 15 parking spaces in Pacific Plaza on weekends at specific hours. The staff discussed this matter with both parties of the agreement and the Building Department. The issues are access from PCH, distribution of the keys, schedule of locking the door, and neighboring complaints. Several comments were made: ( 1) In discussion with Mr. Rick Thompson of Hope Chapel, he indicated that the access from Pacific Coast Highway is working fine. The key distribution has caused no problems, and each party opens and locks the door on schedule; (2) In conversation with Tom Walsh from Pacific Plaza regarding accessibility from PCH, he replied that this is a compromise which can be lived with. In following, he said locking the door by both parties is on-time and has not created any problems. With respect to key distribution, he stated that operation with ten keys for use of 15 parking spaces is not as efficient as it could be. An additional five keys, for a total of 15 keys, would be better; (3) The staff contacted the Building Department to obtain information concerning possible disturbance of the neighborhood. No complaints were filed in the last seven months since the amendment to the CUP was approved. The staff believes that the agreement between Hope Chapel and Pacific Plaza is working well and serving both party's needs. The condition of the door on Borden Street has minimized the disturbance for the neighborhood and caused no problems. Regarding the distribution of the keys, the request for five additional keys will increase efficiency of the operation for Pacific Plaza, while it has no effect on increase in the use. Hearing opened at 9:04 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Walsh, 2603 Pacific Coast Highway, stated that the system has been working quite well, and there have been no complaints. He noted, however, that the only problem regards additional keys since the agreement provides for 15 parking spaces, and there are only ten keys. He stated that five additional keys would simplify the management portion. 17 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 Hearing closed at 9:05 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comm. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce a) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for August 22, 1989, City Council Meeting No one will attend. b) City Council Minutes of July 25, 1989 No action taken. c) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. Mr. Schubach noted that the Commission had been provided with a memo from staff concerning the revocation of the CUP for Vasek Polak. He suggested that the Commission think about a suggested date for the hearing, since this matter will be on the next agenda. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell stressed that continued items should have a minor renot1cmg and be reposted so that people are aware. He did not feel that mailings are necessary, however. Mr. Schubach stated that that matter can be placed on a future agenda for discussion. He will also provide information as to whether it will cost anything. Comm. Ketz noted that the sign at Hermosa Valley School is being lit past the allowed hour of 9:00 PM. She suggested that a letter be sent to the school. Comm. Ketz asked about the circulation plan and the deadline for comments. Mr. Schubach stated that that matter will be coming back in a future meeting. He stated that the comments should be returned one week before the October meeting. Chmn. Rue asked whether a new Planning Commissioner has been chosen. He noted that it is important to have someone appointed quickly. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. lngell, to adjourn at 9:13 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 18 P.C. Minutes 8/ 15/89 , t r ( 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 August 15, 1989. ~L Michael Schubach, Secretary 4/J1/&? Date/ -7 19 P.C. Minutes 8/15/89