Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 07.18.1989r • ,. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 18, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Ingell (Excused) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of June 20, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of July 5, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-49, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #212770 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 704 1ST PLACE DESCRIBED AS LOT 124, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1121269 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 705 1ST STREET DESCRIBED AS LOT 140, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1121234 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 444 11 TH STREET DESCRIBED AS LOT 11 AND THE SOUTHWEST 2.42 FEET OF LOT 10 KNUTSEN TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. l P .C. Minutes 7 / 18/89 .. ' .. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Chuck Hilling, 209 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked whether the City Attorney had prepared an opinion regarding the legality of using the open space area for the oil drilling and tank storage. Mr. Lee stated that he had not prepared on opinion for this meeting; however, an opinion would be ready before the issue is heard again at the second meeting in September. VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED GARAGE SETBACK AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1928 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 10, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. The project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 2940 square feet. The present use is as two detached residences. The floor area is 1656 square feet; the proposed addition is 1249 square feet. The proposed garage setbacks are four feet on the alley, and four and a half feet on the street. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for this project. The applicant is requesting to construct second-story additions and remodel the garages of both the existing residences. The proposal includes the addition of 899 square feet to the existing 922 square-foot front house and the addition of 350 square feet to the existing 734 square-foot rear house. The number of bedrooms in each unit would remain the same. Although this property is currently a nonconforming use, the project is exempt from the moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the remodeling of nonconforming uses because it was submitted prior to March 21, 1989. Therefore, pursuant to "Exception l" of Section 1301 of the zoning ordinance, this residential nonconforming use may be expanded provided the expansion conforms to the regulations of the zone in which the use is located. Currently, each house has one parking space in an enclosed garage, although the rear garage is deficient in size. As part of the proposed remodel, the front garage is proposed to be widened from nine feet, two inches to ten feet and deepened from eighteen feet, eleven inches to thirty feet, nine inches to allow for the possible parking of two vehicles. Pursuant to Section 1162 (b) and (c) of the zoning ordinance, the expansion of the front garage is not a required condition of the remodel as it meets current standards. The rear garage is proposed to be widened from seven feet, eight inches to ten feet and deepened from seventeen feet, five inches to eighteen feet, three inches. The expansion of the rear garage to bring it up to minimum dimensions, however, is a required condition of the remodel pursuant to Section 1162 (b) of the zoning ordinance. As such, the depth of the garage would have to be extended to twenty feet. The subject lot is part of the area which was rezoned from R-2 to R-1 on April 26, 1988, as part of the citywide downzonings. The surrounding area consists of primarily a mix of single-family and two-family residences on similarly sized lots. One half of the lots between 19th Street and 21st Street along the east side of Monterey Boulevard are conforming single-family uses. The majority of the lots have garages facing only the alley (Loma Drive), which currently have zero to five foot setbacks. 2 P.C. Minutes 7 / 18/89 -' Although staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed remodeling will generally improve the appearance of the property and that the applicant is making a good faith effort to upgrade the existing parking situation, staff is concerned with the fact that only two standard parking spaces will be provided when the current requirement for a two-unit project is five. Staff also believes the current parking problem would actually be made worse because the addition of square footage does, and would, in the long term increase the potential occupancy of these houses. Since the parking deficiency is a direct result of the plan not providing the seventeen-foot setback, granting a variance from that requirement would impact neighboring properties. Staff also believes that it would be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to support a request of this nature given the current moratorium on the expansion of nonconforming uses and structures and the pending ordinance amendments. Comm. Peirce discussed the bedrooms as depicted on the plans, stating that the front house appears to have three bedrooms; the second unit, however, appears to show that two of the three bedrooms have no closets. He questioned whether these could actually be classified as bedrooms since there are no closets. He felt that the second unit actually has one bedroom, with a proposal to add two additional bedrooms. He asked whether an inspection was made of this property. Mr. Schubach stated that an exterior inspection was performed; however, inside inspections are not routinely done. Staff bases their decision on the submitted plans. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding why this variance is being requested, stated that one may expand and remodel nonconforming uses and structures so long as the new portion complies with the current ordinance. By changing the garage and expanding it, it becomes necessary for the variance because the garage would become nonconforming since it would not comply with the current ordinance. If the applicant does nothing with the garage, he could still not remodel the units because he would then need to provide one parking space per each unit. It is necessary to have one parking space per unit in order to expand and/or remodel a nonconforming structure or use (of which this project is both). Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding tandem parking dimensions, explained that the spaces need to be eight and a half feet wide by forty feet deep. He stated that there are no allowances for compact cars in residential areas. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue regarding an easement from Monterey, stated that at one time Monterey was intended to be a boulevard, and it is 80 feet wide; however, that plan never came to fruition. Therefore, the setbacks are wider along that street, but it is actually public property, not owned by the property owners. Public Hearing opened at 7:17 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Arthur Sanderson, 1928 Monterey Boulevard, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has owned this property since 1978. He stated that a variance is not required for the front unit, explaining that it is conforming and could be remodeled with no variance. He discussed the second house, stating that when it was purchased, it was listed as a two-bedroom house. It has been rented out for ten years as a two bedroom house, and he has documentation attesting to the fact that it is two bedrooms. He stated that even though it does not meet the letter of the law for a two-bedroom house, that is how it has been used. 3 P.C. Minutes 7/18/89 • Mr. Sanderson discussed the parking, stating that staff's assumption that the parking situation would be made worse by the remodel is incorrect. He stated that maintaining it as a rental would generate additional traffic over the long run. Mr. Sanderson stated that he intends to remain in the house with his family; however, if he cannot expand, he would be forced to move away. Mr. Sanderson read extensively from a letter dated May 15, 1989, from him to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sanderson stated that this improvement goes far beyond one of merely appearance. He stated that it will bring the buildings up to code and will improve them and will improve the general safety. He stated that no new nonconforming conditions will be created. He said setbacks will be improved, open space will be improved, and a deck is being added to the roof. He said that all work will remain in character with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Sanderson stated that to make this property more livable by performing a rehabilitation, the life of the property can be expanded by many years. If there is no improvement, he would be forced to rent out the units and move away. Mr. Sanderson stated that his parking proposal would be very beneficial to the area, noting that the parking situation in this area is very bad. He stated that an additional space will be created for the front unit and one additional space would be created in the back; therefore, two additional parked cars would be removed from the street. The setback area from Monterey Boulevard also provides parking for another car. Mr. Sanderson stated that the existing garage is now too small,-and he will work to make it fit for parking. Mr. Sanderson stated that this property was purchased with the intention of doing this remodel, and he began the project in 1977; however, he could not afford to do everything all at once. Mr. Sanderson felt that his remodel should not be precluded because of the moratorium. He stated that it would be very disruptive to have to relocate his family. He also felt that his children should be considered as a valuable resource for the future of the City. Mr. Sanderson stated that even though this project is not in compliance with the current zoning regulations, this remodel would bring it closer to conformance and would improve the character and occupancy of this and surrounding properties. Mr. Sanderson stated that several of his neighbors signed letters stating that they support this project. He handed out these letters to the Commission. Mr. Sanderson stated that he cannot do the remodel without having the income from the rental unit. He said that if he cannot remodel, he would have to move away, noting that he cannot afford to tear down both units and replace them with one unit. He stated that his only other option would be to rent out both units. Chmn. Rue asked whether the rear garage could be extended to twenty feet. Mr. Sanderson stated that he would be willing to do anything necessary to go forward with this project. He commented that if it is extended, there is a nonconforming 4 P.C. Minutes 7/18/89 (' northern wall which would need to be jogged inward 1.04 inches and then extended outward. He continued by explaining this point as depicted on Page A2 of the plans. He stressed that he will do anything to satisfy the requirements of the City. Mr. Sanderson commented that the fact he has lived here over ten years indicates that he wants to remain in the City. Public Hearing closed at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue questioned how recycling of the housing stock can be encouraged in the City. He noted that there are many older homes in this neighborhood. He noted that one of the issues at hand involves the 17-foot setback off an alley. Comm. Peirce stated that, even though he is sympathetic to this applicant, he cannot support upgrading this nonconforming structure because the general plan designation for this area is low density residential. He noted that the Commission held hearings on this matter, and the general plan designation was changed. He noted that this is a wide street, and to violate the 17-foot setback requirement would prolong the nonconforming use. He noted that if a building, for example, is 40 years old with ten more years of life left, allowing a remodel would increase the life to 20 or 30 years. Comm. Peirce noted that the vast majority of complaints that the Commission hears in response to various projects in the City is the lack of parking. If this remodel is approved, only two parking spaces would be provided when five are required. He therefore felt that this proposal would place a burden on the City as well as on the neighbors. For these reasons, he could not support this request. He noted his desire to follow the general plan for the long term. Comm. Ketz stated that she has no problem with allowing the applicant to remodel the front unit which he lives in, which apparently can be done without a variance. Mr. Schubach explained the problems with these units and stated that the garages are not standard size; therefore, the garages must be added onto to make them conforming. To do this, the applicant ends up not having the required 17-foot setback. He said that it is necessary to have two parking spaces per unit to do anything with this property. He noted, however, that staff could work with the applicant to determine whether this problem could be solved. Comm. Peirce stated that for the applicant to do anything at all with this property, he must provide two parking spaces. He noted that tandem parking is not allowed in the R-1 zone. The front garage must be either twice as wide, or the rear garage must be modified into a conforming garage, and that would require a 17-foot setback. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the problem with the size and placement of the garage. After discussion involving the placement of the garage, Mr. Schubach pointed out that one cannot reconstruct a garage without having the proper setbacks because new construction must meet the current codes. Therefore, for this applicant to have a new garage, it is necessary to either provide the proper setbacks or to obtain a variance. Mr. Schubach discussed allowing the applicant to remodel only the first house. He stated that there would be a problem with this also because under the new ordinance, ho construction or expansion is allowed unless each unit has a minimum of one parking space. 5 P.C. Minutes 7/18/89 r • .. Comm. Peirce stated that this will be two units with only two parking spaces, and the code requires five spaces; therefore, this project would be deficient three parking spots. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that even though the project would not meet the code, there would be parking for two cars in the front garage, and one additional car could park on the apron in the front because there is a 19-foot setback from the sidewalk. He noted that Monterey may never be widened to become a boulevard as previously planned. Chmn. Rue stated that the real issue at hand involves the 17-foot setback. Comm. Peirce stated that the issue is not the 17-foot setback, it is the prolonging of a nonconforming use. Chmn. Rue stated that this is a real problem in the City. He noted that people will not abate their units for a number of years. Comm. Peirce stated that the City must begin somewhere in its process to bring the areas into conformance with the long-term goals of the general plan. He said that if the City wanted this area to remain medium density, it should have been zoned R-2; however, that was not the case. Comm. Peirce noted that the current standards for R-2 lots require a lot size of 3500 square feet; therefore, this project would be deficient even if it were zoned R-2. He stated that this applicant is deficient in lot size as well as parking. Comm. Ketz stated that she could not support a variance which would prolong the life of a nonconforming use. However, she noted concern over older homes in the City, some of which she feels are worth rehabilitating. Comm. Peirce stated that the applicant could demo the rear house and expand his home. But the applicant is not requesting to expand his own house, but rather to expand the R-2 usage. He noted that this property can be upgraded to the current standards without obtaining a variance. He could not support a nonconforming use on a nonconforming lot. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the variance, Resolution P.C. 89-53. Chmn. Rue stated that it is necessary for the Commission to make the four proper findings in order to grant a variance. In this case, the findings cannot be made. He said that the general plan and zoning will never be brought into conformance until some of these older uses are amortized out over a period of time. Mr. Sanderson felt that the City should adopt a new general plan, but the City should not confiscate the rights of people who bought their property many years ago. New people could then buy their property knowing the limitations of their purchase. He felt long­ term owners should be grandfathered in. Mr. Sanderson stated that with his proposal there would be one parking space in the rear, where there is now no parking. He said that the City property in front of his house could also be used for parking because he felt that Monterey will never be expanded. Therefore, there would be three additional parking spaces. 6 P.C. Minutes 7 /18/89 I• t Comm. Peirce pointed out that the applicant has already been grandfathered once, explaining that he has been exempted from the moratorium. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ingell Chmn. Rue stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALE OF BEER AND WINE AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 142 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE PITCHER HOUSE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 10, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The present use is as a beer and wine bar. The floor area is 3000 square feet. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. The Pitcher House is one of eighteen remaining nonconforming alcohol establishments without a conditional use permit which is subject to Section 1304 of the zoning ordinance requiring these establishments to obtain a conditional use permit within two years of the date they were notified of this ordinance. The Pitcher House is only the second nonconforming alcohol establishment to apply for a conditional use permit. The Pitcher House is an existing bar and billiard hall which has been in business for at least 25 years. The bar serves beer and wine and snack foods. These are four pool tables, several foosball tables, and several video games inside. The business is housed in an older, rather attractive building, except for the fact that all the windows are boarded up. The only entertainment is the games and amplified music. The police report covering the last five years shows three incidences of disturbing the peace and a handful of other minor security incidents. Since this beer and wine bar is an existing business located along the busy Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor and does not appear to be causing any major problems with the neighborhood, staff believed the business should be authorized by this conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that all of the standard conditions have been included in this CUP. Adoption of the CUP would give the City added ability to ensure that the business is operating in compliance. Public Hearing opened at 7:55 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Paul Williams, 20531 Palm Way, Torrance, applicant, stated that he has not had an opportunity to read the proposed conditions. He stated that the Pitcher House has been there for 38 years; he has been there for 36 years. 7 P.C. Minutes 7/18/89 f• i Mr. Schubach gave Mr. Williams a copy of the CUP to read. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that no condition was included requiring the front door to be closed. He stated that this business is on the highway. Across the highway is an auto dealership which goes in at quite a depth. Also, the establishment does not have live entertainment. He noted that the business is actually located quite deep inside the building. Staff therefore felt it was unnecessary to add a condition requiring the front door to be closed. Mr. Williams commented on the CUP, Condition No. l, stating that this business has been operating from 10:00 AM until 2:00 AM daily, not 10:30 AM as specified in the CUP. He also noted that the front door needs to remain open for ventilation. He stated that there is no live entertainment, only a stereo system. Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street, Hermosa Beach, favored approval of this conditional use permit, stating that he has had few complaints with this establishment. He suggested that all businesses of this type have standard conditions. He continued by discussing the fact that he represents the neighborhood, and they agree that this CUP should be approved. Mr. Sullivan continued by discussing a letter he mailed to the Planning Commission. He felt that the City should standardize the conditional use permits. He discussed an article in the Daily Breeze regarding establishments selling alcoholic beverages. He favored uniform rules for all bars and liquor establishments. He suggested that all things not allowed should be listed specifically in the CUP in order to make things very clear. Public Hearing closed at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue explained that anything not listed in the CUP as permitted is specifically not allowed. He felt that the manager should be required to read and sign the CUP so that he is informed as to exactly what is allowed in an establishment. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-54 with the following amendments: (1) Condition No. 1 be modified to read: "The hours of operation shall be limited to 10:00 AM to 2:00 AM daily"; (2) wording should be added stating that the manager shall be required to read and sign a copy of the CUP. Comm. Peirce noted that this business is on the highway and is across the street from an auto dealer. He stated that noise does not appear to be a problem at the Pitcher House. Comm. Ketz noted that this has been an existing use for 38 years, and there do not appear to be any problems. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Ingell 8 P .C. Minutes 7 / 18/89 ,~ , . STAFF ITEMS a) Rl Development Standards Study for the City of Torrance Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the R-1 development standards used in Torrance. It was noted, however, that Torrance is very different from Hermosa Beach, especially since the lots there are much larger, and Torrance does not slope as Hermosa Beach does. b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Items No action taken. c) City Council Minutes of June 27, 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce discussed the concept of utilizing citizen groups to monitor various uses throughout the City in order to provide input to the Coastal Commission who could then monitor the complaints and decide which ones to take action on. He noted that staff time is very limited, and citizen groups could be quite effective in watching conditional use permit enforcement. Comm. Peirce suggested that staff-look into the feasibility of using such groups in the City. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that actual records of complaints can be compiled so that specific action can be taken on various complaints. He noted that staff is currently addressing the issue. He continued by discussing the various actions which can be taken when a business is in violation. Chmn. Rue suggested that staff might contact the newspaper and suggest a story regarding the new conditions being enacted in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that could be done. He also noted that the City has a newsletter and articles could be included on this topic. Comm. Peirce noted that he would be absent from both meetings in August since he will be on vacation. He stated, however, that he would like to receive copies of the packets and minutes for both meetings. Ken Marks, 223 Valley Drive, addressed the Commission and apologized to Chmn. Rue for comments he made publicly at the Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, July 17, 1989. He stated that be voiced comments without having evidence to back those comments up. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that he will follow up on the issue of having a demonstration of the noise meter. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 8:29 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 9 P.C. Minutes 7/18/89 'f t - ( ( 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 July 18, 1989. W1r.. ,D.., -------J~ ~/~ ,, Date ~ 10 P.C. Minutes 7 / 18/89