Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-19-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION· MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 2, 1998, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----.. APPR0VAL OF MINUTES Comm. Ketz referred to the motion on Page 6 of the minutes. She stated that it was the· intent of the Commission that the wall or fence to be constructed would encroach into the public right of way; therefore, there could be no parking in the right of way area. Mr. Schubach stated that the Resolution itself reflects the intention of the Commission on this matter. He stated that the north and .west sides of this property are the rights of way. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. lngell to approve the minutes of July 19, 1988, as amended. No objections; so ordered. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 19, 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. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce. None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve the minutes of July 5, 1988, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE EERMII AND T.EN.JATIVE PARCEL MAP #19637 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 637 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 22, TRACT 1075. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19760 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 625 10TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 38 FEET OF THE WEST 152 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2426 MANHA TT AN A VENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, TRACT 1031. No objections; so ordered. Several modifications were made to Resolution P.C. 88-58: (1) Conditions 7(a) and 8(a) should to be added requiring that the general manager be aware of all conditions imposed and that he sign a statement to such effect. 1 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 (2) Page 5, (a) (l) should state: "The above grade lot coverage of the Project shall not exceed 58 percent, plus or minus two percent." (3) Page 5 (4) should state: "The project shall have no more than four (4) stories and the building height shall not exceed 39 feet." (4) Page 6, (d) (2) should state: "An approximately 1/2 acre garden plaza for general public use." Comm. Edwards strongly favored additional traffic mitigat ion measures for the SPA, stating that traffic would be the major impact of an y proj ec t at the site. He suggested that mitigation measures be further studied by the Planning Department. Mr. Schubach stated that it was recommended to the City Council that additional traffic mitigation measures be studied for the SPA site. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-751, A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. VARIANCE TO SECTION 1157C TO ALLOW GARAGE TO ENCROACH INTO THE 17- FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 20 4TH STREE T AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 6/21/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 21, 1988, continued this item to require the applicant to revise plans which will conform to all zoning requirements except the requested 17-foot garage setback. The Planning Commission also requested the applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss their concerns. The applicant has stated that they have met with the neighbors. Concerns included requiring landscaping within the front setback, parking within the front setback, and potential illegal units. The conditions listed in the resolution address these concerns. The City Attorney stated that the new Commissioners may vote on this matter if they had read the minutes of June 21, 1988. The project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density. The lot is 1282.5 square feet. The applicant submitted revised plans to the Planning Department. The plans show more detail and provide the requested changes. The open space for the units meets the minimum requirements. The lower unit has provided open space within the front yard setback area which exceeds the required front 2 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 yard setback. Since this area is designated as open space, no parking shall be allowed within this area. A condition of approval should require landscaping within the setback area and the area provided with a 36-inch fence to prevent parking in the open space area. The upper unit has provided open space within an open deck. The parking conforms to code. The zoning ordinance allows for expansion of units which have at least one parking space. However, the northerly garage has two water heaters which encroach into the required minimum parking area of 8.5 feet wide by 20.0 feet deep. A condition of approval should require relocation of the water heaters. The applicant has also submitted elevations for the northerly garage wall. Residents have voiced concern over the side of the garage wall fronting onto the walk street. The wall will be enhanced by requiring landscaping within the front setback. The lot coverage problems and setback problems have been corrected. The plans conform to other planning and zoning requirements. Staff has again received several letters regarding this variance request, and they were included with the materials provided by staff. Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a variance, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Chmn. Peirce noted that the actual size of the lot is 1495 square feet, as opposed to 1282.2 as stated in the staff report. Comm. Rue referred to the 36-inch wall or fence that is to be constructed along Beach Drive and asked whether the wall will wrap around along 4th Street and whether it would include the brick patio which is on the property. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative to both questions. He stated that additional wording could be added to the condition to clarify the location of the wall. Public Hearing opened at 7:48 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Alfred Salido, 2212 Rondo Vista Drive, Los Angeles, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was requesting the variance request because it is not feasible to remodel or develop this property, which is a legal half lot, without a variance to the 17-foot setback requirement. He noted that the plans have been revised to conform with other provisions of the zoning code. A meeting was held with the neighbors in order that a compromise could be reached. Mr. Salido stated that since the last hearing on this matter, several letters have been received from people favoring the proposed project. Mr . Salido stated that the neig hbors have agree d to suppo rt th e pr o ject if the foll owing c on di ti ons are met: (1) to c onst r uct a pla n a r ea adjacent to the nor t h elevation tha t will imp r ove the architectural treatmen t and cr eat e a visual amenity ; (2) to const ru c t a fence along the north and west sides of the property line. He stated that he can comply with both suggestions. Mr. Salido noted, however, that a suggestion was made which cannot be agreed to which is to construct a wall around the right of way. He stated that rights of way are used throughout the City for parking. He further noted that the City has never regulated or 3 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 prohibited this use because of the severe shortage of parking in Hermosa Beach. He stated that he did a survey of other corner lots in the area which are on walk streets and Beach Drive. Of 66 lots, 44 of the lots use the right of way for parking. He passed out photographs verifying the results of his survey. Mr. Salido stated that any change to this use is beyond the scope of this hearing. If there is to be any change in regard to parking on public rights of way, he felt that the issue should be addressed by the City Council. He felt that this one particular lot should not be singled out. Mr. Salido continued by stating that the neighbors desire a deed restriction to be placed on this property in order to prevent a bootleg use. He stated that his design is an improvemen t , and the design of the garage was carefully planned in order to preclude a bootleg. He felt he would be unfairly singled out if he were required to have a deed restriction on the property. Mr. Salido stated that the proposed design is sensitive to the density issue in the City. There are large setbacks, and the height is within what is allowed. Everyone's views have also been taken into account; therefore, no views will be lost as a result of this project. Mr. Salido asked that the Commission approve the variance request as recommended by the City staff. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project would still be possible if the applicant were required to obtain an encroachment permit and build a wall around the City-owned right of way. Mr. Salido replied in the affirmative; however, he noted that if he were required to do so, the other 44 properties in the area using the right of way. ior parking should also be required to obtain encroachment permits and construct walls. He did not feel he should be singled out to do something which others do not have to do. Comm. Rue asked why the applicant objects to a deed restriction being placed on the property. Mr. Salido objected due to the fact that a deed restriction implies that the applicant is intending to have a bootleg unit. He stated that the City has ample procedures and methods to prevent the creation of bootlegs, He stated that it will be a garage, and will remain a garage. Comm. Rue noted that the City has a desire to prevent bootleg uses, noting that even new condominiums have deed restrictions limiting the number of units when there is a potential bootleg situation. He noted, therefore, that this applicant is not being unfairly singled out. He also noted that it is very difficult to enforce the bootleg prevention. Comm. Rue discussed the parking on the brick patio. He stated that no other houses on the street use the public right of way for parking. Mr. Salido disagreed, stating that two houses on the Strand use the public right of way for parking. Comm. Rue stated that the walkway was donated to the City for the purpose of encouraging people to walk, not for use as parking spaces. 4 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Mr. Salido stated, however, that it is no longer used for walking. Comm. Rue stated that he would have an objection to not requiring a wall around the patio area. Mr. Salido noted that a wall has not been required for others in the City. He felt that such a condition would be unfair to him if the others are not also required to construct a wall. Mike Fletcher, 27 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that previously he had opposed the project; however, after meeting with the applicant, he will now support the project. He did note concern over excessive parking in the area. He felt that the fence should extend along Beach Drive, wrap around 4th Street, and replace the old worn-out fence currently in existence. He requested that the Commission prohibit parking in the public right of way. Ellen Goetz, 33 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, favored a deed restriction on this property to ensure that there will be no bootleg unit. She noted that there is excessive parking at this site, which is very unsightly. She stressed that it should be required that the right of way be improved as a condition of the variance request. Guillermo Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, stated that he drew the plans for Mr. Salido, and he has complied with all requirements. He stated that he was told that the City right of way was within the purview of the Building Department, not the Planning Commission. He was told by the Public Works Department that the public right of way has been used for parking, and it can continue to be used for parking. Mr. Garcia stated that photographs will prove that others use the public right of way for parking. Also, he has met with the neighbors several timesJ -amd _ the plans have been revised. A landscape plan has been presented to the Planning Department. Also, it is not necessary to relocate the water heaters because it was discovered that there is enough space for them where they are. He stated that he turned in the revised plans to the Planning Department. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that he felt the Public Works Department was in error when they told Mr. Garcia the public right of way could be used for parking; however, he sa :t d it would be necessary to investigate the matter further. Mr. Lough clarified that the Planning Commission has no authority over encroachments and encroachment permits. However, the issue before the Commission at this time is to condition a variance. Comm. Rue asked for information on the proposed landscaping. Mr. Garcia stated that there will be a two-foot planter in front of the garage on the north side. The plant material will consist of bushes. Gerald Compton, 832 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and explained why the City requires deed restrictions, and he stated that it is not an unusual requirement. He continued by stating that it is true that the Planning Commission has no purview over the issue of encroachments. 5 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Mr. Salido stated, in response to a citizen comment, that there are no bootleg units at any of his properties. He further noted that the proposed remodel will be very small, only a 19 percent increase in space. He also stated that the rents for properties he owns are not based on people being able to park in the public right of way. Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chrnn. Peirce d iscussed one of the the necessary findings, i.e., that the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantia l property righ t possessed by other properties in the vicinity. He stated that in order for this finding to be made, there would need to be a substantial number of neighbors with two units on very small lots. He noted that there is only one such lot in the area, which is south of this property. Chmn. Peirce stated that if the majority of properties are not on small lots with two units, it would be difficult to make this particular finding. Mr. Schubach partially agreed; however, he noted that most of the surrounding properties do have garages, and this property does not. Chmn, Peirce stated that he would have dif ficulty app rovin g this variance because this is a small lot in an R-3 high-density area, which is approximately L500 square feet; therefore, he felt that this unit has much more t han its share to begin with, since the City now requires a minimum of 1320 square feet of lot area for a new single unit. He stated that the 17-foot setback requirement is to provide additional parking and to reduce density. By approving this variance, the life of the units is extended, which is not in the spirit of bringing buildings up to code. He did not feel it would be good planning to extend the use of these two units on such a small lot. Comm. Peirce asked if there was evidence to support that twa .. un-1ts, have existed at this site from the very beginning. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Comm. Rue stated that this is a small lot with two existing units. An economic reality is that the units will probably not be torn down soon. He felt that the neighbors realize this fact and would prefer to have the site improved. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-59, with the addition of a finding stating that the project will be an improvement to the neighborhood and is one which the neighbors support; also that there be a modification so that Condition 2(c) shall read: "A thirty-six inch wall or fence shall be constructed along Beach Drive to continue to the north side and west side of the property to prevent vehicles from parking on the setback/open space area." Also, there is to be absolutely no parking which will encroach onto City-owned property unless an encroachment permit is obtained. A condition shall also be added requiring that a deed restriction shall be placed on this property, and that the property shall remain two units or less. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue Chmn. Peirce None None 6 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119512 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT L OCATED AT 1021 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1988. This project is located in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 2782 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. Each unit will be approximately 1391 square feet and will contain two bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. The design of the structure will be two stories and a mezzanine level over a partial subterranean garage. The project will provide two enclosed parking spaces per unit plus four guest parking spaces. The guest parking spaces for both units will be located within a 19-foot setback. Trash and storage facilities are located adjacent to the garage. The plans conform to open space requirements. Each unit will provide 304.29 square feet of private open space: 69.7 square feet on the second floor deck, 80.7 square feet on the mezzanine deck, and 153.9 square feet in the courtyard area. Both units contain an additional deck on the second floor; however, this area is not included in the open space calculations since the area is completely covered by the mezzanine deck. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are cons istent wit h the surrounding uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve t he conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 8:23 P.M. by Chrnn. Peirce. Gerald Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 9, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the project conforms to all City requirements. Mr. Compton continued by explaining the architectural features and roof line of the project. Public Hearing closed at 8:26 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-60 as proposed by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cornms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119594 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 521 11TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 13, 1988. This project is located in the R-3, multiple-family residential zone. The general plan designation is high density residential. The lot size is 5016 square feet. 7 P .C. Minutes 7 / 19 /88 Units A and B are approximately 1900 square feet in size, while Unit C is approximately 2300 square feet. Units A and B will contain three bedrooms and four baths. Unit C will contain five bedrooms and five baths. The project will provide a total of nine parking spaces. Three of these spaces shall be designated as guest parking. One of these spaces is required to replace lost on-street parking due to curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide 300 square feet of open space. All three units will utilize a roof deck to meet the open space requirements. Each of the proposed units will contain second-and third-floor decks; however, due to the size of complete coverage, they may not be counted as open space. Private storage for Units A and B is located in the garage area. Each of these units will provide a total of 216 cubic feet of storage. Unit C proposes to provide 646 cubic feet of storage. Staff finds the proposed 646 cubic feet of storage space in Unit C to be unusually large. Also, staff pointed out that the conversion of this space into living space can be done quite easily without detection. Such a conversion would eliminate the required storage area for the unit. Therefore, a condition of approval will require this area to be maintained as storage space, and any reduction in size shall require approval of the Planning Director. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Rue asked about balcony overhangs and what is allowed. Mr. Schubach explained that balconies can overhang five feet, and they are not considered part of the lot coverage. Public Hearing opened at 8:32 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Neil Gill, 4627 162nd Street, Lawndale, part owner and designer of the project, addressed the Commission. He discussed a previous plan which was contemplated but did not come to fruition. He said that there was to be spiral staircase in that area, but now the parking is to be subterranean; therefore, there is room for the extra bedroom. Mr. Gill discussed the concerns over Unit C and the downstairs "bedroom." He said that that room does not necessarily have to be a bedroom. Potential buyers may want to use the space for a weight room, laundry room, office, or other use. This design would allow flexibility for a potential homeowner. Mr. Gill stated that it is his intention to design attractive buildings in the area. He stated that the project is under the maximum allowed lot coverage. Chmn. Peirce asked Mr. Gill whether he would have any objection to removing the bathroom on the first floor of Unit C, noting that it appears that it could easily be converted into a bootleg. 8 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Mr. Gill stated that there would be a problem if the homeowner wanted to install a laundry room and there are no plumbing fixtures on that level, He also noted that if the room is to be used as a weight room, it would be nice to have a shower available. Or, if the homeowner is working on his car in the garage, it would be nice to have a bathroom in which to clean up. Comm, Rue suggested that there be only a toilet and sink in that bathroom. Mr. Gill had no objection to only a toilet and sink. Public Hearing closed at 8:39 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the downstairs bathroom in Unit C and its potential use as a bootleg. He felt that the bare minimum would be to allow only a toilet and sink. Comm. Rue suggested that some of the walls in the lower room be removed, thereby making it less attractive as a potential bootleg. Comm. Rue suggested that the hearing be continued so that the applicant would have an opportunity to redesign that particular area. Mr. Gill stated that walls could be moved. He noted, however, that whatever is designed, that particular area will remain on the bottom floor of the building. He said that he understood the City's concern over potential bootlegs. However, he noted that it is nice for a homeowner to have the flexibility to use the space as he desires; that is the reason for the bathroom on the ground floor. Comm. Rue stated that he suggested a continuance so that the project could be redesigned. Mr. Gill asked whether there were any suggestions as to what can be done, Comm. Rue suggested that the wording be changed from "bedroom" to "multi-purpose room." The bathroom could also contain only a toilet and sink. He noted, however, that the designer should be given the option of redesigning the area. Mr. Gill stated that he would prefer not to have any delay in the project by continuing the hearing. He asked whether something could be worked out whereby revised plans could be subject to approval by the Planning Director so that the project does not have to come before the Commission at a future date. Comm. Rue had no objection to that suggestion. Chmn. Peirce personally would like to see the lower bathroom completely removed; however, he understood that the designer would like to provide flexibility for a future homeowner. He stressed, though, that no bathroom should be allowed. He suggested that the resolution contain wording eliminating the bathtub and that the revised plans be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Further, any additional plumbing to be done on the first floor must be approved by the Planning Director. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-61, with the changes that the plans must be modified and that the bathtub on the ground level of Unit C shall be removed. Any plumbing to be added to the first floor during construction must be approved by the Planning Director before proceeding with the project. 9 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Comm. Edwards stated that it appears from looking at the plans that the storage room has a window. Mr. Gill stated that there is no window in the storage room. Chmn. Peirce noted that the plans depict the spiral staircase which is no longer proposed. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce as maker and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, that there shall be no windows in the storage room of Unit C. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONM ENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1800 PROSPECT AVENUE, HERMOSA VIE W SCHOOL SITE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 13, 1988. The applicant is proposing to operate a private elementary school known as the International Bilingual School, Los Angeles, at 1800 Prospect Avenue, the Hermosa View School site. The school is presently operating at the South School site, 425 Valley Drive. The proposed school will have 250 students and 25 teachers and staff. The site is approximately 7.5 acres and is zoned open space and unclassified. The City Attorney has determined unclassified land to have the equivalent of R-1 zoning. The site presently has four classroom buildings, kindergarten building, .<i>ifice building , playground, and parking area. The City Council has recently a d opted an or dinanc e to allow "elementary schools" within the R-1 zone subject to a conditional use permit. The applicant is also requesting to add four temporary classrooms in the unclassified portion of the site. The total additional floor space for the site is approximately 5760 square feet. The applicant is proposing to provide 48 parking spaces; 24 behind the library, 16 behind the proposed location of the new classrooms, and 8 located directly in front of the school. The staff environmental review committee has recommended that the eight spaces located in front of the school be desi gna t ed for temporary parking only. The spaces located behind the proposed new clas srooms are located on the existing blacktop area to be fenced since students will be playing in that area. The zoning ordinance does not provide parking standards for schools. Staff has researched old parking studies and adjacent cities for school parking standards. The survey concluded that typical parking requirements are 1.5 spaces per each teacher and staff member. The school will provide 25 teachers and staff; therefore, 38 spaces will be required. Staff is concerned over potential traffic c ong e st ion which may occur before and after school when parents come to pick up their child r e n. Staff recognizes that most of these students do not live nearby, and parents m ust brin g and pick up the students. The staff environmental review committee has r e co mm ende d that a two-lane pick-up area be designated in front of the school for picking up the students. They have also 10 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 recommended the temporary parking in front of the school. The applicant has stated at the environmental review meeting that the school is presently studying the use of the school buses. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to require busing or some other type of acceptable transportation alternatives if traffic congestion becomes a problem. The applicant is also requesting to locate two portable storage containers for recreational equipment. The zoning ordinance does not allow for these types of containers. Staff is recommending that the applicant construct a small storage locker for the equipment. The plan meets all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with the general plan. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and environmental negative declaration subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Chmn. Peirce asked for clarification on the proposed parking situation. Mr. Schubach stated that 38 parking spaces are required; the applicant is proposing 48. Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Takatsu Wantanabe, 211 Miramar Avenue, Long Beach, business manager for the International Bilingual School, addressed the Commission. He explained that the school is a non-profit school which has been in the City since 1981. During the past seven years they have enjoyed many exchange programs with other schools. Mr. Wantanabe stated that the Hermosa View school site mil .. b.e much .better for the school. He asked that the Commission approve the CUP so that the school can continue. Mr. Wantanabe explained that normal school hours are from 8:00 or 8:30 A. M. until 2:30 to 4:30 P.M. He explained that the issue of car pooling and/or busing is in the process of being discussed with the parents in order to determine the best and safest methods to ensure traffic safety. He stated that the school intends to do everything possible for safety. Mr. Wantanabe stated that there are 260 children at the present site. In September, there will be approximately 280 children enrolled in classes. Bernice McMahon, 903 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and suggested that the school allow the residents to use the parking during the evening hours when school is not in session. Public Hearing closed at 9:06 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question from Comm. Ing ell, that the applicant will be responsible for patrolling the 15-minute parking spaces in front. If there are problems, they can be addressed during the CUP review. Comm. Rue noted safety concerns over the left-turn area into the school parking lot. Comm. Ingell suggested that the City Council be informed of the Planning Commissions' concerns over traffic safety on Prospect, noting that the circulation element has not yet 11 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 been completed. Chmn. Peirce felt that an in/out pocket should be sufficient, He felt that any attempt to restrict turning into or out of the parking lot would result in additional traffic on the side streets. Chmn. Peirce suggested that a condition be included designating an upper limit to be placed on the number of students at the school because of the traffic concerns. Mr. Lough noted that a condition designating a specific number would require specific findings. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-63 as presented by staff. Comm. Edwards suggested an amendment allowing residents to park at the school during the evening hours. Also, that the applicant be requested to change the school hours if traffic safety becomes a problem. Mr. Lough stated that such an amendment would be inappropriate because the operator of the school is not the owner of the property. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the neighbors negotiate with the school in regard to parking at the school during the evening. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Recess taken from 9: 13 P .M. until 9:25 P .M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW SALE OF BEER AND WINE WITHIN 100 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1325 HERMOSA AVENUE-7-ELEVEN STORE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 13, 1988. The applicant is presently operating a retail convenience store. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and variance for the off-site sale of beer and wine. No structural changes or expansion of the existing building are proposed, and the occupancy use of the building is not being changed. The site is located within a C-2 zone and is primarily surrounded by C-2 zoning. However, there are several non-conforming residential uses located within a 100-foot radius. Section l 0-8 "Off-sale Alcohol Beverage Establishments" includes conditions which "shall be imposed on all establishments engaged in off-sale alcoholic beverages." Section (1) states: "any new off-sale alcohol beverage establishments shall be a minimum of one hundred ( l 00) feet from any residential use and/ or zone." 12 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 Although the site is surrounded by C-2 zoning, residential uses within the 100-foot radius have caused the need for a variance. Al t houg h there are other off-sale liquor establishments located within 100 feet of resi de nti al zones and/or uses, they were in existence prior to the adoption of the new ordinance pertaining to liquor sales. Staff prepared a site map with the 100-foot radius designated, surveyed the area, and researched building permits for present use. Lots 28 and 29, Block 15 are commercial use; Lots 26 and 27, Block 15 are residential use; Lots 25, Block 15 is commercial use; and Lot 24, Block 15 is residential use. Lot 15, Block 14 is a vacant lot; Lots 12, 13, and 14 on Block 14 are residential use. Lots 10, 11, and 12 of Block 34 are commercial use. Staff cannot determine any fin dings which justify granting a variance. The site has no unusual circumstances such as size, shape or topography. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applicants' request for a variance and conditional use permit to allow the off-sale of beer and wine within a 100-foot radius of a residential use. Mr. Schubach handed out copies of a petition signed by neighbors who favor approval of the CUP. Mr. Schubach stated that people within the 100-foot radius could petition the City Council to do a text amendment in regard to the 100-foot radius rule, if they so desired. However, without the proper findings, it is not possible to vary from the standard. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the total number;, CJ{ , establishments selling alcoholic beverages in the City and the types of establishments. He concluded by stating that there is one such establishment for every 264 citizens in the City. Comm. Ingell asked whether the 100-foot radius is measured from the front door or from the property line. Mr. Schubach stated that it is measured from the property line, and he continued by explaining the radius. Mr. Lough stated that the 100-foot radius is determined from the edge of the property line. However, he noted that this is the first time staff has interpreted this requirement. Comm. Ingell noted that this establishment is actually set back from the property line by approximately 1 9 feet. Public Hearing opened at 9:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Carl Korndoerfer, 800 North Eckhoff Street, Orange, Tait & Associates. Richard Tait, 800 North Eckhoff, Orange, Tait & Associates Chr is Ferraras, 6170 Bellflower Boulevard, Lakewood, Southland Corp. Larry Dillard, 2419 West 115 Place, Hawthorne, operator/owner of 7-Eleven Store Neva Garcia, 1800 Hermosa Avenue, favored approval Tom Wilson, lives next door to 7-Eleven, favored approval Tamara Fontana Sellers, 1426 Bayview Drive, opposed approval Jerry Dillen, owner of properties on Pier Avenue, opposed approval 13 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 Lauren Davis, 1100 Monterey, opposed approval Pat Dillen, owner of properties on Pier Avenue, opposed approval Robert Kurstey, 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, opposed approval Mike Lipscomb, 845 14th Street, opposed approval Howard Longacre, 1622 Hermosa Avenue, opposed approval Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street, opposed approval Public Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce cited Section 10-2 and asked the City Attorney whether this section is a legally defendable position. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Peirce discu sse d the required fin dings necessary for the approval of a variance. He noted that the c onditional use permi t is actually contingent u pon granting of the variance; therefore, the conditional use permit issue would become moot if the variance is denied. Mr. Lough discussed the method by which a conditional use permit could be granted if the variance were denied, and he referred to Section 10.5 (15) of the Code. He stated that to do this, there must be mitigation measures for the approval of the CUP. Comm. Edwards noted that findings must be made to support the granting of the variance. Mr. Schubach discussed the findings and noted that there is actually nothing unique about this particular property, explaining that it is the same as many others in the area. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that if the Commission feels the requirement of no alcoholic beverage stores are to be allowed within a l 00-foot radius of residential property, they could recommend to the City Council that there be a text amendment to change the ordinance, to either eliminate the requirement or to reduce the radius. Comm. Rue noted that it is very difficult to determine that a property is unique in order to make the finding that a property has exceptional circumstances. He stated that that is also true in this case. Comm. Rue noted that there has been a consensus in the City to clean up the downtown area. He stated that if he could make the finding that there are exceptional circumstances, he could favor approval of the variance; however, he cannot make that particular finding in this case. He did note that the Southland Corporation has improved the site. Comm. Rue suggested that if it is desired to allow this business to sell beer and wine, there should be a text amendment to allow convenience stores only to sell beer and wine within the specified radius. Comm. lngell felt that the issue at hand is the granting of the variance. He did not dispute the fact that the Southland Corporation knows how to manage a store very well. However, he could not justify allowing a store to sell beer and wine only 30 feet from residential properties. 14 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 Comm. Ketz agreed that the 7-Eleven is a well-run store; however, she could not favor the sale of beer and wine so close to a residential area. She noted that this property has no unique qualities. Comm. Edwards agreed that the necessary fin dings cannot be made. Chmn. Peirce felt that the increase in the number of establishments selling alcohol in the area is detrimental to the public welfare. Therefore, he stated he would vote against the variance and conditional use permit. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the conditional use permit to sell beer and wine at 1325 Hermosa Avenue, Resolution P .C. 88-62. Amendment to the motion suggested by Chmn. Peirce to add a finding that the increase in the number of establishments selling alcoholic beverages in the area is detrimental to the welfare of the public. Comm. Ingell did not feel that such an amendment is necessary, stating that his main objection to approval is the fact that the establishment is only 30 feet from residential properties. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Chmn. Peirce noted that any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 10:58 P.M. until 11:08 P.M. REZONE OF AREA 8 FROM R-2 TO R-1 OR SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 13, 1988. According to the City Council's schedule of zone changes, the subject area should be considered at this time. Staff has considered Area 8 in sub-areas since there are two areas with distinctly different sized lots. Also, the Planning Commission and City Council indicated that their priority concern in rezoning Area 7 to R-2B was the large size of the lots, which resulted overall within the low density range. Area 8A consists of 16 lots fronting on 15th Street. The lots are 5670 square feet in size. Six of the 16 lots have two dwelling units each, and one lot has three dwelling units. The remaining nine lots have single-family dwellings. On six of the lots, the structures are over 50 years old. On the other three lots, the structures are over 30 years old. Of the seven lots built within the last 30 years, five were two-unit complexes, and two were single-family dwellings. Based on statistical data, staff believes this area to be ''borderline," and it appears to be essentially a matter of factorial priority as to whether this area should be rezoned to R-1 15 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 or R-2B. Staff believes that lot size alone should not be the determinant. Age of structures and the number of existing single-family dwellings should have equal weight. Further, having some large R-1 lots in the City provides for a better mix and variety of housing in the community. Looking at all of these factors, it is observed that about half are 30 years or older in age, and 44 percent are already two-family or more developments. Another factor is that of "spot zoning." Staff would not see this area as such, since it is an extension of the R-2 to the west which is designated multi-use corridor, and it is not just one or two lots; however, it is a small area of R-2 in the midst of a generally R-1 zoned area. If this area was rezoned to R-2B, a 33 percent reduction in potential density would result, and overall potential density would be 15.4 units per acre. Area 8B consists of 21 lots, all of which are approximately 3725 square feet in size and are fronting on 13th Street and 14th Street. Seventeen of the 21 lots are single-family dwellings. Of the remaining lots, three are two-unit complexes and one is a three-unit complex. Eight of the lots have units over 40 years old, and five others are over 30 years old, making 62 percent of the lots over 30 years old. The surrounding lots are designated and zoned low density, R-1 respectively on the north, east, and south. The general plan designation of general commercial and R-2 zoning is on the west. Based on the lot size, age, number of single-family, and SlJt[.(i;),IJfilding zoniJ:lg,, this ._area would be best zoned R-1, single family residential. If this area was rezoned to R-1, there would be realistically a 49 percent reduction in density and overall, a density of 14.4 units per acre. If this sub-area is changed to R-2B, no density reduction would occur. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the various lot sizes, uses, and ages of structures in Area 8. Public Hearing opened at 11 :24 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Charles Robinson, 1019 16th Street, favored R-2B for Area 8A Samuel Abrams, 930 14th Street, favored R-2B Brooks Boorman, 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, favored retaining R-2 Mark Galoop, 937 15th Street, favored retaining R-2 zoning Steve Sandborg, 903 15th Street, favored R-2B Daniel Johannes, 901 15th Street, favored R-2B Bernice McMahon, 903 14th Street, opposed a rezone to R-1 Janet Murat, 900 15th Street, favored R-2B Fred Walty, 960 15th Street, favored R-1 Nancy Berrin, 935 15th Street, favored R-2B John Lacey, 944 15th Street, favored R-2B for the entire street Mike Lipscomb, 845 14th Street, favored retaining R-2 16 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 Linda Ross, 905 15th Street, favored R-2B George Stank, 920 14th Street, favored R-2B Frank Berrin, 935 15th Street, favored R-2B Dorothy Ross, 905 15th Street, favored R-2B Public Hearing closed at 12:03 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Edwards asked Mr. Schubach several questions in regard to the purpose of downzoning property. Mr. Schubach, for clarification, gave background information on the various zones and the issue of rezoning. Chmn. Peirce stated that the main reason for this action is to bring the general plan and zoning into consistency. Comm. Edwards asked whether the issue of studyin g the multi-use corridor for inclusion in the downzone will be c on side red, Mr. Schubach st ated that he would recommend such a study. Comm. Ingell noted concern over all of Area 8, stating that it is very different from all of the other areas in the City. He noted that these lots all have setbacks of approximately 30 to 40 feet. He felt that if this area were not combined with the multi­ use corridor, many people would have preferred to see the area zoned R-1. However, because of the multi-use corridor, those people feel R-1 would not be feasible. Comm. Ingell stated that to rezone to R-2B or maintain the area R-2 would be a bad planning action because of the nature of all of Area 8. He noted that everyone is favoring R-2B because of the multi-use corridor. He sugges-1'ed.~that this rezone area be deferred until a study can be made of the multi-use corridor. Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Ingell, stating that the street should be studied as a whole. She asked whether such a recommendation could be made to the City Council. Chmn. Peirce noted that such action would not solve the problem of inconsistency in the area. He believes that action should be taken on Area 8 in order to bring it into consistency. Mr. Lough stated that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to take action on this area. He stated that the issue of the multi-use corridor had not been publicly noticed for this meeting. He stated that that issue could come before the Commission at a future date for study. Comm. Rue discussed the setbacks, stating that if this area is developed, there will not be single-family developments with setbacks of 30 to 40 feet as in the past. He noted that the area will change. He noted that the setback difference between R-1 and R-2B is five feet. Comm. Ingell stressed that it is important for the Planning Commission to proact as opposed to react. He suggested the possibility of creating different setback requirements for this particular area. MOTION by Comm. Ingell to continue this matter to the first meeting in September for the purpose of studying the multi-use corridor as it relates to Area 8. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 17 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Chmn. Peirce noted the difficulty of studying the multi-use corridor. He also noted the importance of studying the entire multi-use corridor, as opposed to certain portions. Mr. Schubach suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to consider studying the issue of rezoning to a lower density the areas west of Area 8 along 13th Street (north side), 14th Street, and 15th Street. He noted that this could be a recommendation to the City Council. Comm. Ingell felt that this area should be R-1 as opposed to R-2 or R-2B. Comm. Edwards noted that changes can be made, if necessary, at a later date after the study is undertaken. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area 8A from R-2 to R-2B and Area 8B from R-2 to R-1. Comm. Edwards suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that priority be given to the issue of studying the multi-use corridor. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. lngell None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119728 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 845 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 7/5/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 13, 1988. At the July 5, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue this matter until after the public hearing for the rezone of Area 8 had taken place. This project is located in the R-2, two-family residential zone. The general plan designation is multi-use corridor. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. This lot is located immediately adjacent to rezone Area 8. The lot to the east contains a two-unit condominium development which is subject to rezoning. There has been some concern voiced in regard to view blockage by the neighbor; however, the proposed development is in accordance with all City ordinances. Unit 1 is approximately 2200 square feet in size, and Units 2 and 3 are approximately 2000 square feet in size. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and three guest spaces. One of the three guest spaces is needed to replace an on-street parking space which will be lost due to curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. Unit 1 will provide 457 square feet of open space, utilizing a second floor deck and roof deck. Units 2 and 3 will provide 473.5 square feet of open space, utilizing a second floor deck and a roof deck. 18 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 Unit 1 shall provide 222 cubic feet of storage space which will be located in the garage area. A total of 336 cubic feet of storage shall be provided for Units 2 and 3 which shall be located adjacent to the turning area for Units 2 and 3. The trash facilities for the proposed units shall also be located adjacent to the turning area. Unit l contains a subterranean den, of which staff has some concern. The den has the potential of being converted into a bootleg unit. However, the condominium ordinance requires that the precise number of units allowed be stated in the CC&R's. This requirement has been complied with. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are compatible with surrounding uses. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 12:29 A.M. by Chrnn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Ave., Manhattan Beach, on behalf of the applicant Fred Walty, 916 15th Street, opposed approval Jan Murat, 900 15th Street, opposed approval David Sandborg, 903 15th Street, opposed approval John Lacey, 944 15th Street, opposed approval Jennifer Alvarado, 3602 Green Street, Los Alamitos, favored approval Daniel Johannes, 901 15th Street, opposed approval Linda Ross, 905 15th Street, opposed approval Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, discussed City developments Ann Cummings, 930 14th Street, opposed approval Dorothy Ross, 829 15th Street, opposed approval Don Karocivich, 840 15th Street, opposed approval Public Hearing closed at 1 :03 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ingell stated that this is a beautiful condominium project; however, he felt that the project does not fit in with the neighborhood, as it might in other areas of the City. He felt that the multi-use corridor needs to be studied as soon as possible, and no further residential developments should be approved in this area until after such study has been completed. Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Ingell. She stated that although it appears that the Commission has no choice but to approve this project since it meets all requirements, the area should be studied. She did not feel that a three-unit condominium should be approved in this neighborhood. Mr. Lough explained that an issue can be delayed for just cause. A study of the multi-use corridor, however, would take at least five to six months; such a delay would need to be justified by the Commission. He suggested that the Commission act on this issue tonight or at the next meeting. He continued by discussing the delays associated with continuing this project in order to study the multi-use corridor. Mr. Lough stated that the only justification he could see for such a delay would be if there were a building moratorium; however, there is no moratorium in place, nor is one contemplated at this time. l9 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Comm. Edwards asked what could be done to address the concerns voiced by the neighbors. Mr. Schubach stated that the Commission could recommend to the City Council that a moratorium be imposed. Or, the Commission could approve the project at this time, and notify the public that approval can be appealed to the City Council. Chmn. Peirce noted that this is only one project in the City. There are many other projects of just as much importance in the City. He did not feel it would be appropriate to delay this project for many months. The only way this project can be stopped is if there is a moratorium imposed by the City Council. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-55. Comm. Rue noted that downzoning has been discussed for many months in the City. He stated that it would be capricious to not approve this project, noting that people do have property rights. He suggested that the neighbors barricade the street if traffic becomes a problem, explaining that that would be a viable solution. Comm. Ingell stated that he could not support approval based on the fact that the project does not conform to the neighborhood. He stated that it is not proper planning to have residential in commercial areas. He noted that many other citizens in the City have been delayed in their projects because of the previous moratorium. Comm. Edwards stated that this project relates to the issue of the multi-use corridor. He stated that this project is still in the planning phase, and he felt that there should be a recommendation to the City Council that a moratorium should be placed on the project. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Edwards to approve the project, but that there be a recommendation to the City Council to impose a moratorium. AMENDMENT NOT ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. Mr. Lough stated that such an amendment to the motion is inappropriate. He stated that such a recommendation should be made in a separate motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz None None MOTION FAILS. Chmn. Peirce stated that if this project is denied, proper findings must be made. MOTION by Comm. Edwards to deny the project, based on the fact that the Planning Commission desires the City Council to place a moratorium on construction in the multi­ use corridor until such time as the Planning Department has studied the downzoning of that area. Mr. Lough stated that the motion does not contain the proper legal findings for denying this project. 20 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88 Chmn. Peirce stated that the proper findings must be made, such as a health and safety hazard or increased generation of traffic. Mr. Schubach stated that if approved, the public has the right to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Lough stated that this request is for a conditional use permit, because this is an allowed use within the zone. Chmn. Peirce stated that the only appropriate way to proceed is to approve this project. The Commission can then recommend to the City Council that a moratorium immediately be placed on all residential development in the multi-use corridor. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-55. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comms. Ingell, Ketz None None MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to recommend to the City Council that a study be done to determine whether the multi-use corridor should be downzoned, particularly in the Area 8 zone; further, to strongly recommend that there be a moratorium placed on all residential construction in that area until a determination is made on the downzoning. Comm. Rue suggested that the entire multi-use area study should include issues such as height and setbacks. However, he could not support the motion because he did not favor an emergency moratorium on residential building in the commercial corridor. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz Comm. Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None REQUEST OF INTERPRETATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS WITHIN THE 17-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 14, 1988. The applicant is proposing an addition to his existing residence and would like to have solid walls for architectural enhancement and to keep animals, burglars, and so on, out of his proposed atrium area. Policy Statement 86-2, which was confirmed by the City Council, states: "3. Walls that are clearly architectural treatment may be permitted in the setback when it is determined by the Planning Director that the intent and purpose of the ordinance is being met." This matter of controlling walls in the setback was a result of concern that the Planning Commission had about the setback area being improperly used for storage instead of parking. Also, by walling this area, it would be easy to add a garage door making it the 21 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 primar y parking, substan dard in size, and bootleggi ng the garage into another unit . Hermosa Beach has a serious prob lem with bootleg un its, and this po licy t owar d walls i s another effort to curta il such ac tivity . Staff agree s with the Pla nning Commissi on 's approach and encourages the Commission to continue this effort. In the subject case, the staff finds that architecturally the elimination of the two walls would not have any significant impact; decorative pillars of substantial size would be equally attractive. The opening to the atrium could be resolved with fencing of various types. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request. Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and explained his proposal. He passed out copies of a photograph depicting his proposal. He continued by giving background information on the history of this project. Chmn. Peirce asked Mr. Nuttall if he agrees with the staff interpretation of Policy Statement 86-2. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the City Council had voted on the issue of walls which are clearly architectural treatment. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that both the Commission and City Council voted on this matter. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Policy Statement must be adhered to. He asked how the applicant construes these walls to be architectural treatment. Chmn. Peirce stressed that the Commission and Council had voted on this matter, and the policy statement is clear. Mr. Nuttall did not agree with the statement and continued by explaining his position on the matter. He stated that the main area of contention of the walls versus architectural treatment. He stated that the Planning Director told him he cannot have a wall at the atrium, and he disagreed with the Planning Director's interpretation. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. No objections; so ordered. The following items were continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission: a. Hearing of Determ ination for Lot Merger Group L.M. 88-5 (continued from m e etings of 6/2 L/88 and 7/5/88) and L.M. 88-6 b. Study of View Blockage and Height Measurement Method (continued from 7 /5/88 meeting) c. Staff Items d. Commissioner Items MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to adjourn at 1:44 A.M. No objections; so ordered. 22 P.C. Minutes 7 / 19/88 • ) 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 July 19, 1988. 2.3 P.C. Minutes 7/19/88