Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-10-05MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 5, 7982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 8:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 8:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce ABSENT: Comm. Izant ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Peirce noted that there was a sentence missing from Page 70, Paragraph 2, of the minutes of September 21, 7982. He stated that it should read: That 35 of the 770 lots are over 8,000 square feet, thus could be developed as condominiums instead of 11 granny flats 11 thus leaving 75 units between 6,700 and 8,000. Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the September 21 1 7982, minutes as corrected. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Chmn. Peirce noted that P.C. 82-30 would be moved to the end of the agenda, thus giving the Commissioners an opportunity to review it. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded ·by Chmn. Peirce, to approve P.C. 82-28 and P.C. 82-29. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapi"o, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Brown, Loosli Comm. Izant PUBLIC HEARINGS 7502 STRAND -REMODEL OF AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM UNIT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Planning Commission approved this seven-unit subdivision in 1974. This approval was granted in accordance with the planned development ordinance at the time. The originally approved tentative map expired1 and the project was approved again in 1975. She stated that the applicant is requesting a modification to their unit which requires Planning Commission approval pursuant to Section 9.5-2S(J) of the Condominium Ordinance. She stated that the modification consists of extending the upper deck of the unit westward to align with the decks of the other units; the area which currently constitutes the deck will be enclosed. This will serve to enlarge the deck and create an enclosed deck area adjacent to the open deck area. The enclosed portion of the deck will be .co.vered with skylights, and the south opening will be enclosed with glass. She stated that the modification will result in an increased livable area of 209 sq. ft. It will also result in a net decrease in private recreation of 704 sq ft. She stated that there is now 210 sq. ft. provided where 150 sq. ft, is the required minimum. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 2 1502 STRAND -REMODEL OF AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM UNIT (Cont,) Ms. Sapetto stated that the existing floor area is 9,951 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing 209 sq ft. more. for a total of 10,160 sq. ft. She stated that tne R-3 requirement is 125%. She stated that since this project already exceeds the current standards of floor area as it was approved prior to the 125% requirement, and the 3% change as proposed is minimal, staff recom:nends approval of the proposal. Chmn. Peirce questioned whether this item would go before the Coastal Commission. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith noted that the property is a very clean building with good design, and that it is very well kept. Public Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. Fred Strib1e, 1502 Strand, Hermosa Beach, applicant, felt that the proposed change is a very modest one. He stated that the change does not extend beyond the boundaries of the building. He stated that it is his intention to make the building as attractive as it is now and to keep the architectural aspects as good as they are. He stated that he has received the approval of the other members of the condominium, who all feel that this is a welcome addition to the property. He stated that he did not intend to enclose this as part of the living area, since the existing bedroom and sliding glass doors that go out to the deck will remain where they are. Public Hearing closed at 9:52 P.M. Chmn. Peirce stated that he went to view the building, and in his opinion the proposed change would pose no problems whatsoever. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve the resolution of the Planning Co1T111ission approving the remodel as a portion of the subdivision as outlined and suggested in the resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. I zant Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve P.C. 82-31, approving -~_-: the remodel at 1502 Strand.;_-. -, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce. None Comm. Izant Chmn. Peirce announced that the Commission's decision may be appeal~d by writing to the City Council within ten days. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 3 715 3rd STREET -REQUEST FOR A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM. CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. Staff suggested that, if the Planning Commission determines that this project provides adequate common recreation space, this project be approved, and that the resolution certify such approval be adopted. She stated that if the Planning Commission determined otherwise, then this project should be denied. She stated that in May of 1979 the Planning Commission denied a project for eight units at this address because the site was not deemed physically suitable for proposed density; removal of two low income units from City housing stock; development did not properly utilize topography; and intensified noise and density. In September of 1979, the City Council granted an appeal to this Planning Commission denial, based on merits of revised plans which mitigated the above. Ms. Sapetto stated that this project meets all of the condominium ordinance requirements, except for common recreation space. The project provides 773 square feet of such space, where 800 square feet is required, Furthermore, the space that is provided consists of a spa area, landscaping, and a walkway. Since the condominium ordinance does not provide enough clarity on what is and what isn't common recreation space, the Planning Commission needs to determine whether this walkway adjacent to the spa area is to be calculated as common recreation space, and whether the fact that the project is 27 square feet short of the minimum common recreation space required : is a significant factor. If the Planning Commission determines that this project provides adequate common recreation space, and meets the intent of the condominium ordinance, then staff recommends approval with the standard conditions which are included in the packet, Comm. Brown asked how the condominium ordinance reads and why it is unclear. Ms. Sapetto replied that the condominium ordinance does not define common recreation space, She stated that it gives diminsions for private recreation space but not for common recreation space. She stated that the condominium ordinance is silent on this point, Comm. Brown asked whether this omission was intentional. Chmn. Peirce replied that it is not. He stated that it is very difficult to write an ordinance that contains every possibility. Chmn. Peirce noted that this point came up once before. He stated that the Planning Commission decided that a walkway to the front door could not be included as a part of the common recreation area. He noted that the decision of the Planning Commission was reversed by the City Council on this matter, Chmn. Peirce asked whether the City Council 1 s reversal meant that a standard was set, or that the Planning Commission should go by their standard4 ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 4 715 3rd STREET -REQU EST FOR A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied that common sense should take precedence. She stated that the intent of the ordinance is to provide a substantial common recreation space that provides an amenity for the units. She said that in this particular instance, the applicant has provided a spa facility. She stated that in the previous project, there Was no common amenity. Cotm1. Smith asked whether staff could recall what the question was in tenns of improper utilization of the topography and how this plan addresses this issue. Ms. Sapetto stated that the plan was substantially different the first time. Comm. Loosli stated that it was basically bulk. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith asked how the housing stock question was addressed at the City Council level . Ms. Sapetto replied that that question was not addressed at the City Council level . Comm. Smith brought up the question that the development did not properly utilize topography. He asked whether that referred to bulk. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm Smith asked about the intensified noise and density. Ms. Sapetto replied that that relates to the bulk of the density that was originally proposed. Comm. Smith asked whether the City Council did approve the eight units. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Ms. Sapetto stated that this plan is a totally different plan than the plan previously submitted. Chmn. Peirce brought up the question of recreational vehicles. Ms. Sapetto replied that this question has come up before. She noted the project at 17th Street. Prior to that project, the Comnission had not required recreationa1 vehicle spaces at any ratio. She stated that the applicant at the 17th Street project did ultimately come back with a plan that provided recreational vehicle parking. She stated that this was not a condition of approval by the City Council. Comm. Loosli asked whether the walkway was adjacent to the spa. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 5 715 3rd STREET -REQUEST FO R A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM , CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Loosli noted that in the other plan. the applicant was using walkways that went to the front door of the unit. Chmn. Peirce noted that it is a slightly different interpretation. Comm. Brown felt that this a nice project. He felt that the applicant has more than met the requirements. He questioned whether something should be done in the way of setting a precedent to provide for the future in terms of walkways. Ms. Sapetto replied that staff would like to see a policy statement from the Commi.i&ion as to when a walkway would be included and when it would not. Comm. Brown stated that he would like to see something like that done. He noted his concern for the future. Chmn. Peirce felt that it is a good idea from a long-range perspective. Comm. Shapiro asked if the common recreation space was met, would this issue still come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. She stated that a project would come before the Commission any time it is a subdivision. Comm. Shapiro asked what is more important, the 27 feet that is lacking or the walkway. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a matter of interpretation. She felt that the question is whether the Commission wishes to include walkways at any time, and, if so, under what conditions. She stated that she did not feel that the 27 feet is a significant factor. Public Hearing opened at 9:07 P.M. Michael Jukes, 121 3/4 South Broadway. Redondo Beach, applicant, stated that he plans to occupy one of the units being built. He stated that when the plans were originally submitted, all units were to be three bedrooms and two and a half baths. He stated that he obtained a negative declaration on the environmental impact study. He stated that at that time, he was under the impression that he did have adequate common area space for the amount of square footage. Since that time a slight modification has been made to the floor plans of two of the units. Approximately 400 square feet of living space has been eliminated, He stated that this should provide for the adequate common area space. Comm. Loosli asked the applicant when the new plans were submitted. Mr. Jukes replied that they were submitted on September 26. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 6 715 3rd STREET -REQ UEST FO R A 6 UNIT CONDOMINI UM, CUP AN D TENTATIVE MAP #36125 (Cont .) Mr. Jukes replied that after going through the environmental impact study, a negative decla·ration was obtained. He stated that they were concerned about the common area space, and they implied that he had enough recreational space at that time. Mr. Jukes stated that he tried to design the project so that it would fit in with the neighborhood. He stated that he designed it to complement the neighborhood with the appearance of single-family residences, rather than an apartment-type structure of condominiums. He felt that he has succeeded in doing this. Comm. Smith asked Mr. Jukes if he thought·: famH1es would buy these three-bedroom units. Mr. Jukes stated that he has no way of knowing the answer to that question. He said that that is what he is aiming for, though. Comm. Smith asked whether the property is currently up for sale. Mr. Jukes replied that it is, and that he has made an offer on the property, and the offer has been accepted. He said that the property is currently owned by the bank. Conm1; Smith asked whether the City requires evidence of an agreement between the owner and the bank. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that the City requires the owner's signature on the application in concurrence that the project can be approved. She stated that the signature should be on the conditional use permit application. Chmn. Peirce asked Mr. Jukes whether he considered having the buildings be attached. He felt that there would be additional space if the six buildings were attached. Mr. Jukes replied that he hadn 1 t really considered that. He felt that the plan is the highest and best use for the property, rather than putting eight '.~nits in there. He feels that the detached plan is much more appealing. He felt there is more privacy with the six units detached. He felt that the space between the buildings gives space to the younger child. Corrm. Loosli asked whether there are any walls between the units. Mr. Jukes replied that there will be retaining walls. Comm. Loosli asked whether the condominium ordinance says anything about detached condos. He said that he thoughtcondos had to be attached. Ms. Sapetto replied that they do not. Comm. Loosli asked Mr. Jukes if he felt that this was the best use of open space, PLANNING· COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 7 715 '3rd 'STREET ·~·REQ UEST 'FOR 'A 6 UNIT 'CONDOMINIUM, CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 '(Cont.1 Mr. Jukes stated that he felt it is because of the privacy factor. Comm. Smith asked Mr. Jukes whether he felt that this is adequate space for small children. Mr. Jukes stated that there will be private yards in between each unit. He felt that there is adequate recreation space. Comm. Loosli stated that he did not feel this was a very good use of land from a planning standpoint. Public Hearing closed at 9:21 P.M, Chmn. Peirce felt that the applicant has met all of the requirements. He felt that the 27 feet is not a major concern. Comm. Smith felt that this project would not particularly enhance family living in Hermosa Beach. He felt that the kinds of families that could afford these units will not buy them. He did not feel that the recreation space would be attractive for children; however, he stated that he will support approval of this project because he felt that it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the project and adopt the resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Izant Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith, to approve P.C. 82-32. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Izant STAFF REPORTS Ms. Sapetto stated that she would like a policy statement from the Commission on the issue of walkways. Comm. Brown insisted that something be done on that issue. Chmn. Peirce suggested saying that any walkway leading to a private residence door be excluded from the common recreation area Comm. Loosli suggested saying walkways are not included, period, Ms. Sapetto stated that it could simply be used as a policy for staff to follow. in their interpretation of the ordinance. Chmn. Peirce stated that, other than the policy statement he just mentioned, that the Commission should try to exclude walkways leading PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Staff Rep orts (cont.) Page 8 to private residences, front or back doors, and that the Commission take it on a case-by-case basis. Comm. Loosli suggested, rather than limiting it to private walkways, walk­ ways in general should not be considered as public open space. Ms. Sapetto continued with staff report. Ms. Sapetto passed out copies of the minutes of the City Council meeting held on September 28, 1982. She stated that the Commission recommended to establish an ad hoc committee and institute a sunset provision for those in-lieu fees. The Council acted instead to request that members of the Planning Commission, members fo the Vehicle Parking District, and the Chamber of Corrmerce, and the subcommittee for the downtown area, meet before the eity Council meeting of October 26 to give the Council a reco!Mlendation on where they want to go with the downtown area. Ms. Sapetto stated that she is tentatively trying to schedule this meeting for Thursday October 14, 1982, at 8:00 A.M. Comm. Smith asked what the purpose was of reconvening a meeting that has already taken place. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Council felt, since they had not been present at that meeting, that they would like to participate in the same meeting again. They also did not feel comfortable with the formation of an ad hoc committee. They felt the timeframe was too long. Chum. Peirce suggested bringing the 18-month timeframe down to a sub­ stantially shorter perior. Comm. Smith felt that that would be fine, but there was nothing to pre­ vent the Council from doing that. Chmn. Peirce concurred with Connn. Smith 1 s suggestion of having another meeting. Ms. Sapetto felt that the City Council would perhaps like to have more input from the suggested meeting before they act on the in-lieu provision. Chmn. Peirce felt it is necessary to try to determine what the longrange goals will be for the d9wntown area. He felt that the group should try to determine what the goals and directions should be. Comm. Smith asked whether this group was to take the place of an ad hoc committee. Chmn. Peirce replied in the affirmative. He replied that there is a need for a group 'with its focus on the downtown area. Comm. Smith stated that he was at a loss as to the lack of specificity. Violet Isgreen state that se was at the meeting. She stated that there was a recommendation to have eleven members on the ad hoc committee. The Council felt that eleven is far too many, because it is too difficult to come to any determination with that many people. u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 STAFF REPORTS (Cont.) Page 9 Ms. Sapetto also noted some other workshop sessions that she had planned. Chmn. Peirce noted that workshop sessions should be scheduled to accommodate Comms. Shapiro and Brown. since they would benefit most from the meetings. Ms. Sapetto noted that Wedhesday, November 3, 1982, at 5:30 P.N. will be the first workshop. Chmn. Peirce asked for the status on parking on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway after Cal Trans finished there. Ms. Sapetto replied that Cal Trans said that they would like to see the parking removed. One of the things they are trying to do is to link up a third lane for southbound traffic during rush hour, They are presently negotiating with Redondo Beach on this matter. If they can get a consensus :with Redondo 1 they will remove the parking in the southbound lanes. Chmn. Peirce requested that staff give the Planning Commission periodical updates on this matter. Cbmn. Peirce noted some conferences~that are being held that might be of benefit to the new Commissioners. Ms. Sapetto urged the commissioners to attend the conferences if they are able to do so. COMMISSIONERS 1 ITEMS Comm. Smith suggest·ed that when a new ordinance is put into effect, that the old ordinance be lined through so it is possible to see exactly what has been changed. Ms. Sapetto replied that that is a very good idea. She stated that that can be done. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would include the changes of the revision to the City Council. (P.C. 82-30) Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith. to approve P.C. 82-30, with the changes made by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Smith. Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Brown, Loosli Comm. Izant Comm. Shapiro thanked staff for the commission policies and especially No. 9. Motionby Chmn, Peirce, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to adjourn at 9:54 P.M. ) u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 10 GERTI FI CATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Corrrnission held on October 19, 1982. Jt,SPEIRCE~ IRMAN 1l-}-t1- DATE