HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-04-20MINUTES OF THE PlANNING COMMISSION OF HER.1.-...0SA BFACH HELD ON APRIL 20, 1 982 ,
IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Kr 7 : 30 P. M.
Meeting called to order at 7 :42 P .M. by Coom. Peirce
ROIL CAIL
PRESENT: Conms. Cumnings, Donnelly , Loosli, Peirce, Smith
ABSENI' : Conms . Rue , Chrrn. Izant
AI.SO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director
Conm. Peirce acte d as Chairman for the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUrES
M:>tion by Cornn. Loosli, seconded by Clmn. Peirce, to approve the April 7,
1982 , minutes as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENI':
Comns . Cunmi.ngs , Loos li , Chm . Pe irce
None
Comns. Donnelly, Smith
Conms . Rue, Chrm . Izant
RAILROAD RIGHI'-OF-WAY
Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Conmission took an
action on the railroad right-of-way to continue mtil further notice had
been made and until a Preliminary Impact Report could be developed .
At the tine that action was taken, the public hearing was not closed.
She stated that the public hearing technically needs to be closed. A
public hearing would be rescheduled and notices would be mailed to the
property owners 'Wb.o are -within 100 feet of the railroad right-of-way
city -wide. She requested the Comnission to close the public hearing
at this tine.
Chrm . Peirce announced that the City ·will notify everyone within 100
feet of the railroad right-of-way property and the omers of the property .
He added that the previous noticing was only a quarter-page ad and was
not sufficient for a change of this magnitude . He state d that the publ ic
hearing will be opened and closed, renoticed, and heard a t a future date.
Public Hea ring opened and closed at 7 :58 P .M .
Conm. Loos li asked if the noticing i s to r e zone the railroad right-of""way
to open space .
Ms. Sape tto replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Sapetto stated that there will be a quarter-page ad in the newspape r
a s well as mailed notices to property owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Apri l 20 , 1982 Page 2
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET
Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the req uest i s to c hange
the zone from R-3 t o C-3 withi n the multi -use corridor . Currently on
the lot is a s ingl e family residence bound on the west, north , and s outh
for residential us a g e, a nd i t is bound on the east by commercia l us a g e.
Although this property i s z oned R-3, it does have a C-potential de s i gna t i on
on the lot which me ans t h a t t he Planning Commission may c onsid er t o rezone
this property t o commercial. She stated that the rezoning of t hi s property,
with res pect t o t he de f i ni tion of the multi-use corri dor and the Ge ne r a l Pl an,
refer to t hat area being used f or primarily commercial and a l s o a pa r t me nt
and multi -family us a g e . The e xp~nsion and convers i on of this pr ope rty
to commercial woul d be c on s i s tent with the genera l plan Land Us e Element
as well as pri or polic y of t he Planning •Commi ssion . Staf f recommende d
grant i ng the zone chang e t o C-3.
Chmn . Peirce asked how f ar the eas t s i de of the property was f r om
the r ight-of-way . He a s k e d for the de pth of the commercial area at this
time and what the depth will become.
Chmn Peirce calculated that the east side of the property is 280 feet ,
Tbs i would increase the commercial depth of that area f r om 280 f e et to
320 fee t.
Comm. Cummings aske d what development standards would appl y to this
property i f it were approved .
Ms . Sapetto stated that the City Council , when t hey t ook an act i on on
the commercial development s tandards , moved to permanently a dopt the
C-1, C-2, and C-3 development standards that we r e recommended to them
by the Planning Commission .
Comm. Smi t h a s ke d if Vasek Polak 's developed pr operty c urre nt l y ex t e nds
beyond the R-3 , C-potential to the R-3 on the z oning map.
Chrnn . Peirce s t a t e d that there is a lot between Lot 99 a nd Va s e k Polak
wh i c h i s not C-3 . This particular lot is not contiguous t o the C~3
lot . That l ot i s currently zoned R-3.
Chmn . Peirce .s t a t e d tha t the lot in question is not zone d C-3 , b ut the
lot t o t h e e a s t i s z oned R-3.
Ms . Sapetto s t ated that the zoning map shows that the lot is z on ed
C-3 to the e a s t; Lot 98 i s zoned C-3. This change was enacted by the
Pl a nn ing Commission and City Council approximately 2 ye ars a go .
Publ i c Hearing o pen ed at 8 :01 P.M.
Jim Ni sbett, 705 Se cond Street, Hermosa Beach , read a statement to the
Commission from citi zens .who were not able to at tend the meeting . The
statement was in opposit i on to the proposed rezoni ng f or the following
\
PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 20 , 1982 Page 3
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 1u 710 SECOND STREET (Cont. )
reasons: 1) because Second Street already has a large volure of
traffic. This proposal will add to the problem. 2) the increased
traffic will make it nore dangerous for children. 3) at the present
tine, Vasek Polak uses Second Street to park repaired cars, and increased
business will only add to the increased use of Second Street .
4) neighbors will have to endure a greater volun:e of traffic and repair
noise. He stated that all four residences surrounding the business are
single -family dwellings with small children. He stressed that the
n:echanics illegally test drive the autonobiles down Second Street at
speeds of 150 m. p. h. He noted that granting the rezoning of this
property will represent a significant public safety hazard .
Ms. Sapetto presented slides of the property to the Comnission and
the audience. She stated that if the property were re zoned to
corI11Ercial, the com:rerci al depth would be 260 feet.
John Reeves, 715 Second Street, Hernnsa Beach, spoke in opposition
to extending the service bays onto Second Street. He stated that he
is on 24-hour call, and he has had at least 20 cars towed out of his
driveway and directly across from his driveway. He stated that one
of his grandchildren was alrrost hit by a car which was driven by one
of Vasek Polak ' s test driver s . He s t res sed that they speed down Second
Street leav:ing 50-foot skid marks at the bot tom of the street.
Sam Perody, 650 6th Street, Henrosa Beach, asked i f t he property ~st
of the business could request a zooe change if this property is rezoned
to comrercial.
Chrm. Pe i rce replied in the a f f irmative .
Ms . Sapetto stated that the zoning, if changed, nrust conform with the
Land Use Elen:ent of the general plan. She noted that the multi -use
corridor ends at this lot, so if a zone c'-iange were requested, the Land
Use Elerrent would still be residential. Therefore, a request would also
have to be made to change the Land Use Elemmt.
Mr. Perody noted concern for cO!llrercial coming down Second Street. He
noted that if it were all rezoned com:rercial, residents would not make
hone improvements if they knew their houses would be derrolished when
sold . He stated that he has owned his property for three years, and
the property is zoned R-2.
Alan Johnson, 717 Second Street, Hernnsa Beach, stated that at least
once a week sonEone blocks his driveway. He stated that the test drivers
errployed by Vasek Pol ak speed down Second Street late in the afternoon
and early in the evening .
PIANNING COMMISSION MINU'IES -April 20, 1982 Page 4
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FRCM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET (Cont.)
Lee Kline, 969 WColorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing the owner
of the property, stated that they are requesting to get a rezone to C-3
in accordance with the Master Plan . He stated that there is no specific
plan for the proper ty, because before making a s pecific plan, the owner
must know if the p r operty is R-3 or C-3.
Cornn. Loosli asked i f t his will be a project of Vasek Polak's .
Mr. Kl ine r eplied that he did not know.
Delma Peary, 720 8th Street , Herrrosa :Beach, a ske d if the wes t side of
Vasek Po lak is leased from the City of Hennosa Beach.
Cornn. Donnelly rep lied in the affirrmt i ve .
Mrs . Peary believed that that property should be turned over to the
bus inesses on the Highway . She noted that Mr. Polak has a way of
taking over parts of the Ci ty.
Jim Nisbett , 705 Second Street, Henms a Beach , stated that h e has been
inf orned by the s ales manager that the property in question is going t o
be a service bay .
Publi c Hearing closed a t 8:25 P .M.
Conm . Ctm:mi.ngs not e d that the Comnission i s trying to respond to an
e conomi.c need in the c0Illlll1ity to hel p increase revenues , and , r e alizing
that Vas ek Polak is a large source of revenue for the City, t he Conmission
will lend an ear t o his s ituation. However , he was distres sed to hear
t hat Mr . Polak is s uch a bad citiz en in the comnuni ty. He b elieved that
the proposal was consistent with the general plan and the goals that the
City has for expanding the cornrercial district. However, he requested
that a review be held in the near future on Vasek Po l ak 's conditional
use permit .
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Corrmi.ssion can request a s p e cific p lan in
or der t o allow the zone change or t he Conrni.ssion can rezone t he p roperty
connercia l, under s t anding the varie ty of t he COIIIrercial uses that are
allowed as C-3 . The cornrercial proj ect will t hen go bef ore t he Design
Review Conmi.ssion, which -would be the only review it would have . It
would not re quire a conditional use permi.t.
Conm. l.Dosli stated that he would like t o s e e a s pecific plan before
approving a zone change .
Chrm. Peirce s t ate d chat good planning requires cornrerci a l on both
sides of the street , and, in this c ase, the cornrercial is on the s outh
side of the street but not the north . He stated that he could not
vote for the zone change e ven if they were presented with a s p ecific
p l an .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 5
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET (Cont.)
Comn. Smith stated that the problem was that the cormercial area along
Pacific Coast Highway was so shallow. DevelopIIEilt does not necessarily
IIEan expanding the cormercial area, so much as upgrading the quality.
He did not want to see the replacerrent of R-1 dwellings with cormercial
use mless it improved the quality of the comrercial area on Pacific
Coast Highway . He believe d that Second Street was heavily overcongested
in i ts current use. He spoke against R-3 developrrent in that area m til
such tirre that inproveffi2Ilts have been made with the traffic circulation.
Comn. Cumnings stated that he believed there were sorre type of
conditional use permit control over the bus:iness that is adjacent to
the lot. Howe-ver, since there was no control, he did not believe that
the property should be rezoned to C-3.
Motion by Conm. Donnelly, seconded by Coom. Smith, to approve the zone
change request from R-3 to C-3 at 710 Second Street.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENI':
Corrrn. Donnelly
CoDIIIS. Cunmings, Loosli, Smith, Chrm. Peirce
CoIIID. Rue, Chrm. Izant
Comn. Cmmings stated that he voted against the notion because he did
not feel that the Planning Departrrent' s .Analysis included sane of the
problems with the next-door business that was brought out by public
testimmy at the public hearing.
Motion by Chrrn. Peirce to deny the zone change request at 710 Second
Street from R-3 to C-3. (No vote.)
Motion by Chrrn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Smith, to make a Resolution
to deny the zone change request from R-3 to C-3 at 710 Second Street
for the following reasons :_ the south side of cormercial already
extends beyond the north side of the street; this will increase traffic
on Second Street; the current zoning is consistent with the general
plan :in the TID.1lti-use corridor; the property is surrounded on three
sides by residential deve l opn:ent of R-1 character, and extending the
cOTIIIercial zone any further on that side would disrupt that pattern.
Ms . Sapetto suggested that one WHEREAS for denial could be that the
potential classification says that the area in question may be made
permissible by the adoption of a precise plan.
Chnn. Peirce stated that he would not like to include that because
he felt that the COimErcial area is up far enough on that side of
the street.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Conrns. Currnings, Loosli, Smith, Chrm. Peirce
COIIIIl. Donnelly
Conm. Rue , Chrm. Izant
,,,..
I
( v
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 6
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET {Cont.)
Chmn. ·rei~ce informed the applicant that he may appeal the Corrnnission's
decision to the City Council in writing within ten days.
A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE I CUP I AND TENTATIVE MAP 1132526 FOR SEVEN
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th STREET
Ms, Sapetto pre8ented slides to the Commission of the property in
question.
Ms, Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the applicant is
requesting to construct condominium units and convert four existi_ng
units, which are two duplexes built to condominium standards, to
form a seven-unit project. One of the two duplexes was an existing
signle faroily dwelling which underwent a major remodel to conform with
the condominium standards. She stated that the property consistated of
a portion (3800 sq. ft,) in the multi-use corridor and a portion
(13493 sq. ft.) in the low density corridor. Based on allowable
dwelling unit per acre designations, this would allow 3,49 units on
the multi-use portion and 4.02 on the low density portion. The total
allowable would be seven units. She stated that the applicant
requested an interpretation from the Commission on November 17, 1981,
The Commission approved a general plan interpretation for the site of
seven units. She stated that the existing zoning on the property does
not conform with the general plan. The property in the multi-use
corridor is zoned R-1, and the property within the low density is now
OED, formerly R-2. She stated that the Zoning Analysis had come up with the
following problems with the site plan: 1) some of the areas calculated in the
common recreation area have limited use as a common recreation area;
namely, the area north of Unit 3 and the areas adjacent to Units 1 and
2 on t he southeast and northeast corners and between the two units up
to the concrete walk and the jacuzzi area are those used in the calculation.
She noted that in the past the Planning Commission has interpreted
common recreation areas as those areas which can be ·used by all units
and are accessable to all units; 2) the allowable building height for
the new units at this point is dependent upon the zone change request,
and the Commission's discretion. At R-2 in the multi-use zone, the
allowable is 30 feet, and at R-2 in low density (R-2 OED), the .allowAble
is 25 feet. The existing units in the R-2 OED are 30 feet because they
were constructed prior to the overlay zone. She noted that the Commission
had the option to zone R-2 and R-2 OED for the new units or 30 feet to
25 feet.· The applicant proposed an average 28 foot or worst case 29-foot
structure; 3) the allowable sideyatd setbacks are to be calculated at
10% of the lot width. For Lot 1, this would mean 8 feet on each side.
For Lots 1 and 2, this would be 15.6 feet on each side, She noted that
the applicant proposed 5 feet; 4) the recreation vehicle requirement
states resulting fractions are rounded up. She noted that it has not
been the policy of the Commission in the past to round up. If such a
policy were to be pursued, the requirement would be 1 recreation vehicle
FIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 7
A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR SEVEN
00Nro1INIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th STREET (Cont.)
for each six units; 5) the guest parking space depth does not appear
to be adequate according to the location of the garage on the existing
plan; 6) the applicant has submitted revised plans showing trash.
facilities and adequate storage space; 7) an additional problematic aspect of the
plan is access from the garage to Units 1 and 2. There are no stairs
or sidewalk provided for access from the garage to the units. It
appears that the resident will have to go onto the street and over to
Unit 7 in order to gain access to his unit. This creates a 'worst tiase "
distance of 177 feet from the garage to the unit. She noted that the
ordinance requires no more than 150 feet; 8) the location of the
entrance to the garage of the new units is near a blind comer. She
stated that parking is now allowed on the street and parked cars pose
a potential hazard. She noted that the Staff Review Comni.ttee recomn::mded
to rennve this hazard by eliminating on-street parking beginning on the
northerly curb adjacent to Lot 2 and proceeding beyond the driveway
approach on the easterly curb adjacent to Lot 'l to the comer. She
stated that alterations to the existing plan can be ma.de in order to
satisfy the City requirerrents . However, in order for the Comni.ssion
to make a determination of confonnance, the Corrmi..ssion should review a
revised set of plans before approving such a project. She gave the
Comni.ssion two options, narrely, to deny the plan on the basis of
non-conformance to the code and in corrpliance with the State required
tirrE limits for processing applications or to allow the applicant to
return with revised plans for Conmi.ssion consideration under the condition
that he waive the tine limi.ts. Staff recorrrrended 14 conditions i f the
Comni.ssion should approve the project .
Omn. Peirce asked if the project must have a zone change before
considering a conditional use pennit.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative .
Chnn. Peirce stated that the maps do not show the setback for the
existing units on the east side of the property . He noted that the
staff analysis does not show that one of the units is a rerrodel of a
house and not a new project.
Ms . Sapetto explained that, according t o the Building Depart:nent, a
major rerrodel is one wni.ch the major portion o f the building is
rebui l t, and it is considered a new dwelling.
Comn. Loosli stated that i t was his unders tanding that in an R-1
zone only one dwelling unit can b e built.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative.
Conm. l.Dosli noted that the applicant was proposing three dwelling
units.
Chrm . Peirce asked if the entire property was in the R-1 area.
PLANNING CCl,lMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 8
A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE , CUP , AND TENTATIVE MAP if 32526 FOR SEVEN
C0NDO1INIUM UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREET (Cont .)
Ms. Sapetto replied in t.~e negative.
Chim. Peirce stated that the upper part is R-2, but it has an over lay
on it, making the property l(JI;.., density.
t[s. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
CoIIlll. Currmings stated that he had requested a map of conclusions that
were reached by the multi-use subcorrmittee. The subcorrmittee felt that
certain sections of the multi-use corridor had been found to be
inappropri ate for inclusion in the multi-use corridor. This requested
ma.p was t o show an altered nn.ilt i-use corridor eliminating those areas
which the subcorrmittee found t o be unsuitable for inclusion. He asked
if the area in question was one of those areas ,;:vhich wc,uld be rnsuitable
for the rrrulti-use corridor.
Chrm. Peirce replied that this area is rnsuitable for the multi-use
corridor, the rationale being that the street is very steep, and it is
fully built out to residential on both sides of the street.
Chnn. Peirce stated that he would hold two public hearings, the first
one being on the zone change only.
Cornn. Loosli noted that Section 550 stated that only two dwelling
rnits per lot are allowed in the overlay zone provided that they are
designed for families as a duplex or condominium.
Ms. Sapetto e:xplained that there is a conflict in the Code. The conflict
was that the Conmission, in the past, had interpreted subdivisions an
the allQ\ivable dwelling units per acre. Hmvever, duplex developrrent
has been confined to two on any lot. She noted that the existing
structures, in this case , are two duplexes on two lots .
Comn. Donnelly stated that since the conditional use pennit is tied to
the zone change, they cannot be separated in consideration. }fe stated
that the zone change is only mitigated by its use.
Ch.m. Peirce announced that he would hear both requests at once if the
applicant would agree that the zone change is to be used only in
accordance with the project as presented on the conditional use pennit
and Tentative Tract Map. Therefore, this p roject is the only project
that could be built on the property at 845-923 17th Street. If the
project were not built, the property would revert to the previous zone.
Public Hearing opened at 9: 11 P .M.
Kathy .Anderson, 1117 5th Street, Suite E, tranhattan Beach, representing
the applicant, submitted photographs of the existing structures. She
stated that the property consists of four lots, two of them being zoned
R-2 and consisting of two duplexes. The other t"wo lots are R-1 , and
she requested that those lots be zoned R-2. She stated that in
PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 9
A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHA.~GE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP if 32526 FOR SEVEN
CONDOMINru'! UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREET (Cont.)
Noven-ber 1981, the Comni.ssion approved the determination of the
general plan , and her client was inforrred that seven units would
be penni tted on the four lots in question. She stated t.~at it had
been determined by staff at that tirre that they did have adequate
square footage for comn:m recreational space. She stated that the
question is if it is developed in a usable manner. She stated that
they would agree to provide additional recreational facilities
between Units 1 and 2 on t.11e proposed plan. She proposed putting in
a barbeque set up and picnic benches between those two m.its . As
far as the problem with access, she proposed stairs at the exit of
the garages. She stated, with regard to the sideyard setbacks of
the existing units , they are four feet . She added t~at Bill Grove of
the Building Departrrent felt that they should consider the sideyard
setbacks of the proposed struc tures to be in the R-3 z one with a
max:i..."1..lffi of five feet . The reason they allow that maximum is because
of combined lots . She stated that they could go with the eigi."'1t-foot
setback ; however, it would require a variance.
Chun . Peirce asked why the app lica11.t did not start with the proper
setback on the east side .
Ms . .Anderson stated that the Building Depart:Irent did not inform her
client that he needed to have that setb ack. 'Ihey infonred him that
i t could be four feet. She stated that her client was not trying to
build the four mits as an apartnEnt to convert in the future. She
noted that it was a situation forced on him due to a m:,ratoriur:n.
:t-'IS. Andersen stated that the original working drawings for the two
duplexes s haw a p lanter which caused the two guest parking spaces t o
be short. That planter was n ot ccnstructed , and the parking spaces
are 19 feet. In regards to the height, they have proposed a maximum
of 28 to 29 feet. However, they are Im.lch lower than that an the
westerly sides. She stated that it would not be possible to go to
25 feet. She a dded that she agreed with staff that they should not be
required to provide recreational vehicle space. In regard to trash
storage, revised plans showed t.hat trash storage for the t.11ree mi.ts
would be separate from the four units. Storage for t.he t11ree units
would be within the gar age .
Chnn . Peirce asked if the trash storage would take the place of one
of the existing unit's laundry.
Ms. Andersm r eplied t.11at all of the units do have laundry facilities.
Ms. Anderson stated that t.1-iey are removing two curb cuts from the
street and rep l acing it with only one curb cut.
Conm. Smith asked Ms. Anderson if she would be wi l ling to waive the
60 -day requireirent and return to t~e Corrmi.ssion with a specific plan.
Pl.ANNING CG1MISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 10
A REQJEST FOR ZONE CHA1TGE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOH. SEVEN
CONDCMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17t.t1 S'IREET (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson wished to reserve a willingpess to make that waiver. She
did not want to concede to a continuance only to COIIE back to receive
a denial.
Torn O'Brien, 912 18th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that his property
is directly to the rear of both projects . He asked what the setback
requirerents were for a duplex verses a condominium.
Ms. Sapetto rep lied that the condominiums rrust have a minimum setbac.1<.
of five feet, and the duplex requires 10%.
Mr. O'Brien noted t11at his objection was that this project was
inconpatible with the single fami ly area . He stated t.l-iat there will
be a safety problem witi."1. fire equiprent if it is necessary to go up
the street. F.e stated that he was inforrred by persons tearing out sane
trees that four condominiums were going to be built on t.11e site. He
IIEntioned that he was also approached by Mr. Jarvis, the applicant, to
sell his property. Mr. Jarvis identified himself as the owner of four
condominiums and that he needed to buy adjacent property. He believed
that the project was desigp.ed as a condominium from day one. He felt
that there was a deliberate intention to get around the law.
Rober t Curry, 1509 Monterey Boulevard, Henms a Beach, stated that he
was in opposition to the proposed project.
Mary Maychoffee, 850 18th Street, Herroosa Beach, asked why a condominium.
can have a five-foot minimum frontyard setback when she, living in a
single family dwelling, has a 20-foot setback.
Crum. Peirce stated that the setbacks are dete rmined by the zone.
Ms. J:.1aychoffee asked if a ccndi.tional use pennit is granted only when
you have a specific plan.
Chnn. Peirce rep lied :in the affinnative.
'Ms . t1aychoffee felt that l1s . Anderson did not present a specific plan .
Joseph Egerer, 833 17th Street, Hernnsa Beach, s tated that the condominiums
are very attractive and enhance the area; however, t..1-ie area does not lend
itself to any rrore than two units. H.e stated that he had a lot 100 feet
west of the property :in question, and :in 1978 he care before the Com:nission
to h ave it r ezoned to !t-2. That request was denied, and he felt that
t1i.e Conmission should deny t'lis proj ect.
Kathleen Berlin, 1030 8th Place, Henrosa Beach , stated that she owned
the property located at 1010 17th Street. Sb...e noted that parking
should not be a llowed on both sides of the street. She did not believe
that the rerrodled structure should be considered a new structure.
PIANNING COM1ISSION 11INTJI'ES -P..pril 20, 1982 Page 11
A REQUEST FOR ZONE CIW1GE , CUP , A..~ TENTATIVE MAP 1fo32526 FOR SEVEN
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREEI' (Cont .)
Paul Bame, 922 17th Street, Herrmsa Beac.,, stated that he was
concerned about the traffic hazards that will appear by increas ing
the density. He did not think that the developer should be entitled
to any rore than a private individual.
Kathy Anderson, representing the applicant, stated that the easterly-roost
lot is 50 feet, and the westerly-roost lot is 30 feet. She stated that
her client had two lots, and he carre forward to find out what steps
were necessary to corrply with the law. He was infonred that he should
pull his permit and start construction. They (the Coamission) also told
him that he must purchase additional proper ty for reasons of density.
She stated that if the Corrmission does not approve their re quest , they
will h ave seven rental units as opposed to seven ownership units . She
added that if the Conmission does decide that the zone change ±s
appropriate, but the specific plan is in question, she was in favor
of a tine waiver and a continuance.
Bill Grey, 1115 17th Street, Herrrosa Beach, questioned whether the
rem:del was major. He stated that the utilities were never shut off
at the site.
Brish Rightaway, 920 17th Street, stated that she was opposed to
rezoning the property to R-2.
Blair Smith, 316 25th Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that he could
see no reason for the Conmission to grant the zone change.
Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hennosa Beach, urged the
Conmisssion to deny the plan because it was nonconfornring.
Kathleen Berlin, 1030 8th Place, P..ermosa Beach, asked how many
garages exist at this t:irre in the two R-2 dwellings.
Ms. Sapetto replied that there are eight enclosed parking spaces.
Ms . Berlin asked if 16 garages would be required for the seven
condornini 1.JIT1S .
Jv'..s. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, adding that tw:, enclosed
parking spaces are required per unit plus an additional one guest
parking space per three units.
Public Hearing closed at 10 :21 P .M.
Ch.'111. Peirce stated that in Novenilier of 1981, the City said that seven
condorrdniums could be constructed on the property. He stated that if
the deve loper rreets all of the s tandards imposed by the City's Condominium
(
PIANNING C01'1MISSION MINUTES -April 20, 19_82 Page 12
A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE , CUP , AND 'l'fil;'TATIVE MAP f/3 2526 FOR SEVEN
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th STREITT (Cont .)
Ordinance, the developIIEilt of condominiums becones a rig..1-it. However ,
if they do not meet even one of those standards, it becoITEs a privilege.
Chmn. Peirce stated that he found five negative aspects to the
project, narre 1 y, recreation space , height , setbacks , access , and
parking.
Comn. Loosli stated that the applicant felt as thoug;i the City should
be guided by the general plan; however, the City voted on a referendum
that wherever there is a conflict between zoning and the general plan,
the designation that carried the lowest density W"Ould prevail. In t..li.is
case, the general plan should be changed to confonn with the lower
zoning.
Corrm. Donnelly stated that the basic guiding docUITEnt is the general
plan. He felt that the applicant should use the general plan. He
suggested voting for the zone change but denying the specific plan
because of the nonconfonnity to the code and ordinances.
Comn. Loosli noted that the Housing Elerrent called for tl1e preservation
of rental housing wh.erever possible.
Corrm. Donnelly stated that condominiums and duplexes may have the sane
density. He noted that the type of ownership does not determine density.
Chrrn . Pe irce stated that , in general, a c ondominium represents a higher
standard of l iving than a dup lex. The higher standard of living jncluded
insulation, setbacks, roore parking and recreation space, etc.
Ms. Sapetto stated tl1at the difference between the condominium ordinance
and a duplex developm:mt is the type of arrenities that are required for
a condominium, that is, corrrron recreation space, sideyards, parking,
guest parking, storage requ:lremmts, and trash enclosure spaces. She
noted that condominiums that are built in a comoon wall situation that
are linked as in a townhouse fashion, then there is a higher standard
of interior building standards. There is a higher grade of insulation,
and plumbing facilities cannot be on a cormon wall.
Conrn. Curmrings noted concern for the setbacks.
Conm. Smith stated that he found no evidence that would allow him to
vote for a zone change which would entail changing the predominance
of R-1 zoning throughout the area as it e xtends north and south between
Prospect and the narrow comrercial zone on Pacific Coast Hig..h.way. He
felt that the specific plan offered no improverrent to the area.
PJ4NN]NG COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 13
A REQUEST FCR ZONE CHANGE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP /132526 FOR SEVEN
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th S'JREET (Cont.)
Motion by Cornn. Donnelly, s econded by Cornn. Loosli, to deny t he zone
xihange request and specific plan for 845-923 17th Street .
Cornn. Donnelly stated t."1at a vote to disapprove the substandard
condominium should b e taken into light of the many votes of Herrrosa
Beach to approve substandard conversions. He stated that the City
had approved subs tandard condominiums that have nothing to do with
the exterior of the building. He stated that the one thing the
applicant cannot change in this particular c ase is the 12 inches of
the · sideyard setback. Se reconmmded that the applicant pursue this
with the City Corneil.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Corrms . Cunmi.ngs , Loos li, Smith, Chon . Peirce
Cornn. Donne lly
Corrrn. Rue , Chrrn. Izant
Motion by Chnn. Peirce , seconded by Corrm. Ctmnings, t o make a Re solution
with the following WHERFASs: WHEREAS, the setbacks, as presented by
the spe cifi c proj ect, do not ueet the code either on the west or east
side of the project ; tJHEREAS, the project does not IIEet code on the
easterly four units which are at 30 feet as opposed to 25 feet; WHEREAS,
the westerly tnits (Units 1, 2 and 3) are above the 25 -foot height
limit; WHEREAS, the proj ect does not ueet the recre ational vehicle
requirerrents which is one for each 10 unit s with the zoning ordinance
calling for rounding up; WHEREAS , the pres ent plan has access from one
of the units in excess of the 150 feet in the ordinance; 'WHEREAS, the
present p l an does not have enough cormon recreation space; WHEREAS,
this proje ct is in a predominately R-1 area; i~-IERFAS, the project does
nothing t o mitigate the current traffic circulation safety problems on
that stree t; WHEREAS, the developer could have asked a serie s of
ques tions that w:mld have led t o a nore adequate preconclusion as to
what he could build on the lot; WHEREAS, the greater portion of the
parcel is in low density , and the general plan should be changed to
conform with the zoning becaus e o f the intent of Propos ition EE.
AYES:
IDES :
ABSENT:
Conms. Cumnings, Loosli, Smith, Chnn. Peirce
Corrm. Donnelly
Comn. Rue, Chnn. Izant
Chnn. Peirce infonred the applicant t h at she has 10 days to appeal in
writing to the City Council.
STAFF R...li1'CRTS
Ms. Sapetto stated that t."1e City Council took an action to adopt t.11e
C-1, C-2 , & C-3 DevelopIIEnt Standards permanently. Because of the
expiration of the temporary standards , the City Council had to adopt an
interim ordinance for four rronths and then adopt the permanent ordinance .
She noted that the Planning Corrmission should continue with the multi-use
corridor.
PIANNING CQ1MISSION MINUI'ES -April 20, 1982 Page 14
STAFF REPCRTS (Cont. )
Ms. Sapetto stated t."1at the Planning Comnission was given findings for
denial of the Boatyard site.
Ms. Sapetto stated that she would like the Planning Conrnission to go
over their :J?riority List at the next rreeting.
COJ.vMISSIONERS' IT.EMS
Corrm. Loosli stated that the Planning Comnission had previously requested
that the Biltrrore site, the Priaroos property, and the Thompson property
be put in the Plarmed DevelopTIE11.t zone.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Land Use Plan dealt with the Biltrrore site.
}'JS. Sapetto stated that the Chamber of Comrerce is in the process of
developing a cormri.ttee to work with the subconmittee for the multi-use
corridor.
Coran. Smith stated that he had requested a detennination of whether or
not the Charrber of Cor!Irerce would adequately represent the businesspersons
on and off the Highway.
Delma Peary, 720 8th Street, Eenoosa Beach, stated that t..he businesses
along the Highway have room for parking behind their businesses.
Conm. Cunrni..ngs reiterated his request for staff to corrpose a log sheet
of public hearings and another log sheet for exhibits submitted to the
Planning Conmission..
Comn. Loosli asked if Henoosa Beach had any control over SCAG' s actions.
He stated that Herrrosa Beach should oppose rurendrrents to weaken the
Clean Air Act.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the City pays a fee to belong to SCAG.
Motion to adjourn at 11:18 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete
record of the action taken by the Planning Conmi.ssion at their regular
IIEeting of April 20, 1982.
~ i nl~ EDWARD LCOSLI, SECRETARY
DA'IE