HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.21.1989,-...__
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON FEBRUARY 21, 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:
Com ms. Edwards*, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney;
Sally White, Recording Secretary
Comm. Edwards entered Council Chambers at 7:38 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm. Rue noted a correction to the minutes of February 7, 1989, Page 13, Line 1: "The
Board of Zoning of Adjustments, at their meeting of November 8, 1978, approved .... "
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended the minutes
of February 7, 1989. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-14,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 1120323 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 834-840
MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 & 6, TRACT 1071. No
objections; so ordered.
COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
VARIANCE TO ADD THIRD STORY AND MAINTAIN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
623 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/7 /89)
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny a variance to maintain a 2.3 foot
setback and a 2.5 foot setback along the sideyards rather than the required three feet.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 7, 1989, continued this item to
allow staff to review revised plans submitted at the meeting.
1 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
.::---...,. Planning and Building staff have reviewed the revised plans and have determined that the
plans would conform to required setbacks; therefore, a variance is no longer necessary.
All new walls will be set back three feet. The Building Department has allowed roof
support beams to be located within sideyards since the support beams will merely replace
the roof beams. There will be no continuation of the nonconforming wall.
Since the revised plans do not require a variance, the applicant will need to obtain only a
building permit to construct the proposed third story as shown on the revised plans. The
Planning Commission should, however, formally deny the variance application to add a
third story which encroaches into the sideyard as originally proposed.
Public Hearing opened at 7:35 P.M. by Chmn Peirce.
Joe Winslow, 623 Monterey Boulevard, applicant, stated that he would actually prefer to
build the original plan rather that the revised plan. He asked how the Commission would
have voted on the variance application.
Larry Berlant, president of the Monterey Homeowners Association, noted concern over
the bootleg potential in the original plan. He stated that he and the other homeowners
oppose approval of the variance because such construction would pose a fire hazard.
Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's
recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-13, to deny the variance and to require this project
to comply with all current zoning standards.
Comm. Rue stated that it would be very difficult to make the findings required, to
approve this variance. He noted that this property has no unusual configuration as to
shape, size, or location.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce
None
Comm. Edwards
None
RECONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE GUEST PARKING SPACE
AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1139 SIXTH
STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/7 /89)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 15, 1989. He stated that the Public
Works Department has provided information in regard to the on-street parking situation
in this area. He noted that the diagram prepared by Public Works shows that whether
there is a single or double driveway, there would still be room for two adequate parking
spaces to the west of the driveway between the proposed driveway and the adjacent
property.
The Public Works Department has also indicated that with the double driveway, there is
the option of obtaining a permit for parking in front of the driveway; therefore, a total
of three parking spaces could be obtained. This configuration would be available with the
double driveway cut.
2 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the applicant
would still need to provide the 17-foot setback in front of the garage. He explained that
this is not a remodel, but is considered new construction of a single-family home.
Public Hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Dan Rodriguez, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has shown the
neighbors his proposed plans, and they seem very happy with the proposal because parking
is such a problem in the neighborhood, and the plan would provide parking.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that he wants to do this addition so that he can move into the house
and have a place to park. He feels that the proposed plan would enhance the area as well
as provide much-needed parking.
Mr. Rodriguez handed out a copy of a statement depicting the proposed project and
exactly what it will entail. He stated that the plans were based on what he was told by
the City; and he thought the plans would be approved. He had already spent several
thousand dollars because he did not think there would be any problems. Suddenly, he
began receiving negative responses from the City. He has made every attempt to have
his plans enhance the neighborhood as well as suit his needs. If this variance is denied, he
would have no alternative but to leave the house as is, which would be no improvement to
the neighborhood or to the City.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the only issue before the Commission at this time is that of the
guest parking, not the plans.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the
Commission. He thanked the Commission for continuing this item s.o that input could be
received from the Public Works Department. He continued discussing the diagram
prepared by Public Works. He said that he was surprised to see the results of the input,
stating that it is a departure from what has been discussed in the past. He discussed
Attachments 1 and 2 which were included in the packets. He said that the diagram shows
no red curb on the westerly edge of the street next to the driveway. He stated, however,
that since the Public Works Department feels this plan will work, he would bow to their
expertise.
Mr. Compton stated that he was very happy to receive the diagrams, because he will now
have a guideline by which to design the parking. He stated that based on the diagrams,
there will probably now be some very innovative designs in the City. He stated that in
the past the City has adamantly required that driveways must line up directly with the
front garage doors, and there could be no curving in or out.
Mr. Compton discussed the differences between his interpretation of the driveway and
that of the Public Works Department. He stated that this is a departure from previous
standards used in the City.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, was not positive whether the
Public Works Department provides this handout to all applicants. He stated that it is his
understanding that this plan would be approved at the proposed project location.
Chmn. Peirce suggested that there be something in writing from the Public Works
Director which could be given to applicants so they can proceed with drawing their plans.
3 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Mr. Compton stated agreed some definite information should be given to applicants in
order to facilitate their projects.
Mr. Compton stated that it is possible to get a curb cut permit. If one obtains a permit
to park in the driveway, where there are two cars in the garage and two cars parked in
tandem in the driveway, he questioned whether it would then be considered that there
are five parking spaces.
Mr. Compton stated that the main problem is that they have come to a standstill on this
project because of the definition of a remodel versus new construction. He stated that
Mr. Rodriguez had already presented his plans to the City and was given the go-ahead by
the time Mr. Compton was consulted. During this time there was a difference in how the
Building Director was interpreting the definition of a remodel. At one time the
determining factor was 50 percent of more demolition constituted new construction.
When the applicant first approached the Building Department, less than 50 percent
demolition was being proposed. Even now, it is not being proposed to demolish more than
50 percent of the existing structure. The Building Director, however, analyzed the
project and now asserts that this is indeed a new structure.
Mr. Compton noted concern over where the decision is being made as to remodels versus
new construction. He was under the impression that the Building Director was to submit
questionable cases to the Planning Commission for their decision. He felt that the
Planning Commission has not given much direction to the Building Department in regard
to a specific definition.
Mr. Compton stated that the current existing house has no parking, and to deny the
variance would create a hardship to the neighborhood as well as to the applicant. Also,
denial of the variance would encourage the use of this structure to remain as a rental
unit or whether it is remodeled with parking. He noted that the neighbors have signed a
petition favoring the granting of the variance.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that he does not concur
with the drawing submitted by the Public Works Department, explaining that he felt it
was probably done in error. He stated that people backing out of the driveway could hit
the cars parked there. He still did not understand how Public Works arrived at their
conclusion, noting that this is not based on current City standards.
Mr. Compton stressed that he never felt this is a new project; it is a remodel. He
concluded by noting that the neighboring family approves of the variance because it will
provide much-needed parking in the area.
Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Comm. Rue noted surprise that the issue of new construction versus a remodel was again
being addressed. He noted that this issue seems to be a major crux of this matter.
Chmn. Peirce stated that there is a main issue to focus on here; i.e., whether or not this
project is a remodel or new construction. If determined to be new construction, the
project can proceed with the parking as proposed.
Mr. Schubach stated, in that case, that it would be necessary for staff to return with a
policy statement on the interpretation. He stated that the applicant had agreed that this
was not a remodel, but a new project.
4 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
~ Comm. Ingell stated that the request before the Commission is for construction of a new
single-family dwelling with no guest parking.
Mr. Schubach stated that if the issue of a remodel had arisen during discussions with the
applicant, the staff report would have addressed that point. He stated that the Building
Director interprets very broadly the code, which does not specifically state that any
portion of a structure can be removed.
Public Hearing reopened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Mr. Rodriguez stressed that since Day One of this project, he has asserted this project is
an addition; nowhere has he applied for a new home. Every single piece of paper relating
to this project refers to it as an addition. The plans themselves refer to the project as an
addition.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for staff to go back into the records to
produce every application related to this project.
Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Chmn Peirce stated that it is first necessary for the Commission to make a
determination as to whether this is a remodel or a new project in order to make a
decision on the parking.
Comm. Edwards stated that, even though he was absent from the previous hearings on
this matter, he has read the minutes of the meetings. He noted, however, that he has not
listened to either audio or video tapes of the meetings.
Mr. Lough stated that the minutes are very complete, and it is up to Comm. Edwards to
decide whether or not he is adequately informed to participate in this matter.
Chmn. Peirce felt this will be a new development. He stated that this issue was
discussed previously, and approximately 40 to 50 percent of the existing building will be
demolished.
Mr. Schubach stated that if this project were indeed a remodel, the issue would not even
be before the Planning Commission. He felt that since the applicant had agreed to apply
for the variance, the applicant was agreeing that this is new construction.
Comm. Rue noted that the issue of a remodel versus new construction was discussed at
the first hearing of this matter.
Mr. Schubach agreed; however, he noted that it was discussed only because it was
brought up in the testimony, not because it was at issue from staff's viewpoint. He said
that if the applicant asserts this actually is a remodel, staff should have provided an
analysis in that regard.
Public Hearing reopened at 8:08 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that he applied for the variance because he was informed by the
Planning Director that that was the only method by which to build this project. He
stated that he took his plans all over City Hall at the direction of staff. Finally, because
he did not know where to turn, he called Mr. Compton in an attempt to resolve this
matter. He stated that he applied for the variance only because he was informed by
5 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
~ staff that this was be the only way he could proceed if he wanted to continue with this
project. He was not even certain why he needed the variance.
Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Comm. Rue noted that at a previous meeting, he had made a motion to approve the plans
as submitted because he felt the project was a remodel. The motion was seconded;
however, the second was later withdrawn. He felt that the issue of a remodel versus new
construction was never completely addressed at that time.
Comm. Ingell wanted to see the original noticing to ascertain whether the project was
ref erred to as a remodel.
Comm. Rue felt that the Planning Commission should interpret the code and its intent.
Unless the entire matter is addressed in totality, they are not doing justice to the
system. He said that the entire matter needs to be addressed, not just this one project.
Mr. Compton handed out a copy of the original application which clearly states this
project is a remodel and addition.
Comm. Ketz noted concern over making a policy statement which would affect all future
projects, when there is a specific project before the Commission at this time.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the issue of whether this is a remodel or new construction was
not originally noticed; therefore, he questioned whether the Commission can make a
decision on this matter.
Mr. Lough stated that this matter was noticed as a variance hearing. He continued by
explaining the options which are available to applicants when they appear before the
Building Director. He stated that the matter before the Commission is that of the
variance. He stated that, if so desired, the Commission could continue this matter in
order to obtain additional information from the Building Director.
Chmn. Peirce noted that if the Commission desired to obtain additional information on
the interpretation, it would not be a public hearing; it would be a hearing.
Mr. Lough clarified the issue of variances, explaining that they apply to certain, specific
pieces of property.
Chmn. Peirce outlined the options available to the Commission at this time: (1) vote on
the variance at this time; (2) continue the matter for the purpose of asking the applicant
to return with information on whether or not this is a new building; or (3) decide whether
this is a new building.
Comm. Ingell questioned whether the applicant could request a policy statement on this
matter and whether he would have to pay additional costs for noticing.
Mr. Lough explained that a policy statement does not need to be noticed as a public
hearing would.
Comm. Ingell noted that the Commission had previously decided to study this matter and
had directed staff to return with information on what constitutes remodels versus new
construction. He questioned whether that action has any bearing on this applicant's
project.
6 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Comm. Edwards discussed various methods by which it could be determined what
constitutes new construction. He felt that the City should have clear guidelines so that
people can plan their projects accordingly. He noted that this decision appears to be a
close call.
Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission can vote on this matter, and if the applicant
wins, he wins. If the request is denied, the applicant can either return to request an
interpretation on what constitutes a remodel or new construction. He felt that the main
issue which should be addressed is that of the guest parking.
Comm. Rue disagreed, stating that it has never been decided whether this is a remodel or
new construction; therefore, he did not favor the option of the applicant coming back
with a request for an interpretation.
Mr. Lough explained that there could be timing problems if an interpretation is requested
because an appeal to the City Council on the variance could overlap the hearing for the
interpretation. He continued by explaining that there could also be problems with the
fees.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the study of this
matter is scheduled to come before the Commission within the next several months.
Comm. Ingell felt that the parameters for remodels should be studied and placed in the
code; however, he felt that structures should conform to current ordinances, particularly
the parking requirements in cases where applicants are allowed to expand in a remodel.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce; to approve staff's
recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-98, to deny the variance.
Comm. Ingell did not feel that structures should be allowed to expand unless they can
meet the current requirements. He felt the issue here is whether or not to allow the
applicant to expand without providing the required guest parking, noting that that is the
wording specified in the request.
Comm. Edwards discussed the issue of this property being grandfathered in; Chmn.
Peirce noted, however, that that issue is not relevant to this action.
Comm. Edwards noted that the project has no existing parking, and a variance approval
would add additional parking spaces.
Chmn. Peirce noted that people in the City do not like to provide the required parking
because it reduces the lot size. However, he felt that this viewpoint is a disservice to
the area.
Comm. Rue stated that the project would add three parking spaces.
Chmn. Peirce stressed that the rear parking space has bootleg potential. Further, the
code specifically prohibits three-in-a-row parking spaces.
Comm. Rue felt that if there is any interpretation aspect which can be addressed, it
should be explored further.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the bottom line is whether the applicant should be allowed to
bypass the requirements of the City.
7 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Comm. Ketz did not feel the findings can be made to grant this variance. She said that
parking is a major problem in the City; and whenever possible, projects should provide
the required amount of parking.
Comm. Ingell stated that even if this is a remodel, it would be seem more appropriate to
have a double car cut with a double garage side by side rather than the proposed tandem.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce
Comms. Edwards, Rue
None
None
Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has 15 days in which to appeal this matter in
writing. The appeal should then be taken to the City Clerk's office.
Recess taken from 8:30 P.M. until 8:33 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP l/20644 FOR A
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 9, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map
for a two-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium
density residential. The irregularly-shaped lot size is 4586 square feet, approximately 35
feet by 144 feet.
The proposed condominium units will be approximately 2500 square feet. The units will
be detached. Each unit will have three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and a
mezzanine. The basic construction of the units will be two floors and a mezzanine over a
partial subterranean garage.
The design of the building is mediterranean. Architectural details have not been
identified on the plans; however, the plans show architectural features to include glass
block, decorative banding between floors, arched windows, and tile roofing. A condition
of approval should require all architectural features to be identified and subject to
approval of the Planning Director.
The plans conform to the open space requirements. Open space for the rear units is
provided on a 214 square foot deck and 248 square feet located on grade in the rear of
the building. The front unit also has a 214 square foot deck and 160 square feet of open
space located on grade in the front yard area of this unit. The area calculated as open
space in the front yard does not include required setbacks. Additional open space is
provided on other decks; however, these decks are not open to the sky by more than 50
percent; therefore, they are not included in open space calculations.
Staff has some concern over the proposed parking layout. The applicant is proposing to
provide two three-car garages, two spaces to be used as required parking and one space
as guest parking. No open guest parking will be provided. As proposed, guests would not
be able to park on-site without previously obtaining access to the garage, either by key
or automatic garage door opener. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to
require that the plans be revised to provide an open guest parking space. Only one guest
parking space is required since no on-street parking will be lost.
8 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
'~
L
The plans have provided a 13-foot front yard setback rather than the minimum five-foot
setback as required by the zoning ordinance. Most structures on this block have front
yard setbacks greater than five feet. An on-site inspection of the setbacks on this block
indicates that setbacks vary from nine feet to 25 feet, with the average setback
approximately 14 feet. The 13-foot setback is appropriate for this parcel since it is in
keeping with surrounding parcels. Also, the R-1 zone, which is the most restrictive zone,
does not require any front yard setback to be greater than ten feet.
The site is located in an area that was recently rezoned from R-2, low density general
plan designation, to R-2B, medium density residential. The surrounding parcels on the
block are developed with half single-family homes and half with duplexes built during the
early 1950s. The proposed structure is larger in height and bulk than most of the
surrounding dwellings. However, views of the surrounding structures should not be
impacted since this site is located on top of a hillside.
Chmn. Peirce asked whether other condominium projects have been allowed to have
enclosed guest parking spaces.
Mr. Schubach stated that he was aware of no others in the City. He noted, however, that
the City is very careful in its guest parking requirements.
Public Hearing opened at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated that he is
surprised staff had concerns over the parking, because he was told by a staff member
that there were no problems with the proposal in this particular area.
Mr. Compton stated that one area which was not designated asa guest space is an area in
the rear which is not the full nine feet; however, it could be used as a guest parking
space if it could be designated as a compact space. He stated that the space would be
approximately eight feet, six inches. If this space is allowed, the project will provide
two guest spaces in excess of the requirement.
Mr. Compton and the Commissioners continued by discussing the site plan. He also noted
that it will be necessary to put in a retaining wall on the north side of the property, and
the size of the wall will affect the width of the parking space. He stated that the plans
could be modified if so desired by the Commission; however, he would prefer not to
modify them.
Mr. Compton stated that the design of the project will be very attractive.
Mr. Compton discussed the northerly property line, stating that the house to the north
and the existing house share a common driveway. The building to the north has a
substandard setback from the edge of the house to the property line. He stated that he
has talked to the owner of the property to the north, and they will attempt to obtain an
easement for the driveway use.
Chmn. Peirce questioned whether it would be possible to obtain the additional six inches
for a full-sized parking space in that area.
Mr. Compton said that care was taken in the design of this project. He stated that the
design will be mediterranean. All of the baP.ds step out at least two inches, and most are
double stepped. The colors will vary on the banding and around the windows. There will
be a red tile roof. He also stated that there will be additional storage area in the rear of
Unit B.
9 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Steve Pettis, 1724 Golden Avenue, northerly neighbor of this project, stated that he has
spoken to the builder and architect. His concerns involve the driveway and the agreement
which will be reached. The developer is negotiating giving him approximately one foot
over his property line in order to put in the retaining wall. Also, during the construction
phase Mr. Pettis will not be able to park in his driveway; therefore, the developer will
allow him to park in their driveway during that time, which will be approximately three
weeks.
Mr. Pettis stated that, pending the agreement reached with the developer, he favors
approval of this project.
Paul Normandy, 1714 Golden Avenue, adamantly opposed the project as it currently is
proposed. He stated that he will lose his view when this project is completed. He stated
that he has met several times with Mr. Compton about this project.
Mr. Normandy stated that his rights to light and air will be affected, and the project
should be studied further. He stated that his house is set back about 13 feet from the
property line. The sideyard is very narrow, approximately three feet. The house does
not go all the way to the rear property line.
Mr. Normandy stated that this project will have one unit all the way to the front of the
property; the other unit is set all the way back on the property. He said that this
configuration will be very detrimental to his view. He stated that he does not oppose an
R-2 development on this property; however, he would favor working with the developer
to reach an agreement.
Mr. Normandy stated that if no agreement can be reached, he will take legal action.
Mr. Normandy continued by discussing the various views from his property which will be
obstructed, explaining that approximately 90 percent of the view will be lost. He stated
that another plan could be devised in order to minimize view loss; however, it would not
be two detached units.
John Walter, 1240 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification of the project's
size, number of units, and parking. He stated that, in the absence of further information,
he would oppose the project at this time.
Gerry Compton discussed the property currently owned by Mr. Normandy. He stated that
he has met with Mr. Normandy regarding the view blockage; however, not much can be
done in terms of redesigning this project in order to avoid the loss of view. He stated
that the real issue is whether or not the designer should be required to design a proposed
project around someone else's view. He noted that the City currently has no ordinance
protecting views. He said that the Normandy property is actually a duplex which is older
and has substandard parking.
Mr. Compton stated that there is actually no feasible way to redesign this project so that
the units are attached, explaining that detached units are much more desirable to the
buyer. He said that he sympathized with someone whose view would be blocked;
however, there is no easy solution ~
Public Hearing closed at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Chmn. Peirce noted that there is no view ordinance in Hermosa Beach.
10 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Chmn. Peirce stated that he would favor the developer designing a parking space at the
north side of the property, underneath the overhang and in front of the trash area. In
this way, there would be an actual guest parking space plus three spaces for each unit.
Comm. Ingell had no concern over the parking, stating that the area in question will be
used for parking anyway.
Comm. Ketz agreed that she would like to see the area made into a guest parking
space. She noted that the City has no current ordinance regarding view, and this project
meets the height requirements. She could see no way to redesign this project in order to
save the neighbor's view.
Comm. Rue agreed on the issue of the guest parking space. He also felt it is unfortunate
about the view loss; however, there is no ordinance protecting views at this time.
MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's
recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-16, with the addition of a condition requiring the
applicant to work with staff to provide a parking space, compact or full-sized, on the
north side of the rear of the property.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce
None
None
None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE OF BEER AND WINE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 50 PIER A.\IBNUE.t PIER MARKET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 13, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject
to strict compliance with the conditions specified in the resolution.
The project is located in the C-2, restricted commercial zone. The general plan
designation is GC, general commercial.
On January 5, 1989, the environmental staff review committee recommended a negative
declaration and requested that the Police Department prepare a report for the Planning
Commission on any incidents or problems regarding the existing beer and wine use.
The Police Department informed staff that Pier Market has had two instances of
negative activity in the past 12 months. On August 9, 1988, and December 16, 1988, they
were cited for alcohol sales to minors.
Pier Market is one of nineteen existing nonconforming alcohol establishments, with no
conditional use permit, which are subject to Section 1304 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning
Code, entitled "Nonconforming Alcohol Establishment, On and Off-Sale." This ordinance
requires all on-and off-sale alcohol establishments which do not possess a conditional use
permit to obtain one within two years of the effective date of this ordinance. Pier
Market is the first of these nonconforming establishments to apply for a conditional use
permit.
11 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
In light of the police report, staff believes approval of the CUP should be contingent
upon strict compliance with the conditions of approval. Further, any violations of the
said conditions should be immediate grounds for revocation and/or citation.
Comm. Ingell asked for the status of the two violations of the Pier Market and whether
they are being investigated by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff did not investigate the violations in detail.
Public Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Dung Ngo, 50 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and
asked for approval for the conditional use permit. He stated that he was not certain how
long the Pier Market has been in existence; however, he has been there one year. In
response to a question from Comm. Rue, he stated that there are three video games in
the store, which young people play usually in the evening.
Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Chmn. Peirce asked whether it is within the purview of the Commission to require that
the video games be removed.
Mr. Lough explained that up to four video games is not considered an arcade usage;
therefore, no conditional use permit is required. He stated that a CUP must contain
findings to prohibit the video games. The purpose of the CUP is to more closely regulate
an establishment; therefore, if the games present a problem, when the CUP comes before
the Commission for review, conditions regarding the games could be imposed.
Mr. Lough noted that no testimony was presented during the public hearing which
asserted that the video games present a problem at the establishment.
Comm. Rue stated that when he went into the Pier Market, several bicycles were strewn
on the floor inside the market, and three boys were playing the video machines. He
noted that the proposed resolution states that "measures shall be taken to. control
loitering and littering on the premises at all times." He said that this is mainly a liquor
establishment, and he objected to children playing in the store at night. He felt that the
video games encourage loitering. He felt that the proposed condition in the resolution
would therefore adequately address the issue of loitering.
Comm. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue's comments.
Comm. Edwards noted, however, if the children are playing the games, they are not
loitering. He felt that bikes on the floor constitute a safety problem.
Comm. Ingell felt that alcohol sales in the downtown area where there is only walk-in
traffic is a safety hazard. He stated that he has concerns with alcohol sales at walk-in
establishments that close to the beach. He therefore strongly urged that the CUP be
conditioned adequately to address this situation and so that the City has real control over
the market.
Chmn. Peirce asked if there is a way in which the City could, over a period of time,
phase out the video games at this market~
12 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Mr. Lough stated that it would be necessary to pass an ordinance which would require
conditional use permits for video games in conjunction with alcohol sales. He continued
by discussing a past case which was similar and involved gasoline sales.
Mr. Lough stated that conditions could be added regarding loitering and requiring
bicycles to be parked outside the premises, explaining that this would be related to the
safety issue. He stated that these conditions could be imposed to allow more stringent
regulations on the business.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the applicant could be required to return for a six-month
review. At that time, the Commission could discern from public testimony whether
there are any problems connected with the video games.
Mr. Lough discussed the violations, stating that that issue is within the purview of the
ABC; and if the establishment does not comply with the ABC regulations, they could lose
their license. Whether or not this CUP is approved, the applicant must meet the
requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Mr. Lough continued by explaining further how the ordinance could be amended in regard
to video games, either with or without a relation to alcohol sales.
Chmn. Peirce felt it would be appropriate to review the issue of video games during the
six-month conditional use permit review period.
Comm. Ingell suggested an addition to Condition No. 9: "The exterior of the premises
including parking areas and sidewalks shall be maintained in a neat and clean matter at
all times."
Comm. Ingell also suggested that the sign ordinance be strictly enforced and/or that a
condition be added stating that there shall be no excessive advertising of beer and wine,
and no signs advertising cheap beer and/or wine prices should be allowed.
Chmn. Peirce agreed that window signs can present a problem. He asked whether beer
and/or wine advertisements can be prohibited in the windows.
Mr. Lough explained that a condition could be added requiring the establishment to
comply with all City sign ordinances, noting that the sign ordinance is very specific.
Comm. Rue objected to limiting the amount of beer and wine advertising, stating that
this is a business, and a business depends on its advertising. According to the square
footages presented, the main part of this business is beer and wine sales. He felt that
the business should be required to comply with the sign ordinance; however, he did not
feel it would be appropriate to limit what can be placed on those signs.
Mr. Lough stated that there have been recent State regulations on this issue; however, he
has not yet studied them. He suggested that if the Commission desires to add a condition
specifying what can be on the signs, this matter be continued so that he can study the
matter more fully.
Comm. Ingell favored a condition limiting the percentage of beer and wine advertising.
=c-L/ He favored a condition stating that no more than 20 percent of the advertis ing shall be
/ devo ted to beer and wine.
13 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Chmn. Peirce agreed, stating that a major problem in the downtown area is that of tacky
signage on buildings.
Mr. Lough suggested that the condition to be added should state that the condition is
subject to any State law to the contrary. He stated he could return with a memo on the
subject. The issue can then be addressed again at the time of the six-month review.
Comm Ingell favored a condition requiring that the sign ordinance be strictly enforced.
Chmn. Peirce also suggested that a better plan be provided, stating that the plans given
to the Commissioners are quite small and not drawn to scale. He said it is quite difficult
to tell whether the interior layout has been changed unless the plans provided are
adequate. He suggested that this be a condition or finding.
Comm. Rue had no objection to requiring the applicant to comply with the sign
ordinance; however, he did not feel it would be fair to eliminate beer and wine
advertising completely, since it is the main function of the establishment.
Comm. Edwards agreed with Comm. Rue's opinion. He stated that the sale of beer and
wine is the primary function of this establishment, and the applicant should be allowed to
advertise what he is selling. •
Comm. Ingell agreed; however, he strongly felt that the percentage should be limited in
regard to the amount of paper-type signs and what can be advertised on them. He felt
that even if the signs are limited, the message would be gotten across to customers. He
also felt that limiting the signs would improve the appearance of the building.
Chmn. Peirce noted that paper signs are illegal in the City.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Comm. Ketz, stated that the signage is
monitored on a regular basis.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's
recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-15, with the following modifications: (1) Condition
No. 9 shall be amended to read: ''The exterior of the premises including parking areas
and sidewalks shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all times"; (2) A
condition shall be added requiring that all signage in the windows shall be subject to and
comply with the Hermosa Beach sign ordinance and State code requirements, 2 nd that ~
/ -maximum of 20 percent of the beer and/or wine signage shaU be restricted to a
permanent display sign; (3) A condition shall be added stating that staff will work closely
with the applicant in order to avoid any miscommunication on the part of the applicant,
due to a potential language barrier; and (4) a condition shall be added requiring the
applicant to submit to the planning staff an updated interior plan drawn to scale.
Comm. Rue questioned whether neon "Spuds MacKenzie" type signs would be included in
the 20 percent permanent signage requirement.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce
None
None
None
Recess taken from 9:30 P .M. until 9:38 P .M.
14 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT; AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP /146826 FOR A 13-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 540 FIRST STREET
Comm. Edwards stated that he would abstain from discussion because he lives within 300
feet of the proposed project site.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 14, 1989. Staff offered two
recommendations: (1) that the Planning Commission recommend a zone change to a
Specific Plan Area to allow twelve units and environmental negative declaration; and (2)
to approve the conditional use permit and vesting tentative tract map, subject to the
conditions specified in the resolution.
Staff offered three alternative recommendations: (1) to rezone the subject property to
R-2, thereby allowing thirteen dwelling units; (2) to leave the property zoned M-1 and
open space and amend the general plan designation from medium density residential to
manufacturing and open space for those portions of the parcel with corresponding zoning;
or (3) to redesignate and rezone the property to R-1, low density residential, including
the remaining block.
The project is located in the M-1 and open space zone, with a general plan designation of
medium density residential. The irregularly-shaped lot is 24,251 square feet. Most of
the R-1 lots in this area are 25' by 100'.
The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989,
recommended an environmental negative declaration with mitigation measures to
dedicate a portion of land along First Street for public sidewalk use and enlargement of
the proposed driveway.
Also, neighboring residents to the west had some concerns about the location of the pool
equipment. It should be noted that a 40-foot undeveloped right-of-way separates this
parcel from the adjacent condominium development; therefore, noise generated from the
pool equipment should be minimal.
The staff environmental review committee did not require a traffic study for this project
because a traffic study was recently prepared for a condominium development across the
street from this site, and the study addressed cumulative impacts which is included in
this project.
The property is designated in the general plan as medium density residential; currently
the property is zoned M-1 and open space. Surrounding properties are also zoned R-2,
MOR. In the past, M-1 zoning had some logic since there was a railroad sub-spur line
abutting the subject property to the south.
The railroad line has since been abandoned and part of the line, including the sub-spurs,
has been sold to private parties. All of the original railroad property, sub-spurs included,
were zoned open space when the main spur line, now known as the "Green Belt," was
zoned open space.
It may be argued that it was never the intent of the City to rezone these now privately
owned sub-spurs to open space since they were never discussed or shown on any map,
including the general plan map. It was not until staff researched these parcels that it
15 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
was discovered that these parcels were part of the railroad and therefore were
inadvertently zoned open space. The previous designation was railroad right-of-way;
therefore; uses were limited to railroad purposes only. The railroad should have
requested that these parcels be rezoned prior to their sale.
The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel to bring it into
consistency. Failure to do so is in violation of State law.
Staff is recommending a Specific Plan Area zone for this parcel. The intent of the SPA
is to limit the site to 12 dwelling units, one unit per each 2000 square feet of land. A
similar development was recently recommended for approval; a parcel located across the
street at 603 First Street. An R-2 zone would allow 13 units, one dwelling unit per each
17 50 square feet of land. The recommended SPA would allow for other conditions to be
in place in the recommended zone change without illegally conditioning an R-2 zone
change.
Surrounding parcels are zoned R-2. The surrounding parcels may appear to have lesser
densities; however, these lots are much smaller; therefore, they have fewer units. In
most cases, the densities equate to 25 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Schubach discussed the alternative of extending the R-2 zoning. The R-2 zone would
permit 13 dwelling units on this sized lot. The designation of a Specific Plan Area will
allow for zoning standards to be added as conditions to the SPA; i.e., lesser density.
Either the R-2 or the proposed SPA is consistent with the general plan.
The alternative of amending the general plan: The property could have a general plan
amendment so that the designation corresponded to the current zoning. This would result
in, most likely, inverse condemnation for the open space zoned,portion since none of the
permitted uses under the designation would be economically viable on that small portion
of the lot. However, the City could buy the open space portion of the property and
create a small park.
If the M zoned portion was redesignated, the resulting manufacturing uses could have a
very detrimental impact to surrounding residential properties. The adjacent streets are
narrow, thus not suitable for truck traffic. Other potential impacts of a manufacturing
development include noise, signage, and potential exposure to harmful chemicals and/or
odors.
The alternative of rezoning to R-1, low density: The property and adjacent block could
be rezoned and redesignated R-1, low density residential. There is a small portion of
Ardmore Avenue, north of the site, which is zoned R-1. These R-1 lots are significantly
smaller in size and therefore would not allow multiple units.
Redesignation to R-1 should be included with a study to rezone the entire block R-1 since
redesignation of this parcel only may result in spot zoning. This parcel as an R-1 zone
may be subdivided into six lots assuming minimum street frontages can be met.
The proposed development consists of 13 dwelling units, which is equal to 25 units per
acre. Lot coverage is 42 percent, which is significantly lower than other typical
developments which generally have lot coverages of 63 to 65 percent.
The reduced lot coverage is a result of the relatively large lot compared to the typical
size in the City. Open space also significantly exceeds the minimum requirements
because of the large size of the lot; 426 square feet per unit is proposed. Typically other
16 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
,----_ projects provide the minimum 300 square feet of open space which is usually located on
decks. This project has 4150 square feet of open space on the ground level.
The overall design of the development is attractive. Ample landscaping is being provided
in all the setback areas. Architectural treatments are also superior. It includes dome
and pyramid roof structures, stucco projections, ins and outs, sconce lights, sand finish
stucco, cross-hatched windows, and a unique multi-colored paint finish.
The applicant has also provided two enclosed parking spaces per unit and seven guest
parking spaces. A condition of approval should require that one guest parking space be
provided per unit. A similar condition was imposed on the 603 First Street project. Also,
parking in the area should be maximized whenever possible.
One advantage of the proposed development is that there will only be one curb cut. As
single-family homes, each parcel would have a separate curb cut, thereby eliminating on
street parking.
The plans conform to other planning and zoning requirements.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Peirce, explained the strip of
property behind the project site is actually owned by the City of Redondo Beach, and not
much of anything can be built there.
Public Hearing opened at 9:53 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Patrick Killin, 1320 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the
Commission. He stated that they went through a number of various studies in an attempt
to design the best project for this site. He stated that the concerns of the neighborhood
have been taken into account, as well as the issues of parking, density, and creating the
least number of curb cuts possible. At this project, there will be only one curb cut.
Mr. Killin discussed the strip of land in the City of Redondo Beach which is owned by the
individual who owns the office building which fronts on the corner of Herondo and Pacific
Coast Highway. He noted that that strip, therefore, has not been deeded for use on this
project. He stated that the strip is very narrow and serves as an entrance into the
parking lot.
Mr. Killin continued by discussing the separation between this project and the planned
development across the street, which was an issue that was addressed during the planning
stage of this project. That separation is the area of Ardmore, which is 40 feet. This
project will be required to have five-foot setbacks from the property lines. He continued
by discussing the other surrounding areas of this project site. He stated that the
project's only curb cut will be on First Street.
Mr. Killin stated that the lot coverage for this project will be only 42 percent, well under
the allowed 65 percent. Therefore, he felt that the request for 13 units on this site is a
valid request. He said that the project is designed so that there will be two four-unit
buildings, one three-unit building, and one two-unit building. By designing the project
with smaller units, there is not a feeling of massive density as with other projects in the
City. He stated that an attempt was made to avoid the feeling of row houses.
Mr. Killin stated that the project has been designed so that there is actually usable
recreation space for the owners of the units. There will be a pool and a small area with a
highly landscaped zone around the facility. He stated that an attempt was made to meet
17 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
the intent of the code requiring that there be usable recreation space. The area was
designed so that it is not in shadows all day long; therefore, there was planning in the
placement of the pool and recreation area.
Mr. Killin continued his presentation by showing the site plan. He discussed the driveway
and stated that it will be patterned concrete. The area along First Street will have a
minimum ten-foot setback, and there will be a guest parking space there. The only
buildings which will not have a minimum ten-foot setback are B and G, and those will
have five-foot setbacks. He stated that an attempt was made to minimize the impacts
of this project on the neighbors.
Mr. Killin stated that some residents of The Mooring building attended a staff
environmental committee review meeting and had requested that some of the pool
equipment be relocated away from the property line in order to minimize the amount of
noise. A suggestion was made that the pool equipment be placed in a room, which is
something he would be willing to do.
Mr. Killin, at that meeting, also pointed out to the neighbors that the pool equipment will
be 50 feet away, so there will not be a close proximity.
Mr. Killin noted that the plans for the project are self-explanatory; therefore, he did not
discuss them in detail.
Mr. Killin commented on the proposed architectural treatment for the buildings, stating
that the fronts as well as the sides will be treated. He stated that there will be ins and
out on the buildings, as well as balconies which recess in and out. He stated that there
will also be a mixed use of color.
Mr. Killin stated that the area near First Street and Ardmore currently allows M-1
usage. He stated that it may not now be used to its fullest potential because of the fact
that it has been existing in the present condition for quite some time. He said that the
owner now desires to develop the property, not only to the betterment of the community
and to create an exemplary development, but also to bring the zoning into conformity
with the rest of the neighborhood.
Mr. Killin noted that the project meets all current rules and regulations and that it does
not go to the maximum allowable lot coverage. The project has been designed so that it
is not bulky. He therefore urged the Commission to approve the 13 units as requested
and as is allowed under the proposed R-2 zoning.
Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park, Hermosa Beach, urged that the Commission not only
address this project as a single development, but also look at it in relation to all of the
other developments currently being built in the area and the resulting impacts. He noted
concern over traffic, parking, sewers, and drainage.
Mr. Lombardi asked whether the applicant has provided drainage and hydrology reports,
and whether the project will be approved prior to the submission of those reports.
Mr. Schubach explained that those issues will be addressed during the inspections by the
County engineers, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Building Department, and
other engineers.
Mr. Lombardi noted the importance of having the proper studies done. He urged the City
to require the studies before final approval is given.
18 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Pierre Forchette, 501 Herondo, Hermosa Beach, discussed the site plan for this project.
He said that his homeowners association has for the past two and a half years taken on
part of the responsibility of maintaining the small strip of land in question near this
project site. He said he regrets the loss of that open space area. He said he thought that
strip of land was open space owned by the City that his association was maintaining as a
condition of maintaining the number of units at his building.
Chmn. Peirce suggested that Mr. Forchette examine the conditional use permit to gain
information in regard to the maintenance of the area in question.
Mr. Lough gave some background information in regard to the development Mr.
Forchettes lives in, The Mooring, explaining that the requirements for that development
differ from the City-imposed requirements because the project was not approved by the
City Council but by the court system.
Mr. Forchette noted concern over the location of the pool and the related noise. He said,
however, that he feels the project will be a great improvement over what is currently
existing there.
Mr. F orchette noted concern over parking in the area and questioned whether the
proposed guest parking will be sufficient for this project, stating that the parking
situation is already quite bad in the area.
Kathleen Forchette, 501 Herondo, Unit 66, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over several
issues: (l) irrigation, trees and grass; (2) the amount of space being called a five-foot
setb ack a long the side facing The Moo ring ; (3) the light ing fixtures wh ich will face The
Mooring , and which might cause a probl em with glar e or lighting inte nsity; (4) the
proposed number of parking spaces seems to be inadequate; tj) she felt there should be
three parking spaces required per unit plus guest parking; (6) the historical value of the
existing building, and whether the Historical Society could photograph the building before
it is town down; (7) maintaining adequate open space in the area; (8 ) she suggeste d an
eight-foot block wall along the side facing The Mooring; (9) possible noise from the pool
area; (lo) maintaining privacy in The Mooring and ensuring that aesthetics are
maintained.
Nick Canetti, 540 First Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the project site does not abut
any R-3 property as asserted by staff. He continued by explaining what does exist in the
area, stating that residential exists only on one side. He noted concern over the
historical significance of the existing building, stating that it was built in 1883. He
stated that the traffic and parking is currently very bad in this neighborhood. He
questioned whether emergency vehicles would have access into this area. He strongly
opposed this project. He stated that the area is already too crowded.
Susan Lapes, 501 Herondo, Unit 7, Hermosa Beach, stated that she does not oppose the
project per se; however, she noted concern over traffic, explaining that there is
excessive traffic on the dead-end street already. She said people test drive cars in the
area. She noted concern over noise in the area. She noted concern over parking. She
said that when this project is completed, it will bring the number of new units to 29 in
that very small area. She noted concern over the bootleg potential at the new project.
She felt that the proposed parking is not adequate. She noted concern over possible noise
problems caused by the swimming pool. She noted that the applicant did tell her they
would relocate the pool equipment. She also said that the construction period will cause
problems. She said that this area gets very rowdy in the summer.
19 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
~ Ms. Lapes suggested that options be explored in regard to erecting a wall and relocating
the pool and pool equipment. She suggested that the number of units be reduced.
Patrick Killin addressed the concerns raised during the hearing. He said that a traffic
study was done for this area, not only for this particular site, but also for the surrounding
projects. The traffic study was reviewed by the Public Works Department and deemed
acceptable. The traffic study indicated that there would not be any significant impact
on the existing streets.
Mr. Killin stated that a grading plan was provided and looked at when the tentative tract
map was submitted. The drainage was taken into consideration when the grading plan
was done, and the developer is aware of the drainage situation. The grades were actually
set for the units, and the pads were set as well.
Mr. Killin stated that the City has instituted a hydrant upgrade plan, wherein the
developer pays a portion of the cost to upgrade the fire hydrants based on the square
footage of the project.
.Mr. Killin discussed the open space currently being maintained. He stated that it is his
understanding that his client was never required to landscape any other properties or to
irrigate the area. He said that the developer will attempt to minimize the impacts of
this project as well as maintain the aesthetics.
Mr. Killin discussed the issue of on-site parking and stated that various options have been
proposed. He stated that the applicant desires approval of the 13-unit development with
the existing proposed parking. He stated that all R-2 standards are being met for this
project, and he requested that the standards be followed in this instance. He noted that
the lot coverage is well below the allowed maximum, and .. exif a amenities are being
provided.
Mr. Killin commented on the concern raised that the proposed units would have a bootleg
potential. He said an open stairwell is proposed so that it will be difficult to turn the
lower-level bedroom into a bootleg. He said the entryway will be open all the way to the
third level.
Mr. Killin encouraged the Planning Commission to address the project as proposed.
Public Hearing closed at 10:41 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Chmn. Peirce noted that this proposed 13-unit project is in an area which will have
another 13-unit development across the street. He noted that this area is very crowded,
and it is becoming more congested. Soon there will be no on-street parking left. He felt
quite strongly that additional guest parking should be required on-site for this project.
Comm. Ketz agreed and stated she felt there should be a minimum of three parking
spaces per unit.
Comm. Ingell also felt there should be a minimum of three parking spaces per unit.
Chmn. Peirce reiterated some options available to the Commission: (1) to leave the
property zoned M-1/open space; or (2) downzone to R-1.
20 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Comm. Rue felt that M-1 would be absurd zoning in this area. He did not feel R-1 would
be appropriate either, since most of the area is surrounded by R-2. Further, Herondo is a
very busy street. He felt that R-2 would be the most logical zoning for this area.
Chmn. Peirce agreed, stating he could not see rezoning this property to R-1, since it is
basically surrounded by R-2.
Chmn. Peirce noted that the main issues center around the number of parking spaces that
should be required, the number of units which should be allowed, and the placement of
the pool.
Comm. Rue discussed the parking, noting that the Commission has spent a great deal of
time in the past addressing parking for various projects. He stated that if the current
parking standards are deemed inadequate, they should be changed to require additional
parking. He said that the parking situation will probably improve in time because of the
new parking standards; however, since the parking requirements are on the books,
projects should be allowed if they comply with the requirements. He felt the City needs
to be consistent in its requirements.
Comm. Rue noted that this project provides ample open space and has lot coverage well
below the maximum allowed. He stated that he does not feel this developer should be
penalized because he has attempted to go the extra mile in developing a good project
with open space and less lot coverage.
Comm. Rue felt that the developer should not be required to do more, when he has
already done a lot in regard to developing a good project. He felt that imposing
additional requirements with no real findings or fact will not encourage recycling of the
older and more undesirable properties in the City.
Comm. Ingell stated that units of the proposed size are actually more homes than
condominiums. He said that there is a problem with homes of this size because owners
tend to rent out rooms, and there is then not adequate parking. He felt that the code
requirements need to be studied, and the tendency seems to be to require three parking
spaces per unit.
Comm. Rue did not feel this project can be compared to other projects which were built
with other requirements.
Comm. Ketz noted that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow the
Commission the opportunity to address areas which may be of concern and to rectify
those which are deemed to require mitigation measures. In this case, she felt it would be
appropriate to require additional parking.
Comm. Ketz stated that there would be no point in the Commission reviewing conditional
use permits if they were to review only whether a project complies with the
requirements. She felt the Commission should add conditions when deemed necessary in
order to reduce the chance of problems arising in the future.
Chmn. Peirce commented that the pool appears to be located in an appropriate area.
Chmn. Peirce felt that the number of units should be reduced to 12, and additional
parking should be required. He asked whether it would appropriate to move that the area
be rezoned to a specific plan area, and then move to lower the number of units.
21 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Mr. Lough suggested that the Commission approve a specific plan area if it is desired to
reduce the number units. He stated if the number of units is reduced in the conditional
use permit, the CUP could expire; there would then be R-2 zoning, and 13 units could be
built.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, to approve the plan as a specific plan area for thirteen units
with the parking as proposed in the plans. Also, to add a condition requiring that the pool
equipment be relocated in order to reduce sound. Further, to require that there be
landscaping or a fence provided in order to mitigate noise problems emanating from the
pool area to the west. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 89-19, recommending a zone change from M-1/0pen Space to a Specific
Plan Area. Further, the zone change will conform with the general plan. Also, each unit
shall be required to provide three parking spaces.
Comm. Ingell stated that it might not be necessary to reduce the number of units at this
project if the developer can add more parking, noting that the lot coverage is only 42
percent.
Comm. Rue noted, however, that to allow thirteen units with the requirement of
additional parking, would only add more concrete to the project. In so doing, the green
area would be reduced.
Chmn. Peirce agreed with Comm. Rue's comments.
Mr. Lough stated that it is necessary to vote on the zone change separately from the
conditional use permit.
Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to have input from the developer in regard to
whether additional parking can be provided without lowering the number of units.
Comm. Rue agreed and stated that he would like to know what affect there would be on
the property if an additional six parking spaces are required.
Public Hearing reopened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Patrick Killin, architect, addressed the Commission and stated that he had penciled out
the proposal on the plans. He said it would be possible to get 13 parking spaces in. He
stated that it would be necessary to downscale some areas around the pool in order to
obtain the extra space for five parking spots where none are currently proposed. It would
then be necessary to reconfigure another area to provide another space.
Mr. Killin agreed with Comm. Rue's observation that additional parking adds concrete,
thus taking away from the green space areas. He said that one of the intents of this
project was to try to minimize the impact of it.
Mr. Killin stated that it is possible to add more parking; however, the trade-off is to have
more concrete and to reduce the landscaped areas.
Mr. Lombardi approached the Commission and stated that to rezone this property would
create spot zoning.
22 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Mrs. Forchette addressed the Commission and suggested that the project be reduced to
11 units so that no landscaping would be lost.
Public Hearing closed at 10:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce
Comm. Rue
Comm. Edwards
None
Comm. Ingell said that he voted to approve 12 units because he did not favor losing the
open space and landscaping which is associated with this property.
Mr. Schubach discussed various options available for a wall to minimize the noise impacts
from the pool area to the west. He stated that landscaping could be provided in order to
absorb the noise.
Chmn. Peirce asked who would be required to landscape the open space area along
Ardmore. He asked for clarification on the matter. He noted that both projects will
obtain benefits from the open space.
Mr. Schubach gave background information on The Mooring project, stating that there is
no requirement, as far as he is aware, that requires this developer to provide
landscaping. He noted, however, that he could investigate the matter further.
Mr. Lough cautioned that there could be problems with requiring the developer to
maintain the area, because it is not known whether the street is owned in fee by the City
or whether it is merely an easement where the underlying property rights belong to the
adjacent property owners. He stated that it would be necessary to perform a survey to
determine the exact location of the street. He questioned whether a condition can be
imposed to landscape City property.
Chmn. Peirce asked that something be included in the conditional use permit addressing
the issue of the landscaping on Ardmore.
MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's
recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-18, approving a conditional use permit and vesting
tent ative map for a twelve-u nit cond ominium project at 540 First Street, with the
mod ificat ions that (1) a conditi on be added requiring the applicant to work with staff to
devise a mutually agreeable method of landscaping the property in question on Ardmore;
(2) a condition shall be added requiring an architecturally treated wall to be constructed
which will minimize the sound transmission from the pool area to the west.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce
None
Comm. Edwards
None
Comm. Rue stated that he actually opposes requmng only 12 units for this project;
however, he feels it will still be a good project. He felt that the original proposal for 13
units should have been approved.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the zone change only will be heard before the City Council.
The item will be noticed again, and there will be a public hearing on the matter.
23 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
L
Mr. Schubach, in response to a request from Chmn. Peirce, gave information on the
surrounding projects for the benefit of the audience.
TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASUREMENT
METHOD
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 13, 1989. Staff recommended that the
proposed resolution be adopted.
At the November 15, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a
text amendment regarding the subject matter.
The proposed ordinance, as stated in the study submitted to the Planning Commission in
November, is basically the same method that is used in Manhattan Beach with success,
and it was used in Hermosa Beach until 1973. This method is depicted in Exhibit A, an
example of the method of determining height.
In addition, an amendment to Section 1201, which allows roof mounted equipment to
exceed the height limit is also being recommended. Currently, the ordinance does not
state standards as to the maximum height or size of structures which exceed the height
limit. It also allows for structures, such as parapet walls, which need not exceed the
height limit since there are alternative methods and/or locations for such structures.
Additional analysis regarding the recommended amendments was included in the special
study 88-17.
Mr. Schubach explained the differences between the two methods of measuring height.
He said that the proposed averaging method of determining height would be taken from
the center of the structure on the lot; therefore, one end of the structure could then
actually be required to be lower, and the other side of the structure could actually be
higher, but by no more than 20 percent of the maximum. The other method involves
using a parallelogram-type envelope on the building.
Mr. Schubach noted that the Exhibit A example depicts the height calculation. He stated
that the method will actually help reduce view blockage, and it will be easier for staff to
figure the height. He said that this method actually makes it easier for developers and
architects to develop projects. He stated that Exhibit B shows a comparison chart with
the current ordinance and proposed ordinance.
Mr. Schubach showed on the overhead projector two pictures depicting the two methods
of measuring the height. He and the Commissioners discussed the measurements.
Mr. Schubach stated that in on method, one uses the horizontal plan from the middle of
the structure and the highest and lowest corners of the property to determine the height
limit.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the formula appears to be quite complicated.
Mr. Schubach noted, however, that one merely fills in the blanks of the formula to arrive
at the answer. He continued by explaining the formula as it related to the diagrams on
display.
Public Hearing opened at 11:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
24 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
~. Comm. Rue liked the proposed method; however, he felt there is an excessive bulk on the
downside by using that method.
Dean Abbott, architect, stated that he feels the current height ordinance is very difficult
to understand in terms of how to measure the height. He showed a handout sheet which
he was given by the Building Department. He designed a project according to the
handout sheet, only to be informed later that that handout applied only to a very specific
project, not all projects in the City.
Mr. Abbott discussed surveys, and questioned whether they are being taken from the
natural grade or the finished grade. He discussed problems he has encountered in
projects he has worked on in the City, noting that many lots in the City virtually terrace
down the street.
Mr. Abbott stated that he is awaiting more clearly defined guidelines and direction from
the City in regard to the measurement of height.
Mr. Abbott stated that he favored the staff-proposed method. He stated that the
proposed measurement seems to work quite well in Manhattan Beach, and it is simple to
figure the elevations. He said using that method would make things easier for everyone.
Mr. Abbott showed a rendering of a project he is currently working on. He stated that
problems have arisen because no one seems to know where the existing natural grade was
before the lots were established. He said that he is therefore being subjected to using
the lowest point of the lot. He said it is difficult to interpret the code section. He said
the handout sheets from the City should be more definitive.
Comm. Rue read from the zoning code and noted that buildill@h~ght means the vertical
distance measured from the existing grade of the lot. He did not see how there could be
problems.
Mr. Schubach commented on problems encountered in regard to determining the natural
grade versus the areas which have been cut and filled.
John Dunbabin, 2432 Myrtle, Hermosa Beach, favored the staff recommendation of using
the Manhattan Beach method of measuring height. He said that the proposed method
addresses the center of the structure on the lot and gives a basic location for that in the
formula.
Howard Longacre stated that Manhattan Beach does use the center of each structure as a
basis for measurement. He continued by discussing the viewgraph. He stated that the
proposed method would encourage more large, flat-roofed structures in the City. He felt
that the boxy-structures are not desirable. He therefore opposed the Manhattan Beach
method of measuring height because it encourages flat-roofed, bulky buildings.
Mr. Longacre noted that Newport Beach uses a gradient height limit, but people may go a
little above or below the height limit by a certain percentage. He felt that approach
might be beneficial in the City because it allows for more diversity and does not
encourage flat roofs.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that the Manhattan Beach
method is easier in figuring the height. He tended to agree, however, that it encourages
flat-roofed structures.
25 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
;;---, Mr. Compton continued by pointing out various aspects of the drawings which were
displayed. He continued by explaining the problems which would be encountered with
sloping lots.
Mr. Compton favored an easy method of calculating height so that developers and
architects can easily determine the height.
Mr. Compton did not feel that it is actually necessary to change the current method of
height measurement; however, he did feel that the method of calculation needs to be
clarified. He suggested that the Building Department prepare an easy formula and
prepare a diagram to be handed out.
Chmn. Peirce stated that the building should fall on the natural contour of the land.
Mr. Compton noted that there are various types of lots in the City. He suggested that
this method be assigned to lots which don't fall more than ten feet. Therefore, when the
Building Department receives a survey with a high point of, for example, 100 feet and a
low point of 90 feet, and it doesn't fall more than ten feet, the center point must be used
to figure the height. With long, deeply-sloping lots, however, the method currently used
is a much better method.
Mr. Compton stated that no one method will actually fit every single lot in the City
because there are so many various types of lots.
Mr. Schubach agreed that both methods have problems; however, there appear to be
fewer problems associated with the averaging method.
Mr. Compton continued by explaining how he calculates the..J;i,e.tght of a building. He
stated that there is insufficient data in the City to enable people to figure the location
of the natural grade.
Howard Longacre felt that commercial and residential should be considered as two
separate categories when discussing the height calculations. He noted that the multi-use
corridor has a maximum height of 45 feet. He stated that using this system, there could
potentially be a 54-foot structure on one side of the highway and then a 30-foot high
structure on the other side of the highway. He stated that separating residential from
commercial could also help save the views.
Mr. Dunbabin felt that the new proposed method would solve the problems with the view
corridor.
Public Hearing closed at 11:50 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Chmn. Peirce stated that there are basically two methods for measuring the height. He
suggested that a straw vote be taken in order to give staff some direction on how to
proceed. He favored rewriting the current ordinance.
Comm. Edwards questioned whether options are available to address steep slopes.
Mr. Schubach explained that there are arguments against both the current and proposed
methods, because neither works very well when steep slopes are involved.
Chmn. Peirce felt there should be one method only, and each project can be addressed on
a case-by-case basis. He stated that people can apply for variances when very steep
26 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
slopes are involved. He stated there would be too many problems if there are two
methods.
Mr. Schubach stated that there will always be exceptions, no matter which method is
used.
Chmn. Peirce favored rewriting the existing method so that it is very specific and has a
detailed description. He said that the resulting flat roofs which would be encouraged
under the proposed method are undesirable in the City.
Comm. Ingell agreed that the proposed method would create additional bulk; therefore,
he favored rewriting the existing ordinance.
Comm. Rue stated that the proposed method would be better for views; however, he felt
that bulky, flat-roofed buildings would be encouraged. Therefore, he favored rewriting
the current ordinance for architectural reasons.
Comm. Edwards agreed that the proposed method would encourage flat roofs and
bulkiness in the City. He questioned whether one method versus the other would
encourage various types of roofs.
Mr. Schubach stated that a study regarding bulk will be coming before the Commission
soon. He stated that the study may help clarify the issue of bulk and height.
Comm. Ketz favored retaining the existing method, stating that she feels there are
already too many problems related to bulk and scale in the City. She did not favor
buildings which have the appearance of large square boxes with tall frontages on the
street. She felt that more architecturally diversified projec'l!srcan be designed using the
current method.
Chmn. Peirce noted that all of the Commissioners favored retaining the existing method
of calculating height.
Chmn. Peirce directed staff to rewrite the current ordinance so that the definition is
more precise. He suggested that the staff work with the Building Department to prepare
a better handout to be given to applicants. He stated that the ordinance should mention
whether the site is to be measured from natural grade. Also, it should address lots which
were developed many years ago and have an existing grade established for many years.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would return with a rewritten ordinance.
Chmn. Peirce noted that the Public Hearing would be continued until such time that staff
returns with the rewritten ordinance.
Chmn. Peirce directed staff to begin working immediately with the Building Department
to prepare a better diagram.
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 REGARDING A NON-CONFORMING
RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE C-2 ZONE AT 45 14TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM
MEETINGS OF 1/17/89 AND 2/7/89)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 14, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission deny the proposed development and adopt the proposed policy
statement.
27 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
r, The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial
recreation. The present use is that of residential. The plans indicate two units; however,
staff was unable to verify by building permits, since construction predates the building
records.
The applicant is proposing to raise a portion of the existing structure and provide six
parking spaces below. The structure is a nonconforming residential duplex in a C-2
zone. The existing structure has one parking space.
Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance states: "The nonconforming use of a structure may
be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended, nor
shall any structural alterations be made except those required by law .... " This section
also provides an exception which states: "Residential uses may be expanded or
structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulation of
the zone in which the use is located."
It is the opinion of the Planning Department that this provision does not allow for this
type of proposed development where the structure is physically removed and relocated,
including relocations via air space, especially where extensive demolition of walls occurs.
Staff has reviewed the plans and has determined that approximately 40 percent of the
the existing floor area will be demolished. The Building Department has also reviewed
the plans and in their opinion, the proposed raised structure would require "major
reconstruction," including foundation work and complete reconstruction of one wall
which presently attaches the two units. Also, approximately 40 percent of the exterior
walls of the remaining lower level unit will be demolished.
Essentially, the proposed development will be the demolition of, an existing dwelling and
construction of new residential units within a commercial zone. Approval of this request
would maintain the nonconformity for many years to come.
The proposed policy statement will clarify Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance
regarding structural alteration. The policy statement will prohibit the relocation of any
nonconforming use or structure, air space relocation included, if the Planning
Commission determines that extensive demolition of floor area and exterior walls will
occur. The policy statement states that no more than 20 percent of existing exterior
walls or existing floor area may be demolished or reconstructed.
Hearing opened at 12:00 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission and introduced his architect Rick Coleman.
Rick Coleman, 39 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, architect, addressed the Commission and
stated that he was first approached by Mr. Schumacher approximately two years ago on
this project. At that time, the applicant desired to develop this property commercially
and plans were drawn for a six-unit motel. The applicant paid fees to structural and
mechanical engineers as well as to the architect and others. The applicant even began
the bidding process before coming to the realization that it was not economically
feasible to develop this property commercially.
Mr. Coleman stated that an informal survey of other 30-by 90-foot C-2 lots in the City
showed that there are no similar lots which can be developed commercially because of
the City requirements. Therefore, he felt that this proposal is a sensible use of the
property.
28 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Mr. Coleman stated that the proposal is to reduce 700 square feet of a nonconforming
residential use and to create five additional parking spaces. He displayed a color
rendering of the proposal. He also showed a photograph of the existing structure. He
stated that there is no incentive for Mr. Schumacher to develop this property, if the
request is denied, other than to maintain the structure exactly as it is with a minimum of
maintenance.
Mr. Coleman added that, as an architect, he was not as enthusiastic about this project as
he was about the commercial development. He stressed, however, that he feels this
project would be an improvement over what is currently there. He said he would not be
willing to risk his reputation if he did not feel this was a good project.
Mr. Coleman passed out photographs of a similar residential project on 9th Court.
Mr. Schumacher stated that the project on 9th Court was in process during an
earthquake, and the building withstood the movement.
Hearing closed at 12:06 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce.
Comm. Rue asked whether this project complies with R-3 standards. He read from
Section 1302, which states that any expansion of a residential use located in the C or M
zone must comply with the R-3 regulations.
Mr. Schubach stated that the project complies as best as possible.
Comm. Rue noted concern over the way in which the code is written in regard to
nonconforming use of a nonconforming building, stating that the code mentions no
specific percentages. He said that the code requirements sho,u,ld be followed; and that if
the Commission feels the code is in error, then the code should be amended.
Comm. Rue felt that the applicant has done quite a job on this project, and the applicant
must do as best as possible with the guidelines available. He noted, however, that he
feels the code is inadequate in this regard. He felt that to subject someone to unwritten
conditions is ludicrous.
Chmn. Peirce disagreed, stating that he felt the opposite way. He said that this project
would involve extensive structural alterations; therefore, it falls directly under Section
1302.
Comm. Edwards stated that this project would increase the parking in the area and would
probably improve the appearance of the structure. He noted that the applicant said at
the last meeting, if the building did not survive the move, he would remove the fallen
structure. Based on these facts, and on the fact that the code mentions no specific
percentages, he would support the project.
Comm. Rue noted that this proposal is unusual; however, he noted that the code mentions
no specific numbers in regard to the percentage of what can be structurally altered.
Comm. Ketz felt that by elevating this structure and putting parking under it, the
structure will be rehabilitated and it would extend the life of a nonconforming use, which
is something she did not favor encouraging.
Comm. Rue stated that the code mentions only "major structural changes," but it does
not specify what those changes can be. He did not feel this project involves major
structural changes.
29 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
Comm. Edwards felt that the zoning in this particular area has not been firmly settled at
this time, due to its proximity to the Biltmore site. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that
this project is not within the Biltmore site zoning area.
Comm. Edwards stated that the project would provide additional parking and improve the
appearance of the building.
Comm. Rue noted that Exception No. l to Section 1302 states that residential uses may
be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with
the regulations of the zone in which it is located. It says nothing about the percentage of
the alteration.
Mr. Schumacher stated that nothing is being built, there will be only demolition.
MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Policy Statem~nt 89-1 (which would therefore deny this project).
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Peirce
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue
None
None
(MOTION FAILS.)
MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to find that this project is in
conformance with Section 1302 of the zoning code as it is written.
Mr. Lough, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards,..e~plained that conditions
cannot be imposed on the motion.
Comm. Ingell felt that this project is in conformance with the R-3 standards; therefore,
he would vote for the motion. In regard to the Policy Statement 89-1, however, he did
not feel 20 percent demolition or reconstruction is a realistic figure in order to do any
type of remodel.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue
Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Peirce
None
None
Chmn. Peirce directed staff to return at a future date with additional information
regarding a policy statement for Section 1302 of the zoning code.
STAFF ITEMS
a.) Tentative Future Agenda Items
MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to receive and file. No
objections; so ordered.
30 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89
,.,----,, b.)
c.)
d.)
Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 2/28/89 City
Council Meeting
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to receive and file. No
objections; so ordered.
City Council Minutes of January 24, 1989, and City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop Minutes of January 31, 1989
MOTION to receive and file. No objections; so ordered.
Planning Commissioners Institute Held by League of California Cities
Several Commissioners expressed an interest in attending this meeting.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. lngell noted a Southwest Area Planners' Meeting in Redondo Beach this week. He
asked if staff could provide additional information. He asked if he could be placed on
their mailing list so that he can receive future information.
OTHER
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, requested that packets be placed in
the lobby prior to the meeting. He stated that the information is quite helpful. He
suggested that a list of upcoming code section revisions also be provided.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 12:23 A.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 February 21, 1989.
f~ ~~~ MchaeSchubach,Secrey
7 0 (r/L s--1
Date
31 P.C. Minutes 2/21/89