Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05.02.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 2, 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. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Edwards (Excused absence) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Rue clarified a comment he made on Page 7, Paragraph 12, of the minutes of April 18, 1989, stating that he felt neon could be used to an interesting effect; however, he felt that any such use of neon should not be outstanding; i.e., it should be legible and it should not detract from the appearance of the building. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of April 18, 1989, as amended. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-33, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO DELETE VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONES, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-34, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE BILTMORE SITE TASK FORCE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION AND FURTHER RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FORM OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND RECOMMENDING ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120755 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 345 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, TRACT 1076. No objections; so ordered. l P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING PLAN, AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE AGENCY (AUTO BROKERAGE) KNOWN AS A&H MOTORS AT 424 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. No objections; so ordered. COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, NUMERO UNO PIZZERIA (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 3/21/89 AND 4/4189) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1989. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as a restaurant and general off ice. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 4, 1989, indicated that they would consider this request only if additional parking was made available from the adjacent office building on the same side of Pacific Coast Highway, rather than across the highway; they also directed that the applicant return with an alternative plan. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of February 9, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. On September 7, 1988, the planning staff, as part of their conditional use permit review inspection, noted that Numero Uno Pizza had converted its handicapped parking space to outside dining without obtaining any permits. The business owner was instructed to abate the outside dining area or request an amendment to the CUP. Resolution P .C. 85-26 was approved on November 5, 1985, permitting the sale of beer and wine at the pizzeria. One of the conditions of this resolution required the applicant to provide the parking agreement to provide an additional 15 parking spaces to be acquired from neighboring businesses. No such agreement has ever been submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. Mr. Schubach stated that staff today received a hand-delivered letter from Cliff Warren Investments, dated May 2, 1989, advising that "This letter serves notice that Numero Uno Pizza has no future right to use the parking lot at 2309 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach after hours until a satisfactory written agreement is worked out with the owners of the property, Cliff Warren Investments." The letter was signed by Bobby Brett. Mr. Schubach noted that he did not see the applicant in the audience; however, he said the applicant had requested that this matter be continued so that he could obtain a written parking agreement with the property owner. Staff therefore recommended that this matter be continued one final time to a date certain. Mr. Schubach noted that a continuance would provide the applicant with an opportunity to correct the currently existing problems at this establishment. He said this matter was brought to the attention of staff because the establishment had introduced outdoor dining, removed the 2 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 handicapped parking stall, and did not provide adequate parking as required by the code. He noted that these are zoning problems, and it is necessary to have a parking plan to continue operation. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that he had no other background material, other than the letter which was dropped off at the counter. He did note that he had personally spoken to the applicant and the applicant was advised to appear before the Commission himself to request a continuance of this matter. He noted, however, that since this is the first meeting which commenced at 7:00 P.M. that maybe the applicant had forgotten the time change. He stated that the matter could be continued until later in the meeting to see whether the applicant would arrive. Comm. Peirce stated that he opposed continuing this matter to a future meeting again because continuances occupy excessive staff and Commission time. He noted that this matter has already been continued twice, and no new information has been provided. He stated that if the applicant does not show up at this meeting, he would favor voting to deny the application. Comm. Ingell noted concern over the application, stating that the applicant is already lacking the number of necessary parking spaces as required in the original CUP. He felt that the issue of the parking spaces should be included in this discussion so that the matter can be resolved. He noted concern that there is a problem with the originally approved conditional use permit. Chmn. Rue noted that since the applicant was not present, it would not be possible to discuss the issue of the 15 parking spaces which are required. He noted that the letter from Cliff Warren Investments advises " ... until a satisfactory written agreement is worked out .... " Chmn. Rue favored continuing this matter to a date certain so that the applicant can respond to the concerns of the Commission. Comm. Ingell stated that the applicant is currently operating with outdoor dining and inadequate parking. He therefore urged that the matter be continued to a date certain so that the matter can be resolved as soon as possible. Comm. Ketz agreed that the matter should be continued no more than two weeks. She felt that the problems should be discussed with the applicant present. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue. Since no one appeared to speak on this issue, the hearing was continued by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the meeting of May 16, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue Comm. Peirce None Comm. Edwards 3 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO SIDEY ARD SETBACK AND TO CONSTRUCT A SUBSTANDARD GARAGE AT 2007 CIRCLE AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1989. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The present use is as a single-family home of 1631 square feet. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of March 9, 1989, recommended the adoption of an environmental negative declaration. The applicant is requesting to construct a new attached two-car garage to replace an existing detached garage which encroaches into the right-of-way of Circle Drive. The new garage would extend to wlthin six inches of the side property line on the south and to three feet on the north rather than the required 3.7 feet for this lot (3.7 feet is 10 percent of the lot width measured at the mid-point of the lot depth, or 37 feet). Also, the applicant proposes to add two bedrooms (a total of 333 square feet) to the second story on top of the new garage. The proposed garage has two separate entrances and varying depths of 18 feet and 15 feet for each car space. The required depth for a garage stall is 20 feet. The setback facing the street would only be six inches rather than the currently required 17 feet. It should be noted, however, that the driveway distance from the garage to the street pavement is 24 feet because there is a large public right-of-way there which is not currently being utilized. The subject house is situated on a triangularly-shaped lot which contains 2651 square feet. The front of the lot faces Manhattan Avenue, where it.has a .width o.f about 52 feet. The lot narrows to a point in the rear to a depth of about 7 5 feet. The garage is located in the narrow rear portion of the lot where it could not be replaced with a standard garage because of the location of the main structure. The existing two-story house is also a nonconforming structure as the side yard setback is 2.5 feet rather than 3.7 feet, and the height extends up to about 28 feet rather than the maximum 25 feet. However, no structural alterations to the existing house are proposed. The proposed construction is not subject to the moratorium on the issuance of building permits for nonconforming structures, as it meets the exception of being less than a 50 percent addition, less than l 0 percent demolition, and it provides two parking spaces. Under the terms of the proposed nonconforming ordinance amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, this proposal would constitute less than a 50 percent addition and these same variances would be required for the applicants to proceed with their plans. Staff believes that the proposed variances are not justified by the unusual shape of the lot because the lot is similar in size to surrounding properties and is large enough to accommodate two parking spaces of a standard size. Staff' primary concern is related to the substandard parking stall sizes in the garage, especially the proposed substandard 15- foot deep garage space which is not adequate even for a compact car. It is questionable whether this should be considered a parking space. Staff believes alternative designs are available to the applicant which could provide standard parking stalls. It appears that the primary reason for the need to reduce one of the parking spaces to 15 feet is the current location of the existing house on the lot. This is not sufficient justification for the granting of a variance. 4 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 Additionally, staff is concerned with the proposal to add to the second story for the purpose of adding two additional bedrooms on top of the proposed substandard garage. This extends sideyard setback encroachments up to a height of almost 25 feet. Again, staff does not believe that the shape or size of the lot is so unusual as to justify these setback encroachments. It should be noted that the plans show that one of the second story bedroom windows is closer than three feet from the property line, a violation of the building code. Removal or relocation of this window may create a problem with meeting glazing requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that the reason the applicant is before the Commission is that he cannot build anything with fewer than two parking spaces under the rules of the current moratorium. If the moratorium were not in effect, the applicant's options would be contingent upon what is recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and what the Council's ulitmate decision would be. He noted that the Commission's original recommendation to Council has been returned to the Commission for further changes. He noted, therefore, that it is not clear what would ultimately be allowed were the moratorium not in effect. He did feel, however, that there would be potential for the applicant to upgrade and improve this property. Mr. Schubach stated that, even though there may be a potential for upgrading this property, he did not feel the necessary findings could ever be made for granting the variance, explaining that staff has had difficulty in determining that this is an unusual lot. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce regarding the required number of parking spaces, stated staff is currently proposing a minimum of two on-site parking spaces for non-conforming structures. He did not feel this recommendation will be changed in the future. Mr. Schubach stated that the minimum size of a garage parking space should be eight and a half feet wide and twenty feet deep. In this project, the proposal calls for a length of 18 feet; staff felt that anything less would be a tight squeeze, noting that cars should not butt up against the garage wall. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that if the moratorium were not in effect, one parking space on-site would be required according to the non­ conforming section of the code. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:23 P.M. David Olin, 1233 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project designer, addressed the Commission. He explained that he is very limited in this project due to the configuration of the lot. He stated that it is just not feasible to tear down this house because it is in very good condition. He stated that there is no easy way to proceed with this project without having to tear the house apart. Mr. Olin stated that he has attempted to work within the parameters. He stated that the cars were measured to ensure that they would fit into the garage. He explained that, because of the right-of-way, one can easily pull out of the garage and onto the street safely; therefore, there would be no access problem with the design. He explained that this is a difficult situation; one in which there are not many alternatives to work with. 5 P .C. Minutes 5/2/89 Mr. Olin stated that the current house was built in 1920, and it is in very good condition. He felt that it may even be of interest to the Historical Society. He felt it is more appropriate to try to save the house than tear it down. Mr. Olin addressed staff's concern regarding the window, stating that there is no problem whatsoever with the window because it faces a public right-of-way, and the center line of the street is considered to be the property line. Mr. Olin stated that any new height limit being proposed is completely within the height requirements. Mr. Olin explained that the only problem appears to concern the six inches. He stated that he has attempted to make the garage as long as possible in order to accommodate as many types of cars as possible. He stated that 18-foot garage car stalls are common in other cities. He stated that not many options were available to him in designing this project. Steven Mangiagli, 2007 Circle Drive, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that he is attempting this project in an attempt to accommodate his growing family. He is not a developer; he merely wants the additional room. He does not want to tear down his house because he likes it, and it is in good condition. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:27 P.M. Comm. Peirce stated that the 15-foot parking space can be made a little larger by allowing it to go right to the property line; it would then not encroach into the property. He felt that six inches would not make a great impact on the driveway. Other than tearing this house down, he stated that it is impossible to. provide two parking spaces. Comm. Ketz felt this is a unique situation, in that it is three feet from the property line that will be next to a house. The six inches in question are on the street side, and this house fronts on two streets. She did not feel that the Commission should expect people to tear down their houses in order to provide parking. She stated this is a sound house, and the applicant is attempting to work within the parameters of the lot. Comm. Ingell agreed that this is a very unusual lot, with the topography combined with the triangularly-shaped lot. Even if the house were scraped, all of the open space on the corner would be lost. He felt the loss of the open space would not be favorable, noting the beauty of this yard. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the variance request based on the following grounds: (1) Due to the substantial age and condition of the building and its frontage on two streets; (2) the unusu ally-shape d lot and slo ping topography; (3) the preservation of the open space which is enjoyed by the City; (4) this project will not adversly affect the general plan; and (5) the variance is necessary to obtain or preserve a property right possessed by other property owners in the area. Comm. Peirce asked about the six inches at issue and whether the garage should be allowed to extend right to the property line on the south. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Rue at 7:30 P.M. 6 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 Mr. Olin stated that he was trying to do the roof so that it would be same as the existing house; and he took it right to the point where there is a six-inch overhang on the roof, right at the corner. He stated that he did not want to extend anything over the property line at all. He stated that he is attempting to do something which will blend in with the rest of the house. Chmn. Rue asked if a six-inch eave projecting over the property line would be allowed. Mr. Lough replied in the negative, stating that it would create an encroachment into the public right of way. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:32 P.M. Chmn. Rue stated that this project will create no adverse impact to the neighborhood. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Rue stated that this variance may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. LEGAL DETERMINATION TO DETERMINE NUMBER OF LEGAL UNITS AT 1834 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Paul Corneal, Building Inspector, gave the staff report da.t:e:d. April 25, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission determine the property to be legal for three dwelling units. The present zoning is R-3 and there are currently two enclosed parking spaces with two additional open spaces. Mr. Corneal stated that the documents submitted by the applicant and particularly the statement by the owner-builder verify that the three units existed in 1944 and when John Adren purchased the property in 1973. The lower rear unit of 1834 P.C.H., Unit C, was therefore created between 1943 and 1944 while still owned by William Seidel. In 1943 three units were allowed to be constructed on this property. Mr. Corneal stated that the evidence indicating the existence of two units at the 1834 P.C.H. rear building include: (1) A declaration of long-time property owner William Seidel. His statement indicates that the lower rear unit was constructed originally as a workshop. Subsequently, work was done on the interior of the workshop, and conversion was done at that time to a dwelling unit; (2) A letter from William Seidel dated April 30, 1947; and (3) A variance application corresponding to the letter dated April 30, 1947. Mr. Corneal stated that an inspection he conducted of the property provided some help in substantiating the age of the lower rear dwelling unit by virtue of a 1943 date stamped in the water closet cover. Except for minor alterations, it is probably in substantially the same condition as when John Andren purchased the property in 1961. There were no detected conditions which would constitute a substandard structure. Mr. Corneal stated that the declaration and other documentation appear to substantiate that three units existed prior to 1947. It is apparent that the lower rear unit was created prior to the Andren purchase. 7 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 ,_.-""""' Mr. Corneal stated that it is staff's recommendation that the lower rear unit be granted legal status. Mr. Corneal, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that this matter arose after a request for a residential building report was made by Mr. Adren in order to approve three units at this site. Mr. Corneal stated that there are three mailboxes at this site. When Mr. Corneal went to the property to investigate why only two units were listed on the City records, he was granted permission by Mr. Andren to enter the third unit for examination. That is when he discovered the date stamped inside the water closet. He noted that the third unit is not visible from the street. Mr. Andren provided Mr. Corneal with all available information in helping to substantiate the existence of the third unit. Comm. Ketz asked how many units would be allowed today at this site. Mr. Schubach stated that this site is zoned R-3. The lot size is 5475 square feet; therefore, four units would be allowed. Mr. Corneal, in response to a question from Comm. Ing ell, explained how he learns of potential bootleg units in the City. He obtains information from the Police Department, Fire Department, reverse directory, drive-throughs in neighborhoods, complaints from neighbors, complaints from disgruntled tenants, reading classified ads for rentals, the utility company records, and various other sources. Public Hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. John Andren, 521 Gentry Street, Hermosa Beach, owner, stated that he purchased these units in early 1973. He said the reason this hearing has arisen is because he was attempting to sell the property last summer, and he wanted to have a building report on the property. He noted that the City records indicated only two units on the property. When he purchased the property it was legal non-conforming three units. Mr. Andren stated that he has complete documentation for this property, including a 1938 building permit which is not in the City records. He also has the builder's expense journal from 1929 through the l 940's. He stated that the original owner has lived on or near the premises for many, many years. He stated he is confident that the construction was done legally. Mr. Andren gave background information on how the units were built, explaining that the project took many years because it was constructed during the war when materials were very hard to obtain. Mr. Andren firmly believed that this property was constructed approximately 45 years ago and has been continuously occupied ever since. Chmn. Rue suggested that a copy of the builder's journal be entered into the record for future reference. Public Hearing closed at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, to determine that the property at 1834 Pacific Coast Highway consists of three dwelling units. 8 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None Comm. Edwards a.) Planning Department Activity Report for March 1989 Chmn. Rue asked about the new City noise meter. Mr. Schubach stated that it should be operational as soon as the police learn how to use the equipment. Chmn. Rue noted that Casey's Isuzu will be coming before the Commission for review soon. Mr. Schubach explained that there is currently a severe staff shortage; however, new employees should be on board by the end of the month. b.) Letter to Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach Planning Commissions Regarding a Joint Meeting Chmn. Rue approved the letter and stated that he would sign it. c.) Memorandum Regarding Sign-In Sheet for Planning Commission Meetings The Commission decided that the best method for obtaining proper name spellings for the minutes would be for the recording secretary to ask the speak_ers_ to spell their names. d.) City Council Minutes of April 11, 1989 No comments. No action. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce asked when the joint workshop would be held between the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach noted that, as previously discussed, the workshop was being delayed because of the staff shortage. He said one issue which the Commission might wish to discuss at the workshop would be the non-conforming ordinance. Comm. Ingell noted that the first meeting in July falls on Independence Day. The Commission therefore agreed that the meeting shall be held on Wednesday, July 5, 1989. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 7:59 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 9 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89 r 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 May 2, 1989. S"ll~" Pl Date 10 P.C. Minutes 5/2/89