Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 03.07.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 7, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Ingell (excused absence} Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of February 21, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-98, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH NO GUEST PARKING AT 1139 6TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 64.65 FEET OF LOT 7, TRACT 5209. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCES TO ADD A THIRD STORY ADDITION WHICH WILL ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEY ARD AND TO HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1309 REGARDING ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 623 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, TRACT 864. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. Comm. Ketz noted several corrections to Resolution P.C. 89-15: (l} Condition 4(a} should be rewritten to reflect the Commission's intention that a maximum of 20 percent of the permanent signage can be used for beer and/or wine advertising; (2} Condition No. 16 shall be deleted, since it was merely a recommendation to staff, not a finding. Chmn. Peirce asked staff to return with a corrected resolution, P.C. 89-15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AT 50 PIER AVENUE, KNOWN AS PIER MARKET. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 89- 16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120644 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT l P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 1722 GOLDEN A VENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, ANGELA HEIGHTS TRACT. No objections; so ordered MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A TWELVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 540 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-19, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE PROPER TY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Howard Longacre asked about the schedule for the Biltmore site zoning hearings. Mr. Schubach responded that that issue will be on the next agenda. Mr. Longacre noted concern over the Planning Commission approving another CUP for a beer and wine establishment. Chmn. Peirce explained that the Pier Market is so old that they have been selling beer and wine without a conditional use permit; approval of the CUP was a method by which to impose conditions. Mr. Longacre stated that he has previously suggested that the limit between establishments selling alcohol and residences be extended to 500 feet. Mr. Schubach noted that the staff has been very busy working on priority studies; this issue will be addressed some time in the future, possibly by the end of this year. Mr. Longacre suggested an emergency ordinance prohibiting new off-sale alcoholic beverage establishments until the study can be completed. Chmn. Peirce explained that only the City Council can impose emergency moratoriums. He suggested that Mr. Longacre make his comments known to the City Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP /147230 FOR A FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE AND 615 2ND STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/7 /89} Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny a conditional use permit and tentative tract map for a five­ unit condominium. The Planning Commission at their meeting of February 7, 1989, continued this matter because the Commission felt that the I-shaped lots were unsuitable for the City and did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance; therefore, a continuance was approved to allow the applicant time to submit plans for two, two-unit condominiums, one development per lot. 2 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 The applicant has not submitted revised plans for the new two-unit developments. The architect has stated the revised plans for the new units will not be available for a minimum of two months. The applicants have requested that this matter be continued for an additional sixty days. The City Attorney has stated that he has some legal concerns regarding a further continuation of this matter since it is now proposed to be two, two-unit developments with separate tentative maps. The City Attorney has recommended that the proposed five-unit development be denied and that the public hearing for the new two-unit developments be renoticed to provide due process to adjacent neighbors. Since the applicant has already paid the fees for a five-unit development, the fees may be applied to the new two-unit developments. Staff will expedite the scheduling of the new applications for consideration by the Planning Commission as soon as the revised plans are received. Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce as no one appeared to speak on this matter. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to deny this project, Resolution P.C. 89-12. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ingell MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to wa ~v.e the filing fee for this project if the applicant submits revised plans within three months from the date of this hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ingell CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120554 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 2902 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 22, 1989. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 2975 square feet, or 35 feet by 85 feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The proposed condominium units will be approximately 2500 square feet. Each unit will have three bedrooms. Unit A will have two and a half baths, and Unit B will have three and a half baths. The basic construction of the units will -be three floors with a partial subterranean garage. 3 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 The design of the building is mediterranean. The overall design of the building is attractive. Architectural details include clay tile roof, wrought iron railing, decorative tile, decorative windows, balconies, and a stucco finish. The plans conform to the open space requirements. Open space is provided on 252 square-foot decks located on the third level. The deck of Unit A projects into the front yard setback. The projection is allowed; however, this area has not been included in the open space calculations. Additional open space is provided on other decks; however, these decks do not meet the minimum required dimensions and/or are not open to the sky by more than 50 percent; therefore, they are not included in the open space calculations. The units have a 144 square-foot landscaped courtyard area which is the common open space. The plans also exceed the mm1mum parking requirements. Each unit will have two enclosed parking spaces. Four guest parking spaces are also provided; two guest parking spaces are also required since one on-street parking space will be lost for the proposed curb cut. The on-street parking space to be eliminated on Hermosa A venue is a metered parking space. Public Works and General Services have stated that the elimination of the metered space is permitted provided that the proposed curb cut meets all Public Works requirements. The plans provide a five-foot front yard setback. The zoning map requires only three feet; however, the zoning code requires condominium developments to provide a minimum five-foot setback for condominiums. Surrounding structures are primarily set back five feet or less. Since this is a corner lot, the zoning code requires that the first floor level on the corner of Hermosa A venue and 29th Street provide a triangular setback clearance with ten-foot sides to provide adequate turning clearance. This area has been provided and is shown on the plans. The site is primarily surrounded with older multi-family dwellings; however, the parcels across Hermosa Avenue are zoned R-1. The proposed structure is greater in height and bulk than many of the surrounding dwellings. Some of the views of the property owners to the east may be lost; however, these parcels are located on a higher elevation. Chmn. Peirce discussed the plans and noted that there is a bedroom on the first floor, adjacent to the garage. He noted that staff did not include its usual recommendation regarding potential bootleg conversion. Mr. Schubach explained that, in this particular instance, staff did not feel there would be a problem with a bootleg because of the access configuration. Public Hearing opened at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan A venue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant and owner Doug Clark, stated that Mr. Clark had come before the Commission two years ago with plans to develop this property with a similar project; however, between the approval by the Planning Commission and the submission of the plans to the Building Department, the code changed and required, among other things, the 17-foot setback. The applicant therefore decided to redesign the project and has submitted a brand new proposal. Ms. Srour stated that the staff report was very complete. She said there will be two units, and the most interesting feature of the project is that the units are of a very beautiful Mediterranean design. She stated that there are three visible elevations, the 4 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 ,--. most dramatic of which will be that facing 29th Street on the south side. She stated that the facade will be broken up by the use of decks and railings. Ms. Srour stated that the courtyard on 29th Street is a recess into the building itself, which will also break up the mass of the building and give the appearance of two separate structures, even though this will actually be one building. Ms. Srour discussed the bedroom on the lower level of Unit B and explained that the stairway, as one enters the front entrance, is open from the ground floor to the top of the building; therefore, the lower level is totally exposed to the rest of the unit. Also, there is no private access directly from that bedroom to the outside. Ms. Srour stated that this project meets or exceeds the development standards. She stated that there is quite a bit of private open space which will be usable and is distributed throughout the units. There is approximately 400 square feet of usable and very functional open space for each of the two units. She continued by discussing the location of the decks on the units. Ms. Srour discussed the parking, stating that each of the units has two enclosed parking spaces and two guest spaces which are achieved because of the 17-foot setback. Ms. Srour explained that this is a corner lot. In addition to the setbacks, there is approximately seven to eight feet of public walkway which wraps around the building; therefore, the building is actually set back further than what appears on the plans. Ms. Srour stated that the applicant agrees with the staff-recommended conditions. She stated that the project would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. One of the units is intended to be owner occupied. The style of the proje€.t is very much in keeping with the Southern California look with its Mediterranean motif. She asked that the Commission approve the project. Ms. Srour, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that there are no plans to move the two structures currently located on this site; they will be torn down. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission had received a letter from Lowell Layauch, 120 28th Street, Hermosa Beach, regarding this project. John Morrisette, 2910 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, which is directly north of the proposed project, addressed the Commission. He passed out a diagram depicting his house in relation to this project. Mr. Morrisette felt the project will actually be an improvement over what is currently there and it will enhance the neighborhood; however, he noted concern over the height of the project. He stated he has reviewed the plans, and they do show three elevations. He noted, though, that no plans were presented for the north elevation, which is the view he will see from his windows. He stated he would like to see an elevation for the north side of the project. He stated that his ocean view will be blocked by this project. Mr. Morrisette stated that the mass of the building is substantially greater than his home. He would prefer that the building be somewhat smaller. Mr. Morrisette continued by discussing the diagram he passed out. He described the views from his house. He stated that the developer could clip the corner of the building on the north end and put in a bay window in an attempt to mitigate his loss of view and 5 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 to alleviate the claustrophobic feeling which will occur. He stated that clipping the corner would reduce the building by only 18 to 25 square feet, which is minimal since the entire building will be 5000 square feet. He said he would be happy to work with the developer in order to avoid time delays. Mr. Morrisette noted concern for the construction phase of the project, explaining that he has a new stucco wall along the property line. He hoped that if there was any damage to the wall because of the excavation, the wall would be repaired. Mr. Morrisette stated that the tenants in the old existing house which is scheduled to be torn down have been living there for 52 years. He asked if there was any City assistance which would be available to help these people relocate since they are on a fixed income. Mr. Schubach knew of no City-relocation fund. Mr. Lough concurred, stating that relocation assistance is available from the State only in cases where the entire area is to be redeveloped; and he noted that this is a private transaction. He noted that there are also assistance programs for condominium conversions; however, this project does not fall under that category either. Chuck Fournier, 2902 Hermosa Avenue, has been renting that house for 52 years, and he is now 76 years old. He stated that he is on a fixed income and does not want to move. He said he is now retired, and since he is older, he is very attached to the neighbors and the area. He said he would like to live his life out in this neighborhood. He said the house is hot in very good repair. He has asked the landlord to extend the project; however, the landlord raised the rent. He felt that he has renter's rights, especially since he is a senior citizen. Mr. Fournier did not want any favors; he just feels that the l,ar,idlord has not been fair, and the repairs have been very minimal. He asked that the Planning Commission delay this project for as long as possible so that he can live the rest of his life in that house. Ms. Srour stated that it is easy to sympathize with the Fourniers. She stated that it is difficult to accept the economic changes which have occurred in the South Bay over the past several years. Ms. Srour stated that there are many older buildings in this particular area; and it is a neighborhood which has been slow to change. She noted, however, that this is not the first time Mr. Clark has made it known that he wishes to develop his property; and Mr. Clark has put a great deal of effort into this project. Ms. Srour discussed the concerns expressed by Mr. Morrisette. She said that his is an older building which has been remodeled. The applicant would certainly be happy to work with him in regard to the north elevation. She noted that the deck on the upper level of the front unit is set back approximately 13 feet. She continued by discussing the plans, stating that the ground level is 17 feet to the face of the garage, and the building projects forward at the second level. The area is then recessed; therefore, the mass of the building is set back approximately 14 feet, which is not usually the case on lots of this size. Ms. Srour stated that the applicant intends to comply with all requirements of the City. She asked that the Commission approve the plans as submitted. Ms. Srour apologized for not having available the north elevation; however, she noted that the architect has done a nice job on the other three elevations; therefore, she said 6 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 they would be happy to work with staff and Mr. Morrisette in an attempt to deal with the north elevation. She discussed the suggestion of a corner cut-off and stated that there already is a corner cut-off at 29th Street. She therefore felt it would be unfair to require an additional cut-off as suggested by Mr. Morrisette. Ms. Srour and the Commissioners discussed the floor plans for this project. Comm. Rue commented that there are not a lot of window openings on the second level. Chmn. Peirce asked for clarification on the stairwells. Ms. Srour agreed that there is a lack of windows; however, she stated that they could work with staff on this issue. Ms. Srour, in response to a question of Comm. Rue, knew of no instances where relocation expenses have been paid for in projects such as this in this area. Mr. Lough stated that the City has no laws pertaining to relocation assistance. However, the City will be addressing the issue of providing senior citizen housing. Ms. Srour, addressing the concerns of the Fourniers, stated that it will still be several months before action takes place on this property. She said it is still necessary to apply for various permits and to have the plan check done before the project will start. Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce suggested a condition requiring treatment to the north facade of the building. Comm. Rue stated that the design of the building is veryi attractive, and there are elevators in both units; therefore, he felt this will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Lough, in response to a concern by Comm. Edwards, stated that any damage caused during construction to the neighbor's wall will be addressed by the Building Department. He stated that there is an ordinance related to this issue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-21, with the addition of a condition requiring the applicant to provide to staff for approval elevations of the north side of the project to ensure that it is broken up and matches the other three sides of the building. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ingell Chmn. Peirce stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to send a memo to the City Council recommending that they consider options to provide relocation assistance for senior citizens on fixed incomes who have lived in the City for a long time. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comins, Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ingell 7 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120557 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1737 PROSPECT AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 23, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed design of the condominiums and continue the public hearing until a revised plan is received. Mr. Schubach stated that he had just received an addendum to the proposal showing a redesign in the proposed parking; however, he has not had time to review the material. The project is in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 5517 square feet, or 55 by 100 feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. Staff recommended denial of the proposed design because it will eliminate all on-street parking directly in front of the site as a result of the curb cuts. As proposed, the development will eliminate two on-street parking spaces because of the two double car width curb cuts. The proposed design will require most of the front yard setback and right-of-way areas to be paved, thus eliminating most landscaping. This parcel was subject to the lot merger ordinance. One reason for the adoption of the lot merger ordinance was that single-family dwellings created on 25-foot width lots were eliminating all on-street parking because of curb cuts. The project has been designed similar to two single-family dwellings. Aside from the condominium subdivision map, the only difference is that side yard requirements are greater because of the parcel width. The cumulative impacts of other similar developments would be detrimental to surrounding properties because of the loss of on-street parking ... The proposed curb cuts will also eliminate most landscaping areas within the public right­ of-way and front yard setback. Section 7.3-2, Purpose of CUP's, provides a list of standards for condominium developments. Subsection (d) states: "the layout of the structures and other facilities to effect conservation in street, driveway, curb cuts, and other public or quasi-public improvements .... " Staff believes that there are alternative designs which would allow for a two-unit development while providing one curb cut and additional landscape. An alternative design will reduce the impacts to adjacent property owners. The proposed units will be approximately 2500 square feet. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths~ The proposed layout of the units will be two floors over a partial subterranean garage and a mezzanine. The design of the building is contemporary. Architectural features include window pop­ outs, decorative pipe railing, glass block stair towers, deck projections, shingle roofing, skylights, and a stucco finish. The plans conform to most planning and zoning requirements. Open space for the units is provided on second-story and mezzanine level decks. Total open space per unit is 579 square feet. Additional deck area is provided; however, the decks do not meet the minimum seven-foot dimension. The plans have an encroachment into the side yard which is not permitted by code. Unit A has a glass block tower which is designed as part of the entry. This type of projection is permitted only when no floor area is included. 8 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 Staff is recommending a standard five-foot setback for this development, similar to most existing structures on the block. On-site inspections of the block may give the appearance that the structures have larger setbacks. However, it should be noted that the front property line is located 20 feet beyond the face of the curb. The project will provide two parking spaces and two guest parking spaces per unit. Three guest parking spaces are allowed by code since two on-street parking spaces will be eliminated. The area is primarily developed with single-family units and duplexes. The proposed height of the structure will be higher and larger in bulk than most of the surrounding structures. The project will have an impact on views; however, some of the westerly views will be maintained since the lots located on the east side of Prospect Avenue are located on a higher elevation than the west side. Mr. Schubach noted two alternatives: (l) approve the proposed condominiums as submitted; or (2) approve the two-unit condominium with modifications regarding the curb cuts and additional landscaping. The revised plans will be subject to approval from the Planning Director. A revised plan will require significant modifications to the development. This alternative will not require the new design to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Some of the design modifications may create other issues not addressed at the public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated that the newly submitted material appears to be better than what was originally proposed. He stated that he has not had time to analyze the plans in depth, however. Public Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He said that the curb cut idea is a good one; however, he reminded the Commission that up until several weeks ago, he was under the impression that the Public Works Department allowed only straight-in driveways to a garage; when this project was designed, therefore, there was no other alternative which was possible. Mr. Compton stated that it was not possible to get additional materials to staff in time for inclusion into the staff report. He noted, however, that there is a proposal to provide additional landscaped area. He continued by pointing out the area on the plans. He explained how the curb cuts on either side of the property were relocated based on the information obtained from the Public Works Department. Virtually no on-street parking will be eliminated. He said that the plan utilizes an approximately 30-foot curb cut in the center, between the two buildings. One parking space will remain where it is, and one will be shifted to an area to the south and joined with the other parking spaces. Mr. Compton said that the project has a lot of space between the property line and the sidewalk, and it is very difficult to work with such a configuration, unless the right-of­ way area is available. Therefore, in many other areas of the City, this arrangement would not be available. He said this arrangement allows for adequate parking plus the area needed for the turning radius. He said this plan will provide four guest parking spaces when only three are required, which is a plus for the community and the neighborhood. 9 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 Mr. Compton discussed the encroachment into the sideyard where the stair element will be located. There is a large glass block tower; however, it was not included on the plans since there was not time to decide exactly where the base of the tower would be located. He said it might be necessary to designate the base as an architectural projection. He suggested, however, that the area be made into a planter so that it is not floor area. He stated that he could work with staff on that issue. Mr. Compton discussed mass and bulk. He discussed the plans on Page Al0. He stated that the building in relation to the street is actually two stories. He pointed out on the plans the building which will actually be facing the street. The taller elements of the project are in the interior, and they are no taller than other adjacent buildings. He said that this project is well within the height limit. He stated that an attempt was made to avoid the appearance of a large, bulky building from the street; therefore, the taller elements were stepped into the center of the project. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the roof deck at the second level. He noted that a 30-foot height limit is allowed in this particular zone. He did not feel that this project is maxed out in relation to other buildings in the area. Mr. Compton noted that it is approximately 45 feet from the front property line back to the highest point of this project because of the stepping. Mr. Compton noted that he normally doesn't do smaller projects; however, this lot was over 50 feet, and he wanted to design two detached condominium units. He felt that the Planning Department's concerns about parking have been addressed in the plans. Mr. Compton asked the Planning Commission to approve the project at this time, stating that he feels the alternative proposed plan is quite reasonable.. He stated he would stipulate that no on-street parking will be lost, and he will work with the Planning Director. Mr. Compton, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards, stated that the properties to the west are residential, not commercial. Comm. Rue asked why the architect decided to build two long units rather than one larger unit in front and a larger unit in back. Mr. Compton stated that the reason is basically because of the view. If one building is in front of the other, the view would be obstructed, and the front building would be closer the street and would be much taller. Also, if the building were designed another way, there would be problems with providing guest parking spaces as required because of the way the lot slopes. He said the slope to the rear is approximately five feet, and there could be problems with the drainage from the driveways. Mr. Compton stated that this proposed configuration will reduce the amount of concrete on the ground at the project, and there will be more usable open space. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the designer had considered a project where there would be two attached side-by-side buildings where the center corridor would be eliminated between Units A and B, thereby allowing for larger sideyards. The view could then be from the side rather down the long corridor. Mr. Compton stated that the project was designed with the market in mind. He said most people would prefer to have their own unit, rather than one attached to another. 10 P .C. Minutes 3/7 /89 -~ He said detached units provide more light, air, and circulation as well as better views. Mr. Compton stated that, even though there is a corridor between the units, there will still be good views from the top stories of the buildings. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, also owner of l 0 15-1017 17th Street and l 007 17th Street, addressed the Commission. He was glad this property is being developed; however, he pointed out that this area has recently been downzoned from R-2 to R-2B. He questioned why two single units are being allowed on this site. He thought that R-2B could not have two separate houses on a single lot. He noted concern over the International Bilingual School if it is rezoned for condominiums. Mr. Schubach stated that R-2B does allow two detached units. The difference between R-2 and R-2B is that R-2B allows a maximum of two units. Mr. Gray stated that the property in question is actually two small lots; by putting them together, a very small lot has been created. He noted concern over the impact of the new condominiums being built around the school. Mr. Gray stated that although he received a notice in the mail, several of his neighbors did not. Also, the notice which was posted at the site said the hearing would take place on March 21, 1989. He therefore suggested that the hearing be continued so that others could attend. He showed a copy of the notice which was posted. Mr. Schubach stated that the signage notice is the responsibility of the applicant; however, he stated he will check into the matter. He said he would have to check the files to see who received notices in the mail. Mr. Schubach discussed the differences between R-2 and R-2B zoning for clarification. Burnet Bourgeois, 937 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, suggested that this project be redesigned so that the two buildings are joined. He stated that this project is really only two houses on 25-foot lots with very long driveways and a minimum of parking, open space, and landscaping. He felt that the developer should try to reach an agreement with the neighbors. He felt that the guest parking will not be used, and the guests will just park on the street. Mr. Bourgeois stated that the street is very narrow, and if cars are parking on each side, only one car can drive through at a time. He noted that the traffic there is heavy. Mr. Bourgeois noted concern over other properties in the area which will be transformed into condominiums. He said there will then be additional parking and traffic problems. He said that there is no more on-street parking to accommodate these new developments. Mr. Bourgeois said he is not against development; however, he feels this project can be redesigned to be a better project. Paul Matthews, 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he did not receive a notice for this hearing. He commented that the notice on the site said the hearing would be on March 21, 1989. He said that there are already severe traffic and parking problems in the area, especially near the school when people come to pick up their children in the afternoon. 11 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 Michael DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, speaking on behalf of Mr. Compton who had to leave the meeting, discussed the on-street parking problems in the area, concurring that the street is narrow; however, he stated that the easement is very large on the property and if this street were ever widened, legal parking would still be maintained at this project. Mr. Devere stated that the present design provides guest parking spaces which are visible from the street and are accessible. If another design were used, the guests would not even know the parking spaces were available. Mr. DeVere discussed the notice with the incorrect date. He explained that the applicant originally was to appear before the Commission on March 21, 1989; however, the schedule changed, and this project was set for tonight. He stated that the notices were sent out in advance, and everyone should have received one. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the incorrect date specified on the notice. Mr. Schubach agreed and stated that that was an additional reason for continuing the hearing as previously recommended by staff. Public Hearing continued at 9:06 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce to the meeting of March 21, 1989. Chmn. Peirce noted concern that this is actually two 27.5-foot houses. He stated that from a planning standpoint, this would not be a good development. He could not support the project unless additional supporting information is provided. He said the intent of the condominium ordinance is to provide the maximum amount of space on the ground for two-unit buildings. He felt this project is the wrong solution fer; this particular lot. Comm. Rue stated that there is space between the units which could be utilized for common open space and landscaping, and he felt that issue needs to be addressed. He said additional landscaping would make a more aesthetically pleasing project. Comm. Rue felt that two detached units are more desirable because there is more light, air, and ventilation. He felt that a different configuration would appear much more bulky from the street. He felt this can be an attractive project if the center area is addressed; however, he noted concern over two 27.5-foot houses. Mr. Lough, in response to questions by Comm. Ketz, explained why the lot mergers took place in the City. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed what could have been built on this property under previous zoning. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Public Hearing was continued until the meeting of March 21, 1989. Recess taken from 9:14 P.M. until 9:21 P.M. SPECIAL STUDY 87-9 AND TEXT AMENDMENT, ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1989. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution and an environmental negative declaration. 12 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 On May 12, 1987, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance concerning nonconforming uses and/or structures which were demolished more than 50 percent. The interim ordinance was effective for 45 days. On June 23, 1987, the staff submitted an alternative emergency ordinance to the City Council and recommended that this ordinance be a model for the permanent ordinance. The City Council referred this ordinance to the Planning Commission for study. At the October 6, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission required that this matter be continued and that a comparison chart be provided. On March 1, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this matter on request of staff so that staff could study the matter more in light of the downzoning which was occurring. On January 31, 1989, the City Council requested that zoning standards be studied in relation to nonconforming structures. Nonconforming Uses and Structures --Sections 1301 and 1309 The staff has contacted 13 c1t1es regarding their nonconforming ordinances; these ordinances were found to be of little use. However, it was noted that most cities do not allow expansion to nonconforming structures; only structures are allowed and mainly residential structures only. This approach seems to be the most logical, especially in light of the City's density reduction ordinance. Anyone with more units than allowed will most likely opt to remodel and expand rather than demolish. The result will be circumvention of the density reduction ordinance. Further, if one of the intentions of allowing expansion to noraconforming dwellings is to maintain some of the City's fine older homes and thus some of the City's quaint character, then the proposed ordinance will help to accomplish that intent; whereas, the current ordinance seriously fails. Without any control as to the amount of expansion or the amount of removal of the existing structure, existing dwellings are, for example, being converted from 1900 square-foot dwellings to 3000 square-foot, two-story dwellings with a maximum allowed lot coverage. The characteristics of the original dwelling are then all but obliterated, and many times only parking space exists since only one is required to remodel and expand an existing dwelling. Manhattan Beach has experienced similar problems with nonconforming uses and structures as Hermosa Beach has. Staff has reviewed their ordinance and actual implementation and has created a similar ordinance which includes wording related to the way that the Manhattan Beach ordinance is actually being enforced. Essentially, the proposed ordinance will limit expansion to nonconforming residential structures only, and will limit demolition to only those portions of the structure actually necessary for logical expansion. It also limits expansion to 50 percent of replacement cost of the existing structure. The value per square foot of floor area is based on building valuation data from the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Remodeling of the existing structure is also limited, as noted, so that entire dwellings cannot be gutted, leaving only exterior walls (also used in Manhattan Beach), and any expansion or structural alterations will require that at least two parking spaces per unit be provided. 13 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 Zoning Standards Currently, Section 1309 allows for expansion of structures as long as the expansion complies with current standards. An exception is that sideyards may be extended if they are not more than l O percent smaller than the current sideyard required. This requirement has caused requests for variances primarily for several reasons: (1) all the other dwellings on the block have the same sideyards; (2) there is only a minor difference between the proposed setback and the required setback; (3) it will cost more, and it looks odd to have the addition offset; and (4) variances have been given before. Staff believes that to allow existing setbacks to be maintained and also extended will be an incentive to attempt remodeling and will result in a status quo situation; i.e., old structures will evolve over time into new structures incrementally with one remodel project after another until the entire dwelling has been replaced. However, with the limitations proposed in the revised ordinance, allowing the extension of existing sideyards may not have the same results as noted. Staff believes the proposed limitations and the following conditions should be included when allowing nonconforming sideyards to exist and be expanded. (1) Where existing walls are a minimum of more than three feet from the side property line, the wall may be maintained and extended if at least 7 5 percent of the block, as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Downzoned Areas Recently, many areas of the City were downzoned. Some of these areas had significant new construction just prior to the moratorium and downzoning occurring. Although staff has not proposed any exception for these new and now co,Qf~rming structures, staff believes City Council should consider possibly allowing reconstruction in cases of total destruction resulting from fire or natural disaster without meeting new standards for ten years after the date of construction, or for some other specified time. Condominiums Condominiums may be destroyed by fire, for example, and have had a density which exceeds the currently allowed number of units. If the property owners are not allowed to rebuild to the same density, then which owners would lose their air space? Although it may be legally acceptable for the City to force a reduction in density, thereby eliminating some property owners' air space, staff believes that the social and political factors are equally important to the legal aspect. The stigma of displacing persons could ultimately lead to political action at the State level to prohibit the elimination of housing units. Staff believes a good approach would be to require that the reconstruction of destroyed condominiums meet all the minimum current standards regarding open space, parking, setbacks, height, lot coverage, and any other standard in ef feet at the time of reconstruction. Of course, the variance procedure would be available if it were impossible for all the future standards to be met. However, it is impossible at this time to know what circumstances and standards might be in the future. Section 1306 This section must have been inadvertently not repealed when Section 1305 was repealed; Section 1305 specified the date when nonconforming buildings were to be removed, and 14 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 this section (1306) designates the Board of Zoning Adjustments as the body to determine when the building was established so that the date of required removal could be determined. Obviously, without Section 1305, there is no need for Section 1306. Section 1301, Exception 1 This section allows a residence in a commercial or manufacturing building and zone to expand the use and the building as long as R-3 standards are met. Staff believes that this exception is neither logical nor desirable. Allowing a residence to exist in the midst of a manufacturing zone conflicts with the very nature and principles of zoning and endangers the health, safety, and welfare of the resident. Commercial, manufacturing, and residential uses are seriously incompatible except under very limited circumstances. Both Building and Planning staff have investigated where such uses may exist in the City. Two were discovered: (1) at the northeas t corner of Ardmore and 2nd Street; and (2) at the "elbow" of 1st Street and Ardmore (Riviera Body Shop). These particular residences are in the M-1 zone in commercial/manufacturing structures. Upon further investigation, both were discovered to be illegal nonconforming structures since neither was ever legally converted into residences; therefore, they would not fall under Section 1301 since they are not only nonconforming, but also they are illegal. Section 1302, Ex~e_ption 1 This section, like Section 1301, allows expansion of nonconforming residential uses in commercial and manufacturing zones and also allows expansion of over-density residential uses and structures. As noted, if residential nonconforming uses are allowed to expand, then the density reduction effort will have been circumvented. Also, this section is worded somewhat nonsensically since it states that a "use" can be structurally altered, and uses are not structures. Historical Structures Currently, there are no provisions for historically designated structures in the event they are damaged by fire, etc. Staff, therefore, is proposing a new section which would waive zoning requirements for historically designated structures when certain findings are met. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:34 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce as no one appeared to address this issue. Chmn. Peirce suggested that each section be discussed individually. Mr. Schubach explained that some of the sections to be changed will merely have the numbers changed so that the numbering sequence is consistent in the municipal code and zoning code. Section 1301 --Nonconforming Use of a Nonconforming Building Chmn. Peirce stated that the staff proposal for Section 1301 needs no changes or corrections. 15 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 Section 1302 --Nonconforming Use of a Nonconforming Building Chmn. Peirce stated that the staff proposal for Section 1302 needs no changes or corrections. Section 1303 --Change in Status of Nonconforming Use Chmn. Peirce directed staff to rewrite this section so that the wording is more clear and precise. Section 1304 --Nonconforming Alcohol Beverage Establishment, On and Off-sale Chmn. Peirce stated that the staff proposal for Section 1304 needs no changes or corrections. Section 1306 --Board of Zoning Adjustment to Determine Conditions of Abatement Chmn. Peirce stated that the staff proposal for Section 1306 needs no change. Section 1307 --Reconstruction of Nonconforming Buildings Partially Destroyed Chmn. Peirce directed staff to add wording specifying that the ICBO building evaluations can be used. Section 1309 --Existing Nonconforming Structure Comm. Ketz asked about the requirement for a termite inspection. Mr. Schubach explained that a termite inspection is deemed appropriate because many times when people begin a remodel or expansion of an older building, they discover problems with dry rot and/or termites. They then demolish more than is allowed by the code in order to repair the damaged sections. Mandatory termite inspections will eradicate some of the problems which have been experienced in the past. He said these problems arise regularly, in approximately 50 percent of the remodels of older homes. He was not certain of the exact cost of a termite inspection; however, he did not think it was excessive. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the termite inspection be tied into wording regarding the removal of wood. He noted that an inspection could be expensive. Comm. Rue suggested wording specifying that after construction has begun, if the Building Department finds that substantial sections have been removed, the project can then be reevaluated. Mr. Schubach stated that an applicant could then be halfway through a project before discovering major projects. Chmn. Peirce stated that requiring a terminate inspection closes a loophole in the system. He noted concern over reconstruction, however, because an applicant could get the inspection but still build something which differs from the submitted plans. He did not understand the advantage of obtaining the termite inspection. Mr. Schubach explained that a termite inspection would reveal how much of the existing building needs to be removed. 16 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 Mr. Schubach, for clarification, addressed several hypothetical questions posed by the Commission in regard to demolitions. Chmn. Peirce stated that the main issue covered in this section is: if a house is structurally damaged, should someone be allowed to rebuild the structurally damaged portion back to the exact same thing and not consider it part of reconstruction. Comm. Rue stated that the best solution to this problem appears to be for the City to require a termite report and state from the beginning that the building can either remain as is; and if the building is remodeled, then it must conform to the current standards. Comm. Ketz discussed Section A(2); i.e., "A maximum combination of 25 percent of the lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed." She asked for clarification on how the percentage would be determined. Mr. Schubach explained how the percentage is figured on removals. He said that staff determined 25 percent to be a reasonable figure. He stated that Manhattan Beach does not use the 25 percent. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the various percentages which could be used and their impact. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to change the percentage in Section A(2) to 30%. Section 1310 --Required Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use of Land Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from the Commission, explained that this section pertains to uses of land as opposed to uses of structures. He said it was very useful in years gone by for such things as traveling carnivals, horses, and various other outdoor uses. Mr. Lough stated that by today's standards, this section could apply to cars for sale parked on City streets or vacant lots. Chmn. Peirce stated that this section is not necessary, explaining that this is a very old section. It states that nonconforming uses must be abated within two years. Since the section is more than two years old, the nonconforming use should not be allowed. Chmn. Peirce stated that the issue of cars being stored illegally is addressed by the zoning code. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to delete this section. Section 13-10 --Nonconforming Historic Buildings Comm. Edwards noted a typo in Section A: "substantially." Section 13-11 Condominium Reconstruction Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed options available in the event a condominium burns down. Mr. Lough stated that most other cities use the insurance proceed option. 17 P.C. Minutes 3/7 /89 Comm. Rue noted concern over inclusion of such a section, noting that it may not be desirable to rebuild some units if they were built under much higher density standards. Comm. Rue suggested that homeowners associations could make provisions in the CC&R's as to what would happen in the event a condominium building is totally destroyed. Mr. Schubach stated that inclusion in the CC&R's of prov1s10ns in the event of destruction would be a good idea. He stated he would like to study this option further. Comm. Rue suggested that these matters be studied on a case-by-case basis. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to omit this section entirely. Section 1162 --Off-street parking requirements for new and existing construction Comm. Ketz noted that many additions could not be done because the applicant cannot provide the required parking. She felt that a 100 square-foot addition would not be worth doing if additional parking is requireq. Chmn. Peirce stressed that a major concern in the City involves the parking situation, and people should not be allowed to expand if they cannot meet the current parking standards. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to amend this section so that it reads: " .... During the life of a building a single addition of not more than 250 square feet may be constructed without compliance to this section." MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to incorporate the above-mentioned changes into the resolution, P.C. 89-22. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ingell TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach stated that because of an unforeseen workload and a staff reduction of one, staff was unable to complete the staff report for this item. He therefore suggested that the Planning Commission continue this item to the meeting of April 4, 1989. Chmn. Peirce stated that, per the staff recommendation, this matter would be continued to April 4, 1989. No objections. STAFF ITEMS a.) Interior Remodel of 22 Pier Avenue-'-The End Zone Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 1, 1989. The owners of the End Zone have requested permits to alter the interior layout of the business. The alteration will 18 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 relocate the existing dance floor, bar, and band stage. There will be no added floor area to the existing building; however, a double door will be created. On January 6, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 87-4 approving a conditional use permit for the sale of general alcoholic beverages. Condition No. 16 requires the Planning Commission to review and approve any changes to the interior layout. The applicants are, therefore, requesting approval of the proposed modifications. Staff is recommending a conditional approval of the proposed modification. Staff has requested that the applicant hire a noise consultant to determine if the proposed modification will be in keeping with maximum allowable noise levels; i.e., what the impact will be of the relocation of the stage area. It appears that the relocation of the stage to the rear of the building will minimize sound transmissions; however, this should be verified by a certified acoustical engineer. Therefore, staff is recommending that the proposed layout be approved with a condition that no live entertainment shall be permitted prior to the Planning Director's review and approval of a noise study from a certified acoustical engineer. Mr. Schubach noted that he had just received a memo from Davy and Associates Incorporated Acoustics Consultants advising that they could see no problem with the proposed relocation of the bandstand. He noted that he would like additional information; however, he stated he could work that out with the applicant. Bill Bastion, owner of the End Zone, addressed the Commission and explained that he intends to relocate the existing stage. This relocation coupled with the double glazed windows he has installed and the one-inch tectum installed on the walls should reduce the noise level at the End Zone. Chmn~ Peirce commended Mr. Bastion for his attempts to contain the noise at this establishment. Comm. Edwards agreed and thanked Mr. Bastion for his efforts. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 87-4. No objections; so ordered. b.) Planning Commission Meeting Time MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to start the Planning Commission meetings at 7:00 P.M. beginning with the first meeting in May. No objections; so ordered. c.) Activity Report for January 1989 Chmn. Peirce asked when the CUP for Casey's Isuzu will be reviewed. Mr. Schubach stated that it will probably be reviewed in May. He said citations will be issued; if those are not effective, a revocation hearing can be scheduled. d.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for City Council Meeting on 304/89 Chmn. Peirce noted that the minutes are quite complete; therefore, no one from the Planning Commission would attend as liaison. 19 P.C. Minutes 3/7/89 e.) City Council Minutes of February 14, 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ketz said she would absent from the first Planning Commission meeting in April. Chmn. Peirce noted that he might possibly be absent from the next meeting. Comm. Edwards asked for an update on Herman. Comm. Edwards asked for an update on the intersection of Valley and Herondo and the possibility of installing a crosswalk there. Mr. Schubach stated that he would ask the Public Works Department about that issue. Comm. Rue noted that the Planning Commission had previously asked that staff begin requiring more detailed landscape plans for project submittals. He asked for an update. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently requiring more cor:nplete plans. Chmn. Peirce noted that it will soon be time to elect a new chairman. He asked staff that this item be included on the agenda at the appropriate time. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to adjourn at 10:39 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--/ Jt-, //(f\.- Date ~1 20 . /?/, £ ----7Lol:52ld~!6= Michael S'c hubacli, Secretary P .C. Minutes 3/7 /89