Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 12.05.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON DECEMBER 5, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ingell. ROLLCAIL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Rue noted that the minutes from the meeting of November 21, 1989, would be available for approval at a future meeting. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-79, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/ OR ZONE CHANGES FOR '!HE PROPER1Y BOUNDED BY PROSPECT AVENUE ON '!HE WEST, ARTESIA BOULEVARD ON '!HE NORlli, AND 241H S1REET ON TiiE SOUTii. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell discussed Resolution P.C. 89-83, stating that Condition No. 28 relating to drainage of waste material needs to be amended to reflect that waste materials shall not be disposed of in the storm drain system. Mr. Lee suggested modified wording for Condition No. 28: "Drainage of waste material shall be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, and waste materials shall not be disposed of in the City's storm drain system. Chmn. Rue noted a correction to Condition No. 2(a), last sentence: " ... and the fence and/ or the slats shall be replaced in broken, damaged, discolored, or miss~ .... " MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89- 83, A RESOLUTION OF '!HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW '!HE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO BODY SHOP, E&E AUTO BODY, AND AU'IHORIZING ALL AUTOMOTIVE RELATED USES ON THE SUBJECT PROPER'IY AND AMENDING AND INCORPORATING AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO RENTAL AGENCY AND '!HE ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 505 AND 555 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 140 FEET OF LOT 24 AND LOT 25, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Rue discussed Resolution P.C. 89-85 and asked about Condition No. 10: "The exterior shall be painted a different color than the adjacent building at 1452 Loma Drive." He asked whether that was included in the motion to approve this project. Mr. Schubach stated that that requirement was one of the conditions recommended by staff in the original resolution. He noted, however, that this condition is being appealed to the City Council. 1 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Comm. Ingell remembered that color was discussed; however, he said that the Commission did not reconunend that requirement. Comm. Moore recalled that it was his feeling that having the projects the same color would provide more of a feeling of sense and style to the projects. Cbmn. Rue concurred that the general intent was to remove Condition No. 10; it was merely an oversight that it was not removed at the time the resolution was adopted. Chmn. Rue discussed Condition No. ll(c): "Plans for the west elevation shall show architectural details which distinguish the project from the existing condominium at 1452 Loma Drive." He noted that it was the intent of the Commission to delete that item. The other commissioners concurred. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended (with deletion of Condition Nos. 10 and l l{cl) Resolution P.C. 89-85, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21688 FOR A TIIREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1460 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Rue discussed Resolution P.C. 89-86, Condition No. 10: "The bathroom in the ground floor recreation room in Unit 2 shall be deleted." He stated that it was the intention of the Commission to delete this condition based on the fact that the bathroom in this unit would pose no potential bootleg problenL MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended (with deletion of Condition No. 10), Resolution P.C. 89-86, A RESOLUTION OF 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20342 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 226 MANHATTAN AVENUE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 44, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-87, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21575 FOR A THREE-UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 641 61H S'IREET, DESCRIBED AS LOT 18, AND PORTION OF LOT 19, DR. DOUGHERTY'S 'IR.ACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm . Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-93, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CIRCULATION, 1RANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS, DELETIONS, AND ADDITIONS AS NOTED BELOW. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. 2 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL PARTS STORAGE FOR VASEK POLAK BMW AND SUBARU DEALERSHIPS AT 2851 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 17 AND NOVEMBER 21. 1989) VARIANCE FOR CAR STACKERS TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2901 PACIFIC COAST ffiGHWAY. VASEK POLAK BMW DEALERSmP (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 17 AND NOVEMBER 21.1989) CONSIDERATION FOR REVOCATION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT FOR VASEK POLAK BMW DEALERSHIP AT 2901 PACIFIC COAST mGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 17 AND NOVEMBER 21. 1989) Mr. Schubach noted that the Commissioners had received supplemental infonnation including a letter dated December 4, 1989, from Building Director Grove regarding violations at Vasek Polak; and a letter dated November 30, 1989, from Building Director Grove to Vasek Polak regarding code violations. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this request only as a master conditional use permit to encompass all of the contiguous properties currently under control of Vasek Polak, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. At the November 21, 1989, meeting the Planning Commission continued this item at the request of the applicant and directed staff to pursue enforcement of the violations. Since that time, the Subaru operation at 2775 Pacific Coast Highway has been replaced by a Volkswagen dealership and the Subaru dealership has moved to the property at 2851 Pacific Coast Highway. previously identified as an auto parts supply and employee_ parking. This has occurred without any notification to the City, and as such, staff is pursuing enforcement immediately. The variance request has become unnecessary as the car stackers can be located without encroachment into the eight-foot setback, and that request has therefore been withdrawn. The applicant has brought in plans which depict the BMW new and used dealerships, purposely excluding the remaining property currently being used for Subaru and Volkswagen dealerships, as he would like to have those considered separately. From staff's perspective, however, it is clear that these operations are interrelated, as evidenced by the shuflling of the dealerships and by the fact that parts storage and service vehicles are shared among the three locations. Staff strongly felt that the fairest and most logical way to deal with this application from both the perspective of the applicant and the City is through a master conditional use permit for all the auto-related uses on these contiguous properties. As far as the applicant is concerned, this would give him flexibility to use the property for auto sales, repair, parts storage and sales, and to respond to market changes to perhaps reallocate storage and parking space to different businesses as needed, so long as adequate parking is provided and certain conditions are followed. Ironically, this would also allow the applicant to legalize the use of 2851 Pacific Coast Highway for a Subaru dealership, whether it is temporary or permanent. Also, this would allow the applicant to maintain a centralized parts distribution and storage warehouse containing parts and accessories for all makes of vehicles. If the dealerships operate under separate CUPs, the parts storage would have to occur on the same site as the particular dealership. From the City's perspective, the CUP conditions would be the same for all operations on the entire site, making them easier to understand and enforce. Also, it would be easier to enforce 3 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 conditions on the entire property, rather than to try to find out which business is at fault should violations arise or to enforce three or four different CUPs with different parking, display, and storage arrangements. To this end, the applicant needs to submit plans which depict the entire subject property and which provide the required number of customer/ employee parking spaces for the 93,000 square feet of "auto agency." The 93 spaces would be identified specifically for customer or employee use only and could not be used for display of new vehicles. The spaces would have to be evenly distributed throughout the site. This bas been partially accomplished with the revised plans submitted for BMW and the used car dealership, although these are still not complete. The applicant has submitted new plans which depict the BMW dealership at 2901 P.C.H. and the used car dealership at 3001 P.C.H. and ties these two sites together. According to the plans, 26 of the proposed 32 car stackers can be located along the westerly property line without requiring a variance and without encroaching into the 20-foot wide fire lane, although this needs to be verified with more detailed information and a survey depicting dimensions of the stackers and the distance from the property line and the building. Also, eight existing car stackers will be relocated to 2901 P.C.H. from 3001 P.C.H. The plans also show additional available parking spaces, although some are substandard in regard to turning radius because of some fencing and outdoor storage and work areas not shown. The total parking spaces that can be counted toward meeting the parking requirement for customers and employees, according to the plan and calculated by staff are: service bays, 24; open, 36; under stackers, 26; for a total of 86. Of course, this would only be the case if none of these stalls were used for the storage of new cars, which is perhaps unrealistic given the current number of new vehicles being stored on­ site. Revised plans should realistically depict the number of these spaces which must be striped and clearly identified for customer or employee use only. The plan also shows an acceptable way for interior circulation of vehicles waiting for service, which is currently not the way it is done on the property. In sum. the plans are acceptable as conceptual plans; however, some details need to be resolved with staff. Additionally, staff has recommended conditions for striping the stalls. for clearly identifying stalls for customer or employee use, and for identifying that the access drive in the rear is a fire lane. Mr. Schubach recommended that the variance request be received and filed, since the variance is no longer necessary according to the new plans. Comm. Peirce asked about the lifts (where one car is atop another car) and whether they are being included in the parking calculation. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, explaining that by inclusion of the lifts, there is actually an excess of parking at the location. He noted that there is a condition requiring that customer parking be identified as such and that employee parking be identified. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce about whether the code allows the lifts to be used in the parking calculations, stated that the code does not specifically prohibit them from being used. He felt that there is adequate parking, however, without figuring in the car stacker totals. Mr. Schubach, in clarification to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that there is adequate parking at the ground level to meet the code's parking requirements. Comm. Peirce noted that the Commission has plans only for the BMW dealership. 4 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Mr. Schubach noted that staff has imposed a condition requiring that plans be provided for all three dealerships. He suggested that a 60-day time limit be imposed for submittal of those plans. Comm. Peirce commented on the map which had been presented to the Commission and stated that it is very difficult to determine what will be on the site and where. He questioned the judiciousness of proceeding on a master conditional use permit without first having a concise map. He noted that in the past there have been misunderstandings between this applicant and the Commission because it was difficult to determine what was supposed to be located where. Mr. Schubach did not recommend a continuance of this matter, noting that if the matter is continued, the violations will continue. He suggested that an alternative solution would be to approve the plan tonight, but require that it come back to the Commission, as opposed to just the Planning Director, for review. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach. representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and discussed the proposed conditions as suggested by staff. He stated that the business license required for the BMW dealership has been applied for and approved. Also, a sign permit application has been submitted to ensure that the signs on the BMW dealership are in conformance with the sign ordinance. Mr. Compton explained that the Subaru dealership has moved to the old Borrelli's location; therefore, its business address has now changed. He said that the signs are in compliance at this location, and a sign permit application has been submitted. Mr. Compton discussed the master conditional use permit, stating that the distributorships for each of these businesses require a single point of responsibility for individual dealership; that is why the master CUP concept was opposed by the applicant previously. He said that distributorships require that each business stand alone in regard to parking, location, service area, display areas, et cetera. He said that he would have no objection to having an "umbrella of requirements" for all of the dealerships. If there are any problems with any of the dealerships. they can be brought before the Commission for review. Mr. Compton stated that it will be necessary to have separate designations for each of the dealerships so that each of the businesses stand alone in terms of parking; however, he noted that there does not appear to be a parking problem. He clarified that the upper level of the car stackers would not be used for the required parking requirements, but rather would be used for storage of new cars. This level would add 21 spaces to the available on-site parking. Mr. Compton stated that there will not be a parking shortage, and he noted that each of the spaces will be designated as to whether they are for customers or employees. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the site plan, noting that more work is necessary on the plan. He pointed out the proposed parking locations as depicted on the plans. Mr. Compton discussed the CUP condition by condition, stating that he has no problem with the first four conditions. He discussed Condition No. 4: "Test driving of vehicles on local residential streets shall be prohibited." He stated that they will comply; however, it is going to be very difficult to get people to conform to this rule initially. He said that it will also be difficult initially to enforce Condition No. 10: "There shall be a sign posted in the new car sales offices and repair buildings directing the customers and mechanics to the route, approved by the Planning Director, which may be used for test driving." He noted that P.C.H. is very busy during certain hours of the day, and it will be difficult to enforce these conditions at first. He stated that they will give customers and staff people maps showing where they can test drive 5 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 and where they can exit the premises. Staff personnel will also be given a copy of the CUP so that they are aware of the requirements. Mr. Compton discussed Condition No. 5: "Repair, service, maintenance of vehicles must be conducted within the buildings, and all outdoor repair work activities shall be prohibited." He requested that wording be added specifically allowing the outdoor washing of vehicles, noting that that topic was discussed at the previous meeting. He noted that the code is worded in such a manner that if something is not specifically mentioned, it is not allowed. He noted the importance of clarifying this issue, stating that washing cars is done at the dealerships. Mr. Schubach stated that the main concern over car washing is where the water goes. Building Director Bill Grove responded to the issue of washing cars and stated that the zoning code makes allowance for the Planning Commission to determine when such a restriction is not practical. He stated that washing cars is obviously an activity which cannot take place inside a building. He noted the importance, though, of ensuring that any water is directed to the appropriate location. Mr. Grove continued by discussing the drainage facilities at this location and where run-off goes from the site. He did not foresee any problem with water nm-off from car washing, explaining that no antifreeze run-off problems have been noted. Mr. Compton continued by explaining that the service bays take appropriate measures to dispose of water and other refuse. He said that the water runs down the alley; if there is a problem, he felt staff should indicate that as soon as possible. Mr. Compton discussed Condition No. 8: "Use of customer/ employee designated parking spaces for displaying auto merchandise shall be prohibited." He said that there is one area on the site which on weekends has been used for displaying new cars. During weekday service hours, it will be designated as parking; however, on weekends they would like to use that area for display of new cars. He noted that on weekends there is very little service activity. He requested that the area in the front where one enters and proceeds to the service bays be designated as an allowable area for weekend display of new cars. Mr. Compton discussed Condition No. 10 relating to the designated route for customers and mechanics to use. He hoped that by providing maps and the proper signage, this condition can be met. He noted, however, that it will be difficult at first to get people to follow the approved route for test driving. He suggested that 30th Street be designated as a dead-end to discourage people from using it for test drives. Mr. Compton stated that Condition No. 13 has arisen in part from complaints by the neighbors: "Delivery of vehicles or parts on the public rights-of-way shall be prohibited." He said that there is no problem with delivery of vehicles; however. once in a while a new driver , who is unaware of the rules, will use that area. He said that delivery of vehicles does not happen all the time. He thought that, per the development agreement, the only thing restricted on 30th Street was car deliveries from large transport trucks. He stated that parts deliveries from large trucks can be relocated to another area. He asked that small delivery trucks be allowed, as they are allowed on other streets, though. He noted that if problems arise, neighbors will complain, and the issue can then be addressed. He said it would be very difficult to inform every deliveryman that he must enter the property, noting that this would be a very difficult matter to enforce. He asked that Condition No. 13 be as clear as possible. Mr. Compton. in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that it would be very difficult to make deliveries from P.C.H. because the traffic is so heavy. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that a delivery vehicle which double parks while making a delivery is subject to a citation according to the vehicle code. 6 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Mr. Compton explained that sometimes cars are brought in before the business actually opens, such as when someone's car breaks down on the freeway during the night. He noted concern over whether a tow truck driver or the dealer would be cited if a car is delivered on 30th Street because the driver is unaware of the restrictions. Dennis Shorter, sales manager, addressed the Commission and continued the discussion of where cars could be dropped off when the dealership is not open. He stated that if the chain is removed from the front area, cars will line up in the morning and create other problems. Chmn. Rue explored the possibility of designating the area south of the vertical lift door as an area for car drop-offs. Mr. Shorter stated that he would have no problem with that; however, he noted that there is only one access into that particular area. He noted that a tow truck driver will not look for signs; he will merely drop off the car at the easiest spot. Chmn. Rue suggested that the driveway be widened in front of the service gate in order to accommodate car drop-offs. He said that 30th Street would probably be a second choice for a tow truck driver, and they would normally use P.C.H. Mr. Shorter, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that currently cars are usually dropped off on P.C.H. He noted, however, that sometimes cars are left on 30th Street. Mr. Compton suggested that signage might be a solution to the problem of where cars should be dropped off during non-business hours. Mr. Compton discussed Condition No. 16: "Examining car alarm systems shall be limited to 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; sound duration shall not be over three seconds and not more than fifteen times during said hours." He said that they have no objection to the hours; however, he noted that everyone who purchases a car wants to test the car alarm system, and he questioned where the testing would be done. He noted that, according to this condition, only 15 new cars could be sold and tested per day. He asked whether a potential buyer would have to return the next day to try the alarm if 15 others had preceded him that day. He discussed the duration, stating that five seconds is a more reasonable test period than three seconds. He said that a compromise must be reached on this point, noting that it should be reasonable. Mr. Compton continued by discussing alarms, stating that when alarms are being tested, they are on only for a few seconds. He said that problems sometimes occur because the systems can be activated by other means than testing. He stated that this particular condition is not conducive to selling and/or repairing cars. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that there is a code section which makes provision for issuing citations to people whose car alarms blare excessively. Mr. Grove explained that after a specified time limit, a police officer may enter a vehicle to turn off the alarm if an offense is occurring. Comm. Peirce stressed that offending car alarm owners should be cited and the rules enforced. Mr. Compton commented on Condition No. 17: "There shall be no outdoor bells or buzzers. Outside speakers may be used for a paging system within the limits of the City's noise ordinance and prohibited after 6:00 P.M." He stated that Mr. Polak has purchased a walkie­ talkie system; therefore, an outside paging system is no longer being used. Mr. Compton discussed Condition No. 19: "All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to prohibit glare to the neighboring residential property and public right-of-way." He 7 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 stated that, as far as he is aware, there are no glaring exterior lights. He asked that any of the neighbors experiencing such a problem contact him. Mr. Compton continued with Condition No. 20: "All sloping unimproved areas along the westerly property line shall be landscaped in a manner to eliminate erosion; size, type, and quantity of landscaping to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director." He stated that landscaping is currently underway, and piping has already been installed. He has met with the neighbors on this issue. and a retaining wall company has been contacted in an effort to solve the erosion problems. Mr. Compton. in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the discussions with neighbors about the erosion problem, said that the neighbors were told that Mr. Compton would try to find a solution and obtain a cost estimate. He noted that cost would be between the neighbors and Mr. Polak; however. he felt that the entire cost burden is not the responsibility of Mr. Polak. James Deutch, 707 30th Street, representing the concerned citizens group on 30th Street: (1) felt that Mr. Polak is not taking enough concerned interest in this matter, noting that proper permits were not obtained for the new VW business; (2) urged that the Commission consider that this CUP issue has been going on for 20 years: (3) felt that the applicant is not taking any action to comply with the current CUP; (4) asked that the Commission not consider amending a master CUP, but rather that they consider revocation of the current CUP; (5) stressed that the applicant is not meeting the current conditions imposed on him; (6) noted that he is not opposed to any of the proposed conditions in the master CUP. but he felt that the current CUP should be enforced; (7) referred to the letter written by Mr. Grove on November 30. 1989, regarding flagrant violations and the issuance of citations; (8) noted concern that no action has been taken to show that any changes have taken place at this establishment over the past 20 years; (9) stressed that the proper action would be for the Commission to study the past record, take action on the present CUP, and not even consider a master CUP until such time that the present CUP is enforced or revoked; ( 10) noted concern that the VW dealership suddenly sprang up overnight without following the city requirements. Mr. Deutch continued: (1) felt that fines and citations will not solve the problem without other strong action being taken, such as revocation; (2) stated that a master CUP is no guarantee that conditions will be met; (3) noted that this lot is very narrow, unlike those in other cities which provide adequate parking: (4) said that this commercial use is very close to residential uses. and the problem will remain so long as the commercial lots are so narrow. Chris Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, addressed the Commission: (1) felt that this business has flaunted the City rules and neighbors over the years; (2) stated that the conditions as proposed sound great, but he noted that the applicant has not complied in years past, nor has he attempted to mitigate problems to the surrounding neighborhoods; (3) hoped ·that the conditions are enforced by the City. noting that the citizens are tired of calling in to complain; (4) stated that enforcement will be of utmost importance in ensuring that the CUP works; (5) discussed test drives on 30th Street as well as other surrounding streets and urged that this problem be addressed by directing employees and customers away from 30th Street and toward P.C.H. Mr. Howell continued: (1) stated that all parking spaces appear to be filled with new for-sale vehicles, and he questioned where parking will be; (2) supported the plan to designate employee and customer parking; (3) asked whether the upper level of the car stackers will be visible to the surrounding neighbors and asked that that issue be addressed; (4) noted that the issue of where cars are delivered in the middle of the night is a difficult question which needs to be addressed: (5) stated that the neighborhood should not have to be subjected to delivery trucks on 30th Street. Mr. Howell went on: (1) discussed car alarm systems and stated that they are becoming quite a nuisance; (2) questioned whether the alanns could be tested indoors; (3) supported any type of 8 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 comprehensive plan which can mitigate these problems without creating additional nuisances to the neighborhood; (4) asked that the City arrive at a plan to more effectively separate commercial uses from residential uses in Hermosa Beach. Arlene Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, addressed the Commission: (1) stated that her three major concerns over the years have been pollution, safety, and the quality of life; (2) asked what happens when someone is issued a citation; (3) discussed the staff report and stated that she would like to see the position of the residents contained in the report; (4) felt that at least one representative from the neighborhood should be involved in the City meetings regarding this issue; (5) stated that this is an unusual situation, and unusual methods must be used in an attempt to resolve the problems; (6) agreed that a master CUP would be beneficial, however, she questioned the ramifications of a master CUP; (7) noted concern that staff has still not seen a complete set of plans. and a decision is to be made without benefit of having seen those plans. Ms. Howell continued: (1) discussed the car stackers and noted concern that more detailed information and a survey has not yet been done for the westerly boundary; (2) noted that car stackers have not been approved in the past because of the many attendant problems and their potential to cause negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; (3) asked that those negative impacts be taken into account before any approval is granted; (4) asked about the development agreement of 1985. Ms. Howell went on: (1) urged that conditions be imposed to keep all liquid waste out of the sewer system and storm drains, noting concern for pollution of the ocean, where these materials ultimately end up; (2) questioned how the issue of employee/ customer parking spaces will be monitored; (3) stated that the parking spaces should be used for new car display only during times that the service area is closed; (4) discussed signage and suggested that a "Right Tum Only" sign be placed at the 30th Street entrance; (5) suggested that an arrow also be painted to enforce the sign instruction; (6) stated that it is very difficult to monitor deliveries, and agreed that it is difficult to expect the dealer to monitor where tow truck drivers will leave cars; (7) stated that 30th Street is very narrow at the highway, and this involves a safety and liability issue; (8) discussed hours of operation and suggested that auto repair activities not begin before 8:00 AM, that they end at 6:00 P.M. on all weekdays except one, that auto repair be allowed from 9:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M. on Saturdays, and that the statement "no auto repair shall occur after hours unless all doors and windows are closed" be deleted; (9) stated that it makes no sense to set up hours of operation and then provide an escape clause. Ms. Howell continued: (1) discussed noise and stated that it is difficult to determine what is "loud and obnoxious"; (2) suggested that the applicant be required to construct a sound barrier wall between his property and all the properties abutting him on the westerly side of the business; (3) was pleased to know that walkie-talkies have been implemented; (4) stressed that neighbors need to be a part of the process on this matter; (5) discussed the vacation of the alley, and asked whether the City is getting full value from the action, noting that the City is spending a lot of its resources to maintain this; (6) agreed with the provision that the Commission have the right to review these plans as they are completed. Larry Bryant, 2960 La Carlita Place, addressed the Commission: (1) discussed Condition No. 7 and the 93 parking spaces and asked how the parking situation would be satisfied; (2) suggested that the total number of employees versus the total number of daily customers first be addressed; (3) discussed the car stackers and stated that the stackers would be inappropriate because of the space limitations and he suggested that that issue be studied further; (4) strongly opposed car stackers because of the noise and view and the fact that they do not meet the requirements; (5) agreed that Condition No. 16 regarding the monitoring of when car alarms can be tested is not enforceable; (6) felt that car alarm testing should be done inside only; (7) discussed the sloping and stated that the erosion issue would have been solved by the original development agreement; (8) felt that the issue of the wall should again be addressed to solve the problem; (9) opposed the granting of a variance; (10) said that Vasek Polak has no intention of being a good neighbor, based on his past failures to comply with the CUP and the development agreement; (11) recommended a revocation and suggested that the alley be returned to the City. 9 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Richard Sullivan, 2954 La Carlita Place, addressed the Commission: (1) stated that employees parking on car stackers is not a viable solution, questioning how they would get their cars down from the rack; (2) noted concern over the noise which would be created by the car stackers; (3) noted concern over the hours of operation, stating that the proposed condition represents a drastic increase in the hours of operation; (4) noted that business hours have never been allowed beyond 9:00 P.M.; except for one night per week; (5) stated that with three auto businesses having late night hours, the alley would be turned into auto repair city; (6) stressed that the noise reverberates throughout the neighborhood; (7) stated that Condition No. 14 is ludicrous; (8) stated that if business expansion is allowed, the hours of operation should not be increased; (9) noted that the evening hours belong to the residents, and the environmental impacts have not be addressed; (10) discussed testing of car alarm systems and stated that disco owners would not be allowed to play loud music, however, car alanns are also very obnoxious. Mr. Sullivan continued: (1) stated that other car dealers do not test car alarms all day long; (2) stated that his property is affected by the erosion and he is pleased to see that they are now admitting that this is a joint problem; (3) stated that stackers would greatly compound the erosion problem; (4) was pleased to see the addition of Condition No. 20; (5) noted that this business is expanding and stated that this business could have been complying over the past 20 years; (6) suggested that the applicant be warned that if he does not comply, the business will be closed down. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste Drive, addressed the Commission: (1) noted concern over leakage into the ground and down the alley, stating that it goes into the storm drain; (2) stated that all car dealers should be required to do period ground testing; (3) said that there should be a complete drainage system to prevent leakage into the storm drain system; (4) commented on test driving and said that he cannot think of a route which will keep the cars off of all residential streets, but he recommended that the condition be worded so that most test driving will be limited to the highway; (5) suggested that the applicant be required to formulate the test route with the neighbors and that route would then be presented to the Commission before final approval is given; (6) noted that revocation is probably not eminent tonight, however, he hoped that the revocation hearing would be continued for three months, during which time the applicant could work to demonstrate his intention to comply; (7) if no progress is made, the revocation could again be addressed. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, rebutted: (1) stated that there is a mistaken notion among the neighbors regarding the number of conditions which have been violated and noted that very few violations have actually occurred; (2) concurred that these problems have gone on for a long time , but noted that the development agreement did not have the "teeth" that the CUP provides; (3) said that of the the long list of requirements in the proposed CUP, only three are causing concern on the part of the applicant; (4) did not feel it is fair for the neighbors to assert that Mr. Polak has not attempted to comply in the past. noting that Mr. Polak has dealt with issues which were not even required by the City; (5) noted that the applicant was cited when he moved the new dealership in and he was very much concerned. Mr. Compton continued: (1) stated that the new VW dealership was discussed at length with various City staff personnel before it went in, and the only problem was that the signs were put up before the proper permits were obtained, but applications have now been submitted; (2) said that violations need to be specified by the neighbors, noting that there has been approximately 90 percent compliance: (3) commented on a 30th Street dead-end, and said he does not know the feasibility of such a plan; (4) stated that the suggestion of installing a "Right Turn Only" sign at the 30th Street exit is a good idea and would be good for the neighborhood; (5) the signage, along with a map, should keep people of off 30th Street. Mr. Compton went on: (1) said he has no problem with having neighborhood participation, as suggested; (2) discussed pollution and stated that there are no gas pumps on site at any of the dealerships: (3) said that there is a health department approved oil interceptor which was required by the development agreement; (4) said that all pollutants go through the separator; (5) 10 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 discussed the incomplete site plan and explained that the only thing missing is the number of service bays in relation to parking; (6) commented on the car stackers and did not know why staff asserted the dimensions were not made available, and he suggested that that information could have been left out by mistake; (7) discussed the size of the proposed car stackers, stating that they will be 12 feet long. Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that the car stackers are hydraulic with an electric motor. He continued by giving the dimensions of the stackers. Mr. Compton went on: (1) discussed hours and stated that the hours of operation required by the CUP and development agreement have changed, but he noted that the condition now being proposed makes the hours more restrictive; (2) said that just because the hours are allowed by the CUP does not mean those will be the hours actually used; (3) said that the dealership does not intend to change any of the hours from what they currently are; (4) said that a modification to the hours of operation would not create a major problem; (5) said that the current hours of operation are 7:00 AM. until 5:00 P.M. except on Thursday when the repair shop is open until 7:30 P.M.; (6) stated that there is no repair service on Saturday or Sunday; (7) stressed that the applicant is not requesting to extend the current hours of operation. Mr. Schubach explained that the hours of operation proposed in the CUP are based on the hours specified in the development agreement, and those hours cannot be modified. He stated that it would be necessary to amend the contract if it is desired to amend the hours of operation. It would then be necessary to amend the hours at the City Council level. Mr. Compton did not know whether the applicant desires to modify the conditions as set forth in the development agreement. He wanted to make it clear that there is no intention to deviate from the current hours of operation. Cbmn. Rue asked questions about how the development agreement overrides the conditions as set forth in a conditional use permit. Mr. Lee explained that the development agreement which the dealership entered into with the City is a statutory document. He said that it supersedes other City requirements; however, there can be amendments to a development agreement if consented to by both parties. He continued by giving background information on the CUPs and the development agreement. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that he did not know why a development agreement was entered into in 1985 rather than a conditional use pennit, explaining that he was not with the City at that time. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that a development agreement can be negated by the City if there is a breach on the part of the dealership due to violations of the terms of the agreement. This would be via a civil action. Mr. Lee stated that there has been a question related to whether the development agreement contains all of the conditions contained in the conditional use permit. Where an item is contained in both, the development agreement is the overriding document. Mr. Lee and the Commissioners discussed the development agreement and its terms in relation to the conditional use permit. Mr. Compton continued: (1) discussed alarm testing and said that people always want to test the alarms to make sure they work; (2) said that it would be difficult to test the alarms inside service bays, as suggested by Chmn. Rue; (3) noted that cars are located in various areas, and it is difficult to tell where people will test the alarms, and he noted that that would be a difficult condition with which to comply; (4) commented on the concerns relating to an additional revocation hearing in three months, and he noted that Condition No. 23 appears to address this issue. 11 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Michael Pitton, 729 30th Street, addressed the Commission: (1) disagreed with Mr. Compton's assertion that there have been very few violations; (2) stated that employees are still parking on 30th Street; (3) said that new cars are on the street, which is a violation of the development agreement; (4) said that the car rack extension is still in violation because it was not removed; (5) said that delivery trucks are still coming; (6) noted that the new VW dealership is in violation; (7) noted that the hours of operation are in violation of the development agreement; (8) stated that the car alann testing is in violation of the requirement that there shall not be excessive noise; (9) stated that other auto dealers do not test car alarms on site. Mr. Pitton continued: (1) said that the goal of the Commission is to make a recommendation to the City Council; (2) stated that the Commission has heard much testimony; (3) suggested that the recommendation be to revoke the conditional use permit if the conditions are not followed. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, referred to Mr. Grove's recommendations regarding proposed locations for deliveries. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce concurred with the comments made by Mr. Pitton regarding the long period of time during which egregious violations have continued at this business, particularly: (1) unloading of cars on 30th Street; and (2) parking of unlicensed, unregistered cars on City streets, until the City took strong action.to halt it. Comm. Peirce asked for some history on the past several weeks in regard to the the Borrelli conversion to an auto dealership. He was under the impression that a conditional use permit is necessary to change from a restaurant to a car dealership. Mr. Schubach agreed that a conditional use permit is necessary. Staff was under the impression, however, that Borrelli's would be used for car parts only. When staff realized that the site was converted into an auto dealership, it was decided to go for a master CUP. Staff was somewhat surprised when it was learned that a new car dealership was located in the former restaurant site. He noted that the applicant would continue to be cited until such time that the proper procedures are taken. Comm. Peirce found this entire issue very disturbing. He maintained that it is not a de facto matter that the Commission will allow a new auto dealership on the Borrelli site. He felt that it is necessary to first address the environmental concerns of such a use; therefore, he did not feel that that issue should be addressed with the other issues. Comm. Peirce stated that there is a problem in that the City cannot enforce the terms of the development agreement via a civil action. He noted that he opposed the development agreement at its inception in 1985; however, there is now a bargaining tool in that the applicant wants to have a new auto dealership at the Borrelli site. Comm. Peirce stated that he would not vote to approve a conditional use permit at this time unless Mr. Polak agrees to a revocation of the development agreement. The City could then go forward with a master CUP for all three areas. Comm. Peirce stressed that Mr. Polak has repeatedly been in violation of many ordinances; i.e., parking cars on City streets, unloading cars on 30th Street, and putting in the new VW dealership without first obtaining the proper permits. Before this goes any further, Comm. Peirce felt that the issue should be studied as to whether or not the City even wants to have another car dealership in that area, especially since that area is very narrow in depth and there is so much traffic on the highway. He urged that the matter be studied from a good planning standpoint before this issue goes any further. He said that the Commission does not have enough information to proceed on the VW dealership. He also expressed concern that 12 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 complete plans have not been presented, noting that the bare-bones plans submitted are not any better than those submitted three years ago by a different architect. Mr. Lee explained for clarification that the City is issuing citations for the VW dealership, and the City has not presumed that the CUP will automatically be granted. The City Manager has directed Mr. Polak to apply for a conditional use permit for the VW dealership. He continued by explaining that enforcement procedures, such as daily monetary penalties, have been undertaken, and the City is in no way permitting this business to continue without action being taken. Comm. Peirce questioned how much monetary penalty has thus far been assessed against Mr. Polak for the violations at the VW dealership. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, stated that a conditional use permit application for auto parts, sales. and servicing at the Borrelli site had been submitted; however , the application was modified so that there would now be one master conditional use permit for all three dealerships. He said that it was made very clear to the City that a VW dealership was going in where the Subaru dealership was located. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce regarding the original CUP application for the VW dealership, explained that staff looked at the issue as part of a larger use, that of the BMW and Subaru dealerships, and a master CUP was initiated. He continued by exp)aioiog how staff thought the area was to be used, and how they were informed later that the area was to be used separately. Comm. Peirce was under the impression that the Borrelli site was to be used only for the sale of auto parts, and nowhere in the application was it clear that area was to be expanded into an area for auto sales. Mr. Schubach stated that he looked at this site in tenns of other automotive uses, including that location as a possible location for the car stackers. Comm. Peirce stressed that there have been many misunderstandings between Mr. Polak and the City, and the information presented to the City is not adequate. He also felt that the City is not willing to enforce the development agreement. For the P)a ooing Commission to approve a conditional use permit based on this information would be wrong. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the site plan, explained that staff informed the applicant that the Borrelli site could be used only for auto parts. After a site inspection which determined that the VW dealership took over the Subaru area, and the Subaru dealership took over Borrelli's, staff decided that a master CUP for all the dealerships would be appropriate. Recess taken from 9:30 P.M. until 9:40 P.M. Comm. Peirce stated that the basic issue which should be addressed at this time is whether or not it is good planning to have a continuous line of auto dealerships from 30th Street all the way to P .J. Brett's. He felt that issues such as congestion, parking, usage, and environmental concerns should be addressed. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that the Commission at this time is not being asked to debate the planning merits of auto dealerships on the highway. The matter before the Conunission is that of the conditional use permit to tie dealerships together. Comm. Ingell agreed that the issue needs to be explored further, noting that the first time he has seen any written materials related to the VW dealership was tonight. 13 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Mr. Schubach. in response to a question from Chmr1. Rue, explained that the existing Subaru dealership does not have a CUP at this time. There was previously an auto dealership at the Subaru site; however. it did not have a CUP since it was prior to the current requirements. Staff is now proposing a master CUP for all the uses; otherwise, the business would have to be amortized. Comm. Ingell, noting that Subaru moved without first obtaining 1:he proper permits, said that Subaru is therefore now in violation. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that all of the businesses are connected. Comm. Ing ell felt that each dealership should have its own CUP. and he noted that it has been mentioned that the franchises require each business to act as a separate entity. He felt that the Subaru dealership is in violation because it moved and it therefore needs a CUP. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners explored possible alternatives in regard to the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz regarding changing the hours of operation in the CUP , explained. that the condition could be modified; however, it would then be necessary to have the development agreement amended. Comm. Peirce did not feel that allowing another auto dealership is appropriate from a pJanning standpoint, until such time that all the issues are addressed. Comm. Ketz did not oppose another auto dealership there; however, she felt that steps must be taken to ensure that the business does not become a nuisance to the surrounding areas. Chmn. Rue felt that if the business is oriented toward P.C.H. and the use is mitigated, the dealership would be acceptable. He said that mitigation measures are achieved by the implementation of conditional use permits and their enforcement. Comm. Ingell suggested addressing the conditional use permit before the Commission at this time. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that nothing in the code prohibits second-story car parking stackers. He continued by explaining that on the second level, cars would not be precluded from projecting into the required eight-foot setback. Comm. Peirce said that cars parked on the second level should not be allowed to project into the setback. He questioned whether the code would allow cars to overhang into the setback air space if they were parked in a structure. He said that intrusion into the air space above the ground level by commercial would not be conducive to being a good neighbor to residential. Mr. Schubach stated that each story requires an additional two feet of setback. He explained that the proposed car stackers are not actually two stories, because the second level is actually the roof of the first level. Use of the roof for parking requires an eight-foot setback; if another level were added, a ten-foot setback would then be required; three stories would require a twelve-foot setback. He stressed, however, that the second level of parking is actually on the roof of the first level; therefore, only an eight-foot setback is required. Mr. Schubach explained that staff felt revoking the CUP would not be feasible. It is felt that imposing conditions which are enforceable and which can be cited if not followed is the most appropriate method to follow. He stated that active, extensive enforcement will be necessary. Comm. Ingell suggested, then, that the Commission go through the proposed resolution condition by condition. He suggested a modification to Condition No. 1 stating that "any modification shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval." 14 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Chmn. Rue suggested that only the final plans for all three sites be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Other minor modifications can then be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Comm. Ingell had no problem with that; however, he noted concern that the Commission has not received adequate plans, and he stressed the importance of the Commission approving the final three sets of plans. Comm. Ingell suggested modifications to Condition No. 5: "Repair, service, maintenance, and testing of alanns on vehicles must be conducted within the buildings, and all outdoor repair work activities shall be prohibited." He suggested the addition of a Condition 5(a): "Washing of vehicles is permissible outdoors; however, no non-biodegradable cleaners shall be allowed." Chmn. Rue suggested a modification to Condition No. 8: "Use of customer/ employee designated parking spaces for displaying auto merchandise shall be prohibited except on weekends or when service bays are closed east of the front gate area only." Comm. Ingell suggested the addition of a Condition No. l0(a): "A sign shall be provided advising ''Right Turn Only" out of the 30th Street exit." Comm. Ingell noted that Condition No. 13 is one which will be difficult to enforce; however, he felt it must remain as is. Comm. Ingell discussed Condition No. 14 regarding the hours of operation. Even though he noted a change would create a conflict with the development agreement, he felt it is important to limit the hours of operation. Comm. Moore also favored restricting the hours of operation. He asked for clarification on what the outcome would be if the conditional use permit is more restrictive than the development agreement. He wanted to ensure that the entire CUP would not be invalidated if one of the conditions were found to be in conflict. Mr. Lee explained that if a conflict is determined, only the condition found to be in conflict would be invalidated, unless consented to by Mr. Polak. If the change were not agreed to by the applicant but was still included, it could be assumed that there is a breach of contract on the part of the City. The matter could be resolved either by the City removing the modified condition, or by the applicant agreeing to the change for more restrictive hours. Comm. Ingell stressed that the City Council should be made aware of the Commissions' concern over the hours of operation. Condition No. 14 was modified to read: ''Permitted operation hours for car sales is 8:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. Auto repair activities may take place from 7:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M. on weekdays, except on Thursday until 8:00 P.M. No auto repair shall occur after hours unless all the doors and windows are closed. There shall be no car repair on Sundays." CoIIlIIL Ingell suggested additional wording to Condition No. 15: "If there is a noise violation, a soundproof wall shall be required on the property." Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding the feasibility of including wording requiring a soundproof wall to be provided, explained that conditions must be reasonably required to allow the use to occur. He said that if there is a violation of the City's noise ordinance, this could be considered a reasonable condition to impose; therefore, a condition can be provided to trigger the requirement to provide a noise barrier. Comm. Ingell recommended the deletion of Condition No. 16: "Examining car alann systems shall be limited to 9:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M.; sound duration shall not be over three seconds and 15 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 not more than fifteen times during said hours." He said that this condition is unnecessary now that that issue is addressed by Con dition No. 5. Comm. Ingell suggested a modification to Condition No. 17: "There shall be no outdoor bells, buzzers, or outside paging system." Comm. Ingell recommended a modification to Condition No. 24: "The applicant shall submit three copies of a revised site plan for review and approval by the Planning Commi ssion which clearly indicates .... " Comm. Ingell suggested the addition of a condition (Number 26) regarding the time frame for submittal of plans: "Plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission by February 6, 1990." Comm. Ingell suggested the a d dition of a con dition (Number 27) requiring that all managPrs on site (parts, sales, and service), as well as salespersons on site, shall be required to read and sign a copy of the conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell suggested the addition of a condition (Number 28) stating that disposal of all waste materials shall be in conformance with local, state, and federal laws; and under no circumstances can any fluids be disposed of in the City's storm drain system. Comm. Ingell, in response to a comment from Mr. Lee regarding Condition No. 22, stated that the condition refers to all three legal parcels. He also clarified that each dealership should have its own conditional use permit with the same requirements . Mr. Compton concurred that each of the three dealerships should have its own conditional use permit. He had no objection to each of the CUPs being the same. Chmn. Rue noted concern over the issue of shared parking as it relates to three separate CUPs. Mr. Lee stated that if the dealer must provide three separate site plans, employee/ customer parking will need to be designated on each of the site plans. The CUPs would then be recorded against each of the three dealerships. He continued by explaining the procedure which would be followed. Comm. Ingell favored having this CUP serve as the umbrella CUP for each of the three dealerships. Each dealership's CUP could then be tailored for each specific business, thereby allowing for three individual conditional use permits. If a problem occurs at one dealership, its own CUP could then be addressed. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve the proposed resolution, P .C. 89- 76, with the above-mentioned modifications. Comm. Peirce questioned how there can be individual conditional use permits when the businesses have a shared parking arrangem e nt. Mr. Schubach noted that Condition No. 7 requires that the 93 on-site parking spaces be distributed evenly among the dealerships. He hoped that the applicant would submit a plan showing the parking. Comm. Ingell stressed that the three dealerships should attempt to stand on their own; if they are unable to do that, the mechanism to tie them together would be a parking plan. Mr. Schubach stated that if each business is to have its own CUP, it would probably be necessary for staff to go back over this CUP to see whether all conditions apply to each business. 16 P.C . Minutes 12/5/89 Mr. Grove stated that one of the reasons staff saw the need for a master CUP is that the use of the property does not neatly stop at the property lines. For example, the Subaru dealership services their cars in the BMW service bays. From a practice standpoint, if one person is going to own and operate businesses there, it makes more sense to have a master CUP because there will be overlaps. Comm. Ingell questioned, then, whether the businesses should be tied together with a deed restriction. He questioned whether new car dealerships are required to provide their own service bays. Larry Bryant, 2960 La Carlita Place, asked when the current development agreement expires. Mr. Schubach replied that it expires in ten years. Mr. Grove stated that there is a provision in the development agreement requiring that improvements be completed within 24 months, and a fifteen-month extension was given. Most of the improvements have now been completed, however. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Rue Comm. Peirce None None Comm. Peirce explained that he voted against the motion because several issues were not addressed: (1) second-floor stacking; (2) whether or not it is appropriate to allow the expansion of a car dealership adjacent to an R-1 zone; and (3) the fact that detailed plans were not submitted. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to receive and file staffs recommendation regarding the variance for the car slackers. (No variance required.) No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Rue stated that a decision needs to be made regarding consideration of the revocation of the existing conditional use permit. Mr. Lee stated that the revocation would be moot now that a master conditional use permit has been approved. He noted that the master CUP which has just been adopted contains provisions for enforcement and provides for future revocation proceedings should the terms of the CUP be violated. Therefore, no action would be necessary on this item at this time. Mr. Compton asked how long the applicant has to get into compliance with the new CUP before the City begins issuing citations. Mr. Schubach noted that staff is aware that some of the conditions will require time to adhere to. Comm. Moore wanted to ensure that the applicant complies as quickly as possible, and he asked about the feasibility of imposing a time frame on when compliance should be complete. Mr. Lee explained that it would be necessary to adopt a new motion to impose a time frame for compliance. He noted, however, that a reasonable time limit must be imposed and that enforcement is usually an administrative function. He noted that several of the conditions can be complied with immediately, such as that pertaining to the testing of car alarms. He said that it can be left to staff to ensure that the conditions are complied to within a reasonable time frame. Chmn. Rue asked that the minutes reflect that it will be staffs responsibility to ensure that the applicant is complying within a reasonable amount of time. 17 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TANNING SALON AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1559 PACIFIC COAST WGHWAY. TOUCAN TAN Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 27, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use pennit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The present and proposed use is as a tanning salon. The building size is 1506 square feet. On September 29, 1989, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for this request. The requested business is already in operation at the subject location within the Plaza Hermosa Shopping Center. This tenant space was originally used for a tanning salon when the shopping center was first opened, but it was subsequently vacated for over a year. The tanning salon never obtained a conditional use permit as required by the zoning ordinance. As such, the new business is required to obtain a conditional use permit. The salon has eleven private booths, with seven currently containing tanning beds. The beds are nonnally used by customers for a period of 20 minutes. The salon has bathroom facilities but does not have any showers or baths. There is nonnally only one employee of the business on the premises. The only concern of staff would be the potential use of the private booths for activities other than tanning, such as massages, that result in more than one person using a booth at a time. Staff is therefore recommending conditions to allow use of the private booths for tanning purposes only, limiting the number of persons in a booth to one, and prohibiting massages. The Plaza Hermosa Shopping Center contains approximately 95,000 square feet and provides 4 70 parking spaces, which is adequate to meet the zoning ordinance requirement of one space per 250 square feet for the subject use. Staff is satisfied that the overall parking is adequate for the continued use of the subject location for a tanning salon and that the subject use is consistent with other retail and commercial service uses in the shopping center. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that staff is not aware of any problems associated with the previous tanning salon located at this site. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-88. Chmn. Rue stated that he would like the manager to be aware of this conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant will receive a copy. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 18 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21331 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE CONDmONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21330 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1508 LOMA D~ Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 28, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue these requests to require the applicant to provide the common recreation area required for condominium projects of five or more units. The proposed projects are located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot sizes are 4000 square feet each. There is currently a ten-unit apartment covering both lots. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing ten-unit apartment building to construct two identical three-unit attached condominiums on two lots located at 1502 and 1508 Loma Drive. Each proposed unit contains approximately 1800 square feet; each contains two bedrooms, a loft, and two and a half baths. The proposed structures have two stories and a loft level above a semi-subterranean garage. Proposed architectural features that are noted include a cement plaster/sand finish exterior, glass block, architectural reglets, and pipe railings on the balconies. Several rectangular windows, the chimney, and glass block break up of the facade of the otherwise bulky and flat appearance of the structure. The layout includes a shared, landscaped walkway which leads to the entrances of all six units. Each three-unit project meets the minimum parking requirements: six parking spaces are enclosed in three tandem garages, and two guest spaces are available. Each project has its own street access. No on-street parking spaces would be lost as a result of the curb cuts along Loma Drive, as no parking is permitted along this portion of the street. In fact, with the required sidewalk and curb improvements, two on-street parking spaces would be created. The projects propose an eight-foot front yard setback, exceeding the minimum requirement of five feet. The average setback along Loma Drive is approximately five feet. The plans for each project conform to all other minimum planning and zoning requirements. The lot coverage is 64.9 percent, adequate open space is provided with the private space on mezzanine-level decks, and common open space at ground level in excess of front yard and side yard areas. Enclosed storage areas are provided on the ground level, and an enclosed location for the trash dumpster is provided. Although the individual projects conform to zoning requirements when viewed separately, the projects, if considered together, would be subject to the requirement of 100 square feet of common recreation area per unit. Since these projects are of identical design, are under the control of one owner, and utilize a shared entrance walkway, staff believes that the projects should be considered as one and that the common recreation area requirements should be applied. To meet the requirement, the applicant could provide a courtyard, a substantial garden, or even a swimming pool or hot tub area. The simplest solution would be to provide a courtyard area between the two units as shown; however, to count toward the 600 additional feet of common open space, it would need to be enlarged to a minimum 20-foot dimension, pursuant to Section 607(4) of the zoning ordinance. As shown, it is only 18 feet wide. In any case, the necessary changes would be a fairly significant revision requiring resubmittal to the Planning Commission. In staffs judgment, the submittal of these two projects separately appears to be an attempt by the applicant to avoid the common open space requirement. 19 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 It should be noted that a neighboring project at 530-534 Loma Drive is a six-unit project on two lots which provided its common recreation area in its large rear yard, taking advantage of the openness and the view to the east. Also, the project has a common driveway down the center of two three-unit structures accessing standard two-car garages. The subject property is located in an area of the City undergoing a rapid transition from smaller single-family homes and apartments to large multiple-unit condominiums, many recently completed or now under construction. Therefore, this type of project is compatible with the surrounding development . However, given that the nature of surrounding development has resulted in an increasing scarcity of yards and open areas, the provision of additional coIDlllon open space becomes even more important. If the Planning Commission desired to approve the two projects separately, as submitted, staff proposed appropriate resolutions of approval. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that the parcel map denotes that Parcels 13 and 14 are in the possession of one owner. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, addressed the Commission. He said that the main question appears to be whether this is one or two separate projects. He noted that they were submitted separately, there are two sets of CC&Rs, and two parcel maps were submitted. If this were one six-unit development, it would then be necessary to submit a tract map, not parcel maps. Prior to designing the two buildings, the issue of two lots was discussed with the planning staff, who gave approval for this to be two separate projects. He felt that the shared entry court is an enhancement to the project. They are creating, instead of a five-foot wide narrow walkway into each building, a ten-foot walkway, which at some points is actually 18 feet. Mr. Peha said that if his clients decided to sell one of the projects, they would not be able to do so under this proposed shared CUP. By attempting to enhance the project with a nice entryway, they appear to be getting penalized. Mr. Peha stated that the changes required by the Planning Department are critical and would require a great deal of redesign, and the applicant feels this is unnecessary. Mr. Peha stated that the existing' lots have ten units with ten parking spaces. This project proposes to reduce density and increase parking, unlike many other new projects. Chmn. Rue asked whether it was mentioned to staff that both of the projects were to be identical. Mr. Peha stated that if that is a problem, the elevations can be changed. Comm. Moore asked whether any materials are available which would help him visualize this project. He stated that he could not support this project based on its aesthetics . Even though it meets code requirements, he said there is no doubt this is one project. With the materials presented, he said this is a boxy project with no mitigating circumstances available for him to approve this design. He said the project is totally maxed out, noting that lot coverage is 64.9 percent. Mr. Peha said that a window system is provided in the front. He also noted that 64.9 percent lot coverage is within the code requirements. In response to CoIDlll. Moore's request, he said he had no additional materials to present at this time. Mr. Peha and the Commissioners discussed the plans for this project, particularly in regard to the various levels of the project and the stepping up and cantilevering. ~ P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Mr. Peha noted that the entries into each unit have been pulled in for additional privacy. Landscaping is also being provided; however, there is no landscape plan at this time. Comm. Peirce noted that from looking at the plans, it appears that part of the building bulk is a result of the loft at the highest level. Mr. Peha concurred, stating that the loft adds to the height of the building. He said that an open space would be created in the living space below; therefore, within the living room there is a two-story volume to create more of an open space within each unit. He stated that they want the loft as well as the high ceilings. Comm. Peirce agreed with the comments made by Comm. Moore. He said that he has never favored lofts because it is an apparent technique to create more space for the seller, but it is not terribly usable space. He said that lofts create very boxy buildings. Mr. Peha directed the Commissioners' attention to the plans and stated that there are decks as well as fireplaces which are three-dimensional. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that when the building is viewed from several hundred yards away, it will appear to be a large box with very little relief. Mr. Peha noted, however, that viewing the plans presents only a two-dimensional view. Mr. Peha, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that they would like to have these be two separate project so that they will be easier to sell. He also said that two different projects will allow for a ten-foot walkway as opposed to a five-foot walkway, stating that this issue has been addressed in the CC&Rs. He stated that the project is enhanced by not having to have a wall between the two projects; however, he did not get the feeling from City staff that they wanted a wall. Comm. Ingell commented that the walkway is 18 feet at several points; however, he noted that the requirement is for 20 feet. Mr. Peha explained that 20 feet would be required if this were one six-unit project with a courtyard; this is two, three-unit projects with no courtyard. He stated that. as far as the plans are concerned, it would be a real problem to add an additional foot on each side of walkway. He explained that it would be a problem based on the location of the stairways. He also noted that there would be a problem because the dining rooms would have to be reduced from nine feet to eight feet across. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and stated that she lives across the street from a very similar project. She said that when there was one owner for both buildings, it was kept up much better in appearance and landscape maintenance. She suggested that, if this is allowed as two projects, a deed restriction be imposed requiring that each building remain under the ownership of one person. She said that the buildings will not be kept up if they are sold separately, and she noted concern over the project being maintained. Mr. Peha responded that the CC&Rs make provision for requiring the properties and landscaping to be maintained. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce noted that there is no landscaping plan. Mr. Schubach responded that landscaping plans have not been required at this point; they are submitted prior to Building Department issuance of building permits and are reviewed by the Planning Director to ensure that appropriate landscaping is provided. 21 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Chmn. Rue noted that the Commission quite some time ago requested that landscaping plans be submitted for Planning Commission review prior to projects being approved. Comm. Ingell agreed that this project is right at the limit of the code requirements, noting that the code should be addressed in the near future. He did not, however, think this project could be denied. He felt it is an advantage to have a mirror image of the projects, stating that it looks more cohesive. He also felt it would be easier to sell the units as proposed. He therefore favored approval of the projects as submitted at this time, noting that he does not feel it is within the purview of the Commission to deny it. Comm. Moore countered that it is within the purview of the Commission to deny this project, stating that there will come a time when blocks are so heavily impacted by these large projects that he will tend to vote against many projects. He said there must come a time to draw the line somewhere. He said that a conditional use permit provides for discretionary review because condos have great subjective impacts on neighborhoods. He said that the applicant has the right to modify his plans and try again. The applicant also bas an opportunity to appeal the Commissions' decision to the City Council. Comm. Ketz felt that the applicant should be required to provide the additional open space, noting that the applicant appears to be attempting to get around the requirements. She felt this is one six-unit project, and bulk should be reduced and open space required. Chmn. Rue noted disappointment that the designer did not attempt to make this a nicer project. He stated that this project is very large. dense, and bulky; however, o_ther similar projects have been approved. Titis project differs in that there is adequate area to include more open space. He agreed that additional open space should be required for this particular project, and it should be considered as one project. He felt that the residents have a right to have adequate, usable open space. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to deny the conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a three-unit condominium at 1502 Loma Drive. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ingell None None Comm. Ingell stated that he voted against the motion, explaining that staff's recommendation to continue this matter so that the applicant could submit revised plans to provide the common recreation area required for condominium projects of five or more units was more appropriate. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that the applicant did not want to come back with a six-unit project. He felt that the motion was therefore appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant can either appeal or reconsider submitting revised plans. 1508 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach stated that the staff report for the project at 1508 Loma Drive is identical to the staff report given for the project at 1502 Loma Drive. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Larry Peha stated that he would like more direction regarding whether the problem is with the aesthetics of the project, or whether the problem regards the six units. 22 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Chmn. Rue stated that he feels this should be done as a six-unit project with the required open space. Mr. Peha noted that the real estate market is definitely slowing down, and he questioned how the client would be able to sell the project in the future. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed options available for this project. Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question from Mr. Peha, that there is no problem with submitting one of these projects so long as it is in compliance. Mr. Peha noted that some concern was raised with open space; other concern was raised regarding the aesthetics. Chmn. Rue noted that additional open space would be required for any other similar six-unit project. If the projects are actually separate, as proposed, he felt it could be done; however, he felt that if one is done and then the other is built, it would appear that an attempt was being made to get around the code requirements. Comm. Moore could not foresee how the Commission would vote if this were brought back as one three-unit project. Mr. Peha asked if this matter could be continued so that he could work with the problem. He stated that he would work with the same submittals so that it is not necessary to again go through the fee process. Gerry Compton. 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and mentioned that the code section regarding open courtyard areas has not been addressed in quite some time, and he suggested that the applicant be advised on the issue of open space if there is any leeway. Allen Ferguson, 1726 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Manhattan Beach. one of the project developers, addressed the Commission and stated that when he first purchased the apartment building, he contacted the PJann;ng Department and was advised that he could develop the lots separately. As time went on , it was confirmed that two separate projects could be built. He noted that the property was very expensive, and it might become necessary for him sell one of the parcels. Now the City is saying the parcels must be developed together, and that was never his intention. He said that he can -put a wall in between the buildings, and they can be treated as two separate buildings and the appearance can be changed somewhat so that they look different. He said that the only reason he deleted the wall was to give the project a more open, courtyard feel. He stated he did not want to have a double-wide driveway down the center of the project. He feels he is getting a lot of things thrown at him when he has done nothmg wrong. Comm. Moore said that the Commission would probably prefer a combined project. He agreed that the patio requirement has not been reviewed in quite some time. He said that it is possible that the Commission would find that one project with open space is more desirable. Mr. Ferguson stated that he had to put together a number of investors in order to purchase this property, and he is responsible to those people. He stressed that he does not want one. six-unit project: he wants two, three-unit projects. He stressed that these are two separate lots. Comm. Ingell felt that if the courtyard could be moved back a foot on either side, two separate projects would probably be approved. Mr. Ferguson stated that it would be necessary for him to study how such a revision would affect the interior architecture of the project. He said he could put the wall between the two projects and eliminate the common courtyard, which he felt was an enhancement of the area. 23 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Chmn. Rue suggested that the previous motion be reconsidered and a vote taken to continue these projects so that the architect can work with staff to resolve this matter. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the issue of downzoning and recycling of older properties in the City. He asked for comments on this philosophical issue. He thought that the goal was to have projects meet the City's new code requirements. Cbmn. Rue stated that that issue will be discussed when the housing element is addressed. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUS MOTION DENYING THE PROJECT AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE. Comm. Ingell stated that by the applicant separating the projects completely, it is possible that the nice courtyard will be lost. He felt it would be a shame to have two maxed out projects which are not cohesive, and he felt that putting a wall down the middle would substantially change the project. He questioned whether the additional one foot on each side is worth the potential loss of the courtyard. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue to the meeting of January 16, 1990, the projects at 1502 and 1508 Loma Drive so that the architect can work with staff to resolve the problems. Comm. Ingell questioned whether it wouldn't be better to approve the project as submitted, noting concern that the Commission will be presented with even less in the future. Mr. Ferguson stated that he would hate to see this project destroyed. Mr. Schubach, in response to the applicant's concerns, stated that staff will work with the designer on this project. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ingell None None Comm. Ingell stated that he voted against the motion, explaining that he felt the proposal before the Commission was a good project. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2515 PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY. HOTEL HERMOSA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 28, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request and instead allow liquor to be provided only within individual guest rooms in factory sealed containers, and a negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is vacant. The project area is 480 square feet, and six parking spaces are required. 24 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 On April 26, 1989, the applicant obtained a building pennit for construction of a hotel, which is currently under construction. On October 5, 1989, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for on-sale alcoholic beverages. The applicant is requesting to serve general alcoholic beverages in the meeting room next to the lobby on the first floor for hotel guests while the room is not being used for meeting purposes. Alcoholic beverages would be prepared in the wet bar of the meeting room and would also be served and consumed in the hotel guest rooms. The meeting room and wet bar together comprise 480 square feet in area. Essentially, this situation constitutes a bar or cocktail lounge which the City has not approved, except in conjunction with bona fide eating establishments, in many years. The existing bars were approved prior to requiring a conditional use permit. Staff felt there would be no way to effectively enforce limiting the use of the meeting room to hotel guests only, or to limit the liquor service to only one room, as the lobby and garden area could too easily also be used. Typically, when motels offer liquor, it is provided in individual rooms along with soft drinks, et cetera. Staff believes this approach would be more appropriate. In the behavioral sense, hotel guests will buy liquor at the nearby liquor store or supermarket, if they desire to drink; therefore, having it available in the room will simply be a convenience. It should be noted that weddings and/ or receptions are an assembly use requiring additional parking. Also, outdoor activities of this nature are prohibited by the zoning ordinance; activities are required to be conducted within a building. Further, considering the proximity of the garden area and the hotel itself to residential development, and the lack of parking beyond the required parking for the hotel except for six extra spaces , other activities beyond the hotel use could have a negative impact, particularly if a disc-jockey or live band is included. A precedent could be set by granting this conditional use permit as requested. As an alternative, if the Planning Commission desired to approve this request and allow the use of the meeting room for service of alcoholic beverages to guests of the hotel only, staff has included an alternative resolution which would establish strict conditions to limit the use of the bar for this purpose. The recommended conditions include requiring that drinks could only be purchased by charging them to guest rooms, and that a room key would have to be shown to order a drink, the drinks could only be served and consumed in the meeting room and/ or guest rooms, and no advertising of the bar would be allowed. In staffs judgment, this alternative is not preferable because the nature of these conditions makes them difficult to effectively enforce. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Henry Chang, 12936 Chelsworth, Cerritos, applicant, addressed the Commission. He introduced Betty Ryan as his friend and the agent who sold him the property. Mr. Chang said that the neighborhood has been very cooperative, and he thanked the residents very much. Mr. Chang stated that he is constantly attempting to upgrade the hotel and said that he will build a very beautiful Japanese garden which will include a waterfall, pond, pagoda, and many other enhancements. He has hired an interior designer, and the lobby will be decorated as well 25 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 as the elevator. He stressed that this is a very high-quality hotel, not a common motel. In order to attract businessmen. it is necessary to serve liquor in the guest rooms as well as in the meeting room. He acknowledged that the lot is small; however. he wanted to make the businessmen feel as though they were at home. He is confident that the City and residents will be happy to have this hotel in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Chang asked that he be allowed to serve liquor to hotel patrons and their guests only. This will allow the hotel to be more competitive with other local hotels. Ms. Ryan stated that she is available to answer questions. Comm. Peirce noted that when the hotel was built, no restaurant was included. Mr. Chang replied that that is correct. He explamed that continental breakfasts will be served in the meeting room. When businessmen finish their business. it would be nice for them to be able to have a drink. Comm. Peirce noted that other hotels mentioned by the applicant all have restaurants. Ms. Ryan stated that this lot would not accommodate an 80-room hotel as well as a restaurant, as far as the economics are concerned. She said that there must be a certain minim.Ulll number of rooms to support a restaurant. Comm. Peirce asked whether there are any hotels within a ten-to fifteen-mile radius which serve liquor in the meeting room but which have no restaurant. Mr. Chang explained that other hotels are much larger. He said that this meeting room will have only 400 square feet, with only four or five tables. Ms . Ryan said that the bar will serve guests only, not outsiders. Mr. Chang stressed that liquor will not be served to walk-in customers who have no room key. Chmn. Rue asked about providing liquor and ice in the rooms and questioned whether a guest couldn't just take his drink down to the meeting room. Mr. Chang stated that many businesswomen have visitors whom they do not want to have in their rooms, explaining that it is more preferable to have a drink in the meeting room. Comm. Moore commented on the use of the outdoor garden for parties and receptions and stated that. with or without liquor. there could be a noise problem. He stated that the conditions proposed by staff would seem to severely restrict the use of the outdoor garden area. Mr. Chang said that the liquor will be allowed only in the meeting room and guest rooms, not in the lobby or the Japanese garden. Comm. Moore referred to Condition No. 6: "Use of the outdoor garden area beyond passive purposes (sitting) including the consumption of alcohol shall be prohibited." He noted that that condition would not allow wedding receptions. Mr. Chang stated that he does not intend to have wedding receptions in the outdoor garden area. He said that area will be used for hotel guests for rest purposes. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that the City has attempted to control the number of liquor outlets in certain areas of the City; however, since that is not a problem in this particular area, there is no problem. He stated that he would like to see flexibility for this business, noting that the purpose of a CUP is to impose conditions on 26 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 businesses. He said that this is a novel idea, and one does not often see 80-room hotels. He asked that the owner be allowed to operate his business somewhat differently than usual. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stated that she recently stayed in a similar type hotel in Yuma. She stated that, even though she does not drink, it was quite pleasant to have their meeting in the meeting room, as opposed to taking the others to her private room. She found the arrangement quite pleasant. She felt that there are too many liquor establishments in the City; however, she did not oppose this particular request. so long as conditions are imposed and enforced. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and asked where this issue was noticed, stating that he saw no notice. He noted that this building is not even completed. He said that this project has bothered him from the start. explaining that this type of project in any other city would have required a total review. He noted concern over the height and bulk of this project. He said that when he previously asked about the project, he was told that there would be nothing but rooms at the hotel. To have the applicant now requesting alcohol sales, without having to previously appear before the Commission, caused him a great deal of concern. He said approval of this request would be a disgrace, especially since the Commission has not even reviewed any plans for this project. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, addressed the Commission and stated that this area is in fact heavily impacted by liquor outlet(s), especially P.J. Brett's. He noted concern over the fact that a bar at this hotel could force cars out of the hotel parking lot and onto the street. He said that the hotel has 71 parking spaces, and the minimum required number of spaces for the hotel is 70, leaving one space for the bar. ff this hotel were built in Manhattan Beach, without a bar, 91 parking spaces would be required. He further noted that Torrance would require more parking, and he continued by giving the formula used in that city. He noted concern that people using this bar will be in his area, and he said there are already enough problems without adding to it. He said that he does not oppose drinking; however. he does oppose additional parking problems which could be created by this approval. If this proposal is approved, he suggested that alternative parking plans be addressed. Mr. Chang stated that other much larger chains were very interested in this site, even though it is very small. He said that he is very proud of the project. He said that other hotels informed him that at night or during bad weather, people do not want to leave a hotel to go out for a drink. He said people like to relax in the evening in their hotel. He noted that room at this hotel will start at $ 75 per night. He stressed that there will not be a large kitchen or bar equipment. Liquor will be factory packaged, and the only other items which will be available are glasses and ice. No other services will be provided. Mr. Chang discussed the parking concerns, stating that the plan has been approved. He was told only 65 spaces were needed and the hotel will have 71 parking spaces. He said that, until today, he had received no information that there was a problem with the parking; therefore, he has not prepared any detailed information addressing the parking. Ms. Ryan said that up until tonight, it was Mr. Chang's understanding that the hotel required 65 parking spaces. When the project was originally designed there were 76 spaces; however, several spaces were used for electrical apparatus, leaving a total of 71 spaces which is shown on the plans. She explained that neither Mr. Chang nor his architect had received any information regarding a problem with the number of parking spaces. No hint of a problem was given until this evening; therefore, a parking problem cannot be addressed. Mr. Schubach stated that even though the current code defines this project as a "hotel." his professional judgment deems it to be a "motel." A motel would require one parking space per unit; however, the project meets the parking requirements for a "hotel" with one additional space. A motel requires one space per unit. He did not feeL however, that parking is at issue at this time because the proposal involves service of alcohol only to guests at the hotel, not others coming to the hotel for bar service. Zl P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Mr. Chang showed plans to the Commission and explained how the interior will be decorated. He noted that the comfort of guests is the main objective. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell stated that even though he initially objected to this proposal, he now feels it would be a shame to limit guests at a quality project such as the one being proposed. He wanted to see a quality hotel such as this survive and succeed. Noting that there have been problems with establishments offering liquor in the past, he feels that the conditional use permit is the mechanism by which to control the use. He did not think this service constitutes a "bar." Comm. Ketz did not feel that the alcohol service would create additional traffic or parking problems. She noted that it is not the intent of the applicant to have outsiders coming in to order drinks; the service would merely be a convenience to guests. She did note, however, that the meeting room should be limited to the small size of 480 square feet. Comm. Moore agreed, stating that he is in support of the project. He stated that offering food service to an intoxicated person does not make a person less intoxicated. He felt that the hotel project as designed makes a lot of sense. He noted som.e concern about the outdoor area, but noted that the applicant desires to use that as a rest area. He wanted to ensure that a future owner does not turn this hotel into a "teenage getaway" ; however, he felt that the conditions imposed are sufficient to avoid such a use. Comm. Peirce stated that he would vote against approval, stating that if the applicant desired to have an entertainment room, he should have applied for a permit for that use; however, he did not do that. Also, he felt that the parking is inade-quate. noting that cars will probably overflow onto the street. He said this is no different from someone building a maxed out shoebox condominium, and it will aggravate on-street parking problems. He felt that even though this is called a "hotel," it is a "motel." MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs alternative Resolution, P.C. 89-84, approving a conditional use permit and environmental negative declaration to allow serving of general alcoholic beverages at 2515 Pacific Coast Highway, "Hermosa Beach Hotel." Chmn. Rue asked whether there is employee-allocated parking at this project. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative , explaining that the code makes a distinction between "hotels" and "motels." He continued by discussing the requirements for hotels versus motels, but noted that the code makes no distinction between guest parking and employee parking. Chmn. Rue asked whether a condition can be imposed requiring on-site employee parking in order to preclude employees from parking on the street. Comm. Moore did not think such a condition could be enforced. Comm. Peirce agreed, stating that most guests will arrive by car and will want to park in the lot. Mr. Chang stated that many guests arrive without cars; and since there is no restaurant, additional parking is not necessary. Comm. Moore noted that parking does seem to be inadequate; however, adding a condition to require employees to park on site would not solve the problem. Chmn. Rue said that the applicant can encourage his employees to either park on site or to carpool. 28 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Rue, accepted by Cormns. Ingell and Ketz, as maker and second, to add a condition requiring that employees must park on site. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Rue Comm. Peirce None None Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE DEALERSHIP AND THE PARKING ARRANGEMENT AT 840 PACIFIC COAST WGHWAY. CASEY'S USED CARS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 27, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this amendment to the conditional use pennit, subject to the conditions in the proposed resolution , and to approve repealing parking plan 87 -2. On January 6, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use pennit, Resolution 87-2, for new and used automobile sales. On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a parking plan and a conditional use pennit amendment, Resolutions P.C. 87-30 and P.C. 87-32, to provide 15 off-site parking spaces for Casey's new and used car sales dealership. Casey's Isuzu has a history of violation of its conditional use pennits. City staff identified the violations in a field check and sent several notices to the business owner. In proceeding with the code enforcement procedure on August 15, 1989, the staff gave a citation to the business manager. Tilis project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 9600 square feet. Ten parking spaces are provided. The current use is used car auto sales. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is a rectangular-shaped parcel of 0.22 acres , with a slope from west up to the east, surrounded by a commercial retail store to the north, Pacific Coast Highway to the west, 8th Street to the south, and a residential single-family dwelling to the east. The property is accessed by 8th Street and contains a two-story office building and a prefabricated building with four service bays. The applicant is requesting to modify the current conditional use permit as a result of the business size reduction, in which "Not Part of Lease" area shown on the site plan was leased to a different business. This property transfer reduced Casey's car dealer lot area down to 9600 square feet. Since new car services are abandoned too. the volume of business activities is decreased, and the business activities have been limited to only used car sales. With this modification, the applicant is able to meet Hermosa Beach parking requirements on­ site, which makes the parking plan unnecessary. Parking requirements for automobile sales in Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, Section 1152(B) is one parking space for each 1000 square feet of the site area. The subject property has 9600 square feet and therefore requires ten parking spaces. The applicant is providing ten parking spaces; seven are located in the southeast portion of the property, and three are in the service bays. The fourth space in the service bay will be used for detailing. 29 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 It should be noted that the applicant uses a metal lifter that raises cars two to three feet. In several site inspections, staff noticed that the lifter had been placed in different areas. Staff believes that the applicant should designate a specific area on the site, not within any setback, and show it on the proposed site plan. Also, the maximum height should not exceed three feet, or possibly such lifts should be prohibited altogether. Furthermore, staff believes that since all the lot area is paved and the slope inside the property runs the nm-off water to the sidewalk and Pacific Coast Highway, there should be some curbing and landscaping along the west perimeter of the property. In site inspections by staff, it has been noticed that the parking spaces for the most part have been properly striped with appropriate signs. Staff has no objection to the use of the property as a used car dealership since it provides adequate parking spaces for employees and customers, and the building appearance is relatively pleasant. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he designed the original building on this site. and he helped them put together the Isuzu site. He explained that there have been problems in the past; however, the person who was operating the business at the time the violations were occurring is no longer there. Mr. Compton noted that the business has been consolidated into one single lot, and the parking arrangement is laid out based on the use pattern which has developed there. He said that the smped spaces are being used as they should be. He has informed the management that they are complying with the requirements of the CUP, and he feels that the applicant is making every effort to comply. Mr. Compton questioned an item contained in the staff report regarding the requirement for a landscaped area at the front of the site and he doubted whether landscaping would solve the drainage problem. He said that expensive, curb drain lines would be necessary; however , plants would not be able to survive there. Mr. Compton said that this business has been op erating for many years; however, they had no problems until they moved to this particular site. Mr. Compton discussed the condition related to car lifts, Condition No. 10. He said that the applicant does not have a problem with that condition; however, Mr. Compton asked why the car lift shall not exceed three feet in height and a maximum of one shall be allowed. He said that car lifts will be used much more in the future. He felt that this blanket requirement is not appropriate, and he continued by discussing the lifts in relation to setbacks. Mr. Compton commented on Condition No. 12 which states that there shall be no storage of trucks, tractors, trailers, and RVs in the parking and car display areas or any other location on the premises. He said that this is a car dealership , and there might come a time when they want to display a truck for sale on the lot. Chmn. Rue noted that the wording in the condition refers to "storage" not "sales." Mr. Compton stated that his only concern is with Condition No. 5 and the landscaping requirement. He felt that if they are required to comply with this condition, others should also be required to comply. Instead of providing a minimum three-foot wide landscaped area with a six-inch raised planter, the applicant stated that he could use a mist watering system so that water would not flow onto the sidewalk. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. 3) P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 Comm. Ingell stated that he feels outdoor testing of car alarm systems should be prohibited at this business, as well as at other auto dealers in the City. He said that such testing creates a noise problem, and the testing should be done indoors. He noted concern for the surrounding residents, and did not feel that this ludicrous testing should be taking place outdoors. He said that there are other methods by which to test alarms. Comm. Moore stated that an effective solution could be a muffling system. Comm. Peirce stated that indoor alarm testing would prove quite effective in reducing the noise. Comm. Ingell urged that noise violations related to auto alarm testing should be strictly enforced and citations should be issued when appropriate. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-89, with the following amendments: Condition No. 5 shall be amended to state: "Landscaping, to be approved by the PJaooiog Director, shall be provided along Pacific Coast Highway frontage .... "; A Condition No. 6(b) shall be added requiring that a map shall be provided to people testing driving so that they are advised of the appropriate route to use; Condition No. 14 shall be amended to state: "Examining car alarm systems shall be done indoors inside service bays and .... "; A Condition No. 27 shall be added requiring that all employees must read and sign a copy of the conditional use pennit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD GYMNASIUM /HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER TO C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 27, 1989. Staff recommended that the zoning ordinance text be amended to include Gymnasiums and Health and Fitness Centers, as permitted in the C-2 zone with a conditional use pennit, and that a standard of one parking space per 50 square feet of floor area used for exercise, fitness, or dance classes and one space per 100 square feet of.floor area not used for classes be established. At their meeting of September 19, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the text amendment with a parking standard of one space per 50 square feet of total floor area. The City Council, at their meeting of October 24, 1989, expressed concern that the proposed parking requirement was too restrictive, and directed staff to reconsider the parking requireme n t and t o re schedule this item for the Planning Commission. The City Council b elieved that one space per 100 square feet of floor area would be more appropriate . Staffs original recommendation of one parking space per 50 square feet of floor area was based on comparisons of surrounding city's parking requirements and was chosen to cover the worst­ case scenario of a gymnasium or health and fitness club which offers exercise classes. This type of use obviously generates a very high level of parking demand, and the parking standard would be consistent with that required for a "public assembly" use. When making its original recommendation, staff recognized that other types of gymnasiums, athletic clubs, or health clubs might not require such a high level of parking demand, but felt that the parking plan provisions would be the best way to deal with a proposal for less parking. 31 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 With the parking plan, the Planning Commission would have the ability to consider proposals on a case-by-case basis and to establish conditions appropriate for that particular case. A parking standard of one space per 100 square feet for areas not used for exercise classes is perhaps more realistic and would make it clear that the City's parking policy toward traditional gymnasiums is less restrictive than its parking policy toward health clubs which include large exercise classes. Also, the opportunity to provide less parking would still be available through the parking plan process. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the issue of monitoring what the actual uses would be in relation to the amount of parking which would be required. It was noted that it would be difficult to monitor the actual use at a given time; however, if there are problems, additional conditions can be required. Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission: (1) said that aerobic customers would be the least likely to drive to an establishment, stating that they would probably walk in; (2) said that weight lifters are more likely to drive in. Comm. Peirce disagreed and stated that he has noticed at another site, ahnost all of the Jazzercizers leave their classes and go right to their cars. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission: (1) stated that a ten-by-ten space is too small to allow weight lifting; (2) said that the proposed use is not only weight lifting, but also one-on-one body building; (3) said that there is a difference between this and a regular-type gymnasium; (4) stated that the applicant is constantly being discouraged when he is merely trying to upgrade his business and stay in the City: (5) said that the City should not run businesses out of town, but rather should try to accommodate businesses; (6) n0ted that 100 square feet is not very large; (7) asked that the City be somewhat lenient in this case; (8) stated that the applicant's clientele is very high-type; (9) stated that there should be validated parking downtown so that the businesses stay; (10) said there is not much incentive to go downtown where it's all liquor stores and T-shirt shops. Tom Morley asked whether this is a text amendment or a specific project being requested. Chmn. Rue stated that it is a text amendment. Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-90. Comm. Ingell noted that this issue has been discussed at length during past meetings. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that if a parking plan is provided, an applicant would not need to have the required parking on site under certain circumstances for this proposed use. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 32 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 STAFF ITEMS a) PJaooing Department Activity Rellort for October 1989 Tom Morley addressed the Commission and stated that an EIR hearing for the oil drilling project was held in early November. He felt that reference to the reports prepared should be included in the Planning Department Activity Report. He felt that the reports should be acknowledged in a public forum. He continued by stating that upcoming issues for the Commission should be included in a public report. b) Memorandum Regamiog Planning Commission Liaison for December 12. 1989. City Council Meeting Comm. Peirce stated that he would attend as liaison. c) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. d) City Council Minutes of November 14. 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Peirce noted that several months ago he had asked several questions of the Building Department, and he has received no response. He noted that he is a very interested citizen, and City responses to requests should be done in a timely manner. He suggested that a letter be sent to the City Manager requesting information on the City's position regarding alleged code violations. He stressed the importance of the Planning Commissioners, as well as citizens, being able to obtain information from the City in a reasonable amount of time. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to direct the Planning Director to send a letter to the City Manager requesting information on the City policy for responding to questions from all commissions as well as citizens. A copy of the letter shall also be forwarded to the City Council. No objections: so ordered. Comm. Moore discussed resolutions, stating that the review of resolutions is to ensure that they have been prepared correctly by staff, and he noted concern that the Commission is edging close to changing the resolutions as to meaning. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 1:00 AM. No objections; so ordered. 33 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89 .. ~ ( .__, 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 December 5, 1989. #f4qo Date 34 P.C. Minutes 12/5/89