Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05.16.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 16, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Edwards Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Stanley Remelmeyer, interim City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary Mr. Schubach stated that Comm. Edwards was out of town on business; therefore, he would not be attending the meeting. Mr. Schubach introduced the interim City Attorney, Stanley Remelmeyer, and stated that Mr. Remelmeyer would be with the City until a permanent replacement can be found for Mr. Lough. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of May 2, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SUBSTANDARD GARAGE AND SECOND-STORY ADDITION WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2007 CIRCLE DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 12, TRACT 3853. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Peirce noted a typo on Resolution P.C. 89-38. (Resolution reads P.C. 88-38 and should be 89-38.) MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as corrected Resolution P.C. 89-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE LEGAL USE TO BE THREE DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1834 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LOT 5, TRACT 6054. No objections; so ordered. COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, NUMERO UNO PIZZERIA (CONTINUED F ROM 3/21/89, 4/4/~9.1. AND 5nl&9 MEETINGS) Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He explained that this item has been continued several times; however, staff has received no new information since the last meeting. He stated that the staff recommendation continues to be to deny the proposed conditional use permit and parking plan. Staff did not feel that the proposed shared parking arrangement would be adequate to meet the parking requirements for this restaurant. A letter has also been received from the adjacent property owner informing that they will not enter into a parking agreement. Mr. Schubach gave background information on this project, explaining that there are currently 17 parking spaces at the restaurant. This particular establishment was constructed just prior to the implementation of the City's new parking requirements. At this time, the applicant would need substantially more parking spaces than he has now, or a total of 26 spaces. Mr. Schubach noted that this building is not only a restaurant, but also it houses offices. The applicant did propose to use the adjacent parking lot; however, staff did not feel this would be appropriate because the hours of operation between the two businesses would conflict. Also, staff felt that customers would not be aware that they could park there. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant removed one handicapped parking space and converted it to outdoor dining use. Another standard-sized parking space was then converted to a handicapped space; however, it is not large enough to qualify as a handicapped space. Mr. Schubach stated that, based on the above-mentioned items, staff does not feel it would be appropriate to allow this business to have additional seating unless a suitable parking plan can be arranged to obtain additional parking. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Bernie Iraham, 2205 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that he has been unable to obtain a parking agreement with the neighboring business and it does appear that he will be likely to obtain such an agreement because it is totally outside of his budget. Mr. Iraham discussed the handicapped parking space and stated that its original location was not safe because of its placement in front of the entrance to the restaurant. He noted that he had, on several occasions, observed instances where people were almost hit attempting to exit the car parked in that space. He noted, however, that the current handicapped space can be enlarged in order to conform to the size requirements dictated by the code. Mr. Iraham realized that he must obtain additional parking in order to expand; however, he has been unable to obtain a parking agreement with the business next door. It was also determined that obtaining a parking agreement with a business across P.C.H. would not be feasible since it is highly unlikely that people would park there and then cross the highway to come to the restaurant. 2 P._C. Minutes 5/16/89 Public Hearing closed at 7:10 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce noted that since this restaurant opened several years ago, the parking standards in the City have been changed and upgraded. He did not feel, however, that the applicant even met the parking requirements in effect at the time the restaurant was originally opened. He felt that to allow additional seating without providing additional parking would not be in the best interest of the City or the neighborhood in regard to alleviating parking problems. Chmn. Rue agreed with Comm. Peirce. He noted that other restaurants in the past have provided City staff with various surveys indicating why additional parking is unnecessary, such as restaurants whose main business is mainly those who walk in or order take-out food. With no such documentation, however, he did not see how this restaurant could be allowed to expand. Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that P.C.H. is a very busy street and people will not cross it to go to the restaurant. If patrons began parking on side streets, that could cause problems for the neighbors as well as for people who park there and then would have to walk down the highway. She did not feel the applicant should be allowed to expand without providing additional parking and without providing the required standard-sized handicapped parking space. Chmn. Rue noted that the Commission wants to see businesses thrive in the City; however, with parking being such a problem and creating such an impact on the City, businesses must comply with the parking requirements. He suggested that, if the applicant can provide such documentation in the future, he do so to prove that substantial walk-in business or additional take-out business is taking place, both uses which would obviate the need for additional parking. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-26, to deny the conditional use permit and parking plan, with the removal of Item D, since no parking plan was obtained: "Site inspection of the proposed parking plan with 2309 Pacific Coast Highway indicated that a maximum of nine parking spaces would be available during the hours requested for the parking plan." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT 322 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, ROSA'S MEXICAN FOOD, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed conditional use permit and environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The present use is as a Mexican restaurant. 3 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended the adoption of a negative declaration for this project. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for beer and wine at an existmg restaurant, Rosa's, located at 322 Pacific Coast Highway. Beer and wine would be served in conjunction with the existing food service. The applicant currently has a limited amount of paved off-street parking located behind the restauran t. The parking is not signed or marked, a nd the parkin g area is sh ared with adjacent busi nesses (a ticket a genc y and amuse ment a rcade). Ther e fore, it is not clear how many parking spaces are currently available to the restaurant. As such, staff feels that this would be an appropriate time for the owner to properly sign and mark the parking area. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that parking spaces be striped behind the restaurant and that signs be posted indicating the spaces available to customers and employees of the three businesses. The subject restaurant has two signs facing Pacific Coast Highway; a single-face wall sign which reads "Rosa's Natural Juices" and a double-faced overhang sign which reads "Rosa's." Given that the restaurant is not involved in the sale of natural juices, staff is recommending a condition that the wall sign be removed. Any replacement of that sign would have to conform with the City's sign requirements. Also, there is currently a planter located in the front of the restaurant and ticket agency which is not maintained with landscaping. Staff noted, however, that since the planter is actually not directly in front of Rosa's, that the applicant does not need to be required to maintain the planter, as originally conditioned in the proposed CUP. Staff suggested that the owners be contacted and asked to maintain the planter. Mr. Schubach noted that there is a residential use at the rear ocf the restaurant parking area which seems to be in danger of being hits by cars. Staff has observed damage to the structure indicating that cars have, on more than one occasion, run into the building. He suggested, therefore, that a condition be added requiring some type of protection, such as rubber wheel stops or some other type of material. Given that this is an existing restaurant business which has been in operation for several years and the fact that it is located along the commercially dominated Pacific Coast Highway corridor, staff believes that the addition of beer and wine service is appropriate for this location and would be compatible with surrounding uses. Public Hearing opened at 7:18 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Armando Perez, 3847 Tiffany Court, Torrance, applicant, addressed the Commission. Comm. Peirce asked whether Mr. Perez had had an opportunity to read the conditions proposed by staff. Mr. Perez replied that he has not read a copy of the CUP. He noted, however, that he has no objection to removing the sign and to restriping the parking area to protect the residential area from being battered by cars. He stated that he owns the residential property in the rear as well as all three businesses. He stated that there are signs indicating that parking is available for Rosa's. Mr. Perez, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that he would maintain the planter and add plants. He noted, however, that he has planted the area in the past, but passers-by seem to tear out the plants. 4 P.C. Minutes 5/16/89 Mr. Perez stated that he will remove the "Rosa's Natural Juice" sign. Chmn. Rue suggested that Mr. Perez be given a copy of the resolution so that he can read it before a decision is made. Chmn. Rue stated that the Public Hearing would be recessed until after the hearing of Agenda Item No. 8, in order to give Mr. Perez an opportunity to examine the resolution. (The Commissioners discussed Agenda Item No. 8 before returning to this hearing.) Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Perez stated that he was aware of the conditions being imposed on him. Mr. Schubach explained that staff is also recommending that action be taken to prevent cars from crashing into the residential use located in the rear of the restaurant in the parking area; i.e., a vehicle guard rail or poles. Mr. Perez stated that he would install the protection as requested, stating that he will contact someone to do the work as soon as possible. Comm. Ingell noted the importance of the applicant understanding all the conditions being imposed on him. He asked whether Mr. Perez would prefer that this matter be continued so that someone could translate the resolution for him. He continued by explaining the various conditions to Mr. Perez for clarification. Mr. Perez stated that he fully understands the conditions being imposed on Rosa's. He stated that in the past customers brought their own beer and wine' to the restaurant; however, the Alcoholic Beverage Control no longer allows that. Therefore, Mr. Perez has applied for this use. He stated that he has never had any trouble at the restaurant caused by drinking, and he intends to have things remain that way in the future. He said he will erect a sign advising that no more than three beers will be served to a customer. Mr. Perez, in response to a question by Mr. Remelmeyer, again stated that he has now read the resolution; he fully understands the terms listed in the conditional use permit resolution; and he agrees with them. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-39, with the addition to Condition No. 3 wording requiring that a protective barrier be installed in the rear parking area to protect the residential use from any further damage. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell and accepted by Comms. Peirce and Ketz as maker and second, to correct the following in the Resolution: (l) Condition No. 1: "The service of alcoholic beverages shall be in an establishment that operates a full kitchen and provides full menus. The primary purpose of the establishment shall be the service of food. A restaurant is defined as having gross sales of a minimum of 65% food and a maximum of 35% beer or wine sales computed monthly. Upon request the City may request to review all records submitted to the State Board of Equalization .... " and (2) Condition No. 8: "An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit .... " 5 P.C. Minutes 5/16/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Edwards Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, that Mr. Perez must begin immediately to comply with the conditions set forth in the CUP. Mr. Perez stated that he will begin tomorrow to take steps to comply with the requirements. Chmn. Rue explained that Mr. Perez would be able to obtain a copy of the signed resolution in two weeks. Mr. Schubach explained that Mr. Perez must also sign an Acceptance of Conditions form. He suggested that Mr. Perez come to the Planning Department to pick up a signed copy of the CUP and to sign a copy of the other form. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120284 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 235 MANHA TT AN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 9, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map #207 55 for a two­ unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan. desi:gmation of high density residential. The lot size is 3000 square feet, or 30 by 100 feet. The current use is a duplex. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. The two proposed units are similar in design, each containing approximately 2150 square feet, two bedrooms, an upper floor mezzani ne, and three baths. The proposed building is situated on an alley lot, and two separa t e garage entrances are proposed from the alley (Palm Drive) and from Manhattan Avenue. Mr. Schubach noted that late last Thursday staff received revised plans from the applicant. Staff has not had time to review the plans in detail in regard to the zoning analysis. The matter could, therefore, be continued; or the project could be approved in concept with a condition added stating that if the project meets all zoning requirements, the project could be approved by the Planning Director. Chmn. Rue stated that he would prefer to make a decision at this time, noting that if there are problems, the Planning Director could bring this item back to the Commission. Comm. Peirce agreed. The architecture of the building is contemporary, with some of the typical local beach features. The proposed units are detached and are separated by a 14-foot wide courtyard. The units contain two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. Architectural details include a stucco exterior finish, metal stucco trim, metal guardrails, dark anodized aluminum windows, and glass block. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements, although it is not indicated 6 P .C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 r- L where the required 200 cubic feet of lockable storage will be located. It appears that there is ample area for said storage area at the subterranean level. A condition requiring the storage area to be clearly identified on the final plans is included in the proposed resolution. Private open space is provided in the interior courtyard, which is less than 50 percent covered by the second-story overhang, on decks located on the second floor and decks located on the mezzanine level. The required open space of 300 square feet is exceeded by approximately 15 square feet. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Four parking spaces will be provided in enclosed garages and four guest parking spaces are provided within the 17-foot setback for the two garages. The surrounding area consists of a mix of older duplexes and apartment buildings and one new two-unit condominium at 215 Manhattan Avenue. The new condominium has a setback of five feet from Manhattan Avenue. The setbacks of most of the other surrounding buildings appear to be much less than five feet. Comm. Ingell suggested that the resolution include a mention of the curb cuts and number of parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated that there is one lost space along Manhattan Avenue. However, the applicant is providing eight parking spaces when only five spaces are required. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Jan Buike, 244 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the fact that this project will obliterate her ocean view. She just purchased the house, and one of the strong selling points was its ocean view. Chmn. Rue noted that the City does not have a view ordinance in effect at this time. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant was not present; however, he noted that this is only the second meeting with the new starting time of 7:00 P.M. He suggested, therefore, that the hearing be left open in order to give the applicant time to arrive. Chmn. Rue agreed and stated that the Public Hearing would be recessed until later in the meeting. (The Commission returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 7 at this time.) Public Hearing reopened at 7:44 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, architect, addressed the Commission. Mr. Schubach gave a synopsis of the information contained in the staff report for the benefit of the applicant. He stated that staff recommended approval of the project with the addition of a condition concerning the zoning analysis of the revised plans to ensure that the project complies with all zoning requirements. Approval of the project would then be contingent upon review by the Planning Director. Mr. Compton stated that he agreed with the staff report. He continued by discussing the plans for the project, explaining that the plans were revised to change the appearance 7 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 r--somewhat because there are so many buildings in the area which have the same design. He stated that round elements were added to the decks, and the overall appearance has now been enhanced. Mr. Compton stated that he wanted to avoid designing a "monster-type" project, yet he wanted to avoid using a ubiquitous design. He felt that the project as proposed will be quite nice, and it fits the lot very well. Mr. Compton discussed the plans, noting the location of the decks and the courtyard area. He continued by discussing the location of the decks and courtyard in relation to the units. Mr. Compton did not feel there would be any problems with the zoning analysis for this project. Therefore, he had no objection to the inclusion of the condition proposed by staff in that regard. Public Hearing closed at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue felt that there will be no problems with this project in regard to the zoning analysis and that it will meet all conditions of the zoning and building codes. He clarified that approval for the project will be contingent upon review by the Planning Director. MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-40, with the follo wing corrections: (l} Item G: " ... and will be compatible ... " and (2) Condition 4(b): "The raise~ planter s within ... " AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. SIGN WAIVER FOR HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1989. This request is for a double-face pole sign/reader board, 18 feet high, with a 32 square-foot face located adjacent to Valley Drive. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the sign with a maximum height of 12 feet. The School District has available funds which they may lose if the money is not used in the near future. They have desired a reader board sign for the purpose of advertising upcoming school events and activities. The Open Space Zone allows only monument signs; however, there is a provision, Section 9.5-8, which allows for waiver of those standards. Staff believes that because of the risk of vandalism by children to a monument-level sign at this particular location, a sign eight feet from the base to the bottom of the sign face, for a total height of 12 feet, would be appropriate. 8 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 The sign company's proposed sign, therefore, is excessively tall and not necessary. The sign would not only be protected at an eight-foot height, it would also be more visible to passing motorists because it would be closer to eye level, and it also would be easier to change the letters. It is important to recognize that the sign copy is not permanent, but instead a reader board that will be changed on a regular basis. Mr. Schubach also recommended the addition of a condition requiring that there be a pole cover, which would be attractive and which would discourage children from trying to climb the pole to reach the letters. He stated that the cover shape could be contingent upon review by the Planning Director. He stated that there are a variety of materials which can be used for the pole cover. Further, the sign is out of scale and character with the residential neighborhood and the community as a whole at the proposed 18-foot height and is not allowed even in the C-1 and C-2 commercial zones. Public Hearing opened at 7:59 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Lee Ann Clifton, 525 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, PTA president of Hermosa Valley School, addressed the Commission. She explained that the PTA raised funds and decided to purchase a sign this year. She stated that they did purchase a pole cover; however, she was not certain of the material used for the pole cover. She thought it might be masonry. Mrs. Clifton stated that the sign company proposed a height of 18 feet for the sign. She requested, however, that they be allowed to have the sign at a height of ten feet. She stated that a higher sign would discourage vandalism by the children and it would be more difficult for them to climb up the pole in order to rearrange the letters on the sign board. Mrs. Clifton stated that, unfortunately, the pole is already in the ground, explaining that they had requested that work not be started yet, but the contractor went ahead and installed the pole anyway. Mrs. Clifton stated that the sign will be used to advertise various school functions, such as paper drives and announcements of good citizenship awards. She stated that messages sometimes do not go home with the children, and as parents come to pick up their children or drive by the school, they will be able to see messages posted on the sign board. She stated that the sign will be targeted toward the school community in particular. Mrs. Clifton discussed a question from Comm. Ingell and stated that so long as the sign is being installed, it is cheaper to have it wired for electricity now rather than doing it at a later time. She stated that they would like to have it lit during the school carnival, for example. She stated that the sign will be plexiglass, as are the signs which are not wired for electricity. Mrs. Clifton, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that the sign will be turned off by a timer at night. Since the school will be paying the electric bill, they do not want it on all the time. Mrs. Clifton, in response to a question from Comm. Ing ell, was not certain whether the L steel frame will be galvanized or not; that decision was left to the contractor. 9 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 Comm. Ingell noted concern over the appearance of exposed steel which rusts out very rapidly in the beach community. George Smeltzer, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, gave background information on the sign ordinance, stating that he did not feel the ordinance took into consideration some of the problems in regard to open space, such as access by young children to monument-type signs. He continued by discussing a request he will soon be submitting for a sign at Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue at that school site. He felt that staff is heading in the right direction in their recommendation for the height of this sign. Andy Clifton, 525 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, did not feel the staff recommended height of eight feet will be adequate. He said that eight feet is low enough for children to reach the lettering. He felt that a height of ten feet would be more appropriate so that the children cannot remove the lettering. He did not feel that the sign would be a nuisance. Mrs. Clifton, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that she would have no objection to a time limit being imposed as to the hours which the sign can be illuminated at night. She asked that they be allowed to keep the board lit during the Halloween school carnival until 9:30 or 10:00 P.M. Comms. Peirce and Ingell favored turning the light off at 9:00 P .M. On special occasions, it could stay on longer. Comm. Ingell stressed that the steel should be galvanized for the sake of appearance. He felt that everything being built in the City should be galvanized. Mrs. Clifton stated that they already have the pole; however, she will check with the contractor to see whether it is galvanized. Comm. Ingell suggested that the school look into purchasing a locking cover for the sign. Mrs. Clifton stated that they did investigate such a purchase, but it was too expensive, and the school did not have the necessary funds. Mrs. Clifton stated that the sign will be strictly for the use of Hermosa Valley School. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the request with the following conditions: (1) the height of the sign shall be limited to a maximum of nine fee t, from the ground to the bottom of the sign; (2) there must be a pole cover for the sign pole; (3) the illuminated sign shall be turned off at 9:00 P.M., with the exception of speci al functions ; and (4) the sign shall not be used for any commercial purposes. Comm. Ing ell asked if anyone favored a height of ten feet. Comm. Ketz felt the sign should be as low as possible and still provide protection from vandalism, noting that this is an open space area. Comm. Peirce did not think it is necessary for the sign to be ten feet, noting that if someone is intent on getting to the sign, they will do it no matter what the height is. He therefore favored nine feet. 10 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 Chmn. Rue also favored nine feet, noting that the intent is to keep it as low as possible, yet out of casual reach. Mr. Schubach stated that he will return with a resolution for this matter at the next meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. LOT MERGER LIST Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 11, 1989. Staff requested acknowledgment by the Planning Commission of the determination of merger on the list of lots provided to the Commissioners. The City staff in the past year has implemented the lot merger ordinance as directed by the City Council. The legally described lots in the list have been merged in accordance with the criteria found within the lot merger ordinance. Each property owner received a certified letter noting the intent to merge the subject lots; signed receipts for the notices are on file. The lots were, as required by the ordinance, on blocks where less than eighty percent of the lots had been already split, were owned by the same pe rson (s), had dwelling units straddling the common property lines, and were substandard in size. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that approximately 1100 lots were merged into 500 plus lots. Mr. Schubach noted that there is a provision in the event any error has been made in the past in regard to lots which were merged; however, there does not appear at this time to be any reason to rehear any of the lot mergers. Chmn. Rue opened and closed the hearing, noting that no one came forward to speak on this matter. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to acknowledge the determination of merged lots. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a.) City Council/Planning Commission Workshop The Commissioners agreed on Thursday, June 29, as the date for the workshop. Mr. Schubach stated that the workshop will address items of priority. Also, the issue of non-conforming uses and standards is being sent back from the Council to the Planning Commission. 11 P.C. Minutes 5/16/89 Comm. Ingell questioned whether there would be any conflict of the Brown Act if the City Council and Planning Commission discuss the non-conforming issue before the matter is again heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Remelmeyer stated that there would be no problem so long as the workshop is properly noticed. Comm. lngell suggested that there be a demonstration of the noise meter at the workshop. Chmn. Rue suggested that zoning standards be discussed at the workshop, noting that people are concerned over very bulky buildings being constructed in the City. He also felt it would be appropriate to discuss the multi-use corridor. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, explained how the recent zone changes will be addressed. b.) Southwest Area Planning Council Mr. Schubach stated that the meeting will take place on Friday, May 26, at Scotty's on the Strand. He continued by discussing the guest speakers and the topics for discussion, which will be on air quality. Chmn. Rue stated that he would like to attend. c.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 5/23/89 City Council Meeting No one will attend as liaison. d.) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Comm. Ingell noted that very few hearings are scheduled for the month of June; therefore, he suggested that there be only one Planning Commission meeting in June, that which is scheduled for June 6. Mr. Schubach stated that this appears to be a slow time of year; however, zone changes and general plan amendments will be coming before the Commission soon. He also felt that there will soon be an increase in the number of condo applications. Mr. Schubach stated that he would check into the feasibility of having only one meeting in June, noting that certain items must be properly noticed. e.) City Council Minutes of April 25, 1989 Comm. Peirce asked about the capital improvement budget, stating that he has not seen a copy of the budget for quite some time. Mr. Schubach stated that he would check with the Public Works Director on the status of the capital improvement budget. 12 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell suggested that the City's building standards be changed to require that non­ corrosive material be used for all exposed metal surfaces in the City. He noted how quickly metal corrodes in a beach city, and it looks terrible. Mr. Schubach stated that he would draft a memo from the Planning Commission to the Building Director to consider the use of non-corrosive materials and requesting a reply to the Commission. Chmn. Rue asked about the 35-foot height limit in the City. He stated that condominiums are now being built with four stories; i.e., three stories and a subterranean garage. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that when the height limit was adopted, no mention was made as to the allowed number of stories, only to the height. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 8:43 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 16, 1989. ~ Micaefschuba~y 1~ Date - 13 P.C. Minutes 5/ 16/89