Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.18.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 18, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms . Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Edward s (Excus ed absence), Rue* Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (* Comm. Rue entered Council Chambers at 7:34 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Ingell noted an addition to the minutes of April 4, 1989: Page 19 , Paragraph 10: "Comm. Ingell noted, however, that three of the four multi-unit dwellings between 17th Street and 21st Street on the east side of the highway want to be commercial." MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended the minutes of April 4, 1989. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, s.o. ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Rue noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 89-28, stating that Condition J(b) should read: "the improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land and said improvement, expansion, or reconstruction must conform to the current and adjacent zoning standards." MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE LAND USE CATEGORY OF MULTI-USE CORRIDOR AND CREA TE A LAND USE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND TO ADOPT A ST A TEMENT OF POLICIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell noted that the "attached map" mentioned in Resolution P.C. 89-29 was not included. Mr. Schubach stated that omission of the map was merely an oversight. He said that the map is attached in the packets going to the City Council. 1 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the action taken by the Planning Commission in regard to the area between 17th Street and 21st Street on the east side of the highway. Chmn. Peirce reminded the Commission that the recommendation for that area was sent to the City Council with no recommendation at all. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI-USE CORRIDOR TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI-USE CORRIDOR TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Rue noted that there is no map attached to Resolution P.C. 89-30. Mr. Schubach again noted that omission of the map was merely an oversight; the maps are included in the packages being sent to the City Council. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120779 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 540 11TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, KNUTSEN TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to attach the memorandum with the "matrix of votes" to Resolutions P.C. 89-28, 89-29, and 89-30 which will be forwarded to the City Council. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Peirce directed that the maps also be included with the City Council packages. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR AUTO BROKERAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 424 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, A&:H MOTORS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1989. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of multi-use corridor. The building area is 1400 square feet or 18 by 78 feet. The applicant is currently operating an automobile brokerage service. 2 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit, Parking Plan, and Negative Declaration for the project because of the lack of parking for the site. Since that time the applicant has pursued an option to lease four City-owned parking spaces located along the alley to the rear of the subject property. The City Council, at their meeting of February 28, 1989, tentatively approved such a lease, contingent upon Planning Commission approval of the conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting to conduct an auto brokerage business which sells and leases new and used automobiles from an existing commercial building. The subject property contains a 2800 square foot building on a 4320 square foot lot. The applicant intends to lease half the building, or 1400 square feet. The commercial structure was constructed before the City had commercial parking standards. Two parking spaces are available for the applicant's portion of the building and are accessed via the rear alley. According to the applicant, the business is primarily conducted by telephone, and the merchandise is purchased and sold on a per-customer basis. Also according to the applicant, the cars are only temporarily parked at the business location, as they are purchased from a dealer and delivered as quickly as possible to the customer. "Automobile brokerage" is not a type of commercial use listed in the zoning ordinance, and it is most similar to an "automobile sales agency." Therefore, it must be considered an automobile sales agency and be subject to the requirement for a conditional use permit and parking plan at a ratio of one per 250 square feet. Based on this parking standard, six parking spaces are required for the business. The applicant is therefore requesting approval of a parking plan to include the four leased spaces to make a total of six spaces. The four parking spaces are within 100 feet of the subject property. Given that the four spaces are not on the applicant's property, staff has included a condition requiring the leasing of the spaces for the entire life of the business unless another means of providing six spaces is found in the future. Staff is also concerned about the possible use of the four leased spaces as locations for car detailing, minor auto repair and service, or installation of accessories. This would certainly not be appropriate, since the parking area abuts residential uses to the east. As such, staff has also included a condition that any work on the cars shall be conducted inside the building. Staff believes that the concerns of the Environmental Review Committee will be mitigated by the use of the four leased parking spaces and that the proposed use, as conditioned, would be compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has addressed the concerns raised by the installation of car alarms, explaining that the testing of such alarms is quite noisy and inappropriate in a residential area. Therefore, a condition has been added prohibiting the installation, testing, or repair of car alarm systems. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed conditional use permit, parking plan, and environmental negative declaration, subject to the specified conditions. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Rick Ballanger, 424 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is the general manager of the business. He stated that many of the problems have arisen from the fact that the City did not understand how this business 3 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 operates, explaining that this is not an auto dealer. Since there is no classification in the City for "auto broker," they have been lumped together with "auto dealer." He said that cars do not sit and wait for customers to come to them. This is basically an off ice where people work on the telephone. Clients call with their car preference; dealers are contacted by phone; and when the car arrives, it is pre-registered to the owner who immediately picks it up or has it delivered. He said no installation is done on site, other than occasional stereo installation. Other installations and repairs are done off site. Mr. Ballanger stated that stereo equipment is installed inside. He explained that the stereos are usually installed by the car manufacturer. The "installation" involved is actually taking out a higher quality stereo and replacing it with a less expensive model. Mr. Ballanger stated that the number of parking spaces which will be provided is really in excess of what is actually needed; the reason six are being provided is to meet the City parking requirements. He said that the business only needs four spaces. He said when no work is being done, there would be an additional space inside. Mr. Ballanger stated that the hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 or 6:00 P .M. He stated that there are four employees; however, three are only in the office because the fourth person does errands. He said that the owner sometimes works on weekends; sometimes on Sundays. Mr. Ballanger stated that cars are usually delivered off site, either to the clients' homes or businesses; therefore, cars are not stored on-site. He said that cars are ordered with a specific buyer in mind. Mr. Ballanger stated that the business should remain open until 6:00 or 7:00 P.M. He noted that most of the surrounding businesses remain open longer than this business. Comm. Ingell noted concern over any type of repair work done on the premises. He felt that any type of installation work should be limited to 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. Mr. Ballanger had no objection to such a condition. He said that cars are usually delivered in the evenings when most of the other work is done. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that the applicant, at his previous location, was Mr. Compton's neighbor. He stated that he never experienced any problems with the business. He said that the applicant is very hardworking, and he does not feel there will be any problems. He noted that there were no parking problems at the previous location. He also said that very little installation work was done at the business. Mr. Compton stated that his only concern would be with the hours of allowing installation or repair work to be done on site. Mr. Compton stated that this business provides a great deal of tax revenue for the City. He also noted that the business creates very little impact to the surrounding area. Public Hearing closed at 7:59 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce agreed that the hours of installation and repair work should be limited. He suggested that the repair hours be 8:00 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. He discussed Condition No. 6 regarding the parking and suggested additional wording in the condition specifying that signs shall be posted indicating that four parking spaces are available for A&H Motors. 4 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 Mr. Schubach stated that such requirement will be Condition 6 (a). Comm. lngell noted concern over the month-to-month parking space rental agreement between the business and the City. He questioned what would happen in the event the City terminates the agreement. He questioned that appropriateness of such an agreement. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant would then need to obtain the required parking elsewhere. Alternatively, the applicant could request that his CUP be amended. Comm. Rue noted that maybe the parking requirements for this business would prove to be excessive in the future; therefore, not as many spaces would be required. He also noted that there could be future auto brokers in the City, and the issue of required parking may again arise. Mr. Schubach stated that, if necessary, this issue could be studied. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C.89-36 with the following amendments: (1) hours of re air and installation shall be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P .M. Monday through Saturday; 2 wording shall be added requiring the applicant to provide signage indicating that the parking spaces are available for use by A&H Motors. Comm. Ketz noted concern that additional parking may be required and people would start parking on the residential streets. Mr. Schubach stated the Condition No. 14 would provide a remedy for such an occurrence, whereby the Commission could review the CUP ii-an¥ detr:imentaleffects to the neighborhood are caused by this business. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120755 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 345 MANHATTAN AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS 120 4TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1989. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3080 square feet, or 30.8 by 100 feet. 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 contains approximately 2300 square feet, two bedrooms, an upper floor mezzanine, and three baths. The building is situated on a corner alley lot, and two separate garage entrances are proposed from the alley (Palm Drive) and from Manhattan Avenue. The architecture of the building is contemporary, with typical California beach features. The proposed units are attached by a common wall and contain two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. Architectural details include a stucco exterior finish, color accent and trim band, glass block, and decorative pipe railings. 5 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements except for a problem with the lot coverage calculation. The raised concrete patios located at the entry to both units exceed 30 inches above the grade established at the side yard. Pursuant to the definition of lot coverage, decks which exceed 30 inches above grade are to be considered lot coverage. If the patio area is included in the lot coverage calculation, it goes up to 71 percent. The applicant has been notified of this problem and has agreed to lower the level of the patios to 30 inches above the grade, which would result in a lot coverage of 64.4 percent. A condition to the effect is included in the proposed resolution. Open space is provided on decks located on the second floor and mezzanine level and on a roof deck for Unit B. Unit A has an additional 60 square feet of open space on its first­ floor patio, while Unit B has an additional 200 square feet of open space on its roof deck. 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 apartments, condominiums, and older single­ family homes. The site is adjacent to a duplex apartment project currently under construction to the south. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map 1120755 for a two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that this project conforms to the other setbacks in the surrounding area. Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that this project is unusual, since one of the buildings had recently burned down at the corner of 4th Street and Manhattan Avenue. He explained, therefore, that the owner wishes to proceed as quickly as possible with the project. Mr. Compton stated that this is an interesting lot which goes to the corner and is very open. The configuration of the lot, however, presents a difficult situation. The owner is desirous of doing an interesting project which will fit in well with the area. Mr. Compton discussed the planning department's request that the height of the patio level be modified, and he stated that there is no problem with the modification, and he has agreed to lower the grade. He continued by discussing how the patio was originally proposed and how it will now actually be. He felt, however, that the section in the zoning code which is at issue was misinterpreted in this project by the new planning staff member. He said that he has done a number of other projects with the usual interpretation; if the new person's interpretation were used in those other projects, they would not have been allowed. He suggested that there be uniformity in the interpretations so that projects can be designed with ease. Mr. Compton discussed the raised grade at this project, explaining that the patio will be more visible. He discussed how he feels the code section should be interpreted. He noted, however, that he has no problem with complying to the staff's request. He felt that this code section needs to be addressed very carefully. 6 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 Mr. Compton stated that this will be an unusual project which will utilize the view quite well. He stated that the architectural treatment will be very attractive from the street. Comm. Rue stated that he could see how the planning staff made their interpretation for this project. Mr. Compton stated that he is happy to comply with the requirements; however, he felt there should be a standard interpretation so he can design projects accordingly. He stated that this particular project was designed based on other similar projects which were approved. He stated that his original design called for a patio which was accessible and which would be real usable space. He did not perceive this project to be a substantial departure from others he has done based on the same code section. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission had received a letter from Marjorie Lundgren opposing this project. Public Hearing closed at 8:18 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mr. Schubach, in response, to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that when situations like this arise, the planning staff meets with the Building Director for discussion. The Building Director concurred with staff's code interpretation for this project. Mr. Schubach suggested that a policy statement be adopted for this matter. He noted, however, that this applicant desires to proceed as quickly as possible and has agreed to staff's recommendation. In the future, though, staff can return with a proposed policy statement which would apply to future projects. Comm. Rue noted that the applicant desires to move ahead with this project; therefore, he proposed a motion: MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-35. Comm. Rue noted a new standard condition, No. 11: ''The street name 'Manhattan Avenue' shall be displayed with the address number for the unit facing the alley street to the rear of the property." Mr. Schubach explained the requirement, stating it is sometimes difficult for fire and police departments to locate the proper address on alleys. Comm. Rue discussed various materials which could be used for the proposed address signage in the future. He felt that even neon could be used as an interesting effect, so long as it is legible and does not detract from the appearance of the building. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce agreed that it would be appropriate for the Commission to discuss the issue of address signage at a future meeting. 7 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP //20822 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT, 18 AND 20 MEYER COURT Mr. Schubach stated that the application submitted does not comply with the filing requirements contained in Sections 17 .2-19 through 17 .2-23 of the zoning ordinance pertaining to condominium conversions. The applicants have been notified of this oversight, and they are currently working on preparing the appropriate materials. Mr. Schubach explained that tenants must be notified 60 days prior to the application for a permit. This has not yet been done by the applicant. Staff recommended that this matter be continued to a specified date in order to allow the applicant time to complete the application in accordance with the filing requirements for a condominium conversion. Mr. Lough noted that condominium conversions do not arise often. With the 60-day notification requirement, he suggested that the matter be continued to more than 60 days so that there is adequate time for the applicant to comply. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the matter be continued by June 20, 1989, which is more than 60 days away. He noted that the Commission has no material on this matter at this time. He stated, however, that he would open the public hearing and continue it. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated that he has never before done a condominium conversion in this city. He stated that the tenants will be notified as required by the code. Mike Meyers, 1104 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that a builder bought this property; built three apartments; and intended to convert them to condominiums based on the fact he felt they could be sold as individual units. He felt that the applicant is attempting to circumvent the requirements. He noted concern over this happening again in the future, and he did not feel this is fair. Mr. Meyers felt that this item should be renoticed to the surrounding neighbors so that they can attend the next hearing. Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, Hermosa Street, noted that on April 25, the City Council will be changing the density for this area. He suggested that that will have a direct impact on this project; therefore, he felt that the items should be taken together. Chmn. Peirce suggested that Mr. Edgerton attend the City Council on April 25 to voice his opinion. Mr. Edgerton noted concern over future condominium conversions in the City. Chmn. Peirce stated that, since the Commissioners had no information whatsoever on this project, the matter would not be discussed until the meeting on June 20. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Mr. Edgerton, explained the past actions taken in regard to the density designations. He noted that no density increase would be created by this condo conversion; three units exist, and three units are being proposed. 8 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 Mr. Compton stated that this is an unusual circumstance. He stated that the property was purchased when the general plan designation for the area was low density and the area was zoned R-2. He explained that general plan changes were upcoming; therefore, the applicant built apartments. He noted that the area was ultimately designated R-2B. Mr. Compton stated that this building is built to all of the condominium ordinance requirements. Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Peirce at 8:37 P .M. to the meeting of June 20, 1989. Chmn. Peirce stated that this matter would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 1989. Chmn. Peirce commented that it would be reasonable to ask the applicant to renotice this matter. Mr. Compton stated that the matter would be renoticed. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE VIDEO SALES IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1989. At the February 14, 1989, City Council Meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review deleting video sales and rentals from the permitted use list. At the time video sales and rentals were added to the permitted use list, it was believed that adult, X-rated tapes could be completely banned. Since these types of tapes cannot be completely prohibited, elimination of the use from the list is necessary. It is believed by staff that both the C-1 and C-2 zones are in too close proximity to residential development. Other communities and the County prohibit such uses within hundreds of feet of residential development, although it appears from the most recent court decision, no community can prohibit sales and/or rental of this type of material within a certain distance as long as it is not the "predominant use." Therefore, video sales and rentals in general have a potential to be more obnoxious and deleterious to the community than other allowed uses in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission remove video sales and rentals from the permitted use list for the C-1 and C-2 zones. Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:39 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce, since no one came forward to speak on this matter. Comm. Rue noted that the resolution refers to only the C-1 zone. Mr. Schubach explained that anything allowed in the C-1 zone is also allowed in the C-2 zone. He noted, however, that this resolution does not include the C-3 zone. Comm. Rue asked what would happen to any establishment currently selling X-rated videos in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Mr. Schubach noted that there is currently only one such establishment. 9 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 Mr. Lough stated that if there is a current existing permitted use and this ordinance goes into ef feet, the business would become an allowed non-conforming use and could be continued unless an agreement is reached whereby the business amortizes out. Comm. Ingell asked if an amortization clause could be added to this text amendment. Mr. Schubach suggested that such a requirement not be included in this amendment. He noted that staff is currently studying this matter and will return with further information so that it can be studied separately. Mr. Lough stated that he will discuss the amortization issue with staff next week. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-33. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards BILTMORE SITE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING OF PUBLICLY-OWNED PORTION OF THE BILTMORE SITE FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO OPEN SPACE (PUBLIC PLAZA) FOR THAT PORTION WEST OF BEACH DRIVE AND TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-2 FOR THAT PORTION EAST OF BEACH DRIVE BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH STREET AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1989. At the March 20, 1989, meeting the Task Force adopted a recommendation; at the March 27, 1989, meeting, the language of the recommendation was approved. Staff found no concerns with the Task Force recommendation. The best method for implementation would be a Specific Plan Area since it would become a part of the zoning ordinance and would be shown on the zoning map. Any changes to this zone or text of the zone would require a public hearing with noticing. The use of a deed restriction was suggested but not included in the recommendation. Staff would find this method less desirable since no public hearing is necessary to change the restrictions, and nothing would be noted on the zoning map beyond the general designation of open space and C-2, which does not indicate any additional restrictions. Also, there is a question of where this deed restriction would be maintained so that in the future staff members would be aware of the restrictions. The Task Force Committee recommended that the appropriate use of the Biltmore Site is (1) open space to be used for an urban public plaza, and (2) restricted C-2 commercial use. Parcel 1 is to be open space with the remainder to be restricted C-2 commercial. The C-2 uses should further be restricted so that no hotel or motel is allowed; eating and drinking establishments shall be required to meet the 65% to 35% food to alcohol ratio; and only retail and/or restaurant use not exceeding 30 feet in height and providing a landscaped setback will be allowed. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the map and the various lots which would be affected by the zoning and SPA. 10 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission implement the task recommendation with a specific plan area (SPA}. force Comm. Ingell asked why Lot C was not included in the report. He noted that if that area had been included, an entirely different set of people would have been noticed. Chmn. Peirce explained that the Task Force was not commissioned to address the area containing Lot C. Mr. Schubach noted that staff will be bringing this matter back with the new specifications. When the matter comes back, it will be publicly noticed per the requirements. Mr. Lough explained the current status of the property, stating that it is actually in limbo; however, since it is owned by the City, there is not a problem. He continued by explaining the differences between a deed restriction and a specific plan area. He stated that an SPA would require that any changes come before the Commission, whereas a deed restriction would not. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff found no concern over the recommendation to close off Beach Drive. Public Hearing opened at 8:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked about the existing SPA. Mr. Schubach explained the location of the current SPA which is in effect. Rolf Erickson, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated his, concern over the traffic situation, noting there is no signal at 15th Street; therefore, he uses the signal at 14th Street because it is safer than trying to go through the traffic. He favored the recommendation for open space; however, he opposed a rezone to C-2, explaining that it will create additional noise and traffic in the area. He noted that this is currently a de facto residential area. John Housen, 934 7th Street, favored the task force recommendation and hoped that this matter would be resolved soon. Public Hearing closed at 8:59 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce felt that the recommendation is the best of all worlds if the City does not desire to sell the property. The recommendation would provide for a park as well as attractive adjacent commercial uses. Comm. Ingell agreed that he favors the proposal. Comm. Ketz felt that the recommendation is a good compromise. She felt that plaza would be quite attractive. Comm. Rue asked about the recommendation that the funds derived from the sale of the C-2 lots would not go to a park specifically; rather, it would go to open space. He questioned whether information has been obtained relating to the cost of upkeep for the park as well as tree planting and maintenance. 11 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 Comm. Ingell noted that that issue is contained in the report: "Proceeds from the sale of Parcels 2 and 3 are to be earmarked for development of the open space portion of the site; the balance of the funds to be applied for reduction of any indebtedness incurred with acquisition of the right-of-way." Chmn. Peirce stated that it would be interesting to know the City's cost for yearly maintenance of the park, He stated that the City Council should take that issue into consideration when making their final decision on the matter. Mr. Schubach stated that this issue had been addressed and discussion is included in the minutes of the Task Force Committee Meeting minutes. Comm. Ingell noted concern over ensuring that the commercial use is compatible with the park and surrounding residential uses. Comm. Rue noted concern over the height of any proposed projects. He noted that C-2, with an allowed height of 30 feet, will be adjacent to the park. He felt that commercial should be encouraged; however, he wanted to ensure that the commercial use will be compatible. He felt that the development should be a showplace for the City. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 89-34 with one condition; i.e., that any commercial use must be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure compatibility with the park and surrounding residential area. Mr. Schubach stated that staff will recommend to the City Council that the SPA contain specific requirements if the matter is put on the ballot. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards a.) Election of New Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to nominate Comm. Rue for Chairman. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to nominate Comm. Ingell for Vice Chairman. No objections; so ordered. b.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 4/25/89 City Council Meeting No one will attend. c.) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. 12 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 f ~ d.) City Council Minutes of March 22, 1989, and March 28, 1989 No action taken. e.) Southwest Area Planning Council Meeting No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue asked about the signage at Hermosa Video. He noted that there are window signs and outside signs. Mr. Schubach stated that he would refer this matter to the Building Department so they can ensure that the business is in compliance with the sign ordinance. Comm. Ingell suggested that staff provide information regarding the status of projects previously approved by the Commission so that the Commissioners could go by, if desired, to see the final outcome. Comm. Rue agreed that such information would be useful. He also suggested that the Commissioners be provided with a copy of the plans so that the Commissioners can see how the projects vary from conception to completion. He stated that outside plans, plot plans, and landscape plans would all be very useful and informative. Comm. Ingell suggested that one Planning Commission meeting per quarter be devoted solely to planning and zoning matters, especially now that. the general plan is being revised. Mr. Schubach agreed that such meetings would be beneficial. He stated that staff would return with a memo and recommendation on this subject. Chmn. Peirce noted that many issues affect not only Hermosa Beach, but also its neighboring cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. He suggested that an attempt be made to have a joint meeting with representatives from all three cities in order to discuss mutual problems and issues affecting the beach cities. Chmn. Peirce reminded everyone that beginning with the next meeting, May 2, 1989, the starting time will be 7:00 P.M. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 13 P.C. Minutes 4/ 18/89 • • ~ ( G CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 18, 1989. Jamesa¾Irce. cnairman ;~1 R~ (tr irCe, Ch Micnae1 :'.:>cnuoac11. :'.:>ecretary Date )-M A-'f I g gq 14 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89