Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 01.17.1989' l MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 17, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Peirce stated that the minutes of January 3, 1989, would be available at the next meeting. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Chmn. Peirce noted that several corrections are necessary to Resolution P.C. 89-l and Resolution P.C. 89-9: (l) door shall be in place within 30 days of approval of the parking plan; (2) 40 keys shall be distributed to employees of Pacific Plaza, and 10 keys to Loomis Eyck; (3) no Hope Chapel people shall use the door at any time; (4) door shall be secured and inaccessible at all other times when not in use during the specific, allowed times; (5) a report shall be provided for Planning Commission review after the six-month trial period. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the Resolutions be retyped for his signature; however, they can be approved at this time so that the conditions can be implemented. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-l, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT AT 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO ALLOW THE OPENING OF THE DOOR ON BORDEN STREET DURING SPECIFIED HOURS AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; and Resolution P.C. 89-9, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE OPENING OF THE DOOR ON BORDEN STREET DURING SPECIFIED HOURS AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 150 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 83, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH AND APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARkTION. No objections; so ordered. ' Comm. Rue noted corrections to Resolution P.C. 89-2: Page l, Line 18 should state: " ... be located to face away from any surrounding residential uses."; Page 3, Line 2 should state: " ... shall prevent cars from stacking up on l l th .... " Further, that a condition shall P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 ['~ be added stating that the restaurant must be in compliance with all air emission regulations. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE­ THRU SERVICE AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS l, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46903 FOR A 13-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. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Rue stated that Resolution P.C. 89-5 needs to have the standard condition added that a copy of the CUP shall be read, acknowledged, and signed by the manager. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN AND AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (LA TRA VIA TA) AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE, SUITES 2 AND 3, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 27, 28, AND 30, TRACT 1564. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING IN R-P ZONE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1200 ARTESIA BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1989. This project is located in the R-P, Residential/Professional zone, and has a general plan designation of general commercial. The irreguarly-shaped lot is 7308 square feet. 2 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 The applicant is proposing to construct a 5765.33 square foot professional office building on a vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Artesia Boulevard and Prospect Avenue. The proposed site is adjacent to a commercial development to the east and a two-unit residential dwelling to the south. The site is located within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area; however, both the general plan designation of general commercial and the zoning designation of residential/professional allow the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed office building is compatible with both the zoning and general plan. The proposed development will be three stories and a subterranean parking level. The proposed development meets the required parking standards; the zoning ordinance requires one parking space for each 250 square feet of general professional office use and one parking space for each 200 square feet of medical office use. The plans indicate that the first floor of the structure, approximately 1662.6 square feet, will be used for an optometry office. Therefore, a total of 25 parking spaces is required for the structure. The proposed development conforms to the allowed height limit of 35 feet. Lot coverage is 49 percent, which is well under the permitted lot coverage of 70 percent in the R-P zone. The proposed development also meets the minimum setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a proposed landscape plan. Since the site is adjacent to a residential development to the south, staff is recommending a condition of approval to require a minimum five-foot landscape planter along the south property line to provide a buffer to the adjacent residential property. The recommended five-foot planter will require the parking spaces on the first floor level to be slightly reconfigured. Some of the parking spaces are shown to be adjacent to the southerly property line. The parking area can accommodate the five-foot planter with some minor modifications to the structure and the addition of some compact parking spaces. Another condition of approval should limit the use of the second and third floor of the building to general professional office use; that is, no medical use. Additional medical office use would require additional parking. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution approving a conditional use permit for an office building and an environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, that 30 percent of the total number of spaces can be used for compact cars. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, architect and applicant, addressed the Commission and presented a model depicting the proposed project. Dr. Paul Barr, Mr. Compton's partner on the project, stated that an optometry office does not generate a great deal of traffic. Patients are usually in the office for approximately one hour. Traffic generated by such a business is more comparable to that of an architectural firm rather than of a medical office. Mr. Compton discussed the staff requirement for the five-foot planter. He noted concern over the number of parking spaces, stating that he desires to have as many parking spaces as possible with as few of them for compact cars as possible. He stated 3 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 that the setback along the side allows for a three-foot planter. He stated that any further encroachment into that sideyard would necessitate having more compact spaces. He felt that it is better to have full-size parking spaces. He continued by showing the proposed parking as shown on the model. Mr. Compton stated that he is currently at the 30 percent requirement for compact spaces. He stated that the planter can be incorporated if desired; however, an additional parking space would be lost. Mr. Compton stated that requiring a five-foot planter in addition to the required six-foot wall seems incongruous. He stated that the strip of planting will actually benefit the businesses more than it would the residents. Mr. Compton stated that the existing residences have a larger than required setback in the front. He stated that this project will provide an open space area. The closest the building will ever come to the residential property line is 15 feet, and that is only in two locations. On the other sides, the proposed building steps away substantially from the property line, 25 feet at its uppermost height. He felt that this would provide much better light, air, and ventilation as opposed to erecting a planter area. Mr. Compton stated that he has attempted to provide architectural interest in this project. He continued by showing the three-dimensional model as he described the project. He stated that this building will not create an ominous feeling towards the neighbors. He stated that the mass of the building is set back away from the street. Mr. Compton noted that he will have his off ice in this building, and it is a building he wants to be proud of for a long time. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the ingress and egress from the parking area. Mr. Compton asked that the condition requiring the five-foot planter be changed to three feet, with accommodation being made to add more compact spaces. If that cannot be done, it would be necessary for him to lose parking, thereby necessitating a reduction in the square footage of the building. He stated that at some points the planter will actually be eight feet, while at other locations it would be three feet. Public Hearing closed at 8:05 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that this is a very attractive project and will be nice at that particular corner. He stated that the streets are both very wide at that location. Chmn. Peirce concurred with Mr. Compton's argument that a three-foot planter would be appropriate. He agreed that the neighbors would obtain no benefit from the five-foot planter unless the block wall were knocked down. He felt that the applicant should be required to plant trees so that they will screen the lower part of the structure from the neighbors. Comm. Edwards said that the Commission had received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Woodson, who noted concern over noise at this project. He felt that trees would help as a buffer against noise. Comm. Ingell felt that trees would act as a buffer. He stated that he would rather see wider parking spaces than a wider planter. 4 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 Mr. Schubach noted, however, that five feet is the recommended requirement for trees because anything less would uproot the curbing and sidewalk. He stated that staff had no objection, though, to the three-foot wide area as suggested by the applicant, so long as the trees are planted in the wider areas. The more narrow areas could be planted with ground cover and shrubbery. Mr. Compton explained, though, that the trees will be planted in planters, not directly in the ground. He stated that built-up planters can be accommodated, explaining that they will be over the subterranean parking level. Dr. Barr stated that the building itself will serve as a noise buffer against the street traffic. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-8, with the following modifications: (l) Condition 5(a) shall be changed to "A three-foot landscape buffer along the southerly property line to buffer adjacent residential uses; (2) Add a Condition 5(c) requiring that trees shall be planted to buffer against noise, at the discretion of the Planning Director; and (3) the addition of a Condition Number 15 stating that three additional compact parking spaces may be accommodated in the parking plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Chmn. Peirce stated that decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GLASS ROOF INSTEAD OF A CANVAS ROOF AT 1100 THE STRAND! SCOTTY'S Comm. Ingell stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter because he is the applicant. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1989. Staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt from CEQA regulation, since this is an amendment to a recently approved conditional use permit and parking plan. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 6, 1988, approved Resolution 88-74, approving a conditional use permit amendment and parking plan to allow for the relocation of an outside dining area and minor addition. The project is located in the C-2 restricted commercial zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as a restaurant. The applicant is requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit and parking plan to allow for a glass enclosure over the patio area. Resolution P.C. 88-74 approved the relocation of a patio area and allowed for an 845 square foot addition for an office, waiting area, and storage area. Condition Number 6 states: "The patio roof shall be limited to a canvas covering or similar covering; no permanent roof shall be constructed." 5 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 . \ The applicant has stated that a canvas or similar type roof covering is not practical for the patio because the ocean l;:>reezes may cause the canvas to blow off. The site is on The Strand where strong winds may present some problems. The required parking is the same for either indoor or outdoor dining areas; therefore, parking is not affected by the proposed amendment. The conditions approved regarding the parking plan will not be changed. The plans are similar to the project previously approved by the Planning Commission with the exception of the solarium-type roof. Public Hearing opened at 8:12 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Scott Ingell, applicant, stated that a canvas roof is not feasible. He felt that glass would be a more appropriate material for the roof covering, and it will be a nice improvement for the appearance of the building. He stated that the glass roof will be of a permanent greenhouse-solarium type design. Public Hearing closed at 8:13 P.M. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-7, with the addition of a condition requiring the manager to read, acknowledge, and sign a copy of the conditional use permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Ingell None REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A BAR AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA SALOON Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1989. On November 15, 1988, the Planning Commission certified Resolution BZA 154-441. At that time, the Commission requested an investigation into the operation of this business in order to determine whether there are any violations with the conditions of the CUP and directed staff to return at the earliest possible date with a report. The Planning Department's staff has inspected the location for compliance with its CUP and found that the business contains no violations. In addition, the Police Department has made 15 weekend inspections, and only once was a violation observed. The violation observed on December 4, 1988, was dancing. The Planning Department has received only one complaint for this establishment, which was in regard to excessive noise, dancing, and parking. The complainant resides on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway. The fifteen weekend inspection reports by the police indicate that music was heard from outside the building only twice, and in no instance could the music be heard from the east side of Pacific Coast Highway. 6 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 • I r' Dancing was reported only once. Further, staff would like to recognize the fact that the saloon does not advertise dancing, nor does it have a reputation as a dance club. There were no findings in the original CUP regarding the amount of parking required, and there was no condition of approval addressing required parking. In addition, the City Attorney has determined the condition "subject to all other applicable state and local ordinances or regulations" which was contained in the original CUP, is not being violated since existing nonconforming developments are allowed to be maintained so long as 50 percent of the existing structure is not destroyed. Memorandums from the Fire and Building Departments indicate no complaints in the past months regarding these conditional use permit standards. However, one complaint has been received from the Police Department regarding noise and loud yelling at the location. Mr. Schubach passed out a copy of the report from the Police Department. Mr. Schubach stated that an additional handwritten complaint from a neighbor had been received by the Planning Department; copies were distributed to the Commission. Staff recommended that this matter be received and filed. Public Hearing opened at 8: 17 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and noted concern over several issues regarding the Hermosa Saloon: (1) the staff report makes the Hermosa Saloon seem perfect, and if anything happened there, the City could be liable; (2) an interior wall has been removed and replaced with French doors; (3) patrons are allowed to sit outdoors; (4) no records are available in the Building Department regarding this construction. Mr. Sullivan stated that it is not his intention to have the Hermosa Saloon closed down; instead, he would rather that they be required to install air conditioning and insulation in order to cut down on the noise. Mr. Sullivan continued by stating additional concerns: (1) no cooperation from the manager of Hermosa Saloon regarding his complaints; (2) he read aloud letters he has received from the City Manager dated November 15, 1988, and December 5, 1988; (3) dancing has continued almost every weekend at the Hermosa Saloon, in violation of BZA 154-441; ( 4) six tables are still outside on the patio in order to accommodate dancing indoors; (5) staff has not adequately monitored this establishment; (6) insulation at the establishment is inadequate for live music and dancing; (7) doors and windows are opened when there is dancing because the Saloon in too hot inside. Mr. Sullivan noted concern that the Hermosa Saloon is not complying to the conditions in the conditional use permit. He stated that the police department did not make their surveys after 11:00 P.M., when the noise is at its worst, except for one time. Mr. Sullivan stated that he calls the police when he is bothered by the noise. He assumes that the police go out to investigate; however, it does not appear that they are taking any action. He stated that he lives 180 feet from the Saloon on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway. Sam Ogawa, 717 Second Street, stated that he has experienced noise problems associated with the Hermosa Saloon. He stated that he has called the Police Department several .... times in the past to complain about the noise. 7 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 .. ( Mr. Ogawa stated that allowing the Hermosa Saloon to have live entertainment from 9:00 P .M. until 1 :30 A.M. exhibits a lack of common sense on the part of the City. He stated that the establishment should be required to add air conditioning and insulation in an attempt to mitigate the noise. He also suggested that they be required to close the back door to customers. John Slawson, 2522 Artesia, attorney representing the landowners directly to the north of this establishment, addressed the Commission. He stated that his client's major problem with the Hermosa Saloon regards the back door and the parking to the rear of the buildings. His clients have had extensive vandalism to their property, which consists of bottles being thrown against their walls and damage to the stucco where cars have driven into the walls. In light of this, his clients are faced with the threat of increased insurance premiums or no insurance being issued at all because of the use of the adjacent property. Mr. Slawson noted that the Planning Commission has within its purview the right to either modify or revoke this conditional use permit. He asked whether the age of this building preempts the Commission from modifying the CUP because the building has been grandfathered in. Chmn. Peirce responded by explaining that the Planning Commission, at a previous hearing, ratified a Resolution approved by the now defunct Board of Zoning Adjustments in 1980. The CUP contains eight conditions, and the Planning Commission may add or delete conditions as deemed necessary. Mr. Slawson stated that it is the inherent power of the Planning Commission to ensure that the business is complying with the conditions; and if they are not complying, the Planning Commission has the power to revoke the CUP based upon the fact that the permit is issued subject to certain conditions. Mr. Slawson stated that even if the CUP is not reviewed every six months, as the standard option allows, the Commission has the power to revoke the CUP if the conditions have changed. He noted, however, that he has not actually studied this point in technical terms, but he has read certain papers on this issue. He suggested that the Commission direct the City Attorney to further study this matter. Mr. Slawson stated that he feels that the conditions have changed in this CUP based on the fact that the applicant, at the time this CUP was approved, asserted that there were ten available parking spaces for the property. He concurred with staff that there is no specific requirement in the CUP for ten parking spaces on site; however, the CUP is subject to all other rules and regulations of the City and State. Mr. Slawson stated that the municipal code section states that for lawful onsite parking, there must be recorded legal easements from the other property owners if it is necessary to travel over someone else's property in order to get to the parking. He stated that those easements do not exist from any of the other property owners. At one time the access was over the land owned by Vasek Polak; however, that area has now been fenced off. Next, the access was over Third Street, which went over his client's property; however, that too has been fenced off. In essence, there is now no legal parking at the rear of the property in question. Mr. Slawson stated that if the BZA approved the CUP in 1980 with the understanding that there were ten off-street parking spaces as represented by the applicant, then a misrepresentation was made. He suggested, therefore, that there is ample reason for the 8 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 Commission to address the issue of off-street parking as it was originally presented to the BZA. He stressed that the Hermosa Saloon has no off-street parking whatsoever. He said that this is a drain to the other property owners, and it is a physical liability to his client's property as well as a code violation. Mr. Slawson stated that it is not his desire that the Hermosa Saloon CUP be revoked; merely that they be required to comply with the conditions as set forth in the CUP. He suggested adding requirements for insulation and air conditioning. He stated that a requirement to keep the back door closed would help in regard to the vandalism problems and noise problems experienced by his client. Also, he felt that there should be no parking at the rear, because the City would then be acquiescing by ignoring the easement requirements to go over another's property to get to the parking. Mr. Slawson noted that the City requires a recorded easement; he asked that the Hermosa Saloon not be allowed to keep the CUP as it exists if the City knowingly allows them to let their customers leave over someone else's property without following the rules. Mr. Slawson asked that the City enforce the conditions as set forth in the CUP. Dennis McNaught, 942 Third Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over noise in the area. He suggested that air conditioning and insulation be required if it will mitigate noise. He also noted concern over speeding cars going up his street. Mr. Sullivan stated that in the original CUP permit application, Page 8, it is stipulated that there shall be no permanent stage allowed in the establishment. At the staff review committee hearing, the applicant stated that the largest musical groups to perform would consist only of trios. He noted, however, that dance bands have been appearing. He displayed a copy of a flyer posted by the Hermosa Saloon advertising a group consisting of five people which appears to be a dance band. He stressed that dancing occurs at the Hermosa Saloon every weekend. James Brisson, Hermosa Saloon, addressed the Commission. He discussed the issue of parking in the rear, stating that no customer parking is allowed across his neighbor's property as was asserted by Mr. Slawson. He stated that he is currently in litigation with both neighbors, Mr. Cobb and Mr. Polak, regarding the fencing off of the parking area. He currently has an in junction against Mr. Cobb for locking the gates behind there and allowing him the use of that area for employee parking, delivery, and trash pickup. Mr. Brisson stated that it is also noted in the court record that he has retained a right to keep the keys in the gate and lock and gate by 2:30 A.M. at the latest, when his employees leave. He stated that there is no customer parking in the area; there is parking only for the band, the manager, or for employees. He stressed that there is no public parking. Mr. Brisson stated that originally there were ten common parking spaces. Originally, everyone thought that area was an alleyway, and it was a big problem when Mr. Polak decided to put up his wall. There is now a court case involving this matter which will probably last for several years. Mr. Brisson stated that he carries a one million dollar liability insurance policy for the right to allow people to walk across Mr. Cobbs' property and for the right of his employees to drive across that property. He stated that, if the Commission so desired, he could provide a copy of the policy to the City. 9 P.C. Minutes 1/17 /89 .. Mr. Brisson discussed the noise level, stating that nothing has changed at the Hermosa Saloon in the past six years. There has been part-time entertainment there since l 979, and this has been a bar since 1938. He stated that the building has been in existence for many, many years; therefore, it is difficult to know exactly when it was built or whether it was built to code because the City has no records about the building. Mr. Brisson noted that complaints were received about the noise last summer; however, that since that time he has added two ventilation fans and carpeted the walls in the band area in an attempt to reduce noise. He stated that the front door is left open. The back door is also usually left open. He noted, however, that all of the speakers used by the band are kept in one area. He continued by describing the physical layout of the building. He stated that there is no direct line from where the band plays to the location of the back door, noting that there are two walls, an archway, and another room from the band area to the back door. He stated that there is a small wooden partition which is roofed and has glass near the back door. Mr. Brisson, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that no dancing 1s allowed in the Hermosa Saloon, explaining that there is no dance floor there. Mr. Brisson stated that the patio area has always been there. On Friday and Saturday nights, the tables are brought inside. Depending upon the weather, alcoholic beverages are sometimes served on the patio on Friday and Saturday nights. He stated that the patio is used about 40 percent of the time, primarily during the daytime. Mr. Brisson stated that he is at the Saloon on Friday and Saturday nights. He stated that he has received only one written complaint for a neighbor; however, the letter was not signed. He stated that he keeps close tabs on the bar. He noted that he has lived in Hermosa Beach for 37 years, and it is his intention to maintain a good reputation in the City. Mr. Brisson explained that some of the noise problems emanate from an apartment across the street where a person plays the drums at all hours of the night. He was surprised that that person has not been reported to the Police Department. Mr. Brisson stressed that he tries very hard to run a good, clean establishment. Mr. Brisson stated that, even though there is no dance floor, people sometimes get up and dance; however, once there are seven people dancing, the doorman tells them they have to sit down. Mr. Brisson was puzzled why, after so many years, Mr. Sullivan is just now starting to complain. He noted that nothing has changed at the Hermosa Saloon in all these years. Mr. Brisson stated that his establishment is very fastidious in regard to checking identification of people entering the bar. Mr. Brisson stated that after the last hearing, he installed tie-backs on the saloon doors so that they stay open and do not swing into people. The front door has been shut since that time. Mr. Brisson commented on the air conditioning system, explaining that he spent a great deal of money on a ventilation fan system; however, there is too much force and the unit is not very practical. He stated that he will look into the cost of an air conditioning system this summer; however, such a system is very expensive. 10 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 ~ Mr. Brisson stated that he is concerned about doing interior work to this building because it is very old, and he does not know what can be expected if extensive work is done. He did note, however, that four coats of stucco have been a 1P plied to the exterior of the building in an attempt to reduce the noise. Comm. Ingell, noting that the back door is not for customer use, asked whether Mr. Brisson would have a problem with installing an "emergency exit only" sign on the door and keeping it closed. Mr. Brisson stated that that door is at issue in the current lawsuit because they really do need that door. He noted that some customers have complained about parking in the City lot because they are afraid to walk that far at night. He stated that it would be impossible to live without the back door. He stated that 40 to 60 percent of the customers use the back door for safety reasons as well as for convenience. Mr. Brisson, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that two noise surveys were done, with the doors open, when he originally applied for the conditional use permit. Unfortunately, he no longer has the paperwork related to the noise study. He thought the paperwork would be on file in the City records. Mr. Brisson stated that at the time the noise survey was done, the noise generated by the highway was so loud that no noise level reading could be taken on the music noise from the Hermosa Saloon. During another noise survey, the reading was very low. Mr. Brisson stated that he would eventually like to remodel the entire place and install air conditioning. He noted, however, that the present litigation has drained most of his reserve fund. When he can get the money, he would like to do the work. Mr. Brisson said that he would like to alleviate everyone's parking problem, but he has limited resources. He stated that he will attempt to mitigate the neighbors' complaints, and he will keep the doors closed and will investigate the possibility of installing air conditioning. He explained that he keeps the noise level down, and the doorman he has is very good. Mr. Brisson stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that it would be a hardship if the band were required to stop playing before the current quitting time of 1:30 A.M. He noted that the band does not begin playing until 9:00 P.M.; therefore, it would not be feasible to pay a band for only one or two hours. He stated that the band accounts for approximately 40 percent of the weekend business, especially during the winter months. Public Hearing continued at 9:07 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that he agrees there is noise in that area. He noted that the police reports appear to all be made out by one person, with the exception of only a few of the reports. Mr. Schubach stated that one officer is usually assigned to patrol the bars; that is why most of the reports are signed by the same officer. He stated that the City Council has requested that the forms be filled out and returned to the Planning Department because Planning is the entity responsible for enforcing conditional use permits. Mr. Schubach was unable to explain exactly what happens when a noise complaint is received by the Police Department. 11 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 ' Chmn. Peirce asked how the police search the previous logs. Mr. Schubach noted that he has been informed that the Police Department has trouble locating its past records. Mr. Lough stated that the records are usually kept for only 90 days unless there has been a request for retention. He continued by explaining the procedure used when a complaint is received. Chmn. Peirce felt that 90 days is not long enough to keep the records; they should be retained much longer. He felt that the City should have a better method by which to reference complaints. Public Hearing reopened at 9:14 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mr. Slawson again stressed that the issue of parking at the Hermosa Saloon should be addressed. Chmn. Peirce stated that that issue would not be discussed at this time, noting that the issue of parking is not addressed in the current conditional use permit. Mr. Slawson noted that the use of a bar has an entire set of inherent problems which should be addressed. He noted that it is required that the applicant must follow all laws within the City; in this City there is a definite regulation pertaining to parking standards. Chmn. Peirce stated that the new parking ordinance cannot be applied in this case since this is an older establishment; and the CUP was granted before the current parking regulations. He again stressed that this CUP mentions nothing about parking. Mr. Sullivan again noted concern over the noise emanating from this establishment. Chmn. Peirce asked whether any other information is available in the City records m regard to this matter. Mr. Schubach stated that all available information has been presented to the Commission. Comm. Ingell stated that it appears that when a complaint is made, the information is somehow not being entered into the system properly. Comm. Ingell stated that he originally felt a door with emergency panic hardware should be installed at the rear exit; however, he now felt that such a requirement might be somewhat stringent, noting that Mr. Brisson stated that that door is used. He suggested that conditions be added requiring that the rear door must remain dosed at all times, and the front door must remain closed during band performances. Chmn. Peirce stated that it now appears that no additional information is available for the Commission to review in regard to this establishment. He felt that mitigation measures could be imposed to reduce the noise transmission. He felt that all doors and windows should remain closed at all times. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Comm. Edwards, stated that the City does have a recently adopted noise ordinance. Noise testing equipment will soon be purchased; when the Police Department has the proper equipment in hand, the noise 12 P.C. Minutes l/17/89 I •, ordinance will be enforced. Comm. Edwards agreed that requiring the doors to be kept closed would help the problem. He also suggested that the applicant be required to comply with the noise ordinance. If he does not comply, mitigation measures could then be imposed, such as requiring air conditioning or insulation. Public Hearing closed at 9:24 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that the CUP clearly needs to be modified in an attempt to mitigate the noise problem. He stated that the doors and windows should be closed at all times. He also stated that the seating outdoors should be limited to 10:00 P.M. He noted, however, that the noise problem does not seem to occur until the evening hours. Comm. Edwards suggested that the parking in the rear be for the use of employees and deliveries only. He also suggested that the noise ordinance be strictly enforced; and if the noise exceeds the allowable limit, mitigation measures be imposed, such as requiring air conditioning and/or insulation. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the establishment be reviewed again in three months. Comm. Edwards suggested that the back parking lot be used only for Hermosa Saloon employees and deliveries, not customers. He noted that neighbors have complained about noise in this area, and such a parking restriction could eliminate the noise. Mr. Brisson stated that the back door is currently at issue in the pending litigation. He did not feel that the City could require that the back door be closed. Mr. Lough stated that the Planning Commission must make its decision based upon information which was given at the public hearing. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the applicant provide mitigation measures within 60 days in an attempt to reduce the noise. Comm. Edwards stated that it is not clear whether the Hermosa Saloon is a primary source of noise. Chmn. Peirce stated that the City could do a noise study, either with City-owned or leased equipment, to determine if the establishment is in compliance with the noise ordinance. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards to require that: (1) all openings shall be kept closed after 7:00 P.M.; (2) the outdoor patio shall be limited to use until 10:00 P.M. on all nights ; (3) the applicant shall provide a report within 60 days on how to mitigate noise problems ; (4) the establishment shall be reviewed in five months to determine compliance. Mr. Schubach stated that the City will do a noise survey as soon as equipment becomes available. Comm. Ingell noted that if all windows and doors are kept closed, the noise problem might be alleviated. To require the applicant to obtain information, at his own expense, as to how to reduce noise might be premature at this time. 13 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 ~ , " Chmn. Peirce noted that the intent is to require the applicant to obtain a noise study in order to determine methods available to reduce the noise. Comm. Edwards felt that if the applicant can prove that closing the doors and windows reduces the noise, it should not be required that he obtain a noise report. Comm. Ingell agreed. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce as maker, to delete the condition that the applicant shall be required to obtain a noise report within 60 days. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Chmn. Peirce stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. TEXT AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ELIMINATE ZERO LOT LINE IN THE R-2B ZONE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 5, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending deleting a portion of Section 551 of the zoning ordinance regarding zero sideyard setbacks in the R-2B zone and to adopt an environmental negative declaration. The zoning ordinance presently has a provision within the R-2B development standards which allows no side yard setback on one side yard if an agreement with the adjoining property owner is recorded. Said exception must also be in compliance with building codes and also requires the remaining side yard to be a minimum of five feet. With the exception of the R-2B zone, all other residentially zoned parcels require a minimum setback of 10 percent of the width of the lot, three foot minimum, five foot maximum. The proposed text amendment will bring R-2B setbacks into consistency with other residential side yard setbacks. Setbacks have been created to provide less lot coverage and more light, air, and ventilation. The zero setback concept was intended to increase one side yard to a size that was usable on each lot of a subdivision; that is, each dwelling in a row would have, for instance, one ten -foot wide setback on one side instead of a five-foot setback on each side. It should be noted that the City's zoning ordinance has been written in such a way that the result could be that a dwelling unit has only a five-foot setback on one side and no setback on the other side, and the adjacent dwelling could butt against the dwelling with a two-hour fire wall. Since the adoption of the zero side yard provision, there has been no project which has utilized the provision. The reason is probably that it does not work well on individual developments, but instead on tract developments where entire blocks are developed at one time. A property owner must obtain a "recorded agreement of the owners of the adjoining property" which would result in the adjacent owner having to either provide larger setbacks on his property to meet the building code, or build a dwelling with a side wall with no openings and two-hour fire construction. If the adjacent lot is already developed, the possibility of meeting the requirements would be highly unlikely. 14 P.C. Minutes 1/ 17 /89 The elimination of the zero side yard setbacks is important since several areas have recently been rezoned to R-2B; therefore, these development standards affect a large number of parcels. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce, who noted that no one appeared to address this issue. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the staff recommendation be approved. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-6. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Recess taken from 9:41 P.M. until 9:53 P.M. REVIEW OF A GRADING PLAN FOR POWER STREET SUBDIVISIONa! TRACT NO. 30986 Chmn. Peirce stated that this hearing is for a review of the grading plan only, not a review of the conditional use permit for the project. He stressed that the focus will be on the grading plan of the tentative tract map which was submitted to the City some time ago, and which is for an eight-lot subdivision at Power Street and 20th Street. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1989. Staff recommended that the subdivision layout be reconfigured, and/or fewer lots be created. Several meetings have been held between the City, the applicants, and the nearby residents; also several hearings before the City Council have been held. At the December 13, 1988, City Council meeting, after hearing testimony, the City Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Because of the slope of the property, it was necessary to raise the natural grade at the south end of the cul de sac. The neighboring property owners are opposed to this situation since they believe it may cause flooding, and it will result in raising the height of the development, which will overlook into the neighboring yards. The Planning Staff believes that the best solution to the problem would be to, for example, eliminate the most southerly lot as a developable lot and create a mini park, private or public; and the existing tress could also remain. The water could then drain and percolate into the ground at that area. Another solution may be to reconfigure the subdivision in a way so that raising the grade would not be necessary. Beyond these solutions, staff has no other suggestions for resolving the grading issue. Although other solutions may exist, the Planning Department is not well versed in the issue of grading. Mr. Schubach stated that the grading plan has been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council based on two findings: (1) causes a difficulty with the water; washes to no proper disposition; just floods; (2) strongest finding in approving the 15 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 ~ preliminary grading plan was that the land would remain at the same existing grade of the easterly adjoining lots. These findings are the justification to have the preliminary grading plan remain in effect. Chmn. Peirce noted that the City Council was under the impression that there was a four-foot difference between the original grading plan and the revised grading plan. Mr. Schubach agreed. He stated, however, that the applicant has submitted a letter advising that an error had been made; and in fact, the grading would not be raised four feet; it would be much less than that. Chmn. Peirce discussed the grading plan submitted to the City. He and the other Commissioners continued by discussing the plans and questioning whether it is the original grading plan. Mr. Antich, Director of Public Works, was uncertain whether the plan in question is the original or not. Mr. Schubach stated that he could provide copies of the original plan to the Commission. He stated that the plan in operation at this time is dated 5/31/88. Mr. Antich stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that the street level has different elevations, as do the adjacent properties to the east. Comm. Rue commented on the south end of the property, stating that 95 percent of the elevation appears to have a difference of no more than 1.45 feet. Mr. Antich and the Commissioners discussed the various elevations. depicted on the plan. Mr. Schubach stated that the grading plan being discussed by the Commission appeared to be the same as the plan staff has in file. Comm. Rue stated that the most current grading and drainage plan, dated 5/31/88, was prepared by Westco Engineering, and was approved by BSI Consultants. He asked how BSI Consultants is related to the City in this matter. Mr. Antich believed that BSI Consultants is under contract to the City through the Building Department. They are responsible for reviewing the grading plan to ensure that it complies with the Uniform Building Code. Their stamp of approval indicates that the plan does comply with the code. The stamp does not, however, guarantee accuracy of the plan. He stated that accuracy depends upon the professionalism of the surveyor who prepared the plan. Comm. Rue commented on the wealth of information provided to the Commission. He noted that three separate agencies had examined the proposed water flow: Los Angeles County Flood Control; the project engineer; and the City Public Works Department. Mr. Antich stated that the City hired an outside hydrology consultant to examine the plan. Comm. Ketz asked whether the reviewing agencies determined that this project would cause drainage problems to the adjoining properties. Mr. Anitch stated that the reviewing engineer, Harris and Associates, determined that there would be no adverse impact to any of the adjacent properties. 16 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 ~ ,----.. Mr. Antich stated that the City is satisfied that there are no engineering problems with the grading plan; however, the entire drainage system in that area is designed for ten­ year storm. Therefore, the area does normally flood. With a development of this size, there will be additional water because the surface area will be covered by hardscape, such as roofs and driveways. The amount of water is not substantial, but it is significant because the water will not percolate into the grade. In something larger than a ten-year storm, there would be a small amount of impact; however, the County Flood Control District felt that, given the size of the project and the amount of water coming off of the project, the storm drain system would not be adversely impacted, and it would allow a connection to the existing storm drain on 20th Street. Mr. Antich stated that the County Flood Control District tends to be conservative in its opinions. Mr. Anitch, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that the amount of time water will stand in the street is dependent upon several factors: the amount of rainfall, whether it is light or heavy and the capability of the saturation of the existing ground. If the storm drain on 20th Street is not capable of handling the amount of water, the cul de sac will be the first area that will begin to fill with water. Chmn. Peirce stated that the water will go down 20th Street to the east to Valley View. He asked where it will go then and how the water will finally reach its final destination at the beach. Mr. Antich explained the route that the water will travel to reach its final destination. He continued by explaining where the water will remain. Mr. Antich, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards., .. stated that this plan was designed for a fifty-year storm, and it connects into a system which was designed for a ten-year storm. He stated that the tie-in of the drains would be underground. Comm. Ingell asked whether there are any plans by the county to upgrade the drainage system. Mr. Antich knew of no City or County plans to upgrade the drainage system. Hearing opened at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Co ming forward to s peak on this issue were: Jim Marquez, 1344 Park View Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the developer, gave a detailed chronology of the history of this project. Ed Saiki, Westco Engineering, 20710 South Manhattan Place, Torrance, project engineer, discussed the hydrology and engineering aspects of the project. Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park Avenue, resident, noted concern over the proposed drainage system and the original grade being maintained. He also noted concern over saving the trees. He said that the flow of the water will be changed, and there will be flooding at the end of Valley Park. Vicky Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, resident, noted concern over the length of time this issue has been dragging on. She stated that the change in the grading will be a substantial change in the area, especially impacting her property. She stated that 17 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 .. additional studies are necessary, or the grading needs to be changed to lessen the impact on the neighbors. Gordon B. Evans, 1769 Valley Park Avenue, resident, discussed past floods on his street and the storm drain system. He noted concern over the proposed changes. He asked that the storm drains adequately drain with a minimum of impact to the neighbors. Sid Kroft, representing the developers, discussed the fact that the grade change is actually quite minimal. He stated that the engineering studies and hydrology reports have all been accepted by the City of Hermosa, and the reports have determined that the drainage of the neighboring properties will not be adversely affected by this proposal. Chmn. Peirce stated that the existing buildings on the subject property should be removed as soon as possible because they pose a safety hazard and are a nuisance. Mr. Marquez stated that those buildings will be removed soon. Hearing closed at 11:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mr. Lough e xpl ai ned that the purpose of this hearing is to investigate two matters: (l) to look at the d ifficulty with water and the basic drainage issue; and (2) to address the grading plan and determine whether it is in substantial conformance with the previous grading plans. The Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the City Council as to how to proceed. Comm. Ketz asked whether the existing drainage from the adjacent properties was taken into consideration when the drainage plans were reviewed for this property. Mr. Antich stated that originally it was not; however, the developer's surveyor then did go off site to survey some points and to take to adjacent property into consideration; and no adverse effects were found. This information was transmitted to the City Engineer. Comm. Rue noted that staff and the Commissioners have spent many, many hours reviewing the materials provided to determine how the preliminary plan compares to the new proposed plan. He noted that there were few differences. He noted that the City and County have both given input on this matter. From all of the information and testimony, he was convinced that the developers, having gone originally from a 14-unit condominium project to the current eight-unit proposal, have mitigated the concerns of the community as well as the physical problems with the property. Comm. Rue felt very comfortable with the fact that this project has gone through all of the proper channels. He felt that the information has been adequately reviewed. He felt that the findings of Councilman Creighton have been met. He did not feel there would be any difficulty with the water. He stated that the issue of most concern is probably that of the french drain; however, the developer has gone to great lengths in digging out the area and putting in gravel to ensure that there will not be any water standing in adjacent properties. Comm. Ingell stated that the main issue is the grading plan. Since he is not a surveyor or engineer, he said that it is necessary to depend upon the reliability of the professionals, the staff, the consultants, and the County's conservative engineers. He stated that all parties have agreed that the grading plan will not be adverse to the adjoining properties; therefore, he would agree with the experts and support the grading plan. He also felt that this developer has set new standards in attempting to mitigate concerns of the 18 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 k t.. neighbors. ) Comm. Ketz stated that she too would rely upon the opinions of the experts and would support the grading plan since it is felt that there will be no adverse impacts to the adjoining properties. Comm. Edwards stated that the storm drain system to be installed as well as the increased capacity will mitigate potential flooding problems. He stated that the flow maps prepared by the City Engineer shows both existing and future flows. It appears that there will actually be a reduction in the flood potential over the existing condition. He felt that the trench drain will increase the capacity and would be an improvement over the existing condition. He stated that the raising of the grade is actually required by the flood control district; therefore, there is no other option except for installing pumps or an evaporation pond. Chmn. Peirce stated that he agreed that the grading plan is adequate. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to recommend that the City Council approve this grading plan; and to include the following whereases: (1) Whereas, the grading plan is in substantial comp liance with the original gr adin g p lan, with a maximum va riati on of no more than 16 inche s; (2) Whereas, the trenc h drain on the subject property will increase the percolation and decrease the potential of flooding; (3) Whe reas, the stora ge and project pipe will also dec rease the potential floo ding to the adjacent property; (4) Whe reas, the blocking of water to the adjacent pro perti es from the Power Street project to the houses on Valley Park is now being blocked, so that it will reduce the amount of water which enters into their property as well. Chmn. Peirce stated that, given that there is a maximum of 3.6 feet at one end from the existing grade and essentially zero at the other end, and it very rapidly goes from 3.6 feet to approximately less than two feet, he felt there is no difference between the existing grade and the grading plans that exist. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 REGARDING A NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE C-2 ZONE AT 45 14TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1989. The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial recreation. The present use is as residential; plans indicate two units, but staff is unable to verify by building permits since construction predates building records. The applicant is proposing to raise a portion of the ex1stmg structure and provide six parking spaces below. The structure is a nonconforming residential duplex in the C-2 zone. The existing structure has one parking space. Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance states: "The nonconforming use of a structure may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor any structural alternations be made except those required by law .... " This section also provides an exception which states: "Residential uses may be expanded or structurally 19 P.C. Minutes 1/ 17 /89 r---.... altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations in which the use is located." It is the opinion of the Planning Department that this provision does not allow for this type of proposed development where the structure is physically removed and relocated, including relocations via air space. The Building Department has also reviewed the plans and in their opinion, the proposed raised structure would require "major reconstruction," including foundation work and complete reconstruction of one wall which presently attaches the two units. Also, approximately 40 percent of the exterior walls of the remaining lower level unit will also be demolished. Essentially, the proposed development will be the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of new residential units within a commercial zone. The policy statement proposed by staff will clarify Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding structural alteration. The Policy Statement will prohibit the relocation of any nonconforming use, air space relocation included. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed development and approve the proposed policy statement. Chmn. Peirce asked how much of the original building will remain. Mr. Schubach noted that that is the issue which needs to be determined. Hearing opened at 12: 13 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce. David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he acquired this building in 1962. He stated that the property is at 45 14th Street, which is one lot east of the Biltmore Site, and is a single-family residence of approximately 850 square feet. He stated that it is a shed-type structure on the back. The shed is between the building and the small apartment in the rear, which is approximately 500 square feet and has a garage. Mr. Schumacher plans to demolish the shed-type portion of the building and move the existing apartment building forward, lift it up, and build a platform for six automobile parking spaces. Mr. Schumacher stated that he would like to have the parking spaces since he owns ten units on The Strand, and he now has only one parking space. He felt this proposal would ease the parking problem in the area. He also owns other units on The Strand which do not have enough parking. He currently rents garages for his tenants to use. Mr. Schumacher stated that the parking problem will only become worse when something is built at the Biltmore site. He felt that his proposal would be of benefit to the area. Rick Coleman, 39 14th Street, project architect, addressed the Commission and stated that this proposal would be very favorable to the City. They are proposing to demolish 700 square feet of a nonconforming residential use in order to provide five additional parking spaces. The existing structure will be refurbished and upgraded. He disagreed with the staff report, stating that the building will be able to withstand the move. He stated that Bell House Movers is also confident that it will withstand the move, and they 20 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 4 .. have examined the building and find no problem with elevating this building. Mr. Coleman said that Beil has even put forth a contract, attesting to their confidence that this project can be done. He stated that new foundation work will be necessary; however, the structure will definitely survive the move. He stated that there is a conventional foundation currently underneath the building. He stated that the proposal will greatly enhance the appearance of the site. Chmn. Peirce asked what would happen if the house cannot stand the move and it cracks in half. Mr. Schumacher stated he is so certain that will not happen that he is willing to pay to have the work performed. He continued by stating that he works as a real estate appraiser and is well versed in this type of work, since he worked on the project of relocating houses which were near the airport. He noted that that work was also done by Bell House Movers, who have been in business almost one hundred years. He stated that with his experience, he believes the building will not fall apart. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission must follow the guidelines set forth in the ordinance. He asked how the applicant felt this ordinance is not applicable in this instance. He read aloud Section 1302 of the ordinance. Mr. Coleman stated that structurally, the structure stays exactly as it is. Also, the intent of the code section is sufficiently vague in this case to ask staff to recommend that the Commission deny the request. He felt that the ordinance is not clear in this instance. He also stated that when this process was started several months ago, the Planning Director agreed that this was an unusual case, and it took several days before he informed the applicant that he could find nothing in the code which prohibited this type of project; therefore, the applicant proceeded in good faith with the plans. But when the plans were submitted to the Building Department, the issue of the building not being able to withstand the move arose. Therefore, the applicant is now appearing before the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that after the building was examined, the Building Department determined that extensive work would be necessary, contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Therefore, the issue is before the Commission at this time for interpretation. Chmn. Peirce noted that the real issue here is whether a person can raise a house and provide parking underneath it. Comm. lngell felt that anything which increases parking in the City is something which should be studied. Chmn. Peirce stated that this property is in the C-2 zone and could be turned into a parking lot. He questioned whether the Commission really wants to encourage the type of project being proposed Hearing closed at 12:24 A.M. Comm. Ingell stated that many years ago his parents had their house moved by Bell Movers, and the home is still lived in today. He noted that Bell's reputation is very fine, and if they felt it can be moved safely, he tended to agree. 21 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 • .. ~-Chmn. Peirce stated that this proposal involves a substantial modification being made to a structure, which is in violation of Section 1302. Therefore, he could not support this type of project. Comm. Rue questioned whether structural alterations include demolition. Mr. Schubach stated that the policy statement does not currently address the specific point of demolition. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Chmn. Peirce, stated that once parking is added to the lot, it is required to be maintained there for use by the residents on that lot according to the parking ordinance; also, once the parking is added, it cannot be removed. Comm. Edwards noted that the code does not actually specify the meaning of "alteration." He stated that this project does not appear to be substantial. Chmn. Peirce asked, however, whether this is the type of project the City wants to encourage. Comm. Rue agreed that there are other alternatives which would be more conducive to the area. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to approve staff's recommendation to deny the proposed development and to adopt the proposed policy statement, P.C. 89-1. Comm. Rue stated that it could be added that substantial structural changes are being made. Comm. lngell stated that he did not want to make a decision on the policy statement at this time, noting the lateness of the hour. He felt the issue should be studied further. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CHMN. PEIRCE. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to deny the proposed development, based on the fact that Section 1302 prohibits a development such as this where a building is lifted, torn down 40 percent, and then reconstructed. Comm. lngell did not feel that is the intent of Section 1302. He again noted the lateness of the hour for making such a decision. He continued by reading aloud from the code. He felt that the item should be continued so that the Commission can further study this issue. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CHMN. PEIRCE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to deny the project at 45 14th Street based on the fact that it violates the structural alteration portion of Section 1302. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. 22 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 • .. C---· AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ingell suggested that this item be placed at the beginning of the agenda at the next meeting. Comm. Edwards stated that he would be absent from the next meeting. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to suspend the remainder of the agenda and adjourn at 12:37 A.M. No objections; so ordered. (The following agenda items were continued: (12) Special Study of Repeal of Biltmore Specific Plan Area; (13) Staff Items; and (14) Commissioner Items.) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of January 17, 1989. 4 ·~ 11"~ 1 F/-~t_ Date 7 -~ 23 P.C. Minutes 1/ 17 /89