Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 08.01.1989' f . ' '. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 1, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Rue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue Peirce (Excused) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Rue noted a correction to the minutes of July 17, 1989: Page 1, last paragraph, second sentence: "Macpherson paid $100 to Mr. Rue; there has since been no other payment Q.Y_ Macpherson." MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve as amended the minutes of July 17, 1989, and the minutes of July 18, 1989, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Rue None Comm. Ingell Comm. Peirce APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Ketz noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 89-53, Finding A: " ... remodeling of two existing .... " Comm. Ketz requested that an additional finding be added to Resolution P.C. 89-53 indicating that an additional reason this variance was not approved was the fact that this would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 17-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 192& MONTEREY BOULEVARD. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Rue None Comm. Ingell Comm. Peirce MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENT AL 1 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 • I ., NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT 142 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY KNOWN AS THE "PITCHER HOUSE" AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 44, 45, AND 46 OF HOME BUILDERS PLACE. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Rue None Comm. Ingell Comm. Peirce COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121160 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 333 TENTH STR EET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to allow the applicant to revise the plans because the proposed tandem garage faces a street, which is not permitted by the zoning ordinance in the R-3 zone. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 2784 square feet, or 40 by 69.6 feet. The current use is as a single-family home. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct two attached condominium units-. The two proposed units contain 1940 and 1325 square feet, with Unit A containing three bedrooms and three baths and Unit B having two bedrooms and two baths. The proposed structure has two stories and roof decks above a garage. Proposed architectural features include mission cement tile roofing, cement plaster exterior, and decorative metal railings. These features give the building a Mediterranean appearance. Although the project meets the minimum parking requirements for the number of spaces, four parking spaces are enclosed in a four-car tandem garage, and one guest space is provided, the tandem garage does not meet the sta ndar ds of the zoning ordinance. Section l 159(b) of the zoning ordinance permits ta nd em parking which is accessed directly from the street only in the R-1 zone. Therefore, a major revision is necessary. Since the property fronts on two streets, access is more than adequate; therefore, providing parking in compliance with the ordinance should not be difficult, although it will probably result in significant changes to the plans. Also, the proposed guest space with access from Loma Drive cannot count toward the guest space requirement as required parking stalls, except guest spaces located behind a garage, must have a 17-foot setback. This could be resolved by relocating it further back from the street. The plans conform to all other minimum planning and zoning requirements, although it is not indicated where the 200 cubic feet of storage will be located. The six-foot front setback off of 6th Street seems to be appropriate for 10th Street because of the 60-foot right-of-way along 10th Street and the substantial distance from the front property line 2 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 ,, to the edge of the pavement, which is noted as 30 feet on the plans, which should be corrected because it is 30 feet to the center line. Also, due to the configuration of most lots along 10th Street, most structures' side yards face 10th Street. The subject property is located in an area of the City undergoing a transition from smaller single-family homes to larger multiple unit condominiums. In staff's opinion, it would therefore be compatible with its current and future surroundings. However, given the problem with the parking layout, major revisions are necessary which could result in significant changes to the plans. As such, revised plans should be returned to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, stated that the guest parking space on the corner lot needs the 17-foot setback from Loma Drive. He also explained that guest spaces cannot be in tandem. Public Hearing opened at 7:11 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Dean Andrews, 118 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that he tried to take into account the zoning ordinance when designing this project. He felt that this design would have a minimum impact as far as curb cuts and impact to the street. He stated that he is somewhat vague on the meaning of the code which says there can be tandem parking only off of an alley, not off of a street. He said there is no alley access for this project. He explained that turnaround space is almost nonexistent on this site because the lot is only 40 by 69 feet. Mr. Andrews pointed out that to provide the required setbacks and the 17-foot setback does not leave adequate space to have legal garage parking spots. He stated that he must park cars along the long access of the site, since it is the _on1y a:vailable option. Mr. Andrews stated that he is not attempting to get around the code requirements. He stated that he would be willing to work with staff to reach a decision that would be acceptable to both his client and to the City. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that four parking spaces plus one guest space are required for this project. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed the issue of guest spaces in tandem. Mr. Schubach stated that in this case, the spaces cannot be counted because the configuration is not correct. They continued by discussing the tandem parking issue in relation to the 17-foot setback requirement. Chmn. Rue stated that the reason for having a 17-foot setback is that the setback provides parking for guests. The intent is that the parking be utilized in addition to the required parking. There would then be enclosed parking for the residents with open guest parking spaces for the guests. If guest parking is already being provided in another area, he could not see the wisdom of having the 17-foot setback for guest parking. Mr. Schubach explained that there could be a problem, however, with guests parking behind another car and hanging out onto the public right-of-way. He stated that the point is to allow ample turn-around area for cars to get out. Comm. Ketz noted that there appears to be enough area to pave for parking; however, the only green space would then be covered over by pavement. 3 P .C. Minutes 8/ 1 /89 ,, Public Hearing closed at 7:17 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue asked about allowing tandem parking in the R-3 zone. He thought tandem parking was allowed in both R-2 and R-3 zones, but not R-1. Mr. Schubach explained that tandem parking is allowed in all residential zones; however, in the R-1 zone only, tandem parking is allowed to be accessed from a street. In the other residential zones it can be accessed from an alley only. Mr. Schubach stated that in this case there are three cars in tandem, because there are four cars in the garage (two in tandem) with another tandem space outside the garage. The code allows only two cars to be parked in tandem. He explained that there are two problems to be addressed: the guest space, and the access from the street. There could also be another problem with replacing the one parking space lost due to a curb cut. Chmn. Rue felt that the issue of guest parking spaces needs to be addressed in the code. Mr. Schubach stated that he would be glad to work with the applicant to find a solution so that this problem can be resolved. He suggested that this might be a case for a variance. Comm. Ingell agreed that the issue of guest parking spaces needs to be clarified in the code. He read applicable portions from the code, stating that they appear to be in conflict. Comm. Ketz suggested that parking spaces be distinguished from parking garages in the code. Mr. Schubach stated that this issue could be studied at a later date. Mr. Schubach suggested that this issue be continued so that the applicant can redesign the project. At a later time, if it is deemed necessary, the applicant can return with a request for a variance. Comm. Ingell asked whether Mr. Andrews had any objection to this matter being continued so that he could apply for a variance. Mr. Andrews saw no problem with continuing the item. However, he pointed out that this entire project hinges on being able to provide parking for four cars in the garage. He stated that he can achieve a guest parking space. He stated that there is no other way to park four cars on this site other than the tandem garage configuration. He stated that he would like to discuss this project with staff. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the first meeting in September so that the applicant can work with staff to reach a solution to this problem. Chmn. Rue felt that the intent of the code is that guest parking spaces not be 17 feet away from the street. He also felt that open green space is dear to the City, and he asked that staff clarify this issue. Mr. Vose suggested that in the future when this issue is studied, various parking layouts could be provided to the Commission so that a determination could be made as to what types are desirable and which are undesirable. Once that decision is made, the code 4 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 could be clarified to reflect the sentiments of the Commission. He stated that drawings help to clarify the configurations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /121279 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1038 SEVENTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. This project is in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 5200 square feet, or 40 by 130 feet. The current use is vacant, as a single-family residence was recently demolished. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct two detached condominium units. The proposed units contain 2245 and 2259 square feet, with Unit A having two bedrooms and two and a half baths, and Unit B containing three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The proposed structure has two stories above a partially subterranean garage. Proposed architectural features include clay tile roofing on a pitched roof, stucco siding, aluminum frame windows with clip-on mullions, clay tile cap o,n .. :the deck railings, and clay tile trim. This mix of features gives the building a contemporary Mediterranean appearance. The project provides the minimum front yard setback of five feet required in the R-2 zone. The average setback along this portion of 7th Street in the Glorieta Tract, measured from aerial photos, is approximately 10.5 feet. The City's right-of-way is 40 feet wide for this eastern portion of the block in the Glorieta Tract. Although some of the older homes have 17 to 20 foot setbacks and most of the houses on the same side of the street have at least a 15-foot setback, the structure directly to the west has only about a six-foot setback. Across the street, which is developed with several two-family structures on through lots to 8th Street, the setbacks are in the zero to 20 foot range. Staff believes that a minimum ten-foot setback would be more appropriate for this project to fit in with the eastern part of the block. The Planning Commission previously required a ten-foot setback for a two-unit project at 918 7th Street in the western part of the block where the City right-of-way is 60 feet. Private open space is provided on a first-floor deck and patio for Unit A totaling 346 square feet. Unit B provides a total of 339 square feet of private open space on first and second story decks. The plans conform to or exceed all other planning and zoning requirements. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Four parking spaces will be provided in enclosed garages, and one guest parking space is provided. No existing on-street parking will be lost, as parking is currently prohibited on this side of the street during street cleaning on the opposite side of the street. 5 P .C. Minutes 8/ 1 /89 ., The surrounding residential area consists of a mix of single-family and two-family residential uses. The slightly larger than average lot sizes of the tract (5200 square feet) allow the construction of reasonably sized two-family developments. Nonetheless, the eventual build out of two-family structures will definitely change the single-family character of this block. The block is one of the R-2 areas currently under the interim ordinance limiting the height of new structures to 25 feet. However, this project was submitted prior to the effective date of that ordinance. Public Hearing opened at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Roger DuPont, 1846 9th Street, Manhattan Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that after reviewing the staff report, he would like to request that the project be approved as designed, with a five-foot setback. The project was purposely designed with the five-foot setback so that there would be relief as well as open space across the front. The additional five feet of setback would take approximately 200 square feet out of the first unit, severely impacting the amount of living space on the first floor in that unit. Mr. DuPont said that on the other side of the block structures are within five feet of the front setback; therefore, he felt that this project could fit in with the other uses on the street. He stated that this project could have proceeded with a five-foot setback if it were a single unit or an apartment. Robert Laddock, 1044 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, which is the property directly east of 1038 7th Street, read a portion from his grant deed and expressed concern that this project could impact the public easement. He also noted that there was a driveway at that location which was damaged during demolition, and he felt that the driveway should be returned to the condition it was in prior to demolition. Mr. Schubach noted that the easement is depicted on the plans. That area will be paved as part of the driveway to the garage at the center of the project; however, staff could see no problem with the plans. Chmn. Rue stated that the Council and Commission have tried to maintain neighborhoods with similar setbacks. Mr. Laddock stated that the ten-foot setback will require a flat facade straight across the building. He felt that the appearance of the project will be damaged. He stated that part of the required open space is the patio. If he is now required to have a ten-foot setback, he questioned whether he would be able to use that portion of the setback in the open space calculation. Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-56, as written. Chmn. Rue questioned whether a ten-foot setback is appropriate for this project. He felt that there could be a happy medium between staff's recommendation and the ten feet. He noted that when buildings are pushed back, the front elevations suffer greatly. He therefore asked whether the maker and second would agree to a small setback. Comms. Ingell and Ketz both agreed that a ten-foot setback is appropriate for this project. Comm. lngell stated that a ten-foot setback gives an open feeling to the street, 6 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 even though it may impact this one project somewhat. Comm. Ketz agreed that the ten­ foot setback is important to maintain the character of this neighborhood. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce Comm. Ketz did not feel it necessary that the Planning Commission again review these plans. She felt that approval can be at the discretion of the Planning Director. Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Mr. DuPont, stated that some of the additional five feet of setback can be used in the open space calculation, so long as it meets the minimum standard requirements. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JUNE 6 AND 202 19&9 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 25, 1989. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution and environmental negative declaration. On May 12, 1987, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance concerning nonconforming uses and/or structures which were demolished liOOre:.than 50 percent. The interim ordinance was effective for 45 days. On June 23, 1987, staff submitted an alternative emergency ordinance to City Council and recommended that this ordinance be a model for the permanent ordinance. The City Council ref erred this ordinance to the Planning Commission for study. At the October 6, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that this matter be continued and that a comparison chart be provided. On March l, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this matter on request of staff to study this matter more in light of the downzoning that was occurring. On January 31, 1989, the City Council requested that zoning standards be studied in relation to nonconforming structures. At their April 25, 1989, meeting, the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the issues raised at the public hearing. At the June 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, the matter was continued to allow staff additional time to respond to the 19 issues specified. Mr. Schubach stated the questions which were raised and staff's response: 1. Should development with less than the 17-foot setback be considered nonconforming? 7 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 Eliminating the 17-foot setback as a factor for nonconformity will serve little or no purpose since in almost every case, the development will either have other nonconforming features or will have been constructed relatively recently and will already have or almost have maximum lot coverage. 2. Should the area of both rooms be considered toward maximum square footage of remodeling when the wall between the rooms is removed? At least some portion of both rooms needs to be counted toward the maximum 50 percent valuation to eliminate the potential of gutting the entire structure. Staff felt that a structure that is so obsolete that it needs to be completely gutted on the interior should be limited more so in regard to the amount of expansion allowed. By limiting expansion and remodeling, the opportunity to avoid the new zoning standards by calling a proposed development a remodel when in fact it is virtually a new structure, will be discouraged. Counting at least 50 percent of the total area of two rooms is an alternative which staff has proposed in the resolution. 3. Are there any incentives for property owners to conserve ground-level open space rather than maxing the size of development, maybe flexible standards? An incentive to leave ground-level open space could be in conjunction with allowing more than 50 percent expansion. It is already proposed that if the Planning Commission determines the intent of the ordinance is being met, expansion can be as high as l 00 percent. 4. Ordinance needs clarification as to whether garage al\ea is counted toward floor area. The proposed ordinance has been changed to include a notation that garage floor area is not included. 5. City's goals should be included in the ordinance. Relevant City goals have now been included in the proposed resolution. Comm. Ingell favored including the City goals. He also felt it would be appropriate to include the City goals elsewhere and "tag" them in the computer so that when the goals are revised and updated, they can be updated in each pertinent location. Mr. Schubach stated that the goals will be incorporated at the time the City's general plan is updated and revised. He stated that staff is currently working on computerizing all data and indexing all information. 6. Should flexibility be included in return for property owners giving something in return? Be allowing some flexibility in the allowed amount of expansion, some "give-and­ take" is possible. 7. If an entire neighborhood has only a 12-foot setback instead of 17 feet, should the entire block be allowed to maintain only a 12-foot setback? & P.C. Minutes &/1/89 A setback of less than 17 feet would defeat the purpose of the setback. The setback is designed to allow vehicles to park in front of the garage without overhanging the public right-of-way. It should be noted that the notion the City requires a 17-foot setback for nonconforming structures is a misunderstanding. Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on expansions when someone does not have the necessary setbacks. Mr. Schubach explained the various methods which an applicant can use to expand without the required 17-foot setback. An applicant can also appear before the Planning Commission with such a request. 8. More detailed explanation should be given for calculating the valuation of any addition. An example was included in the text. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, that real dollar figures are not used in the calculations. He stated that the ICBO figures are used. He continued by explaining the differences between structural changes and upgrading things such as plumbing and electrical to bring a structure up to code standards. 9. If a 250 square-foot addition is allowed without the required parking, then additional bedrooms should be prohibited. It is possible to add a prohibition on additional bedrooms to the ordinance. However, it would be almost impossible to enforce what the ultimate use of the addition would be; proposals can be distinguished as..-Q.E¥lS, family rooms, play rooms, etc. If a prohibition on bedrooms is desirable, then a bedroom should be defined as a room with a closet, and rooms with closets should be prohibited. However, staff has made the following change: Allow 100 square feet of expansion without any required parking and 250 square feet with at least one space per unit. 10. Nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses should be separated into two ordinances. The ordinance has been reorganized into two subsections --nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. 1 l. Should a task force be formed to study this matter? A task force would prolong the process. The input already received at the public hearings should be adequate. 12. The proposed ordinance should include a statement that all remodeling and expansion must meet the current code requirements. An additional statement has been added to Section 13-7C(2). 13. Should criteria be included regarding historical structures for the sake of consistency, or should historical buildings be judged on a case-by-case basis. 9 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 A policy statement resolution can be adopted to supplement the ordinance. Exactly what the criteria should be will need additional research, case study, and public input. However, all projects should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the criteria should only reflect the minimum standards. 14. Are property owners remodeling to avoid the 17-foot setback so that they can save ground-level open space? There are a variety of reasons why residents are remodeling instead of demolishing and starting over, but staff does not believe saving ground-level open space is one of them. Researching the remodels in the last year indicates that remodels generally cover as much lot as new development. 15. Will property owners with small rental units move away and rent both units because they cannot expand as much as they want? There are no statistical studies to determine what occurs when a property owner finds that he is limited as to the amount of expansion he may have. Some may move to larger homes in Hermosa Beach; others may completely demolish and rebuild to current standards. In any case, the ordinance is being targeted at those small, exceptionally old beach cottages that should not be allowed to expand into large developments without first meeting some minimum requirements particularly regarding parking. 16. Are there "protected" property rights deprived by this ordinance? Staff finds no "protected" rights violated by the proposed ordinance. The ordinance is modeled after the Manhattan Beach ordin~ce, which has been in existence for some time, except this proposed ordinance will be more flexible than the Manhattan Beach ordinance, since the Planning Commission may allow more than 50 percent expansion under certain circumstances. Mr. Schubach stated that property development is actually a privilege controlled by city and state regulations. Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue. gave an explanation of "protected" property rights. He gave an example of someone being prohibited from expanding a nonconforming property. 17. If a use is made less dense, and therefore less nonconforming, should it still be not allowed to expand? If a use is allowed to expand if it is made less dense, but still nonconforming, the ordinance would not be equitable in regard to other nonconforming uses of equal density; i.e., if a development has four dwelling units and it is reduced to three units and then allowed to expand, other nonconforming three unit developments should also be allowed to expand, even though they had not been reduced in density. It should be noted that staff is recommending that residential nonconforming uses with a minimum of two parking paces and limited density be allowed to expand; this exception should resolve most problems (refer to Section 13-3). 18. Does Section 13.4 clearly indicate that uses made less intensive still cannot be expanded? 10 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 A new section is being proposed allowing expansion to nonconforming uses (Refer to Section 13-3). 19. Will more square-box type dwellings be constructed because of this ordinance? There is no relationship between the proposed ordinance and the ''boxcar" shaped dwellings. The ''boxcar" style development is a result of large homes placed on small, narrow lots. 20. What percentage of development in the City is nonconforming? Over the past 15 years, and more so in the past five years, development standards have changed significantly in response to a growing recognition of over­ development and parking deficiencies. As a result, most development in the City is nonconforming. However, it must be recognized that the most recent development, i.e., that past 20 to 25 years, has been built to the maximum lot coverage, or very close to it. Consequently, under the proposed ordinance the allowed expansion of 50 percent of the existing floor area will be more than adequate to result in the maximum 65 percent lot coverage. Also, the noted flexibility provision will allow for additional expansion. This ordinance will impact primarily the relatively old, small ''beach cottage" development without parking. Mr. Schubach noted that the Commissioners had received copies of the revised ordinance, which contains the procedural changes. He continued by pointing out the changes which were made to the ordinance. He said that the main change is that nonconforming residential uses can now expand, as is allowed for nonconforming structures, with somewhat more limitations than on structures. Nonconforming! sitrnctures are allowed 30 percent demolition; on residential uses, there can only be 10 percent demolition. Staff felt that since a nonconforming structure is also a nonconforming use, it should not be allowed to be torn down and greatly expanded and/or remodeled. Mr. Schubach stated that staff also felt it was appropriate to include a maximum allowed density. The most recently allowed density was 46 units to the acre; in 1986 it was changed to 33 units per acre in the R-3 zone. Staff therefore felt that nothing over that density amount should be allowed. He noted some portions of the City have a density level of 80 units per acre. Staff therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to allow remodels and expansions in such dense areas for nonconforming uses. Mr. Schubach continued by giving examples of nonconforming uses which would be allowed to expand 50 percent or above if the Commission feels such expansion would meet the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Schubach noted that garage area is not now included as floor area in regard to expansion. Mr. Schubach stated that another change pertains to allowing 100 square feet of expansion without requiring additional parking; any expansion of 250 square feet or more will require additional parking. Comm. Ketz asked about interior remodels, with no exterior structural changes. She asked whether such projects would fall under this ordinance. 11 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 Mr. Schubach stated that such projects would come under this ordinance; however, the owner would be allowed to remodel. He continued by explaining what would be allowed, stating that the owner would still have quite a percentage to expand. Comm. Ketz asked about people who want to add a wall, noting that the ordinance really only addresses removing a wall. Mr. Schubach stated that walls can be added. Mr. Vose noted that it doesn't make sense just to add a wall, stating that people would usually want to add a bathroom or something else. Comm. Ketz asked what would happen if a nonconforming structure burns. Mr. Schubach stated that 50 percent reconstruction would be allowed, based on the ICBO figures. Comm. Ingell asked about garage expansions from one car to two cars in order to remodel one's house, as it relates to the 17-foot setback requirement. He felt that this is an issue which could be addressed. Mr. Schubach stated that staff did not include such an item, since it would not be desirable to encourage people to expand their garages in order to avoid the 17-foot setback requirement and therefore remodel. He stated that such instances could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Chmn. Rue commented that people might be encouraged to add parking if there is the incentive of being allowed to add square footage to the house. , Comm. Ingell noted concern that people might keep adding on to their homes a little bit at a time. Mr. Schubach stated that there can be more than one remodel; however, it cannot be expanded over 50 percent over the lifetime of the building. He stated that the percentage will be based on what is existing as of the date of the ordinance. He noted that people will reach the maximum lot coverage before they ever reach the 50 percent; therefore, staff did not have great concerns over this problem. Comm. Ingell asked for clarification of Section 5 pertaining to the vacation of commercial uses. Mr. Schubach gave examples of situations to which Section 5 would apply. He also gave examples of nonconforming uses in nonconforming structures. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Chmn. Rue, explained that the wording in Section 4 (B) was changed so that it now reads: "Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expa nsion as noted in this section." He explained that this is an attempt to encourage people to provide additional parking. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that open decks do not count as expansions; the section refers only to covered areas. Public Hearing opened at 8:25 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. 12 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 Jim Sullivan, 1051 &th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked staff for clarification of lot coverage. He noted that he had sent a letter, dated July 25, 19&9, to the Planning Commission regarding plans he has for his house. He noted concern, however, that he would not be able to proceed with his plans because of the values used in determining the cost. Mr. Schubach stated that real dollars are not used in the calculations; the ICBO figure of $65 a square foot is used. Mr. Sullivan continued by explaining what he would like to do to his own home in terms of remodeling. He felt that the 100% limit on expansion is an arbitrary figure if someone wants to add more but still meets the intent of the ordinance. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that one can appear before the Planning Commission to request additional expansion percentage. Mr. Schubach stated that the figure is not arbitrary; there must be a limit on how much a nonconforming structure can be allowed to expand. Mr. Sullivan noted concern over Question and Response No. 15, stating that there are many small homes, especially in the R-1 zone, but they cannot be considered as "exceptionally old beach cottages." He felt that these homes would be impacted by this ordinance. He felt that some these homes should be allowed to expand beyond 100 percent. He again stated that he feels the 100 percent is an arbitrary figure, especially if one can expand more than 100 percent and still be within the City requirements. Mr. Sullivan noted that he could tear down the older home and build a new house of almost 4000 square feet with minimum sideyards and setbacks: rather than retaining the older house because he would be allowed to expand only l 00 percent of the old house for a total of 2200 square feet. He noted concern over this issue, because many times people tend to max out the building rather than retaining large sideyards and setbacks. Chmn. Rue discussed this section with Mr. Sullivan as its relates to the particular remodel Mr. Sullivan wants to do. Mr. Vose noted that the purpose of a code relating to nonconforming buildings is to eliminate nonconforming buildings over a period of time. The code, however, allows for remodels and expansions up to a certain limit so that people can still live in the nonconforming homes. Public Hearing closed at &:37 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue discussed the 100 percent maximum. He continued by giving examples of instances where this section would apply. He noted that in certain cases people can apply for a variance, or they can tear the house down and build something new. Comm. Ketz noted concern over counting the removal of interior walls as part of the percentage. Mr. Vose explained that some level of standard must be established for nonconformities. He further noted that if the findings can be made, people can request variances. Comm. Ketz felt that the issue revolves around the current size of someone's house in relationship to how much they would be allowed to expand. 13 P.C. Minutes&/ 1/&9 Comm. Ingell noted that the purpose of the ordinance is an attempt to have new homes built to replace the nonconforming homes. Mr. Schubach stated that it must be determined how much people should be allowed to remodel and expand, therefore prolonging the lifetime of nonconforming homes. Chmn. Rue stated that the City is attempting to obtain parking as well as conforming houses. He felt that the figure of 100 percent is a reflection of those goals. He stated that the older homes will be allowed to remodel somewhat; however, if they want extensive remodels and expansions, people will be required to comply with the parking standards. Comm. lngell felt that the standards make good long-term planning sense for the City. Comm. Ketz questioned allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses, stating that it has been a clear direction from the City Council that the goal is to reduce density. She noted that many areas have already been downzoned, and she noted concern over allowing the uses already there to expand. Mr. Schubach explained how the ordinance would apply to nonconforming uses, stating that staff would not want to see a nonconforming use removed and rebuilt. He stated that this section relates to, for example, homes along the highway. He stated that the ordinance would not apply greatly to those homes, explaining that those homes come under the specific plan area. Comm. Ketz and Comm. lngell agreed that they do not feel it is appropriate to allow nonconforming uses to expand. Comm. Ingell stated that to allow them to expand would only encourage them to remain longer. Mr. Schubach stated that the 50 percent figure for expansions of nonconforming uses is merely staff's recommendation. He noted that the figure can be changed if it is deemed excessive. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that many of the uses are already at the maximum density; therefore, they could not be greatly expanded. Comm. Ingell stated that if nonconforming uses could provide the required parking, he would not be as opposed to their expansion. Comm. Ketz did not favor any expansion of nonconforming uses; however, if they are allowed to expand, she felt they should be required to provide the required parking. Chmn. Rue, noting that someone with a nonconforming use can remove only l O percent of the existing lineal footage of exterior walls and/or floor area, asked how much one would actually be able to expand and/or remodel. Mr. Schubach stated that Section A(l) addresses this issue. Comm. Ketz stated that in an attempt to meet the goal of reducing density, no expansion of nonconforming uses should be allowed. Chmn. Rue questioned whether relocation and/or replacement of walls up to 50 percent should be allowed if there is no expansion allowed. He continued by discussing various scenarios by which someone could not expand, but they could rearrange the square footage or floor plan. 14 P .C. Minutes 8/ l /89 Comm. Ketz saw nothing wrong with allowing a rearrangement of the floor plan. Mr. Schubach stated that staff's recommendation is more liberal than Chmn. Rue's suggestion. Comm. lngell felt that allowing a 50 percent expansion, going up to 100 percent with Planning Commission approval, is excessive. He felt, however, that some minor expansions should be allowed. Comm. Ketz stated that she had no objection to allowing interior remodeling. Chmn. Rue stated that the City does not want to encourage expansion thereby increasing the bulk and/or density; however, he did not feel there would be a problem with interior remodeling. He noted that by allowing increased square footage, though, density can be increased. Chmn. Rue and the Commissioners discussed the ordinance section by section while making their recommended changes. Comm. Ketz discussed the goals section, stating that Item C should contain a more positive statement. Comm. Ingell discussed Item D, stating that he would like to see additional clarification of items such as "dilapidated and significantly overdense." Chmn. Rue discussed Section 4, Paragraph 1, and asked about the wording "provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended." He did not feel the word "extended" is appropriate, and he suggested using "enlarged." The Commissioners discussed the expansion of nonconforming uses and structures and modified the language contained in Item B. The Commissioners discussed the parking requirements for nonconforming uses and structures. Comm. Ketz questioned whether additional parking should be required for additional square footage. Mr. Schubach noted that there is currently a requirement relating to the the parking, and people must provide the required parking. Comm. Ingell discussed Section 4 C(2) and questioned whether the density should be broken down by the applicable zones and whether the density should be the same in all zones, noting that it would not be desirable for people to exceed the density requirements in their particular zone. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that other sections of the code are specific in the requirements and people must provide the required parking. He therefore did not feel it is necessary to specify the density in each particular zone. Comm. Ketz discussed Section 9, Conforming Use of a Nonconforming Structure, and stated that she had a problem with not allowing some interior remodeling without coming under this ordinance. She felt that people should be allowed to remodel the interior of their homes without adding additional square footage. 15 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 Chmn. Rue stated, however, that staff feels it is desirable to discourage the continued use of nonconforming buildings. Comm. Ketz noted that there is a requirement for termite inspections to ensure that the buildings are safe. She felt that the ordinance restricts the amount of remodeling which can be done to the interior. Chmn. Rue stated that the goal is to discourage the prolonged use of these older nonconforming buildings. He continued by discussing a past project in town where someone essentially rebuilt a nonconforming building without meeting the current code requirements. Mr. Schubach pointed out that the ordinance provides for allowing someone to expand up to 100 percent with Planning Commission approval. He continued by explaining how much someone can expand, stating that he feels the staff proposal is reasonable. Public Hearing reopened at 9:20 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Greg Grinnell, 349 29th Street, addressed the Commission and stated that he thought the Planning Commission and City Council were going to jointly address this issue on August l and August 8. He was unclear as to when this matter was going to be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach clarified that the City Council meeting is on August 8. Mr. Grinnell stated that many interested people would have discussed this matter at the hearing; however, they too were probably unaware that this issue was going to be addressed tonight. Mr. Grinnell commented on a point made by Chmn. Rue that older buildings, if they are in good shape, would not need to be remodeled. He disagreed, stating that many older buildings are very chopped up because of the way homes were designed many years ago. Today's floor plans are much more open, and people tend to separate living areas by furniture arrangements. Therefore, there is a greater tendency today to remove walls during a remodel. Mr. Grinnell noted concern that someone will be penalized for removing interior walls. Chmn. Rue urged Mr. Grinnell to attend the City Council meeting to give his comments. Mr. Grinnell was concerned about the lack of public notification for this hearing. Public Hearing closed at 9:24 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ing ell , seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-59, with the following changes: Section l(c): "To encourage the use of this ordinance to me e t the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, and all other such similar standards." Section l(d): "To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by current standards are considered .... " 16 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 AYES: NOES: Section 4, Nonconforming Use of a Nonconforming Building, Paragraph 1: "The nonconforming commercial or manufacturing use of a nonconforming commercial or manufacturing building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged .... " Section 4, Paragraph 4: "A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming residential structure may be remodeled and/or expanded .... " Section 4B: Nonconforming uses and structures may be expanded by 10 percent and[or remodeled to a maximum of 50% .... " Section 4C(l): " ... including requirements for turning radius and parking standards as required by Article 11.5, Section 1162 for the parking requirements." Section 4C(2): " ... if at least one parking space is available with the same requirements as noted above for each existing unit, except nonconforming uses shall require Planning Commission approval if the parking requirements are not met." Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Peirce Comm. Ketz stated that she basically favors the ordinance; however, she still has concerns over how the ordinance will affect interior remodels of conforming structures and how it will affect expansion of nonconforming structures with conforming uses. Chmn. Rue suggested that if there is a better way to address this issue before this matter goes before the City Council, it could be discussed with staff in an attempt to clarify that portion of the ordinance. However, he cautioned against creating loopholes in the ordinance. Recess taken from 9:28 P.M. until 9:37 P.M. ZONE CHANGE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION: (A) (B) (C) FROM C-3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (R-2 WITH A DENSITY LIMIT OF 18 UNITS AN ACRE AND 40 PERCENT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE) FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET! 115 TO 220 FEET WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM R-1 TO R-lA FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET, 220 TO 290 FEET WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM C-3 TO R-3 FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ACROSS FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH 19TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 24, 1989. Staff recommended rezoning area NW-1 from C-3 to Specific Plan Area; Area NW-2 from R-1 to R-lA; and Area NW-3 from C-3 to R-3. 17 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the general plan amendments for the multi-use corridor. The subject area NW-1 was general plan amended from multi-use corridor to low density residential; the subject area NW-2 was general plan amended from MUC to low density residential; and the subject area NW-3 was general plan amended from MUC to high density residential. This is the second of three residential rezonings to carry out the general plan amendments approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989. The rezoning of the commercial areas along Pacific Coast Highway will be considered after the residential rezonings. AREA NW-1 The proposal is to rezone the three lots located along the north side of 21 Street at 731, 737, and 739 21st Street (known as Lots 20, 21, and 22 Hermosa View Tract No. 1) from C-3 to a residential specific plan area with a density limit of 18 units per acrea and a maximum 40 percent lot coverage. All remaining project elements would be subject to the standards of the R-2 zone. This will bring the zoning into consistency with the recently amended general plan and will carry out the stated objective of the City Council when they amended the general plan for this area. It would allow the development of an eight-unit project on the subject site, subject to a 40 percent maximum lot coverage to minimize the bulk of the project. The project would also be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff previously recommended that these lots, once the site of a proposed hotel, be designated as part of the commercial corridor on the general plan. However, since the City Council, in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, designated these lots medium density residential, staff is recommending-a residential zoning classification for consistency with the amended general plan. The reason staff is recommending the City-suggested SPA zoning, rather than R-2 or R-2B, is because of the Council's clear indication that maximum density permitted by an R-2 designation is too high (11 units) for this location. Also, staff believes that an R-2B designation, although it would allow only six units, is not appropriate for the narrow and deep lots which are connected by ownership and, therefore, could be integrated into one project. Staff agrees that a density which falls near the mid-point of the density range permitted by the medium density general plan designation would be the best use of the property. The actual mid-point of the density range for medium density residential (13.l units per acre to 25 units per acre) is 19 units per acre, which is approximately one unit per 2300 square feet of land area. For the subject site it calculates out to be eight units. The total land area for Area NW-1 is 20,605 square feet. There are three lots with four units. The existing density is 8.5 dwelling units per acre. The land use planning designation is medium density. The existing zoning is C-3 with a proposed zoning of specific plan area. There are no potential units under the C-3 zone; however there are eight potential units with the proposed SPA. Density under the SPA would be 17 units per acre. There are three nonconforming lots under the current zoning. No lots would be nonconforming under the proposed zoning. All of the units were constructed over 40 years ago. The lot sizes are 6860 square feet. 18 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 Chmn. Rue favored recommending three parking spaces per unit in the specific plan area. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, explained the proposed development standards for the specific plan area: a maximum of eight units, lot coverage of 40 percent, and all other standards of development shall be governed by the zoning ordinance, Article 5, R-2, two-family residential. He noted that it could also be recommended that there be three parking spaces per unit. Public Hearing opened at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Robert Collins, 2025 Springfield Avenue, also favored three parking spaces per unit. He noted that his street gets a lot of overflow parking from surrounding areas. He said that the parking in his area will be worsened by additional units. He felt that people should be required to park in their garages instead of using them as storage. He said that the garage parking rule should be enforced. He suggested allowing additional street parking on 21st Street to ease the parking problems in the area. Franklin Lawson, 728 24th Street, noted concern over density in his area and the parking problems, especially on 21st Street. He expressed concern over traffic. He was concerned that a project would block his view; therefore, he was interested in the height limit. Chmn. Rue stated that the maximum height will be 30 feet, as allowed by the R-2 standards. He stated that Mr. Lawson could go to the Building Department for information on how the height is measured. Mr. Lawson noted concern over how the rear units will be accessed, noting that the lots are very deep. He expressed interest in the plans for any prop~sed project. Chmn. Rue stated that the Planning Commission will review the specific project at the appropriate time. AREA NW-2 The proposed rezoning of the two lots located along the north side of 21st Street from R- 1 to R-lA will be consistent with the low density general plan designation. The subject lots are the same size as those in Area NW-1, 6860 square feet, and would qualify for two-unit developments under the R-lA proposal. Staff recommended commercial, and the Planning Commission recommended medium density residential for these lots; however, the City Council general plan amended these lots from MUC to low density residential. As part of their motion to amend the general plan, the Council clearly indicated that their intent was to allow development at or near the maximum density in the low density range. If built with two units per lot, the density would be 12.7 units per acre, just under the maximum of 13. In staff's judgment this is an appropriate density for the neighborhood, given the slightly higher density to the east and the single-family character to the north and west. Total land area for Area NW-2 is 13,737 square feet. There are two lots with no units and no density. The general plan designation is low density, with an existing zoning of R- 1. Proposed zoning is R-lA. There are two potential units under R-1 zoning; 6.34 units per acre are possible under R-1 zoning. There are four potential units with R-lA zoning; with a potential density of 12.7 units per acre under R-lA. No lots are now 19 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 nonconforming, nor would any be nonconforming under the proposed zoning. The lot size is 6860 square feet. Franklin Lawson, 728 24th Street, noted concern over his view and the potential loss of the view. He also noted concern over the access to the rear units. He questioned whether there would be a public hearing to address a potential project. Mr. Schubach stated that a two-unit development would require a public hearing if the units are to be sold separately. He addressed the issue of view loss, stating that the City at the current time has no ordinance to protect views. He said that the maximum height in the R-lA zone is 25 feet. He stated that the access will be from 21st Street, probably a driveway running to the rear unit. Roberta Farrell, 732 24th Street, asked why the City cannot protect her view, stating that that is the reason she moved there. She said she has a vested interest in the property. Chmn. Rue stated that interested citizens can go to the City Council meeting to request consideration of adoption of a view ordinance. Robert Collins, 2025 Springfield Avenue, asked whether the Planning Commission looks at an area in general before taking action on specific portions. He suggested that the lots remain R-1 because 24th Street and 21st Street are almost entirely single-family houses. He noted concern over density and problems in the area. Virgil Daggi, 17645 Palora Street, Encino, stated that across the street from Lots 23 and 24 is dense apartment housing. There is a large vacant R-1 lot to the west of Lot 24. These lots are not impacting any R-1, and he therefore felt that the. current zoning on Lots 23 and 24 is not feasible. He felt that the zoning should be higher than R-1. Larry Rudy, 732 24th Street, noted concern over density in this area. He felt that since 21st Street is so crowded and narrow with parking on only one side, the density should be kept as low as possible. He also noted concern over the height which could impact his view. He noted concern that the new building could abut his backyard. Jim Fucile, 1226 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, owner of the lots in question, addressed the Commission. He stated that he could understand the concerns of the neighbors; however, there is no guarantee that views can be preserved. He stated that people should be able to build on their property so long as they are in compliance with the City requirements. Mr. Fucile discussed the parking problem on Springfield, stating that that is an older section of the City, and most of the houses have only one-car garages; therefore, there are parking problems caused by the existing residents, not from outsiders. Mr. Fucile, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, discussed his feelings on the specific plan area, stating that he would then have to go through another public hearing at an expense to him. He continued by discussing past proposals for the property. Mr. Schubach stated that it is not necessary to have another public hearing for the specific plan area as was required for the precise plan. He continued by explaining what the requirements are. 20 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 : AREA NW-3 The proposed rezoning of this lot from C-3 to R-3 will bring the zoning into consistency with the general plan and make the zoning consistent with the R-3 designations to both the north and south of the subject property. The subject area represents half of the 1.7 acre South Bay Hospital District property. The other half is currently zoned R-3. The surrounding area is primarily multi-family apartments and condominiums with an average density of 68 units per acre. The site still represents a potential location for a senior citizen housing facility, and the R-3 zoning would be consistent with that possibility, although a specific plan area zone may be necessary to accommodate a higher density. The total land area is 37,155 square feet. There is currently one vacant lot with a general plan designation of high density, with existing zoning of C-3. The proposed zoning is R-3. There is a potential of 27 potential units under R-3 zoning, with a potential density of 32 units per acre. Chmn. Rue asked whether the City can encourage senior citizen housing on this site. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that at the time of the general plan update, the issue of senior housing will be addressed. He noted that senior citizen housing does not create the impact of other types of housing because they are smaller units, the people do not drive during peak hours as do workers, and the number of peop~e per unit is generally lower. Chris Nicholson, 809 18th Street, noted that the site is currently vacant. He felt that since half of the site is already zoned R-3 and the other portion is to be zoned R-3, it would be more desirable to develop the parcel as one large project. He favored senior citizen housing; however, he noted concern over parking and, traffic problems in the area. He also noted concern over the potential loss of his view. He felt that there should be a view ordinance in the City. He stated that he would like to be notified when plans are submitted for this site. Public Hearing closed at 10:25 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue discussed Area NW-1, stating that the SPA is recommending 40 percent lot coverage. He felt that from a design standpoint, 40 percent lot coverage would be onerous. He felt that the area allows for more than two units. He favored the proposed eight units. He suggested a lot coverage of 55 percent, noting that plans must be reviewed on the SPA. He also favored requiring three parking spaces per unit. Comm. Ingell noted that other projects in the City are allowed a lot coverage of 65 percent; therefore, he felt that the 40 percent in this case is not reasonable. He also favored three parking spaces per unit. Comm. Ketz favored three parking spaces per unit. She agreed that 55 percent lot coverage would be appropriate, especially since the Commission will review the plans. Chmn. Rue favored future senior citizen housing for Area NW-3. Comm. Ketz agreed. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-55, with the modification that Area NW-1 have a lot coverage of 55 percent, and three parking spaces shall be required for each unit. 21 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, REVISED PLANS, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP //46903 FOR AN 11-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 603 FIRST STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission amend conditional use permit 88-31 and approve vesting tentative tract map #46903 to allow an eleven-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and tentative tract map for a 13-unit condominium at this location through the adoption of Resolution P.C. 89-4. The City Council, however, when they approved the zone change for the property from M-1 and open space to specific plan area limited the project to eleven units. This request is to obtain the necessary Planning Commission approval for the revised eleven­ unit project. The zoning is SPA No. 3, with a maximum of 11 units; 32.6 percent lot coverage; and one guest space per unit. The general plan designation is medium density residential. The lot size is 26,319 square feet. The current use is vacant. The environmental determination is a negative declaration. The revised plans depict the reduced number of allowed coradominiurn units and some changes in the general layout. The pool area has been relocated to the front on 1st Place rather than 1st Street, the area of the pool has increased, and the area of landscaping has increased. Although the specific design of the condominium units has been modified, the size and exterior appearance have remained similar. Staff conducted a zoning analysis for the project and determined that the project revisions generally conform to the provisions of the specific plan area zone and the previously approved conditional use permit. The following minor problems, however, will have to be rectified and included on revised plans to be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits: (1) the building height indicated on the building elevation is 32 feet, six inc he s, whi ch exceeds t he max i mum height in the R- 2 zone of 30 feet; (2) the proposed locatio n for the pool eq ui pm ent is not identified. It should be clearly noted that the pool equipment will be located away from the adjacent residents to minimize the impact of noise. Staff is satisfied that the project conforms with the specific plan area zone and that the relocation of the swimming pool is a modification which improves the attributes of the project relative to its surroundings. Also, staff feels that the further required revisions can be handled administratively. Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant had just provided staff with revised plans showing the relocation of the swimming pool, which staff feels is an improvement. The revised plans comply with all other requirements such as lot coverage and density. The pool equipment and trash enclosures have been relocated so that they do not disrupt adjacent neighbors. Staff approved the changes as depicted on the submitted revised plans. 22 P.C. Minutes 8/ 1/89 Hearing opened at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Vernon Sachs, 923 East 3rd Street, Los Angeles, representing Architrave, discussed the revised plans. He continued by discussing the tilt in the linear alignment which affords a larger open space area towards 1st and Ardmore which will act as a buffer. He pointed out the new locations of the pool equipment and trash enclosure. Mr. Sachs stated that the plans also depict the revised density as well as the required parking. Mr. Sachs discussed the proposed height, stating that the garage is 30 feet and the other side at raised grade is at 30 feet. Looking at the plans in silhouette makes it appear that it is 32.6 feet. He stated that the height is not over 30 feet and the height will be approved by the Building Department. Chmn. Rue liked the landscaping and lower lot coverage. He stated that this is a nice plan. Comm. Ketz like the way the guest parking is broken up not only because it is attractive, but also it is convenient. Hearing closed at 10:37 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-57, with the revised plans. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, REVISED PLANS, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP //46826 FOR A TEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 540 FIRST STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission amend Conditional Use Permit 88-34 and approve vesting tentative tract map 1146826 to allow a ten-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and tentative tract map for a 12-unit condominium at this location through the adoption of Resolution P.C. 89-18. The City Council, however, when they approved the zone change for the property from M-1 and open space to specific plan area limited the project to ten units. This request is to obtain the necessary Planning Commission approval for the revised ten-unit project. This project is zoned SPA No. 4 --maximum of ten units; maximum 32 percent lot coverage; and one guest space per unit. The general plan designation is medium density residential. The lot size is 24,125 square feet. The environmental determination is a negative declaration. The revised plans dated 7 /24/89 depict the reduced number of allowed condominium units and required parking spaces and maintains the same general layout of the previously approved plans. 23 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 ,-Staff conducted a zoning analysis for the project and determined that the project revisions conform to the provisions of the specific plan area zone and the previously approved conditional use permit. Staff has also slightly modified the conditions of the conditional use permit resolution to be consistent with the revised plans. In sum, staff is satisfied that the project conforms with the specific plan area zone and that the attributes of the project have generally improved as a result of the revisions. The reduced number of units has resulted in a larger pool area and increased the amount of open space and landscaping. Hearing opened at 10:39 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Vernon Sachs, 923 East 3rd Street, Los Angeles, representing Architrave, addressed the Commission. He discussed some of the architectural features which will be utilized: a textured composition asphalt shingle roof, exterior cement plaster, stucco with a stipple finish, aluminum frame windows and sliding glass doors with a baked painted enamel finish, exterior walls being broken up with reveals, and metal railings. Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue commended the designer on the low lot coverage of only 32 percent as well as three parking spaces per unit. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-58. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: (A) AREA 10 -LOCATION GENERALLY FROM THE CITY LIMIT TO THE SOUTH BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT AND REAR OF LOTS FRONTING ON 2ND STREET STREET TO THE NORTH -TO EITHER REMAIN R-2B ZONING WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDED FROM LOW DENSITY (LD) TO MEDIUM DENSITY (MD) OR CHANGE TO R-1 ZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; (B) VARIOUS AREAS FOR GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCIES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1989. He recommended that staff be directed to conduct an environmental assessment and schedule a public hearing for the noted amendments. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission or City Council may request general plan amendments. The areas of concern include Area 10 for which the City Council has directed staff to reconsider as part of the third quarter review, and additional inconsistent areas located west of Valley Drive (Areas A through F). Staff intends to bring up the remaining inconsist ent areas located east of Valley Drive during the fourth quarter general plan amendments. 24 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 ,· .. Area 10 The City Council at their meeting of May 9, 1989, considered amending this area from LD to MD Residential to make it consistent with the R-2B zoning. However, after public testimony the Council could not come to agreement on this area and rescheduled it for consideration with the third quarter amendments to consider both the option of a general plan amendment and a zone change. Inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive The areas proposed for general plan amendments and zone changes are identified on the parcel maps. Staff's initial determinations on whether to amend the general plan map or amend the zoning map were based primarily on consistency with the current land uses on these properties. Other considerations may arise when these areas are reviewed more carefully. Chmn. Rue asked staff to include the minutes from both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings for Area 10 when this matter comes back to the Commission. Comm. Ingell asked that each area be addressed separately in the staff report so that it is easier to follow. MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, to set this matter for public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Peirce a) Memorandum to City Council Regarding Automatic Vacancies on City Commissions Mr. Schubach stated that there were some modifications to the memorandum, and he will bring back the modified ordinance at the next meeting. Mr. Schubach stated there are allowances in the ordinance so that the each individual case is reviewed. Chmn. Rue commented on a statement in the staff report, stating that he would not want to be a paid commissioner. Comm. lngell disagreed, stating that almost all cities pay commissioners for each meeting attended. He noted that many hours of work go into the meetings, and he did not feel it is wrong to be reimbursed for one's time. Comm. Ketz agreed that it is a common practice for planning commissioners to be paid. Comm. lngell stated that maybe more qualified people would apply for the Commission if they were paid. 25 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 ,· . I • Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that there have been applications to fill the vacancy on the Commission. Chmn. Rue asked that a new commissioner be found as soon as possible, noting that each commissioner is important in making decisions. Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that some cities use alternate commissioners; however, it is not very effective because the alternates do not participate very often, and they become discouraged. When they do fill in, there seems to be confusion if items have been carried over from previous meetings. b) Planning Department Activity Report for June 1989 Chmn. Rue asked about the recycling program in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that the City is still working on that issue. Chmn. Rue asked about the moratorium on projects in the R-2 zone that exceed 25 feet in height and are bordered on the east by R-1. Comm. Ingell congratulated Mr. Schubach on being 10 percent under budget. c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for August 8, 1989, City Council Meeting No one will attend. d) City Council Minutes of July 11, 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that the oil drilling EIR will again be addressed at the second meeting in September. MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:59 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 26 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 t' • •• ( CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of August 1, 1989. --;~~ Michae1Scfiubach, Secr etary ~- Date~t'fi 27 P.C. Minutes 8/1/89