Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_07_03MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 3, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNC-a CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Cornms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell Cornms. Ketz, Peirce Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Comm. Moore pulled for discussion the minutes of June 19, 1990. Resolution P.C. 90-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22184 FOR A '!WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATTAN AVENUE (AKA 160 MANHATTAN AVENUE) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, TRACT 1123; Resolution P.C. 90-43, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE IAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PIAN AREA TO C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; PIANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON BILTMORE SITE; Resolution P.C. 90-49, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR A '!WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 626 7TH S1REET, LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOf 10, DR DOUGHER'IYS HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATE WITHOUT A CONDIDONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ENCOURAGING THE CI1Y COUNCIL TO ENDORSE THE REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM (RUDAT) PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. Comm. Moore noted a correction to the minutes of June 19, 1990, stating that Page 14, Paragraph 10, should read: "Comm. Moore explained that he did not second Comm. Peirce's motion for open space because .... " 1 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 Comm. Rue noted a correction to the minutes of June 19, 1990: Page 16, Paragraph 5, Amendment to the Motion, should contain a statement that the amendment also includes a height limit of 25 feet so that the view impact is kept to a minimum. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the consent calendar items with the June 19, 1990, minutes as amended. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Ketz, Peirce COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-10 -· CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22062 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1634 PROSPECT AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a four-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 12,390 square feet and consists of two existing legal lots. Ten parking spaces are provided. Total open space provided is 1864 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The subject property consists of two existing lots which contain 5950 square feet and 6440 square feet. The property is an irregular rectangle with about a ten percent slope upward from front to rear. The property abuts the Prospect Avenue right-of-way which is 80 feet wide. As such, the front property line is 20 feet from the edge of the street. The four proposed units are detached and are arranged with two on each side of a common driveway which straddles the existing common property line. Three different floor plans are proposed for the four units. Unit A contains 3377 square feet and includes five bedrooms, three and a half baths, and a family room. Unit B contains 2856 square feet and also includes four bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a family room. The third and fourth Units have floor plan "C" with one being the reverse of the other. These units contain 2614 square feet and include three bedrooms, two and a half baths, and a roof deck. The proposed building elevations exhibit an exterior plaster sand finish, clay mission tile roofmg. raised plaster trim around all windows and doors, metal railings and shutters. The overall style can be characterized as "Mediterranean." The plans indicate a front yard setback which ranges from 6.5 feet to 15 feet. Given that the property line is an additional 20 feet from the edge of the street, the setbacks certainly seem adequate. Several mature trees are located on the property, with the majority being eucalyptus trees located along the southerly property line adjacent to the water company property. The buildings are proposed to be set back eight feet from the southerly property. so the eucalyptus trees can be retained. According to the landscape plan, most of all the existing trees will be retained, including the eucalyptus along the south property line and. two mature pine trees in 2 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 J front along the street. These trees will be complemented by additional trees on the north and east property lines. Required parking is provided in four, two-car garages oriented to the common driveway. Two open guest spaces are also provided. No on-street parking will be lost. as the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway. Private open space is provided in each unit 1n private decks. Unit A provides 446 square feet on two second-story decks, and both units with floor plan "C" provide 408 square feet with roof decks and second-story decks. Unit B, however, has only 107 square feet as designed on the second floor, as one of the decks is enclosed on three sides and cannot be counted toward open space. Staff has included a condition that this problem be corrected with revised plans. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is a relatively low 48 percent. The height of the structures is less than 30 feet, and it appears that adequate storage space is provided, but plans will have to be revised to indicate the amount. Although the plans indicate a location for the trash dumpster along the north property line, it is adjacent to residential property. Staff, therefore, recommended a condition that the dumpster be moved to the other side of the lot adjacent to the water company property. The surrounding area consists of a mix of primarily single-family dwelJings with some duplexes nearby. Since this project consists of four detached units. with two on each existing lot, and has an effective density of 14 units per acre, it would not be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bill Cameron, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance. project designer, addressed the CommiSsion and: (1) discussed the trash enclosure. stating that a mistake was made which will be corrected; (2) said that he was unaware of the rule related to how much deck can be covered and said that that problem will also be corrected so that there is required open space; (3) stated that he has read all of the staff recommendations and conditions, and he agrees with the report; (4) in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that he would like to retain all of the eucalyptus trees, noting that the project was specifically designed with retention of the trees in mind: (5) explained that the project was designed with one center driveway so that there would be more space in the sideyards so that the trees could be retained; (6) described the driveway, stating that it will be stamped, colored concrete. Edie Weber, 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) read into the record a letter of opposition based on the facts that: (a) there will be four units in a predominantly R-1 area, however, if built, as many trees as possible should be retained; (b) Prospect Avenue is a very busy street. and this project will add to the already J:mpacted area; (c) the current historically-important farmhouse has been very pleasant for many years; (2) hoped that care and concern will be given to this property. Lowell Sterritt, 1619 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) objected to the fact that the owner and builder propose to use the highest point on the property as their starting point; (2) objected to the fact that two separate lots are being combined for this project: (3) said that this project will obstruct his view; (4) said that this project will create more congestion, especially since there has always been one home on thiS site, and now four units are being proposed, which would be a 75 percent density increase: (5) felt that this project will be incompatible with the area, since there are mostly single-family homes in this area; (6) discussed the way which height was measured for this project and stated that if the lots were not being combined, his view would not be blocked: (7) was informed by Mr. Schubach that it makes no difference in the height whether or not these lots are combined. 3 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Mr. Sterrttt. explained how the height is measured, noting that the averaging method is not used; the parallelogram method is used in this city. Mr. Sterrttt continued and discussed garages in the area, stating that most of the garages are at street level; however. this project proposes to have the garages in the central portion of the property, which would be inconsistent with other properties in the area. Barbara Fritz-Kruzek, 1516 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) concurred with the previous public comments; (2) noted concern over the current congestion on Prospect; (3) said that the voting populace of the City is very concerned with open space; (4) stated that a park or single-family dwelling would be more appropriate for the area; (5) noted concern over density, loss of trees, and traffic. Dave Ling, 1130 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that this is probably the most beautiful single-family lot in the City: (2) noted that many trees circle this lot: (3) said that this is the only green space on that hill; (4) felt that even if the home on the site has had a very historic past. its time has come, however, he hoped that the beauty of the land can be preseived; (5) hoped that the trees would be saved. Raymond Kruzek, 1516 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the height measurement method is confusing: (2) noted concern over other towering structures in the City; (3) noted concern over the statement that "most" of the trees will be retained; (4) was informed by Comm. Moore that larger plans are available for review by interested citizens. Dennis Cleland, 434 28th Street, Hermosa Beach. project builder, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that every intention was made to maintain the eucalyptus trees; (2) noted that this project has only 48 percent lot coverage; (3) said that larger side yard setbacks have been proposed in an attempt to maintain the trees: (4) explained that separate units are being proposed, rather than attached, in an effort to retain open space and trees. Marilyn Ling, 1130 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked about which trees will be retained, noting that the north side of the property abuts her property; (2) to which Mr. Cleland pointed out on the plans where the trees will be. Lowell Sterritt again addressed the Commission and: ( 1) addressed the historical importance of this property, stating that now is the time to take action before it is too late; (2) said that this is probably the oldest property in the entire South Bay; (3) felt that the City now has a chance to do something in the name of preseivation. Edie Weber again addressed the Commission and: ( 1) noted that she is a member of the Historical Society and understands the historical significance of the property; however, she noted that people do have property rights and can do with their property what they choose; (2) asked for clarification on the issue of the Joining of these two parcels. to which Mr. Schubach explained that the two parcels are being assembled, and once the map is filed with the County Recorder's Office, they will become one lot; however, there are two separate lots at this time; (3) asked whether the Commission could deny the combining of the lots, to which Mr. Lee explained what findings would need to be made to deny a subdivision parcel map. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Ms. Weber, stated that even if the two parcels were not merged, there could still be four units on the two parcels, noting that the zoning is R- 2B. Harold Anschel, 615 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, partner in the project, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that this project was discussed with the Planning Department before plans were drawn: (2) noted that the Planning Department favored the project as proposed, as opposed to two separate projects, which then would have had two driveway 4 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 approaches; (3) said that one project -provides more landscaping and open space as well as larger setbacks providing for the trees; (4) explained that the combining of the parcels makes no difference as far as what could be built; (5) stated that a condo association makes for easier maintenance of a project: (6) discussed traffic and stated that the one driveway with garages in the interior will be better than garages fronting on the street with cars parking in front: (7) said that the proposal also reduces the amount of concrete and increases the amount of landscaping; (8) discussed the area and said that there are eight duplexes very close to this project. even one right next door; (9) stated that people in this area had an opportunity several years ago to downzone to R-1; however, they strongly favored an R-2B zoning for thiS street; (10) in response to a question from Comm. Moore as to how this property was acquired, explained that this property was advertised for probate sale by a real estate agent. Public Hearing closed at 7:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue discussed the issue of historical sites and asked if staff had done any research into whether this property has any historic or architectural value. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative, explaining that the City is currently in the process of revising the general plan land use element, and one of the items to be studied will be identification of historical sites in the City. At this time, however, there are no zoning ordinance provisions related to historic sites. Comm. Rue was under the impression that it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to address hiStoric sites. He strongly felt that there are general plan provisions related to this issue. He asked whether there is any mechanism by which this building could be saved and/or moved if it 1S determined to have historic and/or architectural significance. Mr. Schubach, noting that he is very familiar with the general plan, stated that there is a possibility that staff has overlooked something related to historic sites. He suggested that, if so desired by the Commission, this matter be continued so that staff could further research the issue of historical buildings. He stated that if there are provisions, the question must be addressed of whether in fact there is enough significance to save this building. He noted that it is a long-term project to make such a determination, move the building, and find a site for the building to be placed. Comm. Rue felt that the proposed project is one of the least dense projects he bas seen. He felt that the designers have taken great pains to save and provide landscaping. He noted concern, however, over the issue of the possibly historic building currently there. He questioned whether the proposed project can continue, while at the same time steps are taken to study the historic/ architectural significance of the currently existing building on the site. If there is value, the City Council could be approached for funding to move the building. Comm. Moore doubted whether there is any actual historical value in this building. He felt that the issue has been raised as an attempt to keep things exactly as they are, not to preserve an important structure. He felt that there would not be much interest in taking this building apart board by board and moved. Comm. Rue felt that the question at least needs to be asked to determine whether there is in fact any historic/architectural value in this building. Comm. Moore felt that there may be mild curiosity in the structure: however, he noted that that same curiosity could be aroused by almost every building in town. He noted that just because someone raises the question of significance, it Is not necessary for the City, with its limited resources. to expend funds to have structures studied by experts. His common sense told him that this particular building is not worth saving. Comm. Rue wanted this project to move forward: however, if there is a groundswell of interest, people can appeal at the City Council level. He felt that this is a good project, and many 5 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/00 mitigation measures have been taken. He noted that since the property is zoned R-2B, four units can be built. Chmn. Ingell stated that this is one of the nicest projects he has seen in a long time, noting that it is not very dense, landscaping will be provided. and trees will be saved. He further noted that at the time of the downzoning hearings. people strongly objected to this area being downzoned from R-2 to R-1, and the area ultimately became R-2B. He felt that if the current structure did have historic value, the City probably would have received written communication from the Historical Society. However, approval of this project can be appealed to the City Council if there is a groundswell of support for preservation of the house. He noted that this project has low lot coverage, plenty of parking, beautiful units, and many trees. He personally did not feel that the current structure is worth saving. Comm. Moore noted that the only time people oppose projects is when they themselves are directly impacted. He stated that the majority of people in the City oppose downzoning. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-52, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Ketz, Peirce CON 90-11 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22256 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 610 11 TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 25, 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-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4266 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Total open space provided is 960 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The subject property Is rectangular in shape with a slight side-to-side slope. The two proposed units are similar in size and layout. Unit A contains 251 7 square feet and includes three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Unit B contains 2541 square feet and also includes three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, glass block around the circular stairWay feature, p ipe railing, and painted sheet metal for the roof deck stairway. The overall style can be characterized as "contemporary." The plans indicate a front yard setback of five feet, which would be the same as the adjacent project to the west, approved in 1988. Existing setbacks along the street range from five feet to thirteen feet: however. the majority are over ten feet and the average calculates t o be approximately 10.5 feet. Four newer condo projects on the street, approved in the years from 1984-1990, have been approved for setbacks of five and six feet. It should be noted that the old city zoning map identifies this street for a ten-foot setback. As such, the older units are set back a minimum of ten feet. It must be determined whether or not a five-foot setback is appropriate for this and potential future condo projects on this street. Staff felt a greater setback is justified because of the average on the street, even though this project is adjacent to a new structure with only a five- foot setback. When the project at 600 11th Street was approved, a greater setback probably should have been required at that time. Therefore, to be consistent with the majority of the 6 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 dwellings on the block. staff is recommending a condition that a ten-foot setback be required. This would establish an appropriate precedent for future projects, whether condos or duplexes. Required parking 1S provided in two. two-car garages oriented to the middle of the lot. One open guest space 1S provided at the end of the nine-foot drtveway. No on-street parking will be lost as the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway. A mature tree, not identified in the suivey or on the landscape plan, is located in the rear yard behind the existing house. It appears that it could be saved as it is located near the side property line. Therefore, staff Included a condition that the existing trees be identified on the landscape plan and that it either be preserved, relocated , or compensated for With the planting of a specimen-size tree, minimum 36-inch box. The project complies With all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 59 percent. Adequate open space is provided on second-floor and roof decks , and the height of the structures iS less than 30 feet. The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family structures. A new two-unit condo is located on the adjacent property to the west. Mr. Schubach, In response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that the tree in the rear has not been specifically identified: however, it is a mature specimen-sized tree. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant and owner, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets all of the City's development standards: (2) said that the parking will be contained within the project. and the lot coverage is under that allowed, noting that these are two separate buildings; (3) noted that the applicant concurs With all of the conditions, except the one pertaining to the front yard setback: (4) discussed the plans and stated that the owner discussed the project with staff: (5) stated that there is somewhat of a slope on this lot: (6) said that there was never any mention by staff of a ten-foot front setback requirement: (7) stated that the zoning map shows no inclusion of a ten-foot front setback requirement: (8) stated that the project can work with a ten-foot setback: however, they feel that the project will be much better With a five-foot setback. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) discussed the plans With the Commission: (2) discussed the front of the building at the easternmost part as depicted on the plans; (3) discussed the set backs as depicted on the plans, stating that the setback goes from five feet to seven and a half feet at the ground level where the building jogs in to the south; (4) explained that the project is actually set back eleven to t welve feet from the front of the project at the rounded section: (5) stated that other new construction on this street is set back only five or six feet. and those projects go straight up With no relief at the front facades: (6) said that this project provides a great deal of architectural relief; (7) displayed the front renderings for the project and discussed the decks, which she said provide a great deal of architectural relief. Ms. Srour went on and: ( 1) said that the plans show a ten-foot separation between the two buildings. however, the code allows only a six-foot separation at the second level; (2) felt that a ten-foot separation 1S much nicer for this project; (3) discussed the project next door and stated that the decks on that project will look into the interior portion of this lot; (4) felt that the ten- foot separation between Units A and B will provide more privacy for the owners of the units; (5) discussed the architectural features of the project: (6) said that other new construction on the street has been allowed to have five-or six-foot front setbacks and their building faces go straight up; (7) thiS project bas diminished the mass of the units and a great deal of care has been taken to break up the facade of the building; (8) stated that they can accept the IO-foot requirement: however, the project will be better with a five-foot setback. 7 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 Comm. Rue, commenting on the plans, noted that the northeast comer of the project, with its tower, appears to go just straight up and down with no architectural relief. He continued by discussing the bedroom windows on the interior, stating that if the units are moved together, there iS more to be gained on the street setbacks than for the buildings. Ms. Srour stated that it is more desirable that the bedroom windows be separated ten feet rather than six feet. She agreed that the windows are more for light and air than they are for viewing purposes. However, because of natural living occurrences, a larger separation is more desirable. Ms. Srour, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that if the project is required to have a setback larger then five feet, none of the architectural features would be lost. and the project would be substantially the same as it Is before the Commission at this time. She stated that they are willing to accept the setback condition so that it iS not necessacy to again appear before the Commission. Patrick Sanderson, 416 30th Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the project iS being built for him and his sister, and they will each live in one of the units: (2) said that this project has been designed so that it will be a nice place to live: (3) stated that moving the buildings closer together iS not major, however. it is more convenient to have the buildings ten feet apart: (4) noted that the garages are also in this interior portion, and it will be easier to maneuver cars in and out if there ts ten feet: (5) said that the setbacks as proposed meet City codes, and the facade of the building has been treated so that the project does not look like a big box: (6) asked for approval of the project as submitted, with the smaller setback. Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.m. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue discussed past actions taken in regard to setbacks, noting that new projects sometimes did not conform to older projects. He stated that the City is now making an attempt to respect neighborhood continuity. Comm. Moore favored a way to encourage the best designs possible. He stated that this project is very large, and this iS a small lot. He liked the look of this project. however. and hoped that a compromise could be reached. He noted that the northeast comer is a straight vertical wall. and he could therefore favor a setback of seven and a half feet. He noted that the units are already veiy close together. Comm. Moore stated that he could support approval of the project with a seven and a half foot front setback based on the unique stepped back architectural design at the front of the building. Comm. Moore commented on the requirement that the existing tree will be replaced with a mature specimen size tree. He noted that the applicant has proposed cocos plumosa (queen palm). He stated that he knows, from personal experience. that that type of tree if watered and fertilized properly grows veiy rapidly. He therefore felt it would be acce_ptable to require a 24- inch box cocos plumosa, rather than a 36-inch variety. Chmn. Ingell stated that he could support a compromise of a seven and a half foot front setback. He noted that he has no objection to the smaller size tree. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-51, with the following modifications: Condition No. 2 shall be modified to read: "A minimum front yard setback of seven and a half feet shall be provided, based upon the stepped back architectural treatment.": Condition No. 5(a) shall be modified to require a minimum 24-inch box cocos plumosa tree, as depicted on the proposed plans. Comm. Rue wanted to encourage stepped back front facades. 8 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Cornms. Ketz, Peirce VAR 90-4/NR 90-5 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW ADDITION TO EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITH SUBSTANDARD PARKING STALL SIZE AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 27, 1990. Two requests were made in this application: ( 1) variance to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming dwelling With a substandard size parking stall, nine inches deficient in depth; and, (2) an exception pursuant to Section 13-7(c)(3) to allow the continuation of an existing nonconforming sideyard. Staff recommended approval of the variance request by adopting the proposed resolution; however, staff recommended denial of the request for continuation of the nonconforming side yard. This project's lot size is 9270 square feet, with an existing building size of 1916 square feet. The proposed addition is 996 square feet, for a 49 percent Increase in valuation. There are two parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a second-story addition to the existing one-story, single-family dwelling, which would increase the floor area of the house from 1916 square feet to a t otal of 2912 square feet. The building is nonconforming to current zoning for several reasons: (1) the garage iS set back 7 .1 feet rather than the required 17 feet for garages, and rather than the minimum 10 feet for any structure; (2) the side yard setback on the south side is 3.21 feet. rather than the required 4.5 feet; and (3) the existing garage contains one substandard parking stall which measures 17 feet, three Inches deep rather than the minimum 18 feet allowed for existing garages. Article 13 of the zoning ordinance explicitly allows for additions to existing nonconforming buildings which are nonconforming to yard requirements, subject to certain limitations. Also, through approval of the Planning Commission, specific exceptions are allowed for extending nonconforming sideyards. However, in regard to a situation where only one adequately sized parking stall exists, the zoning ordinance allows only a maximum 250 square-foot addition. Therefore, a variance is necessary to resolve the third nonconformity. Section 13-7(c)(3) allows for the continuation of nonconforming sideyards if 75 percent of the same block, as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or a smaller nonconforming sideyard. A block consists of all lots on the same side of the street between intersecting streets. Staff has field checked and measured side yard setbacks on the subject block which consists of 15 lots on the west side of the street to determine if 75 percent of the block has such nonconforming sideyards. Only seven of the 14 other lots, however, have a side yard of less then four feet. To meet the criteria of Section 13-7(c)(3). at least 11 of the lots would have to have sideyards of 3.21 feet or less. Therefore, staff is certain that this criteria cannot be met. Staff agreed with the applicant that the nine-inch deficiency in stall depth is rather insignificant and that most vehicles would still easily fit inside the garage. Although this does not necessarily justify a variance, staff believed that appropriate findings could be made because of the limitations of working within the existing structure. 9 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 Mr. Schubach explained that staff and the applicant have differing interpretations on the code section relating to nonconf onn:tng sideyards. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission, this hearing could be continued and brought back for an interpretation. Comm. Moore asked to what degree the Commission is bound by the particular wording of the requirement. He stated that the Commission can make specific findings for specific cases. He noted that his initial reaction to this request was that it was a very reasonable request, one which would not damage the City, and he asked how the Commission would be restricted in its power to grant a variance in this case. Mr. Lee stated that this is a request for an exception under the nonconforming provisions of the municipal code. He continued by explaining that the Commission is limited in its ability to grant further encroachments into the standards set up within a zone: however. the granting of a variance differs from that of an exception. Comm. Moore noted that this issue was not noticed as a variance request. He asked for clarification on the difference between variances and exceptions. Mr. Lee explained that even if there are existing encroachments, the Commission cannot allow further encroachments into sideyard setbacks under the nonconforming section of the municipal code. If the Commission desires to consider a variance to allow such an encroachment, the four findings would need to made. Also, the matter would need to be renoticed as a variance request for the sideyard. Recess taken from 8:22 P.M. from 8:28 P.M. (Recess was requested by Comm. Rue so that he could review the code.) Public Hearing opened at 8:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) gave to each Commissioner a copy of a handout he prepared; (2) passed out three photos depicting the garage and street, showing that tltis street does not have a parking problem: (3) discussed the exception and stated that he took photos of most of the sideyards on the street; (4) said that ten of the houses are on 50-foot lots, and five houses are on 45-foot lots: (5) said he was originally told he needed only to obtain approval of the exception and that they would be dealing only with the block from 18th Street to Valley School; (6) said he felt comfortable with that requirement, because it would have been the required 80 percent necessary for approval. Mr. Kersulis continued and: (1) discussed the footprint of the existing property and passed out photos of other properties which he feels are also nonconforming; (2) in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that he measured the sideyard of Lot 35 to be two fee t , nine inches: (3) said that the north sideyard of Lot 34 is two feet, five inches, however, it is now only about a foot and a half because of new construction of a brick wall next door: (4) said that measurements were taken from the sides of the houses to the existing fences; (5) stated that no formal survey points were used: (6) said that when the entire neighborhood was built in 1948. every house had a nonconforming sideyard, by today's standards of a ten foot setback requirement. Mr. Kersulis continued and: (1) said that Lot 32 on the north side has a three foot, six inch sideyard: (2) said that it is impossible to tell what the setback is on Lot 30, however, it also appears to be nonconforming; (3) said that every house on the block is consistently wrong with regard to setbacks. Comm. Moore asked why this request is not being heard as a variance request. Miriam Mulder, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that after discussing this project with the planning department, she was told that it would be appropriate P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 to request an exception rather than a variance; (2) explained that she was informed that in order to achieve a continuation of a wall that is nonconforming and yet iS over the three feet. one asks for the exception rather than a variance: (3) said that she was also told that the exception was the simpler method by which to proceed than the requesting of a variance because the fees are lower and no public hearing would be necessary; (4) said that she was encouraged by the planning staff to go for the exception. which was what they needed to achieve to build straight up as opposed to setting the second story in for the 19-foot section of the building. Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant would be willing to have a survey done in order to prove his point about the sizes of the five setbacks in question. He stated that. as he reads the code, those five setbacks need to be less than what this applicant is proposing to maintain and expand upon. Mr. Lee said that the code section refers to "75 percent of the block as defined by the wning ordinance." He said that the section which defines ''block" is very specific, and he read the code section definition of "block." From his reading of the section, he felt that the block is from street to street on the side of the street which the property faces. Comm. Rue asked whether it would also take into account the back of the block, to which Mr. Schubach replied that that would be the strict defmition if one read the dictionary definition of the word. Mr. Kersulis went on and: ( I) said that his interpretation of the section is that if at least 75 percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance has the same nonconforming sideyards, or has the same or smaller of either/or, (2) said that 75 percent of the houses between 20th street and the school, from a visual examination, appear to have nonconforming sideyards. Comm. Rue asked whether the sideyards are nonconforming, or whether they are smaller than what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Kersulis felt that the sideyards fall within the same nonconforming sideyard which he has. Comm. Rue stated, then, that the sizes would need to be proven before the exception can be approved, and he did not feel that such proof has been submitted. Mr. Kersulis stated that some of the photos do specify the measurements, noting that they are less than what ls required by the zoning code. Chmn. Ingell pointed out, however, that the Commissions' interpretation differs in that the question is whether the inches are smaller than the applicant's, not whether the percentage of the block is nonconforming. Mr. Kersulis pointed out that a survey would be very expensive. Comm. Moore felt that a variance could be granted in this case. He could not understand why the architect was advised to apply for the exception in this case. Mr. Schubach explained that in the past many similar variance requests were denied because the appropriate findings could not be made; therefore, the City Council recommended a code provision allowing exceptions in such cases. Comm. Moore stated that he could make the appropriate findings in this case, noting that there is three feet which would allow emergency vehicle access. 11 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 Mr. Lee stated that the Commission needs to focus on the physical characteristics of the lot which would allow for an encroachment at the second-story level , based upon the standard side yard area. irrespective of the existing nonconforming status of the ground floor. He stated that it is necessary to deten:nine whether the nonconformity should be allowed at the second story. He said that if findings can be made for the second story to encroach into the sideyard setback. it would be necessary to focus on whether the configuration of the lot warrants such a nonconformity. He stated that it is necessary to focus on the physical characteristics of the property in regard to variances. He cautioned the Commission against confusing a variance with an exception. Mr. Kersulis went on and: ( 1) said that the rules are meant to be taken in a certain spirit, and the spirit that this falls within does not change the feel of the neighborhood or affect anyone: (2) noted that he is asking for only 22 square feet, a very small portion of the property. Ms. Mulder again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she was not given the definition of "block" as read by Mr. Lee: (2) said. that they based their interpretation upon what was on the rest of the block, noting that they are all different widths: (3) noted that it is not clear whether the requirements refer to percentages or measurements. Public Hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Moore felt that the code interpretation is fairly straightforward. in that the issue has to do with distance, not percentage of distance. He said that sideyard requirements are not for parking: rather they are for air circulation and emergency access. Comm. Rue stated that this building is on a large lot, with only about 22 percent lot coverage. He felt that it ls preferable to maintain this building rather than to have something much larger go in there and thereby reduce the large percentage of open space. He felt that so long as public safety is upheld, approval should be granted. He suggested that action first be taken on the garage issue. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation approving the variance request for the garage. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as second, and accepted by Comm. Moore as maker, to add wording to Resolution P.C. 90-53, Item B (second Item B). stating that there is an existing 22 percent lot coverage with a great deal of open space, and it is desired by the Commission to maintain the building size and the existing footprint. Mr. Schubach suggested that that be an additional condition in the resolution. Comm. Rue further pointed out that the resolution has two Item "B''s, and that should be corrected by staff. Comm. Moore felt that financial impact should be considered versus the City gain. He noted that this is a functioning garage, and there is no sensible reason to force this applicant to jog the entire wall in nine inches so that it conforms. He therefore stated that he could support the sideyard variance also. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Ketz, Peirce Comm. Rue felt that if there is a chance for the sideyard to be approved as a variance request, it is necessary to rehear that matter as a variance. 12 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 / Mr. Lee stated that the sideyard issue has been noticed as an exception. If the Commission desires to hear it as a variance, he suggested that discussion be withheld at this time and that the matter be renoticed as a variance hearing. Comm. Rue asked whether it is appropriate to waive the variance application filing fee. Mr. Schubach stated that he would need to check on whether the fee could be waived. He noted, however, that the applicant would still need to pay the noticing fee. Comm. Moore asked, if both items had been requested as a variances originally, whether it would have been just one variance fee, to which Mr. Schubach stated that it probably would have just been one fee. Mr. Kersulis addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that his neighbors have no objection, so noticing is probably not necessary, to which Chmn. Ing ell replied that noticing is a legal requirement; (2) explained that he was encouraged to apply for an exception. Mr. Lee suggested that the matter be continued so that both staff and the applicant can further study the applicable code sections. Mr. Schubach stated that if the matter is continued, staff can return with an interpretation on this matter. Mr. Kersulis said that he has no objection to continuing this matter for two weeks. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue the encroachment issue to the meeting of July 17, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Ketz, Peirce THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Schubach stated that the third quarter general plan amendments for 1990 will be coming up in August . Staff has tentatively scheduled the housing element and the remaining inconsistent areas east of Valley Drive for consideration. If the Planning Commission has any further areas or issues that it desires to be considered for amendment, staff should be directed as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently working on the housing element as well as the land use element. Comm. Rue asked whether the Commissioners would receive any advance materials to study before the hearing, to which Mr. Schubach stated that materials will be provided next week. Hearing opened and closed by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. 13 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 STAFF ITEMS a) Request to PlannJnf CommJssioners' Inquiries Comm. Rue discussed the parking at 2nd Street and The Strand. He asked whether the Public Works Department will be doing a warrant check on the signal at 2nd Street, to which Mr. Schubach stated that such a recommendation needs to be sent to the City Council. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to recommend that a warrant check be done at 2nd Street so that slower traffic is encouraged in that area. No objections: so ordered. b) Memorandum Repntluf City-Wide CUrb-Side RecycJlof No action taken. c) Correspondence from Sandra Aden Refardlnf Two-Unit Condominium at 126 Manhattan Avenue No action taken. d) Plannlof Department Activity Report for May 1990 No action taken. e) City Council/Plannlnf Commission Workshop Chmn. Ingell noted that the workshop will be August 8, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. Comm. Moore asked whether attendance is mandatory at the workshop meeting, explaining that he will be unable to attend, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the workshop is not the same as a Planning Commission meeting, and attendance is therefore not counted toward the yearly absence total. He noted, however that staff would need to confirm this fact. f) Memorandum Regard.int Plannfna Commission Liaison for July 10, 1990. City Council Meetinf No action taken. g) Tentative Future Plannin4 Commission Afenda No action taken. h) City Council Minutes of March 5. June 7, and June 12. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue asked what the City has been doing to encourage water conseivatlon, to which Mr. Schubach stated he would look into that issue. Comm. Rue asked what has happened to the City's newsletter, to which Mr. Schubach explained that another issue will be coming out soon. Comm. Rue stated that the newsletter would be a good mechanism by which to promote water conservation and recycling programs throughout the City. He suggested that staff mention that those items be placed in the newsletter. along with the information that a State mandate will soon be in place regarding water conservation. 14 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90 Comm. Moore noted concern over absences, explaining that he is aware of three future meetings which he will be unable to attend because of business conflicts. With bis one absence so far this year, the three additional absences which he can foresee could be enough to oust him from the Commission, which he would hate to have happen. He noted that he will be absent on August 7, September 18, and October 16. Chmn. Ingell noted that the four absences per year rule was imposed because of an isolated case of a commissioner frequently being absent. He noted that Comm. Moore has done an outstanding job on the Commission, and he therefore suggested that a letter be sent to the City Council asking that Connn. Moore's absences be excused. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9: 12 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 3, 1990. Date 15 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90