Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-15-1988( MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 15, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Edwards, Ketz Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Ingell clarified his comment in the minutes of November 1, 1988, Page 10, Paragraph 9: " ... some of which appear to be right on the property line." MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended the minutes of November 1, 1988. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119969 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 918 SEVENTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, WILSON AND LINDS TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-90, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120132 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 640 SIXTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, DR. DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-91, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120210 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 514 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 8, BLOCK 38, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-92, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119707 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 852 CYPRESS AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK C, TRACT NO. 1677. No objections; so ordered. 1 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 ( MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-94, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE AND TO ALSO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING AND TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT AT 190 HERMOSA AVENUE, KNOWN AS LA PETITE CAFE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-95, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120304 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK 32, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20092 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 725 9TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 7, 1988. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4865 square feet. The site is located within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The City Council has determined that the ordinance pertaining to inconsistencies applies to density standards only. Therefore, the applicant is allowed to construct these condominiums to R-3 zoning requirements; that is, 35-foot height limit. It should be noted, however, that a public hearing has been scheduled (this evening) to consider rezoning this area, Area 11. The subject location is located one lot away from a C-3 zoned property on Pacific Coast Highway. The applicant is proposing to construct two units. Each unit will be approximately 2200 square feet and will contain three bedrooms, two and a half baths, and a mezzanine. The proposed structure is two floors and a mezzanine. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on private decks adjacent to the mezzanine level, and common space is provided within a landscaped planter area. Each unit is provided with two enclosed parking spaces. One guest space is also provided for the two units. No on-street parking is lost due to curb cuts. The applicant is proposing to provide a ten-foot front yard setback as required by the zoning map. The zoning map identified setbacks for each individual block in the R-3 zone. Staff has calculated the average setback to be 10.5 feet, with existing setbacks ranging from 6 feet to 15 feet. The overall architectural detail of the development is good. The architecture of the building will encompass a New England/Cape Code design. Architectural details include glass block, bay windows, wall pop-outs, shutters, masonite siding, and shingle roofing. 2 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 The proposed development will be similar to other new developments along the block; there are three similar developments on the block, one of which is presently under construction. A fourth condominium development has recently been approved by the Planning Commission for a site located across the street from the subject property. Other properties on the block have mixed uses. There are several older homes and some older apartment developments located on the block. Public Hearing opened at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, Joseph Mogel, addressed the Commission. She stated that this is a very attractive proposal with an accommodating design for this street. She stated that no exceptions are being requested in this application. The plans meet or exceed all of the development standards for condominiums as well as for the R-3 development zone. Ms. Srour acknowledged that this project is in a general plan/zoning inconsistency area; however, the applicant has worked with staff for many months on the proposal to ensure that it complies with all rules and regulations. Ms. Srour stated that there are a variety of structures on this particular block. She stated that the existing older structures have flat facades. This project, however, will have very interesting play with the architectural features and roof line on the south facade. This particular design will make this project fit in very well with the existing structures. Sako Miho, 731 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked about the height of the proposed development. Ms. Srour stated that the height of the proposed project will be several feet under the allowed maximum of 35 feet; approximately 32 to 33 feet. She stated that there is a quite a grade on this street; therefore, no views will be blocked by this development. Ms. Srour stated that this project is two sites away from the Mobil gas station on Pacific Coast Highway. She stated that the uses tend to step down in terms of intensity as one goes down the street. Ms. Srour stated that the applicant has read the staff report and agrees with the proposed recommendations. She asked that the Planning Commission approve this project. Comm. Rue noted that revised plans had been submitted depicting a change in the front facade, allowing for a bay window. He asked which plans the applicant is intending to use. Jay Stevens, project architect, stated that the plans originally submitted did not conform to the code requirements regarding the width of windows. He noted, however, that he would prefer to use the original design. He stated that the original bay window exceeded the allowed eight feet. He asked that the Commission consider approving the original bay window. Mr. Schubach stated that the requirements regarding bay windows are contained in the new architectural projection ordinance. In that ordinance, bay windows are limited to eight feet in width. In this case, the window would be encroaching into the front setback; therefore, it cannot exceed the maximum allowed. 3 P .C. Minutes 11/15 /88 Mrs. Miho asked to see a copy of the project plans. Mr. Schubach gave Mrs. Miho a set of plans to review. Public Hearing closed at 7:46 P.M. In response to a question from Comm. Rue, Mr. Schubach explained that the front setback on this street must be ten feet as dictated by the zoning map. He noted that the setbacks on the opposite side of the street may not appear to be ten feet; however, if one measures them, they are indeed ten feet. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-96, as written. Chmn. Peirce noted that the address on the heading of the resolution should be corrected to 11 725 9th Street." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz VARIANCE TO ALLOW GARAGE TO ENCROACH INTO 17-FOOT SETBACK AND TO PROVIDE NO GUEST PARKING SPACE AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1836 PALM DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 8, 1988. This project is in the R-2 zone with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 1582 square feet. The original application was for a variance for the 17-foot setback; however, after analysis of the plans, staff has determined that the proposed development is a new structure. The variance was intended to be in conjunction with an addition/remodel to an existing structure. However, the extent of demolition and reconstruction of the existing structure will basically create a new dwelling; therefore, variances are also necessary for no guest parking and Section 1309 regarding existing nonconforming structures. The-applicant is proposing to add approximately 728 square feet to an existing 1570 square-foot dwelling. It should be noted, however, that an eYtensive remodel is proposed for the remaining dwelling. Basically, all internal walls will be removed and relocated. Approximately 53 percent of the external walls will also be removed. The existing exterior walls have many conforming setbacks, including both side yards, rear yard, and front yard. The proposed new construction will be within the required setbacks. The existing structure has only one substandard parking space, approximately 16 feet deep. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing garage parking space to 19 feet, 9 inches, and to add another space adjacent to the existing garage. Section 1309, Existing Nonconforming Structures, allows for additions to structures with nonconforming sideyards; however, this section does not provide for extensive remodels of the existing structure(s). It does not allow for removal of any portion of a non­ conforming structure. Therefore, the Planning Commission must interpret what should 4 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 -...._,I be reasonable, understanding that some removal of the eYisting structure is always necessary when expanding a structure. The intent of this section is not to allow for the development of new structures to be built around nonconforming walls, but rather to allow for minor additions where an intact building will remain. As a new structure, the proposed development will require an added guest parking space. Other projects have been approved on lots smaller than the subject parcel and provide all required parking. Staff cannot justify any findings to grant the subject variance. The lot is adequate in size to provide the required guest parking space. Other projects with smaller lots have been constructed with all required parking. Also, because of the extensive demolition of the existing structure, it has been determined that this is a new structure and should comply with all setback and parking requirements. Comm. Rue asked if a building wall is maintained, but an addition is made to it, such as a window, would that section of the wall be considered a new structure. Mr. Schubach stated that the code section is silent in regard to what can and cannot be removed. He stated that this issue is left to the interpretation of the Planning Commission. He stated that it is usually assumed that a portion of the structure will be removed if something is to be added to it. In this case, staff felt that the portion being removed and replaced is quite extensive. Comm. Rue asked whether there is an existing level floor plan. Mr. Schubach explained the plans in regard to what is being removed and what will remain. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the new revised plans versus the previously submitted plans. Chmn. Peirce stated that he found it difficult to relate to what existed at the previous residence. Comm. Rue agreed that it was difficult to ascertain what is being proposed by looking at the plans. Mr. Schubach handed out photographs depicted the project site. Public Hearing opened at 7:56 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Maxwell Wuthritch, representing the applicant, Post Remodel, 1836 Palm Avenue, addressed the Commission. He explained that the perimeter of the building will remain the same; only the bottom garage floor will be extended. He stated that the exterior walls will remain the same, and only interior walls will be removed. New windows will also be installed. The exterior walls will remain, and another level will be added above. He stated that the garage actually counts as a basement since it is over 50 percent into the grade. Mr. Wuthritch stated that the house is being extended toward the alley, and the rest of the house will go straight up. He clarified the plans, explaining that the dashed lines represent walls which will be removed; the darker lines represent new walls or windows. He agreed that perhaps a demolition plan would have clarified the matter. 5 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 Comm. Rue asked whether the main level will be extended toward the alley side of the lot. Mr. Wuthritch stated that that level is currently directly above the garage, which at its nearest point, sits one foot from the property line. The upper level steps back, and there is a balcony at that level. Comm. Rue felt that there is not adequate information to decide whether or not 50 percent or more of the existing structure is actually being removed. Without a demolition plan, he stated that it is difficult to make a decision. Comm. Rue stated that the area where the balcony is located on the main level includes a series of french doors with a storage area. He said that that appears to be new construction. He noted that there is no way for the Commissioners to know whether that is new or old construction because it is not clear where the old doors and windows were actually located. He stated that it appears, from looking at the shaded areas on the plans, that the entire main level is being demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Wuthritch continued by discussing the various locations of the walls. He stated that the floor joists for the main level will remain the same. He stated that the applicant has been working with staff on this project since the beginning of June, and nothing was ever mentioned about needing guest parking. It was not until they got to the staff meeting that they were informed of the parking requirement for guest spaces. Mr. Wuthritch stated that the applicant was informed at the staff meeting that guest parking was required because the currently existing garage is substandard; i.e., 17 feet, six inches versus the required 18 foot minimum. Chmn. Peirce noted that the plans are dated October 10; he asked what the applicant actually showed staff when staff asserted that the project could commence without having to worry about whether 50 percent or more was being demolished. Mr. Wuthritch stated that the first meeting with staff was on July 15. He stated that at that meeting staff was given the same materials which the Planning Commission has now with the exception of the garage plans, which were not included at that time. Mr. Wuthritch stated that staff then requested that a field measure be submitted along with · an existing plan for the garage. At that time, staff reviewed the materials and commented that it would be necessary for the applicant to apply for a variance if the applicant intended to enlarge the garage, since the existing garage is substandard. Mr. Wuthritch, responding to a question by Comm. Rue, stated that the east wall of the garage is being redone in order to make the garage comply with the code requirements. He stated that earth will be removed, and a retaining wall will be built. He stated that the original plan was to make to garage larger so that it would conform; however, if the garage is enlarged, it then becomes necessary to provide the guest parking. Comm. Ingell asked why the applicant didn't merely propose to add another six inches in order to make the garage comply. Mr. Wuthritch agreed that that would be the easiest solution; however, the staff stated that since the garage is substandard, a variance would be necessary. 6 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 Comm. Ingell agreed that Section 1309 is silent on the issue of how much of an existing structure can be removed before it becomes new construction; however, he felt that Section 1307 is very specific on this matter. That section states that if a structure is destroyed by an act of God, up to 50 percent of its reasonable replacement value can be reconstructed on a nonconforming structure; Section 1309 mentions no specific percentage. Comm. Rue stressed that the garage is being enlarged to comply with the code. He stated that the main level will remain substantially the same it is currently exists; also, the floor joists will remain as they are. He felt that the outside perimeter walls will remain very much as they currently exist. He felt that the only major change will be on the west elevation, which is on the alley. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that another story is being added. Comm. Rue stated, though, that the addition is not counted into the 50 percent reconstruction calculation, and it is above the main structure. The main structure is what one starts with when determining the calculations. John Hales, 624 8th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that the City is already overbuilt; therefore, he strongly opposed the granting of a variance to eliminate the guest parking. He urged the Planning Commission to adhere to the code requirements. He felt that this project can conform without having to obtain a variance. Public Hearing closed at 8:07 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that this lot is very small; if the variance is approved, the Commission essentially would be allowing the applicant to violate the zoning code. Further, this remodel will probably last for many years with the nonconforming setback. He noted that parking is already a problem in this particular area. He felt that the variance request is merely an attempt to avoid adhering to the requirements set forth in the zoning code. Comm. Rue asked whether the 17-foot setback is required on a remodel. Mr. Schubach stated that remodels do not need the 17-foot setback. He noted, however, that the interpretation for this project has come from the Building Department, and it has been determined that the work is to,o substantial to be considered a remodel. Further, the interpretation calls for the garage to be of a standard size. Comm. Rue felt that this issue is going in circles; i.e., if the garage is enlarged to comply with the code, then it becomes necessary to apply for a variance because the project would no longer be considered a remodel. Comm. Rue felt that the applicant is attempting to comply with the code. He also stated that he sees this project as a remodel. He stated that the garage is being expanded to meet code, and the main level is being changed; but by no means does the work change 50 percent of the structure. He agreed that interior walls are being removed; however, he thought the issue depends on whether or not exterior walls were being removed. He did not feel that the relocation of doors and windows in an existing wall constitutes new construction. Mr. Schubach stated that when he examined the plans, it was difficult to tell the exact locations for the door and window relocations. 7 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 Comm. Ingell felt that a demolition plan would have been very helpful on this matter. He stated that, by looking at the plans presented, it appears that most of the structure is being replaced. Mr. Wuthritch stressed that the perimeter of the building will remain the same. All new construction will conform to the three-foot setbacks. Most of the new work will be performed on the interior. Chmn. Peirce stated that, by looking at the plan, almost everything existing is being removed. He did not feel this project to be a remodel. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff did not include the interior wall removals in the percentages; only the exterior walls were calculated. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the variance at 1836 Palm Drive. Comm. Rue felt that this project is a remodel; and that a variance is not necessary for this construction. He felt that the project should be allowed to go forward; therefore, he could not support the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Rue None Comms. Edwards, Ketz Chmn. Peirce noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. VARIANCE TO PROVIDE NO GUEST PARKING SPACE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1139 SIXTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 9, 1988. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 2263 square feet. The subject property is located within an area that was recently rezoned from R-2 to R- 1. Ordinance 88-930, approved on June 14, 1988, has grandfathered this project since the project was received prior to May 24, 1988. Therefore, the project is allowed to be developed to R-2 standards. A provision of this grandfather clause also requires that building permits be obtained prior to January 15, 1989. The environmental review committee, at their meeting of June 9, 1988, recommended a negative declaration for this project on the condition that two off-street and one guest parking space be provided. The original project proposed to provide only one parking space. On October 17, 1988, revised plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission which provided two off-street parking spaces and no guest parking; a negative declaration was recommended. The original application for a variance to the 17-foot setback was received in conjunction with a proposed remodel. After the Building and Planning Departments reviewed the plans, it was determined that the extent of the remodel, demolition, and new 8 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 r con str uction was not to be considered a remodel, but rather a new structure. The new si n gle-fam ily dwelling will, therefore, require two parking spaces for the unit, plus one guest space. The applicant has submitted revised plans which show two enclosed tandem parking spaces, and no guest parking is provided. The new proposal will not require a variance to the seventeen-foot setback, but rather a variance for no guest parking. Section 1159, Tandem Parking, allows for the seventeen-foot setback to be used for parking. However, this section states that cars shall be allowed to park in tandem only, not by stack-parking three cars deep. Therefore, the seventeen-foot setback cannot be used for required parking in this instance. The applicant has stated that a larger curb cut will eliminate on-street parking, and therefore, will require additional on-site parking. The code requires replacement of on-street parking spaces for multi-family dwellings only. The applicant is proposing to demolish a substantial portion of the existing 7 57 square foot dwelling. The existing dwelling presently has no off-street parking. The proposed "remodel" will require the removal of one third of the existing structure. Of the remaining structure, only 49 .5 feet of the exterior walls will be maintained; all of the interior walls, ceiling, and roof structure will be removed. In addition to the remodeled area, 1461 square feet of new floor area will be added. The total floor area of the proposed structure is over 2000 square feet, with less than 20 percent of the elements of the existing building remaining. In summary, staff felt that this project is a new structure due to the extent of the demolition and scope of the project. Section 1162, Off-Street Parking Requirements for New and Existing Construction, allows for additions to existing .structures provided the site has one parking space for each unit. This section does not apply to this project since the extensive de molition and construction have determined this to be a new structure. Further, the site presently has no off-street parking. Staff cannot justify any findings to grant the subject variance. The lot is adequate in size to provide the required guest parking space. Also, a provision of the general plan is to promote off-street parking wherever possible. Other projects have been approved on smaller lots which provide all required parking. Staff therefore recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variance. Public Hearing opened at 8:22 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the app li cant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has requested several times in t he past th a t the staff reports be made available before the hearings; however, he has been unable to obtain copies prior to the meetings. Chmn. Peirce agreed that staff reports should be available before meetings. Mr. Schubach stated that plans have been in the library since last Thursday. Staff reports will also be made available. He noted, however, that a problem arises in leaving plans in public, as they are considered private property of the architect, and there are copyright issues to be considered. He stated that he must discuss this issue with the City Attorney. Mr. Compton noted that several comments in the staff report need clarification. He said that the plans are clear in regard to what walls are eYisting and what walls will be removed. He stated that at the rear of the structure there is a little pop-out which was 9 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 actually added after the main structure was constructed and which is substandard in many ways. That pop-out actually could have been built without a permit. To say that that is being demolished and to figure it into the exterior wall of the building would not be realistic. That portion is essentially being removed in order to provide a garage. Mr. Compton stated that the existing building has no garage and no parking, and they are attempting to provide parking. He stated that there happens to be an existing wall running along the edge of where the new driveway and garage would be. That wall, obviously, will remain. He stated that the existing walls are clearly visible on the plans. He stated that everything possible has been done to leave the walls intact. Mr. Compton stated that no interior walls will be removed other than those related to the garage. He stated that a tandem garage is being proposed. There is also an area in front which, although it can't be called a parking space, can accommodate an additional guest car. He stated that the reason a variance is being requested is based on the fact that there actually is that one space available for parking, even though it cannot be called a parking space. Also, if a two-car garage is built, more demolition to the existing structure would be necessary. There is, however, a net equal in parking since. He passed out photographs depicting the project site. He continued by discussing the photographs, curb cuts, and parking. Mr. Compton discussed the differences between doing a single curb cut versus a double curb cut. He continued by explaining the method by which the Public Works Department figures the parking space measurements. He said that if a single curb cut is made, there would be approximately 19 feet in front of the building with two parking spaces in front of two buildings; if a double curb cut is made, there would be one parking space. Therefore, one parking space would be lost on the street. In turn, an additional space would be gained in the 17-foot setback area. Mr. Compton stated that there is no net gain by building a double-car garage with a double 17-foot setback. There would be four car parking, with one on the street. If his plan is followed, there would be parking for two cars, plus the additional guest space in the area which cannot actually be called a parking space, and for two cars on the street for public use. Mr. Compton asked the Commission to consider the most reasonable approach to parking. His client is attempting to retain as much as possible of the existing structure, while at the same time preserving as much space on the street as possible for use as parking. Mr. Compton stated that this proposal is an artistic way of dealing with the severe parking problem in the City. He stated that any parking on the street would be an asset to the neighborhood, especially since the applicant must currently park on the street. Mr. Compton clarified a comment made by staff, and he stated that all of the interior walls as well as ceiling joists will remain as they are in the existing structure. He stated that staff's comment that less than 20 percent of the existing building will remain is inaccurate. He stated that only one third of the existing building will be removed. Mr. Compton stated that this application was submitted on May 24. The original proposal was submitted; however, the Building Department stated that the demolition plan depicted more than 50 percent being demolished. Therefore, the Building Director stated that a variance would be necessary. He stated that this has been going on for months, and now there is barely enough time to obtain a building permit. 10 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 Mr. Compton commented on staff's assertion that other, smaller lots in the City have complied with the parking requirements; however, he stated that comment must refer to new projects, not remodels such as this project. He stressed that this is a remodel. Mr. Compton discussed the plans with the Commissioners. He stated that the entire second story will be new construction. The only portions which will remain of the current structure will be those areas designated as kitchen, living room, powder room, and entrance hall stairway. He said that two bedrooms will be removed to make room for the driveway and garage. Those bedrooms will be replaced with three bedrooms upstairs along with a family room. Comm. Rue discussed the dimensions of the rooms being removed, the bedrooms being 9 feet by 26 feet, and the pop-out area in the back which is 8.6 feet by 7 feet. Out of 757 square feet, approximately 300 square feet will be removed. Mr. Compton stated that this parking proposal is the hinge on which this entire project was designed. He stated that if additional parking cannot be obtained, there would be no reason to demolish any of the existing building. Mr. Compton stated that at one time only one guest parking space was required in the City. If this site had a one-car garage, the applicant could commence with all of the other proposals. He stated that there is no doubt in his mind that there will be three off­ site parking spaces at this site; however, he agreed that the Commission cannot base its decision on that. Mr. Compton stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that the existing building probably dates from the l 940's or 19 50's. Dan Rodriguez, 1139 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, owner and applicant, invited the Commissioners to look inside his house, which he feels is very nice. He stated that the small pop-out was added onto the house. The back room has a sliding door; therefore, it cannot be considered a wall as it is shown. He stressed that there is no wall at the north side of the back room. He stated that this is a well-built, structurally sound building. He stated that the floors are very good quality and probably couldn't be replaced today. The house also has forced air heating. Public Hearing closed at 8:41 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue stated that, based on his calculations, only 290 square feet out of 757 square feet will be demolished; therefore, less than 50 percent of the existing building will be demolished, so this will actually be a remodel. Mr. Schubach, however, directed the attention of the Commissioners to the letter dated August 16, Page 7, from the Building Department wherein the Building Director asserts that after extensive examination, only 20 percent of the existing building will remain after the project is completed. Mr. Compton stated that the earlier set of plans showed more being demolished than is now being proposed. Mr. Schubach stated that he had no idea different plans had been submitted. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the code specifies what percentage can be demolished before the project is considered to be a new project. Mr. Schubach stated that the code 11 P .C. Minutes 11 /15/88 is silent on that issue. What it states is that nonconforming structures may be expanded, so long as the new portions meet the current minimum standards. Mr. Schubach stated that the Building Department looks at this issue in terms of how much of the remaining walls and existing structure will remain as part of the newly built structure. They also take into consideration how much of the floor area is actually being removed. From that, the Building Department has determined that this project is too extensive to be considered a remodel. Chmn. Peirce asked if a driveway is allowed, how many on-street parking spaces will be eliminated. Mr. Schubach stated that a garage would need a 17-foot wide driveway. In any case, whether there is a single or double curb cut, some parking space would be removed from the street. Comm. Ingell noted that there is no currently existing driveway at this site. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the amount of on-street parking which would be lost based on various driveway and curb cut configurations. Chmn. Peirce stated that the main issue actually hinges upon how many parking spaces will remain on the street. He asked whether staff is convinced that two parking spaces will remain on the street. Comm. Ingell stated that it appears that the driveway next door is right on the property line. Mr. Schubach stated that with a double-car garage, there would be one full space left on the street. Mr. Schubach stated that this issue could be clarified if he went to get the aerial map. Recess taken from 8:50 P.M. until 9:01 P.M. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this garage configuration is allowed by the zoning code in an R-1 area. Mr. Schubach stated that there may be two spaces in tandem; however, there cannot be three in tandem. Chmn. Peirce commented that the applicant is proposing a second story. He asked how much of the outside walls will be re moved to provide a second story on the existing structure. Mr. Compton stated that it is not even necessary to use the outside existing walls, if that is the desire of the Commission. The usual method used in a remodel of this type is to leave the existing ceiling joists, remove the roof rafters, and provide a space consisting of two plates above the existing ceiling joists, over which the new floor joists are placed. He continued by explaining other methods which could be used in a remodel of this type, stating that steel posts could be used if the Commission desires that the old walls not be used. 12 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 Mr. Compton stated that the interior, which is in very good shape, will be retained as much as possible. He stated that an attempt is being made to save much of the existing area. He noted that there is really not that much of a savings in doing the project this way as opposed to tearing everything down and starting over. However, he noted that the applicant has put a great deal of money into the existing house in order to make it nice. He noted, though, that the cost of a new foundation could be substantial. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the plans as submitted; to determine that this project needs no variance since it is a remodel; and that the project be allowed to proceed as per plans. Mr. Schubach informed the Commission that he just received a set of plans which are slightly different from the plans originally received on November 9. Mr. Compton stated that the original plans submitted to the Building Department depicted almost all of the interior walls being demolished. Those plans are not the plans being used now. He stated that the only difference in the plans involves the interior walls. Chmn. Peirce stated that this project appears to be very large, and to call it a remodel is stretching the facts. He considers it to be a new structure. He noted, however, that this is actually a judgment call, since the code is silent on this matter. Chmn. Peirce, noting that the motion asserts no variance is necessary, asked whether the variance application would become null and void if the motion passes. Mr. Lough stated that that would be his interpretation. What the Commission would actually be doing by approving the proposed motion is making a policy determination that this particular project does not constitute a remodel. He suggested, however, if such an interpretation is made, that the Commission make the proper findings to support the motion. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Ingell. He stated that he did not feel enough information was presented to set a policy on this matter. He felt, however, that this project is a remodel. (MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.) Chmn. Peirce stated that voting for the motion would not set a policy for all projects in regard to specific percentages of what does or does not constitute a remodel. He stated that this project should not be considered a trend setter for all future actions of this type. He stated that, if so desired, a policy with percentages can be established in the future. He stated that in this case, a policy would be set on this project only, not all projects in the City. Mr. Lough concurred that this would not set a policy which would go on the books as often happens in other cases. A resolution policy is not being drafted in this case. Comm. Rue offered findings to support his motion: (1) The existing residence is 757 square feet. Of that, approximately 297 square feet will be demolished; (2) The ceiling joists, floors joists, and all interior walls will remain; (3) The floor will remain; (4) The added addition is not relevant because the added addition is going to be to code with the correct setbacks and height; (4) The setbacks on the existing plan are adequate. 13 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 Comm. Rue could see no reason not to consider this project as a remodel. If remodels are to be judged on how much is to be added, the Commission would then be ruling on matters already specified in the code. He stated that it is necessary to look at the building in terms of how much of it will be retained. Chmn. Peirce stated that each project is different, and each must be judged on its own merits. He felt that the addition of the second story is extensive enough to destroy the existing first floor; therefore, this project will be new construction. He stated that the existing walls will be substantially changed in order to provide for the second story. Comm. Rue strongly disagreed, stating that many remodels suspend the second floor above the existing first floor with no additional structure being added to the first floor, other than the suspension of posts across the new addition. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution 88-12, to deny the variance for a project located at 1139 6th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ingell, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Rue None Comms. Edwards, Ketz Chmn. Peirce stated that decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. (SEE PAGES 22-23 OF THE MINUTES FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND RECONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE.) REZONE OF AREA 10 FROM R-2 TO R-1; AREA 11 FROM R-3 TO R-2; AND AREA 12 FROM R-3 TO C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 9, 1988. According to the City Council's schedule of zone changes, the subject areas should be considered for rezoning at this time. Area 10 Area 10 consists of ten lots fronting on Barney Court and Meyer Court. Six of the ten lots are over 5000 square feet in size. Four of the ten lots have two dwelling units each, and one lot has three dwelling units. The five remaining lots have single-family dwellings. Based on statistical data, staff believes this area to be border line, and it appears to be essentially a matter of factorial priority as to whether this area should be rezoned R-1 or R-2B determinant. Age of structures and the number of existing single-family dwellings should have equal weight. Further, having some large R-1 lots in the City provides for a better mix and variety of housing in the community. Looking at these factors, it is observed that 81 percent are 30 years or less in age, and 50 percent are already two-family or more developments. 14 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 Another factor to be considered is spot zoning. Staff would not see this area as such, since it is not just one or two lots; however, it is a small area of R-2 in the midst of a generally R-1 zoned area. If this area were rezoned to R-2B, a 40 percent reduction in potential density would result, and overall potential density would be 14.7 units per acre, which is just slightly higher than the general plan designation of low density. Public Hearing opened at 9:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. No one appeared to speak on the issue of Area 10. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area 10 from R-2 to R-2B. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Area 11 Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz Area 11 is one block of R-3 zoned properties surrounded by R-2 zoning to the north and south. Commercial zoning exists on the east, and open space is on the west. No R-3 zoning other than this block exists in the near vicinity. There are several lots that would become nonconforming if the zoning were changed to R-2; however, these lots are currently nonconforming as R-3 because of the 1986 density reduction ordinance. Further, nonconformity, if considered to be a priority, would eliminate most attempts to zone change any property in the City. Sixty-seven percent of the existing developments would conform to the current R-2 zoning ordinance. Staff believes that Area 11 should be rezoned to R-2 for several reasons: (1) consistency with the general plan; (2) compliance with advisory measure EE; and (3) location of the area in relation to the surrounding R-2 zoning. Area 11 has a total land size of 97,547 square feet, and a total of 18 lots. The typical lot size is 4,865 square feet. There are 45 dwelling units, with an average number of 2.2 units per lot. The existing density is 20 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-3, with a general plan designation of medium density. The potential number of units under the current R-3 zoning ordinance is 66; potential under the previous R-3 zoning ordinance is 78; potential under the proposed R-2 zone change would be 48 units. There are three lots with nonconforming units under the current R-3 ordinance, and four lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance. Ten units in Area 11 have been constructed within the last ten years, and eight are currently under construction. No units were constructed 10 to 20 years ago; six were built 20 to 30 years ago; and 21 are over 30 years old. 15 P .C. Minutes 11 /15/88 Five lots have one unit; five lots have two units; three lots have three units; and five lots have more than three units. The land use maps of 1922, 1930, 1956, and 1978 were all R-3; however, 1943 was R-2. In Area 11 there are no lots under 3500 square feet; eight are over 3500 s · uare feet; 8 are over 5250 square feet; and two lots are over 7000 square feet. Coming forward to speak on Area 11 were: Sibyl Hess, 647 9th Street, asked for clarification on the required amount of square footage per unit. She opposed a rezone to R-2. John Hales, 624 8th Place, favored a rezone to R-2, stating that the area is already too crowded with excessive traffic and parking problems. James Lionel, 619 9th Place, favored a rezone to R-2. Ellis Chaney, owner of property on Ardmore, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Mike Collins, 636 9th Street, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Sako Miho, 731 9th Street, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Jim Lyle favored a rezone to R-2, but he actually preferred R-1. Comm. Rue noted that the Planning Commission has no choice but to rezone Area 11 to R-2 in order to bring it into conformity with the general plan. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area 11 from R-3 to R-2 in order to achieve consistency with the general plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Area 12 Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz Area 12 consists of three lots totaling 8,119 square feet, with ten existing apartment dwellings. Apparently, this area was zoned R-3 as a buffer between the R-1 zoning to the west and the C-3 zoning to the east. The notion that multiple dwellings somehow act as buffers is not recognized by staff since people cannot buff er people. Further multiple family dwellings can actually create more of an impact to single-family neighborhoods than commercial development because of the orientation of the structure, use of local streets for overflow guest parking, and the bulk of the structure in relationship to a single­ family structure. Commercial structures properly oriented, with adequate parking for employees and customers, and with landscape setbacks could have little or no impact to adjacent single-family neighborhoods. 16 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 However, because the existing development is relatively new, less than 30 years old, and since the ownership is separate from the adjacent C-3 zoned property, staff believes it is actually too late to rezone this property to general commercial. Further, if it were rezoned to C-3, the property could be developed separately as three lots with frontage on a local street; this type of development results in a hodgepodge of undesirable commercial development which would then impact the adjacent neighborhood. No density reduction would result from rezoning Area 12 from R-3 to C-3. Coming forward to speak on Area 12 were: Hank Rado asked for clarification on the zoning map. Public Hearing closed at 9:52 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that Area 12 has a general plan designation of general commercial and a zoning of R-3. He asked what would be necessary to leave the area as R-3. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has recommended Area 12 remain R-3. If the Commission agrees, staff can return with a general plan amendment for this area. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to leave Area 12 as R-3 and have staff return with a general plan amendment for the area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-& AND 88-9 (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 10/4/88, 10/18/88, AND 11/1/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 10, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of November 1, 1988, continued these subject mergers to obtain additional information. 1021 21st Street Appellant: Joan Brown As directed by the Planning Commission, the applicant has submitted a survey to indicate the location for a proposed lot line adjustment. The merger of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 along with the proposed lot line adjustment will create two parcels. The survey shows a lot line adjustment which will be located equidistant between the existing residenc.e and the detached garage. This proposed lot line adjustment would create a nonconforming 2 .8 foot sideyard for the existing residence. Staff is recommending that the proposed lot line adjustment be located five feet from the existing residence to provide an adequate sideyard should the smaller parcel ever be developed. Therefore, one parcel will be approximately 4215 square feet, and the other will be 2155 square feet. The Planning Commission had also requested that a deed restriction be recorded with 17 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 r both parcels, which will require replacement of on-site parking to be provided if the existing garage is ever removed. Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a lot line adjustment and merger of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Tract 1965. Also, to direct staff to prepare a deed restriction for replacement of on-site parking. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation for property located at 1021 21st Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 925 3rd Street Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz Appellants: Danny and Karen Johnson The Planning Commission directed staff to recalculate the percentage of structures which are developed on 25-foot wide parcels. Staff has determined that 55 percent of the 25-foot wide lots have been developed. There are a total of 29 lots, 13 of which were subject to merger. The Planning Commission also requested a definition of 11 block 11 as it pertains to lot mergers. The definition for "block" contained in Section 206 of the Zoning Ordinance reads: "All lots facing a common street on both sides of said street, except where residentially zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets, or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street, or City boundary." Staff recommended that the lots at 925 3rd Street be merged. Danny Johnson, 546 Old Mill Road, Crestline, property owner, stated that he did have an opportunity to read the staff report. He asked for clarification on the term "lot split." Mr. Lough explained that a lot split involves splitting one lot into two or three separate parcels. Chmn. Peirce stated that the issue before the Commission at this time is to look at the percentage of lots developed on this block. Mr. Johnson stated that it was convenient for staff that the numbers changed. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 925 3rd Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz 18 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 CERTIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA SALOON (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 10/18/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 14, 1988. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 18, 1988, the Planning Commission voted to continue this item because they desired the presence of the City Attorney. In addition, they requested that the owner/manager of the Hermosa Saloon be notified of the hearing so that he could attend. In 1975 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to reopen the subject business with alcoholic beverages. On December 21, 1981, the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) approved a resolution granting a conditional use permit; however, the resolution regarding entertainment was either lost or not produced. According to the City Attorney, the best way to resolve this problem is to have the Planning Commission confirm the proposed resolution. On September 22, 1988, an attorney for the adjacent property met with City staff. His claim is that the conditional use permit applicant misrepresented to the City the number of parking spaces on the subject property. He also requested a copy of the CUP for entertainment. Staff has located the minutes of the public hearing and was able to produce a resolution from those minutes and from the original staff report. The proposed resolution will impose the conditions that were found by examining both the minutes and the staff report. The conditions are typical of those imposed by the BZA for other similar uses. Staff should be able to supply the attorney a conditional use permit resolution for the subject business; therefore, a certified copy is necessary. In regard to the attorney's claim, the issue of existing parking is not relevant for several reasons: (1) There was common parking of ten spaces prior to Mr. Polak's fencing off the access from 2nd Street. The application form did not specify "private" or "common" parking; (2) No finding in the CUP was made regarding the amount of existing parking: (3) No condition of approval was made regarding parking; (4) No City or State ordinance requires parking in conjunction with the issuance of a CUP; and (5) The condition "subject to all other applicant state or local ordinances or regulations" is not being violated since existing non-conforming developments are allowed to be maintained so long as 50 percent of the existing structure is not destroyed; or, of course, the structure is not deliberately demolished. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission confirm the proposed resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Hermosa Saloon, 211 Pacific Coast Highway, subject to the specified conditions. Mr. Lough explained that this issue is before the Planning Commission because there can be no CUP enforcement unless there is a certification of the CUP. He said that the Planning Commission is the only body within whose purview this certification can be accomplished. With no certification, this establishment would remain in, limbo. Hearing opened at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. 19 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 John Slawsin, 2522 Artesia Boulevard, Redondo Beach, attorney for one of the parties involved in litigation with the Hermosa Saloon, addressed the Commission. He requested that the Commission make a nunc pro tune order indicating that the BZA actually granted the CUP in 1981. He asked that the Commission approve the staff recommendation and then immediately direct staff to investigate any violations of this CUP. If violations are discovered, he recommended a hearing to either modify or revoke the conditional use permit,. Mr. Lough stated that this matter was brought before the Commission at his request in order to correct a past error on the part of staff. He stated that this action in no way reflects on the business itself. Richard Sullivan, 824 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, requested that the certification be done so that an immediate investigation can be conduct ed at this establishment. He questioned whether the Hermosa Saloon allows dancing and whether they have changed the interior layout of the business. Jim Brisin, 211 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, co-owner and general manager of the Hermosa Saloon, addressed the Commission. He stated that in 1981 he appeared before the City Council, as he recollected, for a CUP amendment to allow live entertainment on Friday and Saturday nights. At that time, a city staff person was sent out to take a noise reading at the business. He was under the impression that the CUP amendment was approved at that time. Mr. Brisin stated that he has a copy of the original CUP which was granted in 1975. He stated that this problem is new to him, and he asked that the Commission certify the CUP. He stated that he thought he has been acting within the rules and regulations of the City. Mr. Brisin stated that Mr. Slawsin's request for a copy of the CUP has no relevance whatsoever; he merely asked for a copy because his client is involved in a lawsuit with Mr. Brisin. Chmn. Peirce asked whether Mr. Brisin has had an opportunity to read the proposed resolution, BZA 154-441. Mr. Brisin stated that he has not been given a copy to read. Mr. Slawsin stated that he had requested City staff to investigate possible violations of this CUP. Staff indicated that they needed direction from the Commission in order to proceed with an investigation; therefore, this matter was brought to the Commission for direction. He stated that there are violations in the CUP, and at the next hearing citizens should be given an opportunity to express their concerns. Recess taken from 10:26 P.M. until 10:31 P.M. so that Mr. Brisin could read the proposed resolution. Mr. Brisin stated that he remembered appearing before the City Council in 1981, and that they approved the amendment to the CUP. He stated that, after reading the resolution, he agrees with the substance of the conditions. Hearing closed by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to certify Resolution BZ A 154- 441. 20 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Edwards, Ketz Chmn. Peirce noted that there are citizen concerns regarding the Hermosa Saloon. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to direct staff to conduct an investigation into the operation of this business in order to determine whether there are any violations with the conditions of the CUP; and that staff return at the earliest possible date with a report. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell suggested that the owner of the He rmosa Saloon have a meeting with the neighbors in an attempt to arrive at a solution to t he pr oblem s. STUDY OF VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 8/1./88 AND 10/4/88) Staff recommended that the Planning Commission set this matter for public hearing and that the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance be recommended to the City Council. Chmn. Peirce noted that this issue had been continued so that staff could submit additional information. He felt that there is ample information to now set the 1:_natter for public hearing. Comm. Rue agreed that there is enough information to set this matter for public hearing; however, he asked how design standards, such as those involving light and air, would be affected. He requested that staff provide any information they might have on that matter. Hearing opened by Chmn. Peirce. Norman Haney asked for clarification on the proposed method of height measurement. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked upon which code this code is being based. Mr. Schubach replied that it is based upon that in use by Manhattan Beach. Mr. Compton asked whether the height measurement is being based on the center of the lot or the center of the building, noting that it could make a big difference. Mr. Schubach stated that the height will be taken at the center of the building. Hearing closed by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to set for public hearing at the earliest possible date the issue of view blockage and height measurement method. No objections; so ordered. STUDY OF R-3 AND R-2 SETBACK STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUMS AND APARTMENTS Staff recommended that this matter be set for public hearing and that the proposed 21 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 amendment to the R-2 and R-3 zones be adopted for recommendation to the City Council. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that this study is very important. He hoped that it will result in a zoning map which is very clear in terms of what the setbacks are. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to set for public hearing at the earliest possible date the issue of R-3 and R-2 setback standards for condominiums and apartments. No objections; so ordered. RECONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 (PAGE 8) Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant, Mr. Rodriguez, had asked him to request that the Commission reconsider the vote taken on the variance request to provide no guest parking at 1139 6th Street and to continue the matter until such time that all Commissioners are present. He stated that Mr. Rodriguez felt that the outcome may have been different if all the Commissioners had been present to vote on the matter. Mr. Compton stated that the applicant has indicated there would be no problem in renoticing this matter if it is continued. Comm. Rue suggested that a continuance could be helpful, noting that additional information could then be obtained from both the Building Department and the Public Works Department. Comm. Ingell stated that he had no opposition to continuing this matter. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that the applicant can appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. He did not feel it would be appropriate to reconsider the vote and continue this matter. He stated that business must be conducted with the Commissioners who are present at meetings, so long as there is a quorum. He strongly recommended that the matter not be reconsidered and continued. Mr. Compton stated that the applicant has gone through a City process which was none of his own doing, and the project has been delayed many months because of incorrect information; therefore, it is only fair that he be given a chance to have the matter heard before a full complement of Planning Commissioners. Comm. Ingell agreed that the applicant's project has been delayed for many months, especially since this area was one which went through the rezoning process; therefore, he proposed a motion: MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to reconsider the vote on the motion on this matter (SEE PAGES 13-14). Mr. Lough explained that if this matter is indeed continued, it will be necessary to renotice it; further, each of the parties who spoke at the public hearing should be notified by mail that the matter has been continued. 22 P .C. Minutes 11 /15 /88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Edwards, Ketz MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to deny the variance for a project located at 1139 6th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chmn. Peirce Comms. Ingell, Rue None Comms. Edwards, Ketz (MOTION FAILS) MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue and reset for public hearing to a date uncertain, with the proper noticing, this matter. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Edwards, Ketz STAFF ITEMS Mr. Lough noted that two Commissioners are absent this evening, one because of illness, and the other because he is out of town. He suggested that the Commission vote on the excuses. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to excuse Comms. Ketz and Edwards because of illness and travel. No objections. Comm. Rue noted concern over the absences of Comm. Edwards, stating that the absences have had an effect on the Commissio.n's ability to function at its full capacity. He suggested that staff consult with Comm. Edwards on this matter. Chmn. Peirce suggested that staff consult with the City Council on the matter of excessive absences at Planning Commission meetings. a.) b.) c.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission liaison for 11 /22 /88 City Council Meeting MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. City Council Minutes of October 2.5, 1988 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Items MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. 23 P .C. Minutes 11 /15/88 COMMISSIONER ITEMS MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to have only one Planning Commission in December, to be held December 6, 1988. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to adjourn at 11 :00 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 November 15, 1988. JijtesPelrce, Chairman Date 24 P.C. Minutes 11/15/88