Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-03-19881 ., MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 3, 1988, AT 7:30 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue Comm. DeBellis, Chmn. Compton Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary Comm. Peirce acted as Chairman of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Peirce noted that the minutes of the meeting of April 19, 1988, were not available as the recording secretary was on vacation. Those minutes will be submitted for approval at a future meeting. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ing ell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #30986 FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532, 534-540 20TH STREET. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 88-31 (B): ''The applicant is proposing an addition to the master bedroom which will exceed the maximum allowable height." - MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AT 2012 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9 AND THE NORTH 14 FEET OF LOT 10, TRACT /11868 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell noted several corrections to Resolution P .C. 88-33: (3) "Signs shall be placed ... " ( 4) "The owner shall obtain a busi ness license for the ticket sales." MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-33, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF SPECIAL EVENT TICKETS AT MUSIC PLUS, 727 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK A, 1 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 88-34 (D): " ... at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway are closed." Comm. Peirce added wording, for clarification, to Resolution P.C. 88-34 (5): " ... and the opening in the block wall shall be sealed." MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-34, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN BETWEEN 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND HOPE CHAPEL, 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION AT 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING MORE STUDY OF SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF AREAS 9A AND 9B AS NOTED ON A TT ACHED MAP AND DESCRIBED BELOW AND AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and requested a Planning Commission review of the Planning Director's interpretation of the 17-foot setback requirement. He stated that the Planning Director has denied his submitted plans based on the interpretation. Mr. Schubach stated that he has previously explained to Mr. Nuttall the process by which one requests an interpretation from the Planning Commission. A request must be submitted; the Planning Department will prepare a report; and the item will be placed on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Schubach stated that Mr. Nuttall is requesting an interpretation of the 17-foot setback requirement in regard to what areas can be enclosed. Chmn. Peirce discussed a picture submitted by Mr. Nuttall, stating that it appears there is a hole in the side of the building. He assumed that Mr. Nuttall is attempting to include that area in the 17-foot calculation. Mr. Nuttall explained that there is a large garage entrance in the front portion of the building. He stated that there is an archway which cars go through, and cars can be parked in front of the garage door. However, the Planning Director is asserting that walls are located there, and he will not accept the proposed plans. He stated that the walls are located on both sides of where the cars would park. Mr. Nuttall stated that he was not informed of the procedure by which to request an interpretation from the Commission. 2 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 \. Mr. Lough suggested that staff be directed to study this issue and bring it back at the next available meeting. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to study this issue further and place it on the next available agenda for discussion. Also, staff was requested to inform Mr. Nuttall of the date when the item would be addressed. Mr. Nuttall stated that he has been waiting for a year to begin his project. Mr. Schubach noted that the code states that walls which are merely architectural treatments may be permitted by the parking ordinance; however, these walls are solid walls, not an architectural treatment. The intent of the ordinance is to provide for clear, open areas at the ground level. Mr. Nuttall desires to enclose the area with walls. Both Building and Planning Directors believe this proposal to be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING BEER AND WINE AND OUTDOOR DINING AT 2.3-25 22ND STREET -MARTHA'S RESTAURANT (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 4/ 19/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 28, 1988. At the meeting of April 19, 1988, the Planning Commission requested additional information concerning some of the problems at this establishment, specifically in terms of the owner's obtaining the proper bond, insurance, and encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. Th Director of Public Works, Anthony Antich, submitted a memorandum dated April 28, 1988, explaining in chronological order the problems occurring at Martha's in regard to the encroachment permit which involved obtaining a bond and liability insurance so that the City would not be liable in the event of a serious injury occurring on a public right of way, which the applicant is requesting to use for outdoor dining. Mr. Schubach stated that the main problem has been resolved since the last hearing took place. He noted that the City Council passed a resolution to lower the bond. If this had been requested sooner, staff felt the problem could have been corrected sooner. Chmn. Peirce asked how the original amount of $17,500 for the bond had been established. Mr. Schubach stated that the amount was based on the square footage. Not knowing what someone in the future might request, a round number was used to determine the amount. This resulted in the $17,500 bond. Mr. Antich has studied the matter and the resolution and determined that it was acceptable to have a reduction in the bond. After a careful study of the matter, Mr. Antich determined that $628 would be an appropriate amount for the bond. He said that the figure of $628 was determined based on the fact that that is what the cost would be to remove the fencing from the public right of way if this restaurant were to move out. Mr. Schubach stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman have actually gone to the Public Works Department and submitted their check for the bond. Therefore, that part of the problem has been resolved. Mr. Schubach noted that staff had submitted to the Commission additional information on all of the corrections which have occurred at Martha's since the last hearing. There 3 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 f had been many violations of the conditional use permit; however, most of those have now been resolved, and the applicant is attempting to resolve the remaining problems. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant would like to amend the original conditional use permit to request additional seating and to change the hours for selling beer and wine outdoors. The applicant has met with staff to discuss these issues. Staff informed Mr. Hoffman that there could be serious problems with adding seating at this time. However, the applicant would still like to go through the process and possibly attempt to obtain a parking plan as well, and he has in fact taken out an application for a parking plan. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has obtained a copy of the conditions of acceptance form; however, the form has not yet been returned to staff. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant is attempting to obtain an encroachment permit, but he is still working on the insurance problem. Mr. Schubach felt that the applicant is making a sincere effort to resolve all of the problems; therefore, staff modified the recommendation and recommended that the applicant should be given an additional 90 days in which to comply with the remainder of the conditions. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Leslie Hoffman, 2203 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that they have made an attempt to comply with the conditions, and they have submitted to the Planning Department a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. They have also completed the "Valid Encroachment Permit" form. The only thing now necessary is the mayor's signature on the form. The one million dollars liability insurance has been obtained and is in effect, a1a:d.the City is named as the additional insured. She could see no reason to delay this matter for 90 days if the mayor signs the form. Chmn. Peirce explained that the 90 days is to ensure that everything is in order and is properly completed. He commented that he felt both the applicants and the staff have been negligent in this matter. He felt that had the issue of the $17,500 bond been brought to the attention of the City sooner, it could have been overwritten and the problem would have been resolved. Mr. Lough stated that signing of the form by the mayor is a ministerial act. He noted that the insurance policy is effective, and staff found all paperwork to be in order. Mr. Lough stated that the applicant can return in the future to request amendments to the existing conditional use permit. Ms. Hoffman stated that she had received several letters of support from her customers. She gave them to Mr. Schubach to become part of the record. Ms. Hoffman discussed the quarterly payments for the encroachment fee. She stated that the Public Works Department is holding two quarterly payments in escrow. She stated that they owe payments for four additional quarters, and she would like to make that payment as soon as possible. Ms. Hoffman discussed the written staff report wherein it is stated that "staff has now discovered that alcohol is being sold during periods prohibited by the CUP" and "the 4 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 business has been observed serving alcohol beverages during prohibited days and hours." She stated that she received no notice of this from anyone. It was only in the staff report that she ever saw any mention of these problems. Ms. Hoffman stated that the staff report also asserts that "The Building Department has recently received complaints about Martha's poor maintenance. Specifically, reports have indicated the trash facilities overflow and grease is being washed out in the public alley --a violation of L.A. County Health Code." Again, this is the first time she has heard this complaint. Ms. Hoffman stated that if anyone at the City receives a complaint, the City should inform the business owner so that appropriate steps can be taken to resolve the problem. She stressed that business owners must be informed in order for them to take corrective steps. Mr. Schubach stated that several anonymous telephone complaints have been received; however, Chmn. Peirce felt that if people are not willing to give their names, those complaints should be ignored. Mr. Schubach noted that since a new staff person has been hired, complaints will be investigated. Coming forward to speak in support of Martha's Restaurant were: Melody Chalker, 17 20th Street, Hermosa Beach Bob Sarasian, 2221 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach Ann Gell, employee of Martha's Restaurant Faye Willets, Redondo Beach Public Hearing closed at 8:07 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce favored a 90-day continuance of this matter to ensure that all of the legalities are in order. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to not revoke the conditional use permit for Martha's Restaurant. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Compton, DeBellis MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to bring this matter back in 90 days to ensure that all the conditions of the conditional use permit are being complied with; and not to hold a public hearing, but just a hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Compton, DeBellis Chmn. Peirce directed staff to notify the Hoffmans of the date this hearing is to take place. 5 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119557 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 722 9TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 25, 1988. The project location is in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of medium density. The lot size is 4860 square feet, or 45' by 108." The applicant is proposing to construct two units. The units are approximately 2000 square feet and 2400 square feet. Each unit will contain three bedrooms, although Unit B will have an additional study/bedroom located in the basement level. A condition of approval requiring a deed restriction to limit the use of the units to a single-family residence has been included. Submitted plans indicate that there are two parking spaces provided per unit plus one guest space. Only one guest space is required since no on-street parking spaces will be lost because of curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. Unit A will provide 346.5 square feet of open space utilizing a first-floor deck and three second-floor decks. Unit B will provide 383.5 of open space via a second-floor deck and a roof deck. Private storage for the units is provided in the garage area, and plans indicate it to be enclosed. Unit A will provide 258 cubic feet of storage, and Unit B will provide 210 cubic feet of storage. The garage area is also the location for the trash receptacles. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are consistent with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Chmn. Peirce asked about the formula for determining the maximum square footage of area on a lot. He noted that this project appears to be quite large in relation to the size of the lot. He asked whether the code says anything in regard to maximum square footage on a lot. Mr. Schubach knew of no such topic discussed in the code. He noted, however, that he could research the issue further and contact the Coastal Commission for further clarification. He noted, though, that this particular project is not located within the Coastal Commission area. Public Hearing opened at 8:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. David Wendorff, 138 Lyndon Street, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had no problem with having a deed restriction on this project. Public Hearing closed at 8:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project meets all the conditions and requirements of the condominium and zoning ordinances and whether the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. He also noted that staff very much appreciated the type of plans that this applicant submitted, stating that they are very complete. 6 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 I Comm. Rue asked whether the height is still being determined using the warped plane configuration. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that the height was checked at three different locations. He noted that height is a very sensitive issue in the City, and staff is very aware of this. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-35, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Compton, DeBellis CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP //13652 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 600 11TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 27, 1988. This project is located in the R-2 zone and has a general plan designation of medium density. The lot size is 4267.4 square feet. The proposed units are approximately 2823.5 square feet in size. The units will contain four bedrooms and four bathrooms. Both uni ts include two floors over a subterranean level containing a bedroom and the garage. Because the bedroom located on the subterranean level is a potential bootleg, a deed restriction preventing such a use will be required as a condition of approval. Staff also finds the configuration at this level unusual. The development will provide two parking spaces per unit plus two guest spaces. Only a five-foot front yard setback is required because the garage does not front on an alley or a street. This project falls under the new open space ordinance, because building permits will not be issued until after the ordinance is effective on May 12, 1988. The units do not conform to the open space requirements according to either the old code or the new code. Under the new ordinance, each unit will provide 127 square feet of open space which is 173 square feet short of the required open space. According to the old code, each unit will provide 210 square feet of open space. As a condition of approval, revised plans will be required identifying open space areas and required square footage. The project does not conform to the lot coverage requirements. The site totals 2842 square feet, which is over allowable lot coverage. As a condition of approval, revised plans will be required to show the building reduced in size to meet the 65 percent lot coverage requirement. The plans fail to show the location of the trash enclosures, and the area in the garage should be indicated as private storage space. As a condition of approval, revised plans will be required to show both features. Also, revised plans will be required to identify all architectural treatment. The plans for this project conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use 7 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 permit and tentative tract map subject to the condition that revised plans are submitted which meet the minimum standards for open space, lot coverage, and so long as no other significant changes are made. Comm. Peirce asked about the guest parking. Mr. Schubach explained that the guest parking is located next to the property line. It does not front on the setback, it is perpendicular to it. Cars will not be backing out into the street. They will back out of the space into the turning area and then go forward. He felt that this configuration is allowed under the code. Chmn. Peirce stated that the landscaping plan for this project is almost non-existent. Mr. Schubach agreed and stated that staff is requiring that an adequate landscaping plan be submitted. Public Hearing opened at 8:23 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mike DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that there is no problem with having a deed restriction on the project. He noted that several of the problems discussed have already been resolved, such as the lot coverage. The open space issue needs to be resolved, but that will not present a problem. Comm. Rue commented that this project is very attractive, especially the architectural treatments; however, he noted concern over the large size of the project in comparison to the size of the lot. Public Hearing closed at 8:26 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce also noted concern over the large size of the project, stating that it appears to be quite bulky. He felt that this issue should be discussed with staff so that the bulk of future projects can be controlled. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project meets all the requirements of the condominium and zoning ordinances. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell,-to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-38, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Compton, DeBellis CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119579 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 530 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 2, 1988. This project is located in the R-3, multiple family zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3101 square feet. 8 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 The applicant is proposing to construct two units. Unit l is approximately 2402 square feet, and Unit 2 is approximately 2748 square feet in size. Unit 1 will contain three bedrooms and three and a half baths. Unit 2 will provide four bedrooms and three and a half baths. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and two guest spaces. The garages for both units are required to be 20 feet deep. Currently, the garage for Unit l is too shallow. A condition of approval shall require the proper garage depth. The units conform to the open space requirements. Unit 1 will provide 336 square feet of open space utilizing a roof deck. Unit 2 will provide 307 square feet of open space comprised of a third-floor deck. Private storage area for each unit has not been identified on submitted plans. The location of the trash facilities is also not indicated. Therefore, a condition of approval will require these items to be shown on revised plans. The Planning Department has found Unit 1 exceeds the height limit of thirty-five feet. Due to the fact that the applicant has lowered the existing grade, the building height must be measured from the finished grade (Article 2, Section 208, zoning). In this case, Unit 1 has a height of 37 feet. The applicant must revise plans to conform with City standards. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Rue asked whether staff had received plans for the east and west elevations. Mr. Schubach stated that he would go to the office to try to find. tb.ose sel,e.vations. Public Hearing opened at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Ivars Janieks, 2453 Silverstrand, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. Comm. Rue asked how the applicant proposes to lower the height on the front unit. Mr. Janieks stated that the architect is in the process of working out the height problem with the Planning Department. He stated that the front entry can be dropped in order to resolve the problem. Chmn. Peirce stated that the south elevation appears to be very plain. He asked if some architectural treatment could be provided. He noted that it currently looks as though there are only windows and a blank wall. Mr. Janieks stated that he has no other plans for the south wall. Comm. Rue agreed that the south wall appears to be very plain. Bill Burchfield, project architect, addressed the Commission. He discussed the appearance of walls and stated that he was very limited in what could be done because of the limited amount of architectural projections which can project into the sideyard. He felt that the only remedy might be the use of planter boxes. Comm. Rue asked whether the windows will be set directly in line with the walls. Mr. 9 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 ( Burchfield replied in the affirmative. Comm. Rue suggested that the windows have some type of minor projection in order to provide relief to that blank wall. Mr. Burchfield noted that this project is right at the setback; therefore, the windows cannot be projected out. Chmn. Peirce noted that the City Council has recently adopted a new allowance for projections into the sideyards in order to break up the building facades. He suggested that Mr. Burchfield obtain a copy of that new code section so that the issue can be clarified. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commissioners were missing a page of the set of plans, noting that there appeared to be no sheet depicting the east and west elevations of the project. Mr. Schubach stated that the page appears to have been misplaced, and he apologized for the inconvenience. He noted, however, that the east-west elevations were very satisfactory. Mr. Burchfield discussed the height issue, stating that the way to achieve the desired height is not by measuring the tops of buildings, but rather by bringing up the grade. The only reason this project went to 37 feet is because the entrance had to be placed on the lower right hand portion of the north elevation. Any other placement of the entry would be undesirable. The height of the building will not be affected, however, because they will merely bring up the grade so that the finished building will be less than 35 feet high. In other words, he felt that the spirit of the 35-foot height limit has been met; however, because of a technicality, the height has been exceeded in this one area. Mr. Janieks noted that if they built 35 feet from the existing:.g-tade, the project would be six feet higher than is currently proposed. Comm. Rue asked where the entry could be relocated to. Mr. Burchfield stated that the entry would have to face Monterey. He noted, however, that the current entry is six feet by ten feet; if the location is changed, it would only be three feet wide. Comm. Rue asked what material will be used for the windows. Mr. Burchfield stated that they will be wood. He noted further that the Commissioners have not seen the east and west elevations, and those depict the most attractive part of the project. Mr. Burchfield stated that the other problems mentioned by staff can be cleared up with no problem. Mr. Schubach discussed the code section regarding height and stated that what the applicant said is absolutely correct, in that this project could have actually been built six feet higher based on the current code. Section 208 of the code states that the height is measured from "finished grade." Chmn. Peirce asked whether it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to approve this set of plans with the existing height based on the fact that the project does have a redeeming value because of the lower height. 10 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 Mr. Lough replied in the negative. He stated that projects must be within the height limits as outlined in the code. By approving the project with an exceeding height, the Commission would in effect be granting a height variance. Mr. Schubach stated that there is no question that the height must be lowered. Comm. Rue discussed the method by which the height for this project was measured by the Building Department. He noted that the Commission had discussed this issue several weeks ago, concurring that the height is measured based on the warped plan method. The warped plane is done from the four corners of the lot; and if, in fact, that is the proper method, he maintained there would not be a problem with the height for this project. Mr. Lough suggested that the project be approved so long as it meets the height requirements. If the architect or applicant can make an argument in favor of Section 208, they can then proceed with the project they desire. He noted further that the Building Department is under a legal obligation to impose the height as they interpret it. Mr. Schubach stated that staff studied this project very carefully, and the project is indeed over the acceptable height. Chmn. Peirce stated that the code very dearly states that the height must be measured from the finished grade. Mr. Lough also suggested that the project be approved allowing the architect to use whatever architectural treatments are allowed under the new code. He can then work within those parameters. Public Hearing closed at 8:46 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce asked whether Comm. Rue wanted to continue this matter so that he could see the east-west elevations. Comm. Rue stated that he was satisfied with the explanation given by the Planning Director and that a continuance would not be necessary. Comm. Rue stated that this project appears to be very attractive. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-39, with the following modifications: (1) that the height be amended per code; (2) that there be some architectural treatment to the south elevation, and the type of treatment may be left to the discretion of the architect so long as the plans be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Comm. Rue stated that the revisions are not to be massive, but possibly including stucco treatment around the windows for relief. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project meets all requirements. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Compton, DeBellis 11 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119655 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1181 CYPRESS AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 27, 1988. This project is located within the R-3, multiple-family residential zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The proposed units are approximately 2000 square feet in size. Each unit will contain two bedrooms with a loft and three bathrooms. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and one guest space. Only one guest space is required since no on-street parking spaces will be lost due to curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide 362 square feet of open space. The open space is distributed between a first-floor deck, second­ floor deck, and loft-level deck. Private storage for the units is provided in the garage area. Each unit will provide 241 cubic feet of storage. The trash facilities are also located in the garage area. The turning radius shown on the resubmitted plans is insufficient. However, this problem can be resolved with only minor revisions. A condition of approval is to require revised plans to show the required 27-foot turning radius. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Chmn. Peirce felt that the plans are almost marginal in terms of showing what the project looks like and the scaling of the project. He felt that the elevations are adequate; however, the plans themselves are marginal, and most of the rooms have not been dimensioned. He asked whether the Planning Director believes that these plans meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. He further noted that the plans will have another review at the time of plan check. He stated that the large plans scale out. Staff has gone over the plans very carefully to ensure that this project meets all of the minimum requirements. A landscaping plan will also be required before a building permit can be obtained. Public Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Bill Cameron, 2454 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, designer, apologized for not submitting more complete plans, explaining that he was unaware they were required at this stage of the project. He stated that he will provide more detailed plans in the future. He stated that he would be happy to submit any plans desired by the Commission. Mr. Cameron stated that he agrees to all the conditions as recommended by staff. He stated that the problem with the turning radius can be corrected. Comm. Rue discussed the south elevation and noted that it appears to be quite plain. Mr. Cameron stated that wood trim could be added. He agreed that something could be added to give some relief to the appearance of the building. 12 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 Comm. Rue suggested that there be some additional treatment to the windows on the ,-. south side of the building. Public Hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project meets all other requirements of the condominium ordinance and the zoning code. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-36, with the added condition that there be additional architectural treatment to the south side of the building, and that plans for the south elevation shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Compton, DeBellis Recess taken from 8:57 P.M. until 9:10 P.M. HEARING FOR DETERMINATION OF LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-2 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 4/19/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 28, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 15, 1988, continued this matter at the request of the applicant. The matter was again continued from the meeting of April 19 because of the lateness of the hour. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 88-2 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 25.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21. Mr. Schubach discussed 1224 20th Place and stated that this parcel is comprised of two 25 by 100-foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure is a single-family dwelling. Staff could find no reason to exempt this parcel from being subject to the merger. Mr. Lough noted that the applicant was not present, and there has been no communication with the Planning Department on this matter. Comm. Ingell asked whether there have been any modifications to Code Section 29.5-19 through 29.5-28. He noted that that section says that if one does not want his property to be merged, it is necessary only to make that feeling known. Mr. Lough agreed that that was the case in the past; however, the City Council has adopted a new section that repeals the ability to act to unmerge. So if one meets all the mandatory requirements for merger, the lots must be merged. This new section will become effective in three weeks. Comm. Ingell stated that he would favor a continuance so that the applicant can be present at the hearing. 13 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 r Chmn. Peirce noted that if action is taken on this matter now, the applicant would still have another chance to address the issue at the City Council level. Comm. Rue noted that no formal word has been received from the City Council in regard to the new section which becomes effective in three weeks. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the applicant's request to maintain the parcels as two separate lots on that grounds that the way the ordinance currently is written, it merely requires that notice be given by the applicant that he desires to maintain the lots separately. Chmn. Peirce stated that he has previously made his feelings known on this issue. Comm. Rue stated that, by his motion, he is in no way ignoring the density issue in the City. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Compton, DeBellis SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 28, 1988. State law allows the general plan to be amended four times per year; this is the second opportunity for 1988. No applications have been submitted for general plan amendment at this time; however, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad general plan request will be heard at the first meeting in June unless the railroad company requests another postponement. Staff is recommending that the property abutting the "Gotanda" property, southwest corner of Artesia and Pacific Coast Highway, be designated from general commercial to high density residential. If the property is not general plan amended and rezoned to residential, no setback will be required between the Gotanda property and the residential development abutting on the west. Further, it would not make sense to maintain this property as commercial when it was recently allowed to be developed residentially under a commercial planned development mixed use permit which has now been abandoned. Mr. Schubach stated that the Commissioners may also submit any changes they have at this time. Betty Ryan, Hermosa Beach realtor, addressed the Commission and discussed the Gotanda property. She stated that if this property is rezoned to residential, the setback requirements will be different. She stated that the purchaser of this property looked at the existing property and what could be done with it. In fairness to the purchaser, she felt it would be appropriate for the City to alert him to any action to be taken on this property. 14 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 r MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staff's recommendation to bring this issue back for study for a general plan change at the Gotanda property. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS: PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF LOT MERGER GROUP 87-2 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 4/ 19/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 28, 1988. Staff has identified the parcels listed to be subject to merger pursuant to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and State Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21. The property owners were mailed a letter on December 15, 1987, notifying the owners of the intent of the City to determine if their parcels were subject to merger. The owners were notified that they had 30 days in which to file an appeal to merger if they so desired. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a "Notice of Lot Merger" for the parcels included in the list provided, send the document to the County Recorder's Off ice, and mail a copy of the notice to the property owners. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to accept staff's recommendation. No objections; so ordered. STAFF REPORT REGARDING SPECIAL STUDIES OF (l) R-3 SETBACK STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUMS AND APARTMENTS; (2) ELIMINt.\TION OF THE 17-FOOT SETBACK OFF ALLEYS; (3) STUDY OF 50' BY 50' LOTS (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 4/19/99} Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently under an extremely heavy work load; if so desired, these issues would be studied and brought back to the Commission in several months. Comm. Rue felt all three of the issues are important and favored addressing them at a future meeting. Chmn. Peirce suggested that this matter be continued until such time that all five Commissioners are present to discuss these issues. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. No objections; so ordered. LETTER REGARDING OPPOSING THE VARIANCE AT 2012 LOMA DRIVE Chmn. Peirce acknowledged receipt of a letter from Susan Miller dated April 21, 1988; however, he noted that it is too late to do anything on this matter. 15 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR 5/ 10/88 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Chmn. Peirce did not feel it to be necessary that a representative of the Planning Commission attend this meeting, stating that the minutes and staff's comments would be sufficient. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1988 No comments. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Peirce discussed the Circulation Element currently being studied. Mr. Schubach noted that CalTrans has sent a variety of information regarding the studies, including the parking on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Schubach stated that he went to the CalTrans office to discuss this issue and the fact that a focused EIR should be prepared. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would like to have the Planning Department work with the Public Works Department to develop this issue. He noted that staff has recommended this study be a part of the circulation element, which it certainly is; however, he did not want this important issue to become lost in the shuffle. He felt that parking on the west side of P.C.H. is a vital issue in the City. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct.),;t,aff to separate that issue from the circulation element and to return at the appropriate time with a recommendation as to what should be done about the parking on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell agreed that the study should be done; however, he did not necessarily favor removing parking from Pacific Coast Highway. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the bulkiness of many new projects. He felt that this issue should be studied further in order to make a recommendation as to the maximum floor area of projects in relationship to the size of the lot. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to study the issue of floor area in relationship to lot size. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell stated that it would be very helpful for him to have a copy of future agenda i terns so that he would have ample time to study the issues. Chmn. Peirce asked staff to provide the Commission with a copy the Planning Department's schedule of events. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:46 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 16 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88 r 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 May 3, 1988. ~ifp~ Michael Schubach, Secretary;>---=---"" Date l 17 P.C. Minutes 5/3/88