Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-01-1988\ ( MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 1, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7 :33 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Edwards Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of October 18, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Peirce, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-85, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120093 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 618 SIXTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, DR. DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Peirce, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-87, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120040 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 851 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK A, TRACT 1677. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Peirce, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-88, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 620 TENTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 38 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 114 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Peirce, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-93, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Peirce, no objections; so ordered. 1 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 I '· r ( COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1/19969 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 918 7TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 9/20/88 AND 10/18/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 24, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 20, 1988, continued this matter because the site was located in a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The zoning was R-2B, with a general plan designation of low density. The City Council, at their meeting of October 11, 1988, adopted Resolution No. 88-5188 which amended the general plan for this area from low density residential to medium density residential, thereby correcting the inconsistency. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 18, 1988, continued this item to require staff to determine the average setback for the block. The actual setback along the block varies from zero feet to approximately 45 feet; with the average calculated at 11.9 feet. Sixty-seven percent of the dwellings have at least a ten-foot setback. A condition of approval, therefore, is that a minimum ten-foot setback be provided. It should be not ed that 7th Street is a 6-foot wide right-of -way, but it is only developed to 40 feet. Consequently, the setbacks appear much greate r than they actually are. The easterly portion narrows to 40 feet. The architecture is attractive; however, it has not been described in detail. Therefore, revised plans must be submitted specifically noting all architectural features. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 82 0 Manhattan A venue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission. She explained that this project was started many months ago; however, it was delayed because of the zoning and general plan inconsistencies. Ms. Srour explained that the units are two separately detached residential units and are quite attractive. The development will provide for a great deal of light and air. Ms. Srour stated that the applicant will meet with staff, and as part of the plan check, will submit detailed drawings which depict the architectural relief not currently shown on the plans. Ms. Srour discussed the 60-foot right-of-way and noted that it is not fully developed; therefore, it is misleading as far as the setbacks are concerned. She stated that these plans were drawn with a great deal of care, and staff has been consulted at length to ensure that the project complies with all rules and regulations. 2 P .C. Minutes 11 / 1 /88 Ms. Srour stated that the applicant was very surprised when the Planning Commission was going to require a ten-foot setback; however, the plans were reviewed, and it was discovered that the project could be condensed in order to achieve the extra five feet for the setback. The buildings could be moved slightly closer together, and there would be a 26-foot separation between the two buildings, and the garages will be separated by eighteen feet. Ms. Srour stated that the applicants are ready to proceed with the project with the conditions recommended by staff, including the requirement for a ten-foot front yard setback. She pointed out that there are a number of older structures on this street which are very small and are ready to be recycled to fit today's lifestyle. Other buildings were constructed in the l 970's. Ms. Srour stated that it is unfair to judge today's standards by buildings which were built so many years ago. She discussed several of the very small houses in that particular area. Ms. Srour asked that the Planning Commission recognize the attributes of this development and approve the project. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he previously had concerns over the setback at this project. He stated that the prevailing setbacks along this street are ten feet. He favored the staff proposed ten-foot setback for this project also. He stated that the plans are satisfactory to him. Public Hearing closed at 7 :45 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ketz felt that this condominium project, with the ten-foot setback, would be an asset to the neighborhood. Comm. Ingell stated that this is a unique block, and it would be nice to have the structures recycled. He agreed that the ten-foot setback would be very appropriate in this area. He commented that the plans are very attractive. Comm. Rue favored the encouragement of new construction on this block. He felt that this project will be the beginning of some very nice additions to the City. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-89, as written by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120210 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 514 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 24, 1988. This project is located in the R- 3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3,000 square feet. 3 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. Each unit will be approximately 2,000 square feet and will contain three bedrooms, three baths, and a mezzanine. The design of the building is mediterranean. The two units will be detached. Architectural details include red mission tile mansards, a small amount of glass block, decorative window trim, dark anodized aluminum windows, and a stucco exterior. The sides of the structure have little architectural treatment. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements except for open space. The zoning code requires 300 square feet of usable open space; 100 square feet of the required open space may be common open space. The proposed plans provide 293 square feet of private open space in a grade-level patio, second-floor deck, and a deck on the mezzanine level. An additional seven square feet of open space is required to meet the zoning ordinance. The additional open space can be met with minor modifications to the plans. The plans provide two enclosed parking spaces per unit and four guest parking spaces. Two guest parking spaces are required by code since one guest parking space is lost because of curb cuts. Staff is recommending that this project provide the standard five-foot front yard setback as required by the zoning code. Most structures on the block are built to the front yard setback. The average setback is approximately five feet. The zoning map also has this block specifically identified to provide a five-foot setback. The project is compatible with surrounding structures and is similar to other projects in the immediate area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 9, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that, had he known of staff's concerns in regard to this project, those concerns would have been corrected before the meeting. He noted the difficulty in obtaining the staff reports since City Hall is closed on Fridays and the staff will not give out copies until after the Commissioners have received their packets. He suggested that copies be placed in the library so they are accessible to everyone. Comm. Rue noted that the sides of the project appear to be rather stark. Mr. Compton noted, however, that this project will be flanked on either side by very large developments; therefore, the sides will not be visible to passersby. He noted that there will be stucco pop-outs below the windows on the upper level to create some relief on the facade. He stated that, if the Commission so desires, more treatment can be incorporated into the design. Mr. Compton stated that the only part of the side elevation which will be visible is above the second-level. Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue stated that he has no problem with this project, commenting that he feels the facade will be adequately broken up by the protrusions underneath the windows. 4 P .C. Minutes 11 / 1 /88 Also, the decks wrap around the building, and that feature will provide visual relief to the building. He noted that this project meets all code requirements within the C ity, and it will be a nice addition to Hermosa Beach. Comm. Ingell noted that it is a pleasure to see a project which is providing two extra parking spaces, for a total of four spaces per unit. Comm. Ketz felt that the window treatment will provide adequate relief for this project. She also felt that the additional parking is an attractive feature of this development. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-91, but with the deletion of Condition 5(a) which would require additional decorative treatment along the north and south sides of the project. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 119707 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 852 CYPRESS AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 24, 1988. This project is located in the R- 3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3150 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a two-unit condominium. Each unit will be approximately 2000 square feet and will contain three bedrooms and a mezzanine. Unit A will contain three baths, and Unit B will provide three and a half baths. Unit B will have a bedroom and bath located on the ground level. The potential for a bootleg conversion should be minimal since there is no separate exterior access except through the garage. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements except no trash storage area is shown on the plans. Open space is provided on first-and second-story decks and a deck located on the mezzanine level. Only one guest parking space is required for the site since there are no on-street parking spaces lost due to curb cuts. Staff is recommending that the project provide the standard five-foot front yard setback as is required by the zoning code and zoning map. Many older homes have setbacks less than five feet. The average setback for the block is less than five feet. This site has a present front yard setback of 2 .65 feet. The front property line is located approximately 7 .5 feet from the face of the curb; therefore, setbacks may appear to be larger. The design of the structure is contemporary. The architecture is somewhat plain; that is, flat roof, metal guard rails, aluminum windows and stucco. However, the structure does seem to have some visual relief, but it is difficult to determine on a blue-line elevation with no descriptive notations. A condition of approval is to require revised plans with descriptive notes and additional architectural treatment on all sides. 5 P .C. Minutes 11 /I /88 The project is compatible with surrounding structures and is similar to other projects in the immediate area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that this lot is difficult to work with since it has an extreme slope. Also, there is a very large boxy building directly next door to this project. Mr. Compton stated that this project will be of a contemporary design. He didn't feel that the project is stark; however, he stated that "clean lined" would be an accurate description of the development. Comm. Rue questioned whether there is any bootleg potential in Unit B. Mr. Compton did not see how the ground-level bedroom could be turned into a bootleg unit, as there is no exterior access. Public Hearing closed at 8:02 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that the ground-floor bedroom in Unit B is so small that the bootleg potential virtually does not exist. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, P .C. 88-92, with the deletion of Condition 5(b) which would requ ire additional architectural treatment along all sides of the structure. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120132 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 640 6TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 24, 1988. This project is located in the R- 2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4325 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a two-unit condominium. Each unit will be approximately 2200 square feet and will consist of three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a den. The dens are located in the garage level. A wet bar is proposed in the den of the front unit; however, bootleg potential should be minimal since there will be no bathroom facilities. A condition of approval is to limit the dens to a wet bar only, with no other plumbing fixtures. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on a second-story deck and on a roof deck. Only one guest parking space is required for the site since no parking space is lost due to curb cuts. 6 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 As a condition of approval, staff recommended a minimum ten-foot front yard setback. A similar condition was imposed for a two-unit condominium development two lots to the west. The existing average setback for the block was determined to be approximately 15.5 feet. The revised plans submitted today by the applicant show a ten-foot setback. The plan includes a bay window which encroaches 1.5 feet into the front yard setback. Bay windows are allowed projections, and this window area provides no floor area and provides some architectural relief to the front elevation. The architecture of the building is mediterranean, and the design features include decks, awnings, french windows, columns, mission tile roofing, wrought iron railing and shutters. However, a condition of approval should require all architectural treatment to be identified. Mr. Schubach recommended Planning Commission approval of this conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that this project is intended to be two independent buildings. She stated that the original proposal actually exceeded code requirements. The rear yard setback is seven feet, and the original plans called for eight feet. The east side yard will remain at five feet. The driveway is on the west side. The original intention was to meet or exceed the code requirements. Ms. Srour stated that the original front yard setback was proposed at seven feet. She stated that this project is very attractive and will not be a flat facade across the width of the property. She noted that there are many details in the elevations. Ms. Srour displayed a color rendering of the front unit of this project. She stated that the rear unit will be just as attractive. She stated that the project designers attempted to create a project which will be an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Srour explained that, because of the concern over the front yard setback, the designers met with staff and have prepared revised plans to accommodate a ten-foot setback. The extra footage for the setback was achieved by pulling the two buildings closer together. Gaining one additional foot was was accomplished while maintaining the required turning radius by increasing the width of the garages. Over two additional feet were gained by reducing the rear yard from almost eight feet to five feet. Ms. Srour stated that this project meets or exceeds all code requirements. The applicants are ready to proceed with staff's recommendations, including the ten-foot front yard setback. The increased setback will in no way change the exterior elevations of this project. Sam Perotti, 650 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, lives two houses east of this project. He favored the ten-foot front setback. He also approved of the additional air space between the two structures. He felt that the designers have attempted to create a development which will be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Perotti stated that residents do not have an opportunity to view plans in advance of the meetings. He asked whether arrangements could be made to display plans before the meetings in order to accommodate interested neighbors. 7 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Francis Nolan, 658 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, three houses away from the proposed project, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had delivered to the staff a letter from Mr. Scott Alden, who opposed the project. Mr. Alden was unable to attend the meeting. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission received copies of Mr. Alden's letter. Mr. Nolan stated that he approves of the ten-foot setback requirement for this project. He questioned, however, whether additional space could be acquired between the buildings by rearranging the plans. Additional space would open up the atmosphere. Mr. Nolan stated that Mr. Alden had concerns over the tree on his property; however, he feels Mr. Alden would be relieved if he could see these proposed plans. Mr. Nolan also expressed concern that the public does not have an opportunity to view to the plans until the evening of the meeting. Mr. Nolan felt that the applicant has made an effort to design a project which will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. He concluded by stating that he favors the project as proposed; however, he asked whether it would be possible to obtain more space between the buildings. Elizabeth Srour pointed out that this project is in the R-2 area, and the issues before the Commission are issues of land use. She stated that every effort has been made with this development to promote a feeling of pride of home ownership. Comm. Ingell noted that Mr. Alden had written of his concerns regarding the tree. Ms. Srour stated that every effort will be made to protect the tree since it is located on Mr. Alden's property. She suggested that Mr. Alder meet with the developers to discuss that issue. Public Hearing closed at 8:23 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ketz felt that this project with a ten-foot setback would be a very attractive addition to the neighborhood, and it will be compatible with surrounding uses. She felt that it would be a good idea to display the plans as proposed by Mr. Nolan. Comm. Rue felt that every effort has been made for this project to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-90, as written by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120304 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 27, 1988. This project is located in the R- 2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 5040 square feet. 8 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 The City Council recently rezoned this property from R-3 to R-2, which brought this area into consistency. However, the City Council, at their meeting of April 12, 1988, "grandfathered" this project which has allowed them to build to R-3 standards, that is, 35-foot height, while maintaining the medium density standards. The applicant is proposing to construct two condominiums. Unit 1 will be approximately 3100 square feet and will contain three bedrooms and three and a half baths. Unit 2 will be approximately 3600 square feet and will contain four bedrooms and four and a half baths. The design of the building is mediterranean. The two units will be attached. The architect has designed an attractive building. Architectural details include tile roof, bay windows, decorative guard rails, and stucco exterior. All treatments have been identified on the plans. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements except for a balcony which encroaches into the front yard setback. The zoning ordinance allows open balconies and decks to encroach to within three feet of the front property line. The architect states that the balcony should be allowed since the ordinance has been recently amended and this project was grandfathered to R-3 standards. It should be noted that balconies and decks are addressed in the "exceptions" section of the zoning code, and is not located within R-3 standards. Therefore, a condition of approval should prohibit the balcony from being located closer than three feet from the front property line. The project provides more parking and open space than is required by the code. Each unit is provided with three enclosed parking spaces. Open space is provided on roof decks. Unit B will provide approximately 750 square feet of countable open space. Staff is recommending a standard front yard setback of five feet for this project as required by the zoning ordinance. Most structures on this block have setbacks of five feet, with some developments even less. The average front yard setback is slightly less than five feet. The zoning map also has this block specifically identified to provide a five-foot setback. The proposed height of the structure will be compatible with adjacent structures since the older structures were built to the R-3 height limit of 35 feet. However, since this area has been rezoned to R-2, all new developments are limited to 30 feet. The proposed size of the building is similar in size and bulk to surrounding uses. The project is compatible with surrounding structures and is compatible to other projects in the immediate area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for this project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 8:28 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mike Lawton, 1840 Hermosa A venue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that everyone concerned is familiar with the history of this project and the fact that he was denied three units on this property in an earlier application. Mr. Lawton discussed the balcony and stated that it is a minor item, and he hoped that in no way would the balcony impede progress on the project. He stated that the regulations 9 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 . ' re-garding the balcony projections were changed on May 10, 1988, well after his app1icat10n was filed; therefore, he hoped that the Commission would grant approval of the project with the balcony as proposed. Mr. Lawton stated that the Council ruling clearly stated that the R-3 zoning shall be in effect prior to the required moratorium on zoning. He stated that, in the spirit of fair play, he should be allowed to maintain the balcony. He stated that this project was designed to the R-3 standards in existence at the time of the application. He said that now he is being given a five-month old rule with which to comply. He asked approval for the requirement which was in effect when the project was designed. Mr. Lawton discussed the height and stated that this project is at 35 feet. When he purchased the house, the height limit allowed was 45 feet. Therefore, there are several structures in the area which are 45 feet. This area is on a very steep hill, and views depend upon the angle of the building. Mr. Lawton stated that this project will have more than a five-foot setback, explaining that this lot is a parallelogram; however, the development is not. He said that many other buildings in the area are closer than five feet to the property lines, and many are right on the property lines. Mr. Lawton asked that the Planning Commission approve this project. George Spratt, 938 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, project designer, addressed the Commission and stated that the balcony is approximately 18 inches from the property line at one corner of the property. He stressed that this lot is a parallelogram. Public Hearing closed at 8:33 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue stated that this project is very attractive, and a great deal of time went into the preparation of the plans. Chmn. Peirce stated that he has no objection regarding the balcony projection. Comm. Ingell commented that other buildings in the area are very close to the property lines, some of which are right on the property line. Comm. Rue suggested approval of staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-95, with the deletion of the condition regarding the balcony. Mr. Schubach stated that that requirement cannot be deleted unless the applicant applies for and obtains a variance, explaining that there is no grandfather element regarding anything other than the the R-3 standards. This issue is not just one of R-3 standards, but one which would apply in any R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commissioners were missing Page 4 of the Resolution. He asked that Mr. Schubach obtain a copy of that page. Chmn. Peirce stated that, although the R-3 zoning was in effect, the conditions grandfathered in with the building would also apply, and there has since been a change in the zoning code. He asked the City Attorney's opinion on that assumption. Mr. Lough stated that whenever the balcony issue was taken care of, that ordinance did not have a grandfather clause. The issue now is to determine the definition of R-3 10 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 standards, and whether they include all standards applied to a project or only those under R-3 alone. If it were to be interpreted as including all standards applying to R-3 projects, rather than R-3 standards only, then that condition could be deleted. He noted that the issue is the interpretation of the code. Comm. Rue felt that the balcony projection is actually quite minor, especially since this lot is a parallelogram. Recess taken from 8:40 P .M. until 8:47 P .M. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commissioners had been provided with Page 4 of the resolution by Mr. Schubach. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-9 5, with the deletion of Condition No. l(a) which states: "The front balcony shall be a minimum of three feet from the front property line"; and the deletion of Condition No. 9. He favored the deletions based on the fact that the R-3 standards were in the minutes as well as the recommendation. If 35 feet is allowed in height, then the balcony should also be allowed. Comm. Rue noted that this project requires only four parking spaces, and six are being provided. He also felt that the stepping down of the slope at this project is very attractive and breaks up the entire facade of the development. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTSIDE PATIO DINING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 190 HERMOSA A VENUE, LE PETITE CAFE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 25, 1988. On October 25, 1976, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of a restaurant at the subject location. On September 8, 1988, the environmental staff review committee reviewed the proposed CUP and adopted an environmental negative declaration. Originally, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit amendment and variance application. However, after examining the submission, it was revealed that the area in the rear of the business had always been used as storage and not open space. Therefore, it was determined that a variance is not required. The applicant proposes to enclose 365 square feet of patio and provide seating for 16 patrons. The current seating capacity is 76. Following the removal of eight seats from the inside and the addition of the proposed 16 seats, the net amount of seating would increase to 84. Given the fact that the site provides no customer parking, staff objects to any expansion. Staff recommends that eight more seats be removed from inside so that there is no increase in seating capacity. The alternative would be to reduce the number of outdoor seats to eight. 11 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Conditional Use Permit P .C. 154-1127 currently limits the service of alcoholic beverages from 8:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. Staff believes this condition should be modified to protect the residential uses surrounding the subject property. Staff recommends that the outdoor dining hours should be lim ited to 9 :00 P .M., and the indoor dining hours should remain the same. Staff recommended approval of the CUP amendment, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Ingell asked for clarification on Condition No. 5: "The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area." Mr. Lough stated that that is a standard condition of approval included in all CUPs; however, the condition actually applies more to bars than restaurants such as this establishment. Comm. Ingell noted concern over Condition No. 10 requ1nng the service of alcoholic beverages until 9 :00 P .M. outside and 10:00 P .M. inside. Public Hearing opened at 8:54 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. John Holliday, 190 Hermosa A venue, applicant and owner, addressed the Commission. He stated that the patio dining will enhance the restaurant and will be a very attractive addition. The seating capacity will not change by more than eight. There must be access to the patio area; therefore, seats will be removed from inside to accommodate the access. Mr. Holliday stated that there is a 20-foot high wall on the south side of the patio area; therefore, the patio cannot be seen from the street. Comm. Rue asked about the parking situation in the area. Mr. Holliday admitted that parking has always been a problem in the area, not only for his establishment, but also others as well. He stated, however, that patrons do manage to find parking spaces, and many customers also walk to the restaurant~ He stated that the first time he has heard of the parking ordinance requirements was in the staff report; however, he stated that he will do whatever is necessary in order to have the outdoor dining. Mr. Holliday feels that the addition of patio dining is necessary in order to keep abreast of current dining trends. Mr. Holliday stated that one owner owns the entire lot. He has letters from the surrounding neighbors stating that there are no problems caused by this establishment. Mr. Holliday, in response to a question from Comm. lngell, stated that the current hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. until 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday; and 5:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. He asked approval to have the same hours of operation on the patio as is allowed indoors. Mr. Holliday stated that he has received no complaints from the neighbors regarding noise. The restaurant has only a guitarist who provides background music for dining in the evening. 12 P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 Mr. Holliday stated that in addition to the wall on the south side of the patio, there is a six-foot lattice work fence on the other side which will be covered by plant materials. Public Hearing closed at 8:59 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that the outdoor dining would be an asset to this restaurant. He also noted that the City never receives any complaints about this establishment. He had no objection to the increased seating, stating that many of the customers walk to the establishment. Comm. Ingell concurred with the comments made by Chmn. Peirce. He continued by discussing the hours of operation and stated that it would be difficult to have different hours for the patio and the indoor portion of the restaurant. He stated that this type of restaurant will not have problems with drinking. He therefore suggested the deletion of the second sentence of Condition No. 10: "However, the outdoor dining area shall close at 9:00 P.M." Comm. Ketz agreed that the patio would be an asset to the restaurant. She asked for clarification on the hours of operation, stating that the alcoholic beverage service should be consistent with the hours of operation. Mr. Holliday stated that the restaurant stays open until 11 :00 P .M. on Friday and Saturday; however, no one is seated or served after 10:00 P.M. He stated that he has been open until 11 :00 P .M. on the weekend for twelve years. Mr. Schubach stated that the hours of operation are contained in the old conditional use permit for this restaurant. Chmn. Peirce and Comm. Rue stated that they had no objection to the 11 :00 P .M. closing on weekends . . MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the conditional use permit amendment, Resolution P.C. 88-94-, with the deletion of the second sentence of Condition No. 10: "However, the outdoor dining area shall close at 9:00 P.M." Also, to delete Condition No. 9: "Plans shall be revised to indicate the actual amount of outdoor dining seats are equal to the amount of seats being removed from within the interior of the business"; and replace it with a condition allowing 16 se ats on the patio, and the removal of eight seats indoors. Further, to include a condition allowing the hours of operation to be 8:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. on weeknights, and 8:00 A.M. until 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. Comm. Rue noted that if there are any problems with this establishment, they can be addressed at the six-month review period. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards HEARING FOR DETERMINATION OF LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-8 AND 88-9 (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 10/4/88 AND 10/18/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 27, 1988. Staff recommended denial of the appellants' requests for unmerger, with the exception of 552 2nd Street. 13 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Mr. Schubach stated that all of these mergers have been continued from previous meetings. 1026 21st Street Appellant: Joan Brown The parcel is comprised of three lots with a total parcel size of 6370 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles all three lots. Building records indicate the parcel to contain two units. Staff has determined that no lot contained in this block has been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The general plan designation is low density, with a zoning designation of R-1. The appellant had requested a continuance so that a survey could be provided. Mr. Schubach stated that he had just received a survey map depicting this property, and he suggested that the applicant explain why the three lots are not being straddled by the main structure. Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Brad Baker, 515 Pier Avenue, representing the appellant, stated that there are three lots which are currently on the corner of 21st Street and Prospect. Looking at the survey, the 3.2 feet on the left side of the the small stucco apartment represents a walkway; plus the 24.2 feet of the stucco building adds up to be clearly in excess of 25.39 feet. The lot is approximately 27 to 28 feet. Mr. Baker requested that the three lots not be merged into one lot, but instead that there be a lot line adjustment so that the lot line adjustment bisects the distance between the stucco building and the main residence, which is approximately a six-foot area, therefore giving a three-foot setback for each of the buildings. One lot would be approximately 2260 feet, and the other lot would be in excess of 4000 feet. The frontage on 21st Street for the smaller lot would be approximately 31 feet, which is in excess of what the other houses in the area have. Mr. Baker stated that there are 15 lots on this block which have less than 2260 square feet. Approximately 11 lots have been merged at different times and are larger. One lot is approximately the same as what is being proposed. He stated that there does not appear to be a parking problem in this area, and this particular parcel happens to have a very large driveway. He stated that the stucco garage straddles Lot 3. Mr. Lough, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that what the applicant is proposing can be done by the Planning Commission. He stated that the issue involves the "main structure" straddling the property line. In this case, the stucco building is not the "main structure." Mr. Lough stated that Lots l and 2 could be merged into one lot because the main structure straddles those lines. A lot line adjustment could then later be done for Lot 3 in order to make the third lot somewhat larger. He noted that this would be a two-step process. Mr. Schubach agreed with Mr. Lough's comments; however, he noted that there must be the required two parking spaces for the house if the lot is developed separately. 14 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 ( Mr. Lough stated that a line lot adjustment would require the inclusion of a deed restriction because of the parking issue. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the applicant discuss the lot line adjustment issue with staff and then return for a final decision by the Planning Commission. He stated that it will be necessary for the Commission to see more details on the proposal before voting on the matter. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this item and direct staff to bring back documentation on the merger of Lots 1 and 2 and the lot line adjustment for Lot 3 with the inclusion of a deed restriction regarding the parking issue. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Rue suggested that Lot 3 have as much frontage as possible. 1919 Hillcrest Appellant: Charles Coleman This parcel is comprised of three lots, for a total parcel size of 6000 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 36 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot find reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The appellant requested time to obtain a survey in order to check what lot lines the structure straddled. No survey has yet been received by staff. Jim Coleman, son of the appellant, addressed the Commission and explained that the main structure does not straddle the property line. What the aerial photos depict is a patio awning which is attached to the main structure. The property when originally purchased was 25-feet wide. Subsequently, the lot to the north was purchased for use as a sideyard. After the purchase, the patio awning was installed on the north side of the house. The house covers the two southerly lots, and the northerly lot was purchased later. All three lots are the same size, 25 feet by 80 feet. He did not know the lot numbers. Mr. Coleman presented photographs clearly depicting that the patio awning is not an integral part of the main structure. The awning is not a permanent part of the structure, and it does not follow the roof line; it was attached by using two by fours. Mr. Coleman stated that he has asked Mr. Perea and Mr. Grove of the Building Department whether the awning is considered to be part of the main structure. He was informed that the Planning Commission must make the interpretation on the awning. Mr. Coleman stated that he did not obtain a survey, explaining that that would have been very expensive. Therefore, he took the photographs instead. Chmn. Peirce agreed that the photographs clearly depict the patio awning. He noted that the covering is not permanently attached to the main structure. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to merge the two southerly lots (Lots 53 and 54) and not to merge the third lot (Lot 52) for property located at 1919 Hillcrest, based on the fact that the structure does not straddle the lot line. 15 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards .5.54 2nd Street and .5.52 2nd Street Appellant: Berta Gomez (did not appear to address the Commission) 554 2nd Street is comprised of one lot and ten feet of an adjacent lot for a total parcel size of 3500 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that 56 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. 554 2nd Street and the adjacent parcel, 552 2nd Street, have the same owner. 552 2nd Street should not be merged since the dwelling was demolished in 1969. The parcel is currently vacant except for a garage. Mr. Schubach stated that Mrs. Gomez came to City Hall, but because she is elderly, she left before this hearing once her attorney ascertained that 552 2nd Street would not be merged. Mr. Schubach stated that Lot 9 is 15 feet, and staff is recommending it be merged with ten feet of Lot 8. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to merge Lot 8 with 15 feet of Lot 9 at 554 2nd Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards Mr. Schubach stated that he would write to the owners informing them of the current lot situation. 425 Ardmore Appellants: Maria and Elias Del Rio (did not appear to address the Commission) This parcel is comprised of two lots except the westerly 30 feet thereof; the total parcel size is 6420 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that 43 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The appellant has claimed that the City took the rear portion of her property for right­ of-way, and that, otherwise, the lots would not be substandard in size. Staff, including the City Attorney, finds this factor not relevant in regard to the merger issue. If the appellant desires, she may pursue this matter of regaining the rear portion of the subject property from the City. If she is successful, she may request splitting of the lot into two 16 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 lots again. However, it appears that it would not be possible to have two lots each with 40 feet of frontage on the right-of-way. Mr. Lough stated that this property meets the criteria for merger. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to merge the parcels at 425 Ardmore, based on the fact that they do not meet the criteria to remain unmerged. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards 1214 10th Street Appellants: William and Margaret Simas This parcel is comprised of three lots for a total parcel size of 7500 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 42 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The property owner states in his appeal letter that he does not own three contiguous lots; however, all records available to the City indicate that the three lots are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Simas. At the previous meeting, the appellant claimed that the City Council dismissed this case. According to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, the City Council directed staff 11 ••• to begin a new lot merger procedure." Mr. Lough explained that he recommended that the process begin over due to technical flaws. Therefore, the previous he aring has no bearing on this new action. Even though the lots were previously unmerged , staff was direct ed by the City Council to begin the process over. He stated that the four criteria to allow the lots to remain unmerged are still in effect, and that there are no exceptions. Mr. Simas, 1214 10th Street, addressed the Commission and stated that his lots were previously unmerged by the Planning Commission. He opposed a merger of his lots, based on the fact that he feels his property rights would be taken away by such an action. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission has no choice but to merge the lots, since they meet all criteria for merger. He noted, however, that the Commission could send a recommendation to the City Council that once the lots are merged, they should be split into two lots of 37 1 /2 feet each. Mr. Simas stated that he would not object to the creation of two 37 1 /2 foot lots from his property. However, he suggested that the two lots be 35 feet and 40 feet, respectively. Therefore, he would have at least one lot which would be conforming. He stated that he has no plans of moving from this property. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, favored the suggestion that once the lots are merged, a recommendation be sent to the City Council to split the parcel into two lots. 17 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Mr. Compton stated that the middle parcel is owned by Mr. Simas' daughter, not Mr. Simas. He therefore questioned whether these parcels are subject to merger since they are not three contiguously owned pieces of property. Mr. Lough stated that all records available to the City indicate that Mr. Simas owns all three parcels. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, stated that if the appeal was dismissed, there was no public hearing. If there was no public hearing, she questioned how the Council could take action to direct that this item go through the merger process again. Chmn. Peirce favored a recommendation that these lots be split into two lots, explaining that he believes the intent of the ordinance is to prevent the development of 25-foot lots. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to merge the parcels at 1214 10th Street into one parcel; and to send a recommendation to the City Council that the one lot be split into two 37 1 /2 foot lots, if the appellant so desires. Mr. Lough stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to submit a written request to the City Council within ten days to have the lot split into two lots. Comm. Ketz stated that all the other merged lots in this area have been two lots; this is the only instance where three lots are being merged into one. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards 1233 21st Street Appellants: John and Barbara Seymour This parcel is comprised of two lots for a total parcel size of 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 18 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. According to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, the City Council directed staff " ... to start the process again." The reason for starting over was that there were some technical flaws in the first attempt to merge the lots. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, appellant, addressed the Commission and stated that if the appeal was dismissed, there was no public hearing. If there was no public hearing, she questioned how the City Council could take action to direct that this parcel again be subject to the merger process. She stressed that these lots were previously unmerged by the Planning Commission. 18 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Mrs. Seymour continued by discussing various sections of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code in regard to lot mergers. She stated that alJ decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. She also stated that when her lots were previously unmerged, she did not receive a clearance letter from City Hall, as is required by the code. Chmn. Peirce stated that the only issue before the Commission at this time is to act on the current application. He did not feel that it is within the purview of the Commission to take action on previous decisions. Mr. Lough explained the legal process for lot mergers. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to merge the parcels at 1233 21st Street (Lots 57 and 58 of the Redondo Home Tract), based on the fact that the property does not meet the criteria for unmerger. Comm. Ingell noted that this property is similar to that of Mr. Simas; however, Mr. Simas did not object to the merger and possible subsequent splitting into two lots. However, in this case the appellant does not want the lots merged; therefore, he stated he would vote against the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ingell None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce stated that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days ~ 925 3rd Street Appellants: Danny and Karen Johnson This parcel is comprised of two lots, for a total parcel size of 4510 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 43 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all the standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The appellants' representative indicated that the lots had been recently sold separately; one lot to the wife, and one lot to the husband, and therefore the lots could not be merged. However, the deeds were not yet recorded. According to the City Attorney, the lots could not be separately sold under the current moratorium, and the notice to merge had already been sent to the County Recorder on August 19, 1988, which would also stop any separate sale of the property. Stan Bowman, 1409 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, attorney representing the appellants, addressed the Commission. He stated that one of the parcels was transferred to another person 30 days ago; and he questioned why that information is not available. Chmn. Peirce stated that the transfer would then be illegal, because it was done after the notice of merger was already sent to the County Recorder and because of the moratorium. 19 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Mr. Bowman stated that he did not believe there could be a moratorium preventing such a transfer. He stressed that the property is owned by two different people. Mr. Lough explained, in response to a question by Chmn. Peirce, that the City must go by what appears in the county records. The moratorium which went into effect adopted an ordinance stating that property cannot be sold to separate owners when there is a common building straddling the property line. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to merge the lots at 925 3rd Street. Danny Johnson, 546 Old Mill Road, Crestline, appellant and owner, addressed the Commission. He questioned how the City obtained its figures stating that 43 percent of the individual lots have been developed. He also noted that the staff at the previous hearing gave the figure as 42 percent. Mr. Schubach stated that the units facing each other on a street from cross street to cross street are deemed to a block, and those figures are used in the calculation. Mr. Johnson stated that he personally walked the block on 3rd Street. He recited all addresses which have been developed on 25-foot lots. He stated that only four lots in the 900 block have not been developed. He stated that this does not correlate to staff's percentage of 43 percent. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff actually go out to the streets in questions, rather than relying on aerial photographs. Chmn. Peirce stated that staff could be directed to go back and recount the lots on the block; although, he has no reason to believe staff's figures are incorrect. Or, the lots could be merged and the appellant could appeal the decision to the City Council. Comm. Rue suggested that a recount of the houses would be helpful for clarification. He noted, however, that the appellant has driven quite a distance to attend the hearings. He asked whether it would be appropriate to ask whether the appellant would like this matter continued so that another count could be taken; or whether he would prefer the matter go to the City Council on appeal. Mr. Johnson stated that he would prefer that the Planning Commission continued this matter. MOTION (to merge) withdrawn by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, so that staff can perform another count of the houses versus lots on this block, and to provide a definition of "block." No objections; so ordered. SPECIAL STUDY -MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 20, 1988. The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988, directing staff to study placing a maximum of two units per lot in the R-2 zone. 20 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 By having an R-2 and an R-2B zone, the City has the option to place a maximum of two units by zoning the property to R-2B or allowing more than two units by zoning to R-2. There are several reasons why this feature are desirable. There are many lots in the City, particularly at the north end, which are consistently general planned and zoned for R-2; but they are so small, as a result of the density reduction ordinance, they can have only one unit. Therefore, even though they are zoned R-2, they would have no chance to have more than one unit if there were a cap of two units per lot. However, under the current ordinance, they can assemble lots, that is, three 2400 square foot lots, which would allow for an additional unit. Conversely, there are a several exceptionally large lots in the City (20,000 square feet plus) which are zoned R-2 and could have only two units under the maximum two-unit standard. Of course, these large lots may be subdivided into 4000 square foot lots if they have the minimum frontage on a street; but this approach would result in a lesser quality design, which is another factor to consider. Larger lots generally provide greater opportunity to improve design qualities of a development; better open space, landscaping, and parking layouts are available as are amenities such as swimming pools, spas; and recreation rooms can be provided. Several small lots assembled allowing for an additional unit will many times result in a better uality development. There are two alternatives: (1) certain sized lots in the City could be rezoned R-2B, thus placing a cap of two units per lot. The lots that are large enough to have two units without assembling lots could be rezoned to R-2B. Exceptionally large lots, that is, lots which could be divided into several smaller (4000 square foot) lots, could remain R-2; (2) another density reduction amendment to the R-2 zone is also possible and could be studied as part of the revised land use element which will be prepared in the near future. Comm. Ketz asked about the issue of lot assembly and why lots could not be assembled if the maximum is set at two units. Mr. Schubach explained that when the lots are assembled, there could be two units; therefore, no matter what the lot size, there could only be two units. He continued by explaining the lot sizes necessary to accommodate two units. Mr. Schubach stated that many lots are under 3500 square feet; however, they are zoned R-2 so there can be only one unit. If two 3500 square foot lots are assembled, two units would be allowed, merely because -the lots would then be large enough. However, nothing would be accomplished by assembling the lots, because there would only be one unit per lot allowed. Under the current code, three lots could be assembled, and four units would be allowed. However, if a maximum were adopted, only two units would be allowed. Comm. Ketz asked whether there was ever a time when there was a maximum of two units allowed in the R-2 zone. Mr. Schubach stated that at one time there was a maximum; however, it also allowed two units on a 2400 square foot lot, which equates to 37 units per acre, which is over the maximum of 25 units per acre. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the square footages allowed. 21 P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 Chmn. Peirce stated that the issue is to determine whether it is desirable to allow multiple-family dwellings in areas which are predominantly two-family dwellings. Even though the density would be the same, the issue comes down to the bulk and mass of the larger units. Chmn. Rue felt that if a lot or combination of lots is large enough to accommodate different types of projects, those projects would not necessarily be any more bulky. The project may combine to give more open space and better amenities in certain instances. He did not feel this would happen that often; when it does happen, he did not feel it would be a problem. He stated that there are standards in place; if the standards are not valid, that issue should be addressed. He did not feel that the combining of lots and building to R-2 standards with the density allowed is an undesirable practice. He noted that R-2B standards are also in place. Comm. Ingell agreed, stating that he does not feel a maximum unit number per lot is necessary. He stated that larger complexes could be more desirable developments in certain instances. Comm. Ketz stated that if the lots are very large, multi-unit dwellings would be acceptable; however, she noted that many very large projects are being built to the very minimum standards. Chmn. Peirce stated that he is torn on this issue, explaining that many people are concerned that condominium developments destroy the character of the neighborhoods; however, more amenities could be possible. He questioned the feasibility of imposing a conditional use permit process on each of these projects, so that they could be addressed on a project-by-project basis. Comm. Rue stated that condominiums currently require a conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that apartments are of real concern at this time, since they do not need any review. Mr. Schubach stated that the apartment issue will be studied by staff very soon. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that his impression of the City Council's reason for requesting this study was to prevent very large developments in two­ unit neighborhoods. He felt that their concern also relates to parking and associated problems with apartments. Mr. Schubach stated that the main concern involves bulk, not just the number of units. He stated that the bulk problem will not be corrected merely by reducing the number of units. Mr. Housley suggested, then, that there should be a maximum square footage allowed in order to address the bulk problem. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently studying height, setbacks, and the review process for condominiums as well as apartments. Mr. Schubach discussed the conditional use permit issue, and stated that he would prefer to see a precise development plan review to address all new developments, especially since environmental assessments are not required on many of these developments. 22 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 ( MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation that the R-2 zone not have a maximum number of units per lot. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker, and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, to direct staff to return with a study on the inclusion of a precise development plan review for all multiple-unit developments of two units or more. Comm. Ketz stated that she would vote against the motion, explaining that she did not feel a precise development plan review gives the Planning Commission the authority to decrease the density. If it is a three-unit development in an area which is only duplexes or single family, someone cannot be told they can build only a duplex. AYES: NOES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce stated that the study should also include a distinction between two units and less and three units and more in order to determine where the break-off point is. FOURTH QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 20, 1988. He stated that Amendment 88-7 would be pulled from the fourth uarter amendments and continued until next year. Chmn. Peirce commented on Amendment 88-9: "The subject property is a small unused portion of public right-of-way located on a steep hillside where 21st Street intersects with Loma Drive." He noted that a citizen had put in an application to vacate a portion of 21st Street approximately 40 feet by 100 feet. He did not feel that that item should be included in the fourth quarter general plan amendment because that area would be perfect as a park for the neighborhood. It is currently an alley, is on top of a hill, and the lot is not built upon. Therefore, it would be perfect as a park, rather than vacating it to give it back to the people living there. Mr. Lough stated that the citizen has already paid the fees to include this item; therefore, it must be heard, though not necessarily approved. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to set for public hearing Amendments 88-4, 88-5, 88-6, 88-8, and 88-9. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a.) b.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 11 /9 /88 City Council Meeting No one from the Planning Commission will be attending. Planning Department Activity Report for September 1988 Chmn. Peirce discussed the issue of conditional use permit enforcement and strongly urged that action be taken against Casey's Isuzu, noting that that establishment is in egregious violation of the CUP since the owner continues to 23 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 c.) d.) park cars for sale in spaces that should be used for customer parking. He suggested that they be ticketed now, and if no action is taken, the owner be brought forward for a revocation hearing. He stressed that action must be taken. Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to see copies of all letters which are being sent out in regard to CUP enforcement or violations. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to include for the next several months in the Commissioners' packets all letters related to CUP enforcement and violations. City Council Minutes of Special Meeting on October 5, 1988, and Regular Meeting on October 11, 1988 No comments. No action taken. Smoking Vehicle Program from South Coast Air Quality Management District Mr. Schubach stated that handouts are available with information on reporting offenders. The phone number to report offenders is 800-CUT-SMOG. e.) Communication from Resident Chmn. Peirce stated that a call had been received from the resident who wrote the letter requesting that the letter not be discussed at this meeting. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Peirce suggested that plans and staff reports be made available for review by the general public. It was suggested that materials be placed in the library or in the City Hall prior to the meetings. He suggested that a memo be sent to the City Manager outlining the reasons why citizens should be able to review materials prior to the meetings. The Commissioners had no objection to citizens receiving the materials before they had received their copies. Chmn. Peirce stated that people should be aware that they can review the plans in advance of meetings. Chmn. Peirce felt that SCAG should schedule their meetings and seminars at times more convenient to working people. The Commissioners stated that they would attempt to attend the meeting on November 10 at 1:30 P.M.; however, Chmn. Peirce suggested that a letter be sent to SCAG stating that meetings should be held in the late afternoon or evening so that more people could attend. Chmn. Peirce also opposed SCAG requiring reservations to attend their meetings. Comm. Ingell stated that conditional use permit hearing notices need to be made larger or more colorful so that they are plainly visible. He suggested red so that the signs are clearly seen. Chmn. Peirce asked for an update on the traffic circulation element. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would be meeting with the traffic consultant this week in order to ascertain when the report will be finished. 24 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to adjourn at 11 :03 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 1, 1988. Ja Date 25 P .C. Minutes 11 /1 /88