Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-16-1988l MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 16, 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 AUegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Edwards, Ingel1, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Inge11, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of August 2, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Chmn. Peirce commented on Resolution P.C. 88-64, Condition No. 10: "Conduit shall be provided for cable television." He noted that the other Resolutions have wording slightly different from the wording in 88-64: "All units shall be wired for cable television." He asked for clarification on the wording, noting that this is a new condition being added to Resolutions. He felt that it would be more appropriate to use the wording "All units shall be wired for cable television." Mr. Schubach stated that the correct wording should be that contained in 88-64; he stated that the other Resolutions will be corrected to reflect the appropriate wording. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution 88-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119867 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION LOCATED AT 840-844 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 11 B," TRACT NO. 1677. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue to approve as amended ( Condition No. 11 shall be changed to read: "Conduit shall be provided for cable television), Resolution 88-66, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119868 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION LOCATED AT 858 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK B, TRACT 1677. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-68, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES AND ENVIRONMENT AL l P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-67, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119820 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 621 9TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE WESTERLY 50' OF THE EASTERLY 170' OF LOT 6, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Inge ll, to approve Reso l ution P .C. 88 -73 , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM MISS ION OF THE CIT Y OF HER MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S APPLICATION OF SECTION 306 OF THE ZONING CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2930 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 1 /2 OF LOT 37 AND ALL OF LOT 38, BLOCK 1, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Edwards, Rue None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119844 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 238 ARDMORE AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS 602 3RD STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 8, 1988. This project is located in the R-2, two-family residential zone and has a general plan designation of medium density residential. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. This lot is adjacent to an area which was recently changed from M-1 to R-2 which brought the block into consistency. There are two additional condominium projects under construction on lots adjacent to the east. The applicant is proposing to construct two units. Each unit will be approximately 2300 square feet and will contain three bedrooms and three and a half baths. The design of the building is two floors over a partial subterranean level. The project meets parking requirements and provides additional guest parking spaces. Each unit will have two enclosed parking spaces. The units will provide four guest parking spaces within the seventeen-foot setback. Only one guest space is required for this unit since no parking is allowed on the south side of 3rd Street. The plans appear to be over the height limit. The architect has been contacted regarding this problem, and he states that he will be able to correct the height problem. A condition of approval should require the applicant to submit revised plans which conform to the height requirement. 2 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide a 270 square foot deck on the roof. Additional open space is provided on ground level patios; Unit 1 will have 135 square feet, and Unit 2 will have 150 square feet. Since the patios are irregularly shaped, some area of the patio does not meet the minimum seven-foot dimension for open space. However, only 30 square feet of additional open space is needed. There is sufficient area on the patios which meets the minimum seven-foot dimension to provide the additional 30 square feet of open space. The lower bedroom has a potential to be converted into a bootleg unit since it has an exterior access and a bathroom. A condition of approval should prohibit the bathroom on the lower level. The units do not show a storage area. The trash area is shown to be located under an interior stairway. This location should be prohibited since odors treated by the trash cans will cause a relocation of the cans, possibly into the required parking area. A condition of approval should require revised plans to show a storage area and a relocated trash area. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements; therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Ketz noted that the staff report indicated that the size of the units is 2300 square feet; the residential zoning analysis indicates the size to be 2700 square feet. She asked which is the correct number. Mr. Schubach stated that the correct size of the units will be 2300 square feet. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission and City have had deep concern over the bootleg issue in the City. He asked for clarification on the mechanics of actually turning an area into a bootleg unit. Mr. Schubach stated that it is actually quite easy for a room to be turned into a bootleg unit by sealing off the interior access to the main unit and having exterior access. People then install refrigerators and hot plates or microwaves and the unit can be rented as a bootleg. He stated that it has become a City concern that many of the bootleg units are quite new, and some units are being built specifically with a bootleg unit in mind. Mr. Schubach stated that the building inspector is in the process of preparing a list which will specify the number of bootleg units and their ages. At this time, however, exact figures are not available. Comm. Rue asked if the lack of a bathroom tends to discourage people from creating bootleg units. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. He stated that if a bathroom is later discovered, it is easier for the City to require that the plumbing be removed and that cement be poured down the pipe. This is deemed to be a good deterrent to the re­ creation of illegal units. Public Hearing opened at 7:48 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chris Cole, 217 5th Street, Manhattan Beach, one of the owners of the project, addressed the Commission. He stated that the rear of this property is semi,..subterranean, and there 3 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 ~ will be a garden wall around the perimeter of that area. For someone to have access to the area, they would need to jump up to the top of the wall and then jump down approximately four to five feet. This would be very inconvenient for people trying to get into and out of the area. Mr. Cole stated that bathrooms are being provided for each of the bedrooms so that each can be a master bedroom. He did not anticipate the lower bedrooms being turned into bootlegs. Chmn. Peirce asked if Mr. Cole would object to removing the bath and/or shower from the bathrooms on the lower level. Mr. Cole stated that to do so would be quite inconvenient for the person using that bedroom because it would then be necessary to go upstairs in order to bathe. Comm. Ketz asked whether the outside access could be closed off. Mr. Cole discussed the topography, stating that it would be very difficult to close off that access because there is a drop of approximately four to five feet. He noted that there will be a block wall with landscaping around the top. The lower area will have a patio off of the sliding glass door. He noted that the wall will actually be a retaining wall. He stated that it would be difficult to put in stairs because the area is actually similar to a well. He said the top of the wall is at grade, and the patio area is approximately four and a half to five feet below grade. Comm. Rue asked if there is steel railing around the top of the wall. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that there is some railing proposed around the top of the wall. Comm. Rue noted that the lower bedroom and bath as proposed appears to be a mother­ in-law or maid unit. He stressed the Commission's concern in regard to the creation of illegal living units. If there is no access to the sliding glass door, it would be more difficult to create a bootleg. Mr. Cole stated that he has no intention of putting in an outside access to that area. Public Hearing closed at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue felt that this type of design, where there is a sunken level with no defined access other than the sliding door, almost calls out to be transformed into a bootleg. He stated that in similar cases, the Commission has added conditions requiring the removal of bathtubs and/or showers. Comm. Rue asked Mr. Schubach if he felt this project would likely be turned into a bootleg; or rather, because of the high quality of the design, bootlegging would be precluded. Mr. Schubach stated that even high-quality projects have become bootlegs. He noted that this proposal appears to be a beautifully designed project, however. Comm. Rue noted that if one of the units were turned into a bootleg, owners in the other unit would probably complain to the City because of noise or parking concerns. 4 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 ,---.. Chmn. Peirce stated that this project appears to have an external access through the path which could be made into a walkway. Stairs could then be added on the Ardmore side of the project. He did not feel it would be appropriate to allow any bathing facilities on the ground level, stating that such a configuration would only encourage a bootleg. Comm. Edwards noted that the City is attempting to reduce density; in order to accomplish this goal, the bootleg problem must be addressed and enforced. He stated that designers should be aware of this problem and design their projects accordingly. or these reasons, he stated that he would favor eliminating the downstairs bathing facili ties. Comm. Ingell stated that it would be quite difficult for the person in the downstairs bedroom to use the bathrooms on the other levels because those bathrooms are well enclosed within the bedrooms in which they are located. Comm. Ingell noted concern over bootleg units in the City; however, he felt it would be quite inconvenient to eliminate the downstairs bathing facilities. Chmn. Peirce did not feel it is necessary that each bedroom have its own bathroom. He stated that he would adamantly oppose any bathroom which might encourage a bootleg use. He noted that the Commission should not tell people how to design projects; however, the Commission has had a policy to eliminate this type of configuration. Comm. Ketz asked whether the Commission would be approving these plans as they are presented at this time. Mr. Schubach stated that if the Commission requires changes to be made to the plans, the plans could be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. If the modifications are deemed not to cause a significant impact by the Planning Director, it will not be necessary for the project to again come before the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Edwards to approve Resolution P .C. 88-70 with the conditions imposed by staff. Chmn. Peirce suggested the modifications that Condition No. 7 shall be amended to read "There shall be no tub or shower fixtures located in the lower bedroom; Condition No. &(a) shall be modified to read "Plans shall show tub/shower eliminated from the lower bedroom." Comm. Ingell felt that to allow any plumbing fixtures to remain on the ground level would make it easy for someone to convert the area into a bootleg. He noted that if it is desired to completely eliminate the possibility of a bootleg, there should be no plumbing fixtures allowed at all on the ground level. Comm. Rue stated that if all plumbing is prohibited on the ground level, that condition would preclude the room from being a bedroom. He felt it would be reasonable to prohibit the tub and/or shower, but allow the toilet and sink to remain. Mr. Schubach stated that staff favors the total elimination of the bathroom on the ground level. The Building Department also agrees with the Planning Director on this issue. He noted, however, that to remove t he tub and shower would be a compromise and the City would be able to discover more easily any bootleg in the future. 5 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 Comm. Edwards stated that his motion is to approve the Resolution as written by staff, allowing no plumbing fixtures within the lower bedroom. MOTION SECONDED by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue strongly objected, stating that prohibiting the lower level bathroom completely is going beyond what would be necessary to preclude a bootleg. He suggested that the bathroom be made smaller in order to make it impossible to install a bath and/or shower. To remove the toilet and sink would preclude the use of that area as a bedroom. Comm. Ketz asked whether conditional use permits are checked on a complaint basis or on a regular CUP basis. Mr. Schubach stated that CUPs are checked in both manners. He noted, however, that it would be quite difficult for the inspector to find an illegal bathtub, stating that that would probably have to be reported as a complaint. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION suggested by Comm. Rue to modify the motion to state that the plumbing fixtures can remain; however, the size of the room must be modified in order to completely preclude the installation of a tub and/or shower. AMENDMENT REJECTED by Comm. Edwards as maker of the motion. He stated that he feels it necessary for the Planning Commission to uphold the recommendations of staff in the war against bootleg units. He also noted the importance on controlling density in the City. He stated that it is necessary to send a strong message to designers that they must take the bootleg concerns into account when they are designing projects in the City. Comm. Rue stated, however, that many homes in this City, as well as in other cities, are based on this type of design. Comm. Ingell stated, after studying the plans, that he could not support the motion because he felt that the bootleg potential for this unit is small. He noted that this is a very expensive unit, and a potential buyer would want to have the bathroom, including a tub, downstairs. Comm. Ketz stated that she could support only a sink and toilet downstairs. She agreed that it would be desirable to have some facilities on that level so a person does not have to go upstairs to use the bathroom. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Edwards Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-70 as proposed by staff, with the modification that Condition No. 7 shall be amended to state there shall be no tub or shower fixtures located within the lower bedroom, and that the bathroom area shall be redesigned to be too small to allow a shower and/or tub to be installed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ingell None None 6 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 REZONE OF AREA 3 FROM R-2 TO R-1 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 8, 1988, and he used the overhead projector as he discussed Area 3. Area 3 is bordered on the west by Ardmore, on the south by 13th Street, on the north by the City boundary, and on the east by Tennyson A venue and a public right of way. According to the City Council's adopted schedule, Area 3 should be considered for rezoning at this time. Changing the zoning to R-1 would result in consistency with the General Plan and would be in compliance with Proposition EE. However, little would be accomplished in regard to lowering density, since all 28 lots within the subject area are already existing two-unit developments. This area appears to be well-established, since 83 percent of the dwelling units were built more than 30 years ago. By rezoning this area to R-2B, the status quo would be maintained, and if lowered to R-1, every lot would become non-conforming as to the number of units. This area may have been originally designated low density because of the surrounding low density designation, but it should more appropriately be designated medium density. The area is large enough in size to not be considered "spot zoning" even though it is essentially surrounded by low density, R-1 zoned areas, and open space. The total land area of Area 3 is 150,552 square feet. There are a total number of 28 lots in the area with a current number of 56 dwelling units. There are an average of two units per lot. The existing density is 16 units per acre, with an existing zoning of R-2. The current general plan designation is low density. The potential number of units under the current R-2 zoning ordinance (with 1750 square feet per unit) is 60; the potential number of units under the previous R-2 zoning ordinance ,(with 1200 square feet per unit and a two unit maximum) is 56. The potential number of units under the proposed R-1 zone change (with one unit per lot by ordinance) is 28. There are no lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance. There are 28 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-1 ordinance. There have been no units constructed within the last 10 years; two units constructed 10 to 20 years ago; and 6 units constructed 20 to 30 years ago. There are 48 units over 30 years of age. The 1922 land use map designation for Area 3 was R-1; 1930, 1943, 1956, and 1978 land use map designations were all R-2. There are no lots below 3500 square feet in Area 3. 25 lots are over 3500 square feet; 3 lots are over 5250 square feet; and there are no lots over 7000 square feet. Staff recommended that Area 3 be rezoned from R-2 to R-2B. Public Hearing opened at 8:15 P-.M. by Chmn. Peirce. 7 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Robert Wickwire, 2900 Amby Place, favored low-density with a 25-foot height limit, noting concern over view blockage on the south side of 30th Street Karen McDonough, 610 Longfellow, representing Warren Ford, who opposes any zone change in Area 3 Joy Lininger, representing Warren Ford, who opposed any zone change Karen McDonough opposed any zone change in Area 3 Gary Scardena, 625 30th Street, favored retaining the R-2 designation Mr. Stone, 634-Longfellow, favored retaining the R-2 zoning Emmett Manion, 633-635 Longfellow, favored R-2 and noted concern over his planned unit development Newell Kaylor, 605 Longfellow, asked for clarification on the zone change Garrison Frost, 2900 Tennyson Place, favored R-2 and strongly opposed a rezone to R-1, noting concern over the City's method of trying to control density Mr. Bachelor, 631 Longfellow, favored retaining R-2 zoning Erin Blythe, 618 Longfellow, opposed a rezone to R-1, favoring R-2 Williams Hastings, 621-623 30th Street, favored retaining R-2 Mike Ershambel, 615 Longfellow, favored R-2 zoning Public Hearing closed at 8:4-1 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ingell asked whether Mr. Schubach knew the number of off-street parking spaces per unit in Area 3. Mr. Schubach was not certain of the definite number. He did note, however, that there are very few curb cuts in the area, and parking does not appear to be a problem. There are also many garages in the area, and not many cars park on the street. Comm. Ingell noted that only four units in Area 3 would be affected by rezoning to R- 2B. He felt that if this area is rezoned to R-2B, not much will happen in this area for quite some time; therefore, the parking would not be upgraded to the new standards as the older units are replaced. By allowing these four units to remain, the number of off­ street parking spaces will be increased, and the number of on-street parking spaces will not be reduced. Because of that fact, he stated that he would favor leaving this area R-2 with no downzone to either R-1 or R-2B. Comm. Edwards suggested that Mr. Schubach explain, for the benefit of the audience, the rationale behind the proposed downzoning. Mr. Schubach explained the background on this issue. He agreed that it would not be wise to rezone this area to R-1 because of the large lot sizes; therefore, staff felt R-2B would be the more appropriate zoning. Comm. Edwards asked for clarification on the R-2B zoning. Mr. Schubach explained that R-2 and R-2B are very similar, with the exception that R-2B has a maximum of two units per lot; in R-2 areas, there can be a unit per each 1750 square feet. He continued by discussing the rationale behind the creation of the R-2B zone, particularly in regard to the lot line requirements. Comm. Edwards wondered what would happen if this area is rezoned to R-2B, and at some time in the future the R-2B designation is eliminated. Mr. Schubach stated that that is presently being studied by the Council. 8 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 Public Hearing reopened at 8:53 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. A speaker who did not identify himself addressed the Commission and stated that parking is a problem in Area 3, commenting that people do not park in their garages but on the street. He stated that the problem is particularly bad on the weekends on 30th Street. He stated that the density in the area is already very bad. Public Hearing closed at 8:55 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue stated that the Commission is being asked by the Council to lower density in the City, and he stated that almost every decision made by the Council has been based on the premise of lowering density. Therefore, the clear direction is toward downzoning in the City in order to lessen density. Comm. Rue stated that Area 3 is one of the nicest areas in the City. He felt that an appropriate compromise would be to rezone the area to R-2B, and he felt that such an action would be supported by the Council. Comm. Rue discussed the issue of view corridors in the City and agreed that that is an issue which must be addressed. He noted that it is currently being studied in regard to areas where a zone allowing more height blocks the view of a zone with a lower height. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-69 as written by staff, to rezone Area 3 from R-2 to R-2B. Comm. Ketz stated that it is important to recognize that this area contains lots with two units per lot. This particular area should have the general plan designation changed rather than downzoning the area to R-1. Comm. Rue discussed the parking, stating that when the area does get rebuilt, the parking situation is addressed in the present zoning, and the parking corrections will be made. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ingell None None Recess taken from 9:00 P.M. until 9:06 P.M. PARKING PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 832 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 10, 1988. This project is located in the C-2, restricted commercial zone. The general plan designation in general commercial, and the lot size is 5866 square feet. The applicant is requesting a parking plan to allow tandem parking for a structure to be used as a general office. Specifically, the applicant would like to allow twelve spaces in tandem, with 25 percent compact spaces. 9 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 The proposed parking plan will allow for a vacant auto repair business to be converted to a general office building. The existing building is 5700 square feet and has no on-site parking. The proposed office will reduce the size of the building to 3000 square feet by eliminating 2700 square feet from the rear of the building and will provide 12 parking spaces which will be accessed from the alley. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area to be used for general office use. Therefore, the structure meets the number of required parking spaces. In addition to the 14 on-site parking spaces, the proposal will result in two additional on-street parking spaces. The existing structure has two curb cuts located in front of the building for access into the building when it was utilized as an auto repair business. The converted building will have no need for the curb cuts; therefore, a condition of approval has been added which will require the applicant to replace the curb cuts. This will result in two added parking spaces on Hermosa Avenue. The applicant has stated that a tandem parking arrangement will not be a problem for this type of business. The present Easy Reader location has no on-site parking, and the added parking will be an improvement over present conditions. The newspaper discourages walk-in customers. Advertisers expect newspapers salespersons to come to their stores. The newspaper also has several reporters who are often in the field. The applicant will designate a full-time receptionist who will have keys for the automobiles in the event they need to be moved. Conditions of approval require parking spaces closer to the building to be designated for full-time office personnel. The parking spaces located behind these should be designated for reporters or other personnel who need to frequently leave the office. Also, a condition of approval limits use of the building to general office unless prior approval for other uses is approved by the City and requires recordation of the deed. Staff has received several favorable telephone calls regarding this project since parking will be added to a building that presently has no parking. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a parking plan and environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 9:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Kevin Cody, 1233 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report. Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce felt that the proposed parking plan would be an improvement to this piece of property. Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that the proposal would be an asset to the City. Comm. Ingell referred to the Resolution, specifically Condition 4(b): "These cost (sic) shall also include restriping Hermosa A venue to designated (sic) the new spaces, if needed." He asked why the applicant would need to do that. Chmn. Peirce stated that that condition is probably part of a compromise agreement which would help alleviate the debt. 10 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant had any objection to having a deed restriction placed on this building. Mr. Cody stated that no deed restriction is desirable; however, the property owner would not object to its inclusion. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-72 as written by staff. 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 Comm. Ingell stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter since he is the applicant. Mr. Schubach stated that after reviewing the plans, it has been determined that a parking plan will also be required. The item will be properly renoticed to include the added parking plan. Therefore, he suggested that this public hearing be continued to the meeting of September 6, 1988. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to continue this hearing to September 6, 1988. No objections; so ordered. VARIANCE TO ALLOW BALCONIES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2000 THE STRAND (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 11/17/87) Chmn. Peirce stated that the Planning Department had received a letter from Bill Allen requesting that this matter be continued to the meeting of October 4, 1988. He asked if any reason was given as to why the continuance is necessary. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant needed more time to prepare his request. Chmn. Peirce commented that this matter has been dragging on for months now. He could see no reason why the hearing should be continued beyond the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Ingell agreed that the issue should be heard at the next meeting. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of September 6, 1988. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Peirce directed Mr. Schubach to notify the applicant of the date of the hearing. If the applicant is not present at that time, the Planning Commission will make a decision based upon the materials submitted. 11 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 Comm. Rue did not see why this item needs to be rushed through. He said he has no objection to continuing it beyond the next meeting. Chmn. Peirce felt that this issue has been continued long enough, and each continuance makes more work for staff and the Commission. AUTO BROKER IN C-2 ZONE,{CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 8/2./88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1988. At the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1987, Mr. Feldman requested that the Planning Commission consider adding auto broker to the C-2 permitted use list. Since this item was not listed on the agenda, it was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988. At that meeting, the Commission directed staff to study this item and to return with additional information. The applicant has requested a special study to amend the zoning code to allow "auto broker" to the C-2 permitted use list. Presently, the zoning code allows automobile agencies in the C-3 zone, subject to a conditional use permit. An automobile broker business presently exists at 200 Pier Avenue. The owner has been notified that this use is not allowed in a C-2 zone, and a business license will not be issued unless the zoning ordinance is amended. The main difference between an automobile agency and automobile broker is the on-site storage of cars. The automobile agencies are allowed to store and display cars on-site for sale. An auto broker will only conduct the transaction of cars. Parking and displaying of cars is the primary concern of staff. The Building Department inspectors have stated that they have seen cars rotated on the site; that is, cars are brought on-site for inspection by prospective clients. The requirement of a conditional use permit will assist in resolving this problem. Other conditions of approval will further address potential impacts associated with the business. Another condition of approval, to require an approved off-site storage area for the automobiles, will assure that the vehicles for sale are not being stored in required parking spaces or on public streets. This would allow for storage of the automobiles and an office to conduct the transactions. Staff recommended that this matter be set for public hearing to add "auto broker, conditional use permit required subject to Article 10," to the C-2 permitted use list and to add the following standard conditions of approval to Article 10 of the zoning ordinance: 11 (1). Storage parking, and/or display of vehicles for sale in required parking area, or on any public rights-of-way, shall be strictly prohibited at all times." "(2) A legally located lot for vehicles shall be maintained at all times and a copy of the lease with a provision that the City be made a party thereto, shall be on file with the City prior to the issuance of a business license." Also, the zoning code must be amended to allow for a definition of "automobile broker." The definition shall state "Automobile broker -an office to conduct the transaction of automobile sales; no storage of automobiles allowed on-site." Comm. Ketz asked where automobiles would be stored if they are not allowed in the C-2 zone. 12 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 ~ Mr. Schubach replied that they would need to be stored in either the C-3 zone or in a manufacturing zone. Or they would need to be stored in another city. Chmn. Peirce did not feel that the City should proceed with this use in the C-2 zone because the C-2 zone is a restricted commercial zone. All the uses in this zone are for selling things out of a shop, such as appliances, banking services, and department stores. This use would constitute a change in zone which would be more appropriate to the C-3 areas. He stated that it is hard to believe anyone would propose to sell cars without having cars available for people to look at. He noted that the applicant has been observed storing cars at this location, and he questioned what would make the applicant change his actions now. Chmn. Peirce felt that this use is more appropriate to the C-3 zone. Therefore, he strongly recommended that this material be received and filed. Comm. Edwards asked if this applicant would have to stop doing business at this location if this request is denied. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Comm. Ketz felt that this type of business would quite difficult to enforce. She stated that there is a very fine line between this use and that of automobile sales. She could not see how a person could buy a car without seeing it. Comm. Ingell was not certain that the C-2 zone is the appropriate zone for this use; however, he felt that the City needs a better income base in the commercial zones. He stated that the brokerage houses he is familiar with cater to a clientele who know exactly what they want; therefore, it is not necessary to see the cars in order to make a decision on what to buy. Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to hold a public hearing in order to obtain further input on this matter. He noted that businesses of this type generate large amounts of sales tax revenues. Chmn. Peirce asked what additional information could be expected if this matter were to go to a public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated that he would present information on what other cities do in regard to auto dealer /broker uses. Comm. Rue felt that additional information could be helpful. Since this matter has come this far, he could see no reason why it should not be set for public hearing in order to hear additional discussion on this type of business. He agreed that such a business would provide taxes for the City. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to receive and file. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Comms. Ingell, Rue None None 13 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 ~ STAFF ITEMS a.) b.) c.) d: e.) Memorandum Regarding City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Chmn. Peirce and the Commissioners discussed various topics for discussion at the Planning Commission/City Council workshop. Those items deemed most important were (1) multi-use corridor ;; (2) circulation element; and (3) noise enforcement in the downtown area. Comm. Rue felt that an important issue is the City's infrastructure and growth assessment. Chmn. Peirce requested a copy of the most current capital improvement budget. He also wanted to see a copy of the circulation element as soon as possible. Letter from Mr. Michael P. Lawton and Response from the Building Director MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 8/23/88 City Council Meeting No one will attend the City Council meeting. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Chmn. Peirce thanked staff for this information. Comm. Ketz stated that she would be out of town on September 20 and would therefore be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Rue stated that he would also be absent on September 20 because he would be out of town. Comm. Rue noted that the issue of a text amendment regarding non-conforming uses and structures is scheduled for the meeting of September 20. Noting the importance of this issue, he asked whether that hearing could be rescheduled until such time that a full Commission is present. Chmn. Peirce agreed that that is an important issue and asked Mr. Schubach to try to reschedule the hearing. Mr. Lough stated that the League of California Cities will be meeting in September. Comm. Ketz asked if it would be possible to obtain agendas for the various meetings so that people could decide whether it would be beneficial to attend. City Council Minutues of July 21, 26, 28, and 30, 1988 No comments; no action. 14 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88 .. COMMISSIONER ITEMS a.) Resolution of Intent --General Plan and Rezone of the West Side of Myrtle Avenue MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve the Resolution of Intent, P .C. 88-75. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on what is happening with the November ballot in regard to the Biltmore site. Mr. Lough explained the various measures being placed on the ballot. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce to adjourn at 9:55 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 August 16, 1988. Date 15 P.C. Minutes 8/16/88