Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-16-1988~ I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELO ON FEBRUARY 16, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Andrew Perea. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Andrew Perea, Associate Planner; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve the minutes of February 2, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to appr.0v.e Resolutior:i P.C. 88- 4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSfON OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDfNG THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. Comm. De Bellis asked whether the City Attorney had prepared Resolution P .C. 88-12. Mr. Lough stated that he did not draft the resolution; however, he has reviewed it, and it appears to be legally enforceable. He stated that it is similar to ordinances used in other cities, and it seems to be effective. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENAL TIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLA TIO NS. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADO STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR "CARETAKER UNITS" IN THE M ZONE. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 2 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Dave Shaw, 20 l Via Mesa Grande, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he has just learned that his conditional use permit for a four-unit condominium project in the City will expire tomorrow, noting that the permit is two years old. He asked what he should do. He stated that the project is in progress, and he has already obtained the required permits. Mr. Schubach recommended that, since the project is in progress, the applicant should submit in writing a request for an extension. The matter can them be put on the agenda for the next meet.ing of the Planning Commission. At that time the Commission can decide whether or not to extend the tentative tract map for another year. Chmn. Compton stated that after Mr. Shaw submits his written request for a tentative tract map extension, staff can direct him in regard to the next step to be taken. VARIANCE TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE AT 40 7TH COURT (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/2/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 10, 1988. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of November 5, 1987, recommended that the Planning Commission grant a negative declaration for the subject parcel. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 5, 1988, granted the applicant a continuance to allow the applicant time to design alternate plans. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 2, 1988, granted the applicant a continuance to allow the applicant time to consult with an attorney. Mr. Knickerbocker, an attorney representing the applicant, met with staff and submitted a revised plan to alleviate the open space problem. The new plan will alleviate the open space problem, but it will require other variances; e.g., intrusions into the required setback. The revised plan submitted by Mr. Knickerbocker shows two stairways leading to the roof to create a deck to provide the required open space. The proposed spiral stairways encroach into the setback and have some building problems that the applicant is attempting to resolve with the Building Department. Since these pl.ans will require a new variance request, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to provide less than the required parking and require the applicant to submit a new application for the intrusion into the setbacks. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant is aware of this recommendation, and the attorney concurs. Public Hearing opened at 7:42 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Richard Knickerbocker, attorney for the applicants, addressed the Commission. He explained that the applicants are in the process of revising the plans; and it has been determined that a different variance will be necessary for the modified plans. He stated that he wished to express a good faith effort on the part of the applicants in their attempt to design an alternative project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE3 Mr. Knickerbocker noted that the applicant has paid approximately one thousand dollars for this variance request; therefore, it is hoped that the revised plan could be modified Lo become part of the same variance request. He noted that he was informed by staff that the only way this could be done is to obtain a waiver from the City Council. He hoped that when the revised plans are submitted, the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council that there be a waiver of fees. Chmn. Compton noted that this lot had been split; he asked when this occurred. Mr. Knickerbocker stated that the lot split occurred long before the present owner acquired this property; however, he was not certain exactly when it happened. He noted that the lot split makes it almost impossible to develop this property and be in conformance with all current requirements. Public Hearing closed at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue noted concern that the applicant may be proceeding without enough direction from staff. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would give direction to the applicant; however, at this time the only certain factor is that the applicant will need a variance for the project. He noted that the lot is small in size, and that could be taken into consideration for granting a variance. Comm. Rue felt that the applicant is making a good faith effort to revise the plans in order to conform with all requirements. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request for a variance to provide less than the required usable open space at 40 7th Court. Chmn. Compton noted that the applicant has not provided a site plan showing the ground level area for this property. He stated that he would prefer to see more detailed plans for this project, especially the location of the garage, stairway, the fence in relation to surrounding properties, and open space areas. Comm. Rue concurred and stated that he would prefer to have a conceptual drawing for the project. He was particularly interested in the proposed landscaping and treatment for the project. There being no objections to the motion; so ordered. Chmn. Compton noted that any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DECK TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 845 AND 845 1/2 EIGHTH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/2/88} Mr. Schubach gave staU report dated February 9, 1988. On November 19, 1987, the environmental staff review committee approved a negative declaration for this project and recommended a denial of the variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 4 The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 19, 1988, continued this item to the first meeting in February so that the Building Director could be available to answer questions and deliver input reg arding this matte r. Follow ing a reque st by the applicant and the Building Director, the Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 2, 1988, granted a continuance of the matter to this meeting. This project involves the construction of a deck 10' by 21.5" protruding into the sideyard from the second story. The applicants have built a deck 2.5' by 24" without obtaining the proper permits. Now the app licants are proposing to reduce the size of the deck to 10' by 21.5"; although any project ions of the deck will require a variance. The existing dwell ing, established on a 40' by 7 5' foot lot, has a sideyard setback of three feet. Current zoning regulations, however, would require a four-foot setback for this R- 2 lot. Therefore, this structure is already nonconforming. Based on this information, it is in the opinion of staff that th is lot does not contain exceptional or extraordinary dimensions that would warrant this variance request. In addition, this variance is not necessary for a property right enjoyed by others and denied to this property owner. Bill Grove, Building Director, addressed the Commission. He noted that he had provided the Commiss ion with additional written information related to this variance request and how it may impact on the building code requirements. Mr. Grove stated that the method by which this building was originally constructed would not conform to current building code requirements. Bl:l1i ·1 . .i:s,· st.1b;ject to a zoning variance, and it is still possible to have an encroachment into the sideyard that does conform to the building code. Mr. Grove stated that in this case, the building code allows for encroachments into the required sideyard not more than 12 inches into the areas where openings are prohibited. In this case, there would be an allowable projection of 1.1 feet, and the projection would have to be constructed of either non-combustible material or have a one-hour fire resistancy, unless a modification to the requirements were granted by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Grove stated that he had no other information at this time related to building code issues in regard to this particular project. Chmn. Compton asked whether any other cases such as this have gone before the Board of Appeals. Mr. Grove stated that he knew of no similar cases in recent history. He stated that a case such as this would also normally require a zone variance; therefore , any similar case would need to come before the Planning Commission prior to going before the Board of Appeals. Chmn. Compton noted that many homes in the City appear to have projections into the sideyard very much like this one. He could understand how the applicant went ahead with this project, stating that the applicant probably proceeded based on the assumption that it would be acceptable because so many other people had done the same thing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 5 Chmn. Compton asked whether such a projection could create a fire or safety hazard. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative, noting that structures built so closely together could indeed pose safety hazards. He continued by discussing the dangers connected with eave overhangs and balconies, explaining that fire tends to travel along these projections. He noted, however, that the Building Department does not have the authority to require the removal of nonconforming structures built prior to the current regulations and which do not conform to the current requirements. Comm. DeBellis asked, for clarification, whether a variance would be necessary in order for the applicant to have the 1.1 foot encroachment into the sideyard. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Comm. DeBellis asked, in the event findings could not be made for granting the variance, whether the applicant would still be allowed to keep the glass doors so long as a railing were insta11ed in order to keep people from falling out of the door. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Douglas Strickland, 845 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked for clarification of what Mr. Grove said regarding an allowable projection of l.l feet into the sideyard. Chmn. Compton explained to the applicant that the zoning code allows for virtually no projections into the side yard. According to the building cede, if there were no zoning code in effect, the building code would allow up to a maximum of one foot extension; so the only variance which would be reasonable, if a variance were to be granted, would be no more than 1.1 foot. Mr. Strickland asked for clarification of the comments made in regard to a one-hour fire construction. Chmn. Compton explained that if there is any type of projection at all, a variance is necessary. If the variance were granted, the projection extending into the sideyard must be constructed either in a fire construction method approved by the Building Department or be of a non-combustible material, such as metal. It would be necessary to cover the deck with something such as stucco or a material which is fire retardant. Mr. Strickland stated that he would reduce the deck to 1.1 feet and stated that it would not be a problem for him to stucco the deck area. Chmn. Compton felt that one foot would not be usable as a deck. He asked whether the applicant would be willing to make the area even smaller, such as having it merely as a plant shelf. Mr. Strickland stated that he would be willing to accept the decision of the Commission. Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on whether a variance would be necessary for the 1.1 foot projection. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 6 Mr. Grove stated that there are actually two regulations which need to be addressed in this matter. One is the zoning stan da r d, and the other is the building code standard. According to the building code standard, the allowable projection into an area where openings are prohibited is, in this case, the 1.1 foot projection. From a zoning standpoint, balconies have not been historically treated as architectural projections and allowed under that section. But other architectural projections are allowed . which may en cro a ch 30 inches into a required sideyard, providing a minimum of 30 inches is m a intaine d clear to the side lot line. Therefore, if this were restricted to that kind of architectural projection, the projection would be only slightly more than six inches in order to still maintain the 30 inches clear to the side lot requirement. Comm. Rue asked whether stucco has an approved one-hour fire rating. Mr. Grove stated that it does, providing it is tested assembly. Chmn. Compton asked what is currently allowed as architectural projections. Mr. Grove noted that later in tonight's agenda the topic of architectural projections will be addressed. The code currently limits architectural projections to eaves, belt courses, sills, and buttresses. In this case, if the projection were considered more as a planter shelf, the Commission may wish to make a decision on that basis. Mr. Grove stated that in the past balconies have not been considered as architectural projections because they constitute usable floor space area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve a 1.1 foot balcony on property located at 845 and 845 1/2 8th Street. Comm. Rue asked that the motion be modified to include wording stating that the material must be of a one-hour fire construction. Comm. Peirce stated that such a modification is unnecessary, noting that the project must conform to all building code requirements; however, he agreed to such an amendment to the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce as maker and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, to add wording specifying that the balcony must meet one-hour fire treatment requirements. Comm. DeBellis asked Comm. Peirce what basis there is for the granting of this variance. Comm. Peirce felt that this small projection is not objectionable and provides a substantial benefit to this particular opening. If the projection is denied, the applicant would need to put a railing across the door opening flush with the building which he felt to be negligible. Comm. DeBellis responded that this same finding could be applied to almost every property in the City; therefore, if it is felt that the law is not appropriate, the law should be changed. He stated that based on this, he could not support the motion. Chmn. Compton stated that possibly the law does need to be changed. He continued by discussing what is allowed in another, unmentioned city to the south~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 7 Chmn. Compton stated that there are many ex panses of large , flat buildi ngs in the Ci t y, and he considers them to be quite unattractive . He felt t ha t a reasonabl e alternat i ve should be adopted to allow for sligh t projections i nt o sideyards to a ll eviate these unattractive fac ades. He stressed, however, t hat the projections should pose no type of safety problem. Chmn. Compton stated that he would tend to support the motion; however, he feels that this issue needs to be addressed further. Comm. Rue discussed the findings and stated that this building is dark and it is nonconforming. He noted that he had difficulty in making the required findings to grant this particular variance, other than the fact that this is an existing building with a very nice view to the west. Chmn. Compton agreed that the exceptional circumstance is the view, noting that there are only a tiny number of homes in the entire country with such an ocean view. Comm. DeBellis retorted that more homes in town would have better views if everyone were required to build five-foot sliders without permits and then came in later to request a variance. He noted that this request is for an after-the-fact project. He felt that if the City does not want this type of activity to occur, the law should be changed. He felt that it is inappropriate to stretch the findings to accommodate this situation. Comm. Ingell stated that he was absent from the first hearing of this matter. Comm. Peirce noted that he was absent from the first public hearing on this matter; however, he has viewed the tape and read the minutes and all applicable materials, and he felt confident in making a decision on this project. Co mm . Rue asked if the applicant could use wrought iron for the railing, stating that he f ee ls t he iron would look more attractive and airier and would also appear to be more of an architectural projection. He noted, also, that after stucco is applied and the width of the wood is taken into account, the actual projection area would be only six or seven inches; he could see no benefit in that. Mr. Grove stated that wrought iron would be acceptable . .He continued by discussing with the Commission various options available for the railing. Comm. Rue noted difficulty in making the required findings to grant this variance. He asked if the applicant had any further input on this matter. Mr. Strickland stated that he would use wrought iron if the Commission preferred. He said the wooden flooring would be stuccoed and then the wrought iron railing could be installed above that. He noted that his wife would like to put plants on the small metal ledge. Comm. Rue noted that the project now becomes more of an architectural treatment, rather than a balcony. He agreed that the law should be changed since the findings cannot be made. Mr. Strickland asked how changing the law would impact his project. Mr. Lough described the chain of events involved in amending the zoning ordinance. He stated that this matter would then need to start over from scratch. He noted that the entire process would take approximately four months. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE8 Mr. Schubach noted that this issue is on the agenda for discussion by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lough and the Commission discussed what would happen to this project if it is continued until such time that a decision is made in regard to architectural treatments. Comm. Ingell asked whether this item could be continued until after a modification is made to the ordinance. Chmn. Compton did not feel a continuance would change anyone's mind in regard to this variance. Comm. DeBellis called for the question. (Vote on the MOTION to approve a 1.1 foot balcony as stated by Comm. Peirce.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MOTION DIES. Comm. Peirce Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Ingell None MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to accept staff's recommendation to deny the variance to allow a deck to encroach into the sideyard setback at 845 and 845 1/2 8th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce Comm. Ingell None Chmn. Compton noted that any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE 17-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF 2/2/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 10, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of August 18, 198 7, denied a variance request to encroach into the required seventeen-foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet of open space. At the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988, the applicant was allowed a new hearing of his variance request. This matter was continued to allow for the request to be publicly noticed. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 2, 1988, continued this item to give the applicant an opportunity to meet with the Planning Director and Building Director to clarify any misunderstanding. Mr. Perea cont inued the staff report, explaining that Mr. Nuttall met with the Planning Director and the Building Director to discuss plans submitted on November 2, 1987. The plans submitted on November 2, 1987, are a third plan which incorporates the existing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE9 garage. Both Building and Planning Departments are in concurrence and find the plans submitted on November 2, 1987, to be in violation of the zoning code sections listed in the letter dated November 3, 1987. Mr. Perea continued by discussing the detached garage and the proposal to attach it to the main structure, which would then render it nonconforming. The different plans submitted by the applicant all incorporate the center open courtyard area. The courtyard area is a specific design feature that the applicant desires, but which will require a variance. There are several other design alternatives available which will allow a substantial increase in the floor area of the existing structure without requiring any variances or removal and/or modification of any type for the purpose of conformance with current ordinances. Staff is recommending denial of this variance since there are no unusual circumstances to justify granting this variance. Comm. Peirce asked whether the applicant could leave the existing garage and attach the garage, with the proper setbacks on the new construction, to the existing house without having to tear down the garage thereby triggering the 17-foot setback requirement. Mr. Schubach stated that if the garage is attached to the house, the house would then become even more nonconforming. He noted that this fact was asserted in Item No. 2 of the letter sent from the Building Department to the applicant. If the garage is partially town down so that it is not as close to the property line, there would not be much remaining; the east and west walls would then need to be torn down, and then the garage door would be on the alley side and would need to be removed. All that would remain would be a small portion of wall on the south side. Comm. Peirce asked: if the garage remains as it is, and was stepped back to the sideyard setback from that point, and then attached to the house, would the proper sideyard setback for that particular extension exist. Mr. Schubach explained that doing so would involve removing a portion of the garage, which would then make the garage too small. Comm. Peirce and Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the garage and its attachment to the house. Mr. Perea explained that the garage is currently 1.6 feet from the side property line. As a detached structure, it can remain as a conforming structure; however, once it is attached to the main structure, it would no longer be a detached structure, and it would become nonconforming. Mr. Schubach stated that the garage can be added to; however, it must meet the current setback requirements. Chmn. Compton noted that he has never run into this problem before. He continued by discussing the interpretation with Mr. Schubach. Bill Grove, Building Director, addressed the Commission. He explained that the zoning code provides for different regulations for main buildings and accessory buildings in some cases. He continued by discussing the letter he wrote, wherein it states a detached garage meeting the seven criteria can be located either on a side or rear property line. Clearly, a main structure cannot do that. At the present time, however, the garage PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 10 complies with six out of seven of the requirements. It is very nearly a conforming structure as it exists now; but by attaching it to the main structure, it would become part of the main structure and thereby be nonconforming because the main structure would then become 1.6 feet from the side property line in lieu of the current 2.7 feet. Mr. Grove stated that the use would become that of a nonconforming building as opposed to a nonconforming use. He continued by explaining why this would not be permitted under the current zoning code regulations. Comm. Peirce noted that any new structure would need to comply with current zoning; therefore, he could see no difference between this and a case where someone tears down the entire garage and claims he was just improving his property in order to avoid triggering the 17-foot setback requirement. He stated that he could see the point of the zoning ordinance in this case; however, he does not agree with it. Chmn. Compton asked which one of the seven requirements this garage does not meet. Mr. Grove replied that the garage does not comply with the one-hour fire resistant construction requirement for the property line location. Mr. Grove stated that Mr. Nut t all presented a set of plans to the Building Department which differed from those presented to the Planning Commission. The Building Department noted that t hat plan would also require variances. He noted that the applicant can proceed with a project which would require no variance; however, the applicant doesn't want to do that; he wants to build the project he originally proposed. The problem is that the applicant wants to maintain an interior courtyard, which takes up too much of the lot. He said that the applicant can add substantially to the property in a way which would be in compliance with all the requirements .. _ Chmn. Compton felt that the concept of the courtyard is admirable, and he does not feel that the applicant's request is unreasonable based on what the City has allowed in the past. The fact that this applicant has a nonconforming garage setback is also not unusual in the City. He asked whether the main concern of the Building Department is in regard to access. Mr. Grove stated what he felt to be the intention of the original drafters of the ordinance. Comm. Rue asked about the 17-foot setback requirement for garages which are added on to. Mr. Schubach discussed his interpretation of the 17-foot setback requirement as it applies to nonconforming uses. Comm. Peirce noted that he could see no difference between this plan and the plan that the Commission has discussed several times already. Mr. Schubach agreed, stating that the applicant still desires to build his original plan, Plan A. Public Hearing opened at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had nothing new to add to what he has already said to the Commission. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 11 summarized his previous testimony, and he showed a plan of what he would like to do. He stated that Plan A would best satisfy the needs of his neighborhood. He noted that Plan B would remove two on-street parking spaces. He felt that the spirit of the ordinance is best met by Plan A. He further noted that he would prefer to have an enclosed four-car garage. Comm. DeBellis noted that Plan A has raised concern among the Commission because of a potential bootleg unit. He noted that the code requires only two enclosed parking spaces with two guest parking spaces which can be open. He noted concern over such a large enclosed garage. Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing various parking options at this project. He noted, however, that if the intent is there, a bootleg can be made from any available space. Chmn. Compton asked whether the applicant would consider having two of the four parking spaces open. Mr. Nuttall stated that he would very much resist the idea of having two open parking spaces. Alicia Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the granting of the variance for the following reasons: (a) rules and regulations mandated by the City should be adhered to; (b) the applicant has other options available to him which would require no variances; (c) having a garage so close to 16th Street, which is very busy, would be a detriment to the neighborhood; (d) negative impacts on the City's reputation if too many nonconforming uses are allowed; (e) negative impacts on the City's reputation for not following its own general plan; (f) even though the atrium idea is nice, the lot is not large enough for it; (g) the ex,i,s,ting garage is in very bad condition and should be torn down as opposed to expanded. Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the granting of the variance for the following reasons: (a) possible use as a bootleg; (b) the setback rules should be complied with; (c) the City's rules and regulations should be adhered to ; (d) alternative options are available to this applicant for designing an attractive project; (e) the lot is simply not large enough to accommodate the atrium; (f) the design is not appropriate for this property; (g) this item has been continued three times already, and the plans have been exactly the same each time; (h) there are no extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. Public Hearing closed at 9:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission must make its decision based on the plans and the request before the Commission at this time. It is not up to the City to redesign a project for an applicant. He noted that there are two problems involved in this matter: (1) trying to maintain the 17-foot setback; and (2) having a legal project. He felt that, after hearing all the testimony and looking at the plans, that the variance should be denied because it is not necessary for the enhancement of this property. Comm. Peirce noted that this project can be redesigned to include almost everything that the applicant desires. He stated that he is somewhat opposed to the large enclosed garage, and he questioned whether it is really necessary for this property. Based on these reasons, he said he would find it difficult to approve this project as submitted and to find grounds to grant the variance for the 17-foot setback requirement. j PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE12 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the variance to encroach into the 17-foot parking setback for property located at 905 15th Place. Comm. Rue noted concern over the potential bootleg if this variance is approved. He stated that he liked the design; however, the four-car garage could lead to problems. He agreed that an alternative project can be designed which would not need a variance. He concluded by stating that he does not think adequate findings can be made to grant this variance. Comm. Ingell noted concern over the bootleg potential. He could also find no reason not to enforce the 17-foot setback requirement, noting that the lot is not that small. He could find no reason to grant this variance. Chmn. Compton said that he tends to be an advocate of people's rights. He felt that there are some problems with the 17-foot setback which need to be modified. He felt that an extraordinary circumstance in this case is that the property is surrounded on three sides by public streets. He noted concern, however, that he could not make the necessary finding in regard to this variance being necessary so that the applicant can have property rights enjoyed by others in the same vicinity. He felt that the applicant can redesign this project and comply with all the regulations, without needing a variance. He noted, however, that he tends to oppose Plan B, even though it needs no variance, because it will cause two on-street parking spaces to be lost. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, lngell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None Mr. Nuttall addressed the Commission and noted that if he proceeds with the alternative Plan B, it is still necessary for him to obtain a variance for the front yard setback of 9.7 feet, since ten feet is required. He wanted to ensure that this would pose no problem for his project. Mr. Grove stated that he discussed Plan B with Mr. Nuttall. He continued by explaining what was discussed in regard to the garage walls and door. He noted, however, that Plan B does not eliminate the need for a variance on the open space. Mr. Schubach stated that in the R-1 zone, a ten-foot setback is required; in this case the setback is 9.7 feet. He noted staff does not feel there is a problem in approving the variance for the 9.7 feet. He further noted that there is approximately 200 square feet of open space in this proposal. Chmn. Compton could see no problem with allowing the 9.7 foot front setback. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve a variance for the 9.7 foot setback on the front yard, the reasons being: (a) there was a conflicting measurement between th e old City survey and the new Ci ty survey; (b) this is an existing building; (c) there is adequate open space provided for in the rest of the design. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, lngell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE13 Recess taken from 9:15 P.M. until 9:25 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119517 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1111 VALLEY DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 10, 1988. This project is located in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 5,376 square feet, 67.2' by 80.0'. The proposed units are approximately 1450 square feet in size. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The design of the structure is two floors over the garage. The development will provide two enclosed parking spaces per unit, for a total of eight spaces, and two guest parking spaces. Two guest spaces are required for the development since no on-street parking space is being lost due to the curb cuts. No on­ street parking is allowed on Valley Drive. The units conform to the open space requirements. Building A will provide 308 square feet of countable open space. Building B has 303 square feet of countable open space. The units have additional open space area that is not counted since it does not meet the minimum dimension of seven feet. Private storage for these units is provided in an over-the-hood area in the garage. The plans do not show an area for trash. A recommended condition of approval is to require plans to show a trash area. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. Gary Lane, 723 Marina, Redondo Beach, designer of the project, addressed the Commission. He stated that the plans conform to all requirements. Chmn. Compton asked about the size of the garages. Mr. Lane said that the garages are a little larger than required, because they provide a storage area in the back. Also, the garage doors are somewhat wider than is required. He continued by discussing the various measurements of the garages and doors. Chmn. Compton suggested that in the future dimensions be included on the plans. He noted that with the plans being so small, it is difficult to fully understand the project. Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. Comm. Peirce commented that this project is quite tall for the area. He also noted concern over the egress and ingress, noting that the property is on Valley Drive which is a busy street. He noted that it is difficult to tell from the plans what kind of obstructions there might be at this location. He also noted concern over the slope of the land. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 14 Mr. Schubach stated that staff foresees no problem with ingress and egress at this proposed project. Comm. Peirce noted concern over the fac t t hat landscaping could obscure the view for cars coming into or ex i ting the dri veway. He suggested that the resolution contain wording specifying that there shall be no landscaping within three feet of the driveway. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to approve conditional use permit 88-18 and tentative parcel map #19517 for a four-unit condominium project at 1111 Valley Drive, with the addition of a condition specifying that plant material is to be kept back from the exit of the driveway in order to maintain a safe approach and exit from the driveway. Such landscaping shall be reflected in the landscaping plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119513 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 610 PALM DRIVE Chmn. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter as he is the architect of record on the project. Mr. Perea gave staff report dated February 9, 1988. The zoning for this project is R-3, and the general plan designation is high density. The lot size .• is 30.00 square fee.t, 100' by 300.' The proposed units are approximately 1,873 square feet in size. The units will contain two bedrooms and three bathrooms. Both units will contain two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The development will provide two parking spaces per unit plus two guest spaces per unit. At the time the plans were originally submitted, the garage area did not meet the 17-foot dimension requirement. However, a column will be relocated in order to meet the 17-foot requirement. The applicant will also correct problems with the open space, and the project will then conform to all open space requirements. The plans for this project conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with surrounding areas. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Ingell asked whether the storage area meets all City requirements. Mr. Perea replied in the affirmative. Comm. DeBellis asked for an explanation as to the submittal of plans and the process which follows. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 15 Mr. Perea explained the process. Comm. Rue asked about the bay window projections into the front yard setback. Mr. Perea explained that there will be no projecting bay windows. He said that they are shown on the site plans, but not on the floor plan. The site plan will be modified to conform with the f loor plan. He explained that the code currently allows for no bay window projections. Comm. Rue felt that bay windows could help to break up the front facade. He suggested that the originally proposed bay windows could be modified to comply. Mr. Perea stated that the Commission will be discussing architectural projections in the near future. He stated that the bay windows could be addressed at that time. If the Commission and City Council agree that bay window projections are acceptable, he would have no objection to a minor modification in the plans to include them. Comm. Peirce noted that the plans before the Commission are very small. He requested that future plans include a scale. He suggested that there be a standard in the City wherein architects are required to include a scale on the plans. He noted that the plans are too difficult to interpret without a scale. Public Hearing opened at 9:42 P .M. by Comm. Peirce. Bill Gussey, 413 1/2 Richmond Street, El Segundo, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that there is no problem with moving the post so that there is adequate turning radius in the garage. He stated that the mezzanine deck will be moved in order to comply with the open space requirements .. ", . Mr. Gussey discussed the storage area. He continued by stating that there will be a trash area provided. Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Comm. DeBellis noted for the record that the Commission had received a letter of opposition to this project from Mary Keeler, homeowner at 610 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach. MOTION by Comm, Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map /119513 for a two­ unit condominium project located at 610 Palm Drive. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue None Chmn. Compton None Comm. Rue commented on the plans being presented by applicants. He noted that they are very plain, very small, and do not show landscaping or elevations. He said that it is very difficult to study a project with these inadequate plans. He suggested that this issue be discussed during Commissioner Items. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE16 MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to suspend the agenda, in order to take up Item No. 12 before Item No. 11 because of the large number of people in the audience waiting to discuss Item No. 12. There being no objections to the motion; so ordered. APPEAL OF LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUPS L.M. 87-1 AND 87-2 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 9, 1988. The Planning Department determined that the lots included in L.M. 87-1 and L.M. 87-2 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 found those lots to be subject to merger since less than 80% of the block has been split, and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. Staff consulted the most recent tax assessor roles to determine the owners of the property. Registered letters were then sent to each of the property owners in December of 1987. In this particular area, four requests for a hearing appeal have been received. 46 lots have been merged uncontested in this particular area. Mr. Perea noted that of approximately 180 lots which have already been merged, about five percent of the owners requested a hearing. Mr. Schubach stated that staff finds no reason not to merge these lots, stating that they meet all criteria for lot mergers such as being substandard in size; having dwellings straddling the lot line; and being on a block where less thani &.0,.;{ilercent of the lots have already been split. Staff is therefore recommending that these lots be merged. Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commission take each of the four lots in question separately. Comm. Peirce asked what would be required of the Commission in order to grant the lot merger appeals. Mr. Schubach discussed the findings which would be necessary in order for the Commission to grant an appeal to the lot merger. He continued by reading various requirements which are necessary to grant the appeal. Mr. Lough stated that this process differs from a variance request; in that it is not necessary for the Commission to make findings as required by State law. He continued by explaining that the Commission may grant an appeal; however, it is best that some criteria are used in such a granting. He noted, too, that a public hearing is not required by State law; a hearing is held so that applicants do not need to pay for the noticing. Hearing opened at 10:05 by Chmn. Compton. 1220 7th Street --Owners: Paul and Mary Hulka. Lots 54 and 55, Block 139, Redondo Villa Tract, 4160029023. This parcel is comprised of two 25' x 100' foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate that these parcels contain a nonconforming duplex. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 17 Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the proposed lot mergers. He discussed the lot ordinance of 1957 and stated that it is within the purview of the Comm ission to grant the requests of these people to not have their lots merged. He stated that th ere is no reason not to grant t he requests of these four owners who do not wan t their lots merged. He stated that to merge the lots would create an economic hardship on these people. He asked the Commission to grant the appeals; stating that the fact that this has been appealed is reason enough to leave them alone. Mr. Schubach noted that a registered letter was sent to Mr. Paul Hulka informing him of the date, time, and place for this hearing. The Planning Department received a letter of appeal; however, Mr. Hulka was not present at the hearing. Wilma Burt, 1152 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hulkas. She stated that the Hulkas do not live in town and the house in question is a rental. She stated that they have not appeared either because they were ill or because they were intimidated by the City's actions. Ms. Burt stated that many people did not respond either in writing or by coming forward at the hearing because they are intimidated and feel that they would have to pay fees in order to request an appeal to the lot mergers. 1154 8th Street --Owners: Patrick and Barbara Vignery. Lots 57 and 58, Block 140, Redondo Villa Tract, 4160032014. This parcel is comprised of two 25' by 100' foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate these parcels contain a nonconforming duplex. Building records also indicate that 1.M~8th St1;.eet.was o dginally merged under the now repealed combined lot ordinance. Mr. Wood stated that he was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Vignery. He stated that this property differs from the others because there is a duplex on the property. He continued by discussing the intent of the lot merger ordinance. He stated that the Vignerys have two lots and two dwellings and are exercising their property rights to the fullest. Mr. Wood stressed that this owner does not even belong here protesting this lot merger. He noted that the City is dense now, and density will not be lowered by merging lots. He stated that a merger would impose a huge economic hardship on this owner. Mr. Wood stated that . .if the lots -are merged, the . duplex will then become nonconforming. He stated that this homeowner should be exempt from this requirement, asserting that Mr. Vignery is here through no fault of his own. Patrick Vignery, 547 South Helberta, Redondo Beach, owner of 1154 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the lot merger based on the following reasons: (a) this particular case differs in that there is a duplex on the property; (b) if the lots are merged, there will be a financial loss on his investment; (c) he wants his property to remain as it is, since he would like to will this property to his children. Mr. Schubach stated that this property is located in the R-1 zone; and the duplex is a legal nonconforming use. He said that the two parcels are combined as one lot, thereby making it a nonconforming use. He stated that the duplex was built many years ago, and the Building Department does not elaborate on what the structure actually was constructed as. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE18 Mr. Vignery stated that this property has had two families living there ever since he has owned it. If the lots are merged and the property is developed, the end result would still be two families living there; therefore, the density would not be lowered by requiring the lots to be merged. Chmn. Compton explained to Mr. Vignery that if the lots were merged and the property is redeveloped, there could only be one unit on the site since it would then be only one parcel. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that technically this duplex was built on one parcel. Mr. Wood vehemently disagreed with Mr. Schubach's explanation, stating that that assertion cannot be proved, nor can any section of the code be found to support this assumption. Chmn. Compton noted that the duplex was built at a time when there were no accurate building records delineating what was and was not allowed. Mr. Schubach stated that this property is listed in the records as a duplex under the combined lot ordinance because it was a legal nonconforming use. It is stated that way in the building records, which can be checked by anyone desiring to do so. He noted that it is up to the Commission to determine whether or not to require this lot to be merged. 1152 7th Street --Owner: Wilma Burt. Lots 61 and 62, Block 139, Redondo Villa Tract, 4160030015. This parcel is comprised of two 25' by l 00' lots. Aerials indi~rJhat the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure is a single family dwelling. Ms. Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, homeowner, opposed the proposed lot merger based on the following reasons: (a) she provided plans depicting her property, stating that at one time it was her intention to build an apartment above the garage; the garage was built to have that unit, and even though a_n apartment has not been built, it may be in the future; (b) requiring the lots to be merged would create an economic hardship and loss to this property owner; (c) the schools were not required to have 4,000 square foot minimum lots. Ms. Burt read a statement to the Commission: "I did not send any of the material to you, as I am not unaware of the prevailing bias and the unequitable land decisions that the Planning Commission and the present council have been making. I object to the changes of my lots. This is not a less density issue that you are deciding. It is an act against the long-term owners and basically retired citizens who held this town together when the avid developers and the redevelopers wanted it. Large lots with homes on them encourage large families to try to buy them and move in." Ms. Burt continued by discussing what the Planning Commission has done in the last ten or fifteen years, or since the low density people came to town, such as the start of PUDS, the condos, and the lowering of densities for R-2 and R-2B zones. She felt that the proposed combining of lots smacks of spot zoning. Ms. Burt noted that when she purchased her house in 1956, the lot size of 25' by 100' was legal; there was not a 4,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. She continued by stating that her 33 year old house is constructed better than anything being built today. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE19 Ms. Burt stated that she wants to develop her property to its original plans, explaining that she would like to add a unit over the garage. She said that she has a right to live in her house without being told what to do. Ms. Burt stated that no good has come to the City since the inception of the requirement that lots must be 4000 square feet. She stated that it is time for the City to take action now based on what is happening today; rather than basing every decision on what will happen in 50 years. She asked that the older people can keep their property the same as it is now. 1137 7th Street --Owner: Helen Finley. Lot 13 and NE 2' x 34' Lot 14, Block 140, Redondo Beach Tract, 4160032024. This parcel is comprised of one 25' by 100' lot and a portion of an adjacent lot measuring 2' by 34.' The main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure to be a single family dwelling. Mary Mandel, daughter of owner Helen Finley, addressed the Commission and opposed the proposed lot merger. This property has been in the family for 65 years. She did not favor the taking of property rights of the older citizens in town. She stressed the importance of protecting the rights of senior citizens. Mr. Perea stated that what is proposed to be merged in this case is a small strip 2' by 34' which is adjacent to Ms. Finley's 25' by 100' lot. Chmn. Compton asked whether these homeowners opposed the proposed lot merger. Ms. Mandel stated that she opposed all of the lot mergers on g~f.leralp.r-inciple. Mr. Wood again addressed the Commission and stressed the fact that if these lots are combined, property rights will be taken away from these homeowners. He stated that there is nothing in the code requiring them to be combined. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that she agreed with the comments made by others who oppose the proposed lot mergers. Mr. Seemus, 1214 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that many of the people who received notices were afraid to appear before the Commission because they were intimidated and thought they would have to pay for something to be done. He said that the City, instead of trying to help citizens, causes them problems. He stated that it is important to protect the rights of senior citizens. Comm. Peirce asked what the City has done to intimidate citizens. Mr. Seemus stated that the letters imply that the property owner must pay for noticing in their areas. Comm. Peirce stated that there is no such requirement for any homeowner to pay such fees. Mr. Seemus stated that no one was informed by the City that they didn't have to pay. He said that he has gone to City offices, and no one informed him of this fact. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 20 Ch mn. Compton noted concern over the wording contained in the letters sent out to citizen s. He stressed that notic ing is no t required for pr o pose d lo t me r gers. He was deeply c oncerned that some citi zens were afraid to come before the Com mission on this very important issue. He suggested that a new letter be sent out informing people that no survey is required, and noticing will not cost them anything. He urged interested people to call the Planning Department for clarification on this issue. Mr. Wood suggested that people be sent forms instead of letters; if they want their lots merged, they can simply sign the form and return it. Those not returning the form can then be assumed to oppose the merger for whatever reason. He said that registered mail can be quite intimidating. Hearing closed by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue stated that these people do not want their lots merged; merger will create an economic hardship; it is a taking somewhat of property rights; and it is not required that the lots be merged. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton to not merge the following parcels: 1220 7th Street, Lot 54 and 55, Block 139; 1152 7th Street, Lot 61 and 62, Block 139; and 1154 8th Street, Lot 57 and 58, Block 140. Comm. Peirce spoke against the motion, stating that there are several different types of property in this case. He stated that 1152 7th Street has a structure clearly across the property line, and the zoning is R-1. There is only one family dwelling there with no assertion of a duplex. In the case of duplexes, he felt that it makes no difference whether the property is R-1 or R-2, noting that the intent of the ordinance was to merge those types of lots. Therefore, he stated that he would vo1B,it/O:,~mei.ge all of these lots. He said that it was not demonstrated to him that these mergers would create a financial hardship. He stated that the main issue for the Commission is to base their decisions on planning matters and what is in the best interests of the City for the future. Chmn. Compton favored the motion, stating that the mer gers wo uld be a potential taking of property values and what is already a potential unit. He stated that he would not be in favor of the merger until a new ordinance is placed on the books. Comm. DeBellis stated that he would favor the motion. Comm. lngell stated that he would support the motion, even though he is a proponent of lower density; however, he does not favor the taking of property rights. Comm. Peirce stressed that this issue should be addressed as to whether it is good planning or bad planning, not whether or not there is an economic hardship imposed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None None MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, that 1137 7th Street, Lot 13 and NE 2' by 34' of Block 140 be merged. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None PAGE 21 MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis for purposes of discussion, to direct staff that a new letter shall be sent to all persons who have already been notified for lot merger; this new letter shall inform them that it is not necessary for them to pay any fees. The letter shall also state that anyone can call the Planning Department for further help and clarification. Mr. Lough noted that if this motion will result in sign ific ant staff time and expenditures, it probably has not been budgeted; the Planning Co mmi ss ion is not authorized staff to overrun its budget. Comm. DeBellis suggested that this is a more appropriate action for the City Council to take, since they are the body who set the parameters for this issue and the guidelines. If there is concern, the Planning Commission should notify the Council of their concerns; rather than the Commission directing staff to take action on the matter. MOTION WITJ-IDRA WN by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to prepare a letter to be submitted to the City Council informing them of the concerns of the Planning Commission Comm. DeBellis suggested that staff prepare a report for t he Co unci l delin ea t ing the concerns expressed by the Commission. The Council can t l:lern h>a "askea ,.t-0 .. a ct o,r;i;t:bose matters by whatever method they feel appropriate. There being no objections to the motion; so ordered. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS Chmn. Compton suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting, noting the importance of the matter, and the lateness of the hour. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 1988. No objections; so ordered. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO 1240, 1242, AND 1244 19TH STREET AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY 25 FEET OF LOT l, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE HERMOSA VIEW SCHOOL SITE MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, lngell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1988 PAGE 22 STAFF ITEMS The Commissioners received the following: • Letters sent out regarding conditional use permit enforcement • City Council Minutes of January 26, 1988 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue noted concern over the materials being presented in regard to the condominium approval requests. He felt that the City should require better, more concise materials. He specifically would like to see landscaping plans and conceptual drawings. He noted that he wants to ensure that buildings are built according to the c onc e pt ual drawings and landscape plans. He preferred that the Building Department invest igate to ensure that this is what is happening and that projects are being done in accordance with what was submitted to the Planning Commission. Chmn. Compton felt that the City should prepare a list of minimum requirements to be available to developers. Mr. Schubach stated that he would return with further information on minimum requirements. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:25 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 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 February 16, 1988. Date