HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-09-21(
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CCMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEA.CH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21,
1982, IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7: 30 P .M.
Meeting called to order at 7: 34 P .M. by Chnn. Izant
ROIL C'.ALL
PRESENT: Conms. Peirce , Shapiro, Smith, Chan. Izant
ABSENr : Conrn. I.Dos 1i
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Casteneda, T0C Planning;
Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide; Dana Stoike, Planning Intern
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Conm. Smith suggested that Conm. Shapiro be presented with a copy of the
downtown parking study in response to his request concerning the p arking
situation in the area of 10th Street and Henrosa Avenue. (Page 5, Septerrber 7,
1982 minutes.)
Chmn. Izant concurred with Corrm. Smith I s suggestion.
Motion by Cornn. Smith, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve the September 7,
1982 minutes. No objections. So ordered.
Chnn. Izant infonred the audience that Item 117, Ccmsideration of Irql lementing
a Coornercial Planned DevelopIIE.I1.t zone on the PriamJs Property, the Thorrpson
Property and the Biltrrore Site, had been withdrawn from the agenda due to
:inproper noticing. He stated that it would be renoticed for a later date.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1208 arid 2110 MONTEREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309 , 2 UNIT CONVERSION
1'1s. Sapetto introduced Dana Stoik.e to the Comni.ssion.
Ms. Stoik.e gave staff report. She stated that the analysis included the zoning
analysis and an issue that pertains to the condorninitm1 conversion as part of
that housing elerrent. She noted that the analysis described the project as
exceeding the general plan density requirements, the general plan allowing
13 du/ac, and the proj ect being 32. 99 du/ac. The project exceeded the ma.x:i.Im.nn
allowable lot coverage by 1 percent, Code allowing 64 percent , and the project
being 65 percent. The height of the front unit exceeded the ma.ximJrn height of
the zone by 1. 5 feet, ma.x:i.Im.nn allowable being 30 feet. The parking was
sufficient. There was not sufficient recreation space in either unit. Code
requires that there be 150 sq. ft. usable open space per unit with a mininrum
of seven (7) feet in any one spot. The front unit had only 114 sq. ft; the
rear uiit had 373 sq. ft. of open space, but 310 sq. ft. of the space is
covered by a patio. The Code only allows that 50 percent of the open space
be c.overed. She stated that the front setbacks are adequate; h~ver, the
side setbacks are under allowable by 1/2 foot. The rear setbacks on the
ground floor and the second floor are both below the minimum. The rn:inimJm
unit size for both wits is below the minimum required by Code . The front
PLANNlliG CCMMISSION MINlJI'ES -Septerrber 21, 1982 Page 2
1208 and 2110 MONTEREY 'BLVD. ...: PARCEL MAP 15309 , ·z UNIT COOVERSICN (Cont.)
unit is 1466 sq. ft. , 1600 sq. ft. are required. Eight huidred and ten
square feet are provided in the rear unit, and 900 sq. ft. are required.
Conm.. Peirce stated that the floor space is over allowable, not the lot
coverage. He noted that the floor area is 86, as opposed to 85.
Ms. Stoike stated that the applicant contends that this project should be
considered regardless of the general plan because of a section in the
governIIElt code v.hich stipulates that condominilDil conversions do not have
to ~et the condominium conversion requiretrnnts unless there are definite
objectives and policies directed at the conversion of existing buildings
into condominiums. Staff concluded that there are certain objectives
and policies stated in the Housing Element directed toward condominium
conversions; therefore, staff maintained that the applicant's contention
is not correct because there are policies and objectives directed toward
condominium conversions. She noted that even if the position is taken
that the general plan does not apply to this project, the city still has
the right to review all the projects to detennine if they are consistent
with the zoning code.
Canm. Shapiro asked whether it was the turret in the front of the house which
made the height over allowable.
Ms. Stoike replied that the entire roof was over allowable.
Cc:mn. Smith stated that it was the rear unit that was in excess of the height
requirerrent as noted on the staff report and suggested resolution.
Ms. Stoike replied that the staff report was in error, and it was the height
of the front unit that was in excess of the allowable.
Ccxmi. Shapiro asked whether the rear unit was the only unit in violation of the
proper setbacks.
Ms. Stoike replied that the rear setbacks were deficient.
Conm. Shapiro asked if the duplex, men constructed, net all of the requirements
of a duplex on that lot.
Ms. Stoike replied that it mist have rr:et the requirements at the ti.Ire it was
constructed.
Conm. Peirce asked if it needed a variance because the back unit is
nonconfonning.
Ms . Stoike rep lied that she was not certain if it required a variance.
U Comn. Shapiro asked if the front house was a re.rrodel or new construction .
Ms. Stoike replied that it was existing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 3
1208 and 2110 MONTEREY 'BLVD. ~ PARCEL MAP 15309 , ·2 UNIT COl'.\1\TERSION (Cont.)
Chnn. Izant stated that lhit A was constructed on 11/79 and conpleted on
10/81; lhit B was constructed as a duplex on 4/15/22, and converted to a
single farrd.ly dwelling and rerrodel on 1/1/79.
Public Hearing opened at 7 :55 P .M.
Steve Kaplan, 1413 Sepulveda Boulevard , Manhattan Beach, stated that he and
Mr. Bill Ross repres ent the owner for this project. He stated that the
project was ~ritorious, even though there was a negative staff report
submitted. He stated that the project consisted of a quality building and
would add a great deal to the connrunity. He stated that his argurrent is
three-fold, those argurrents pertaining to the subdivision map, the condominium
conversion ordinclnce, and the reasons why the city should grant this project.
He stated that the letter of August 30 to the Planning and Environrrental
Services section of the city stated that the Subdivision Map Act deliniates
within it findings that a city must make before they can approve a condominium
conversion being a subdivision. In 1978, a section was brought into the
Subdivis ion Map Act that s aid that those provisions did not apply unless
the city had passed specific language in its general plan that spoke to the
condominium conversions and mandated that conversions ~et present day standards
that would apply to new construction. If it did not have that exact language,
a subdivision to an existing dwelling could not be denied as long as it met
other applicable ordinances within the city. He stated that it was his
position that the Housing Elenent as referenced in the September 9, 1982
letter from the c ity is not the sufficient general plan criteria that the
state law was spe aking to. He noted that on the second page, second p aragraph ,
Ms. Sapetto state d that "even if the Hous ing Ele.IIEnt is suspect. . . 11 He did
not believe it was an integrated part of the general plan. If it is not,
he stated that they would take the positim that Section 66427.2 of the
Subdivision Map Act would apply, and they would take the benefit of that
section. He be lieved it should b e judged solely on the merits of the city's
condominium conversion ordinance.
Collin. Peirce asked Mr. Kaplan if he were maintaining that the Housing Elenent
was not part of the general plan.
Mr. Kaplan replied that if one were to read the general plan in sun, it
would not be apparent that there was l anguage ill it in terms of density
that would alert a prospective property owner that i f he chose to subdivide
his air space, he would have to reet present day density standards.
Comn. Peirce again questioned whether Hr. Kaplan were maintaining that the
Housing Element is not part of the general plan.
Mr. Kaplan replied in the negative. He stated that if one read the general
plan, one i;..ould not see the appropriate language in the general plan. He
stated that he was not aware where the Housing Elenent was in tenns of the
general plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 4
1208 and 2110 MONTEREY ·m.vn. -PARCEL MAP 15309, '2 "UNIT CONVERSION (C',ont. )
Conm. Snith asked the applicant if his argunent was that in reading the
general plan including the Hous:ing Elerrent, it does not address specifically
the issue of density to the extent that it warns a buyer sufficiently.
Mr. Kaplan replied that the above was a fair representation of his position.
He noted that Section 9.5-2 of the C',ondominiurn Ordinance gives the Planning
Comnission and the City Council the power to deviate if there are unusual
cirCU1I1Stances regarding the development, location, size, or configuration
of the property. He believed that section of the Condominit.m Ordinance
would enable the Commission to make the appropriate findings.
Conm. Smith asked the applicant if he believed the project were :in
substantial corrpliance.
Mr. Kaplan replied that there are a nurrber of defects, but they are all
relatively minor.
Conm. Smith asked mat unusual circunstances would c.arry weight with this
particular project.
Mr. Kaplan asked how the project could be deficient. He asked why that
project was allowed to be built in the first place. If it did not rreet
the R-2 standards when it was built, why is it now being called upon.
He believed that it were an unusual circunstance that the building was
allowed to be built in an R-2 zone, and now it is being called nonconforming.
Conm. Shapiro asked if there was a variance granted for the project.
Mr. Kaplan replied in the negative.
Mr. Kaplan continued, stating that the density was high, although it was
his position that by changing the legal nature of the property in the
condominium, the intent of the general plan is not being impacted to any
great extent other than providing a more permanent form o f ownership , as
opposed to a transient rental situation. With regard to the excess of height,
he believed the deviation was not that extrerre. He stated that the architect
failed t o indicate storage space in the p lans ; ho~ver, storage space will
be built to Code. ~ asked how the setbacks could be divergent to Code
when appropriate permits had to be pulled to build the addition . He believed
that, with regard to unit size, people who want to live close to the beach
are willing to give up c.ertain things. He stressed that the building is
extrerrely well-built, and it is aesthetically pleasing. He urged the
Comnission to consider the section of the ordinance which allows them to
deviate fran the strict specifics of the ordinance and approve the project.
Comn. Shapiro asked if most of the deviations were in the rear unit.
Mr. Kaplan replied in the affirmative.
PLANNIN3 COM1ISSIOO MINUI'ES -September 21, 1982 Page 5
1208 and 2110 MONTEREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309 , 2 UNIT CONVERSION (Cont. )
Ms. Sapetto stated that the standards for duplex developrrent are not as
strict as the standards for condominium developrrent . With respect to the
unit sizes, the unit sizes for condominiums require larger units than they
do for apartnEnt units or duplexe s. She stated that the above i s the
reason that the duplex was in confonnance with duplex standards, but was
not in confm:mance with condominiun s tandards . She infonred the CoIIIllission
that staff corrpared it to condominium. standards, and those standards were
the standards used in the .Analysis. She added that the setbacks are
con£onning on the new unit; they are nonconforming on the rear unit.
Conm. Peirce stated that the height, recreation space, and minim.lm unit
size were nonconfornrlng on the front unit.
Ms. Sapetto stated that last year the City Council made a ruling that
height was t o be calculated by the eristing grade, and the eristing grade
was to be determined by the grade that could be determined between eristing
street levels. Prior to that , the building height was calculated on the
existing grade at the tine of construction on that lot. She noted that
this is the reason the height was calculated at 31 feet on the duplex,
as opposed to 30 feet.
Comn. Shapiro asked for the nane of the owners.
Mr. Kaplan replied that the narre of his client is Mr. Ofeld.
Comm. Shapiro asked how the density was all~d i.mder R-2 standards.
Ms. Sapetto replied that duplex construction or apartlIEnt construction are
considered ministerial, neaning that they do not have to have a review to
detennine if they are in conformance with the general plan. She noted that
this is the one reason why zoning should b e in conformance 'With the general
plan. Duplex construction does not cone 1.nder a general plan review.
Jerry Newton, 2110 lDma, Hermosa Beach,stated that he owned the property
directly behind the proposed condominium. conversion. He stated that the
notice of the hearing that was on the second unit gave the date of
September 7. He noted that there are other residents an Loma Drive in
opposition to the proposed project who -were not aware this item was on the
agenda at this particular tine. He stated that the older unit has two
garage doors, but they have never been used as garages. One has been used
as storage. The. renters have never parked in the garages; they have parked
on the street. vhen they park on the street, he cla.irred he cannot get out
of his garage. If the second unit is converted to a condominium, it would
be inexcusable. He stated that, at this tine, he cannot park in his garage.
He added that he is opposed to lot spliting in this fashion and creating
additional units on loma Drive.
Leslie Newton, 2110 Loma, Hernosa Beach, stated that the damage had already
been done by allowing a second unit. She stated that if the staff report is
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 6
1208 and 2110 M:>NI'EREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309, 2 UNIT CONVERSICN (Cont.)
adopted, and the lot split is not granted, sone day the owner may abate
the second unit. She noted that she was in favor of strict enforcemmt
of the zoning law'S. She believed the conversion was rrerely for profit.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hernx>sa Beach, stated that there was no
reason to do away with apartrrents for the sake of condos. She stated that
if it cannot rreet the code, it should not be allowed.
Public Hearmg closed at 8: 24 P .M.
Conm. Peirce asked if the building permits were for a duplex or a single
family house.
Cornn. Smith stated that it was originally a duplex and converted later to
a single family house.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the only way to ascertain what had happened would
be to do a master file and a report on the history.
Motion by Crum. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Peirce, that the Planning Comnission
deny the plan and reconnend to the City Council that it not be approved
for the reasons stated on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report.
Chnn. Izant stated that the general plan is enforced. He stated that the
deficiencies may be smtll; however, when added together, the project does
not rreet the standards.
Corrm. Shapiro pointed out that the density problem is the sane as before;
the floor area is 1 percent over allowable; the lot coverage is 1 percent
over allowable; parking rreets the requirenents; the recreation space and
the minimum unit size is below allo-wable, but the buyer realizes that he
must make exceptims for living at the beach; the storage is going to m?et
Code; the setbacks an the £rant are sufficient; the setback en the rear unit
does not IIEet Code, but that unit has been there for a nunher of years. He
stated that he has seen the building, and he believed it was a trenendous
asset to the City of Herm:,sa Beach.
Coran. Peirce stated that the general plan was written under the precept that
there is a difference between a condominium and an apart:Irent. He stated that
this project has serious defects in several areas. He noted that the project
is above the density, and it is deficient in other areas. le stated that one
either believes a condon:dnium is a condominium, or me believes that a
condominium is an apart:Irent.
Cornn. &nith stated that the building is definitely a quality building; however;
he was not quite satisfied with the facts. He believed there ~re no·unusual
circumstances, and the building does not substantially conform to the
Condominium Ordinance as it currently stands. • •
Conm. S'iapiro asked if the City Attorney had given his opinion on this
matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 7
1208 and 2110 MONTEREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309, 2 UNIT CONVERSION (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto replied that she consulted with the City Attorney, and he agreed
with staff's interpretation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Corruns. Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant
Connn. Shapiro
Comm. Loos 1-i
Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution
P.C. 82-28 with the correction that the front unit is over the allowable
height, as opposed to the rear unit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant
Comm. Shapiro
Corrun. Loos l i
Chm. Izant announced that the Commission 1 s decision may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11 67 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DEC ID ING WHETHER
PARKING SPAC ES OR FE ES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN TH E VPD , DIST RICT #1 -CONTINU ED
FROM SE PTEMBER 7, 1982
Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that this is a continued item,
from September 7, 1982. At that time, the Commission considered certain
revisions and modifications to the ordinance. The Corrmission agreed that
it would be beneficial to have a joint meeting with members of the VPD
and the Chamber of Corrunerce to discuss the areas of common interest on
this particular matter. A meeting was held on September 17, at which time
Chmn. Izant, Comm. Smith, three members of the VPD, Mr. Fowler, and staff
attending the meeting. It appeared that there was basic support for the
procedure of an in-lieu fee; however, before it could become an effective
tool for the city in the downtown area, some guidelines for the downtown
area were needed. For this reason, the principal recommendation was to
establish a recommendation to be:·forwarded to the City Council suggesting
the establishment of an ad hoc advisory group on a volunteer basis to be
called the Land Use Development Committee to deal with the entire area of
development in the downtown area. They would establish guidelines for the
City Council with an 18-month period of existence. Coinciding with this
particular reconmendation would be to have a sunset clause provision for the
in-lieu fee not to last longer than the 18-month period and to establish the
in-lieu fee amount as $1,000 to $6,000. He believed there was unanimous
tonsensus on these points; however, be believed the Chamber had some concern
with the magnitude of the fee amount. In essence, the recommendation was
to recommend to the City Council the establishment of an ad hoc group to
examine land use in the downtown area and to approve the in-lieu fee
provision on an interim basis with some modifications.
Public Hearing opened and Closed at 8:43 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 8
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZON ING CODE: METHOD FO R DECIDING WH ETHER
PARKING SP ACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROV ID ED IN THE VPD, DISTRICT #1 -CONTINUED
FROM SE PTEMBER 7, 1982 (Cont.)
Chmn. Izant stated that the City Council had ashed the Planning Commission and
the VPD if there should be certain allowances made if there were mitigating
circumstances for a business to pay an in-lieu fee rather than to provide
the actual parking. He stated that the majority of the subcommittee members
agreed to a fee amount of $6,000; however, he stated that some believed that
was too high, and some believed that was too low. He asked the Commission
to consider whether this should apply to everyone and should it be a lesser
amount if there was a business that fell into a desirable category to encourage
more than others.
Chmn. Izant stated that he would like to knwo whether there was support
from the Commission as a whole for recommending to the City Council
a ad hoc advisory group, and, if so, what would be the composition of that
group. Secondly, he stated that the Commission should come to the consensus
on recommending an in-lieu fee to the City Council.
Comm. Peirce agreed that Chmn. Izant;s above suggestion to form an ad hoc
committee must be developed.
Comm Smith stated that the purpose of the in-lieu fee is to provide actual
parking. He concurred that an ad hoc committee should be formed, especially
to determine the direction of the downtown area.
Comm. Shapiro al,so concurred that an ad hoc committee should be formed.
Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Smith, that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that an Ad Hoc Advisory Group be formed
consisting of the following members; two (2) Planning Commission members;
two {2) members from the VPD; two (2) members from the Chamber of Commerce;
two (2) business or property owners, and; three (3) residents not in business
in Hermosa Beach. The purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee would be to suggest
a series of recommendations for the development of the downtown area. This
group should complete its guidelines and recommendations within an 18-month
period.
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Loosli
Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to have a sunset ordinance
and establish an in-lieu fee of $6,000. The sunset ordinance is to expire
18 months after its approval from the City Council. (MOTION WITHDRAWN)
Chmn. Izant asked if Comm. Peirce would accept an addition to the motion,
that being that there be a condition that no more than 50 percent of the
parking spaces are able to be purchased by the person asking for the in-lieu
fee. He stated that they have a theoretical available deficit of 100
parking spaces. Theoretically, two or three projects would come in and
PLANNING CCM1ISSION MlNUTES -Septen:ber 21, 1982 Page 9
AMENIMENT TO SECTION 116 7 OF THE ZONING aJDE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER
PARKING SPACES OR 'FEES 'SHAU. • m 'PROVIDED ·rn THE VPD' "DISTRICT 'ffl -aJNTINUED
FROM .SEPI'EMBER '7 ,· 1982 (Cont.)
each buy 33 spaces a piece . Therefore, no in-lieu fees could be gi. ven to
anyone else since they would be precluded to any further developmmt
downtown.
Cornn. Peirce rejected the above anE1dnent.
Cornn. ~th suggested that rather than do a formal resolution, the Ccmni.ssian
should make a notion that states that the Planning COtlllli.ssion feels that if
the City Council is interes ted in the ad hoc conmittee, a sunset ordinance
should be developed in the interim that parallels the corrmi..ttee.
Corrm. Peirce's concern was t hat this be accooplished in a ti.nely f ashion.
He stated that he could change the nntion to note that if an advisory
corrm:Lttee is fonred, the Planning Conmissicn r e conmmds that an ordinance
be passed that a $6,000 in-lieu fee be established for 18 rronths.
Comn. Shapiro state d that the Comni.ssion agrees that an advisory comnittee
urust be forried; hm;ever, the anount of the in-lieu fee is still under dispute.
Cl:um. I z ant s tated that the Planning Conmission should reconnend to the
City Council that, if it is concurred that an Ad Hoc Corrmi.ttee needs to
be established, a tenporary in-lieu fee structure should be set up at
$6,000, and a terrporary in-lieu fee ordinance should be set up which would
be draw:i up by the Coumission . Or, if the City Comcil does not accept the
need for a plan, a pennanent ordinance needs to be consi dered, and the
Planning Com:ni.ssion will resubmit answers to the four questions in the
form of a pennanent ordinance.
Motion by Comn. Peirce, seccnded by Chnn . Izant, that the Plarming Conmission
reca:immd that if an Ad lbc Ccmn:i.ttee is foitied, that a sunset ordinance be
established by the Planning Coomission in the am:mnt of $6,000 on an interim
basis to expire 18 tronths after approval from the Council, and if the Ad
I-be Comni.ttee is not formulated, the Planning Coamission reconmends a permanent
ordinance which will answer the four questions previously asked by the Council.
AYES:
NOES:
AB.SENT :
Comm. Peirce, 9ni.th, Chnn. Izant
CoIIIID.. Shapiro
Conrn.. Loos l i
Recess from 9:12 P.M. to 9:17 P.M.
SECOND 'LIMITS ON R..:l I.DTS FOR SENIORS OVER 6,700 SQUARE FEET, PJ...00 KNOvJN
AS ·"GRANNY F1ATS"
Mr. M:rcado gave staff report . He presented a map of all the lots that
were 6 700 or rrore square feet north of Pier Avenue and Aviaticn. He stated
that in Septenber of 1981, SB 1160 was passed into law, allowing for the
construction of a second unit on R-1 lots . He noted that the report is
PI.ANNlliG COMMISSION MJNurES -Septerrber 21, 1982 Page 10
SEOOND LIMITS ON R-1 LOTS FOR SENIORS OVER 6 ,700 SQUARE FEET , ALS'.) KNOWN
AS "GRANNY FLATS" (C,ont.)
being returned to the c.onmi.ssion with two major revisions, me being that
second units are being proposed for lots of at least 6,700 square feet and
that the ma:timum second unit size be 900 square_ feet. le stated that the
6, 700 square foot figure had been chosen because a lot of this size with
two units would equal 13 du/ac; the maxim.lIIl penrri.tted in the low density
catagory of the general plan. Of the 2,283 R-1 lots in the City, 110 of
them are at least 6,700 square feet. He stated that the City Council
was requesting that the Commission consider second units at a maximum square
footage of 900 square feet.
c.omm. ~th stated that, in effect, 75 'lIDits "WOuld be affected.
Public Hearing opened at 9 :23 P .M.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Henrosa Peach, stated that the county
notified her that her lot is 5,000 sq. ft. , which the city claims is only
one lot; the county says it is two lots, and by the ruling of the county it
is two lots; therefore, she clained she was entitled to have two units
on her 5,000 sq. ft. The county said that this information was given to
Mr. Alton :in February and was held up by Mr. Widman because he did not want
it made known just before the election. The infonnation is that the canbining
of these lots was not done legally by notification and other ramifications
of which can be supplied by Mr. Alton; therefore, the combined lots that
the C.onmission is now speaking of are not ccmbined lots. She stated that
roost of that area was divided in 25 x 100 lots. She noted that she had two
lots, 50 at 25 x 100. According to Mr. Alton I s staterrent, she does have
two lots; therefore, the City cannot call her lot a canbined lot. She stated
that the ~' s Club has three lots , one of which is at the comer of
Prospect and Aviation and is 25 x 100. She stated that the County was upset
that they would have to refund a great deal of tax mmey to the WJrren' s Club
who had been paying on three lots, and that the City had never notified them
of any changes of lots . She stated that the county will have to pay her
a great deal of mmey for the years that the City said it was a combined lot.
She stated that she knows of a man who has 7 ,500 sq. ft. , and he is entitled
to have three uni ts, because he has three lots .
Public Hearing closed at 9:32 P.M.
C.Omn. Peirce stated that increasing the square footage of the lots does not
alter his position that an R-1 area is an R-1 area. He stated that there
is a very large potential for bootlegs, and it will destroy the character
of sOIIE of the R-1 areas. He did not believe that this type of plan justified
the change.
Conm. Shapiro stated that he was not satisfied with the plans for senior
citizens. He stated that he would agree with staff's second alternative,
that the floor space be 640 sq. ft. to conform with the state's requirerr.ents.
le added that this would have the least impact.
PLANNING CCMMISSION :MINUTES -Septen:ber 21, 1982 Page 11
SECOND LIMITS ON R-1 IDTS FOR 'SENIORS OVER 6, 700 SQUARE FEET, ALSO KNO~
AS "GRANNY 'FLATS" (Cont.)
Cl:mn. Izant agreed that the irrpact would be minimal , but he believed that
the concept of R-1 zoning IIEaning single family housing is rrost irrq:lDrtant.
Motion by Chnn. Izant, seconded by Coran. Snith, that the Planning Cormrission
recorrrrend to the City Council to deny the proposal for second units in R-1
lots for the following reasons: to build a second tnit in an R-1 zone,
regardless of its intended use, would contradict the basic premise for
R-1 zoning; there is no way to enforce a senior citizen ordinance by a deed
restriction or any other m:ans, and; that the recomrendation of 900 sq. ft.
violates the recomrended state law of 640 sq. ft.
Conm. Shapiro stated that he would support the rotion; however, he wished
to add that the Conmission would support a lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. in
the R-1 zone.
Chrm. Izant did not accept the above arnendnent.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENI':
ComIB. Peirce, S:nith, Chrm. Izant
None
Conm. ~apiro
Comn. Loosli
.c.oom. Ehapiro stated that he abstained from vote because he did not see
enough detail of what is being proposed for senior citizens.
Motion by Chnn. Izant, seconded by Conm. anith, to accept Resolution P.C.
82-29 as written by staff wi.th the following addition: ''WHEREAS, the
Planning Canmi.ssion has concluded that there is no way to enforce the
ordinance through deed restrictions or by any other rreans, and"
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comns. Peirce, Smith, Chim. Izant
None
Conm. Shapiro
Corrm. Loosli
OONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS 1D THE ZONJNG OJDE CHAPTER 9. 5 , ARTICLE III.
CONSI'RUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND DEVEIDPMENT OF C01MERCIAL/ INDUSI'RIAL
C.0Nro1INIUMS AND ARTICLE V, OJNVERSIOOS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS
Mr. Mercado gave staff report. fu stated that the resolution incorporates
all of the aIIEndrrents to the cormercial/industrial condominium orclinan~,
new constntction and conversions which were approved by the Cormti.ssicn at
the Septerrber 7, 1982 IIEeting. Staff felt that it was appropriate to require
separate electric neters and shut-off systems for each unit, only if it is
required that the developer corrmit to a specific nunber of i.mits. ~arate
maters and shut-off systems are best because they provide the greatest degree U of individual tenant control. Unforttnately, the cost for such are rather
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -September 21, 1982 Page 12
CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9. 5 , ARTICLE III.
CONsrRUCTION, MAINI'ENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT ·oF COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
CONDOMINIUMS AND ARTICLE V, CONVERSIONS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
CONJXMINIUMS (Cont. )
prohibitive and therefore mjustified if retrofitting is required. le
stated that the City Corneil has requested that the Connrl.ssion review whether
the mmer of mits in a conmercial condominium should be regulated at the
time of approval. le stated that staff suggested that, although it is not
mandatory to establish a number of i.mits at the time. of approval, consideration
should be given to the number of parking spaces that will be provided in
relation to the number of mits or density created. Staff suggested that
density in the long run can be a significant factor . He added that retail
and office establishnents need cmly provide one space per 300 sq. ft. of
gross floor area. Therefore, a tenant may sublet a portion of his unit
without providing additional parking. Staff suggested that at least two
parking spaces per 1.ID.it should be required. He stated that the ordinance
would have to be arrended to include the following should the Connrl.ssion
agree to grant the resolution: "NOW, THER EFORE, .BE JT RESOLVED, that the
Planning Corrmission of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve revisions to the
Zoning Code, Chapter 9 .5, Articles 3 and 5 of the Contrercial/Industrial
Condominium Ordinance." The Caption would read, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNTIJG CDMMISSION OF HERM)SA.. BEACH APPROVING REVISICNS TO THE ZONING CODE,
CHAPI'ER 9. 5, ARTICLES 3 AND 5 OF THE COM1ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONOOMIN"IUM
ORDINANCE.''
Coom. Snith asked for the rationale of having two parking spaces per unit.
Mr. Mercado replied that the basic premise is that the ntmher of units
one can provide would be lillli.ted by the number of parking spaces one can
provide.
Public ~aring opened and closed at 9:53 P.M.
Motion by Corrm. Shapiro, seconded by Conm. S:nith, to approve the revisions
to the Zoning Code to include the establisbrrent of two p arking spaces per
unit and to require separate electrical rreters and shut-off systems for
each system, and where feasible, gas rreters.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Conms. Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Chtm. Izant
None
Corrm. Loosli
Motion by Comn. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith, to adopt Resolution
P.C. 82-30 approving revisions to the zoning code, Chapter 9,5, Articles
3 and 5 with the revision of two parking spaces per unit and to require
separate e lectrical IIBters and shut -off sys tems for each system, and,
where feasible, gas rreters. This notion includes the caption of the resolution
as stated above and the last paragraph of the resolution, also stated above.
This notion also incorporates the aIIEI1chmnts made for new construction and
conversions.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENI':
Corrms . Peirce , Shapiro, Srni. th, Chnn. Izan t
None
Conm. Loosli
(
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 13
COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS
Comm. Peirce asked if Mr. Mercado had obtained information as to whether
there was going to be three lanes north and south on Pacific Coast
Highway. (See September 7, 1982 minutes, Page 15.)
Mr. Mercado stated that he would investigate that point.
Comm. Smith suggested going through a workshop in terms of taking over the
duties of the Improvement Commission.
Chmn. Izant asknowledged and concurred with Comm. Smith's suggestion. So
ordered.
Ms. Sapetto suggested having a workshop an hour before a meeting.
Comm. Smith suggested holding a workshop on reading plans.
Ms. Sapetto stated that she could set a workshop for that purpose. She
stated that she would assign two dated for workshops, along with topic
for those workshops.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ms. Sapetto stated that the office of Chairman will be open until June 30,
1983.
Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith, to reelect Stephan Izant
for Chairman.
Chmn. Izant respectfully declined.
Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Smith, to elect James Peirce for
Chairman for the upcoming year.
Chmn. Izant declared that James Peirce will be the Chairman for the
1982-83 season.
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to elect Stephan Izant
for Vice-Chairman.
Chmn. Izant accepted the position of Vice-Chairman.
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Iazant, to elect Joel Shapiro
to fill the office of Secretary for the upcoming term.
Chmn. Izant declared that Joel Shapiro will be Secretary for the upcomming
year.
Comm. Smith commended Chmn. Izant for his service as Chairman. He described
Chmn. Izant as being very equitable and an excellent explainer of the issues
at hand in the public hearings. He also acknowledged Chmn. Izant for
exhibiting a great deal of patience.
Motion to adjourn at 10:11 P.M.
(
u
PLANNING OOM1ISSION MINUI'ES -September 21, 1982
CEKI'IFICATICN
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular
11'.Eeting of the Planning Conmission held an October 5, 1982.
CREI'ARY
DATE
Page 14