Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_02_06MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 6, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCil, CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Cbmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLLCAIL Present: Absent: Cormns. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES M0110N by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the minutes of December 5, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of January 16, 1990, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Rue commented on Resolution P.C. 89-91, and stated that to his recollection Condition No. 10 ("The exterior shall be painted a different color than the adjacent building at 1508 Loma Drive.") should have been deleted from the resolution. He recalled that it was not the intent of the Commission to impose that requirement, stating that the intent was to have the projects be cohesive. The other Commissioners concurred. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve as amended (deletion of Condition No. 10) Resolution P.C. 89-91, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21331 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended (with the deletion of Condition No. 10, for the reason stated above) Resolution P.C. 89-92, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21330 FOR A THREE- UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1508 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21574 FOR A THREE-UNIT ATIACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 631 6TH S1REET, DESCRIBED AS LOT 20 AND PORTION OF LOT 19, DR. DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA BAY VIEW 'IRACT, HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. 1 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20620 FOR A THREE-UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1344 MANHATTAN AVENUE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 49, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Rue noted a typographical correction to Resolution P.C. 90-7, Condition 2(b): "No vehicles for sale shall be .... " MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Cormn. Ketz, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 90-7, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE AGENCY (AUTO BROKERAGE) AND AN EXCEPTION FROM THE MORATORilJM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, DESCRIBED AS LOT 18 AND PORTION OF LOT 19, WILSON AND LIND'S 1RACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution 90-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDED APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS A GENERAL POLICY PLAN. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, asked whether the public hearing for the Mobil Oil Station and Car Wash would be opened this evening. Chmn. Ingell replied in the affirmative. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAil, SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR WASH. AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST mGHWAY. MOBll, on, STATION (CON11NUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 1, 1990. Staffs recommendation was to continue this matter to the meeting of February 20, 1990, per the applicant's request. The applicant was unable to obtain the required noise study in time for the staff to review it prior to the meeting this evening. Public Hearing opened at 7 :08 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He noted concern for the commercial corridor and the uses going in along the highway, stating that there should be better planning which would be more conducive to attracting quality businesses. He questioned the feasibility of allowing another car wash so close to one already existing there. He said that the highway appears to be all auto-related uses. He strongly opposed a car wash at the proposed site. Mr. Longacre continued by asking what action would be necessary to change the uses allowed by the permitted use list. He urged the Planning Commission to take steps to encourage more high-quality projects along the highway. He suggested hotels, offices, shops, and restaurants. Public Hearing continued at 7: 18 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 2 P.C. Minutes 2/ 6/90 MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 20, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21728 FOR A 'IWO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 914 7m STREET Comm. Rue, explaining that he has an on-going business relationship with this applicant, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4800 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. The open space provided is 1040 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes side to side toward Pacific Coast Highway to the west. It is the sixth residential lot up the slope from P.C.H. and therefore has a view of the ocean to the west. The proposed units contain 2637 and 2551 square feet and include three bedrooms, a game room, and two and a half bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories above a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations propose a stucco exterior, mission clay tile roofing, and a decorative window to enhance the front facade, skylights, and decorative wrought iron railings. These features give the building somewhat of a Mediterranean appearance. Each unit is provided with a private entry porch, and several first-and second-level decks. giving visual relief to the otherwise simple structure. This project is similar in size and style to the recently completed project located adjacent and to the east at 918 7th Street, except for the 25-foot height as compared to the 30-foot height of the existing project. One effect of the lower height is that the roof is flat rather than a pitched Spanish-tile roof. The plans indicate a front yard setback of ten feet, which is adequate considering existing setbacks along the street, and is consistent with what was required for the project on the adjacent lot at 918 10th Street. Required parking is provided in two two-car garages oriented toward the middle of the lot, and one guest space is provided. The garages are accessed via a nine-foot wide driveway replacing the existing driveway; therefore, no existing on-street parking is lost as a result of this project. The project complies with all planning and zoning requirements, although it is not clearly indicated where the trash receptacles will be stored. Adequate private open space is provided on first-and second-level decks for Unit A, and on a roof deck for Unit B, and adequate storage areas are identified in the garages. Staff is including a condition that the location for trash receptacles be identified on revised plans. The project also complies with Interim Ordinance No. 89-995 which established a height limit for this area at 25 feet because of its proximity to R-1 zoned view lots. 3 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 The surrounding area consists of primarily single-and two-fanrily uses of both one and two stories. Although this project contains two stories and semi-subterranean garage, it maintains a two-story character on the street because the driveway accessing the garage is located on the lower side of the lot, and the project has been designed within the 25-foot height limit. Mr. Schubach commented on the game room in the garage area, stating that staff was not concerned over its bootleg potential because there is no bathroom at that level. He noted, however, that there is a closet space available in the game room. and there is access, but it is only through the garage. He stated that it may be the desire of the Commission to eliminate the closet space or to impose limitations on the access into the game room; however, staff felt that such conditions were not necessary. Public Hearing opened at 7:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that the staff report is complete, and this project meets all of the development standards in effect at this time. Ms. Srour stated that an attractive element of this project is the two detached units. Lot coverage is only 52.5 percent, well under the allowed 65 percent. She stated that all of the proposed conditions are acceptable to the applicant. She stated that she is aware of the concerns regarding potential bootleg units: however, she pointed out that the game room is an integral part of this project, and it would be very difficult to access that area directly from the outside. She felt, therefore, that there is no cause for concern over future bootleg use. Ms. Srour, in response to concerns voiced by Comm. Moore related to the final appearance of this project, stated that this applicant is known for completing projects which conform to the plans which come before the Commission. She further noted that the exterior design is integral to the success of the project. Public Hearing closed at 7 :24 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Moore, noting that the issue of possible bootleg conversion was raised, did not feel that there is such a potential because the owner of the other unit will be the best enforcement against such a use occurring. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-11, as written, approving a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map #21728 for a two-unit condominium project at 914 7th Street. Chmn. Ingell stated that it is nice to see a project which is well below the maximum allowed lot coverage. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None Comm..Rue None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A 'IWO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 8TH S'IREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 29, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be continued to allow the applicant time to revise the plans to meet the 25-foot height limit as required by Interim Ordinance No. 89-995. 4 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 The subject application was submitted and accepted by the Planning Department on January 10, 1990. Staff informed the applicant on January 18, 1990, about the interim ordinance and that the plans would have to be revised to meet the 25-foot height limit. The applicant chose to proceed with the public hearing. This project is located in the R-2B zone. with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 6882 square feet, or 57 by 120 feet. Eight parking spaces are provided. There is open space of 1300 square feet. The current use is as a triplex. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is a through lot with access from both 7th Street and 8th Street. It is rectangular in shape and slopes toward the southwest, enjoying views to both the ocean and the Palos Verdes hills. The proposed units contain 3090 and 3571 square feet and consist of two stories above a garage and are designed like two single-family homes, as each home has access to a different street. The units contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths and are designed in the Mediterranean style. This type of project is consistent with other through lots on this block. many of which have been split into two lots. However, across 8th Street to the north, the lots are zoned R-1, and redevelopment of these through lots into larger structures obviously impacts the views to the south. This was the reason the interim ordinance was enacted by the City Council limiting structures in the R-2B zone to 25 feet. Interim Ordinance No. 89-995 is scheduled to expire on June 27, 1990. The applicant has the option of waiting until the ordinance expires to see what is adopted in its place, or he can design the building within the 25-foot height limit. Staff needs to consult with the City Attorney to determine if a variance or exception can be requested from an interim ordinance, although staff does not believe there is any justification for such a variance. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that applicants are advised of ordinances and changes via postings on the bulletin board in the Building Department as well as the Planning Department. Staff also hands out applicable infonnation sheets at the counter. Also, every attempt is made to notify applicants of moratoriums. In this case, the applicant has indicated that he was not informed of the moratorium by staff. Mr. Lee explained that a variance would not solve the problem in this case. He said that the moratorium would preclude any variances from being granted. He stated that the purpose of the interim ordinance was to provide the City an opportunity to s tudy the appropriate height limitations. At this time only projects which meet a 25-foot height limitation are allowed. The only alternative for the applicant is to lower this project to 25 feet, pending the termination of the moratorium period. Mr. Schubach noted that this issue is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their second meeting in February. At that time, the moratorium will probably be expired, unless the matter is continued. He noted, however, that it was never staffs recommendation to lower the height limit to 25 feet in the R-2B zone; it was merely a matter to be studied along with the new method for measuring height. Comm. Moore, commenting on the plans for this project, noted that it appears that this project would meet the 25-foot height requirement ifit had a flat roof. Mr. Schubach concurred that the project would probably meet the height requirement if the project were redesigned with a flat roof. He noted that the project as submitted appears almost to meet the height requirement of 25 feet. 5 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to Comm. Rue's observation that one unit appears to be under the 25-foot limit, agreed; however, he noted that final height approval is done by the Building Department during the plan check. Comm. Rue wondered whether it would be possible for the applicant to build one unit now (the unit which meets the height limit) and build the other unit once the moratorium has expired. Comm. Moore speculated that attempting to build the units separately would be too expensive, and it would be very difficult to obtain financing for a two-stage project. Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. Larry Jamison, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that when the plans were submitted, he was told by the Planning Department that the height limitation was 30 feet. He stated that he spent several months going over these plans with staff and was never told anything about the moratorium. He stated that the documents given to him regarding the moratorium did not include his specific lot. He was not aware of any problems until after he submitted his plans. Mr. Jamison asked how the public is to be protected if the Planning Department does not give out the proper information regarding what can be built. He stated that the height is the difference between a view lot and a non-view lot. If he cannot build with a view, his property investment is greatly decreased. Mr. Jamison stressed that there must be a fail-safe method of informing the public what can be built. Mr. Schubach stated that staff makes every attempt to inform people of the laws and what can be built. He stated that this case could have been an oversight. Mr. Jamison stated that his architect made every attempt to comply with what he was informed was allowed. He stated that he would like to be able to make a compromise in this case. He noted that three units will be replaced with only two units, which is of benefit to the area. He said that this is a sloping lot, and it would be beneficial to everyone concerned if the units could be 27 l /2 feet, thereby allowing for some view via a roof deck. Mr. Jamison stressed that he does not want a flat roof, noting that he wants to build a project with a Mediterranean appearance. Mr. Schubach noted that this matter will be heard by the City Council very soon and a final decision will be made. In the meantime staff can work with the applicant on the height. He noted that the project currently appears to be very close to the 25-foot height limit. Mr. Lee, in response to a comment from Chmn. Ingell, stated that even if the variance is denied and appe aled to the Council, the Council in order to allow the project would have to amend its interim ordinance. He noted that such a procedure would be quite time consuming. Mr. Jamison noted that he wouldn't even be before the Commission had he originally been given the correct information. He just wants to proceed with his project; however, he noted that it would not be possible to proceed with the projects separately as was earlier suggested as a possibility. Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, sympathized with the applicant; however, he hoped that the project would be within the 25-foot height limit. He noted concern over views being lost in the R-1 zone by allowing the higher limit in the R-2B zones. He noted that in certain areas there is R-1 on one side of the street and R-2B on the other side, thereby creating problems with the different heights. 6 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 Dianne Olson. 814 Ocean Drive. is in the R-1 zone. Allowing this project to go over 25 feet will partially block her view. If the project is lowered, the views can be protected. She noted concern over the "canyon effect" on 8th Street. Cindy Vancer, 1017 7th Street, stated that if this project is built at all, her ocean view will be completely lost. She stated she paid a premdum for her view property, and this project will impact the view. She stated that the density should constantly be reviewed in the City. and moratoriums should be strictly enforced. Joan Bebb, 1018 8th Street, said that she has a great view to the south. She stated that if the project on the 7th Street side is lowered, the project on 8th could also have a great view. She noted that 8th Street is one of the narrowest in the City and it has very little parking. This project would remove one on-street parking space and create more canyon walls along the street. She therefore felt that it would be appropriate that the applicant be required to redesign this entire project. She suggested that one large house, slightly lower and which would preserve the on-street parking, would be just as economically viable as two units. Valerie Trumbell, 801 Ocean, stated that her view would be blocked by construction of this project, no matter what its height. She noted concern that 8th Street will become a "bowling alley." She expressed concern over congestion and loss of sunlight. Roy Olson. 814 Ocean Drive , stated that the applicant for Agenda Item No. 7 knew about the moratorium: he therefore questioned why this person apparently didn't know anything about it. Public Hearing closed at 7:51 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Cormn. Moore could see no way to overrule the moratorium, nor could he see why it should be overruled. He noted that the applicant merely requested that people be informed of what is allowed so that projects can be designed accordingly. Comm. Moore stated that concerns have been expressed about the canyon effect being created by projects which, even though they meet the code standards, are not in the best interest of the City. He urged those people to attend the Council meeting on this issue to make their viewpoints known. Comm. Rue favored a continuance as suggested by staff. He felt it would be counterproductive to deny the project at this time, noting that the matter will soon be heard before the City Council. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce to continue this matter to a future meeting of the Planning Commission, and that the matter be renoticed. Comm. Moore stated that many times, not just in this particular case, applicants say they have not been informed of City requirements. He stressed the importance of people being given complete information sheets. Mr. Schubach noted that staff has been making great strides in tackling this problem to ensure that people are well informed of the City requirements. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 7 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 VARIANCE FROM THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ro ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 17-FOOT SETBACK AT 1419 MONTEREY BOULEVARD AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA11VE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave .staff report dated January 4, 1990. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance and of the proposed project. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 4000 square feet, or 40 by 100 feet. The existing use is as a single-family residence. The existing building area is 1540 square feet. The proposed use is as a single-family plus a garage apartment. The proposed area of addition is 1463 square feet. The existing lot coverage is 58 percent; proposed lot coverage is 64.9 percent. At their meeting of November 8, 1989, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for this request. Also, the applicant has modified his original request in response to recommendations from the committee to reduce the number of variances required to one. The initial plans would have required a variance from the maximum 100 percent allowed addition in replacement value of nonconforming structures, sideyard portions of the structures, and a variance from the 17 -foot parking setback requirement. The variances for the existing nonconfonnities, the sideyard setbacks, and the 17-foot parking setback are not required since the project has been reduced to less than a 100 percent expansion. The applicant is requesting to construct a second-story addition to an existing nonconforming single-family structure and to add a second unit above a two-car garage. The addition to the existing house will result in a three-bedroom, three-bathroom house with about 2300 square feet, while the proposed apartment unit would be a one-bedroom unit with only 679 square feet. The proposal involves adding an additional story to both existing structures and does not require the demolition of any existing walls or remodeling of the interior of the structures. Also , the proposal includes the addition of two parking spaces located in tandem under the garage apartment and the wooden deck. Total lot coverage would increase by 284 square feet for a total of 64.9 percent, and about 200 square feet of existing open space is lost. The subject lot is rectangular in shape and contains 4000 square feet, with a slope of about 10 percent being downward from Monterey to the alley. It is rather typical of lots within this block which are roughly split between 40-foot wide 4000 square-foot lots and 30-foot wide 3000 square-foot lots. This lot is the southerly most residential lot on the west side of Monterey in this block and is located adjacent to commercial uses to the south. Since the area is wned R-3, the subject lot could legally be developed as a three-unit condominium. In order to construct the project as proposed, the applicant needs a variance from Section 115 l(B) which requires a total of five parking spaces for two-family dwellings (two per unit plus one guest space). The applicant is proposing the addition of two spaces which results in only four parking spaces. The reason for the variance request, according to the applicant, is that the only available location to provide the required parking would be to use the yard in the rear of the existing garage which currently contains a large pine tree and a fish pond. Obviously, there are alternatives to the proposed plan where required parking could be provided. the most obvious being the use of the yard behind the garage for another tandem parking stall. However. as noted this would inevitably result in the loss of the pine tree and the yard area and also would require significant excavation. Other alternatives available to the applicant, in staffs judgment, would require the use of the Monterey Boulevard frontage. resulting in a significant amount of demolition and remodeling, most likely necessitating a complete redevelopment of the lot. It would also result in a curb cut on Monterey which would take away a street parking space, and the entire block from Pier Avenue to 16th Street along the west side does not currently have any curb cuts or garages facing the street. 8 P.C. Minutes 2/ 6/90 Nonetheless, making the appropriate findings for approval of the variance is extremely difficult in this case. The slope and the existing tree are significant physical features, but do they justify waiving the parking requirements? Clearly, the Planning Commission must consider the seriousness of the parking problems in the City and the fact the applicant is proposing to intensify the use of this property from one to two units. However. the Planning Commission may also consider that the proposed additions result in a three-bedroom house and a small one-bedroom garage apartment, hardly the large multi-unit structure which could be built. Staff recommended denial of the variance because of concerns about parking and because it is their belief that the unique physical features of the property, the ten percent slope, and the existence of a mature pine tree, although sign:i:ficant, do not justify a variance. More generally. this lot's major physical characteristics are the same as surrounding properties. and the parking deficiency would have a potential detrimental impact on adjacent residential properties. Also, the applicant needs Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(B) of the nonconforming provisions, to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure which is greater than 50 percent of existing replacement value. The existing structure is nonconforming because of its existing two-foot and three-foot sideyards and because of the six-foot garage setback off the alley. The plans propose a 95 percent addition. Pursuant to Section 134-7(B), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must make a finding that goals, intent. and purpose of this article are being met. In staffs judgment, the "General Goals" as stated in Section 13-0 would be met because the structure and the grounds of the lot in question are in sound condition and are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The deficient setbacks of two feet and three feet are not proposed to be maintained for the second-story additions. The two-foot setback is adjacent to the commercial property to the south, and the three-foot setback on the residential side appears to be consistent with existing sideyard setbacks for the remainder of the block. Also, the applicant is expanding the amount of parking from two to four spaces. However. the parking is still short of the parking requirement of five spaces. Therefore. except for the parking deficiency. staff believes that the findings for approval of a 95 percent addition could be made in this case. In sum, although staff could support the request for the 95 percent addition, it cannot justify the overall request because of the parking deficiency. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the request. If the Planning Commission is comfortable in making a finding for the variance from the parking requirements, staff included an alternative resolution of approval. This resolution also includes conditions of approval to ensure that required private open space for Unit B is provided. that the stairway for Unit B is set back <1 rnjnimum of four feet from the side yard, and that a termite and dry rot inspection be conducted prior to the issuance of building pennits. Comm. Moore asked whether the area to the left of the garage in the alley was considered when staff made its analysis of the parking loss. He noted that that particular area is being used for parking at this time. Mr. Schubach stated that that area would be lost, as it would become the driveway for the tandem parking proposed. Even though there may be adequate room for a parking space, staff would find it difficult to classify it as a legal parking space, based on the requirements in the code. 9 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 Comm. Moore noted that, even though a car can squeeze in that space now, it will probably not be possible after the new garage is built. Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P .M. by Chmn. Ing ell. George Nedleman, 1419 Monterey, applicant. addressed the Commission. He stated that he does not know whether a car could park in that area after the garage is built. He continued by discussing the width of Bayview Drive. Mr. Nedleman stated that this project is in the R-3 zone; however. he is building only to the R-2 standards. He noted that the parking problems in the area are terrible. He explained other buildings in the surrounding area as related to the parking, but he noted that this project will have a very low impact on the neighborhood. Comm. Moore commented that the current garage appears to have a large single door; the new garage appears to have a double door. He asked whether the applicant is proposing some changes in the construction of the garage. Mr. Nedleman stated that no changes whatsoever are being proposed, and the single door will remain. He stated that there must have been an error on the plans. Mr. Nedleman, in response to questions from Comm. Moore, stated that he is currently using the two-car garage for the parking of cars and the space outside the garage is also being used. since he has three cars. Mr. Nedleman, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that the second unit is very small and is meant for only one or two people. Comm. Moore was very surprised by the inclusion of the family room in the rear, which would make it very conducive to a conversion to a second bedroom, thereby creating the potential for additional occupants. He asked whether the applicant had considered an alternate design in which the kitchen is moved to where the family room is, and a continuous L-shaped area would wrap around to the front, which is where the view is located. Mr. Nedleman stated that such a plan was not considered, explaining that the plans were altered from two bedrooms to one bedroom, based on the concerns expressed by staff. He noted that he was informed by staff that there was insufficient square footage to have two bedrooms in this unit. Comm. Moore noted even stronger concern over the project now, explaining that the original intent was indeed to have two bedrooms. He noted that the present plans could very easily be converted back into a two-bedroom unit. Comm. Moore stated that an alternate design would be more appropriate, one which would utilize the view to the west. Mr. Nedleman stated that there is no such option due to the configuration. Mr. Nedleman, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that he would be willing to change the design of the project; however, he would like to maintain the small den area. He stated that he would even be willing to have a certain size imposed on it. Comm. Rue stated that it is desirable to have the area kept more open. He noted concern over the very small living area, and said that the Commission does not want to encourage a conversion into a bedroom which would mean more people living in the unit. He noted that since the applicant is trying to limit the parking, the Commission wants to limit the occupancy. P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 Mr. Nedleman stated that he would prefer to have the second room. He stated that he would be willing to follow a size limitation imposed on the project if he can maintain the second room. Gene Parish, 1431 Monterey Boulevard, said that the second-story of this project will encroach into his view of Palos Verdes. He stated that the property in question is situated several steps above the street level. He asked how the height is measured, to which Mr. Schubach responded by showing him an explanatory diagram. Public Hearing closed at 8: 19 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chmn. Ingell stated that the applicant is attempting to create a two-bedroom unit, but does not have the required square footage for two bedrooms. It appears a one-bedroom unit has been designed with the intent of increasing it to two bedrooms in the future. That issue combined with the parking deficiency would preclude his making the appropriate findings for approval of this variance request. He therefore favored staff's recommendation to deny the request. Comm. Peirce felt that this project has merit because it is not built to the maximum, and the project is below the height limit. Although the lot coverage is large, the bulk of the building is small compared to what could be built there. Also, there are only two units there. He therefore favored approval of the variance. Comm. Ketz stated that she would prefer this project rather than three, 2500 square-foot units, which is what could be built at this site. The proposed project would be more in character with the area; however, she did see a problem with the back unit. She felt that if there could be some type of design control to ensure that there is only one unit, that would be acceptable. Comm. Moore stated that support must be based on the specifics of the project, stating that this is quite different from other new projects being approved in the area. He noted concern, however, over the layout of the project. He commented that the proposed use is less intense than that allowed in the area, the height is much lower than allowed, and the rear unit is quite small. He said that this project is actually going from two indoor and one outdoor parking spaces to four indoor parking spaces: however. he does not feel that tandem parking is effectively used. He felt that in many ways the City is overdoing the parking restrictions, and many projects are being designed, however ugly, with only the parking standards in mind. He felt that if the citizens don't mind living with the parking problems, maybe the parking requirements should be addressed to allow for fewer requirements, which would allow for more design options. He favored better designs over excessive parking. Comm. Moore stated that he could support approval of the variance if there are restrictions put on the layout of the back unit. Chmn. Ingell stated that it is very difficult to design a project around parking. He agreed that maybe it is time to reduce some of the parking standards; however, in this case, he felt that there is not enough parking. If the request is approved, there will be in effect a two-bedroom unit in an area which already has a severe parking problem. He agreed that tandem parking does not work very well. He also noted concern over the area which could be shut off and turned into another room thereby eliminating another parking space. He agreed that he would hate to see a maxed-out three-unit project on this site. He stated that parking is a severe problem in the City, and to allow a new unit to be built that close to the beach without adequate parking would not be appropriate. Comm. Rue, noting that he did not feel it appropriate for the Commission to redesign the project, stated, however, that he would like to see the kitchen moved to the east wall. Comm. Rue suggested several findings: this project is a less intense and less dense use than what could exist there if the project were maxed out under what is allowed by the zoning code; the parking problem is mitigated by the fact that there is increased open space provided; and 11 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 there is a grade problem, and extensive work would be necessary to provide an additional parking space. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-9, approving the variance from the guest parking requirement and to encroach into the required 17-foot garage setback at 1419 Monterey Boulevard and adoption of an environmental negative declaration with the following amendments: (1) a condition shall be added requiring that there shall be a deed restriction with the City a party thereto to restrict the use to two stories and a maximum of two units; (2) a condition shall be added stating that the family room of the unit over the garage shall be redesigned to eliminate the potential of the family room being converted into a bedroom; (3) a condition shall be added stating that the applicant will be allowed to build to the standards of the day so long as code requirements are met. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Ketz,Peirce,Rue Comm. Moore, Chmn. Ingell None None Chmn. Ingell stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. LOT LINE ADJl.JSJMENT AT 737 AND 739 LONGFELLOW AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment. The project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot sizes are 5000 square feet and 3750 squru:-e feet. The current use is as a single-family home on each lot. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to adjust the property line separating a 50-foot and a 37 .5-foot wide parcel, thereby creating two new equal-sized parcels of 43. 76 feet in width. The two existing parcels are each made up of two smaller lots which were recently merged by the City. The applicant will also submit and record a lot merger to correctly merge the smaller lots to be consistent with the new configuration of parcels. Staff believes that the proposed adjustment will improve the configuration of the two parcels. The parcels will be equal in size, allowing construction of two dwellings equivalent to adjacent dwellings. In regard to the general plan and zoning inconsistency, this will be addressed in the near future, and given the existing depth of commercial development on the street, staff believes that the property in question would remain R-1 and the general commercial depth would be moved closer to the highway. Besides, if it were to be included in a commercial corridor or similar designation, the policy has been to allow the continuing use and improvement of existing residential uses. Hearing opened at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Jeff Brooks, 101 North Dianthus, Manhattan Beach, general contractor and developer, explained that two structures will be demolished, and two new custom homes will be built in their place, each home having an ocean view. Hearing closed at 8:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 12 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-12, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 1, 1990. The recommendation was to direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the proposed amendments and to conduct an environmental assessment for the southeast comer of Artesia and Prospect. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission or City Council may request general plan amendments. The proposed amendments are: (1) Recreation Element; (2) text amendment to allow oil drilling; and, (3) inconsistent area at the southeast comer of Artesia and Prospect. Hearing opened and closed at 8:36 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to schedule a public hearing for the above noted amendments. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None a) Memorandum From City Manager Regarding Complaint Handling No action taken. b) Planning Department Activity Report for December 1989 No action taken. c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission I-iaison for February 13. 1990. City Council Meeting Mr. Schubach stated that the issue is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to grant a CUP to allow serving of general alcoholic beverages at 2125 P.C.H., Hermosa Hotel. The appellants are Robert Essetier and Albert Wiemans. The basis for the appeal is that several residents voiced concern over increased parking problems and the approval of another establishment selling alcoholic beverages. Comm. Moore stated that he had attended a previous Council meeting on behalf of the Commission; however, no input was requested on the subject item. 13 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 / ....... d) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed a letter written by Mr. Antich. Comm. Rue suggested that methods be studied to more effectively display plans to the public. Comm. Peirce noted concern that public information be kept as up-to-date as possible, so that people are getting the most accurate information available and people receive adequate noticing. Comm. Peirce noted concern over the northeast corner of 2nd Street and The Strand, stating that three parking spaces are painted on the public right-of-way in front of the garages. He asked who painted the spaces, whether they are legal, and whether an encroachment permit is necessary. Comm. Ketz commented that it appears that homeowners are under more restrictive requirements than the City itself. She discussed in particular the issue of turning radius, stating that the City doesn't provide the same radius which property owners are required to have. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that revisions are being proposed to the construction site provisions. Issues covered are parking, work hours, noise, littering, and sign posting. The Commissioners discussed the issue of posting requirements at construction sites, such as hours of work. Also addressed was the issue of workers consuming alcoholic beverages on the job site. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of conswning alcoholic beverages on job sites is currently being studied. Mr. Lee explained that enforcement of rules against drinking on job sites would be difficult, since job sites are actually private property. He noted that the contractor would be the person who should be concerned because of the liability issue. He noted that it is difficult to regulate such an action, other than if a public nuisance is being created. He stated that this issue could be further discussed with the Building Department. Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on Page 3, Item 5(d) of the letter written by Mr. Northcraft on January 23, 1990. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed upcoming meetings. Comm. Moore asked if materials can be delivered to Commissioners' homes by a method other than uniformed police officers. Comm. Rue suggested that the Commission discuss methods by which to encourage better development along the highway. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:03 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 14 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 ) 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 February 6, 1990. na fe 15 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90