Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10.17.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce Comm. Moore, Chmn. Rue Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (Comm. Ingell acted as Chairman of the meeting.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the minutes of October 3, 1989, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to appro~e Resolution P.C. 89-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES AT 2455 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS "INTERNATIONAL LIQUOR" AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, MONTMARIE TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce None Comm. Ketz Comms. Moore, Rue MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL BE VERA GE SALES AT 240 PIER A VENUE, "ABE'S LIQUOR," AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 20, BLOCK 48, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-72, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA 1 P .C. Minutes 10/ 17 /89 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121471 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1101 VALLEY DRIVE DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 58 FEET OF LOTS 21 AND 22, KNUTSEN TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-73, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEA TING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BAKERY AT 517 PIER AVENUE, "PEPPERMINT CAFE AND BAKERY," AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, so ordered. MOTION Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-75, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL AWNING TO AN EXISTING CAR WASH/GAS STATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 60, 61, 102, AND 108, BLOCK 5650. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ketz, so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE 1FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 612 10TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1989. He recommended that the Planning Commission deny this amendment. The Planning Commission at their meeting of June 20, 1989, approved a two-unit condominium on the subject property. The plans provided a ten-foot setback, although a small part of the structure (a stairway window prot rusion) e xtended to eight feet and the project was conditioned to a minimum eight-foot setback. The average setback along this portion of 10th Street is 14 feet; the older homes were built to a standard setback of 14 feet. Prior to the change in the zoning ordinance which standardized the setbacks in the R-2 zone to five feet, this street was identified on the map as having a minimum front setback requirement of ten feet. Although the proposed setback for this project was less than the average for the street, staff and the Planning Commission felt it was acceptable since the project immediately to the east (620 10th Street) was required to provide a ten-foot front yard, and the project across the street (625 10th Street) was approved with a seven-foot front yard. The applicant proposes to shift the building forward which results in a front setback of five feet for the stairway window, and six feet for the remainder of the structure. This would clearly not be consistent with the character of the street, and it would potentially interfere with a view corridor. 2 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 The reason for the applicant's request is because the property to the rear has an existing fence which encroaches into a portion of the subject property. Apparently the property owner to the rear is holding up this project by claiming a right of ownership for the portion inside his fence. The applicant is looking for a quick solution that does not involve a significant revision to the plans. In staff's judgment, the solution to this problem should not be to change the front setback. The applicant should pursue other alternatives such as reducing the length of the buildings or by resolving the property claim with the rear property owner. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. By Comm. Ingell. Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Roscrans Avenue, Hawthorne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She explained the problem, stating that the application was initially approved in June. Unknown to the applicant, the property owner to the rear was claiming there was an encroachment caused by a fence on the subject property. When this matter came to the applicant's attention, the property owner met with the other property owner in order to discuss the problem. She continued by stating that the problem also extends to the property adjacent immediately to the east. She continued by saying that in this applicant's case, the encroachment involves only the fence. Ms. Vargo stated that the project has been delayed because of this encroachment. She stated that it would be necessary for the property owner to buy back his own property in order to alleviate the encroachment. She said it would be unfair to the owner to pay ransom for property he already owns. She stated that the applicant does not have time to take this issue to court. Ms. Vargo stated that a solution to this problem is to move. the .rear property line from the initially proposed five feet to four feet which will then accommodate the fire department requirement for access to the rear of the building. This will then allow the fence to remain. Ms. Vargo stated that a minor adjustment has been made to the length of the building; however, it was minor and involved only two feet. She continued by discussing the plans, stating that the front yard setback is not consistently five feet. She said that the six­ foot setback is for the semi-subterranean basement level on the first floor; the second floor setback is 15 feet to the front of the building, but there is a deck which goes to the five-foot setback. In making revisions to the plans, the applicant relied on the staff report which indicated that the applicant to the east was providing only a five-foot setback, and also on the fact that the report stated only a five-foot setback was required in the R-2B zone. Plans were therefore revised with the five-foot setback. Ms. Vargo discussed the potential view blockage, and said that that issue does not hold much weight, noting that there is a condo project next door under construction with a ten-foot setback, and whether there is a five-foot or ten-foot setback would not make that much difference in the view potential. Also, the proposed five-foot setback would not impact the other side of the street. She stated that projects should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. She noted that the setback approval is discretionary, and this request should be addressed in relation to what is occurring in the neighborhood. She noted that this area is in transition and there will probably be other developments in the surrounding area. She said the line must be drawn somewhere as to what people are required to provide in the way of setbacks. 3 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Ms. Vargo asked for approval of the modification to the previously approved conditional use permit. Public Hearing closed at 7:14 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that, even though he is sympathetic to the applicant's problem, he could not favor redesigning the project so that there is less than a ten-foot setback. Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that ten-foot setbacks have been required for other projects in this area. Comm. Ingell concurred that a ten-foot setback is appropriate for this project. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the amendment, Resolution P.C. 89-81. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue Comm. Ingell stated that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1/21493 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 840 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 10, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The subject property is a level, rectangular-shaped parcel of 0.13 acres located on the south side of 15th Street, approximately 220 feet east of Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, it contains a single-family home. The project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 5670 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. There is 337 square feet of open space provided per unit. The current use is as a single­ family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit attached condominium. Each of the units contains 3066 square feet in area and includes three bedrooms, three decks, three bathrooms, and one exercise room in the garage level which could be converted to a bedroom; however, there are no exterior doors except through the garage. The project has two stories above a subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations will exhibit exterior treatments that consist of clay mission tile roofing, plaster, cloth awnings, and aluminum frame windows. These materials and features give the building a pleasant Mediterranean-style appearance, although the design of the building seems to be bulky from the east and west sides. The minimum front yard setback requirement for condominium projects is five feet. Two projects that have recently been approved on 15th Street, across the street from this 4 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 project, were required to provide 19-foot setbacks. Although the applicant is proposing an 18-foot setback, staff believes that the applicant must provide a 19-foot setback to be consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood. The average setback along 15th Street is 16 feet, three inches, based upon the setback study. The number of parking spaces proposed on the plan meets the minimum parking standards. Four parking spaces would be provided in the enclosed garages, and one guest parking space will be provided in the sideyard. The proposed project shows 28 feet for turning area and 16 feet for garage opening to meet the parking requirement standards. No on-street parking spaces will be lost as a result of this project. Lot coverage calculates to be approximately 54.8 percent, which is below the maximum allowed of 65 percent. Private open space for each unit is provided on the first floor, second floor, and roof decks and exceeds the 300 square feet required for each unit. Storage areas are 416 cubic feet per unit, which is twice the required amount of 200 cubic feet per unit. The building height in the R-2B zone may not exceed 30 feet. Although the elevation exhibit shows a 30-foot height limit line, there is no dimension for the finished floor, and it is difficult to determine the actual height of the building from finished floor. The proposed project is in compliance with all the zoning requirements; although, the actual building height is undetermined and will need additional scrutinizing at the structural plan check phase conducted by the Building Department. Mr. Schubach added that the setback of 18 feet is only one foot short of the staff­ recommended 19-foot setback. He said that this project has a rear setback of six feet, but only five feet is necessary; therefore, the project could he pushed back one foot in order to provide a 19-foot front setback. Comm. Peirce noted that the staff report asserts this to be a "level" lot. He noted, however, that the lot actually slopes somewhat. Public Hearing opened at 7:20 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Bill Cameron, project designer, addressed the Commission. He stated that he originally proposed a ten-foot front setback and ten-foot rear setback for the sake of privacy; however, staff vehemently opposed such a plan. In designing projects, he likes to use shadow as well as depth. He continued by discussing the plans, stating that he feels it is important to maintain the depth in front. He discussed the setbacks as depicted on the plans. Mr. Cameron stated that the 19-foot front setback can be provided; however, he would prefer to keep the relief in the elevation in the window, if possible. He stated that he does not max out his projects. This project exceeds the code requirements for setbacks all around, and the project is ten percent under allowed lot coverage. He attempts to move the building elevations to make projects as nice as possible. Mr. Cameron explained how he calculates height on projects. He stated that on this project, he would like to keep it as high as possible so that water can drain the property naturally, rather than having to pump it out. Mr. Cameron, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that there is a shower proposed for the exercise area. He noted, however, that no closet is being 5 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 proposed for that area. He stated that there are many requests for utility-type rooms and exercise rooms. This area is called an exercise room on the plans; however, it could be used for many different purposes. Comm. Peirce noted concern that this room could be turned into a bootleg unit if there are plumbing fixtures. He stated that it has been his policy to vote against such projects. Other than that, he felt that this project is fine. He noted, however, that it is too difficult to monitor bootleg units. Mr. Cameron stated that he has designed many similar projects which were single-family homes and which therefore did not come before the Commission for review. He did not feel it would be fair to be penalized because enforcement is a problem in the City. Comm. Peirce noted that, even though this owner may comply, future owners could turn such an area into a bootleg unit. Mr. Cameron stated that he submitted a drawing to staff; however, the Commissioners did not receive a copy. Public Hearing closed at 7:26 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that an 18-foot setback (versus a 19-foot setback) is acceptable to him because there is a projection on one side of the property and it is stepped. He noted, however, that he will vote against the project if the shower remains in the exercise room on the ground floor. Comm. Ingell noted, though, that there is no entrance to that area. Comm. Peirce stressed that it is too easy to modify such areas and convert them to bootleg units. Public Hearing reopened at 7:27 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Don Karasevicz, owner of the property, stated that the proposal is for a room on the ground floor which is to include a shower. He did not feel that the room would be turned into a bootleg unit because this is a very expensive unit. He felt that the small amount of income which would be received from a bootleg would not be enough to contribute towards a mortgage of several thousand dollars per month. He felt that with the present property values, people would not turn it into a bootleg. He also said that exercise rooms are very popular, and showers are a convenience. Public Hearing closed at 7:28 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Comm. Ketz could see no problem with allowing an 18-foot setback. She liked the front elevation, especially since it is not just one solid wall. The project does not give a tremendous feeling of bulk because the front elevation is varied. She did not feel the one foot less of setback would be problem in this case. Comm. Ingell agreed that he has no opposition to the 18-foot setback. He discussed the concern over a bootleg unit, but he did not see how there could be a separate entrance for the exercise room. He noted that it would be very difficult to provide an entrance because of the slope of the lot. 6 P.C. Minutes 10/ 17 /89 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-78, with two modifications: Condition 12(a) shall be modified to read: ''The front setback shall be a minimum of 18 feet"; and a Condition No. 16 shall be added stating that no bathroom shall be allowed on the bottom floor of either unit. Comm. Peirce stated that allowing a bathroom would be too much of a temptation for future owners. He also noted the difficulty in enforcing bootleg unit regulations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue Comm. lngell stated that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. PARKING PLAN FOR SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO AT 1310-1314 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 12, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the parking plan for shared parking, 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 use is presently vacant. The lot area is 13,565 square feet and has a total floor area of 9310 square feet. The floor area of the proposed martial arts studio is 2900 square feet. There are 24 parking spaces. The env:ifflE1rr,1ental determination is· categorically exempt. The subject property is a 13,565 square-foot parcel with 150 feet of frontage on Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed business is a martial arts studio which would occupy the 2900 square foot building located on the front of the site. The proposed business, Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, according to the description of the applicant, would be part office, part retail (mail order), and would include training and instruction. The applicant also indicates that the training/instruction is private lessons during the daytime with some group classes in the evening. The applicant has indicated over the phone that the group classes would be for no more than 15 people. The office/retail building currently is legally nonconforming to parking. The number of required spaces for a 9310 square-foot building under current parking requirements would be 38, while only 24 are available. This is probably the reason the owner has had difficulty finding tenants. Most of the building has been vacant for the past two years. Any standard office or retail use would be acceptable as a continuation of the legal nonconforming status, but the proposal for a martial arts studio is a higher intensity use; in this case, meaning a higher parking demand, and, therefore, required parking must be provided or a parking plan approved. Currently, there is no standard parking requirement for a martial arts studio. Using the Planning Commission recommended ratio for a health and fitness center of one space per 50 square feet, the proposed use of 2900 square feet would result in a requirement of 58 spaces for the proposed use. 7 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Therefore, in order to approve a parking plan, the Planning Commission first needs to make the finding that parking can be shared between this use and other uses on the site, based on different focus of operation times between this use and a standard office/retail use, and second, that the maximum available 24 parking spaces can support this use during peak parking times because of unique features of the proposed use. In staff's judgment, the first finding can easily be made since the applicant has indicated that daytime use would be for one-on-one training only and that evening group classes would begin at 7:00 P.M. However, the second finding is more difficult. Because of the square footage of the building, the business could easily expand into a larger operation exceeding 24 students. Also, without knowing who the adjacent tenants will be, the City cannot be certain that all 24 spaces or what percentage of them will be available even after 7:00 P.M. Nonetheless, staff believes that if the classes are limited to 15 students by a condition of the parking plan, adequate parking would ordinarily be available. Also, this type of use is unique and can be distinguished from a health club or fitness center, which have activities available at all times of the day and which do not conduct training in the same manner. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. lngell, stated that the upstairs is used as office space at this time. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, explained that this project was built when the requirements were one parking space per 300 square feet; current requirements are one space per each 250 square feet. Also, when the building was remodeled, they were not required to provide additional parking. This building actually provides approximately one space per each 500 square feet. Comm. Peirce stated that he would like more information on what the daytime use will be. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Surapol Kundaew, 6253 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 207, Hollywood, applicant addressed the Commission. He stated that the office building actually has 3500 square feet. Mr. Kundaew said that the upper level on the southeast corner, 2900 square feet, is the retail store as depicted on the plans. The area below, 2900 square feet, is the same. A tenant has been in the office space for approximately a year and a half. That business hours are 8:30 A.M. until 5:30 P.M. There are three employees. Mr. Schubach stated that there will be a maximum of one student and one teacher during the daytime hours, noting that there is a condition to this effect. Mr. Kundaew stated that he will follow all rules. During the day, there will be only one teacher and one student at any given time. After 7:00 P.M. there will be a maximum of 15 students; however, the actual number will probably be between five and ten students. Mr. Kundaew stated that there will be only one teacher during the day. There will also be one secretary to answer the phones. He noted that this building has been empty for more than two years. He said that he bought this building from a relative who left the country, and it has been impossible for him to rent out this space because it is difficult to ingress and egress this property. 8 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that this building has been vacant for a long time. She noted, however, that to call this building a "remodel" is a misnomer, because the building was actually rebuilt using only a small portion of the previous structure. She stated that this is a nice-looking building and she agreed that the building needs to be rented. Public Hearing closed at 7:43 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that he could support this request so long as the applicant complies with the requirements. He agreed that this building is not a "remodel," and he stated that that loophole should be closed in the code. Comm. Ketz stated that this will be a good use of the property, since it will encourage very little traffic during the day and there will be a limited amount in the evening. Comm. Ingell felt that the daytime provisions seem to be far too restrictive; however, if the applicant agrees, he would also agree. He commented on the evening schedule and asked whether the applicant would agree to have a fifteen-minute break between classes so that the cars would have time to leave and new cars could arrive and park. Mr. Kundaew had no opposition to having a break between classes. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-77, with the addition of a condition requiring that there be a fifteen-minute break between classes in the evening. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL PARTS STORAGE FOR VASEK POLAK BMW AND SUBARU DEALERSHIPS AT 2851 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY VARIANCE FOR CAR STACKERS TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY t VASEK POLAK BMW DEALERSHIP CONSIDERATION OF THE REVOCATION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VASEK POLAK BMW DEALERSHIP AT 2901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He stated that these three hearings are all related to the same property and could be addressed together. He stated that earlier in the day he had met with the new architect on this project who was hired by the applicant to actually revise the plans. After the meeting, staff found that there is a possibility that this project could be designed so that a variance is not necessary for the car stackers along the westerly property line. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would like the applicant to submit more detailed plans; therefore, it would be desirable to continue this hearing so that staff would have an opportunity to study the revised plans. 9 P .C. Minutes 10/ 17 /89 Mr. Schubach stated that there has been concern over the auto parts shop not being part of either the BMW or Subaru dealerships. The applicant, therefore, would like to have two separate CUPs as opposed to one master conditional use permit. He noted, however, that this issue needs to be addressed further. Mr. Schubach recommended that this matter be continued, and the applicant concurred that it be continued. He stated that the issue should be continued to a date certain, but he cautioned that the agenda for the next meeting is quite full. Public Hearing opened at 7:48 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission: (1) he mentioned that he has not had a lot of time to study this issue, but has been discussing the matter with the applicant; (2) he said that most of the problems appear to have solved by Mr. Polak; (3) he discussed the CUP modification and stated that there is a question as to whether or not a variance is actually needed for the retail parts supply house; (4) he gave background information as to how this matter arose; (5) he stated that implica tions have arisen in regard to the parts storage, and the issue needs to be evaluat ed further by the applicant and his advisors; (6) he said there is a misunderstanding of a "warehouse use", and this parts area is not specifically going to be used for warehousing; (7) he stated that a continuance is necessary in order to resolve these questions which have arisen. Mr. Compton continued: (1) he stated that the plans for the master CUP also present problems, because the plans are not very specific; (2) he discussed the car stackers, and stated that issues arise in relation to the setbacks and what constitutes a structure for a car stackin g arrangement; (3) he continued by discussing car stackers and how cars would be placed; (4) he said more cars can park in a car stacker t han ot her configurations; (5) he discussed the request that the stackers be moved from the used car lot, and he noted that they were placed there at the request of the City Manager, but he will have to study that matter in more depth to get additional information; (6) he stated that there is an issue of timing because the stackers were put in before the current setback requirements were imposed, but if there is a problem with the ne ighbor s, the stackers will be relocated; (7) he discussed the eight-foot setback and the previo us zoning standards, and he explained that the stackers were put there before the current requirements. Mr. Compton went on: (1) he stated that all of the issues need to be carefully addressed by both staff and the applicant; (2) he hoped that the current stackers could either be modified or, if a variance is required, the applicant will return with a specific request; (3) he described the location of the stackers in relation to the neighbors; (4) he said that the ne ighbors will not be able to see either the stackers or the cars; (5) he discussed the revocation of the existing CUP for the BMW dealership and stated that the applicant appears to have solved the previous problems, and the applicant has worked with the neighbors to solve the problems; (6) he explained the current conditional use permits and stated that there are currently three CUPs existing, but it now appears that both BMW dealerships could have one combined CUP; (7) he noted that these businesses are on a heavily traveled commercial corridor and there are bound to be problems; (8) he suggested that neighbors contact either the applicant or the general manager if there are problems which need to be addressed. Arlene Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place: (1) noted concern that neighbors seem to be left out of the planning process; and (2) asked that neighbors be included in the planning and stipulations which are set forth. 10 P.C. Minutes 10/17 /89 Ruth Sullivan, 2954 La Carlita Place: (1) noted confusion over some of the issues concerning the stackers and the number of proposed parking spaces; (2) discussed Condition No. 13 and asked for clarification on the hours of operation for auto repair and stated that 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M. on weekdays seems excessive; (3) noted concern over the noise factor if repairs are allowed five nights a week; (4) discussed the wall and landscaping and asked for clarification on the proposed landscaping. Comm. Peirce asked about the hours for auto repair and agreed that the proposed hours do seem excessive. He suggested that the applicant address that issue. Larry Bryant , 2960 La Carlita Place: (1) agr eed with Resol ution 89-80, statin g that t he eight-foot se tback should be required; (2) noted concern ove r the 20-foot fire lane bei ng maintained ; (3) discussed Condition No . 20 an d t he retaining wall which was or iginally to be along the property line, and he explained that there is now erosion on the property and there are no provisions relating to this issue; (4) stated that any landscaping plan should take into consideration the issue of erosion. Mike Pitton , chairman of the 30th Street neighbors group: (1) stated that the neighbors do not have a vendetta against Vasek Polak's business; (2) stated that the neighbors have not been demanding a revocation hearing, rather they have asked that the existing CUP be enforced; (3) asked only that the applicable laws be adhered to; (4) noted concern that the CUP and developme nt agreement are still not being acted upon after almost 20 years; (5) noted concern that no one seems to know what to do about these issues; (6) reiterated what has been proposed for the Commission to adopt and read from the actual proposal; (7) stated that the proposal is not clear and specific; (8) noted concern that the plans have not yet been revised; (9) suggested that the staff study this issue so that the matter can finally be resolved. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) noted concern that staff does not get its work done or accomplish much; (2) felt there is no excuse for the wall to extend beyond the property line, and noted that the telephone pole must be accessible; (3) no ted that the ne ighbors have complained many times, but nothing has been done to solve t he probl ems; (4 ) noted concern over time and money being waster in the City. Mr. Compton rebutted: (l) stated that they would be happy to obtain as much input as possible from the neighbors and citizens group; (2) stated that a landscaping sprinkler system will be installed and erosion will be taken into account; (3) in regard to erosion control, he stated that a drain has been provided to one of the ne ighbors so that water can drain properly; (4) stated that erosion can many times be pre vented if appropriate steps are taken; (5) stated that the neighbors must talk to the business to work out the problems, and the CUP is designed to take care of many of the problems; (6) said that the telephone pole is not on public property, but rather on property which was vacated to Mr. Polak, and the telephone pole is on an easement. Mr. Lee clarified that each of these three noticed issues should be considered as independent public hearings, even though they all relate to the same property. He stated that the issue of the revocation can be addressed at this time if so desired by the Commission. He continued by discussing other options which could be taken at this time. Mr. Schubach discussed Condition No. 13 and the hours of operation for auto repair. He said that a development agreement was signed by the City and Mr. Polak several years ago. This condition was included as a part of that development agreement, which actually supercedes the conditional use permit. He noted that it would be necessary to obtain an agreement with Mr. Polak if the City desires to have conditions which are 11 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 different from those specified in the development agreement with the City. He stated, however, that the applicant does not have hours of auto repair until 9:00 P .M. even though the hours are in the agreement. Mr. Schubach clarified the issue of the revocation, and he explained that the applicant is under no obligation to provide any plans in relation to that issue. He stated that the plans are only in conjunction with the issue of the requested amendment. Mr. Schubach concluded by recommending that this matter be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1989. Comm. Peirce clarified for the benefit of the audience the issue of the development agreement. He stated that the Planning Commission made recommendations; however, the document was extensively modified by the City Council. He said that the Commission never recommended that auto repairs be allowed until 9:00 P .M. Comm. Peirce questioned whether the development agreement is actually even within the purview of the Planning Commission. He asked who enforces the development agreement provisions. Bill Grove, Director of Building and Safety addressed the Commission and explained that, while review of the agreement is within the Planning Commission jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is by court action. He said that it differs from a conditional use permit in that CUPs can be enforced by the City; whereas, development agreement enforcement must be done by order of a court. Comm. Peirce asked, hypothetically, how revocation of a development agreement could be accomplished. Mr. Lee explained the legal procedures for such an action, stating that development agreements are quite complex. He noted, however, that cities must act in good faith and cannot take action which substantially differs from the intent of the development agreement. He noted, though, that changes can be made to the development agreement, if warranted and if agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Lee, in response to a question by Comm. Ingell, explained that a development agreement takes precedence over any conditional use permits which have been previously issued. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this hearing (all three matters) to the meeting of November 21, 1989. Comm. Ingell did not feel a revocation hearing would be appropriate at a time when an attempt is being made to solve the problems. He urged the neighbors to contact the general manager in an attempt to reach an agreement to solve any problems associated with these businesses. Comm. Peirce noted that progress seems to have been made between the neighbors and the applicant. He felt that a well-drawn plan of the use would be helpful for future enforcement and for future commissions. 12 P .C. Minutes 10/ 17 /89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1989. Staff recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted to amend the definition of height and the measurement method to the "averaging" method. At the February 21, 1989, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a revised text amendment using the current height measurement method rather than the proposed "averaging" method to make the definition of height more precise and the procedure more clear. Staff continues to recommend the averaging method, however, because of its clear advantage in minimizing view blockage and in simplicity of measurement. Staff requested the Planning Commission to consider its analysis which responds to the Commissioners' concerns about the averaging method. Staff recognized that the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council to focus efforts on refining the current method. However, prior to taking on that effort, the averaging method will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. At the February meeting, the Planning Commission had strong reservations about changing the height measurement method to Manhattan Beach's averaging method. Although the Planning Commission seemed to agree that view blockage would be reduced by a new method, there was concern that using the averaging method would encourage more bulky buildings, flatter roofs, and less diversity of architectural design. Other concerns noted during public testimony included that the averaging method does not work well on steeper slopes. Staff prepared additional diagrams showing the building envelopes under each method assuming different slopes to address the issues of bulkiness, flat roofs, and diversity, and to show the importance of the rule limiting height to 20 percent above the height limit. As one can see, because of the 20 percent rule, the averaging method would not necessarily result in flatter roofs, and on the steeper lots could result in multi-level roofs. Also, while the apparent bulkiness of structures may be greater on the upside of a street, with up to a 20 percent higher building face, the lower side of the street would have a much less bulky appearance, and in the steeper areas the reduction of bulk from the street could be as much as 100 percent. On the balance, the averaging method could actually reduce the overall appearance of bulk and would encourage diversity in the bulk from the upside and the downside of a street. Staff also included diagrams addressing different slopes affecting standard sideways sloping lots. The clear advantage to the averaging method would be to lessen view blockage in areas of steeper slopes. Also, staff felt that contrary to making buildings bulkier and less diverse, it would encourage more diversity in how the bulk is placed on the lot, increasing the diversity along a series of lots or along a street. Also, it is doubtful that the 13 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 proposed method would make roof designs any flatter than they are under the current method. The current propensity for flat roofs, whether flat across the whole lot or stepped, is due primarily to high land costs forcing builders and lot owners to maximize square footage and thereby pushing buildings to the edge of the envelope, and also to currently favored architectural styles. In order to address the issue of flat roofs, if it is perceived to be a serious problem, staff believes that could be addressed in the review of designs prior to approving a conditional use permit for condominiums or by establishing a design review procedure. The proposed ordinance, as stated in the study submitted to the Planning Commission in November, is similar to the method that is used in Manhattan Beach with success and which was used in Hermosa Beach until 1973. Although the method to determine the height limit under the averaging method seems complicated, it is the only calculation necessary and its result is a fixed vertical elevation that can be easily measured and checked in the field both during and after construction. The difficulty with the current method is that the top elevation varies across the horizontal plane (the height limit being a function of horizontal location), meaning that the height has to be measured at several locations to verify compliance. The Building Director has indicated that the current method is difficult to apply, particularly to buildings with multi-level roofs. The measurement becomes extremely difficult to verify when the project includes significant regrading of the slope. It is becoming even more of a problem since most new projects are built precisely to maximum height levels. Staff has modified the proposed method regarding the rule limiting height to a maximum of 20 percent above the height limit for any point on the 101.. The modified proposal establishes a fixed limit at 20 percent above the height limit measured from the low corner point for the first one fourth of the building nearer the low point. This modification was worked out with the Building Director to address a problem with the previous language which limited the height to 20 percent above the height limit from finished grade at any point on the lot. This would have created the same difficulties and problems with measurement for situations on some steeper lots as we currently have with all situations. In addition, an amendment to Section 1201 which allows roof mounted equipment to exceed the height limit is also being recommended. Currently the ordinance does not state standards as to the maximum height or size of structures which exceed the height limit. It also allows for structures such as parapet walls which need not exceed the height limit since there are alternative methods and/or locations for such structures. The elimination of Section 1200 which allows exceptions to the height requirement on through lots is also being recommended. This section applying to through lots states " ... the height of a building on such a lot may be measured from the sidewalk level of the street on which the building fronts ... " making it possible for a through lot which fronts on a higher street to have a different height standard. Staff does not believe that through lots should be treated differently for the height calculation under the current proposed methods. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that many lots along both sides of Loma Drive would be involved, approximately 50 to 75. He continued by stating that in some cases this method cannot be used on the very steep lots. 14 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Comm. Ingell asked whether a clause could be added to provide for variances in the cases involving very steep lots. Mr. Schubach noted that an attempt is being made to provide for views and eliminate view blockages; however, he noted that there is no view ordinance at this time in the City. He continued by explaining the view ordinances in effect in other cities. Mr. Schubach stated that staff believes the proposed method would help to lower development on downsides of slopes and therefore improve the views to the units on the upsides of the slopes. Public Hearing opened at 8:41 P.M. by Comm. lngell. Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street: (1) stated that he had submitted a letter and diagram showing the plans he has for his house; (2) continued by discussing his specific plans in relation to the staff proposal; (3) explained that one side of 8th Street is R-1 and the other is R-2B, thereby having a height of 2.5 feet on one side and 30 feet on the other side; (4) stated that the proposed method is easier to figure out; (5) strongly supported the staff recommendation; (6) did not feel that flat roofs are a function of the height measurement method, but rather the personal taste of an owner and current architectural styles. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place: (1) asked for clarification on comments which were made at the previous hearing on this matter; (2) stated that Manhattan Beach has a height limit of 30 feet; (3) asked about the proposal to use the Manhattan Beach algorithm, and he explained how that particular algorithm is used in comparison to the method used in Hermosa Beach; (4) asked what staff means when saying that the Manhattan Beach method is "similar" to the Hermosa Beach method; (5) discussed the base heights and what would be allowed; (6) discussed the height limit in Manhattan Beach, stating that almost all of their structures are a full three stories. Mr. Longacre continued: (1) questioned what would be accomplished by changing the height measurement method; (2) noted that there has not been an overwhelming desire from the public to change the method; (3) questioned why this is coming back with virtually no changes from the previous time it was heard; (4) d iscussed the issue of granting variances for certain cases while retaining the current method of measurement; (5) stated that builders in Manhattan Beach are building mainly large boxes with flat roofs and cautioned that the same thing could happen in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Longacre went on: (1) he asked that additional copies of the staff materials be placed in the lobby, noting that people sometimes walk off with the only copy; (2) he discussed the fact that the height limit on the commercial corridor is actually 53 feet, not 45, because of the structures allowed on rooftops; (3) he noted concern that buildings could potentially be 62 feet high with an additional 20 percent allowance; (4) he discussed the height limit in the downtown area, stating that the potential height could reach 43 feet; (5) he stated that the ordinance would not significantly affect the downtown area but would greatly impact the commercial corridor and residential areas; (6) he stated that the most important fact is that this text amendment does not really have anything to do with view blockages, stating that that is a myth; (7) he stated that this issue relates to the method of calculating the height of a building; (8) he noted concern over potentially larger buildings being put up in the City; (9) he stressed that even though Manhattan has a height limit of 30 feet, their buildings are much larger than those in Hermosa where the height limit is 35 feet; (10) he cautioned that buildings could be much larger if Manhattan Beach's algorithm is used. 15 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Mr. Longacre continued: (1) he referred to this text amendment as the "BBB" (bigger, bulkier buildings text amendment); (2) he passed out copies of examples of height measurement he had prepared and continued by discussing them in detail with the Commission. Comm. Peirce wanted to ensure that staff is interpreting the method of measurement as the Commission previously discussed as the current rule: that one takes a perpendicular stick; moves it all over the property; wherever the top of the stick is, a plane is drawn so that the plane matches the contour of the land below; and the plane is always so many feet (25, 30, or 35 feet) above the existing topology. Mr. Schubach agreed and stated that a parallelogram would then be created. Comm. Peirce disagreed, stating that if the lot is concave or convex, the building can either be settled down or lifted up on the hill. Comm. Peirce stressed that he wanted to ensure that staff is interpreting this issue properly. He stated that there is no problem if the lot in question is flat; however, if it is curved, one would expect to see another curved plane above the height limit above the plane. Mr. Schubach, noting that the Building Director was not present, explained that the Building Department does the measuring. Comm. Peirce stressed that the Commission specifically told the Building Department not to use the method they had been using; that the stick method over the land is the exact method the Planning Commission wanted to be used. He stressed that city staff must be made aware of this fact. "'". Comm. Peirce stated that it is necessary to warp the plane on top of the land in order to obtain the correct measurement; if that is not done, the correct procedure is not being followed. Mr. Schubach thought that the Building Department is measuring the correct way. Mr. Longacre continued: (1) he stated that if an incorrect method of measurement has been used for a long time, it has become a de facto law, and to change it now would be to essentially change what has become a common law; (2) he continued by giving examples of measuring. Comm. Peirce stated, then, that it is necessary to further study this issue. Mr. Longacre went on: (1) he continued by discussing the diagrams he had prepared; (2) he discussed the various methods of measuring height and the outcome in terms of what could be built; (3) talked about the method used in Manhattan Beach; (4) stated that under the new proposal, one would take the midpoint of a structure and that would become the height of the building, and some part of the face of the building can exceed 20 percent above the envelope of where it would be otherwise; (5) he continued by discussing the second page he prepared in relation to what would be possible at the St. Michael's site; (6) he could see no reason to change the algorithm, stating that a change would benefit only businesses and condos; (7) he noted that there is no public outcry to change the method; (8) he urged that the method be left as is, or that it be studied again and brought back before the full Commission. 16 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Comm. Peirce read aloud from Section 208 of the zoning code, Page 456: "Building height means a vertical distance measured from the existing grade of a lot adjacent to the exterior walls from any portion of the building site covered by the building to the uppermost point of the roof, not including the building code required parapet fire wall. When the grade has been lowered, said vertical distance shall be measured from the finished grade." He stated that this method is very clear in the code, and if the Building Department is not using this method, he wants to know why. Mr. Schubach stated that the wording "existing grade" has been a real problem. Comm. Peirce stated that the wording is a different problem. If they are creating a parallelogram, the measuring is being done incorrectly. He stated that the definition in the code is very clear. Mr. Schubach stated that the wording "existing grade" has been changed to "natural grade" in an attempt to alleviate problems. He could not say for certain how the Building Department is measuring, stating that he would have to again check with them. Mr. Sullivan again addressed the Commission and explained how his architect measured his lot. He said that the method being discussed by Comm. Peirce is the method used by his architect; however, he questioned whether it is in the best interest to use that method. He noted concern over protecting views in the City. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach: (1) discussed the height method currently being used, and stated that he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Longacre; (2) noted that the method has been used for approximately ten years; (3) stated that the old interpretation differs from that offered by Comm. Peirce; (4) explained how the measurement is now being done in relation to the plane of the lot; (5) stated that the method being used now actually creates more bulk; (6) said that the proposed method is very simple to use t o fig ure ma ximum height ; (7) said that the current language is very difficult to work with in terms of actually figuring the height; (8) said that the me thod used by Manhattan Beach is ve ry simple , b ut it allows more b ulk ; (9) said that if the current method is retained, clients will be happy, but he questioned whether it is in the best interests of the City; (10) felt it is important that the current method be clarified, and that a handout be put together to pass out at the counter. Mr. Compton went on: (1) he discussed sloping lots and stated that even if one remains within the. plane the building can still be too high; (2) he stated that many architects from other cities are confused over the method used by this city; (3) he did not feel that the staff recommendation is the best answer. Mr. Schubach stated that staff does not feel bulk should be controlled via a height ordinance. He stated that other reports will be presented which address the issue of bulk. He stressed that this is a height issue, not one of bulk, which is meant to address the issue of view protection. He stated that the ordinance is very difficult to interpret and the Building Department has therefore used its own interpretation in order to clarify the issue. Mr. Compton continued: (1) he noted that the Building Department must use an easy method; (2) he stated that what the Building Department is doing is not necessarily unreasonable; (3) he questioned whether what is being proposed is actually what the City desires. 17 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) discussed past methods used by the City in measuring height; (2) gave examples of tall buildings which were built under the past methods; (3) commented on 8th Street and tall buildings on that street; (4) noted concern over the issue of the St. Michael's site and the possible height which could be allowed there; (5) noted concern over bulky buildings without adequate parking which would add to the traffic problems; (6) noted concern over roof structures being allowed in addition to the maximum height requirements, stating that everything s hould be included in t he overall height limit; (7) urged the Commissi on to carefully study the issue of the St. Michael's and the proposed parking and height; (8) asked why an addit ional eight feet should be allowed on roofs. Mr. Schubach clarified that this ordinance will not affect the St. Michael's site, explaining that that will be a specific plan area. He gave some background information and history on parking in relation to senior citizen housing. He stressed that adequate parking will be required for any project at the St. Michael's site. Mr. Longacre again addressed the Commission: (1) he stated that only one half of the St. Michael's site is a specific plan area, and the other half is R-3; (2) he stated that a project there will actually be R-3 building standards with no limits. Mr. Schubach stated that the St. Michael's project will be brought back at a future date. Public Hearing closed at 9:31 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that the current method is the correct method; however, he suggested that it be clarified. He believed that both height and bulk can be controlled by the height law. He noted that experts have testified that buildings will be larger and bulkier under the proposed amendment, and he felt that would be wrong. He stated that this current method has been used for approximately ten years, and it should continue to be used. Comm. Peirce agreed that certain rooftop items should be prohibited in residential zones. He said that the only things which should be allowed to project in commercial or residential areas are chimneys, flues, and vents. If those items cannot fit within the requirements, they should not be allowed to intrude on the views of others. Comm. Ketz stated that her opinion has not changed on this matter since the last time it was heard. She did not agree with the proposed method of height measurement, stating that it would encourage more bulk. Even though the existing method may have some problems, she felt it is preferable to the alternative. She agreed that items on roofs should not be allowed to go over the height limit. Comm. lngell stated that he has trouble believing that the proposal would allow additional bulk. He stated that the face of one side of a building could be larger; however, the bulk would not be greatly increased. Comm. Ingell stated that there should be enforcement in regard to what should be allowed on tops of buildings. Comm. Ingell stated that more information is necessary on these issues. He questioned whether this issue should come back before a full Commission. Comm. Peirce stated that this issue has been studied by the Commission several times. He therefore felt it would be appropriate to take action at this time. 18 P.C. Minutes 10/17 /89 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-17, and direct staff to rewrite the findings based on the sentiments of the Commission; to eliminate Item No. 1 and all parts of the resolution dealing with that issue; further, to eliminate Item A, Item B, and Item C. (Item D to remain as is.). Also, that staff be directed to write a summary of the Commission's consensus on the height of a building being at the top; amend Item 2 to state that the only three roof items allowed to project above the height limit in the residential zone are chimneys, flues, and vents. Comm. Peirce felt that if items cannot be built into building height requirements, those items should be removed. He also stated he would like to receive from the Building Department a copy of the proposed handout so that it can be approved by the Planning Commission. Comm. Peirce, in response to a request from Comm. Ingell, clarified his motion: To change Section 1201 of the code to eliminate everything except flues, vents, and smokestacks in all zones and to limit them to no more than eight feet and cover no more than five percent of the total roof area. (Under Item 2, everything would be eliminated except Items G, H, and I.) Mr. Schubach stated that the reference to satellite dishes will remain; however, satellite dishes are covered under a different section of the ordinance. He noted that those items are covered under FCC regulations. Mr. Compton asked to speak on the issue of roof structures. MOTION withdrawn by Comm. Peirce. Public Hearing reopened at 9:39 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue: (1) stated that many things are now allowed to exceed the height limit; (2) suggested that the Commission keep an open mind as to what can remain on the roof; (3) noted concern over elevator shafts, stating that elevator shafts on large buildings are a very small portion of the building; (4) explained that traction elevators need an area which is higher than the roof, approximately 12 feet above the floor of the building in order to use the elevator; (5) stated that requiring elevator shafts to remain within the height limit would impact the elevator shaft placement and create problems in design. Mr. Compton, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, explained that traction elevators have pulleys which are above the car in the elevator tower, and they must be above where the car runs in order to make it function properly. He stated that approximately twelve to fourteen feet is necessary from the face of the floor up to the roof. He stated that hydraulic elevators can be lower; however, they are much slower and can go only to three or four stories. He continued by discussing the various aspects of elevators and stated that they are quite technical. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) stated that high speed elevators are not necessary for buildings which cannot be more than three stories; (2) felt that nobody would be hurt by having to walk up a story. Mr. Longacre asked for clarification on what action is being taken tonight. Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. 19 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Comm. Peirce agreed that hydraulic elevators are quite slow and could limit a developer's ability to sell a building if there was no elevator and he could not have the full 45-foot height limit. He did not think the elevator requirement is necessary for the residential zone; however, he suggested that a number be added which would accommodate a pulley-type elevator in the commercial zone. Comm. Ketz stated that elevators will probably only be in commercial zones; however, she was at a loss as to what number should be used. Comm. Peirce stated that he has studied this matter in depth; therefore, he felt comfortable making a decision at this time. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-17 with the following amendments: To modify Section 1201 relating to the height of roof structures to allow only chimneys, flues, and vents which shall be no more than eight feet high or cover more than five percent of the total of the roof area; and to have a maximum height limit for elevators of four feet above the height limit, necessary only to cover the mechanism on top of the elevator. Elevator housings shall be allowed only in commercial zones, not residential. (Comm. Peirce stated that everything else on Page 13 is correct.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce Comm. Ingell None Comms. Moore, Rue MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ing ell, to direct staff to obtain a coherent, cogent handout from the Building Department ~ed on the current zoning which can be handed out to people and which can be understood by the layman. Said handout should have as many drawings as necessary to clearly convey the message to people. The Planning Commission shall have final approval of the handout to ensure that it adequately conveys the intent of the Commission on the issue of height measurement. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue APPEAL OF LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR 518 HOLLOWELL AVENUE, 1910 ARDMORE AVENUEz AND 721 30TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 19, 1989. Staff recommended denial of the applicants' requests to maintain their parcels as two separate lots at 721 30th Street and 1910 Ardmore. Staff further recommended approval of the applicant's request to maintain parcels as two separate lots, subject to the condition of a deed restriction, at 518 Hollowell A venue. 721 30th Street and 1910 Ardmore Avenue were sent notices of intent to merge, based on the tax assessor's property owner lists. The letters were accepted and eventually final letters were sent. The final letters were returned and a second attempt to mail the letters was made. Those letters were also returned. The reasons why the letters were returned could not be determined. The Planning Department then experienced a loss in staff. Meanwhile, new tax assessor property owner lists were received. 20 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 The new staff audited the lot merger files to check for errors and omissions. Noting the rejected letters, staff checked the new owner lists and discovered these properties had been sold. The staff again went through the process of sending letters of intent, waiting 30 days for the approval period, and not scheduling a hearing earlier than 45 days after receiving the appeal. Staff's investigation indicates that these two properties had been sold long before the first letters of intent were sent. The original property owners apparently accepted the certified letters, but neither notified the new owners of its content, nor told the City they no longer owned the property. The staff also checked all of the previous staff paperwork and discovered that one block of Hollowell was computed wrong as to the number of already split lots. Notices were sent, and one appeal for 518 Hollowell was received. The Planning Department has determined that lots included in groups 88-4 and 88-8 are subject to merger, pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21. Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than 80 percent of the block has been split and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. 721 30th Street Owner: Scott Reneau This parcel is comprised of two 25 by 100 foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate that this structure is a single-family dwelling. Staff can find no reason to exempt 721 30th Street from being subject to merger. Hearing opened at 9:55 P .M. by Comm. Ingell. Scott Reneau, 721 30th Street: (1) stated that he is co-owner of this property, along with two others; (2) stated that the three of them bought the home in March of 1988 with the knowledge that the house was built on two lots; (3) said that the agent as a selling point told them it was two lots, and in the future if the structure were razed, they would have two structures on the property; (4) said that the realtor based his assumption on the fact that other homes in the area were on the same sized lots and that the majority of other homes on their side of the street are built on 25 by l 00 foot lots, and therefore they could build two homes on their 50 by 100 foot. Mr. Schubach clarified that the realtor did not take into account that houses on both sides of the street must be taken into consideration. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that this parcel should have been included in Lot Merger 88-4; however, the letter of intent was sent to the previous lot owner. Mr. Reneau stated that the previous property owner failed to notify him of receipt of the letter. He stated that they bought the property under the supposition that it was two lots and that two homes could be built on them if the current structure were razed. He asked whether that is grounds for the lots to remain unmerged so that two structures can be built. 21 P .C. Minutes 10/ 17 /89 Mr. Schubach, in response to a request from Comm. Ingell, explained to Mr. Reneau how these lot merger actions came about. He explained that at one time it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to grant release of the mergers; however, the City Council has since amended the ordinance so that now four criteria must be met for parcels to remain unmerged. Mr. Reneau stated that they were not informed of this law, and this situation puts them in a difficult position. He felt that when a person owns a piece of property and thinks he can build two structures on it, he hates to see that right taken away. Mr. Reneau noted concern that he will incur costs to change the paperwork in order to comply with the requirements. Mr. Schubach stated that the City takes care of all the necessary paperwork and recordations. Applicants will incur no costs. Mr. Reneau asked that his property be allowed to remain unmerged so that they can build two R-1 structures. Comm. Peirce stated that this involves a matter of intent because of the fact that this property was purchased a year and a half ago and the buyer was not informed of this action by the previous property owner. He stated that this applicant was probably mislead either by the previous owner or the realtor. He could, therefore, sympathize with the owner; but from a planning standpoint, he could see no reason to keep the lots unmerged. He felt that the appropriate action is to merge the lots. Comm. Ingell stated that this property does not meet the four criteria to remain unmerged; therefore, the only action the Commission can take. is tG merge the lots. Nancy Perreau, 721 30th Street, co-owner of the property, stated that theirs is one of two houses on the block which is on a 50 by 100 foot lot. She questioned whether staff has addressed that fact and asked how staff makes their determination, noting that the two sides of the street are very different. Mr. Schubach stated that staff had indeed studied this block; however, if the applicants feel there is a problem, staff would be happy to go over this matter with them. He further noted that the applicants can appeal this matter to the City Council. Hearing closed at 10:09 P .M. by Comm. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 721 30th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue 1910 Ardmore A venue Owner: Steven D. Hoel This parcel is comprised of a 31.4 by 73.25 foot lot and a 31.48 by 69.07 foot lot. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate that this structure is a single-family dwelling. 22 P.C. Minutes 10/ 17 /89 Staff can find no reason to exempt 1910 Ardmore A venue from being subject to merger. Hearing opened and closed at 10:10 P.M. by Comm. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this property. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the property at 1910 Ardmore Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue 518 Hollowell A venue Owner: Tillie C. Smith This parcel is comprised of two 25 by 110 foot lots. Building records indicate that the structure is a single-family dwelling. A submitted survey and aerial photos indicate that approximately 1.3 feet of the staircase is the only portion of the dwelling that crosses the property line. The property owner has agreed to file a deed restriction which would require the removal of the staircase and relocation before building on the vacant lot if the lots are allowed to remain unmerged. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve staff's recommendation to not merge the parcels at 518 Hollowell Avenue, with the stipulation that the applicant record a deed restriction. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THE AREA AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND PROSPECT AVENUE FROM R-P TO C-2 AND R-P TO R-1 AND TO GENERAL PLAN AMEND A PORTION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1989. Staff recommended that the Commission direct staff to conduct an environmental assessment and schedule a public hearing to change the zoning from R-P to C-2 for the properties fronting on Artesia Boulevard; to general plan amend from General Commercial to low density residential; and change the zoning from R-P to R-1 for the residences fronting on 24th Street and Prospect A venue. The Planning Commission at their meeting of June 6, 1989, directed staff to return with a recommendation to resolve the zoning and general plan inconsistency for this area. The entire subject area is currently zoned R-P, allowing high density residential or offices uses, subject to a conditional use permit approval. The subject area is designated general commercial on the general plan. 23 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 The existing land uses along the Artesia Boulevard frontage include a proposed office building; an existing, currently vacant, small office building; and a florist shop. Eight residential lots are located along 24th Street and Prospect Avenue, five are developed with two units, and three with single-family homes. The lot sizes range from 2900 square feet to 37 50 square feet. The residential areas across the street and to the west are designated low density and are zoned R-1. Staff's recommendation is based primarily on the existing land uses of the area, although the change of R-P to C-2 will permit commercial uses of a higher intensity than the current office uses. Staff believes that this location is appropriate for C-2 restricted commercial uses and that such a designation will contribute to the City's commercial base. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that there is no difference in height between R-P and C-2, explaining that both are 35 feet. An eight­ foot setback would be required for the first story, and two extra feet for each additional story. Hearing opened at 10:16 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission: (1) he stated that he has recently purchased this property, but he noted that he received no notice of this hearing; (2) he stated that he has not had an opportunity to study what impacts this change would have on his project, noting that plans are already in the works; (3) he summarized the plans for the project at this property; (4) he stated that he would like to further review the matter; (5) he stated that if the change has no impact on his project, he would have no objection to the changes. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission: (1) she gave background information on this particular piece of property, explaining that it was once owned by the Women's Club; (2) she noted concern over changing R-P to R-1 based on the amount of parking which would be available; (3) she felt a change from R-P to C-2 would be more appropriate; (4) she stated that the approves of the proposed changes; (5) she felt that the proposed plan will be an improvement to the area. Hearing closed at 10:25 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter for two weeks in order to allow the property owner time to study the proposal. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None None Comms. Moore, Rue a) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Meeting Dates Mr. Schubach, noting that the next regular meeting date falls on election day, suggested that the meeting be held the following day, Wednesday, November 8, 1989. There were no objections. 24 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Mr. Schubach, noting that it has been the custom of the Commission to have only one meeting in December, suggested that the meeting be held on Tuesday, December 5, 1989. There were no objections; so ordered Mr. Schubach, noting that the first meeting in January falls right after the holidays, suggested that the meeting be held on Wednesday, January 3, 1990. There were no objections. b) Status Regarding the Appeal at 415 Pier Avenue Mr. Schubach reported that the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the variance for the project at 415 Pier Avenue; however, staff was directed to study the issue. c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for October 24, 1989, Meeting No one will attend as liaison. d) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Mr. Schubach noted some of the items will be removed from the agenda for November &, since the agenda is so full. e) City Council Minutes of September 26 , 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell and staff discussed several upcoming planning meetings. Comm. Peirce: (1) asked about the illegal window signs at Fox Photo and the 711 Store, stating he would like a report from staff on that matter; (2) stated he would like staff to report back on the condition of junk being stored at the southwest corner of Aviation and Prospect; (3) noted that there are parking problems at Vons being created by the Hermosa Pavilion pat rons who park at the market in an attempt to avoid using the parking structure; (4) asked when the issue of zoning standards would be brought before the Commission, noting that the issue of bulk has been of utmos t concern in the City; (5) asked when the housing element would be ready for study and review. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 10:35 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 25 P .C. Minutes l 0/ 17 /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 meetlllgofOU ¼ . ~ J_ h . ~.~~ airman /ff✓J7 Date 26 P.C. Minutes 10/17/89