Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-06-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Andy Perea, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of August 16, 1988, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-69, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-70, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119844 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 238 ARDMORE AVENUE, AKA 602 THIRD STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS SOUTHWEST 50 FEET OF LOTS 74 AND 75, WALTER RANSON COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-72, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING FOR GENERAL OFFICE USE AT 832 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 21 AND 22, TRACT 1564, AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-75, A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND REZONING THE AREA LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MYRTLE AVENUE BETWEEN 24TH STREET AND 25TH STREET. No objections; so ordered. l P .C. Minutes 9 /6 /88 (I) COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and requested that the distance between establishments with off-sale liquor and residential areas be increased to 400 feet. Mr. Schubach stated that he would send the communication to the City Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119790 FOR A FOUR­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1415 -1423 MANHATTAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1988. This project is located in the R-3, multiple-family residential zone and has a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 5818 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant proposed to construct four units, each unit to be approximately 2030 square feet. Units 1 and 2 will consist of three bedrooms and three and a half baths. Units 3 and 4 will have two bedrooms, two and a half baths, and a mezzanine. The design will be two floors over a partial subterranean garage. The project meets the parking requirements and provides four additional guest parking spaces. Each unit will have two enclosed parking spaces. The units will also provide eight guest parking spaces. Four guest parking spaces are required; two guest spaces for the four units and two guest spaces because of two on-street parking spaces lost due to curb cuts. The units also conform to the open space requirements. Units 1 and 2 will have 240 square feet of private open space on decks; Units 3 and 4 will provide 252 square feet on decks. The development will also provide 284 square feet of common open space. Therefore, the total open space is 1268 square feet, or 317 square feet per unit. The bedrooms on the ground level of Units 1 and 2 have some potential to be converted to illegal dwelling units. However, the bedrooms do not have exterior access except through the garage. To minimize any "bootleg" potential, a condition of approval should limit the garage-level bathroom of Units 1 and 2 to a toilet and sink. Storage is provided in an area adjacent to the_ garage. A trash area is provided in the rear. A condition of approval should require a trash enclosure to be constructed. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements. The immediate area has primarily high density residential dwellings; therefore, the development is consistent with surrounding uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The Commission members asked several questions regarding the proposed architectural treatment of the project. Public Hearing opened at 7:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. 2 P.C. Minutes 9/6/88 Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that the project meets all the requirements. She continued by describing the site and setting of the project. Randall Firestone noted concern over the potential view loss. He continued by asking uestions about the plans and public noticing procedures. John Murry, 1424 Manhattan Avenue, opposed the project on the grounds of increased parking and congestion in the area. Ben Noland, 1424 Manhattan Avenue, noted concern over density and merging lots on the parcel map. He also noted concern over loss of views in the area. He suggested that more space be left between units in order to provide views. Elizabeth Srour discussed statistics regarding adjoining parcels. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Edwards asked several questions regarding the assembly of lots. Comm. Ingell stated that he favors the proposed parking for the project. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the bootleg potential in Units 1 and 2 of the proposed project. He suggested that the bathrooms in the lower units be limited to only a toilet and sink. Comm. Edwards concurred. Comm. Edwards noted concern over the merging of lots and views which could be eliminated by the assembling of lots. Comm. Rue noted, however, that the Commission cannot deny the project based on the height, stating that the project meets the height requirements. He did not feel there is a potential bootleg problem with the project. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the project as submitted, but with an amendment to Condition No. &(a) to allow a tub and/or shower. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None None (MOTION FAILS.) MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-77 as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Comms. Ingell, Rue None None 3 P.C. Minutes 9/6/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120077 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 835 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1988. This project is located in the R-2, two-family residential zone, with a general plan designation of multi-use corridor. The lot size is 5686.8 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. On August 23, 1988, the City Council adopted a moratorium prohibiting residential development in the multi-use corridor. However, projects that have a completed Building Permit Application package on file with the City prior to 8/23/88 are exempt. This project was received by the City on July 12, 1988, and is therefore exempt. Staff is recommending a continuance of this matter because an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to grant a conditional use permit and a tentative tract map for a three-unit condominium adjacent to the property at 845 15th Street was heard before the City Council on 8/23/88. At that meeting, the City Council confirmed the Planning Commission's decision to allow the three-unit condominium. However, the City Council required the project at 845 15th Street to provide a 19-foot front yard setback on all floors, to be consistent with neighboring properties. Therefore, the Planning Commission should continue this matter and require that this project also provide a 19-foot front setback in order to be consistent with neighboring properties. The applicant proposes to construct three units. Each unit will be approximately 2600 square feet. The units will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The design will be two floors over a partial subterranean garage. The project complies with City parking requirements. Each unit will have two enclosed parking spaces. Three guest parking spaces will be provided; one guest space is to replace an on-street parking space lost due to a curb cut. The units also conform to the open space requirements. Each unit provides 367 square feet of open space on the roof deck. Additional open space is provided on the balconies, but it is not included in the open space calculations since they do not meet the open space minimum dimension requirements. Each unit will provide 913 cubic feet of private storage. Unit A provides a 20-foot front yard setback at the subterranean level; however, only a five-foot front yard setback at the first and second floors. The City Council required the adjacent property to provide a 19-foot front yard setback at all floors, stating that it would be consistent with the surrounding properties. If the 19-foot setback is imposed for this project as well, revised plans should be submitted showing a 19-foot front yard setback at all levels, pursuant to the requirement adopted by the City Council. These plans conform to existing planning and zoning requirements. However, revised plans should be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission with the 19-foot setback as a condition of approval. Substantial modifications to the submitted plans will be necessary if this condition is imposed. Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff recommends that the Planning Commission require the applicant to submit revised plans which will provide a 19-foot front yard setback for all floors and to continue the public hearing until such time the revised plans are received. 4 P.C. Minutes 9/6/88 Chmn. Peirce asked questions of the City Attorney regarding the Planning Commission's ability to impose the requirement of a 19-foot front yard setback. Mr. Lough responded that, in order to impose such a condition, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the surrounding properties warrant a larger setback than the required five feet. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant submitted revised plans and a setback survey; however, there was not adequate time to study the new information. Chmn. Peirce discussed the survey submitted by Gerald Compton. Public Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Gerald Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 9, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed his survey. Janet Morada, 900 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over parking and the fact that density is not being reduced. Mr. Compton stated that he has taken steps to reduce the impacts of this project. Chmn. Peirce suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting in order to allow staff time to review and evaluate the revised plans and survey. Comm. Rue felt that the applicant has taken steps to respond to the concerns of the local residents. Comm. Edwards suggested that the tub/shower on the lower level be eliminated; further, that the 19-foot front yard setback be provided. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this matter to the meeting of September 20, 1988, for the purpose of further study by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO THE HOURS OF SERVICES OF ALCOHOL AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE SEATING CAPACITIES AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 23-25 22ND STREET, MARTHA'S Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 25, 1988. The applicant is requesting to allow increased seating capacity without providing additional parking, and to eliminate Condition No. 2 l(b) from Resolution P .C. 86-49, limiting alcohol sales to 11 :00 A.M. to 3:00 P .M. on Saturdays, Sundays, and State and Federal Holidays. On October 21, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit amendment to allow outdoor dining and beer and wine sales at the subject location. 5 P .C. Minutes 9 /6 /88 On November 25, 1986, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to impose a limitation on the number of seats and the hours of operation for alcoholic beverage sales. The appeal was denied by the City Council. On May 3, 1988, a public hearing was held to consider revocation of the conditional use permit as a result of violations of several of the conditions including the limit on seating capacity. The Planning Commission gave the applicant an opportunity to comply with the conditions. According to the State law and the City's zoning ordinance, a variance can only be given when certain findings can be made; otherwise, the granting of a variance would be merely the granting of a special privilege that others are prohibited from having. The finding "exceptional circumstances applicable to the property" cannot be made in this instance since there is nothing unusual about the property in regard to size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. The property and the use are no different than numerous other properties and uses in the community. Therefore, granting a variance could set a precedent for other commercial uses to expand their businesses without providing parking. Additionally, it could be deleterious if the City desires to maintain equitable treatment for all commercial businesses. In summary, cumulative impacts of such a precedent would be significant and compound the parking problems from which the community already suffers. Granting a variance for an existing business to expand without the required parking is no different from allowing a new business to be constructed without parking. The finding that "the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property" cannot be made. To the contrary, the City has granted the applicant the right to use the public right-of-way for dining area. This benefit has, no doubt, enhanced the business economically. No other business in the vicinity or City possesses a right not granted to the subject business. The finding "the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located" cannot be made. As noted, granting of such a variance can set a precedent for other businesses to do the same. Although individually the impact may be minimal, cumulatively the impact to the residents' welfare and other businesses' welfare could be significant. The fact that many businesses do not have parking has been a significant detriment to the viability of all the businesses within the community. The lack of parking area causes the market area for businesses to shrink, and the proliferation and/or expansion of one type of business can ultimately reduce profits, making that type of business marginally viable. The finding "that the granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general plan" cannot be made. The parking element of the general plan indicates that there is up to a 40 percent deficiency in parking within the rea of the subject property. It also states the following goal and objective: "6. To provide equ itab le distribution and allocation of parking resources." 6 P .C. Minutes 9 /6/88 Policy 9 states: 11 Any serious attempt at true parking management must be complemented by a vigorous and on-going parking ordinance enforcement program." Further, the general plan map designates the subject property as neighborhood commercial, and the land use element defines neighborhood commercial as " ... convenience shopping areas with grocery stores, small cafes, laundromats ... designed primarily to serve local walk-in traffic." Based on the definition of neighborhood commercial, staff believes that 90 seats is excessive and, therefore, the proposed variance would conflict with the general plan in this regard. It should also be noted that, although this property is now designated neighborhood commercial, it was originally designated for residential use by the 1979 general plan. However, staff recognized this use as a focal point of the neighborhood and one type of use which gives Hermosa Beach its unique character. Consequently, instead of rezoning the property for residential and thereby making the use non-conforming, the current staff recommended changing the general plan to neighborhood commercial, and the Planning Commission and City Council concurred. The conditional use permit currently limits the ratio of food sales to alcohol and also limits the hours of operation of the restaurant to 9:00 P .M. Staff believes these conditions are adequate to protect the residential neighborhood surrounding the subject property. Additionally, staff recommended that, if the applicant desires to place all of the seating (that is, ten seats at Hoffman's) as totally Martha's, the conditional use permit should be amended to allow the additional seating. Also, based on the calculation made by a fire engineer, three additional seats should also be allowed. The total seating with Hoffman's included would be 63. Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommended denial of the zone variance, Resolution P .C. 88-7 and approval of the requested amendment to the conditional use permit, Resolution P .C. 86-49. Comm. Ketz asked staff several questions pertaining to the number of seats allowed. Public Hearing opened at 9:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Leslie Hoffman, applicant, discussed the seating and the four findings necessary for the granting of a variance. She stated that because 65% of the customers arrive either by foot or by bike, the situation is unique. She stated that Martha's will not impact the surrounding residential areas. She pointed out that there would be no problems in this location because their hours differ from the hours at the Bottle Inn. Further, this request would not be detrimental to the general plan. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue,. noted that parking is a general problem for all restaurants in the City. Polly Hicks supported the variance request. 7 P.C. Minutes 9/6/88 Howard Longacre, 1220 7th Street, opposed, based on increased alcohol sales and parking problems. Fay Willets supported the alcohol sales and increased seating. Ann Hill, employee of Martha's, favored and supported increased hours and alcohol sales. John Horger, 2216 The Strand, opposed the request, based on the facts that Martha's cannot handle additional customers , and because trash continues to be a problem at this establishment. Parker Herriott opposed the variance request, based on the issue of increased customers and increased parking problems. He felt that additional liquor sales would be a bad influence on children. Chip Schulte favored, stating that Martha's is a responsible establishment. Leslie Hoffman, thanked her supporters. She acknowledged the trash problem at Martha's. Public Hearing closed at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce asked whether it is necessary that all four findings be met in order to grant the variance. Mr. Lough_ responded in the affirmative. Comm. Rue asked why it is necessary that Martha's now provide additional parking. Mr. Schubach explained that the expansion now uses the right of way area. The original seats were for inside dining only. Comm. Ketz did not feel that parking is a problem at this establishment. She also felt that Martha's is the type of restaurant which gives the City its unique character. Chmn. Peirce felt that the findings as presented by Mrs. Hoffman are impressive. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the variance request to increase the seating capacity at 23-25 22nd Street, Martha's, based on the fact that the business is unique; the survey finds that 78% of traffic is on foot; denial of the request would deny a right, because other businesses in the area have access to Strand patrons; the request would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighbors or general plan; and many nearby residents patronize the establishment. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the conditional use permit, Resolution P.C. 88-80, to expand the hours of service of alcohol from 8:00 A.M. until 9 :00 P .M. 8 P .C. Minutes 9 /6 /88 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce that adequate trash bins with lids be required. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION accepted by Comms. Edwards and Rue as maker and second. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Recess taken from 10:15 P.M. until 10:20 P.M. VARIANCE TO PROVIDE A THREE-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND TO .ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 222 4TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1988. This project is located in the R-1, single-family zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot is irregularly shaped and is approximately 33.l feet by 59.05 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a garage which will encroach three feet from the side property line rather than the required seventeen feet. The applicant is propo_sing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new single­ family dwelling and garage, which will require the subject variance. The site is located on the southwest corner of 24th Street and Ozone Court. The site is located in an area which was recently rezoned from R-2 to R-1. The City Council "grandfathered" projects which were submitted prior to April 26, 1988, i.e., plans submitted prior to April 26, 1988, are allowed to be constructed to R-2 standards such as height, open space, and setbacks. The building records indicate that the applicants submitted a completed building permit package on April 25, 1988, and therefore are allowed to construct their dwelling to R-2 standards. The proposed single-family dwelling conforms to the parking requirements of two parking spaces plus one guest space. The proposed parking will be accessed from Ozone Court. One on-street parking space is also located in front of the site on 24th Street. The existing site has only one substandard on-site parking space. Therefore, two additional parking spaces will be gained from the proposed development. The proposed single-family dwelling will have a height of approximately 30 feet, as is permitted in the R-2 zone. The R-2 zone requires 200 square feet of open space per unit. The single-family dwelling will provide 188 square feet of open space on decks and 30 square feet on ground level. The plans also show a deck and balcony which project into the front yard setback. Bay windows which project less than three feet are allowed in the front yard setback. Open decks may also encroach a maximum of three feet, but must be a minimum of seven feet above grade. The plans conform to the other planning and zoning requirements. Staff recommended approval of this variance since the lot is unusually small, 1420 square feet. Most lots in this immediate area are approximately 3000 square feet. The site is a corner lot with vehicle access from both Ozone Court at 24th Street. The site is too narrow to allow for a garage and a seventeen-foot setback which would be accessed from Ozone Court. The proposed development will result in a net gain of two parking spaces. 9 P .C. Minutes 9 /6/88 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a variance to allow the construction of a garage three feet from the side property line rather than the required seventeen feet, and an environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 10:25 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Doug Scott, 222 24th Street, applicant, described the site and his proposed development. Robert Uperhemian, 230 24th Street, opposed the variance Parker Herriott opposed the variance, stating that the applicant should conform to the code J. Stephenson, architect of record, discussed the proposed project. Paul Herriott opposed the variance Public Hearing closed at 10:56 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation on this project. Mr. Schubach explained the difficulty in providing a seventeen-foot setback at this location. Comm. Ketz felt that it would be safer to back out onto Ozone Court rather than onto 24th Street. Comm. Rue stated that the issue of requiring seventeen-foot setbacks on alleys should be studied. Comm. Edwards noted concern over parking in the area. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-78. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None VARIANCE TO ALLOW BALCONIES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2000 THE STRAND (CONTINUED FROM 11/17/87 AND 8/16/88 MEETINGS) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1988. This project is located in the R- 2B, limited multiple family residential zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The present use is a single-family dwelling. P .C. Minutes 9 /6 /88 This matter was originally scheduled for a public hearing on November 17, 1987. Per the applicant's request, the public hearing was continued to an unspecified date. This public hearing was rescheduled for August 16, 1988. On August 20, 1988, the applicants again requested a continuance of this matter tc> October 18, 1988; however, the Planning Commission granted a continuance only to September 6, 1988. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of October 8, 1987, recommended a negative declaration for this project. At that meeting, it was also determined that the balconies would require an encroachment permit. The applicant was informed that an encroachment permit would be denied by the public works department, pursuant to their guidelines. Therefore, City Council approval would be needed for an encroachment permit. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow two balcony encroachments into the required front yard setback and which was constructed without obtaining building or encroachment permits. The applicant was aware of the necessity of obtaining City approval prior to construction of the balconies since the encroachment and variance process began prior to construction. The existing house presently encroaches into the required front and side yard setbacks. The front of the home, along The Strand, is set back a maximum of 2.75 feet, with a portion of the home encroaching into the public right of way. The chimney is also partially constructed within the public right of way. The northerly and southerly side yard setbacks are 2 .39 feet and O .2 5 feet respectively. The applicant presently uses the 20th Street walk-street area for access into his home. The balconies are 3.5 feet by 6 feet and are approximately 8 feet above grade. They will project over the front property line. If the variance is approved, the applicant will need to apply for an encroachment permit. The public works department has informed the applicant that they will not issue an encroachment permit for the project since the balconies are permanent in nature; that is, encroachments should be temporary to allow the City to utilize the area if necessary. The encroachment permit would require approval from the City Council. The balconies would also increase lot coverage which is already over the allowable lot coverage. The granting of this variance would increase nonconformities to a building which already has many nonconformities. After reviewing the plans, it was also determined that variances would be necessary for the structure being over lot coverage and Section 1301 of the zoning code regarding nonconforming structures. Staff cannot determine any findings which justify granting the variances. There are no unusual features of size, shape, or topography. Approval of the variances would set a precedent to allow other property owners along The Strand to encroach into the required front yard setback area and public right of way. Public Hearing opened at 11:14 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Vern Sachs, applicant of record, addressed the Commission and discussed the proposed project. 11 P .C. Minutes 9 /6/88 Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, discussed another, similar variance in this area. Public Hearing closed at 11 :19 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Edwards stated that he could not make the findings necessary to grant this variance. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-71, to deny the variance for property located at 2000 The Strand, based on the fact that the proper findings cannot be made. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RELOCATE OPEN DINING AREA AND PARKING SPACES AND TO ADD A SMALL OFFICE AT 1100 THE STRAND, SCOTTY'S .(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 8/16/88) Comm. Ingell stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter since he is the applicant. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1988. This project is located in the C-2, restricted commercial zone and has a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as a restaurant. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of August 16, 1988, continued this item in order to allow the applicant time to publicly notice the original conditional use permit amendment request to include a parking plan. The item has been correctly noticed pursuant to state law. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 3, 1986, conducted a public hearing for a conditional use permit and parking plan for the subject property. At that meeting, the applicant was required to provide additional information regarding a parking study. Since then, the applicant has modified his proposal to significantly reduce the size of the proposed development. This project was originally heard before the environmental staff review committee on March 5, 1986. Plans have been revised, and a traffic study has been prepared. Staff is recommending that a negative declaration be prepared for this project. The existing restaurant is 2 864 square feet of enclosed dining area with an outdoor patio area of approximately 1500 square feet. The outdoor dining area has seating for 32 patrons, eight fixed tables with seating for four people each. The existing site has parking for 18 automobiles. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing patio dining area and add 845 square feet of office, storage, and waiting area. The proposal will also add five additional parking spaces. The new proposal will not add additional restaurant dining area. The zoning code requires one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area for a restaurant use. Based on this standard, the code requires eight parking spaces for 12 P.C. Minutes 9/6/88 the addition. It should be noted, however, that the proposed addition is for office and storage use only. The zoning code requires one parking space for each 250 square feet of office area. Therefore, four parking spaces are required for the addition based on this standard. The applicant is proposing to provide five new parking spaces. There will be no expansion of the restaurant dining area, and existing seating capacities will not be expanded. No additional parking is required for relocation of the outside patio dining area since the patio is being relocated, not expanded. Based on current parking standards, the parking for the existing restaurant is nonconforming. The existing restaurant requires 43 parking spaces. The applicant has stated that there is an unusual parking need for this site. The site is located on The Strand; therefore, many patrons arrive by bike or on foot, as is indicated in the survey submitted by the applicant. The site will have 23 parking spaces available for those patrons who drive. The site is also located across from a City parking lot; therefore, parking is available at the City lot if it ever becomes necessary. As part of the parking plan, the applicant is proposing to provide tandem parking for employees. Four parking spaces will be located in tandem located to the north and south of the existing structure. As a condition of approval, these spaces should be designated for employees only. Therefore, the location of the proposed handicapped parking space will need to be relocated. Staff has recognized a potential safety hazard with the location of the tandem parking space to the south of the building adjacent to 11th Street. There is some potential to drive cars along the sidewalk to access this parking space. To eliminate this potential problem, a condition of approval should require the applicant to locate a 36-inch fence along the southerly property line adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. In addition to the proposed parking plan, the applicant is proposing to provide a large area for bicycle parking. This area is located on site and will provide adequate parking for cyclists. The parking provided at the site has been adequate for this use. Staff has conducted field checks which indicate parking was available at various hours of the day, including the lunch hour. Section 1169 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, Parking Plans, states that the Planning Commission may approve a reduction in the number of spaces required for a project if the applicant can demonstrate that adequate parking will be provided for the site and the appropriate findings are made. Factors taken into consideration for approval of parking plans may include bicycle and foot traffic. Therefore, the Planning Commission may allow the requested addition with the proposed parking. The Plans meet other planning and zoning requirements. The Planning Staff has reviewed this site for compliance with the existing conditional use permit. The site is in compliance with the CUP except for the posting of an occupancy sign. Public Hearing opened at 11 :29 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Scotty Ingell, llOO The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission and discussed the proposed project. 13 P .C. Minutes 9 /6 /88 'J Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, favored the proposal, stating that Scotty's is a great restaurant. Public Hearing closed at 11 :39 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-74 with the following modifications: (1) Condition No. 5 shall be amended to state the number of seats as allowed by the Fire Department regulations; and (2) to delete Condition No. 17: "Screens shall be installed on all operable exterior windows on the ground floor level to prevent the pass through of alcoholic beverages." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Ingell None THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -REDESIGNA TING AREAS 98 AND 7 FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND AREA 9C FROM LOW DENSITY TO IDGH DENSITY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1988. A careful analysis of the subject areas was conducted in conjunction with the consideration of changing the zoning. As a result of the analysis, both the Planning Commission and City Council determined that the areas should be zoned as follows: Area 9B and Area 7 from R-2 to R-2B; and Area 9C to remain R-3. Based on the determined zoning for the subject areas, it will be necessary to change the general plan designations for the purpose of developing consistency between the general plan and zoning as required by state law. The size of the lots, age of the existing dwellings, and the composition of the existing development were important in determining the zoning for the subject areas. Therefore, staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending amending the designation of the subject areas. Public Hearing opened and closed by Chmn. Peirce, as no citizens came forward to speak on this matter. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-76, as recommended by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None a. Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 9/13/88 City Council Meeting b. City Council Minutes of August 9 & 11, 1988 14 P .C. Minutes 9 /6/88 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Mr. Schubach gave an update on the conditional use permit issue. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the bootleg report. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to adjourn at 11:59 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 September 6, 1988. Date 15 P .C. Minutes 9 /6/88