HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_03_20MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON MARCH 20, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7 :02 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
ROILCAIL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comm.Rue
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of March 6, 1990,
as written. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-13, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ELIMINATE THE 17-FOOT PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-16, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN
FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND
RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so
ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, secon d ed by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-17, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PL ANNIN G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING TIIE ZONE
FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND
RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so
ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-18, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TEXT AMENDMENT FOR OIL
PRODUCTION AND PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION; AND ALSO RELOCATION OF TIIE CI1Y YARD.
No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz. seconded by Comm. Peirce. to approve Resolution P.C. 90-19, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL
DRILLING AT THE CI1Y YARD. No objections; so ordered.
1 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-20, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS AMENDED, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AT 74 PIER AVENUE, "ROBERT'S LIQUOR," AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT
14, BLOCK 12, 1RACT4340, HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions
regarcling Resolution P .C. 90-13 and the tandem parking; (2) asked whether Commission
meetings fall under the Brown Act: (3) noted that Comm. Peirce has served on the Planning
Commission for many years and suggested that he now step down to allow others to serve· (4)
passed out a drawing he prepared of the "Bathhouse Blocks" hotel; (5) stated that the hotel
renderings being distributed show palm trees towering 30 to 40 percent taller than the building
itself, and he questioned whether any orclinances address the issue of view blockage caused by
trees; (6) discussed Comm. Peirce's comment at a previous meeting suggesting the fonnation of
an ad hoc committee to address issues such as building bulk, and he strongly felt that such a
study should include the commercial areas as well as residential.
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OF GREA'IER THAN 50 PERCENT
INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 1570 PROSPECT AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
MARCH 6. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended denial of this
request.
The project is located in the R-1 zone and has a general plan designation of low density
residential. The lot size is 2910 square feet and exists as a single-family dwelling. The existing
building area is 1061 square feet, and the proposed addition is 1043 square feet.
The applicant is requesting to remodel and expand an existing nonconforming single-family
dwelling. The addition to the existing structure would result in a three-bedroom and three-
bath house with 214 7 square feet.
The subject property is triangular in shape, tapering from a width of 39 feet along Prospect
Avenue to a width of 18 feet at its rear. It slopes up from Prospect Avenue on a grade of about
nine percent. The lot is adjacent to a portion of the water company property which currently
serves as an access road between Prospect Avenue and Golden Avenue.
The house is currently nonconforming because the garage is set back from the front property
line only two • feet rather than the required 1 7 feet for garages and the required ten feet
applicable to all structures. Also, one of the sideyard setbacks is only 2. 7 feet.
Staff recognizes that the garage is set back approximately 15 feet from the edge of the sidewalk
because of the wide right-of-way of Prospect. This currently allows enough room for the
parking of a compact car. However, this is the type of situation that should not be encouraged
as it makes possible the overhanging of cars onto the sidewalk.
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b), to
allow an addition to this nonconforming structure which is greater than 50 percent of existing
replacement value. Staff previously calculated that the proposal involves an
addition/ remodel equal to 102. 7% of replacement value; as such, the applicant has revised the
plan and it now calculates as 99.75% of replacement value. Section 13-7(b) allows up to a 100%
increase.
2 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
The proposal includes remodeling the entire first-level living area and a portion of the garage
and the addition of 1043 square feet of floor area on the second level. No additional parking is
provided.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b). in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. It is clear from
the plans and the elevations that the proposal essentially involves a complete gutting of the
existing first floor, the addition of an entire second floor, and a complete change in the exterior
appearance. As such, staff does not believe this project meets the intent or the goals of the
nonconforming ordinance. For example, Section 13-0(d) under "General Goals" states: "To
prohibit the remodeling and e:J1."J)ansion of such buildings which by current standards are
considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly over-dense, or do not
meet the minimal standards of parking and setback."
Since the applicant seems willing to conduct almost a complete overhaul of the existing
substandard structure, it seems that the project should be designed to bring it up to the current
standards.
Hearing opened at 7:15 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and commented on the staff
report. He said that this project is not a complete overhaul; rather, it is an addition of more
than 50 percent and a remodel of the existing area.
Mr. Peha said that the major issue is that of the setbacks on Prospect Avenue. He said there is
currently a grandfathered two-foot setback; however, he noted that other setbacks along
Prospect are similarly quite small or nonexistent in some cases. He stated that this lot is not a
normal lot for the street, explaining that it tapers off to 18 feet at the rear. To require a 17-foot
setback would therefore impose a great hardship on this property owner. not only in terms of
the shoring, but also in regard to what could be done design-wise.
Mr. Peha discussed the currently existing very small two-car garage and stated that it will be
upgraded to make it usable for two cars.
Mr. Peha said that they are proposing the addition of a second story, which is only natural
since the property is being upgraded. He said that the second floor will be approximately 1000
square feet. The existing first floor will be upgraded to new construction standards. This will
not be a large house. but rather will be only 2000 square feet. He noted that many condos are
much larger than what is being proposed for this project.
Mr. Peha commented that this ordinance does allow an increase of up to 100 percent. with
Planning Commission review. He explained that the project could be reduced somewhat in
size, if so desired by the Commission.
Mr. Peha, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that after the remodel and
expansion, what will remain is the existing floor, an existing garage, the existing retaining
walls, and almost all of the perimeter walls. Interior, non-bearing partition walls will be
removed to reconfigure the rooms. The bulk of the exterior perimeter walls will remain as they
currently exist.
Mr. Peha, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, explained that consideration was given
to tearing down the house and starting over; however, it would then become necessary to
provide a 17-foot setback. Problems would then be encountered, especially since this lot has a
fairly steep slope. Also, the house would then become the only one on the street with a 17 -foot
setback.
3 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Mr. Peha passed out photographs depicting the setbacks of various properties along Prospect
Avenue.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he thought
this ordinance provided for expansions of up to 100 percent, with Planning Commission
approval; (2) stated that the Commission is empowered by the nonconforming section of the
ordinance to approve this request, whether or not the setbacks are in conformance: (3)
e~-plained that the reasoning behind the nonconforming section of the ordinance is to make
exceptions for such projects such as this; (4) noted that this project has not exceeded the 100
percent allowed by the code; (5) commented that the fact that this property has no 17-foot
setback is not relevant to the decision to be made here; (6) asserted that the decision should be
based on the fact that this is a triangular-shaped piece of property and one which is difficult to
do anything with; (7) stated that the applicant's request is reasonable; (8) stated that this is the
ordinance approved by the City Council, not the one desired by the Planning Commission and
staff; (9) said that if this project were bulldozed, the City would be faced with a project of 3000
square feet, not one of 2000 square feet, which is being requested by this applicant; (10) noted
that exceptions must be approved, or else people will be building much larger projects than the
one being proposed.
Hearing closed at 7:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, explained that if someone wants to
extend a nonconforming sideyard, staff would examine the rest of the block to determine if the
sideyard is typical of the street and would then consider allowing the nonconformity. He noted
that this project, however, is not extending a nonconforming sideyard; the current sideyard is
merely being retained, as understood by staff.
Mr. Peha discussed the sideyard and explained that the nonconfonning sideyard is only at one
point of the lot, at the corner of the house, and is not being extended.
Comm.. Peirce felt that the intent of this ordinance is to allow up to a 50 percent addition. He
noted that people in the past have almost totally razed existing structures, left one wa,11
standing, and asserted that the project was a "remodel." He said that the ordinance was an
attempt to prevent such occurrences from happening in the City. He felt that this is a case
where someone is attempting to do that, where a great deal is removed and there is a
substantial remodel of the property. He noted that property in the City is quite valuable, and
people want to build more than is allowed by the zoning ordinance, so they look for loopholes
in the code. He said there are cases where property is sold to people with a promise that things
can be done to the property which are not allowed in the code. He stated that be would therefore
vote against approval of this request.
Comm. Peirce stated that many people want new houses but do not want to provide the required
17 -foot setback. The fact that others on the street do not have a 17 -foot setback carries no
weight in his decision making on this issue. He felt that each project should be judged solely as
an individual project on the street. He said that the idea for the setback off of this street was to
provide parking and to have new projects conform.
Comm.. Moore felt that this project is making an attempt to conform. He noted that the lot is
triangular-shaped and there is a steep slope. He noted that this configuration can present
problems related to the garage and driveway. He therefore felt a compromise would be in order
for this project. He said that to move the retaining walls two feet to comply with the setback
requirements would be quite a hardship and would be very costly. He did not feel that this is an
attempt to avoid the requirements; therefore, he could support approval of the request. He also
noted that the project will remain within the current building lines. He felt that the issue of the
nonconforming sideyard is trivial in this case, since it occurs at only a single point along the
structure. He felt that there could be special construction difficulties with this lot in the area of
the parking. In this case, he did not feel that the lack of the 1 7 -foot setback is a crisis for the
City.
4 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Chmn. Ingell concurred with the comments made by Comm. Moore. He felt that this lot has
special circumstances due to the 18-foot rear portion and the nine percent grade. These factors
would make it difficult to construct a new two-car garage. The only alternative he could see
would be to provide tandem parking; although, he does not feel that tandem parking is
effective. He did note concern that the project will provide only two parking spaces, and he
recollected that at the previous Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that the
17-foot setback requirement be eliminated but that three spaces be required for all single-
family homes. Compliance would therefore not be possible for this project. He did feel that the
request should be approved.
Comm. Ketz stated that she could support approval of this request, based on the fact that the
new home will be only 2000 square feet and the fact that this is an unusually-shaped lot with
only 18 feet in the rear.
Comm. Peirce noted that if this were a new project, the 17-foot setback would be required
unless a variance were approved. He urged the Commissioners to analyze whether this is a
remodel or new construction.
Comm. Moore noted, however, that if this were a new house. he could make the fmdings to
waive the 17-foot setback requirement, based on the fact of the unusual lot size and the 18-foot
rear of the lot.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the exception from Section 13-
7(B) to allow a remodel and expansion to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling of
greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1570 Prospect Avenue.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Peirce
None
Comm.Rue
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OF GREA'IER THAN 50 PERCENT
INCREASE INV ALUATION AT 2624 THE STRAND [CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MARCH
6,1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended denial of the
request because the proposed addition will continue an existing nonconforming setback for an
additional floor.
This proje~t is in the R-1 zone. with a general plan designation of low density residential. The
lot size is 2850 square feet. The existing use is as a single-family residence. The existing
building area is 2320 square feet, and the proposed addition is 965 square feet.
The applicant is requesting to remodel and expand an existing nonconforming single-family
dwelling. The addition to the existing structure will result in a five-bedroom and four and a
half bath house with 3280 square feet.
The house is currently nonconforming for three reasons. The front setback on The Strand is
2.5 feet, rather than the required 9.5 feet. The setback on Hermosa Avenue is also considered a
front setback, pursuant to Policy Statement P.C. 88-1, and it is currently three feet, rather than
9.5 feet. Also, the garage setback is three feet, rather than the required 17 feet.
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% of the existing replacement value. Staff has calculated that the proposal
5 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
involves an addition/remodel equal to 57% of replacement value. The proposal includes
remodeling the entire second level and a portion of the ground level, the addition of 965 square
feet of floor area and 655 square feet of deck area on a third level, the addition of a roof deck,
and the expansion of the garage for three cars.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(c), any new portions of a nonconfonning structure must comply with
the setback requirements. The proposed second-story addition, however, is set back only three
feet from Hermosa Avenue. The applicant was advised of these problems prior to submitting
the application, but he insisted that the policy statement was intended to allow Strand
frontage to count as open space. not to restrict the setbacks on the Hermosa Avenue side. It is
staffs position that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive these
requirements unless an application for a variance is submitted. Even if it were determined
that the Planning Commission has the authority to make exceptions to policy statements.
staff does not believe that this would be an appropriate case for it.
Additionally, the third-level deck railing encroaches into the front setback on The Strand. It
is located 2.5 feet from the property line, rather than 9.5 feet.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. Since the
provisions of the code are not being met, staff is recommending denial. If the project was
modified to comply with the Hermosa Avenue front setback requirement, a finding for
approval probably could be made.
Hearing opened at 7:39 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Steve Collett, 2624 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that he
wants to remodel and create a single-family dwelling with a three-car garage, and that the
project will be under the 25-foot height limit.
Mr. Collett stated that the structures on either side of his house are 35 to 40 feet high. The
structures to the north of his property are multi-unit dwellings. He said that his property has
an open railing at the second level on The Strand side. New construction will start 27 feet back
from this railing; therefore, there will be very little view blockage since the houses on either
side of his are much higher.
Mr. Collett discussed the setback issue and stated that the setback would block no views
because the people on the hill behind his property would be in compliance with height
restrictions. Surrounding houses are larger and higher than the one being proposed. He also
stated that the adjacent house is built right to the property line.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) said
that he has concern over the policy statement at issue, explaining that as chairman of the
Planning Commission, he signed the statement; (2) explained that he thought the policy
statement related to new projects which use the front yard as open space, but allowing a
tradeoff for Strand properties to use Hermosa Avenue for the required front setback, which
this project does; (3) continued by discussing the effect of this policy statement on existing
single-family residences which provide open space in the middle of the property; (4) stated that
in this case open space must be provided in the center of the property, on the ground, and be
open to the sky; (5) discussed the site plans for the proposed project.
Mr. Compton went on and: (1) discussed the project and stated that the policy statement should
not be applied to remodels, but only to new construction;(2) said that the statement is very
difficult to work with in remodels where existing square footage is being added; (3) explained
the project, stating that two bedrooms will be removed in the existing house, and it is being
requested to add three new bedrooms upstairs; (4) stated that this house is not unusually large
for this area; (5) said that even though this house does not have a 17-foot setback, it has three
6 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
parking spaces which he felt is preferable; (6) said that they are conforming t o the intent of the
code; (7) passed out photographs depicting the properties on either side of this project.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) stated that this house is actually in a canyon, because the
neighbors on each side have much higher houses; (2) said that the policy statement is not being
correctly interpreted, and he hoped that the Commission would modify the statement to refer
only to new construction or else set the statement aside so that it can be studied; (3) stated that
he was not informed by anyone in either the planning or building departments that there
would be a problem with the open space; (4) said that no one in the planning department ever
mentioned this policy statement; (5) said that the requirements should be clearly stated in the
zoning code so that problems do not arise; (6) continued by discussing the proposed open space
and the roof deck and railing; (7) said that the house next door has an encroachment pennit
ihto the public right-of-way; (8) said that he is looking for a reasonable way to allow for a
reasonable request; (9) asked what the Commission's purview is related to a policy statement
versus an ordinance, to which Mr . Lee responded that the language in the policy statement
appears to be clear; (10) discussed the fact of whether or not The Strand side of the property can
be included in the open space calculations.
Mr. Schubach clarified the intent of the statement, and he explained that good zoning practice
dictates which side of the property should be used for the open space calculations so that there
is uniformity and to protect adjacent properties; this policy statement was an outcome of those
concerns. He continued by explaining that The Strand has always been counted as the front
yard; however, if open space cannot be in the front yard, an exception would need to be made for
Strand properties so that people would not turn their houses around the other way in order to
obtain the required open space area on another side. He stated that there is a section in the
zoning ordinance that does make reference to the various policy statements.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the required setbacks and stated that any new
construction is required to meet the code. The building department, however, is now requiring
front yard setbacks on any project, whether old or new. He noted that in this particular
instance, the Commission may want to make an exception to this Strand property. If an
exception is desired, it would be necessary for staff to study the issue further.
Mr. Compton continued and: ( 1) stated that if staff is going to determine which is the front yard
and which is the rear yard, staff should designate each of the lots individually, since there are
not very many which would fall under this policy, so that people do not have to give up ten
percent on both ends of the lots on through lots; (2) commented that he does not like the policy
statement, explaining that he thought it pertained only to new projects; (3) discussed the
proposed roof line of the garage, stating that it is within the intent; (4) discussed open space and
said that the open space which will be used is that towards The Strand; (5) said that 600 square
feet of open space is being provided at the upper level; (6) said that the real problem is with the
required 300 square feet of open space on the ground level and open to the sky; (7) stated that
there are conflicting requirements which drastically limit what can be done with the property;
(8) stated that the request is reasonable and within the intent of the law.
Norm Quient, 2630 The Strand, neighbor to the north of this project, addressed the
Commission and: (1) opposed this project because it will block out his light and air; (2) noted
that there is quite a mix of houses along The Strand with various setbacks; (3) said that the
subject property is a square with no offsets, and it appears that they are attempting to add a
third story; (4) said that the requirements should be followed to protect light and air; (5) passed
out photos depicting the properties in question; (6) said that his property is a nonconfonning
four-unit structure; (7) noted that he has not had an opportunity to view the proposed plans; (8)
stated that his open space is not on The Strand, but rather 25 feet back; (9) said that his
property was built in 1928.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request, since the proposed addition is not extreme, there are very large buildings on each side
7 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
of this property, and additional garage space will be added; and (2) stated that the project will be
an improvement to the area.
Pearl Hoyt, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project because it will block her white water view.
Pauline Quient, 2630 The Strand, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed the
project because it will block her light and air; (2) objected to the deck because it will be right
n ext to her b edroom window; (3) s tated that this is not the applicant's full-time residence and it
appears to be a "party house"; and, (4) opposed parties on the deck where people could fall off
onto The Strand and create liability problems for the City.
Mr. Collett clarified that this house is indeed his full-time residence. He emphasized that he is
adding only a three-foot open railing, back quite a distance from the houses on either side. The
garage will only be going up 18 inches. His house will still be drarwfed by the houses on either
side of this project.
Hearing closed at 8:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that even if this project were
proposing an addition of less than 50 percent, it would still need approval because of the
setback issue as delineated in the policy statement. Any new or old construction, according to
the statement, needs the required setback on the second floor.
Comm. Peirce noted difficulty with this project since there are no setbacks on either side of the
property. He felt that the issue of which side is the front or rear is not relevant since there are
no proper setbacks. He noted that the project has three parking spaces and is below the 25-foot
height limit. He stated that he could support this project if the plans were slightly modified.
Since there is no construction in the front, he felt that they have met the intent of the new law;
however, the intent is not being met in the rear. He felt that there are plusses and minuses to
this project; however, he felt that this is another case where someone is attempting to
maximize the structure on the property.
Comm. Moore did not feel there are any special circumstances related to this property;
therefore, he intended to be fairly strict in his interpretation of the policy statement. He felt
that all areas of the City need to be protected equally, and this project does not meet the intent
of the code; therefore, he stated that he could not support approval of this request.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the project provides three parking spaces, which is a plus; however, it
does not meet the setback requirements. He agreed that there are no unusual circumstances
related to this lot, and findings can therefore not be made for approval.
Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that the Commission is now
addressing an exception to a policy statement regarding the nonconfonning provisions. He
clarified that this is not a variance request. He continued by explaining the Commission's
purview over the policy statement and its ability to interpret the statement.
Mr. Compton stated that it is possible to modify the plans, if so desired by the Commission. He
said that alterations could be made in regard to the roof line in order to reach a compromise.
Also, the setback off of Hermosa Avenue could be removed. He again noted that there are
problems because of the open space in the center of the property.
Mr. Schubach stated that if the plans are revised, staff would prefer to review the plans;
therefore, he suggested that the matter be continued.
Chmn. Ingell favored a continuance so that the applicant can revise the plans, stating that he
cannot support the project as it is currently presented.
8 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the meeting of
April 3, 1990, in order to allow the applicant time to prepare alternative designs.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
Recess taken from 8: 18 P.M. until 8:25 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS POMP, AND CAR WASH, AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY. MOBIL OIL
STATION <CONIINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1 /3/90, 2/6/90. AND 2 /20/90)
Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends this matter be continued, noting that additional
materials had been received only today and there bas not been time to fully review the new
information. A continuance will also provide the applicant time to submit the noise study as
requested by the Planning Commission at their previous meeting.
Chmn. Ingell agreed that a continuance would be appropriate in order to allow the
Commissioners time to study the new material.
Mr. Lee suggested that the public hearing be opened so that people who cannot attend the next
meeting may have an opportunity to speak on the matter at this time; the hearing can then be
continued.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would not be giving a staff report at this time, noting that the
matter will be continued to a future meeting.
Chmn. Ingell requested that only those who cannot attend the next public hearing to speak on
this issue approach the podium this evening.
Brian Rechsteiner, 9891 Vicksburg Drive, Huntington Beach, r e pre s enting the applicant,
addressed the Commission and concurred with staffs recommendation that this matter b e
continued so that the sound study can be completed. He stated that a continuance to April 3,
1990, would be acceptable to him.
Mr. Schubach advised that the agenda for April 3 is already quite full; he therefore suggested
that this item be continued to April 17, 1990.
Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Lou Bourgeois, 910 1st Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
he and his wife operate the Magic Rainbow Preschool which is adjacent to the Mobil Car Wash
in Manhattan Beach; (2) advised that hearings were held in Manhattan Beach regarding that
car wash, at which time conditions were imposed on the CUP requiring that the car wash was
not to operate unless the doors were closed; (3) stated that at no time since the end of last
October have the doors of the car wash worked; (4) stressed that there is a falsehood in regard to
Mobil's concerns over the proper operation of the doors; (5) noted that the City of Manhattan
Beach bad advised Mobil in writing that they would be closed down unless they complied with
the CUP requirements, and as of March 19 the car wash was closed down by the City; (6) urged
the Commission to use caution in approving this request.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern that this
hearing has been continued several times , and he felt that matters should be renoticed after
two continuances so that people are aware of what is occurring; (2) noted concern that the car
9 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
wash in Manhattan Beach was not in compliance and Mobil had no interest in correcting the
problems; (3) stated that he totally objects to the proposed car wash because the noise is
intolerable; (4) said that there should be no more than three gas pumps because of the hazard
potential; and, (5) stated that the proposed use will be too intense.
Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that she
retained a sound consultant to prepare a noise study for the proposed Mobil Car Wash, copies of
which had been given to the Commissioners; (2) stated that she went to a great deal of trouble to
have this report prepared; (3) said that the noise emanating from the project will be too intense;
(4) explained how she went to a Mobil Car Wash in the City of Corona and the fact that the doors
did not operate properly at that location either; (5) said that she made a 15-minute videotape at
the car wash in Corona, which she wanted to show to the Commission; (6) directed that the
videotape be started, at which time the tape began playing over the cable channel.
Chmn. Ingell directed that the playing of the videotape be halted immediately. He explained to
Mrs. Kolesar that no one was aware that a tape was to be played at the meeting; he questioned
how this tape was being aired; and he informed Mrs. Kolesar that the meetings follow
prescribed procedures.
Mr. Lee suggested that this tape not be accepted as evidence at this time; and that the public
hearing be continued to a future meeting.
Comm. Moore stated that he would prefer to study the new materials before taking new
evidence, such as Mrs. Kolesar was attempting to present.
Mrs. Kolesar countered that the videotape will supplement the new written materials presented
to the Commission. She said that she may not be able to attend the next meeting; therefore, she
wanted the Commissioners to view the tape at this time.
Comm. Peirce did not think it was necessary for the Commission to view a 15-minute tape of
the car wash, since all of the Commissioners had gone to the Manhattan Beach site.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to deny Mrs. Kolesar pennission to show
the 15-minute video.
Comm. Moore stated that he would support the motion, explaining that all of the
Commissioners have gone to a Mobil Car Wash to view the operation, and a visit is much more
accurate than a tape. He also felt that the showing of a 15-minute video would be excessive at a
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Lee suggested that Mrs. Kolesar submit the tape to the Planning Commission as evidence. If
the Commissioners so choose, they can either view the tape at the continued public hearing or
they can view it at City Hall at their convenience.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm Peirce as maker and agreed to by Chmn. Ingell as
second, to deny pennission to show the videotape at this time; but to direct that the video be
made available so that people can view it at City Hall if so desired.
Chmn. Ingell asked Mrs. Kolesar what information is in the video which cannot be obtained by
actually going to the site.
Mrs. Kolesar stated that the video shows the car wash from various locations on the streets; it
is possible to actually hear the noise from the car wash on the video; the video gives an
opportunity for other people in the City to see the car wash in operation; and the video gives a
good indication of what can be expected at the proposed location.
P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
Mrs. Kolesar stated that she went to a great deal of trouble to prepare this video, and she was
disappointed that she was not allowed to show it.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this public hearing to the
meeting of April 3, 1990.
Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the planned 9th Street
approach to the proposed car wash which is directly next to her driveway; (2) felt that the
approach is hazardous and will create fumes; (3) stated that the proposal will be dangerous; (4)
asked that Mobil be required to extend the proposed planter buffer at 9th Street adjacent to her
property by at least 20 feet; (5) stated that a planted area next to her property will provide a
better buffer to her property.
Howard Longacre noted that if this matter is continued, it will be the fourth continuance. He
asked that the packets in the library contain all new information. He also felt that it would be
appropriate to renotice this matter since it has been continued so many times.
Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 17, 1990. He also
suggested that this be the final continuance of this item. He clarified that there are no
provisions to require an applicant to renotice continued public hearings.
Mr. Lee concurred that no law requires that this matter be renoticed. He stated that it can be
continued at the discretion of the Commission. He suggested that a deadline be set for
submission of all materials. He noted that those who are parties to this action are on notice
and are present at this time.
Sam Lennox, 845 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that his property is
directly behind the proposed car wash; (2) strongly opposed any more car washes in the area; (3)
noted that the parking is already a terrible problem in the area; (4) said that the other car wash
across the street is causing problems.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Moore as
second, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of April 17, 1990.
Gerry Compton addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that, even though it is not required
by law, in the past applicants have been requested to renotice continued public hearings; (2)
suggested that the videotape be made available so that interested citizens can view it; (3)
commented that Mrs. Kolesar went to a lot of trouble to prepare the videotape.
Comm. Peirce stated that the comments made by Mr. Longacre are correct, in that this matter
has been continued a number of times; and it would be appropriate to ask that it be renoticed.
He further noted that the applicant has been derelict, since the materials have not been
provided on time.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Moore as
second, to: (1) require that this matter be renoticed; (2) direct that the videotape be made
available for the public to view; and (3) direct staff to obtain any information which
Manhattan Beach has available in regard to the Mobil Car Wash in Manhattan Beach.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
11 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Recess taken from 8: 18 P.M. until 8:25 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE EXTERIOR BUILDING
ELEVATIONS FOR A THREE-UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINilJM PROJECT AT 1 460 LOMA
DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use pennit amendment to allow the requested change in
the exterior building elevations.
On November 21, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use pennit for a
three-unit attached condominium on the subject property. On November 27, 1989, the
neighbors at 1452 Loma Drive filed an appeal to the Planning Commission approval,
expressing concern with the use of an identical design to their project. The neighbors have
subsequently withdrawn the appeal since the applicant has submitted plans to change the
exterior elevations. This amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review.
The applicant has submitted revised plans which essentially change only the exterior
elevations. The floor plans remain the same.
The p r opose d building el evations propose a stucco exterior, glass block, aluminum windows,
and galvanized pipe r ailings. These are basically the same materials previously proposed and
which are currently used on the a dj acent b uilding a t 1452 Loma Drive. These features give the
building a rather simplified c ontemp orary appearance. The new elevations do not
significantly change the building appearance, but they do clearly distinguish the facade of the
building from the adjacent building. For example, the chimney has been removed as a front
focal feature and replaced with bay windows. Also, the roof line stresses horizontal and
vertical elements, while the previous plan included some angled elements.
Staff initially recommended that this project be approved subject to the condition that its
architectural appearance be modified to distinguish it from the adjacent identical building.
The Planning Commission, however, agreed with the architect and determined that an
identical project would be preferable. Given that the occupants of the adjacent building
obviously do not want an identical building next door, staff believes that this proposal is an
appropriate solution.
Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1)
discussed the original concept and the desire to make the two projects look like one project; (2)
noted that the neighbors did not like the proposed concept and they requested that building
modifications be provided to give some relief to the project; (3) explained that after reviewing
the plans, superior modifications have been made to make this a very interesting project; and
(4) commented briefly on the proposed changes and stated that a reasonable compromise has
been reached.
Public Hearing closed at 9:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-23, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
12 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1WO-FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK RATHER THAN FOUR FEET.
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21160 FOR A 1.'WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 333 10TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and tentative
parcel map and to approve the variance request, subject to the conditions in the proposed
resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 2873 square feet, or 40 by 69.6 feet. Eight parking spaces are
provided. 852 square feet of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family
dwelling.
The subject property is rectangular in shape and is almost perfectly flat. It is a reversed corner
lot with the front facing 10th Street and the side facing Loma Drive.
The two proposed condominium units have different floor plans. Unit A contains 2407 square
feet and includes four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. Unit B contains 1595 square
feet and includes two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two
stories and a roof deck above a semi-subterranean garage. The subterranean garage level also
includes the proposed fourth bedroom for Unit A
The proposed building elevations propose a stucco exterior, mission clay tile roofing, and deco-
style railings. These features give the building somewhat of a contemporary Mediterranean
appearance. Each unit is provided with a private entry porch and a roof deck.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of six feet, which appears to be appropriate for 10th
Street because the 60-foot right-of-way leaves a substantial distance between the front property
line and the edge of pavement. Also, because of the orientation of most lots along 10th Street,
most of the other structures' sideyards face 10th Street.
Although the plans indicate 336 and 420 cubic feet of storage accessible to the roof deck, the
condominium ordinance requires a minimum 100 feet of the required 200 cubic feet to be
accessible to the ground floor. Staff has included a condition to this effect in the proposed
resolution.
Staff is also concerned about the proposed fourth bedroom at the ground floor which may have
the potential to be a bootleg unit. As such, staff has included conditions prohibiting the closet
and the bathroom at the ground floor of Unit A
Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages, and guest parking is provided in the
required 17 -foot setback.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements, except for the side yard
setbacks for which the variance has been requested.
The applicant's initial response to this project being continued because of the problem with
tandem parking facing the street was to apply for a variance to allow tandem parking to access
a street. After discussions with staff and the staff environmental review committee, the
applicant, under the advice of staff. has revised the plans to provide two separate two-car
garages with access from 10th Street and Loma Drive. Because of the width of the lot (40 feet),
however, a standard 20-foot garage with the 17 -foot setback cannot be provided from Loma
Drive without encroaching into the four-foot sideyard setback. Therefore, the applicant has
revised the variance request to allow a two-foot encroachment into the sideyard. This two-foot
setback encroachment is 19-feet wide and six feet above finished grade.
13 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Given the rather small and shallow lot size, and the fact that no alley access is available, the
alternatives for providing required parking for two units are limited. The only other
alternative to tandem parking and the proposal would perhaps be to provide the parking in a
complete subterranean garage. Therefore, staff believes that the alternative of providing two
separate two-car garages is preferable to the situation of creating a tandem garage facing 10th
Street or forcing a complete subterranean design. The proposed configuration also has the
added advantage of providing two guest spaces per unit. As such, staff believes that because of
the unusual size of a lot zoned for two units, this variance is acceptable.
Alternatively, to lessen the impact on the sideyard, the Planning Commission may wish to
consider granting a variance or variances from the garage depth or the 17 -foot parking setback
or any combination thereof.
Public Hearing opened at 9 :08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Sally Ladd, 600 9th Street, owner of the subject property, addressed the Commission and: (1)
commented on the staff report, and stated that she wants the additional bedroom so that each
of her children can have their own bedroom; (2) stated that she has no intention of creating a
bootleg unit; (3) noted that it is more convenient to have the bathroom near the proposed fourth
bedroom; (4) said she has been waiting over a year to begin work on this project; (5) said that the
plans were revised in order to comply with all requirements; and (6) stated that she would have
no objection to an inspector coming out to ensure that the bedroom is not turned into a bootleg
unit.
Dean Andrews, 118 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the
Commission and: (1) responded to a question by Comm. Moore in regard to the two-foot
sideyard section and the possibility of a variance for the garage depth; (2) discussed the two-
foot punch-out at the back of the project, which therefore makes a two-foot sideyard,
explaining that it was designed that way to accommodate the parking; (3) stated that a foot
could be removed from the garage and a foot could be removed from the required space up to the
garage d oor in order to make the sideyard a lit tle bigger; (4) explained that by doing so,
h owe v er , the garage space would be s h ortened somewhat.
Comm. Moore questioned whether two feet could be taken off the garage door setback.
Mr. Andrews continued: (1) stated that he can consider the options and design something that
will work; (2) stated, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, that the interior garage
depth, as designed, is right at City standards; (3) discussed the bedroom on the ground floor and
stated that the only access into that bedroom is within Unit A, and it would be very difficult to
make an access into that room; (4) stated that he could do something to the exterior walls
which would hinder any possibility of creating an outside access into the bedroom; (5) said that
the applicant deserves a chance to explore the options before the bedroom is denied.
Bill Howell, 935 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the proposed
project will be used to obtain the maximum profit, that it will not be used just for a family; (2)
requested that the applicant n ot b e given appr oval for the two feet, since n o c on sider a tion was
given to the s urrounding n eighbors when this projec t was des igned ; (3) stated tha t this proj ect
will cause view blockage to other houses on the s treet; (4 ) s tated that Loma Drive was not
designed to handle large projects of this type, and there is bound to be a major accident at the
corner when construction starts because it will be difficult to see; (5) said that the City will have
civil liability when this accident does occur; (6) stated that four feet will be bad enough, but a
two-foot variance will be even worse, to which Comm. Moore responded that the two-foot area
is nowhere near the street, but rather is in the back of the property: (7) again stressed that there
will be a major accident at the intersection, because people speed and this is a blind
intersection with no way to see north and south traffic.
Jeff Post, 1004 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the surrounding
residents were notified only two weeks ago of this project; (2) noted concern over the
14 P.C . Minutes 3/20/90
intersection of 10th and Loma which is already dangerous, and this project will make it even
more dangerous; (3) stated that the information placed in the library was inadequate in
helping people understand the plans; (4) discussed the proposed resolution, and disagreed with
the statement that this project will not create any serious public or safety hazards; (5) felt that
a variance should not be approved because of the lot shape, especially since the lot is being
overbuilt; (6) said that the project will remove three parking spaces on the street but will add
five bedrooms; (7) questioned what the true use will be for this property; (8) did not feel that the
.findings can be made to approve this variance; (9) noted concern over the height of this project
and the method of height calculation used; (10) said that his view will be blocked by
construction of this project.
John Esposito, 1020 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) objected to the aesthetics
of the proposed large project; (2) felt that the project will create a cavernous situation; (3) stated
that his view will be affected by the project; (4) noted concern over the visibility at the
intersection; (5) noted that the streets are already dangerous; (6) stated that if such density is
going to be encouraged in the City, consideration should be given to the road-carrying
capabilities; (7) felt that the project is an attempt to max out the project on the lot; (8) said that
people should be required to comply with standards in the City so that the quality of life can be
maintained; (9) fell that the project will adversely impact the safety of children; (10) noted
concern over safety issues related to approval of a variance allowing improper garage depth.
Dean Andrews addressed the Commission and: (1) commented on the concerns voiced
regarding the intersection and stated that parking spaces will be removed close to the
intersection in order to utilize the driveway; (2) parking spaces which are removed will be
replaced onsite at this project, which he felt will be safer because the visibility will be
improved at the comer; (3) stated that this project will encroach no more than the existing
structure; (4) stated that the difficulties of cars backing out of garages are not exclusive to this
site, that problem exists all over the City; (5) noted that there are safety concerns all over the
City, not just on this street.
Ann Baker, 966 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and noted concern over safety and
parking issues and questioned why the applicant doesn't just build a single-family home.
Public Hearing closed at 9:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce felt that the project is quite large; however, he noted that the property is zoned
high density R-3, and the project meets all of the standards. He felt that if people object to the
density and height in certain areas, they should request a zone change to R-2. He noted,
however, that he heard no one express a desire to have a downzone to allow only single-family
dwellings. He felt that the parking has been adequately revised in a way which iS acceptable to
both the City and the surrounding area. He felt that a minor variance is a small price to pay for
the improved parking; therefore, he stated that he could support approval of this variance
request.
Comm. Moore did not want to give false hope to people on the matter of downzoning in this
area. He noted that every time the City proposes a downzoning, people appear en masse and
strongly oppose the downzoning based on the fact that their property values will be reduced. He
stated that, in any event, if the neighbors were to request a downzoning for this area, it would
be very time consuming, and a moratorium would be necessary.
Mr. Lee explained the procedure which would need to be undertaken if citizens desired to
request a downzoning for their neighborhood.
Comm. Moore stated that he also feels an impact by the tremendous growth which has taken
place along Loma over the past few years. He felt that the only course of action available for
concerned citizens is to appeal to the City Council and to begin writing letters to the papers;
however, he has observed that most people want to maximize their property investments, and
they are not willing to be downzoned.
15 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Comm. Moore stated that the blueprints he received depict a very minor variance for an
interior wall of this project. He felt that none of the concerns voiced during the hearing relate
directly to the actual variance itself. He felt, in fact, that approval of the variance will bring
the parking setbacks up to code. He therefore did not feel that approval would open the City to
any potential liability. He said that all parame t ers are b eing met by this d e sign. He agree d that
people do speed along Loma and the r e are problems; however, h e did n ot feel that this proj ect
will either hurt or help the traffic situation. He s tated that the only view impacts will a t the
ground level. He did not feel there is a way to correct the parking situation at this time,
especially since people do speed along the area. He stated that he could support a height
restriction; however, that issue is not before the Commission since this project is within the
height limitations. He did not feel it is necessary to restrict the bedroom, based on the fact that
he feels the best control over bootleg units is the owner of the other condo unit who will
monitor such a use.
Comm. Moore concluded by stating that he can support the variance request as submitted.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with the comments expressed by Comm. Moore. He noted that it is very
rare for staff to recommend approval of a variance as they have done in this case; therefore, the
staff recommendation is a good indicator of this being a very minor request. He agreed that
this is a very built-out block; however, he felt that the upcoming housing element study will
address many of the concerns which have been raised. He stated that he could support approval
of this request.
Comm. Ketz stated that she will support approval of the variance request. She felt that the R-3
standards allow too much leeway in regard to building height and other requirements;
however, she felt that this project makes the best use of the situation.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-24, with the following amendments: (1) deletion of Condition 1 l(b)
requiring that the bathroom at the ground level of Unit A shall be eliminated and that there
shall be no closets allowed; (2) Finding G shall be modified to read: "The variance is justified
because of 'exceptional circumstances' in the unusually small lot size .... "; (3) Finding H shall be
modified to include wording at the end of the sentence stating: " ... which preserves a substantial
property right possessed by other properties of similar size and shape in the vicinity and zone
of the property."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 9:42 P.M. until 9 :52 P.M.
ZONES CHANGES FOR THE NORT HERN PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS FOLLOWS OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONES AS DEEMED
APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
(A) FROM C-3. R-1 AND R-3 TO COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE AREA ALONG
EAST AND WEST OF PACIFIC COAST IDGHWAY BE'IWEEN PIER AVENUE TO 24TH STREET
16 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
(B) FROM R-3 TO R-2 FOR TIIE AREA ON EAST OF PACIFIC COAST mGHWAY BE'IWEEN 2011I
S1REET 'IO 21ST STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 12, 1990. Staff recommended that the areas
designated commercial corridor on the general plan located north of Pier Avenue be rezoned
from their current zoning classifications of C-3, R-1, and R-3 (the majority of which are R-3) to
commercial specific plan area No. 8, which only slightly differs from commercial specific plan
area No. 7. Staff also recommended that the block between 20th Street and 21st Street be
rezoned to R-2 for consistency, but that 20th Street and 21st Street be rezoned to R-2 for
consistency, but that the Planning Commission recommend that this block be considered for a
general plan amendment to commercial corridor and rezoned to specific plan area as part of
the 2nd quarter general plan amendments.
The City Council at their meeting of May 9, 1989, amended the land use element of the general
plan by eliminating the multi-use corridor designation and creating the commercial corridor
designation. The commercial corridor designation was applied to the frontage lots between
14th Street and 20th Street and north of 21st Street on the east side of P.C.H. and to the
currently developed commercial areas on the west side of P.C.H. between Pier Avenue and 24th
Place. The remaining MUC designated areas were general plan amended to residential
designations, including the frontage lots between 20th and 21st Streets which were designated
medium density residential.
The decision to change the residentially developed frontage lots located between 17th and 21st
Streets on the east side was made on a 3-2 vote due to the controversy of the issue and the vocal
opposition to commercial development on this section of the highway. The decision to
redesignate the block between 20th and 21st Streets to medium density residential was a 4-1
vote. These were the blocks for which the Planning Commission did not make a
recommendation to the City Council because there was not a majority that agreed on what the
designation should be.
On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended zone changes to commercial
corridor specific plan for the southern portion of the commercial corridor.
Rezoning the northern portion of the commercial corridor is the final step in the
implementation of the general plan amendments. The rezoning needs to be completed prior to
August of 1990 when the moratorium on these remaining areas expires.
By amending the general plan, the City Council established the boundaries for commercial
development along the corridor and established policies for the implementation of the
amendments. The effort now is to establish standards and limits to apply to future
development along the corridor which will both allow for reasonable development of the area
and protect neighboring residential uses.
Staff and the Planning Commission have already worked out a set of standards and
limitations for the southern portion of the commercial corridor. The situation for the
northern portion of the corridor is fairly similar, however, the topography is generally steeper
further up the slope, the surrounding residential areas are primarily single family, and the
ownership is split amongst more parcels of smaller sizes, except for the large parcels at Plaza
Hermosa and the Hermosa Pavilion. Also, this portion of the highway provides a break from
the otherwise exclusively strip commercial pattern as multi-family condos and apartments
are located on the west side and single-and two-family projects on the east side. Additionally,
the commercial uses are not dominated by automotive related businesses.
The area at issue is 15.6 acres, and there are 40 separately-owned parcels. There are 15 parcels
ofless than 5000 square feet; 14 parcels between 5000 and 10,000 square feet; and 11 parcels
greater than 10,000 square feet. The median size is 6840 square feet.
17 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Staff felt that the difference in topography justifies a lower height limit for the east side of the
highway. Otherwise. staff felt that the provisions established for the southern portion are
appropriate for this portion.
As such, staff again proposed first tier development standards that with compliance would not
require any discretionary approvals. Projects that contain any elements that go beyond these
standards. however. would trigger the requirement of a precise development plan. requiring
public hearings. Planning Commission approval, and environmental review. Traffic impacts
would be considered as part of the environmental review.
This concept requires two tiers of development standards: (1) standards that if exceeded would
trigger the precise development plan requirement and which the Planning Commission would
have authority to waive if certain guidelines are followed. and; (2) maximum or minimum
standards which could not be exceeded through a variance.
First tier triggers for the precise development plan are: a maximum height of 25 feet east of
P.C.H.; 35 feet west of P.C.H. Maximum bulk would be 1.0 floor area ratio. Maximum floor area
would be 10,000 square feet. Landscaping coverage would be 5 percent of the lot area, but a
required buffer from R-zones is not included.
Second tier minimum/maximum standards are: Maximum height of 35 feet east of P.C.H.; 45
feet west of P.C.H. There is no maximum bulk or floor area. Landscaping coverage would be 2
percent of the lot area.
The following standards would apply in all circumstances as maximum/roioimvm standards:
(1) landscaping specifications: minimum three-foot wide planter strips with raised six-inch
curbing, or an area equivalent in size, along street frontage, five-gallon shrub for each 20
square feet; (2) setback from R-zone: eight feet plus two feet for each additional story; and (3)
buffering from R-zone: minimum five-foot wide planter strip with 24-inch/ 15-gallon tree
every ten feet.
The only difference in these standards from those recommended for the southern portion of
the commercial corridor is the height limit for the east side of P.C.H. which has been lowered
five feet in recognition of the steeper slope from the highway and to lessen potential view
blockage to nearby single-family residential development which is limited to a 25-foot height
limit.
In regard to the block between 20th Street and 21st Street, which is designated medium density
on the general plan rather than commercial corridor. staff felt that there is no basis for
differentiating this block from the other P.C.H. frontage parcels. Although staff recommended
that this area be rezoned to R-2 for consistency, staff felt that the Planning Commission
should also recommend that this area be included as part of the 2nd quarter general plan
amendments for redesignation to commercial corridor and rezoning to commercial specific
plan area.
Comm. Moore commented that the existing development on the east side of the highway
between 17th and 21st Streets is strictly residential, and he asked what options are available
for that area, stating that he is not at all persuaded that it should be developed as commercial.
He understood the requirements to bring zoning and the general plan into conformance, as
required by State law; however, he noted that the general plan can be changed to conform with
the zoning.
Mr. Schubach stated that that area was previously designated as multi-use corridor with C-
potential. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission. a general plan amendment could be
recommended to redesignate that particular area as residential. If this recommendation is
made, the Commission would then not go forward with the proposed zone changes.
Public Hearing opened at 10:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
18 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
, Jim Caines, 819 18th Street. addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly favored a residential
redesignation for the east side of the highway between 17th and 21st Street, noting that this
has long been a residential area and would be inappropriate for commercial development; (2)
favored a residential classification so that if there is a disaster, people could rebuild their
homes.
Vic Cravello, 1632 Havemeyer Lane. Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said
that his mother-in-law owns the property at 2024 P.C.H.; (2) said that the property was zoned R-
3 when she purchased it; (3) stated that he favors a residential designation for that area by way
of a general plan amendment.
Mr. Schubach clarified that there is a policy stating that "existing structures used for
residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively used for residential purposes are
permitted to remain indefinitely and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said
structures to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded as long as existing residential density is not
increased."
Jack Ander, 521 Gentry Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) passed out a copy of a
petition with 80 signatures from people who desire the area to be residential; (2) read aloud the
petition, which asserts that the people protest the commercial intrusion into the residential
area; (3) urged that the area retain R-3 zoning; (4) discussed the lots in the northeast area
between 18th and 21st Streets and stated that because of the steep slope and the residential
uses, commercial use is not appropriate; (5) said that R-3 is appropriate because there is
commercial on the other side of the highway; (6) said that some of the people who signed the
petition favor R-3, however, they would prefer a 30-foot height limit, as opposed to the 35 feet
allowed in R-3; (7) noted that there are many vacancies in the existing commercial buildings
along P.C.H.; (8) stated that there are many existing commercial structures in other locations
of the City which badly need revitalization; therefore, this residential area should not be
sacrificed for more commercial usage; (9) discussed past City Council actions on this particular
area; ( 10) stated that with the new City Council members, there could be an entirely new view
on this issue.
George Dvorsky, speaking on behalf of his parents who own a lot at 2015 P.C.H., addressed the
Commission and: ( 1) favored retaining the R-3 zoning. explaining that it would be consistent
with what is currently there; (2) stated that single-family, R-2, is not appropriate on the
highway, especially since single-family homes many times have children, and the highway is
not a safe environment for children; (3) asked for clarification on the staff report in regard to
staffs recommendation for this particular area, to which Mr. Schubach explained the
recommendation; (4) asked that the area remain R-3.
Scott Sergeant, 2008 Rhodes Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he supports
the petition which he signed, explaining that residential would be more appropriate than
commercial in this particular area; (2) asked for clarification on what a commercial specific
area is; (3) stated that he would rather have R-3, with a 35-foot height limit than commercial,
with a 45-foot height limit; (4) stated, however, that he might support commercial at 30 feet,
rather than residential at 35 feet; (5) said that there is not enough information available for
residents to make an informed decision; (6) said that he supports R-3, with a height limitation
of35 feet.
Patty Egerer, 925 15th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) said she owns a lot at the
northeastern corner of 17th Street and P.C.H.; (2) said that the lot was purchased specifically
for commercial development as was the adjacent lot; (3) favored retaining P.C.H. as a
commercial corridor; (4) did not feel that the incline has any bearing on whether or not the
area is suitable for commercial use.
Dorothy Zammit, 1918 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission and: (1) said she has
lived there since 1976; (2) stated that she is very happy living there; (3) stated that the issue at
19 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
hand is actually that of "the almighty buck"; (4) felt that some people favor commercial zoning
so that they can make more money on their property; (5) stated she is not interested in making
more money from her property, she is interested only in living there; (6) stated that her
neighbors are also happy living there and they do not want commercial; (7) strongly favored
the retention of residential zoning.
Juanita Swing, 1206 Green Lane, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that she owns property at 2006 P.C.H.; (2) stated that she favors R-3 rather than R-2; and; (3)
objected to commercial.
Jim Fucile, 1226 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
he owns property at the corner of 21st Street and P.C.H.; (2) asked a number of questions of staff
related to why the Lucky Market property was left out of this zone change request; (3) noted
concern over a specific plan area, and he discussed potential problems which can arise; (4)
asked questions of staff on why a specific plan area is being recommended; (5) noted concern
that many people are not aware of what the requirements are; (6) asked whether there are other
available alternatives; (7) asked whether what is being proposed is proportional to current
property values; (8) questioned whether a specific plan area is in effect a downzoniii.g of
property; (9) stated that he would prefer to have a straightforward designation; (10) asked
questions of the city attorney related to staffs recommendation; (11) stated that the zoning
code should clearly state what is permitted.
Marianne Caines, 817 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that many
residents on the highway have made their feelings known for years that they prefer to have it
remain residential; (2) felt that the east side of the highway between 17th Street and 21st Street
is not appropriate for commercial development; (3) said that the quality of life for residents is
more important than additional commercial development; (4) noted that the property in
question is view property; (5) stated that the property at 17th Street which was purchased
specifically for commercial development could have some special consideration.
Mary Hanson, 841 19th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions about the
parking requirements for the proposed specific plan area; (2) favored the controls which are
being proposed; (3) discussed specific properties as depicted on the map; (4) noted that the area
has a very dense population, and new developments will very heavily impact the area; (5) noted
concern over height and density; (6) noted concern over views and preservation of the
community; (7) stated that the issue of slopes must be addressed; (8) stated that just one
commer cial development with inadequate parking can very heavily imp act the r esidential
areas; (9 ) stated that each individual piece of property and each d evelopme n t should be
addressed, and strong controls must be imposed in order to reduce the impacts; (10) strongly
favored controlling what can be developed within the specific plan area requirements.
Public Hearing closed at 10:44 P.M. by Chmn Ingell.
Comm. Peirce noted that, if so desired by the Commission, the general plan could be changed
rather than the zoning.
Mr. Lee explained that it would then be appropriate to not take any action at all, and make an
alternative recommendation to the City Council.
Comm. Moore asked whether it would be appropriate to go forward with all of the proposed
zone changes, with the exception of the certain limited area on the east side of the highway
between 18th and 21st Street.
Mr. Lee replied in the affinnative.
Comm. Peirce felt that the staff work was very good on the proposed phased standards,
especially on the south side. His only concern related to whether it should be commercial or
residential from 18th Street to 21st Street.
20 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Comm. Ketz questioned the block between 17th and 18th Streets, noting that it is already zoned
C-3, and there is already some commercial development there. She noted that the blocks from
18th Street to 21st Street are zoned R-3. She therefore favored residential zoning on the east
side of the highway between 18th and 21st Streets.
Chmn. Ingell noted that he initially opposed any residential along the highway; however, after
much research he has determined that residential uses along the highway can be appropriate.
He noted that many people have testified that they like living along the highway. He favored
staffs recommendation and the two-tiered approach, and he stated that he could support
residential along the east side of the highway from 18th to 21st Street.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the staff-recommended zone
changes, Resolution P.C. 90-21, with the exception of that portion on the east side of Pacific
Coast Highway between 18th Street and 21st Street.
Comm. Moore stated that this action will not solve the existing inconsistences between the
general plan and wning, and that issue must be addressed in the future.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7fB) 'IO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE--FAMIL Y DWELLING OF GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT
INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 576 21ST S'IREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1990. Staff recommended approval of this
request.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density
residential. The lot size is 5500 square feet. The existing use is as a single-family dwelling.
Existing building area is 1354 square feet, and the proposed addition is 1333 square feet.
The proposed project is essentially the same project for which a variance was requested in
August of 1988. This variance was denied by the Planning Commission and by the City Council
on appeal.
The project involves only a small remodel to the first floor and the addition of a second story
of about the same size as the first floor.
The house is currently nonconforming because the west sideyard is three feet, eight inches,
rather than the minimum five feet, and the garage is set back from the front property line 16
feet, rather than the required 1 7 feet.
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b), to
allow an addition to this nonconforming structure which is greater than 50% of existing
replacement value. Staff has calculated that the proposal involves an addition/ remodel equal
to 96% of the replacement value.
Also, the applicant is requesting an exception, pursuant to Section-7(C)3. to expand the
existing wall with the nonconforming sideyard for the addition because 75% of the structures
on the block do have a nonconforming sideyard.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. In this case,
21 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
staff believes this finding can be made because this would allow a sound structure to be
maintained, and the current nonconformities that would be perpetuated are not significant or
exceptional, especially given that the majority of structures on the block have similar
nonconformities.
Comm. Moore noted that this is the type of request that in the past would have been routinely
approved by the now-defunct Board of Zoning Adjustments. He asked for clarification on why
these issues are now coming before the Commission.
Mr. Schubach explained that in the past, the appropriate findings could not be made to approve
variances of this type; therefore, an exception section was added to the ordinance.
Hearing opened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Richard Gallagher, 576 21st Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated this
project has been ongoing for several years; (2) stated that in 1985 he requested, and obtained
approval for, a variance to extend a nonconforming wall in the master bedroom; (3) noted that
he requested that same approval again later to add another bedroom to accommodate his
growing family, but was denied approval; (4) said he has gone through an appeal process and
has now submitted revised plans~ (5) noted that all of his neighbors support the proposed plan;
(6) said that he has worked closely with staff on the project, and staff now recommends
approval of the request.
Mr. Gallagher, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that this set of plans is
essentially the same as the plan submitted two years ago, with the exception of the stairwell,
which was slightly modified.
Hearing closed at 10:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Ketz stated that the voted to approve the variance the last time this project was before
the Commission; therefore, she would support approval of this request.
Comm. Peirce stated that he voted against the variance, and he will vote against this request,
explaining that he feels the project could be designed in a different fashion. He also noted that
he did not support the text amendment.
Comm. Moore stated that this is a minor request, and in the past such requests were routinely
approved. He felt that this is a legitimate attempt to expand a home.
Comm. Peirce stated that there must be consistencies; however, he did not feel there are any
special circumstances in this particular project.
Mr. Gallagher noted that no one appeared to oppose this project; in fact, his neighbors have
expressed support for the project. He felt that the new exceptions to the ordinance are very
applicable to this type of project.
Comm. Ketz stated that no request is being made for a variance. She felt that this request falls
within the exceptions of the ordinance.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-25, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Cbmn. Ingell
Comm. Peirce
None
Comm.Rue
22 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
SIGN WAIVER TO ALLOW A CHURCH DIRECTORY SIGN IN THE OPEN SPACE ZONE AT
GREENWOOD PARK
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
proposed sign request.
The applicant is proposing a monument sign constructed of redwood panels on wooden poles.
It would consist of approximately seven 8" by 48" panels. The total height would be
approximately eight feet. It is proposed to be located in Greenwood Park, set back
approximately seven feet from the edge of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way.
The open space zone allows ground or monument signs, subject to approval by the Planning
Commission. If approved by the Planning Commission, the City Council would also have to
approve the sign, as it is located on City property.
Staff believes that this type of community directory would be appropriate for the proposed
location.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that sign will contain only
the names of the churches in the City. There will be no addresses or phone numbers on the
sign. He said that it will be a monument-type sign and will have the listing on each side. The
sign will be approximately eight feet.
Comm. Peirce felt that the sign is too large; that it will be of little use since there will be no
addresses or phone numbers; that the proposed location is inappropriate and might cause a
distraction to passersby; and that the open space should be open space, with no signs; and a
park should be maintained as a park.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the sign would not be appropriate in the park.
Comm. Moore noted that there is very little open space in the City, and that what there is
should be maintained.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to deny allowing the church directory in
the open space at Greenwood Park.
Chmn. Ingell felt that the proposed sign is rather large; however, there is currently a sign at the
park which was a boon to the City when it was installed. He felt that a smaller sign would be
unobtrusive in the park.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce
Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm.Rue
Comm. Peirce discussed an appropriate location for the sign, stating that the directory will
actually be used by out-of-towners; therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to place the sign at
the entrance to the City. He felt that unless the addresses are listed, the sign will not be very
useful.
PRIORITIZING PLANNJNG DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED AND UNSCHEDULED STUDIES
Mr. Schubach noted that the Commissioners had been provided with a list of priorities, dated
March 13, 1990. He asked that the Commissioners list their priorities, according to the
method explained in the report, and return their packages to him at the next meeting.
23 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
I
•
STAFF ITEMS
a) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for March 27. 1990. Cit;y
Council Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
b) List of Completed Projects for Inspection
Clunn. Ingell asked if plans for completed projects could be provided to the Commissioners so
that they can go out to inspect those which had been approved by the Commission.
Comm. Moore suggested that the Commissioners retain the plans in their own files, to which
Comm. Peirce replied that that would be a tremendous amount of paperwork. Comm. Ketz
suggested that the plans be borrowed from the Planning Department.
c) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
d) City Council Minutes of Februaiy 15 and 27. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Moore noted concern over the Communications section of the agenda, stating that
some people seem to use the time inappropriately.
Mr. Lee explained that, according to the Brown Act, a portion of the agenda must be given over
to comments from the public. He noted, however, that it is at the discretion of the Commission
where on the agenda that section should be placed.
Chmn. Ingell noted concern over the incident which occurred earlier in the meeting, wherein a
citizen began showing a videotape with no prior approval. He noted that it appears that the
citizen took the tape to the cable company, and the videotape was activated from the cable
company premises. He asked that staff study the issue of video transmission from City Hall.
He further noted that a policy on this issue is necessary.
Comm. Ketz requested a copy of the nonconforming ordinance, explaining that she had not
received one.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to adjourn at 11:31 P.M. No objections;
so ordered.
24 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
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 March 20, 1990.
1-/--3-C/{)
Date
25 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90