Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 03.21.1989' • I " . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 21, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Rue* Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Ken Robertson, Advanced Planner; Sally White, Recording Secretary (* Comm. Rue entered Council Chambers at 7:45 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve the minutes of March 7, 1989, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Ingell Comm. Rue APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 89- 12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP /147230 FOR A FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE/615 SECOND STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, TRACT 81 AND LOT 76, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell stated that several corrections were necessary to Page 2 of Resolution P.C. 89-15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AT 50 PIER AVENUE, KNOWN AS PIER MARKET: (1) Conditions 3 and 5 appear to be the same; (2) Conditions 4 and 6 appear to be the same; and (3) Conditions 2 and 8 are very similar. He suggested that staff revise the resolution. Chmn. Peirce agreed and directed staff to return with a corrected copy of Resolution P.C. 89-15 at the next meeting. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 89- 21, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120554 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 2902 1 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 I ' HERMOSA A VENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, BLOCK l 06, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Ketz asked staff for clarification of Section 8 of Resolution P .C. 89-22, in regard to the required termite inspections. Mr. Schubach explained the nonconforming uses and what can be rebuilt and what cannot be rebuilt. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Resolution correctly reflects the intent of the Planning Commission's decision. Comm. Ingell stated that the vote on Page 4 of Resolution 89-22 should be corrected to specify that he was absent. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 89- 22, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISION, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS --NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES AND RELATED ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Betty Thomas, 1934 Pacific Coast Highway, noted that there were many people in the audience waiting to address Agenda Item 9F. She asked if the Chairman would consider hearing that item at the beginning of the meeting as a courtesy to all those in attendance. Chmn. Peirce said that the Commission would first address items continued from the previous meeting; Agenda Item 9F could then be moved up if no one objected. (There were no objections.) Kathleen Conte, 2015 Monterey, asked if her lot merger hearing could be continued for 30 days so that she could study a lot map to determine whether it conforms to her title insurance. Chmn. Peirce stated that Ms. Conte's hearing would be continued as requested. Mr. Schubach suggested that the entire lot merger hearing be continued because of the large crowd waiting to discuss the multi -use corridor. (Lot merger applicants in the audience voiced a strong "yes" to the continuance suggestion.) John Michael, representing Virginia Peacock, owner of 737 and 739 30th Street, requested that the hearing be continued. Rosalie La Rue, 733 30th Street, also requested a continuance. Scott Morris, representing Steven and Alice Legare at 1712 The Strand, requested a continuance. Chmn. Peirce stated that Agenda Item No. 10, Hearing of Determination for Lot Merger Group L.M. 89-1, would be continued to the next meeting, as requested by the property owners. 2 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 .. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120557 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1737 PROSPECT AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/7 /89) Mr. Schubach stated that staff today received modified plans for this project which show a different plan for the driveway. He stated that this proposal seems to improve the project in terms of saving on-street parking. He said the plan will provide a 19 1/2-foot parking space to the one side of the driveway, and an 18-foot area to the other side of the driveway. The new design would provide two on-street parking spaces. He said the staff would recommend approval of the project if this parking configuration is used; if not used, staff would stand by its original recommendation to deny the project, noting that the project still has some design problems and is still two separate units. Mr. Schubach stated that this proposal seems to be the best plan without having to do an extensive revision of the project. He noted that the applicant had also submitted a drawing depicting the proposed parking. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Michael DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. He handed out copies of a letter from the architect, Gerald Compton, dated March 17, 1989, addressed to the Planning Commission. Mr. DeVere read into the record the letter from Mr. Compton: "Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: I am sorry I will not be able to attend the upcoming Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 1989, to testify on the 2-unit condominium project at 1737 Prospect Avenue, as I will be out of town. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate a couple of the points I went o:v.er at rour last meeting related to design constraints, as well as to provide some additional input for your deliberations. "As I mentioned previously, this project forced some difficult decisions related to design because of the down slope from the street in order to facilitate drainage and to minimize a long and wasteful driveway area. "During our analysis of different configurations on this lot, we reviewed carefully a front and rear unit arrangement for the site. The main problem we had related to the building bulk pushed to the street frontage, as well as the relative height which that configuration dictates. The building tends to be wide and tall because it cannot terrace down the site as the scheme we chose does. The front facade of our project is two-story with a stepped up area 45' from the street. The other approach brings the bulk of the building much closer to the street and would be, in my opinion, out of character with the neighborhood. "I hope that you will agree with our analysis of the situation and approve the project as submitted. "P .S. We are also concerned about the 19' row house effect, but possibly if a good example of this development type was available, some of the 25' lots remaining in town would be developed in a more responsible manner. Sincerely, Gerald W. Compton, A.I.A." Mr. DeVere noted that drawings depicting the new proposal and parking have been submitted. He apologized for the lateness in submitting the materials; however, he was unaware that staff objected to the previous plan, so a new plan was prepared. He noted 3 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 that Mr. Wheaton of the Public Works Department had signed the drawing indicating his approval of the plans. Mr. DeVere stated that a landscaping drawing was also submitted, and he continued by discussing the proposed landscaping as depicted on the drawing. He said there will be landscaping in the easement area which should hold up well with the traffic. He also said an attempt has been made to reduce the concrete areas by utilization of the landscaping. Comm. Rue noted concern over egress from the driveway, noting that Prospect Avenue is a very busy street. Mr. DeVere stated that there would not be a problem with exiting from the driveway because of the U-configuration, whereby cars can easily back up and turn around so that they can exit onto the street in a forward manner. He agreed that Prospect is a busy street; however, he noted that this property has a 25-foot easement so that it is easier to see both ways onto the street. He further noted that this plan has been reviewed with the Public Works Department, and they could foresee no problem with the plan. Mr. DeVere requested that the Planning Commission make a decision at this time so that there is no further delay in the project. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked what criteria are used in granting a conditional use permit. He also asked whether this project is within the City's height limit. Mr. Schubach explained that conditional use permits are examined on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether a project is high quality and whether it is designed appropriately for the site. He said that staff reviews pna.je11:ts. based on planning principles. He said that all projects must conform to the height regulations. He explained, in response to questions from Mr. Gray, the allowable heights in the City. Mr. Gray stated that, if approved, this will be the second CUP granted within this area in the past few months. He had no objection to the project itself so long as it conforms to all R-2B regulations; however, he noted great concern over the International Bilingual School, stating that traffic in the area is already very heavy. He said he doesn't want to see the school site rezoned in the future to allow condominium development. Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 401, Hermosa Beach, one of the property owners of the proposed project site, stated that the Commission, at their previous meeting, commented on the parking and landscaping for this project. He noted that the designer has submitted revised plans addressing these concerns. He said that this project will not eliminate any on-street parking in the area. He said that the proposed landscaping will enhance this project as well as the surrounding area. Mr. Olguin said he has lived in the area for many years, and he does not want to be at odds with neighbors who oppose the project. He has been a developer for a long time, and when he purchases a piece of property, he studies it in depth in order to determine what type of project will be best suited for the site. He noted that it would be easier for him, as a designer, if the City provided clear guidelines to developers. He suggested that guidelines be provided in writing in order to avoid confusion. Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. 4 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 Comm. Rue stated that the concerns of the staff, the Commission, and the Code have been addressed by the realignment of the parking spaces on the street in order to eliminate no on-street parking spaces. He favored the proposed landscaping, stating that the turf stone is a good idea, and will enhance the project. He strongly supported this project as presented, stating that it is to code and will be a good development. He said that the best use has been made of the land in designing this project. Comm. Ingell stated that, even though he was absent from the previous hearing on this matter, he has read the minutes and feels he is able to participate in the decision. He also favored this project, stating it appears to be a good development for this particular piece of property. Comm. Ketz agreed with the comments of Comm. Rue. She said that since there is now only one driveway, the taking of off-street parking is minimized. Comm. Edwards noted that the Commission originally had concerns over this being two projects on two lots. He noted that his initial concern was that this lot could be split in the future and single homes could be built on them. He said, however, that staff stated that the lot could not be split in the future because it is too small. Chmn. Peirce, although favoring the driveway and the innovative use of landscaping at this project, said that he opposes the project because it is two units. He felt that this would be a better project if the units were one single structure. He noted the financial considerations; however, he still felt that from a planning standpoint, one structure would be more appropriate. He said a single structure could have larger setbacks and provide additional amenities. Based on these reasons, he said he would vote against the project as proposed. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve this project as presented in the latest submittal, dated March 21, 1989, (Supplemental No. 6) with the turf stone driveway, the proposed landscaping, and full parking as it stands. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue Chmn. Peirce None None Chmn. Peirce stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would now suspend the agenda and hear Agenda Item 9(f). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI-USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Robertson, Advanced Planner, presented the staff report dated March 15, 1989. On November 9, 1988, the City Council adopted a ten-month moratorium on residential and commercial construction for portions of the Multi-Use Corridor. The purpose of the moratorium was to give staff sufficient time to study the various land uses within the MUC and to recommend changes in the policies, regulations, and land use designations which guide development in the corridor. The primary reason for the study is to establish clearly defined limits to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway which are 5 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 ,,.. consistent with the objectives of maximizing commercial development potential while minimizing impacts of commercial encroachment into nearby residential neighborhoods. On February 23, 1989, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended the adoption of a negative declaration for the General Plan Amendments being considered for the MUC because portions of the MUC are proposed to be changed to residential designations, thereby reducing the potential intensity of land usage in the area. Mr. Schubach showed overhead transparencies depicting Exhibit A as Mr. Robertson continued with the stat f report. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions regarding the Multi-Use Corridor and to adopt the following resolutions: (1) Establish the boundary of the Pacific Coast Highway "Commercial Corridor" at the depths recommended in Exhibit A and more specifically described in Part II of the staff report; (2) Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate areas not within the Commercial Corridor from MUC to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, or High Density Residential, depending on the adjacent designation; (3) Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting the recommended definition for the "Commercial Corridor" and amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the area within the established boundary from MUC to Commercial Corridor; (4) Adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendments; (5) Implement the General Plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the Commercial Corridor to classifications consistent with the adjacent residential classifications and by adopting policies for the Specific Plan Area classifications to be applied in the Commercial Corridor. Initiate discussion on development standards and development review procedures to be applied in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas; (6) Consider the inclusion of existing commercial areas designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map. Mr. Schubach explained that staff intends to present this item to the City Council within one month. He said that it is intended to continue with the matter as quickly as possible; therefore, zone changes for areas outside of the MUC would be presented to the Planning Commission as soon as the City Council gives their approval. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the procedure which will be followed for these general plan amendments. In response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, he recommended that the moratorium remain in effect until after the zone changes take place. However, in areas where no zone change will occur, he said it could be recommended that the moratorium be lifted. Comm. Rue noted concern over the moratorium. He also stressed that caution should be exercised in making a decision on this area, noting that the best decision for everyone involved should be made. 6 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 The staff report summarizes the study and analysis conducted by staff and includes recommendations for each block within the Multi-Use Corridor. The Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor directly abuts Pacific Coast Highway to the east and west, extending the length of the City of Hermosa Beach. There are four commercial sectors along Pacific Coast Highway: (1) Multi-Use Corridor --1st to 8th Street; (2) General Commercial --8th to 14th Street; (3) Multi-Use Corridor --Pier Avenue to 24th Street; and (4) General Commercial --Gould Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway. Commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway is irregular in depth and is broken up by a stretch of residential uses between 17th Street and 21st Street. Each commercial sector has a somewhat different character in terms of types and intensity of commercial uses. For example, automotive and repair services are the predominant uses in t.he MUC between 1st Street and 8th Street. The most common uses in the general commercial area between 8th Street and 14th Street are retail and service businesses. The land uses in the MUC between Pier Avenue and 24th Street are a mix of retail, office, and multi-family residential, including two newer developments, Plaza Hermosa and Hermosa Pavilion. Finally, in the general commercial area near Gould Avenue, the primary land uses are retail and service businesses. The total length of frontage on the east side and west side of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Hermosa Beach is about 12,600 feet. The length of P .C.H. frontage within the MUC is over 8,200 square feet. Approximately 76 percent of this frontage (6,236 feet) is developed commercially. Additionally, 52.6 acres of land are located within the MUC. Approximately 26.7 acres, or 51 percent, of this property is developed commercially. Almost all of this development is on properties which front directly onto P.C.H. About 44 percent of the MUC is developed residentially, containing 598 dwelling units. These areas are primarily located behind commercially developed frontage lots and are often part of established residential neighborhoods which extend much deeper to the east the west. The remaining 5 percent of the MUC is currently vacant. A table of information containing the distribution of land uses within the MUC by block and sub­ area is included in the appendix. The Multi-Use Corridor is a land use designation that has been in effect since the City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Element was adopted in 1966. The MUC is defined in the general plan as: "The purpose of the land use category is to provide additional depth for development, and to allow various types of land use. It would include apartments, shops, stores, restaurants, office buildings, service stations, auto dealers, specialty shops, bowling alleys, and other similar activities. However, strict standards of development, including landscaping, setback, parking, architectural design, sign controls, and street appearance would be enforced." Originally, the MUC was regarded as a means of dealing with an area that, while primarily commercial, had a mix of retail, service, and low and high density residential uses. The depth of the MUC, established at about 300 feet, was thought of as a way to allocate enough land for on-site parking and to encourage the turnover of existing residences and small retail and service uses to larger scale commercial developments. It recognized the continuing problem of traffic, parking, and access which seemed to be a deterrent to commercial success along the highway. As part of a "mixed-use" concept, the MUC designation permits existing uses, particularly residential, to continue until such time that market conditions warrant a transition to commercial development. This transition of these marginal areas was 7 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 further encouraged by the designation of C-potential zoning to certain properties which were vacant or residential and were perceived to have commercial development potential. Recently, the transition of C-potential properties to commercial uses has not happened as frequently as was perhaps envisioned. In fact, many of the properties have been developed with residential uses and are currently part of established residential neighborhoods. Since 1979 the MUC has been the subject of several discussions aimed at determining whether or not this land use designation adequately represents the City's goals and policies regarding commercial and residential development along P .C.H. Issues discussed pertaining to future development of the Corridor include: (1) To what extent should commercial development be allowed to extend? (2) Is residential use a desirable long­ term use within the Multiple Use Corridor? (3) Are development standards in place which would ensure quality commercial development and buffering of adjacent residential uses? If not, what should they be? After considerable research and public input, it was determined in 1985 that the Multi­ Use Corridor should be redefined to more clearly indicate a commitment to commercial development. More recently, however, it has become apparent that this commitment to commercial development must be moderated to include a greater sensitivity towards existing abutting residential areas threatened by the encroachment of expanded commercial development. It is staff's position that the first step toward solving the problem is to take the following sequence of actions regarding the general plan: (1) clearly define the maximum depth of commercial development acceptable to the City; (2) designate existing residential areas outside the commercially defined area as Residential on the General Plan Map; (3) designate the commercially defined area as Commercial Cm:ridor on the General Plan Map, amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish a definition and statement of development objectives for this Commercial Corridor. The remaining actions to be taken in order to implement the above changes in the General Plan are: (4) amend the zoning ordinance for residential areas outside the commercially defined area from MUC to the adjacent residential zoning designation; and (5) amend the zoning ordinance to create Specific Plan Areas within the corridor (for example, one for the south portion and another for the north portion) to establish standards and review procedures for commercial development within the corridor. In order to determine the appropriate depth for the boundary of the Commercial Corridor, a land use inventory and analysis was conducted for the entire area of the MUC. The inventory was conducted to generate information regarding existing land uses, depth of existing commercial development, existing zoning, ownership, age of original construction, condition of the property, topography, and adjacent land uses. The information was compiled on a lot by lot basis, as shown in Part II of the report and was evaluated on a block by block basis. The following criteria were used towards making a final determination on the recommended location for the boundary line for each block: (1) the lots designated for commercial development should be of an adequate size and shape to accommodate commercial development of a high quality; (2) the lots designated for commercial development should contain enough area and have adequate features to allow for setbacks and screening/buffering of potential commercial uses from existing residential uses; (3) the depth of potential future commercial development should generally extend a minimum of 100 feet to a maximum of 300 feet from Pacific Coast Highway; (4) areas designated for commercial development should have available access from Pacific Coast Highway; (5) housing in good condition should not be designated for 8 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 commercial development whenever possible; (6) commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods should be minimized; (7) individual property ownerships should not be divided by commercial and residential land use designations; (&) the existing topography should allow for commercial development that will not significantly impact scenic views or require excessive grading; and (9) the depth of the commercial area should be consistent across streets wherever possible. The above criteria were used in making a judgment on the recommended location of the Commercial Corridor boundary line. A block by block analysis and recommendation is contained in Part II of this report. For purposes of the analysis, the MUC was divided into four sub-areas: (1) Southeast --south city boundary to 8th Street, east side of P.C.H.; (2) Northeast --14th Street to 24th Street, east side of P.C.H.; (3) Northwest -- 24th Street to Pier Avenue, west side of P.C.H.; and (4) Southwest --8th Street to south city boundary, west side of P.C.H. The boundary recommendation is depicted in Exhibit A. A recommendation for the amended general plan designation for the residential area outside the boundary is also included in the block by block description contained in Part II. In all cases the recommended change is from the MUC designation to a designation consistent with the adjacent residential designation. Locating the Commercial Corridor boundary as recommended in Exhibit A, and described in Part II, would result in the redesignation of approximately 20.4 acres from MUC to a residential designation, and the redesignation of the remaining 32.2 acres from MUC to Commercial Corridor. Although this would reduce the area of maximum commercial development allowed under the general plan from 52.6 acres to 32.2 acres, it would still allow for a potential increase in commercially developed acreage of 21 percent over the current amount of 26. 7 acres. In order to convey a clear commitment to commercial development in the commercially defined area along P .C.H., the land use category of "Multi-Use Corridor" should be replaced by the category of "Commercial Corridor," which is defined as: "The purpose of the Land Use Category is to clearly define the limits of the depth for commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and prohibit the development of new residential uses within this area. Existing residential uses within the corridor are expressly allowed; however, the transition of these uses to commercial usage is highly desirable. This category allows various types of commercial land uses including retail, service, and office uses. Automotive related commercial uses would be allowed by conditional use permit only. To ensure that commercial development will be compatible with existing nearly residential uses, standards for building height, parking and access, setbacks, and landscaping will be implemented through Specific Plan Area designations." The Multi-Use Corridor designation should be deleted from the general plan map and replaced with the Commercial Corridor designation. The proposed zone changes for the areas within and outside of the proposed Commercial Corridor: The residential areas behind the boundaries of the established commercial corridor should be changed to the zoning classification of the adjacent residential neighborhood, and the C-Potential classification should be eliminated. The areas should be rezoned to R-1, R-2B, R-2, and R-3, whichever classification is consistent with the adjacent residential classification. For the area within the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas (SPA), the creation of specific plan areas would provide clearly defined policies, objectives, and development 9 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 standards specifically tailored to areas of the corridor. The Specific Plan would be adopted by ordinance and would amend the zoning ordinance. The SP A would be based on the general policy statements included in this general plan amendment. Recommended policies for the Specific Plan Area Zones: The current zoning ordinance has only a limited set of regulations on commercial development in the C-3 zone. It controls the types of uses, the amount of parking provided, and the layout of parking areas, building heights, and setback/buffering adjacent to residential areas. There are currently no requirements for setbacks from the street, landscaping, traffic studies and traffic improvements, the general layout of the buildings, or the appearance. Additionally, there is no provision for the review of commercial development proposals. Therefore, if a proposed development meets the basic zoning requirements and the building code, it can obtain approval. Although this may be an acceptable practice for smaller commercial projects, it is not acceptable for the larger projects to be expected along Pacific Coast Highway. Development standards and plan review procedures should be established for the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas. The following are basic policy statements for the Specific Plan Areas . More detailed developm ent standards will be developed based on the follow ing poli c ies: (1) Existing res iden tial uses are permitted to continue indefinitely, and shall be allowed a limited amount of improvement and expansion as long as the residential density does not increase; (2) Residentially developed and vacant property can only be used for commercial purposes if the property fronts on Pacific Coa st Highwa y or is part of an assembla ge of properties conta ining a comme rcial proj ect which fronts on Pacific C oast Highwa y; (3) New resi dential proje cts s ha ll be prohibited, except on vacant parcels not fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, and not connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway. Any proposed residential projects must be approved by the Planning Commission;, (4) Height limits and the method of measurement shall be established which will minimize impacts of commercial development on scenic views and on the privacy of adjacent residences; (5) Landscaping requirements shall be established to improve the a ttra ct iven e s s of development along Pacific C oa st Highway and to buffer interfacing or a butting re side ntial developmen t ; (6) Traffic im pac t stu d ies shall be required for projects which will cause significant traffic impacts and these studies shall include proposed measures to mitigate the impacts; (7) All commercial projects shall require staff review to ensure compliance with the standar ds and policies of the Spec ifi c Plan Area, and significant p ro ject s shall require P lannin g Commission review and a pp rov al , subject to City Council ap pe al; (8) A list of permitted uses shall be established which permits a broad range of commercial and office related uses with emphasis given to uses which have the highest benefit to the community; (9) More than one SPA zone may be created for areas of the corridor based on the sub-area's unique features; (10) Orientation of all commercial development should be toward Pacific Coast Highway and not toward local residential streets; (11) Physical setbacks and architectural treatment shall be provided where commercial and residential development abut or interface; and (12) Assembled lots proposed for commercial development shall be merged as a condition of development. General Commercial Designated Areas Along Pacific Coast Highway: In consideration of the proposed designation of a portion of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor to Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area, the question of whether or not to change the 10 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 I designation of the remammg portion of P.C.H. needs to be addressed. The remammg commercial areas along the corridor are currently designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map, and they are zoned C-3. Some of the residential areas behind the commercial uses still maintain a C-Potential zoning classification. Continuing the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area designation to these commercial areas to further ensure quality commercial development and to more clearly define the depth of commercial development would be a logical extension of the proposed General Plan Amendments noted above. Staff has not undertaken a detailed study of these areas at this time because of the priority of addressing the areas currently under moratorium. Once the land use designations and policies regarding the Multi-Use Corridor are resolved, staff could direct its efforts toward similar proposals for the remaining portion of the corridor. Comm. Rue asked how residential uses along the commercial corridor would be affected. Mr. Schubach stated that residences could remain and could be improved to a limited degree; however, additional units could not be added. He said that residential uses would have the options of both residential and commercial. The intent is to retain the residential uses of those homes remaining in the corridor as residences, if desired, and to be able to improve and remodel and not be considered commercial properties. However, in the future, if those properties were obtained by a property owner that fronted on the highway, the properties could be used as commercial, with discretionary approval from the Planning Commission. In other words, the residences along the corridor actually have the best of two worlds, being able to be either residential or commercial without being nonconforming in either case. Comm. Rue noted concern that the residences would be forced, to be commercial. Mr. Schubach stated that would not be the case; the intent is to allow residences to remain as residential and not be forced into commercial. He stated that maintaining and improving the commercial area while at the same time protecting the integrity of the residential area is the intent. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the staff proposal at this time is general; specific standards will be written into the Specific Plan Areas. At this time, staff is attempting to obtain input on the general plan and SPA in general. Mr. Schubach continued by showing the various areas as depicted on Exhibit A, "Proposed Commercial Corridor Boundary." Chmn. Peirce noted that only a few members of the community have had an opportunity to see the staff report for their specific area. He stated that, for the benefit of the audience, the Planning Commission would recess and go out into the audience so that citizens could look at their copies of the maps and staff recommendations for their particular blocks. He noted that the Commissioners would answer no questions; the break was merely for people to see the recommendations for their area. Mr. Lough stressed that the Commission members must not discuss the matter with the audience; they could merely show their copies of the staff report to interested citizens for purposes of clarification. He said if citizens had any questions during the break, they must ask staff but not the Commission members. Recess taken from 8:35 P .M. until 8:48 P .M. 11 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 Chmn. Peirce suggested that additional copies of the report be made available to the general public. Mr. Schubach stated that citizens can obtain copies of the report; however, the cost is 20 cents per page. He said, however, that copies are in the library as well as review copies at the counter of the Planning Department. Chmn. Peirce noted that this matter must also go to the City Council after it is heard at the Planning Commission level. Public Hearing opened at 8:53 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, felt that the staff report contains several inaccurate statements in regard to residences which are described in the report as "in poor condition." She said that her property is not in poor condition, nor are others which are so identified. Ms. McHugh stated that several people in the area did not receive notice of this hearing; therefore, she felt that the noticing process is somehow at fault. Ms. McHugh discussed Page 69 of the staff report, which pertains to her property. She said her properties are in the MUC, and she has made it known she and her husband want to develop the properties. She stated that she is very much against rezoning her residential property to commercial. She stated that one of the properties has been in her family for five generations, and she wants to build a home there to live in. She stated that there is a sentimental value at issue here as well as a financial consideration. She felt it is not right to rezone people's property at random. Ms. McHugh stated that commercial properties are not doing well along the highway now. She stated that to rezone the area would not benefit the smaller commercial businesses, nor would it benefit the residences. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, opposed the proposed rezone. She disagreed with the staff report wherein it says that residences will be allowed to remain as is at the discretion of the Planning Department. She stated that this proposal is stepping on peoples' toes, and she did not like it. She stressed that the general plan can be changed to conform with the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to conform to the general plan. She urged that the Commission use caution when making these changes. Penny Smith, 724 24th Street, representing the block of 24th Street, stated that only five people on the street received a notice of this hearing. She stated that she went door-to­ door to alert neighbors of the hearing. She stated that staff must do something to ensure that everyone receives the proper noticing. Ms. Smith noted concern over safety on 21st Street if the zoning is changed. She said that 21st Street is the way most children go to school, and it is a residential street. She did not favor commercial abutting residential in this area. Ms. Smith stated that many of the business on the highway have "For Lease" signs in the windows. She questioned whether the City really wants more commercial on the highway. Ms. Smith stated that allowing a hotel in the area would be quite unacceptable, especially since the traffic is already so bad on Ardmore. She noted concern for safety 12 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 , . in the area. She stated that the parking is already very crowded, and additional commercial uses would exacerbate the problem. Ms. McHugh favored the empty lot on 21st Street at the highway being commercial; however, what she opposed is having the commercial come half way down 21st Street. She felt that the commercial zone should come down 21st Street only so far as the other commercial buildings have come down. Ms. McHugh concluded by passing out petitions which have been signed by the neighbors. Rick Thompson, 2420 Pacific Coast Highway, discussed Page 47 of the staff report which addressed alternatives. He stated that he favors the alternative proposal of the MUC going down Rhodes Street as opposed to Borden Street. He said there is currently a block wall on Rhodes Street separating the houses on that street from the houses on Borden Street; also the land is higher on the east side of Rhodes and lower on the west side of Rhodes; therefore, there is a natural barrier. He said Hope Chapel owns three houses on Borden Street, and they would like to see the property included in the multi-use corridor. Richard Baughman, 701 4th Street, president of the 4th Street Homeowner's Association, discussed Page 62 of the Staff Report and stated that one area was once zoned as R-3, and it is now suggested that it be rezoned to C-3. He stated that when he purchased his townhome he had no knowledge of the multi-use corridor and was unaware of potential rezoning. He noted concern over his property value should commercial be built next to the townhouses. He said that the theater on the highway which was built next to residential was very poor planning. He stated that he would take legal action before he would let the City rezone the property to commercial. He felt that zoning should be remain as it is, stating he could see no reason to change it. Barbara Adams, owner of Lots 5, 6, and 7 on 24th Street, stated that a 300-foot drop on 21st Street for commercial use would drop her out of the commercial corridor. She stated that her three lots were recently merged into two lots; however, she is not in the MUC because she has R-1, nonconforming property. She questioned what would happen to her property if she is surrounded by commercial property. Ian Feldon, 703 4th Street, discussed Page 62 of the Staff Report, contending that the proposal violates six out of nine of the criteria presented by staff. He suggested that the notch depicted on the map be just a straight line. Nanette McChristian, 1829 Hillcrest Drive, stated that she will soon be moving to an apartment she owns atop a flower shop at 1901 Pacific Coast Highway. She said that the property she owns is zoned MUC. As a third-generation owner of this property, she had expectations to better the property as well as to enhance the community. If the property is zoned commercial, it will only add to the many vacant stores currently along the highway. She stated that a rezone will lower her property value; also, many residents will leave because they will not be able to enhance their property. She favored leaving the current zoning in place. She stressed that there are already many vacant stores along the highway. Steve Syckenoff, 1851 Rhodes Street, has a 50 by 150 foot lot with a 2500 square foot house on it. Directly in front of his property are apartment buildings that have been there for many years. South of the apartment building is zoned R-3. Further south is residential with some office buildings. He noted concern over his view, stating that commercial zoning would allow for a higher height limit. He also noted concern over the traffic and parking problems created by the other commercial uses. He said he had no 13 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 objections to allowing nothing higher than what is currently existing. He felt that people should be able to improve their property. He felt that the only appropriate use would be for residential or small offices, because there is not adequate parking for commercial uses. He favored improving property in the City; however, he opposes a reduction in the livability in the City. He suggested that height limitations be imposed and that measures be taken to reduce the density in the City. Janet Murat, 900 15th Street, which is a lot abutting the current MUC, stated that she is pleased to see commercial development being restricted further down the hill. She noted concern over views. She noted that many people favor leaving the zoning as it is, and to keep the density as low as possible. She did not favor rezoning any additional areas for commercial, noting that there are already many vacancies. Sean Guthrie, 710 4th Street, discussed Page 63 of the report, and agreed with the recommendation for his block in regard to the boundaries; however, he did not support the recommended general plan change from MUC to medium density residential because it would mean rezoning the property from R-3 to R-2. He said he is surrounded by R-3 properties; therefore, he noted concern over the height limits and views if he is rezoned to R-2. He said many things must be taken into account before allowing commercial so close to residential, such as setbacks, stepping of the height, landscaping, and buffering, He supports an attempt to reduce density in the City; however, every property cannot be downzoned because of the property values involved. Jack Andran, 521 Gentry Street, discussed 18th, 19th, and 20th Street, stating that 1860 P .C.H. was omitted from the property list. He continued by discussing the various zoning on the east and west sides of these streets. He said if the R-3 zoning is changed to commercial, there would then be R-1 abutting commercial which would be inappropriate. He stated that several of the properties mentioned in the report are in better condition than described. He suggested apartment use over condominiums along the highway, because apartments can support a higher density than townhomes, are more "affordable housing," and can restore the stock of dwindling apartments in the City. He said that 18th, 19th, and 20th, on both sides of those streets, should remain R-3 to buffer the R-1 to the east side; and on the west side it would be a compatible use with the large complexes currently existing there. Virgil Daggi, 17645 Polora Street, Encino, owner of Lots 23, 24, and 25 in the Hermosa View Tract, No. l and 2, located on the north side of 21st Street, 220 feet southwest of Pacific Coast Highway. He said all three lots are vacant. Prior to May 14, 1984, Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 were zoned R-1 with C-Potential. On that day Lots 20, 21, and 22 were changed to C-zoning, and a 50-unit hotel and restaurant were approved. At the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, his property was discussed. Statements were made by members that to do a complete and correct job of zoning, his lots should be rezoned to either R-2 or R-3. The hotel project expired years ago; however, his property, which was adjacent to the R-1 zone, became adjacent to the commercial zone. In regard to the potential commercial zoning, there is no boulevard frontage. His property is controlled by the commercial property to the north. In all fairness, and to make his position viable, he and his wife should also have the option of R-2 or R-3 zoning. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, discussed past opposition to a proposed development at 15th Street and the suggested moratorium along the multi-use corridor. He opposed the term "commercial corridor" as well as the term "commercial." He stated that this proposal is government at its worst. He did not favor the City screwing around with zoning. 14 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 Mr. Longacre said that the people in the audience should not give credence to the document prepared by the staff; he said the document has no legitimate credence, because no good hearing was ever held to discuss whether this area should even be commercial. Mr. Longacre said that the mayor does not even understand why the moratorium is in place. He said a myth in the City is that more commercial is necessary; when actually less commercial is necessary. He said that the commercial needs to be refined. He said this is government at its worst. Mary Hanson, 841 19th Street, discussed Pages 41, 42, 43, and 44. She stated that citizens in this area are very opposed to commercial because the area is mainly residential. She stated that it is being proposed to introduce a commercial area into an area which is totally residential. With a commercial area comes the attendant problems of traffic, parking, crime, car accidents, litter, noise, and congestion. She also noted concern over the loss of views which would occur with a commercial height limit. She stated that the very small commercial uses are not actually feasible, noting that many currently in town do not appear to be successful. She stated that the only feasible commercial use appears to be high-rise office buildings along Pacific Coast Highway. She said the residents would probably oppose any greater commercial use. She said both the east and west sides of P.C.H. from 17th to 21st Streets are almost 100 percent residential. To introduce commercial would be highly objectionable and out of the ordinary. Dr. Brian Carrico, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, discussed his letter of March 21, 1989, regarding an environmental proposal of tree planting along Pacific Coast Highway. He discussed the placement, cost, assessments, and advantages of such a proposal. He concluded by discussing the care and maintenance of the trees.. He felt that the time is right to plant trees in the City in an attempt to beautify the City. Debbie Lube, 843 3rd Street, was pleased that her area is now out of the moratorium area; she therefore asked if her area could be designated quickly. Chmn. Peirce stated that the matter must be properly noticed; therefore, no action can be taken at this time. Ms. Lube stated that people do not want more commercial land in this City; what really needs to be done is to appropriately develop what is currently zoned commercial. She did not feel that residents would agree that this proposal would be the best of two worlds, as suggested by staff, to be zoned both residential and commercial. She stated that prompt action by the City is very necessary since this is a very stressful situation for residents. Larry Rooney, 732 24th Street, stated that he would be impacted by any commercial development on 21st Street. He noted concern over his view, traffic, and parking problems. He said 21st Street cannot handle any type of commercial development. He favored keeping the commercial access on Pacific Coast Highway, not on the residential streets. Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, stated that he did not receive a copy of the notice of this meeting, and it appears many others did not receive notice either. He said there is an error on Page 31 of the staff report because there are actually three units at 822 15th Street. He passed out copies of a map he prepared and discussed the three-unit project at 822 15th Street. He said there are now a total of three, three-unit projects, two of which are under construction, at 15th Street. He said precedence has been well 15 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 established for the R-2 standards in this neighborhood. If rezoned, it would be the first time multi-family dwelling lots will be downzoned without a mandate from the voters. He said that no guidelines have been established. He felt that the Commission should address the issue of multi-unit residential dwellings in the R-2 area. He felt that the zoning should be left as it currently is. He said that R-2B zoning will not affect the views of those set back further on the block. He said that the changes which would take place with commercial is a good reason to leave the zoning as is. He concluded by stating that he favors the idea of trees along Pacific Coast Highway. Public Hearing closed at 9:56 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce favored continuing this matter to the next meeting so that additional information can be obtained. He noted that this is a very large document. If continued, each specific area can be discussed at the next meeting. Comm. Ingell agreed that the matter should be continued because of the large size of the document. He also noted that many people did not receive noticing. He further noted that several people favored readjusting the line as shown on the maps. Chmn. Peirce stated that the City must decide whether it wants additional commercial; the only way to obtain more commercial is to rezone some of the R properties. He said that if the lots are actually counted, there are not that many. He said that the east side of the highway between 17th and 21st Street is mostly residential, and a rezone would definitely change the character of the area. Mr. Lough explained that general plan amendments occur four times per year. He noted that there are several other general plan amendments at this time. He cautioned against breaking up the amendments too much because the City Cooncil could get them at various times, and then there could be two general plan amendments instead of just the one. He also discussed the noticing, stating that the legal requirement was only to notice in the "Easy Reader" because more than 1000 parcels were involved. He stated that the notices sent out by staff were done merely as a courtesy to those in the commercial corridor, not as a legal requirement. He therefore saw no legal concerns over the noticing. Comm. Edwards said it was made quite clear that people living in residential areas do not want commercial zoning in their neighborhood. He continued by giving background information on the moratorium. Comm. Ketz stated that, other than the area between 17th and 21st Streets, the staff proposal will protect residential areas from further encroachment of commercial use. She had concern over the area between 17th and 21st Street, since both sides of the streets appear to be residential. She felt this area should be studied further. She agreed that the hearing should be continued so that other areas can be addressed. Comm. Rue stated that the staff report was excellent. He questioned whether the entire commercial corridor can be addressed at the next hearing, stating that he would favor such a discussion. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 4, 1989. No objections; so ordered. 16 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY1 NUMERO UNO PIZZA Mr. Schubach said that the applicant was present and has requested that this matter be continued to the next meeting. Chmn. Peirce stated that this matter would be continued to the next meeting as requested by the applicant. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY R-2 TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL OF THE PRECISE PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (LOT 4, BLOCK l, TRACT 6851 ONLY) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1989. At the January 3, 1989, meeting the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a proposed drive-thru restaurant. The CUP was conditionally approved to require a zone change for a portion of the parking lot which was residentially zoned. The current use of the subject property is a parking lot for an existing drive-thru restaurant which will be replaced with the same use, but with a different building and food product; i.e., chickens instead of hot dogs. Staff believes, therefore, that no detrimental impact will occur. Since the Planning Commission approval of the CUP for the· Rew restaurant, staff has found no reasons that would suggest that the general plan amendment and zone change should not be approved. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending approval of the general plan amendment and zone change, as well as approval of the proposed resolution for a precise plan, subject to conditions. Public Hearing opened at 10:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Roger Bacon, owner of 1107 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, stated that the project is progressing well. He said that originally he had planned to move the entire currently existing Der Wienerschnitzel to another location; however, he will now move only the equipment. He said plans are moving along well, and the operator of the Der Wienerschnitzel is being apprised of developments as they occur. Mr. Bacon said the El Pollo Loco in Manhattan Beach is doing quite well; he also thinks the Hermosa Beach location will do very well. Mr. Bacon stated that the parcel in question will be used strictly for parking. Steve Lewis, representing El Pollo Loco, stated that he read staff's recommendation and he concurs with their report. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, asked about the left-turn pocket which has been removed from the highway and how people will enter the proposed El Pollo Loco. She asked whether the traffic will be redirected. 17 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 / Mr. Bacon stated that meetings have been held with representatives from Cal Trans, and the left-turn pocket is going to be replaced in the near future. He continued by explaining the discussions which took place between him and the Cal Trans people in regard to this issue. Public Hearing closed at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation for the general plan amendment, Resolution P.C. 89-24. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution 89-25. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNA TION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AREA 6; GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNA TION FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 10; GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 12 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1989. Area 6 At the October 18, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended not rezoning the subject property to R-1, but instead redesignated the property high density residential for the sake of consistency. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission at their November 22, 1988, meeting. Area 6 consists of one 39,082 square-foot lot which has already been developed to R-3 standards. An extensive analysis of this area was prepared in conjunction with consideration to rezone this property to R-1, and it was determined to instead redesignate this property as high density. Public Hearing opened at 10:18 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Ken Selk, 2441 Prospect, supported the staff recommendation for this property. He said there would be significant impact to the homeowners if the property is downzoned. Public Hearing closed at 10: 19 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. 18 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 Area 10 At the November, 15, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission rezoned the subject area from R-2 to R-2B instead of R-1 and recommended that the general plan be amended to medium density for general plan/zoning consistency. At the December 13, 1988, meeting, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission. Similar to Area 6, Area 10 was considered for a zone change. However, in this instance, the subject area was rezoned R-2B which requires a general plan amendment to medium density. Public Hearing opened at 10:20 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission had received two letters opposing the proposed change. Eleanor Downs, owner of 1036 7th Street, questioned why the area is being rezoned from low density to medium density. She stated that people want to reduce the density because of traffic and parking problems already in the area. She stated that single­ family homes will be replaced with multiple units if the area goes to medium density. Mr. Schubach clarified that a general plan amendment is being proposed, not a rezone. He said this area was previously rezoned to R-2B, which was determined to be appropriate for the area. Ken Cullin, 122 Barney Court, stated that a change to R-2B means his view will be blocked off, because the R-2B designation allows five additional feet over his R-1 zone. He noted that the streets in this area are one-way because-the traffic used to be so heavy. He has lived in this house 22 years, and it is now almost impossible to park on 1st Place, 1st Street, or Barney Court. 1st Place has driveway cuts; and most people do not park in their garages. He stressed that parking is very bad, and the employees of the telephone company create tremendous traffic jams on these small streets. Because of these reasons, he opposed the change in density. John Schneider, 111 Barney Court, has owned this property for 25 years. He agreed that the parking is very bad in the area. He said the houses had been R-2 for almost 20 years; therefore, he welcomed the fact that they are going to be rezoned back to medium density. Roger Gillespie, 1026 2nd Street, noted concern over changing from low density to a higher density. He agreed that parking is very bad; if the area goes to medium density, people will then park on 2nd Street since there are already parking problems on 1st Street. He also noted concern over the height limits and his potential loss of view which could impact his property value. Public -Hearing closed at 10:27 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue stated that the density will not be increased by this change. He stated that the zoning went from R-2 to R-2B, which limits the number of units which can be built on those sites. He stated that he will support the original recommendation, explaining that he feels it is the appropriate action for this area. Comm. Edwards felt that the only way to decrease the density is to lower the density designation; therefore, he could not support the staff recommendation. 19 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 ,-... Mr. Schubach explained that with the large size of the lots, however, the R-2B designation actually reduces the density in this area because now only a maximum of two units can be built per lot, no matter what the lot size is. Public Hearing reopened at 10:33 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, asked when the first change was made and why the residents were not noticed. He said he didn't remember ever hearing anything about this matter in the past. He did not feel the noticing procedure was correct. He said it is now too late to protest against R-2B zoning when the area should still be low density. Mr. Schubach explained that the previous zoning of R-2 was higher density. He clarified for Mr. Downs that the general plan differs from the zoning. Public Hearing closed at 10:35 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Area 12 At the November 15, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended leaving the property R-3 and changing the general plan designation. At the December 13, 1988, meeting, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission. Area 12 has been expanded to include the R-1 zoned area to the west. It would not be logical to redesignate the R-3 zoned area to high density without redesignating the adjacent R-1 zone to low density. This amendment will make the general plan/zoning consistent. The R-3 zoned area was carefully analyzed when it was considered for rezoning and like the other areas, it was determined that the general plan should be changed instead. Area 12 consists of three lots totaling 8,119 square feet, with ten existing apartment dwellings. Apparently, this area was zoned R-3 as a buffer between the R-1 zoning to the west and the C-3 zoning to the east. Comm. Rue noted that he received a notice in the mail regarding this property; therefore, he stated he would abstain from voting on this area. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce as no one appeared to speak on Area 12. Chmn. Peirce suggested that separate votes be taken for each of the three areas, noting that only one resolution has been prepared for Areas 6, 10, and 12. Chmn. Peirce, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards, explained what is currently on the property in Area 6. Comm. Edwards suggested, instead, that the Area 6 zoning be changed to R-1 in order to conform with the general plan. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate Area 6 from low density to high density. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Edwards None None 20 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate Area 10 from low density to medium density. Comm. Edwards noted that the original staff report stated that this area appears to be borderline. He continued by reading from the minutes of the previous hearing. He felt this area is marginal; therefore, he felt the area should be R-1 and the general plan should not be changed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Edwards None None MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate Area 12 from general commercial to high density on the east; and low density on the west of the block. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, lngell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Rue None TO REPEAL THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND TO REZONE TO C-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION OF THE BIL TM ORE SITE AND TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1989. At the November 22, 1988, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to repeal the Specific Plan Area and study rezoning to C-2. The subject property was originally designated and zoned for commercial use other than just specifically a hotel. The property was once an extension to the C-2 zone to the south and east, and continues to be a logical extension to the adjacent C-2 zoning. The general plan designation of general commercial is also compatible with the commercial­ recreation designation to the northeast. At this time, it is uncertain what the public-owned portion of the Biltmore Site to the north will be rezoned; however, 14th Street does separate the properties and that will act as a buffer to a small extent. If the public-owned portion is rezoned R-1, ideally, additional buffering should be considered. Possibly converting that portion of 14th Street to walk street status, thereby prohibiting vehicle traffic; and placing landscaping with a meandering sidewalk would create an effective buffer. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:48 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce, as no one appeared to speak on this matter. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-27. Comm. Rue said he would vote against this general plan amendment, explaining that he favored a hotel at this property, as did 50 percent of the voting population. 21 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Rue None None ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER R-1, R-2, SPECIFIC PLAN ARE A OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEME D APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 603 FIRST STREET Comm. Edwards stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter, explaining that he lives within 300 feet of the project site. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1989. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 3, 1989, approved a conditional use permit for 13 condominium units and recommended that the City Council rezone the subject area to R-2, subject to conditions. Said conditions included that the site be limited to 13 dwelling units and that the site would revert back to M-1 and open space zones if the permits were not issued for the project before the CUP expired. Staff concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission, except recommended a change in the method of implementation of the zone change. Conditional zone changes are prohibited by State law; therefore, staff recommended that a specific plan area be adopted with all the standards recommended by the Planning Commission. The condition that the site revert back to its original zoning, i.e., M-1 and open space, was also to be eliminated since the reversion would again make the site nonconforming. The City Council, at their meeting of February 14, 1989, denied the proposed zone change and directed the Planning Commission to study rezoning the subject area to R-1 and amending the general plan to low density residential. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend rezoning the subject pa r cel to Speci f ic Plan Ar e a for 13 un it s r a t her than a n R-1 z one. Said SPA shou ld have t he following st anda r ds: (1) a maxi mum o f 13 units; (2) minim u m of t hree pa r ki ng spac e s pe r uni t ; and (3) a mi ni mum ten -foo t se t back on all prop ert y li ne s abu tting streets . Mr. Schubach stated that as an R-1 zone, the site is large enough to provide six 4000 square foot lots, provided a 40-foot street frontage is provided. However, R-1 development will have more lot coverage and less on-site parking than the proposed condominiums. Also, single-family homes would eliminate much of the existing on-street parking spaces because of the curb cuts for driveway aprons. The proposed condominium development will have only one curb cut. The proposed curb cut is located on a curb with no parking; therefore, there will be no loss of on-street parking. Staff has reviewed some of the plans for various developments recently approved in the immediate area. Building plans show that most of the recently constructed developments vary in lot coverage from 60 to 65 percent. There are two small parcels in the area where two single-family homes were constructed. All on-street parking from in front of these homes was eliminated and lot coverage was 65 percent. The proposed condominium has a lot coverage of only 39 percent. To rezone this parcel to R-1 may also raise some questions regarding "spot zoning." There are some R-l, low density residential parcels located to the northwest of this site; 22 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 .. however, these parcels are smaller, averaging approximately 2500 square feet. Therefore, these parcels would only allow for one unit anyway if zoned R-2 because of the lot size. The R-2 parcels located to the east of the site are more in keeping with the size of the subject parcel; these lots are larger, averaging 4600 square feet. It should be noted that the City Council has recently rezoned other inconsistent M-1 parcels located on Ardmore Avenue to R-2. If the R-1 zone is recommended, then the entire block and also the south side of 1st Street should also logically be rezoned R-1, which would result in many non-conforming uses and structures. To rezone only the subject parcel violates good planning principles. The proposed SPA of the site is in keeping, or less in many cases, with surrounding densities of other R-2 parcels. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel or amend the general plan to bring this site into consistency. Failure to do so is in violation of State law. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that the staff report has not changed, other than to substantially reinforce the opinion that the area should remain as it currently is. Public Hearing opened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick Killin, 312 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He said that a public meeting was held with the neighbors in order to discuss the possibilities for the area. He personally has walked the area and has discovered a number of R-2 lots with several units and very little parking. He said that the area is in a state of transition. He felt that most of the area there is R-2 and to spot zone this site does not appear to be appropriate. He said that signatures were obtained from neighbors indicating that they support this project, and it should stay R-2. Mr. Killin agreed that there are problems in the area which go beyond what this project will do. He noted the problems of parking, traffic, and density. He stated he did a study, and if the buildings in this area were all developed to the same standards as this project, there would be no parking problem in the area. Public Hearing closed at 10:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce felt that the Planning Commission made the right decision the first time this matter was addressed. Comm. Rue stated that this applicant went to extraordinary lengths to design this project. He said it is probably the best-designed project ever seen in the City. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve staff's resolution, P.C. 89-27. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Edwards None 23 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 ', ,,,-----' HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP 89-1 Chmn. Peirce noted that this item would be continued to the next meeting, April 4, 1989. STAFF ITEMS a.) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda MOTION by Comm. Rue to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. b.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 3/28/89 City Council Meeting MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. c.) City Council Minutes of February 21 and 28, 1989 Comm. Ketz asked about an item in the minutes to reduce costs by revising the procedure for Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Schubach stated that the minutes will not be revised. d.) Southwest Area Planning Council Meeting Comm. Ingell asked staff to obtain additional information on the discussion topics for this meeting. COMMISSIONER ITEMS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to recommend that the City Council study the issue of planting trees on Pacific Coast Highway. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the handout provided by Dr. Carrico regarding the tree planting be attached to the recommendation to the City Council. Comm. Edwards suggested that there be a long-term beautification goal for the City. Chmn. Peirce asked for an update on the traffic study. Mr. Schubach stated there have been problems with the study, which contained many errors. Chmn. Peirce asked about the noise meter. Mr. Schubach stated that the noise meter has been ordered; however, he will check into the matter further to see when it will be delivered. Comm. Edwards asked for the status of Herman. Mr. Schubach stated there is a problem with union protesters at this time. However, he felt the system should be operating by October. Chmn. Peirce noted that newspaper articles indicate Torrance is changing their height regulations. 24 P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 . . . • I r ( ~ MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to adjourn at 11: 10 P .M. no objections; so ordered. 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 March 21, 1989. J n y~ Date - .... i 1 25 ,,,..,..----_ / Mi P.C. Minutes 3/21/89