Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-02-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. DeBellis. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Chmn. Compton Comm. Rue (excused absence) Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Compton noted a typographical error on Page 21, middle of the page, stating that the word ''big" should be deleted before "Hill Street." MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve the minutes of January 19, 1988, as amended. Noting the abstention of Comms. Ingell and Peirce, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton,""ta app1;-;0v.e .R:eso:lution P.C 87-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comms. Ingell and Peirce, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis to approve Resolution P.C. 88-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #18989 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1452 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 16, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comms. Ingell and Peirce and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis,. seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-9, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comms. Ingell and Peirce, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-9(a), A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED BELOW (AREA ... PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 2 1) AND SHOWN ON AN ATTACHED MAP. Noting the abstention of Comms. Ingell and Peirce, so ordered. Comm. DeBellis stressed that he seconded the motion to approve Resolution P.C. 88-9(a) only as a matter of form, noting that he had voted against the resolution at the time the action was taken. He did concur, however, that the resolution accurately reflects the majority vote. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DELETING TICKET BROKER FROM THE C-1 ZONE AND ADDING TICKET BROKER/SALES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comms. Ingell and Peirce, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Commission. VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDEY ARD SETBACK AT 845 AND 845 1/2 EIGHTH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 1/19/88) The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 19, 1988, continued this item to request that the Building Director be available to answer questions and obtain input regarding this matter. Per the requests of the applicant and the Building Director,.,M r . Sc hti ba.¢1 recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of February 16, 1988. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1988. No objections; so ordered. VARIANCE TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE AT 40 7TH COURT (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 1/5/88) The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 5, 1988, granted the applicant a continuance to this meeting to allow the applicant time to design alternative plans. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a continuation of this matter to allow time to acquire legal representation. Since this matter is in regard to an "after-the-fact" addition, Mr. Schubach recommended that no additional continuances be granted after the meeting of February 16, 1988. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1988. No objections; so ordered. TEXT AMENDMENT 88-1 -INFRACTION PROCESS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28, 1988. Both the City Council and Planning Commission have had serious concern regarding enforcement of conditions imposed via conditional use permits, particularly with respect to alcohol establishments PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 3 in the downtown area. Staff was requested to investigate this matter and provide solutions. The proposed resolution provides a method for enforcing conditional use permits and is more efficient and effective than the current method. Under the current method, if someone violates the conditions of a CUP, a public hearing to revoke the CUP is necessary; this entails public notice to the newspaper and to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject use; it also entails allowing public testimony by the applicant and others no matter what the violation is. Further, the only legal recourse, under the current method, the Planning Commission has is to revoke the conditional use permit, thus putting the violator out of business even though the violation may be of minor significance, such as failure to post a particular sign. Under the proposed method, the City could issue a ticket, similar to a parking ticket, to the violator. The violator would be forced to post bail of a certain amount depending on whether it is a repeated violation. The violator would also have an opportunity to plead not guilty and have the case heard before a magistrate. This method allows the punishment to more appropriately fit the violation. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the monetary penalties imposed for violations. If this proposed infraction process is approved, staff will then provide the proper procedures to follow in implementing the process, e.g., how many warnings prior to the issuance of a ticket. It should be noted that the Planning Commission will still have the opportunity to revoke a permit if deemed necessary. Mr. Lough stated that this is a procedure which many cities are beginning to follow. He stated that the wording in the resolution is appropriate. He stated that the fine structure is within the guidelines of State law. Mr. Schubach stated that the model used for the proposed ordinance is based on the current ordinance in use in Monterey Park, noting that it has been in place in that city for approximately seven years. Chmn. Compton asked who would actually be responsible for enforcement. Mr. Schubach stated that a designated person from the Planning Department would be responsible, in conjunction with the police department. He continued by explaining the ticketing procedure which would be used. Comm. Peirce asked by what method would someone be designated as the authorized person responsible for enforcement. Mr. Schubach stated that specific wording in that regard would be incorporated into the resolution. One person in the Planning Department will be designated, and the police department would also be authorized personnel. Chmn. Compton asked who will develop the evidence in the event a violation is contested. Mr. Schubach stated that coordination of evidence will be done by the Planning Department in conjunction with the police department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 4 Public Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens who appeared to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the issue, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to accept staff's recommendation 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 VIOLATIONS. No objections; so ordered. VARIANCE TO PROVIDE A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 15TH PLACE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 25, 1988. The Planning Commission at their meeting of August 18, 1987, 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 rehearing of his variance request. This matter was continued to this meeting to allow for the request to be properly renoticed. It was noted, however, that this should be considered as a new hearing of the matter. The applicant requested a rehearing of this matter because he states that he was not able to properly present alternative designs for his project. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and found that the design is. similar to the plans previously submitted to the Planning Commission during the earlier request for the variance. The applicant has now also included an alternative design with his plans, Plan B. The analysis for the original design was included in the staff report dated August 17, 1987. The alternative plan, Plan B, is in conformance with the seventeen foot setback, but still has the open space problems. The open space for Plan B is a 17 5.0 square foot courtyard (10' by 17.5') and the front yard area of 402.5 square feet (9.7' by 41.4'). The width of the front yard is less than the ten feet as required by the zoning code. Plan B will have the parking accessed from the west. The width of the lot will barely accommodate this type of parking layout; the site is 41.5 feet wide. After the 17-foot setback, the 20-foot depth required for the parking spaces and the 4.2' required sideyard setback, the applicant is left with 0.3'. 0.3' is not enough area to construct typical garage walls; although, the zoning code does not require this area to be enclosed. The applicant is saying that the original design is superior to Plan B since Plan B will cause elimination of two on-street parking spaces. The applicant is using Plan B as a ''bargaining tool" to obtain the variance on the original design. A third alternative design which will not require any variance is the design discussed in the staff report dated August 18, 1987. Mr. Schubach noted that another area of concern had been that of the minimum open space; however, the open space has been determined to be acceptable by the Building Department's interpretation of the issue, noting that it was determined that the setback "-/ could be included as part of the open space calculation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 5 Mr. Schubach noted that the minimum front setback must be ten feet; in this case there is 9.7 feet. The Commission must make a determination on this matter. He noted that there is adequate area; however, the dimensions do not meet the requirement. Mr. Schubach stated that it is the determination of staff that the applicant can redesign the project so that it is in compliance with all regulations. Therefore, staff recommended denial of this variance since there are no unusual circumstances to justify granting the variance. Comm. Ingell asked about the potential for a bootleg unit if this project is approved. Mr. Schubach stated that there is such a potential, explaining that the configuration of the proposed design could be accommodated to split the project in two in order to turn it into two separate units. Chmn. Compton noted that the updated plans apparently reflect a change in the deck size. Mr. Schubach agreed that there was a change, noting that the first plan did not have the dimensions on it. Instead of 175 square feet of open space, there is actually 201 square feet, for an additional 26 square feet of open space. In either case, there is still more than enough open space when the front yard and court yard are both counted. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. Comm. De Bellis asked if Mr. Nuttall would prefer that he ab&'taindrn.m discussion on this issue. Mr. Nuttall stated that he had no objection to Comm. DeBellis taking part in this action, noting that he had no reason to make such a request. Mr. Nuttall displayed a scale model depicting his lot, the size of which is 41.5 by 82 feet. He showed various views of what currently exists and what is proposed on this site. He discussed the garage, stating that an awkward situation would occur if he complies with the 17-foot setback requirement. He also noted that such compliance would rule out the possibility of the atrium. He explained how he would like to proceed in order to have the atrium, noting that he feels nothing significant will be changed by the proposal. He said that the four-car garage he desires will be accessed by 16th Street. He noted that this plan is referred to as Plan A. Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing Plan B, stating that if Plan A is not approved, access from the garage would be from the west, thereby resulting in the loss of two on-street parking spaces. He showed a model depicting Plan B, stating that no variance would be required for it. Mr. Nuttall stated that Plan A is preferable to the neighborhood because there is no loss of on-street parking involved in that plan. He felt that the spirit of the 17-foot setback ordinance is better met by Plan A, even though a variance is necessary. Mr. Nuttall handed out copies of letters signed by the neighbors who favor Plan A. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 6 Mr. Nuttall stated that on the plans submitted this evening, he had made a change which has turned out to be unnecessary. The change in question is that he extended the balcony from 6 1/2' by 11' to 10' by l l.' He said he thought that that change was required; however, after discussing the matter with the Planning Department, he discovered that the change was not necessary. He noted, therefore, that that change would not be made. Comm. Peirce asked how large the present garage is. Mr. Nuttall replied that the garage is approximately 18' by 20'. He stated that at one point he had submitted plans which would incorporate the existing garage into the remodel; however, he was informed that the plan could not be done, apparently because the existing garage is detached from the house. Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on the matter of the Building Department denying the applicant the ability to build away from the existing garage. Mr. Nuttall stated that on November 2, he submitted to the Building Department a complete proposal which would incorporate the existing garage, which is structurally sound and conforms in every way, by expanding and attaching to it, which would avoid triggering the setback rule. He was informed by the Building Director that it would be necessary to obtain permission from the Planning Commission to do such a project because of the fact that the garage is detached. Mr. Grove later informed Mr. Nuttall that the Planning Commission had denied the request. Comm. Peirce asked for clarification, questioning why an addition to an existing detached garage would trigger the 17-foot setback rule. Mr. Schubach stated that the rule would not be triggered.,h:y. such an addition. He continued by explaining that if the use is current non-conforming, and there is an addition, the setback requirement would,not be triggered. The reason the rule would be triggered is because the applicant wants to tear down the existing garage and build a new four-car garage in its place. Comm. Peirce quoted from a written statement submitted by Mr. Nuttall regarding the necessary findings: "All over this City building additions are being made without triggering the garage setback ordinance by building around existing garages. I have been denied that alternative though I have an existing, legal, and structurally sound garage, apparently because it is detached. Had the planning department not denied that alternative I would not be destroying my garage." Comm. Peirce asked for clarification of those statements. Mr. Nuttall stated that he has the denial letter dated November 2 that he received from the City. He further noted that there is a set of plans which were dated November 2. He continued by explaining what he was told by Mr. Grove in regard to the plans. Comm. Peirce noted that the main issue here is to determine what has triggered the 17- foot setback requirement. He was puzzled over this entire issue. Comm. DeBellis was under the impression that an expansion of 50 percent or more triggered the setback rule. Mr. Schubach stated that it is not an expansion; rather, it is a demolition of 50 percent or more which would trigger the rule. He noted that the issue of non-conforming uses is one of the ordinances which will soon be returned to the Commission for further study. ,. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 7 Mr. Nuttall passed out a copy of the letter he had received from Mr. Grove, wherein the Building Director wrote that the main problem with the project is: "The proposed add itio n wou l d exacer b at e the non-conforming condition of the main structure by connec t in g it t o a detac hed garage which is at least partially in conformance with Sec ti on l 157(e )." Chmn. Compton continued by reading aloud the letter from the Building Director, wherein it is delineated which code sections are not being complied with. Chmn. Compton stated that the letter does not specifically deny the project, only that there are certain problems which need to be corrected. Chmn. Compton and Mr. Nuttall discussed the plans for this project and the front and side yard setbacks. Mr. Nuttall stated that that is not his understanding of the matter. He was informed by the Building Director, that because of Statement No. 2 in the letter, the matter was out of the purview of the Building Department, and it had become a matter for the Planning Department to approve. Mr. Grove at that point told Mr. Nuttall that the Planning Department had denied approval. However, Mr. Nuttall was not aware of who told Mr. Grove the project was denied. Chmn. Compton could see nothing which would preclude the applicant from modifying the plans and getting approval. He noted that the letter from the Building Department does not specifically deny the approval, other than the fact that there were zoning code questions which need to be addressed. Mr. Nuttall stated that when he received the letter, ..he,, called Mr. Grove for clarification. He was informed by Mr. Grove that Statement No. 2 was the item which was preventing approval of the project. At this point Mr. Nuttall asked if a variance would be feasible; whereupon he was told that it would be hard to obtain a variance, since it is hard to define what is actually being requested. Chmn. Compton asked Mr. Schubach to look at the plans and determine what is actually meant by Statement No. 2. Mr. Nuttall stressed that he wouid prefer to do Plan A. He stated that he has met with misfortune all along the way on this project. Chmn. Compton could see no problem with the plan, except for the question involving bringing the second floor out into line with the garage, which cannot be done. He stated that any new work to be done must conform to all the existing setback requirements. The existing building is acceptable so long as it is structurally sound. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed possible configurations for the garage in order for it to meet the code requirements based on the interpretation given by the Building Director. Comm. DeBellis felt that the best approach at this time is for the applicant to meet with both the Planning Director and Building Director at the same time in order to alleviate the problem of miscommunication. The applicant could then determine whether it is in fact necessary that he return to the Commission to request a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 8 Chmn. Compton noted to the applicant that he cannot remove more than fifty percent of the existing garage; if he does, all the current requirements would then need to be complied with and all current setback requirements must be met. Chmn. Compton felt that there has been a problem of miscommunication in regard to this matter. He noted, however, that it would still be necessary for the Planning Commission to rule on the question of the 9. 7 foot setback versus the required ten foot setback, noting that that might be the only necessary variance for this project. Comm. Peirce favored the idea of the applicant meeting with both the Planning and Building Directors in order to determine the best approach to this project. He favored saving the existing garage and renovating the home without triggering the 17-foot setback requirement. Chmn. Compton concurred. Comm. DeBellis asked whether Mr. Nuttall had any objection to a continuance of this matter so that he could meet with the Building and Planning Directors to try to resolve this issue. Mr. Nuttall stated that he had no objection to a continuance; however, he noted he would like to proceed with this project before he gets too old to do so. Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, builder/developer and homeowner, addressed the Commission. He opposed the granting of this variance based on the following reasons: (a) the applicant has tried to request the City to design this project, and that is not the responsibility of the City; (b) there have already been too many continuances of this matter; (c) it is the responsibility of the applicant to properly design a project and submit it for approval; (d) the applicant has not been adequately prepared; (e) the applicant wants to have it all, meaning the four gar a&es• and the atrium; (f) the applicant can provide a new plan which meets all City requirements; (g) by continuing this matter and/or granting the variance, developers will receive a message that they can get whatever they want merely by requesting a variance; (h) blatant violations of the code should not be allowed; (i) an adequate house can be designed for this property which meet all requirement s; (j) potential for a bootleg and excessive number of proposed garages which could be rented out; (k) favored a deed restriction prohibiting the leasing of the garages if approved; (I) proposed parking situation of Plan B is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; (m) neighbors who signed letters of approval of this project could be biased because they do not understand the intricacies of building and zoning code requirements; (n) another meeting between the applicant, Building Director and Planning Director will simply be a redo of what has already been discussed; (o) the Commission should vote on what currently is before them; (p) if the garage is moved back, there would then be a problem with the open space. Joseph Collector, 919 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He favored approval of the variance based on the following reasons: (a) the only problem has been miscommunication; (b) the character of the applicant is honest and above-board, and he has not tried to misinform anyone; (c) the overall plan is a positive one which adds character and diversity to the neighborhood; (d) the parking problem will be alleviated by the four-car garage; (e) the applicant does not rent out his garages and does not propose to do so, nor will he have a bootleg; (f) the project will be an improvement to the City; (g) a letter was submitted and read by Mr. Collector from Pam and John Harlan of 922 15th Place who favor approval of this project. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this issue to the meeting of February 16, 1988, in order that the applicant may meet with the Planning .. r I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 9 Director and Building Director for clarification of this matter to determine whether or not a variance is necessary. No objections; so ordered. Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Compton at 8:45 P.M. to the meeting of February 16, 1988. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION AND POLICY STATEMENT 87-3 REGARDING COVERAGE OF OPEN SPACE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF l/ 19/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 26, 1988. He stated that this item was renoticed; however, renoticing was not necessary. He noted that it is not necessary that this be a public hearing; it is merely a hearing at which people may give comments if they so desire. Mr. Schubach discussed the text amendment, stating that the action before the Commission at this time is to give comments on whether or not there should be open space exceptions for lots of 2100 square feet or less. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct staff to set a study session and public hearing for a text amendment allowing an exception to the 17-foot setback requirement on lots of 2100 square feet or less (Agenda Item lO[a]); then to deal with Items 10 (b) through (d) as another, separate issue. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Compton stated that he would like to have a special study on exceptions to the 17-foot setback requirement; especially in cases where compliance with the 17-foot setback requirement would remove parking from the street. He noted that the main purpose of the requirement was to alleviate the problem of people parking over the sidewalk; therefore, he questioned how the 17-foot setback requirement was ever applied to alleys where there are no sidewalks. He felt that if the requirement ends up removing parking from the street, it makes no sense whatsoever to have the requirement. He felt that allowances should be made in these instances. He felt that there are still some problems which need to be worked out in regard to the 17-foot setback requirement. Chmn. Compton stated that he basically favors the requirement; however, his biggest concern is requiring the 17-foot setback in alleys. He felt that this situation needs to be further addressed, stating that there should be a method by which a person does not have to go through the variance procedure. He noted that there are a number of irregularly­ shaped lots in the City, and those lots need to be looked at separately. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to consider together with the text amendments being suggested, a study on how a text amendment would apply that would allow for an exception of the 17-foot setback requirement off of an alley. Noting the objections of Comms. DeBellis and Peirce, MOTION DIES. Chmn. Compton asked for clarification on how a 17-foot setback off of an alley relates to the original problem of alleviating parking over a sidewalk. Comm. DeBellis stated that the reason was never to prevent parking over a sidewalk. The reason the 17-foot setback requirement was adopted was to provide additional guest parking in the setback area, whether it is in the front or the rear. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 10 Chmn. Compton asked if the goal was to provide more guest parking, why wasn't a requirement adopted to just require four parking spaces. Chmn. Compton and Comm. DeBellis discussed the merits and problems of the 17-foot setback requirement. Comm. DeBellis stated that he would not pretend to assert that the 17-foot setback requirement is perfect; however, it is the best method which was available at the time. He feels that the requirement is of absolute benefit to the City as a whole. He stated that irregularly-shaped lots would be prime candidates for a variance. Chmn. Compton noted, however, that almost all requests for variances to the 17-foot setback requirement have been denied by the City Council. Comm. DeBellis asked whether Planning Commission Policy Statement 87-3 should be changed numerically to reflect the fact that it has not yet been adopted and it is now 1988. Mr. Schubach stated that the number is merely for filing purposes; it is not necessary to change it to reflect that it is in the 88-** sequence. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce to include Item No. l 0(b) in the study which will be returned for a text amendment regarding open space. No objections; so ordered. Mr. Schubach gave staff report on the issue of definition, computation, and location of open space. On September 9, 1987, the City Council approved staff's recommendation regarding open space standards including allowing an excep . .twa.J;o. open .space. standards for small R-1 lots, and referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The major difficulty in providing open space on small 30' by 70' R-1 lots when the access is from a 10' to 15' wide alley. To avoid deleting on-street parking, ideally the alley should be utilized. However, an alley which is only 10' wide would require an additional 13' of turning area plus the 17' parking setback. Since lots of 2100 square feet or smaller can be considered unusually small, a variance could be justified. To avoid the variance procedure, the staff believes that an exception to the minimum open space standards and also to the 17-foot setback is appropriate. A minimum dimension of 8 feet and a total of 300 square feet of open space would be acceptable. In conjunction with the lesser open space, lots of 2100 square feet or less with 10' or 15' wide alleys could be given an exception to the parking setback. However, three parking spaces would still be required. If 2100 square foot lot with a 10-foot wide alley were to have a 23-foot turning area and a 17-foot parking setback, the back wall of the garage would be only 20 feet from the front property line. In other words, the garage would be sitting in the middle to the front of the lot. Staff recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted allowing an exception to open space for lots of 2100 square feet or less. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to set for public hearing consideration of an exception ... .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 11 to the 17-foot setback for lots of 2100 square feet or less. Comm. DeBellis noted that his only concern with the proposed resolution is the definition for open space: "Areas which are from ground to sky free and clear of any obstructions or obstacles unless otherwise specified within each zone classification." Further on in the resolution there is wording stating that there may be covered open space. He asked for clarification of this issue. Mr. Schubach stated that the key wording is " ... unless otherwise specified within each zone classification." He noted that more specific definitions would be contained within each particular zone classification. He stated that this particular section is just a very basic definition of open space. He continued by discussing the open space requirements for the various zones. He gave background information on how the original ordinance in regard to how much open space can be covered was adopted. Comm. Ingell noted concern over the wording " ... obstructions or obstacles ... " He noted that trees or utility poles could be construed as obstructions or obstacles. He asked how obstructions and/or obstacles are defined. Mr. Schubach stated that additional wording could be added to more clearly define obstructions and obstacles. Comm. DeBellis suggested that eaves and related features also be included in the definition, noting that in some cases they can encroach into open space. Comm. Ingell stated that thought must be given to the suggestion to add eaves, noting that the intention is to provide open space free from ground to sky. Chmn. Compton suggested wording denoting that there are to be no eaves over four feet. He agreed that the definition of obstacles and obstructions is quite important. Mr. Schubach stated that he would further study the issue of eaves and other minor obstructions as related to the definition in question; it could then be included in the recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed various things which could be considered as obstructions. Comm. Ingell asked why decks cannot be built over living areas. Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to install soundproofing which can be very expensive. However, there is an exception where open space can be over one's own unit. Comm. Peirce noted that the purpose of open space is to provide area clear from ground to sky; therefore, caution should be exercised in regard to what should be included in the definition. Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton discussed the measurements of various types of eaves. Chmn. Compton stated that no roof eaves are counted in lot coverage no matter what their size. MOTION by Comm. De Bellis, seconded by Comm. Ing ell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA ... .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 12 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with the amendment to Article 2, Definition, Section 272, Open Space, to include further definition of obstructions and obstacles encroaching into the open space areas. No objections; so ordered. ', Recess taken from 9:29 P.M. until 9:35 P.M. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ADD CARET AKER UNIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH WAREHOUSE IN THE M-2 ZONE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 20, 1987, recommended approval of "caretaker, CUP required added to the permitted use list for the M zone. The City Council, at their meeting of November 24, 1987, referred this item back to the Planning Commission to define standards for the caretaker unit. The City Council requested that staff obtain a copy of the City of Los Angeles' requirements for caretaker units. The requirements for the City of Los Angeles are somewhat vague and do not provide specification for the unit. Staff is recommending that the unit be limited to 600 square feet. 600 square feet is the minimum size established in Section 7-1.8 of the Municipal Code, Minimum Building Size Standards for one unit multi-family dwellings. Single-family dwelling minimum size standards are much larger. Staff is also recommending that the unit occupancy be limited to two persons. Also, the proposed resolution will not allow a caretaker unit on sites of 4000 square feet or less. This will prohibit the smaller manufacturing establishments from requesting caretaker units. Of most importance is that the use of the caretaker unit is for a person who must be on the premises for 24-hour security of the unique needs of the establishment. Since the caretaker unit will require a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission may add additional conditions as deemed necessary for a specific date. The caretaker unit must conform to all other R-3 residential standards for parking and open space. Comm. Ingell commented on Condition No. 2: "The unit shall be occupied my a maximum of two people." He noted that enforcement would be almost impossible. He suggested wording stating that there shall be no more than one bedroom. Mr. Schubach stated that the wording allowing a maximum of two people is the best way to ensure that the caretaker unit will not turn into a party house, with many people living there. Comm. Ingell suggested a one bedroom configuration so that there could be an office area available as well as a private living area. ... ,. ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 13 Comm. Peirce noted that the wording requires the unit to be a maximum of 600 square feet. He also favored the wording limiting occupancy to no more than two people. Comm. DeBellis asked for background information on how this issue has come before the Commission. Mr. Lough and Mr. Schubach explained the chain of events for this issue's being before the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, EST A BUSHING STANDARDS FOR "CARET AKER UNITS" IN THEM ZONE AREAS, as written. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR GROUP L.M. 87-1 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28, 1988. Staff has identified parcels (listed on an attachment provided to the Commission) to be subject to merger pursuant to Section 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and State Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21 The property owners were mailed a letter on December 3, 1987, notifying the owners of the intent of the City to de termi ne if their parcels were subject to merger. Three other property owners who reque ste d a hearing before the Planning Commission are scheduled for a hearing on February 16, 1988. Mr. Schubach recommended that the P la nning Commission direct staff to prepare a "Notice of Lot Merger" for the parcels inclu de d in the list, send the document to the County Recorder's Office, and mail a copy of the notice to the property owner. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation. No objections; so ordered. Comm. DeBellis suggested that staff provide to the Commission a copy of a running talley of lots to be merged. The Commission received the City Council minutes of January 12, 1988. COMMISSION ITEMS The Commission received a letter from Rod Merl regarding General Plan amendment and zone change of 6th Street through 11th Street between Ardmore A venue and Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Peirce asked about the traffic study currently underway and asked when it would be completed. Mr. Schubach stated that the target date for completion is July. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 14 Comm. Peirce hoped that the study would specifically address the parking situation on the southern portion of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Schubach stated that circulation, traffic, and parking will all be considered in the study. Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commissioners determine which items should be discussed at the City Council/Planning Commisison workshop; further, that they arrive at some specific dates for the workshop session. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to adjourn at 9:53 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 2, 1988. Date