Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-01-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 1, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ingell. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Compton made an addition to the minutes of February 16, 1988, Page 20, Paragraph 7: " ... he would not be in favor of the merger until a new ordinance is placed on the books which allows for the development of two W1its, one in the front and one in the back on what are now two legally constituted lots which allows for that development without the Wlfavorable street parking loss typically associated with 25-foot lot development." MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of February 16, 1988, as amended. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AT 40 7TH COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 32' OF LOT 20, BLOCK 7, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-7, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A DECK WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED FOUR-FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 845 EIGHTH STREET. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution 88-14(a), A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 9.7' FRONT YARD SETBACK -l -PC Minutes 3/ l /88 AS OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED TEN-FOOT DIMENSIONS AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 905 15TH PLACE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19513 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 610 PALM DRIVE/609 MANHATTAN A VENUE. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Peirce discussed Resolution P .C. 88-18 and commented on Condition No. 4(b). He stated that no specific mention was made of limiting landscaping within three feet of the driveway; however, he felt that six feet would be more appropriate as the project has a small front yard. He noted concern over ingress and egress into this project. Mr. Schubach stated that Condition No. 4(b) could be amended to read: "Landscaping within six (6) feet perpendicular to the driveway shall be limited to lawn or ground • II cover mg .... MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as modified Resolution P.C. 88-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19517 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1111 VALLEY DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 67.4 FEET OF LOT 21 AND 22, KNUTSEN TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the following resolutions: Resolution P.C. 88-19, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 1240 19TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 199, REDONDO HOME TRACT AND THE HERMOSA VIEW TRACT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, PARCEL MAP 5406; Resolution P.C. 88-20, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 1242 19TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 200, REDONDO HOME TRACT AND THE HERMOSA VIEW TRACT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, PARCEL MAP 5406; Resolution P.C. 88-21, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 1244 19TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 201, REDONDO HOME TRACT AND THE HERMOSA VIEW TRACT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, PARCEL MAP 5406. There being no objections to approval of the above three resolutions, so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Commission. -2 -PC Minutes 3/ 1 /88 PARKING PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (ALPHA BETA SHOPPING CEN T ER} Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 25, 1988. The environmental staff review committee, at their meeting of January 7, 1988, recommended that the Planning Commission approve a negative declaration and requested the applicant to submit additional information regarding hours of operation and size of the business. The applicant, Fox Photo Company, is proposing to add a 400-square foot retail area to be used as a photo processing center. The proposed location of the addition is in the northwest corner of the parking lot. No existing parking spaces will be lost. The Alpha Beta shopping center is composed of a mixed commercial use, with retail, of fices, and banks. The site has 51, 116 square feet of existing gross floor area. Lea sable building area is 47,609 square feet. The remaining area, 3,507 square feet, is common use corridors, restrooms, storage rooms, and garage. The site has 175 existing parking spaces. Under the present code, the site would need 205 parking spaces. The proposed addition will also require two more spaces. It should be noted that of the 17 5 parking spaces, the 26 spaces along the park are on city property and therefore are not for the sole use of the center. The property owner has submitted a breakdown of the businesses, floor area, and hours of operation. The breakdown indicates that the office and bank uses close prior to the peak evening grocery shopping hours. Security Pacific Bank is closed on weekends. Staff has done several spot checks of the site during various hours of the day and found that the main parking lot has many unused parking spaces. During the spot checks, staff also noted that the parking lot along 13th Street and behind: the center had very few vehicles. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that this parking lot be designated for use by the employees of the center, particularly the lot behind the center. A concern of staff is a potential view obstruction of the business center to the north of the site. Concerns have arisen from a potential buyer of the adjacent shopping center that the location of the photo center may eliminate visibility of their center from traffic northbound on Pacific Coast Highway; however, a six-foot wall presently exists along the north property line. The proposed addition will generate potential business for the center. The grocery store has suffered a decline in business since the opening of the Vons Center across the street. Staff believes that the photo center will generate more customers to the center business, and will in turn increase business to the adjacent shopping center. Presently, staff has no regulations to control the use of the parking lot. The approval of the parking plan will enable staff to require the employees to utilize the 13th Street parking lot, and to add conditions to require the parking lot to be maintained in a neat and clean manner. It should be noted that the market area for the center is not growing since the general area is built out. Therefore, the risk of future demand outstripping the existing supply of parking is remote. Staff recommended approval of the parking plan subject to conditions specified in the resolution. -3 -PC Minutes 3/ 1 /88 Comm. Rue asked how accessibility between the two centers will be accomplished if there is a six-foot wall between them. Mr. Schubach noted that the wall is currently there; the only way to go from one center to the other is via the public sidewalk by walking around the wall. He noted, however, that staff feels both centers would benefit if the wall was removed. Comm. Peirce asked whether consideration was given by the developer to placing the photo shop elsewhere on the property. He also asked whether the City has any guidelines to mandate placement of the structure. Mr. Schubach stated that the City does not have such authority. So long as the project conforms to the setback standards, it can be placed almost anywhere on the property. He noted that there are no code specifications in regard to blockage of views. The only time the City could exercise control over the placement of the building would be if it were located adjacent to a residential area. Comm. Peirce noted that the photo shop would generate a great deal of quick in-and-out traffic. He asked whether the code addresses such a use. Mr. Schubach stated that there are restrictions of that type of use only in regard to restaurants, and he continued by explaining the requirements for fast service restaurants. He noted, however, that the code does recognize the fact that there are certain types of businesses which generate greater parking needs. In cases where business are clustered together and have varying needs for parking because of various hours of peak usage, parking seems to be adequate for all of the businesses because parking can be shared. Comm. Ingell asked whether staff feels they can regulate wh~iee the employees park. Mr. Schubach noted that one of the conditions specifies the location of employee parking. He noted that parking plans are enforced just as conditional use permits are enforced. If the owner is found to be in violation of the conditions of the parking plan, the City will inform him of such fact and require compliance. If that fails, the matter can then be turned over to the City Attorney as with any other zoning matter. Chmn. Compton noted that many times people driving down Pacific Coast Highway will bypass the entrance to the center they wish to patronize. They will then turn into the next available lot. Based on that, he asked whether staff had analyzed the parking situation at the center next door to the Alpha Beta center. Mr. Schubach stated that the center to the north does not have adequate parking at this time for the businesses currently located there. He agreed that this could be a problem. He noted, however, that if deemed necessary the Commission could add a condition requiring additional signage for the entrance location. Comm. Ingell noted that the wall currently between the centers is probably necessary to prevent people from walking through the area. He asked whether the wall is to be torn down, commenting that it is unattractive. Mr. Schubach knew of no plans to tear down the wall in question. Public Hearing opened at 7:55 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. -4 -PC Minutes 3/1/88 Mike Wohlgemuth representing Fox Photo, 12409 Slauson, Suite H, Whittier, addressed the Commission. He explained that Fox Photo is a one-hour film processing service offering several other services, such as reprints, enlargements, and various other items. Mr. Wohlgemuth discussed the employees at the proposed location, stating that there will be a manager and approximately three other employees. He stated that there are several other Fox Photo locations in the area where employees are required to park off premises; they comply with those requirements. Mr. Wohlgemuth explained that customers typically drop off film for processing and then return one hour later to pick it up. Mr. Wohlgemuth stated that Fox Photo has been in existence since 1905, and there are locations throughout the sunbelt states. Currently there are over 200 one-hour locations. Stores are currently located in Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Marina del Rey, and soon to be opening in Torrance. Fox Photo is involved in the community and sponsors various activities. Henry Friel, architect, 1826 South Elena, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he was the original architect for this shopping center as well as the architect for this particular project. Mr. Friel stated that the proposed building will be of the same design as the existing center so that it will fit in well with the other buildings. There will be a roof on the structure which will hide any equipment or ventilators from view. Mr. Friel explained that there will be landscaping around the area to supplement some of the planting which will be displaced. Mr. Friel stated that in his opinion the parking at the center has been adequate, even with almost constant 100 percent occupancy. The center was built in 1977. Since that time, sales at Alpha Beta have fallen by approximately 23 percent since Vons Market opened across the street; therefore, he did not foresee additional parking problems being generated by the addition of Fox Photo. Mr. Friel discussed the issue of view obstruction, stating that the building to the north benefits from the parking lot visually because all of the buildings in the shopping center are set back. There is 130 feet of visual opening on the parking lot that exposes the building to the north. The other center also benefits from the Alpha Beta parking lot. Mr. Friel noted, however, that Alpha Beta has suffered somewhat from the position of the other building being out on the highway. He noted that this is a give and take situation of how much the proposed building will obstruct the other center's view. Mr. Friel discussed the obstruction caused by the wall, explaining that the wall is actually almost seven feet high if one is on the north side of the wall. That wall goes all the way out to the property line. When the new building is constructed, there will be a two and a half foot setback. In effect, two and a half feet of that wall will be removed. The proposed building will not be more than twelve feet high. Mr. Friel stated that it is not possible to join the two parking lots because there is a two foot drop between them. It would be necessary to construct a stairway in order to go between parking lots. -5 -PC Minutes 3/ l /88 Mr. Friel agreed that Alpha Beta customers do use the parking lot at the shopping center to the north; however, he could not see how the two parking lots could be joined. Weston Pringle, 2651 East Chapman, Fullerton, addressed the Commission and discussed the parking study done at the Alpha Beta Shopping Center. He stated that the study was conducted during the month of October on a Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. He stated that the parking area in the rear was not counted. The maximum number of vehicles observed was 140; once on Wednesday, and once on Friday. This left a total of 37 vacant parking spaces which would be available for potential customers of Fox Photo. Mr. Pringle stated that there is a surplus of parking at this site. He discussed the fast in­ and-out type usage which would be generated by the photo service and stated that there is a high turnover of parking, so not as much is required as for something where people stay longer. Mr. Pringle stated that the study verified that there is adequate parking at this center to accommodate the center and the proposed photo shop. Chmn. Compton asked whether the location of the proposed building is an area of heavy parking demand. Mr. Pringle stated that the parking study did not break the parking lot down into specific areas; however, the location of the proposed development seems to be used for parking by customers of the shopping center to the north. Mr. Pringle stated that he has not previously done parking studies for Fox Photo; however, he explained that he has performed hundreds of parking studies for various other types of uses. Chmn. Compton asked whether a study done in October would accurately reflect parking needs for other times of the year. He asked whether statistics would be similar for a Wednesday in October as compared to a Saturday in the summer. Mr. Pringle noted that volume could be heavier during the summer months when there are more people in the area. He stated that the October study is probably a mid-point. He noted, however, that October is still a period of good weather. He also pointed out that the banks are closed on the weekends, which is when summer traffic is heaviest. Roger Bacon, owner of the shopping center at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has never built anything on P.C.H., noting that there is a 130 foot setback at this center. The frontage was never utilized because when the project was built, requirements were placed on the project by Alpha Beta. Alpha Beta would not agree to his desire to build shops along the highway and along the northerly property line. Mr. Bacon explained that Alpha Beta has site control over the area, meaning that they have a say in any changes to the development. Written approval must be obtained from Alpha Beta before anything can be done. Mr. Bacon continued by discussing the fact that business has fallen off 23 percent at Alpha Beta since the Vons was built across the street. He said that in 1985 the Alpha Beta was completely remodeled. He continued by explaining what was done during the remodel, stating that the center expanded from 23,800 square feet to approximately -6 -PC Minutes 3/ 1 /88 32,000 square feet. He said that the remodel cost almost as much as the entire center cost when built in 1977. Mr. Bacon noted that there is a great deal of competition between Alpha Beta and Vons. He submitted documentation to verify the drop in sales at Alpha Beta. He noted that with the sales decline, there is less demand for parking at the center. Mr. Bacon discussed the wall, stating that safety was of paramount importance when the shopping center was built. The wall was erected not only to stop ingress and egress from the contiguous property, but also to stop children from going over a shorter wall and stumbling or jumping over it. Mr. Bacon noted that the shopping center as well as the City have been the subject of lawsuits involving safety issues. He discussed one of those lawsuits and stated that the plaintiff asserted she was injured because of the the realignment of the street near the east end of Greenwood Park. He stated that he has never lost a lawsuit; and he pointed up the fact of the extreme importance of safety issues at shopping centers. Mr. Bacon stated that he did not contest the building of the shopping center next door to his. He said that construction of this other shopping center blocked off the view from the Alpha Beta center; however, he noted that free enterprise takes precedence. He noted also that their sign blocks his sign. Furthermore, many of the customers of that center park in the Alpha Beta lot; therefore, when the parking count was done, it included cars of people not even at the Alpha Beta center. Mr. Bacon stated that there is a possibility that the wall could be cut back to the depth of the building since there is no need to have a wall when there is a building next door. In effect, the exposure would be somewhat better from the west elevations going northbound on P.C.H. for this particular shopping center. Mr. Bacon continued by discussing his policy of towing away cars, stating that he never does tow anyone away; he prefers to give a written warning. He stated that he is required by Alpha Beta to ensure that the parking is adequate and safe. Mr. Bacon discussed the parking lot behind Alpha Beta, stating that that area is for employee parking of the center, and most of those people are gone by 5:00 P.M. He noted that he has a fiduciary agreement with the tenants of the building to ensure that the parking area is safe. Mr. Bacon stated that his family has owned this property since 1952 and he is very proud of the property. The site is maintained and the area is planted so that it is more attractive. He stressed that he has pride in this property. He noted that he wants to cooperate with the City in this matter; however, he noted that too many restrictions make financing quite difficult. Mr. Bacon stressed that there are always vacant parking spaces at the center. He felt that parking demands will not increase in the future because the City is already completely built out, noting that people usually shop from within a mile and a half radius of a store. Comm. Peirce asked if Mr. Bacon has had an opportunity to review the conditions proposed by staff. Mr. Bacon replied that he has not had a chance to see them. -7 -PC Minutes 3/1/88 Mr. Schubach gave Mr. Bacon a copy of the resolution to review. Mr. Bacon stated that he would prefer to keep the employee parking area on the 13th Street side where there are 18 parking spaces versus behind the building where there are only 16 spaces. Telly Talbort, owner of 905-950 Aviation Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, favored approval of the project, stating that she has experienced no problems in parking at the center. She further noted that the photo shop would be a welcome addition to the center. Jack Epstein, 21 Moccasin Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, general partner of the adjacent shopping center at 1200 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, opposed the request. He noted deep concern over safety issues at the center. He stated that issues of safety and liability exist with the wall in its current configuration. He stated that if the City allows this proposed building to be built, the City should be held accountable for liability because the wall will block vision. Mr. Epstein stated that he had called the City several years ago about this problem. He said that tenants in his center were concerned about the problems of safety and liability. He was informed that the City had no right to tear down the wall. It was suggested that Mr. Epstein call CalTrans about the matter. CalTrans sent someone out and did a study on the liability and safety issues. A red curb was painted all the way back as far as it is now. Mr. Epstein stressed that there exists an extremely hazardous condition at this center because of the height of the wall. He felt that if the City allows a building to go in there at a higher elevation, the City will be remiss in this particular situation. Mr. Epstein continued by stating that there is currently a man with a photo shop in his center; if this new Fox Photo goes in, this man will probably be put out of business. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the problem of the wall. Mr. Epstein explained that when driving north on P.C.H., it is almost a blind turn into the center because of the placement of the wall. Backing out of the center is also very hazardous. Cars enter the lot from the south and exit from the north. He stated that backing out of a parking space is very dangerous because cars turning into the lot are turning without being able to see what is happening in the lot. He stated that there are often near collisions at this location. Comm. Rue noted that the wall would be pushed back two and a half feet. He was not clear on how this could create more problems. Mr. Epstein felt that the problem will be people who see Fox Photo but who miss turning into the lot on time; those people will then turn into his center, which is already very limited in size. He felt that the new building will create a negative impact because of so many quick ins and outs at the photo store. Comm. Rue asked whether customers of Mr. Epstein's center park at the Alpha Beta lot. Mr. Epstein emphatically denied that his customers park at the Alpha Beta parking lot. He noted that he has his own parking structure. He stated that the purpose of the wall is not for the safety of children as claimed, but to obstruct the view of his center. He -8 -PC Minutes 3/ 1 /88 agaln stressed the safety and liability issues connected with this wall. He felt that the Commission should seriously address this concern. Chmn. Compton agreed that safety issues should be addressed. He suggested as a remedy that the entrance and exit be swapped so that people could enter from the north and exit from the south. Mr. Epstein stated that that idea has been tested, but there were still problems. He stated that there would be no problem if the: wall wasn't there. He stated that he would be more than willing to work with the other owner to remedy this hazardous condition. He said steps could be installed to connect the two parking lots. Comm. Peirce asked questions about the dimensions of Mr. Epstein's parking lot. Chmn. Compton noted that the application conforms to all current zoning requirements; there is currently no requirement for setbacks off of Pacific Coast Highway. He suggested that the staff could study this issue. Mr. Epstein agreed that the issue should be studied. He suggested that the height of the wall be modified, stating that his main concern is for cars coming north on the highway. Mr. Bacon stated that when the wall was constructed, Mr. Epstein did not protest. He said that the first wall was put up before the other center was completed. He further noted that it is a fact that customers of Mr. Epstein's center park at the Alpha Beta lot. Mr. Bacon stated that there is a very large 40-foot driveway at Alpha Beta, and there is every opportunity for people to turn into the lot safely. Mr. Bacon further commented that it was he who initiated._the r.ed curb in front of the shopping center at 1100 Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that he called the City of Hermosa Beach and volunteered to paint the curb red many years ago. He stressed that he has never seen an accident at the center at 1200 P.C.H. Prazzie Tanner, tenant of Mr. Epstein's center, addressed the Commission and opposed the project. He stated that there are safety problems because of the wall, especially with trucks. He asked that the Commission address the problem of slow moving trucks creating traffic and safety hazards. He doubted whether signage would be effective because cars travel fast down the highway. Dr. Andrew Lesser, 1200 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He noted that several years ago he was required to add two additional parking spaces for his practice. The center is now fully leased, and those two extra spots are definitely necessary. He stated that the Alpha Beta lot is full almost every day. He anticipated the upper lot also being full at almost all times. He felt that if a Fox Photo is put in, it would seem necessary to add additional parking, since there is barely enough parking now. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, regular shopper at Alpha Beta, favored approval of the project. She stated that the wall must be tall or else the children will be going over it. If the wall comes down, it will invite skateboarders, which is more hazardous. "~ Ms. Burt stated that the parking lot at 1200 P.C.H. is too small, and it was too small -9 -PC Minutes 3/ 1 /88 when it was built; however, that does not entitle them to use the parking at Alpha Beta. She noted that all large trucks can be hazardous; however, they should not be traveling so fast as to create safety problems. She suggested that decals be placed on employees' cars so police can identify who should be parking where. She felt that the Alpha Beta center is very attractive, and it should remain that way. Anita Frost, worker at 1200 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, stated that every day she hears brakes screeching because the conditions at the parking lot are so dangerous. She stated that the traffic entering the exiting the Alpha Beta lot is hazardous. She has seen several accidents involving people in the parking lot. She felt that the last thing needed at Alpha Beta is another business which would encourage more cars. She also noted concern over the dangers involved with the view blockage caused by the wall. Neil Hagemeister, 911 13th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that his main concern involves parking. He stated that many cars already park on his street. He stated that the City has set up parking standards, and he is upset that the City is now proposing to allow someone to have fewer than the required number of parking spaces. He asked what would happen if sales at the Alpha Beta picked up in the future. He felt consideration should be given to that possibility before the parking spaces are given away. Lloyd Williams, 1723 Stanford, customer of the Alpha Beta center, finds the center to be pleasant and quite nice to patronize. He noted that it is not a problem to find a parking space at the center, noting that it is probably because of the decrease of business at the Alpha Beta. He felt that the Fox Photo would be a nice addition to the center. Public Hearing closed at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton commented on trash trucks in the area and stated that caution should be taken to ensure that the trucks do not cause problems. He asked why trash trucks would be using the lower parking level at 1200 P .C.H. Mr. Schubach stated that there are trash enclosures in that area which were approved with the original plan. They are located to the left of the driveway. Chmn. Compton noted that more caution should be used in the future in regard to the location of trash enclosures. Comm. Peirce asked if the public parking spaces in the Alpha Beta lot adjacent to Greenwood Park are designated as being for users of the park. Mr. Schubach stated that there are no signs posted, even though the spaces may be used by people using the park as well as people shopping at the center. The only signs are those advising that there is a two-hour parking limit. Comm. Ingell noted that Mr. Bacon did not have a chance for rebuttal comments. Public Hearing reopened at 9:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Roger Bacon discussed the conditions and asked about the lighting. He noted that Condition No. l(b) states that "lighting shall remain on from dusk to dawn until one hour after the last business closes." Mr. Schubach stated that there is a typo in that condition; the words "to dawn" should be deleted. PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 Mr. Bacon stated that there are timed lights in the lot which stay on until 1:00 A.M. He stated that they are also in the lot on 13th Street for safety purposes. Mr. Bacon commented on Condition No. 2(a): "Any change of the existing uses located within the shopping center shall require Planning Commission review and approval." He did not favor such a condition, explaining that all use changes would need to come before the Commission. He stated that too many restrictions on a project make financing quite difficult. He wanted the condition to state that any change in use of this particular building (Fox Photo) would need to come before the Commission for approval. He noted that most of the businesses at the center have long-term leases. Mr. Bacon discussed Condition No. 1: "Employees at the shopping center shall be required to park in the rear parking lot behind the center." He noted, however, that he would prefer to have employee parking on 13th Street. Mr. Schubach preferred that the employee parking be on the upper lot behind the center. He felt that that is the least used parking lot. He noted, however, that the decision is up to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bacon discussed the businesses using the employee parking area. He stated that there are more parking spaces on the 13th Street area. He stated that he is amendable to negotiating the terms. Mr. Bacon stated that the upper parking level is for employee parking and patient parking of the periodontist. There are also two emergency stalls. Comm. Ingell felt that even if employees park in the two "satellite" parking areas, it will still be necessary for some of them to park in the main lot. Mr. Bacon disagreed, noting that there are a total of approximately 34 spaces in the two employee lots. Comm. Ingell noted that it is of benefit to the businesses to ensure that customers are able to park in the main lot. Parker Downs, 2371 East 235th Place, Torrance, manager of the Alpha Beta, stated that the 13th Street parking area adequately accommodates employee parking throughout the day. He stated that there are fewer than 18 employees at the store at any given time. Chmn. Compton asked how long Mr. Bacon would like to have the lights remain on at the center. Mr. Bacon replied that the lights should remain on until 1:00 A.M. Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Peirce stated that he does not favor lowering parking requirements unless there is some benefit to the City. In this case, the City would be able to gain more control over the parking lot. He noted that currently the City has very little control over what goes on in the parking areas. He also noted that if there is a hazard in the parking structure, that would fall within the purview of the Building Department. He felt that the issue of the wall can be addressed by staff, and that issue should not play a part in the decision of the Planning Commission on whether to approve the parking plan. -11 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 '<..._/ Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 2(a): "Any change of the existing uses located within the shopping center shall require Planning Commission review and approval." He felt that condition is appropriate because if a use changes to one which would require more parking, the issue should be addressed to ensure there will be adequate parking. Comm. Peirce strongly favored changing Condition No. 3 to read: "A covenant with the City included as a party thereto, shall be recorded limiting changes (as opposed to uses) in the shopping center without Planning Commission review and approval." Comm. Peirce explained that if this wording is used, only a change in use would need to come before the Commission; i.e., if one bank is replaced by another bank, approval would not be necessary; however, if the bank is replaced by a restaurant, approval would be required because the parking requirements would change. Comm. Peirce suggested the addition of another condition requiring signs to be installed along the common area parking spaces encouraging people to park there and to use the park itself. Comm. Ingell favored the parking plan approval, noting that it is appropriate that the City have some control over the parking area. He noted, however, that the City should have a say as to what type of business can go into the center. Chmn. Compton asked about conditions pertaining to landscaping. He noted that this owner maintains the center in a beautiful condition; however, it is questionable what future owners might do. Therefore, he suggested a condition regarding landscaping. He also suggested that such a condition be made standard for all parking plans. Chmn. Compton also suggested a condition providing for parking plan reviews. Mr. Schubach stated that there will be a list of standard conditions for future parking plans. Roger Bacon again addressed the Commission, stating that he would acquiesce to Condition No. 2; however, he suggested additional wording for that condition: "Any change of the existing uses located within the shopping center shall require Planning Commission review ana approval, providing that the Fox Photo building is occupied. If not occupied, the condition shall not be applicable." In other words, if Fox Photo is not successful and is torn down or removed, the requirements revert back to the way they were before Fox Photo. Chmn. Compton noted, though, that any use which would require a change in parking would require approval. He noted that the main concern is to protect the parking plan. Mr. Schubach preferred that the condition state that if the building is removed, the center can go back to the old conditions; however, that a new use must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted, also, that there are zoning requirements which would apply to this instance. Mr. Lough stated that there would not be a problem with such a condition. He stated that any new use which would require more parking would require approval. He stated that the parking plan can be tied to the existence of Fox Photo; if Fox Photo is demolished, that particular parking plan would become void. If that plan remains after Fox Photos demise, there would be the risk of two parallel parking plans being in existence. -12 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 Mr. Schubach suggested adding a condition concerning the existence of the Fox Photo building and the parking plan becoming null and void if the building is removed. Comm. Peirce favored leaving the condition the way it is. He noted that the City is giving something here, and the applicant should also be willing to compromise. Comm. lngell agreed with Comm. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-23, as written by staff through the first five conditions, but with the following modifications: (a) addi tion of a Condition No. 6 requir ing signage at the common area indicating that the park ing is available for people using the park; (b) addition of a Condition No. 7 requiring that landscaping remain after the modification as exists to date and not be changed without the approval of the Planning Director; (c) addition of a Condition No. 8 requiring that the trash area be kept clean; (d) addition of a condition requiring that this item be brought back for review if it is determined that there are problems with the parking, ingress, egress, etc. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell to correct Condition No. l(b) to read: "Lighting shall remain on from dusk until one hour after the last business closes." (Delete the word "dawn.") Chmn. Compton suggested that Condition No. l be modified to read: "Employees at the shopping center shall be required to park in either the 13th Street or rear parking lot~ behind the center." Amendments accepted by Comm. Peirce as maker and Comm. Ingell and second. Comm. Rue noted that there is no pedestrian access from Pacific Coast Highway to the Fox Photo building. He suggested that there be a handicapped ramp installed between the sidewalk and across the landscaped area into the parking lot. Mr. Friel, the architect, stated that such a ramp would not be possible because of a lack of adequate space and no available grade. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis Recess taken from 9:27 P.M. until 9:37 P.M. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/16/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 23, 1988. At the November 4, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission requested that a text amendment be prepared in response to the Building Department's request for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding architectural projections. Section 1209: It is clear from reading Section 1209 that cornices, eaves, sills, etc., are allowed to project into the required yards. What is not clear are the elements which might constitute similar architectural features. Items that may be considered as similar but are not listed include chases for mechanical equipment, greenhouse or bay windows, pilasters and columns. -13 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 Another concern regarding the section is that it contains no parameters other than the allowable projection. In other words, if a greenhouse window is an allowable projection, what are the appropriate limitations on its size? Obviously, as the projections become bulkier, they appear to be less of a projection and more like a main part of the building. Section 1210: Currently, fireplaces are allowed to encroach into the side yard, but not into the front or rear yard. Staff believes fireplaces are acceptable in the front and rear yards as well as the side yards. Section 1211: This section allows fire escapes to encroach three feet into the side yard which could ultimately block all access along one side of a dwelling which could be a fire hazard. This provision has also resulted in applicants calling a stairway to the roof a fire escape. Further, there is no provision to allow a fire escape to encroach in the rear setback. When this section was originally conceived, a fire escape was probably envisioned as a ladder with a platform, not a stairway. Section 1212: This section allows stairways and balconies to come within one foot of the front property line. One foot is generally not visible to the naked eye, and generally has caused concern by neighboring residents, particularly when a development has a subterranean garage and the balcony is on the first floor only several feet from ground level. The front yard then appears completely covered. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution modifying various sections of the zoning ordinance pertaining to encroachments into yard areas. Comm. lngell noted that all but one of the projections mentioned in the proposed resolution can go to within 30 inches of the lot line except fireplaces and stairways, which can go to 36 inches. He questioned the difference. Chmn. Compton felt that everything should be uniform. He continued by stating that he feels Section 1212 should be separated, noting that stairways and balcony encroachments are two entirely different issues. Chmn. Compton discussed the areas of the city which are affected by right of ways and the problems which are posed by the right of way areas. Chmn. Compton discussed fireplace encroachments, stating that the proposed resolution states they may project into the required yard a distance of 18 inches. He felt that 30 inches would be more appropriate. He continued by discussing the placement and construction of fireplaces. He felt that 30 inches would allow designers more flexibility in designing attractive projects. Public Hearing opened at 9:50 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She wanted the Commission to ensure that balconies and overhangs are high enough so as not to interfere with people walking along the sidewalk below. She noted safety concerns over the overhangs being so low. Ms. Burt also felt that there should be uniformity in the setbacks throughout the City, noting that it would make the City more attractive. She asked that the current setbacks be maintained. -14 -PC Minutes 3/ l/~B. Maraya Strickland, 845 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, agreed 100 percent with the proposed text amendment. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton discussed the setbacks and stated that if there is less than five feet in the front setback and the zero setback is actually going to be used, not much can be allowed in the way of projections. He continued by discussing what has been allowed in the past. He noted, too, that there are many currently conflicting requirements in the City. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed figures for balconies and projection encroachments into required yards. Chmn. Compton and Mr. Schubach discussed the separations between projections. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-17 with the following modifications: Section 1: Section 1209. Architectural Encroachments into Required Yards, Condition No. 2: "Bay windows, greenhouse windows, and similar windows which are not wider than eight (8) feet, spaced a minimum of ten ( 10) feet apart, and which do not create additional floor area may encroach within three (3) feet of the side or rear lot line, and three (3) feet from the side, rear~ or front lot line, but in no case shall the depth of such windows be more than thirty 30) inches." Add a Condition No. 4 to Section 1: "Any architectural projections/features shall require a minimum ten ( 10) foot separation." Section 2: Section 1210. Fireplace Encroachment into Yards~ "Fireplace structures which are not wider than eight (8) feet, are spaced a minimum of ten (10) feet apart, and are part of the main building may project into the required yards a distance of thirty (30) inches, provided such encroachments are no closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line." Section 4: Section 1212. Stairway and Balcony Encroachments into Yard Areas. (This Section shall become two paragraphs.) "Stairways: An unenclosed stairway leading from grade to the first floor level may encroach into a required front yard thirty -six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than five (5) feet to the front property line." (Concrete steps shall be included in this section.) "Balconies: Shall have a minimum of seven (7) feet clear under it from the final grade; shall have a maximum three-foot projection from the building face; and shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches to the property line." (Canopies shall be included in this section.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Peirce, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis -15 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 TEXT AMENDMENT FOR REGULATIONS REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 25, 1988. At the October 6, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that this matter be continued and that a comparison chart be provided. Staff has prepared a comparison chart for the proposed changes; however, after studying this matter further, staff recognized that nonconforming uses and structures in the areas currently being downzoned should be given more thought. For example, there may be the possibility of limiting nonconformity in terms of the age of the structure. In other words, if a dwelling that was only two years old, for example, were to be destroyed by fire, possibly it could be rebuilt even though it had become nonconforming. Another matter that should be investigated is how old a structure can be in order to be allowed to remodel. Staff has investigated the ordinances of other cities and finds that these ordinances have room for improvement and do not really address the unique characteristics of Hermosa Beach. It appears that Hermosa Beach may have to be a pioneer in the area of nonconforming uses and structures. Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued to a date uncertain and to again provide public notice. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this matter to a date uncertain and to again provide public notice. No objections; so ordered. MINOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM AT 40 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 23, 1988. The Planning Commission at their meeting of June 4, 1985, approved Resolution P.C. 85-12 allowing a three-unit condominium and tentative parcel map # 17061. The zoning ordinance requires any expansion, modification, or change of use requiring a conditional use permit to receive approval from the Planning Commission prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to add a solarium of approximately 435 square feet for Unit C. The solarium will be constructed in a roof area that is presently not being utilized. The solarium will not conflict with any zoning requirement s , inclu d in g he igh t, or with t he conditions of approval in the c ondit ional u se permit . Ope n sp ace for the units is provi ded in decks at the nor th end of the buildi ng , oppo sit e the proposed s olar ium ar e a. The overall height of the building will not change. The proposed plans show two existing doors leading from Unit C to the proposed solarium area. The original approved construction plans do not show any doors leading to the solarium area. A condition of approval should require the applicant to obtain permits for the existing doors. -16 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 The three condominiums are owned by one person; therefore, the applicant did not need to receive approval from a homeowner's association since all units have common ownership. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the addition of the solarium. Comm. Peirce asked if this project conforms to all requirements, including width, height, and setbacks. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. He noted, also, that this project must meet all Building Code requirements. Comm. Rue asked if this project conforms to all of the conditions in the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to allow the solarium to an existing three-unit condominium located at 40 15th Street. No objections; so ordered. APPEAL OF LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 87-3 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 23, 1988. For Lot Merger Group 87-3, the Notification of Intent to Merge Lots was mailed on December 30, 1987. 33 notifications were mailed, and three hearing requests for appeals were received. The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 87-3 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. Staff cannot find a reason to exempt 1137 9th Street and 1214 10th Street from being subject to the merger. 1137 9th Street: --Owner: R. N. Pineda. Lots 11 and 12, Block 144, Redondo Villa Tract, 4161029010. (Owner did not appear.) Mr. Schubach noted that the owner received notification of this hearing; however, no further word has been received from Mr. Pineda on this matter. The parcel is comprised of two 25' by 100' lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure is a single-family dwe lling . On August 12, 1986, the owner was granted a demolition permit for the exist ing structure and was granted two permits for the construct ion of a single-family dwelling on July 22, 1986. The applicant has not initiated the demoli tion and/or construction; therefore, the permits have expired. 1214 10th Street: --Owners: William and Margaret Simas. Lots 43, 44, and 45, Block 144, Redondo Villa Tract, 4161028006. -17 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 The parcels are comprised of three 25' by 100' lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property lines. Building records indicate this structure is a single-family dwelling. Mr. Simas, 1214 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asserted that he was not properly notified of the intent to merge his lots. He based his assertion on the following: (a) notice was sent to his attorney, not directly to him; (b) notification had only his name appearing on it, but his wife is also an owner and her name should have appeared on the letter; (c) there was not adequate time to respond to the letter by the time it was forwarded to him by the attorney. He concluded by stating that he does not want his lots to be merged. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stressed that the letter was sent to the attorney, not directly to the Simas', the property owners of record; therefore, there has not been a proper legal noticing in this matter. Mr. Lough explained the legal requirements for this type of action. He stated that appearing at the hearing proves that an owner has been notified and is therefore waiving the right to object on the grounds of improper noticing. Mr. Lough stated that the hearing was requested by the attorney who received the letter on behalf of both property owners. Comm. Ingell questioned whether it is necessary for both property owners to receive notification. Comm. Peirce stated that both owners were notified, stating that the notice of intent went to both Mr. and Mrs. Simas. Mr. Lough stated that the item can be continued if the Commission feels there are any doubts regarding the proper notification of this particular merger. Ms. Burt asserted that this issue was not notified properly. Further, the names of both owners should appear on the noticing. Comm. Peirce stressed that the owner was notified in a proper manner. He further noted that reprographic copies are available which show the noticing to be proper and that the receipt for certified mail was obtained. Mr. Lough explained that the original notice went to the property owner by certified mail, which is the requirement. A letter was then sent to the City by the Simas' attorney. The City mailed a response back to the attorney. At this point, a response does not have to go by certified mail. He noted that, whether Ms. Burt is correct or not in her assumption that the matter was incorrectly notified, she still has the right to challenge the action. The Planning Commission then has the right to weigh the information in determining whether or not the matter should be continued. Chmn. Compton felt that the matter was properly notified; however, he did not object to a continuance of the matter if the applicant so desires. He noted, however, that the owner had only 13 days in which to respond, and the law entitles an owner 14 days. Mr. Simas further objected to the fact that the original letter had an incorrect address on it. -18 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 Comm. Peirce stressed that, in looking at a copy of the notice, the correct address appears on the face of the notice. Comm. Peirce stated that he would object to any continuance beyond two weeks, noting that he felt the original notice was proper. He felt that two weeks would be an adequate length of time for the applicant to prepare for the hearing. He could see no deficiencies whatsoever in the noticing. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 1988. No objections; so ordered. 1276 9th Street: Owner: Martha B. Northrup. Lots 37, 38, and 39, Block 143, Redondo Villa Tract, 4161030012. This parcel is comprised of three 25' by 100' lots. The main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure to be a single-family dwelling. The City of Redondo Beach has vacated Reynolds Lane and have dedicated ten feet of Reynolds Lane to the owner of 1276 9th Street. Therefore, the ten-foot dedication, combined with the total area of the three lots, creates a parcel of 8500 square feet. 8500 square feet is enough to create two parcels conforming to zoning requirements with each parcel maintaining a minimum frontage of 40 feet. Martha Northrup, 1276 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the hearing notice incorrectly identifies her Block as 144; it is actually Block 143. Ms. Northrup stated that she strongly objects to having her lots merged. She stated that the ten-foot street dedication has enlarged her property. She felt that there should be an exception to the merger of her lots. She felt that merger. .would affect .her property value. Ms. Northrup and Chmn. Compton discussed the issue of the ten-foot dedication. Chmn. Compton explained to the owner what the merger would accomplish. Chmn. Compton stated that he has expressed his views in regard to owners who do not want their lots merged. He stated that he does not want to see development of 19-foot homes on 25-foot lots, particularly since it destroys the street parking. He felt that two units should be allowed on two legal lots; but the type of development should in some way be required to allow two units, such as one unit in front and one unit in back so that it precludes the inadequate street parking which sometimes occurs. Comm. Peirce noted that his view remains the same on the lot mergers, stating that if they meet the criteria, they should be merged. He noted, however, that the Northrup property at 1276 9th Street differs from the other properties in this lot merger group. Comm. Rue concurred with the comments made by Chmn. Compton in regard to the parking and visual effect if these lots are merged. He felt that if someone protests the lot merger, that is an adequate reason to not merge the lots, noting that the lots were purchased as two lots and should be allowed to remain as two lots if so desired. He could not condone the City merging lots against the wishes of the owner. Comm. Rue commented that he would like to discuss the issue of design criteria to encourage others types of construction on these types of lots. -19 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton to not merge the lots at 1137 9th Street. Comm. Peirce noted that the majority of citizens, as well as the City Council, appear to favor the lot mergers. He felt that the City is going about this issue backwards, in that the Planning Commission is voting politically, and the City Council is vot ing pla nning. Chmn. Compton disagreed, stating that this issue has arisen because of the development of these particular types of lots. Comm. Peirce stated that the lot merger ordinance is designed to maintain the neighborhoods in the density condition in which they exist today. By not merging lots, the neighborhoods will be forced to change. Comm. Ingell noted concern that more citizens have not appeared to address this issue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None Comm. DeBellis Chmn. Compton felt that the notice sent out by the City is very intimidating for most citizens. He asked for an update on what happened at the last Council meeting in regard to the issue of the letters being sent out. Mr. Lough stated that the City Council did not feel the notices are intimidating. He stated that official notices from the City are always apt to cause citizens to take pause. Mr. Schubach noted that the letter was approved by the City.,~tlilcilr-- Comm. Rue noted that the Planning Commission has been given the authority by the State to not merge these lots if an owner does not want them merged. Therefore, he felt that it is well within the purview of the Commission to grant the wishes of those property owners who do not want to be merged. Comm. Ingell agreed, stating that if the State did not want the Planning Commission to have such authority, the State would not have given it to the Commission. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to not merge the lots at 1276 9th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None Comm. DeBellis Comm. Rue stated that not only is the rationale of his decision to maintain the rights of property owners, but also in looking at the aerials, most if not all of the lots in these areas have been built out to 25-foot units. He did not see three or four extra units making a significant impact. He fully supports the density proposition EE; however, he felt that people's rights take precedence. Comm. Peirce noted that one of the conditions for merger is if the block is 80 percent built to standard, the lots should not be merged. Staff has not found this to be the case -20 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 is these particular instances. Therefore, either staff is incorrect, or the issue needs to be readdressed. He noted that staff has asserted that these lots do not meet the requirements for not being merged. Mr. Schubach discussed the criteria for merging, stating that staff is trying to determine the blocks where the percentages are below the 80 percent requirement. He stated that that information can be included in future staff reports. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP /117513 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1020 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Chmn. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter since he is the architect of record on the project. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 23, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 18, 1986, approved Resolution 86-12 for a four-unit condominium project. A tentative tract map expires 24 months after approval pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act. This requirement was included as a condition of approval in Resolution 86-12. The Planning Commission may grant the applicant an extension not to exceed 12 months. The applican t has obtained the required building per m it s. The actual construction has already commenced. The Building Department has approved a foundation inspection. Since the applicant has started construction of the development, staff recommended a twelve-month extension of the tentative tract map and conditiena'1 use permit. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to extend the conditional use permit and tentative tract map #17513 for a period of 12 months. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Rue, Peirce None Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis The Commissioners received the following: (a) Memorandum from Building Director William Grove regarding attendance at Planning Commission meeting of 3/ l /88 (b) Memorandum regarding meeting date for City Council/Planning Commission workshop and circulation element workshop with DKS Consultant and City Council (c) Letters regarding conditional use permit for Martha's (d) Memorandum regarding conditional use permit compliance letter (e) City Council Minutes of February 8 & 9, 1988 -21 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 Mr. Schubach discussed the City Council/Planning Commission workshop session. At the City Council meeting of January 26, 1988, the City Council gave staff the option of setting the date for the workshop. Staff is now requesting the Commission to give their preferable dates. The City Council will be meeting in the future with OKS Associates regarding goals and policies for the circulation element. The tentative date is March 17, 1988. The proposed goals, with comments by staff, were provided to the Commissioners. Comm. Peirce stressed the importance of addressing the circulati on element in a timely manner. He stated that he would like to have some hard recommendations from the consultant rather than just more paperwork. He wants some hard data on this issue, stating that concrete information is necessary to alleviate the traffic problems in town. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue is merely preliminary at this time; the consultants are collecting data at this time, and a report will be presented in the future. Several of the Commissioners stated that they would be unable to attend a joint workshop on March 17. Mr. Schubach explained the process for this issue. He noted that both the City Council and the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to give inputs on the issue of the circulation element. Mr. Schubach stated that this issue could be put on the next Planning Commission agenda so that the Commission can give their input in regard to what will be addressed at the joint workshop. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed various dates for a joint workshop. Chmn. Compton suggested that the City Council be given some dates to choose from for the joint meeting: March 23, March 24, April 6, or April 7. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the letter sent to Martha's regarding their not complying with the conditions of their conditional use permit. Comm. Peirce noted that the CUP for Martha's was based on their not exceeding the seating capacity. He noted concern over the parking at this establishment. Chmn. Compton felt that someone from Martha's should come before the Commission if they want to increase their seating. However, it is not acceptable for them to blatantly disregard the conditions of their CUP. He noted that there may be a rationale for increasing the seating, but Martha's must go through the proper procedures to make such a request. Chmn. Compton suggested that staff contact Martha's to advise them that they must formally make a request to increase their seating. Comm. Peirce felt that the letter sent by Martha's shows a lack of understanding on the part of the owner; or, on the other hand, it shows a disregard for City requirements. Mr. Lough discussed legal aspects of the situation at Martha's. He suggested that the issue be discussed among himself, staff, and the new city manager before any recommendation is made. -22 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 Mr. Lough and the Commission discussed the issue of Martha's encroaching onto City property. Mr. Schubach discussed the standard compliance letter proposed by staff to be sent to businesses in recognition of their compliance with conditional use permit conditions. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell stated that he would like more information on the difference between various requirements for apartments and condominiums. Mr. Schubach stated that at one time the differences were substantial; however, for the most part the major differences have been eliminated. He noted that one difference is in the setback requirements, and he noted that staff could study the setback requirements in the R-3 zone and return with further information. Chmn. Compton favored standard setback requirements for the R-3 zone. Chmn. Compton asked staff to return with more information on this subject at a future meeting of the Planning Commission. Chmn. Compton stated that the issue of exterior parking requirements as related to the 17-foot setbacks should be addressed. Chmn. Compton suggest ed that the issue of removing the 17-foot setback requirement from alleys be di scu ssed at a future meeting. He suggested that this issue be studied by staff and returned to the Commission. Chmn. Compton stated that the Commission needs to study a mechanism to disallow 25- foot lot development in favor of two-family development in a front and rear configuration for the lots which have not been merged. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 12:03 A.M. No objections; so ordered. -23 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88 ( ) u 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 March 1, 1988. on, Chairman hnlt,#/kl Date -24 -PC Minutes 3/ 1/88