Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.07.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 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. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Edwards (Excused absence) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as submitted the minutes of January 3, 1989. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell discussed the minutes of January 17, 1989, specifically the portion dealing with the grading plan for the Power Street subdivision, Page 19. He stated that one of the findings made by the Commission was that the proposed grading plan was in substantial conformance with the original grading plan. He also noted that that finding was not included in the resolution, P.C. 89-10. Mr. Schubach stated that an additional finding could be added to the resolution stating that the overall grading plan is in substantial compliance with the original grading plan, and there is no significant difference between the two. Comm. Ingell noted that the discussion centered on the fact that there was not a significant difference in the elevations. Comm. Rue concurred. --··· Mr. Schubach stated that a revised resolution will be given to the City Council, with an explanation that it was not signed because it was necessary to add the additional finding. Comm. Ingell stated that Finding A should state that the grading plan is in substantial conformance with the original grading plan, with a maximum varian·ce of only 16 inches between the two plans. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the additional finding also be included in the minutes of January 17, 1989. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended the minutes of January 17, 1989. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, l P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DELETING A PORTION OF SECTION 551 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ZERO SIDE YARD SETBACKS WITHIN R-2B ZONES AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-7, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A GLASS ROOF OVER THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA AT 1100 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING IN AN R-P ZONE AT 1200 ARTESIA BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S REDONDO HOME TRACT AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A BAR LOCATED AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Dean Abbott, 2105 Magnolia, Manhattan Beach, architect, noted concern over the height interpretation method used by the City. He asked when this matter would be addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that this issue wi11 be coming before the Commission for discussion within the next month. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120323 FOR A FOUR­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 834-840 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 2, 1989. This project is located in the R- 3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 6108 square feet. The environmental determination is categorica11y exempt. The proposed condominiums will vary in size from 1700 square feet to 2000 square feet. The units fronting onto Manhattan Avenue will have three bedrooms and three and a half baths. The units in the rear will have two bedrooms and two and a half baths. The front units have bedrooms and full baths which may allow for the creation of an illegal unit. A condition of approval should limit these bathrooms to a toilet and sink. The design of the building is a combination of mediterranean and contemporary features. Architectural details include projecting decks and balconies, canvas awnings, pipe railings, window pop-outs, and smooth cement siding. The overall design of the 2 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 ~, building is attractive; however, decorative banding should be added between floors to break up the large walls on the north and south elevations. The plans conform to planning and zoning requirements. Open space for the rear units is provided on 300 square-foot decks. Open space for the front units is on 220 square-foot decks and within a proposed 228 square-foot garden area/walkway which will be utilized as common open space. Additional open space is provided on other decks; however, these decks are not open to the sky by more than 50 percent; therefore, these decks are not included in the open space calculations. An attractive feature of the design of this building is the proposed parking layout. The project provides more parking than is required by code. Each unit will provide two enclosed parking spaces and two guest parking spaces. The eight guest parking spaces will be located within the 17-foot setback of the garages. Only four guest parking spaces are required by code; therefore, four extra parking spaces are gained with the proposed layout. Staff is recommending a standard front yard setback of five feet for this project, as is required by the zoning map. Most structures on this block have setbacks of five feet or less. An on-site inspection of the setbacks on this block may appear to be greater than five feet. It should be noted, however, that the front property line is located 20 feet beyond the face of the curb, thereby giving the appearance of larger setbacks. The site is located in an area that is primarily developed as multi-family. The proposed height of the structure will be compatible with newer developments. The property to the east may have some loss of view since it is not developed to the maximum allowable height; however, this site is located higher on the hillside, giving it some view advantages. The proposed size of the building is compatible with the surrounding structures and uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a four-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan A venue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicants and property owners, stated that this project consists of two separate lots of 30 by 100 feet each. Four units are proposed. The structure will comply with all of the development standards. She stated that this project will have several very nice features, in that all units face to the west, and the design and square footage is similar on all units. Two of the units are accessed from Sunset Street, and the two units will each have their own private entrances as well as one common entrance in the rear. The other two units are accessed from Monterey. Ms. Srour stated that this is a very attractive project, especially with the front decks as depicted in the elevations. The entire front facade is broken up by various architectural detailing. Ms. Srour discussed the height, stating that the building is well within the 35-foot height limit for the area, especially at the front. The project conforms to all height requirements, as well as open space and parking. Ms. Srour stated that each unit will have four parking spaces, two enclosed and two open. 3 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 Ms. Srour discussed the bedroom proposed in the front units in regard to the City's concerns over bootleg potential. She said that the lower bedrooms do not have access to the outside, only from within the unit itself. The stairway is somewhat open. There is a window to the outside, but no door proposed whatsoever. She stated that the lower bedroom and bathroom will be an asset to the unit. She noted that staff has recommended that there be no bathtub in the lower bathroom; however, she requested that the applicant be relieved of that recommendation. She felt it would be an appropriate use to have the bedroom and bathroom on the lower level. Ms. Srour stated that this project will be an asset for the street and neighborhood. Comm. Rue commented that the landscaping as proposed on the rendering is very nice, as are the elevations. Comm. Rue asked about the stairwell on the garage level of the front units. Ms. Srour stated that the stairwell will be partially open. Dean Abbott, 2105 Magnolia, Manhattan Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and stated that the width of the stairwell will be partially open, and there will be a low, handrail-type wall. He could not recall the exact number of risers for the stairway. Mr. Abbott noted that no direct access from the lower level is being proposed; therefore, he felt the bootleg potential is minimum. He stated, however, that he would be happy to consider alternative suggestions from staff in an attempt to reduce bootleg potential. He stated that every attempt was made to design the project with the City's concerns in mind. He could see no way that the area could be partitioned off to create an illegal unit. Comm. Rue stated that he did not feel it is necessary to add banding between floors as is being suggested by staff. Mr. Abbott concurred, and he displayed a large color rendering of the project. He felt that the side elevations, as well as the front, need to be addressed; therefore, he designed this project with additional window detailing. Mr. Abbott stated that six-foot sideyards have been provided, in excess of the five feet required by the City. Comm. Ingell admired the way in which the buildings have been stepped back. Dean Kroll, 830-832 Monterey, property to the south of the proposed project, passed around a photograph depicting his home. He felt that the proposed project is basically a good one for the area, and the area will be improved. He noted concern over the elevation and a retaining wall which has existed on his property for fifty years. He felt that the applicant should be required to rebuild or replace that wall, since it serves as protection to his property. He said his property is lower than that of the of project. He did not think that the developer addressed this issue. He noted that fill dirt has been added over the years. The wall is now old and it should be replaced to prevent water from coming over onto his property. His property varies from a few inches to four feet lower than the property next door. 4 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 ' ,-=-,. Mr. Kroll continued by explaining that the lots to the south of him have a wall which was put up when the land was developed approximately 20 years ago. Therefore, the land on both sides of his property is actually lower today. He said that the drop off is a considerable amount. Comm. Rue asked whether one's property can drain onto property owned by another. Mr. Schubach stated that by law, one is required to address such issues. That matter is addressed by the Building Department during the plan check. A requirement of the building code prohibits one from draining his property onto the land of another. He stated that it is not necessary to add a condition to such effect because a building permit will not be issued until the requirement is met. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the elevation in the center of this property was measured from the original grade or from the altered grade. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue will also be addressed when the Building Department performs its plan check. They will ensure that it meets the code requirements. Mr. Lough explained that City code requirements mandate that work must be stopped if damaged is caused by construction. The builder would then be required to obtain a bond in an amount determined reasonable by the City. Mr. Kroll requested that the developer be required to replace the wall at the time the project is built. He said that the wall is currently is a state of collapse. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the cut-outs on Monterey. He said that there are currently no cut-outs. He noted concern over the on-street parking spaces which will be lost because of this project. He said that the parking situation is already very bad, and it cannot get much worse. Even though this project offers ample parking, he said it will take away parking from the rest of the area. He said parking is particularly bad in the evening. Chmn. Peirce asked staff about the number of curb cuts. Mr. Schubach stated that this project is allowed a curb cut; however, the parking lost on­ street is required to be replaced with on-site parking if additional curb cuts are to be made. He noted that there are four additional parking spaces being provided beyond the number required. Chmn. Peirce wanted to know how many spaces will be lost on the street, noting that the number of spots lost on the street must be made up for with parking on-site. Mr. Reimer also noted concern over the potential for bootleg conversions. He said that people are very creative and can and will make bootlegs. He suggested that a condition be added to the CUP requiring a yearly inspection of the property to search for illegal units. Mr. Reimer discussed the level of the property, stating that there is a substantial differential between Monterey and Sunset. His building also has a differential, with the height on the rear being different from the height on the front. He hoped that the height would be calculated from the street or sidewalk level and not the present level which is already built up and would be higher than what is currently there. 5 P .C. Minutes 2/7 /8 9 Elizabeth Srour discussed the parking, stating that there are four units proposed. Each unit is required to have two enclosed parking parking spaces, which they do. A guest space is required for each two units. Two curb cuts will be made; therefore, two additional parking spaces are required on-site. Twelve spaces are required; sixteen spaces are being provided. Ms. Srour stated that even if a third curb cut is made, the project can still comply with the required parking because they are in excess of what is required. She agreed that the parking in the area is bad; however, this project complies with all code requirements, and in some instances, exceeds the requirements. Ms. Srour stated that the parcel map clearly indicates a substantial grade differential, not only from west to east, but also from north to south. She noted that there is a natural grade there. She stated that the architect has taken into account this differential in grade. She said that any new construction will only enhance or correct any existing deficiencies, such as old construction or retaining walls, which have deteriorated over the years. She noted that the developer is required by law to comply with all building standards, and this will be examined when the project goes through the plan check procedure. The City is very careful about examining height and ensuring that a project complies with the drainage and retaining requirements. Ms. Srour stated that it is the intention of the developer to comply with all building and zoning code standards. Chmn. Peirce asked whether it would be possible to have a maximum of only two parking spaces lost on the street. Mr. Abbott stated that when he has gone to the site, he has determined that there will only be two on-street spaces lost. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the applicant would object to a condition requiring that no more than two parking spaces can be removed from the street. He suggested that the parking be addressed, noting that the situation is currently very bad in the area. Comm. Rue did not feel that such a condition would be relevant, noting that the project already provides parking in excess of that which is required. He did not feel it would be appropriate to try to rearrange the driveway configurations. Mr. Reimer suggested that the developer study the parking configuration further, explaining that it is possible the driveways could be located on Sunset; therefore, no parking spaces would be lost on Monterey. He felt that the developers are interested only in their own profits. He stressed that the parking is already very bad. Mr. Reimer, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the maJonty of properties in the area provide their own on-site parking; however, their are more people living in the area than there are parking spaces for. Pete Tucker, 235 34th Street, Hermosa Beach, project superintendent and contractor, stated that he lives in the area and has concern for the community. The developer also lives in the City. He noted that the curb near this project is painted red. He said that if the City could shorten the red curb lengths, the parking configuration could be jockeyed somewhat in order to reduce the lost parking to only one space. He said that sixteen parking spaces are being provided. He said that the 17-foot setback will actually accommodate a parking space. 6 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 ~ Mr. Tucker discussed the bootleg problem, stating that another very similar project was approved by the Commission, with the only requirement being that just a shower and toiler would be allowed. He stressed that there is no access from the outside to the lower bedrooms. He did not think the proposed configuration would be a problem in regard to the issue of an illegal unit being created. He requested that the Commission approve the downstairs bathroom, as well as the proposed parking. Mr. Tucker felt that this project will improve the neighborhood, explaining that sixteen parking spaces will be provided while only two on-street spaces are be removed. He noted that the units currently existing at the site do not even have adequate parking. Mr. Tucker commented on the issue of the deteriorating wall at the south side of the property as discussed by the neighbor. He stated that they will probably rebuild the wall in accordance with the appropriate code section. He also noted that it is a City requirement that the project drain properly. Kevin Snyder, 618 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the parking problem in the neighborhood, stating that it is currently a nightmare situation. He felt that the proposed parking will not actually work out because people will park in the garage, but they won't want to park in the driveway, thereby blocking the cars in the garage. He also noted concern over the bootleg potential. Ms. Srour agreed that parking in this area is quite bad; however, she felt that as the older units with inadequate parking are removed, and new units with required parking are built, the parking situation will be eased. She noted that the City has recently imposed new parking standards, and those standards are being met in this proposal. She felt that it would be unfair to require the property owner to go beyond the standards. She said that this is a beautiful project which will enhance the area. Mr. Schubach stated that, after examining the plans, he has determined there will be a loss of two on-street spaces, with a little extra wasted space. He said that in other instances, angled driveways have been used in order to reduce the amount of on-street parking loss. He suggested that a condition be added requiring the developer to work with the planning staff in an attempt to reduce the amount of on-street parking which would be lost. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted, however, that angled driveways on Monterey are not a good idea because backing out of the driveway is much more difficult. He also noted that the Public Works Department does not favor such driveway configurations because it creates a dangerous condition. Mr. Compton stated that requiring additional parking is the only way the City can ease its parking problems. Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would favor the applicant working with the Planning Director in an attempt to reduce the number of on-street spaces lost. Chmn. Peirce stated that the particular configuration of the lower bedroom and bath in the units is odd, since the bathroom is located outside the bedroom. Comm. Rue had no objection to the applicant working with the Planning Director in regard to the parking. He discussed the downstairs bathroom, stating that the access 7 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 from the garage is a common hallway serving both the upstairs and downstairs. Since the bathroom is located outside the bedroom, he did not feel there would be bootleg potential. In regard to the wall, he felt that issue will be addressed by the Building Department; however, he had no problem with adding a condition if the Commission so desires. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the bathroom, stating that someone could block off a portion of the garage to make an illegal unit. Comm. Rue stated that the normal access to the garage from the upper part of the dwelling unit is down the stairs past the bedroom and bathroom. He did not feel there is a great bootleg potential. Comm. Ingell stated that this project provides parking in excess of the requirements. He noted that the parking at the current building is not adequate, and the new project will provide even more. He commented that this project is one of the nicer projects he has seen. Comm. Ketz stated that there are currently four units at the site which will be replaced with four units; therefore, the density will remain the same. She felt that the proposed parking will be better than what is currently there. She agreed that the developer could work with the Planning Department in an attempt to save one additional on-street parking space. Comm. Ketz noted concern over the wall and asked whether a condition could be added to require that the wall be replaced. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue will be addressed during the plan check; if the Building Department deems it is not adequate, the applicant will be required to replace the wall. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staffs' recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-14, with the following amendments: (1) Delete Condition 9(a) which would require revised plans to show only a toilet and sink in the bathrooms of the lower level of the front units; and (2) Add a condition requiring the applicant to work with the Planning Department and Public Works Department in an attempt to save additional on­ street parking on Monterey.(* ALSO SEE MOTION ON PAGE 9.) Comm. Rue stated that the issue of the wall is addressed by the Building Department; therefore, it is not necessary to add a condition to the resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 8:35 P .M. until 8:42 P .M. 8 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to reconsider the previous motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm . Rue, seconde d by Comm . Ingell, to add an add ition al amendment to Reso lut ion P .C . 8 9-14: To de let e Co ndition 5(a) which would have required revised plans to show decorative banding between floors on the north and south elevations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce noted that the above amendment was merely overlooked when the original motion was proposed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP //47230 FOR A FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE AND 615 SECOND STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1989. This project is located in the R- 2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The irregularly­ shaped lot is 9236 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny a conditional use permit and tentative tract map for a five-unit condominium. The applicant is proposing to join two connecting lots to create a new ''T" shaped parcel. One lot fronts onto Ardmore A venue, and the other fronts onto 2nd Street. The lot sizes are approximately 4840 square feet and 4320 square feet, respectively. The proposed site will allow for a five-unit development. If these lots are developed separately, each lot would permit two units for a total of four units. The applicant gains an extra unit if the two lots are developed as one parcel. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed tentative tract map because the creation of the new "T" shaped lot is not in keep ing with the surrounding parcels; lots in the immediate area are rectangular. Sect ion 29.5-8 (e) states that a proposed su bd ivision shall not result in the creation of a lot that is of size or configuration which is not in keeping with the standards of development specified by the zoning ordinance for the area in which it is located. The zoning code does discuss the shape of lots; however, "T" shape is not conducive to current standards since the standards are based on typical rectangular lots. The proposed lot creates a problem defining setbacks. The site fronts onto two streets; therefore, front yard setbacks should be required on both street frontages. Also, it is not clear as to where side and rear yards are located. Approving such unusually shaped lots could result in variances for such lots in the future. 9 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 The site is located within an area that was recently rezoned from M-1 to R-2. The site is in a mixed-use area. The north side of 2nd Street has approximately half older single­ family homes and half newer apartment and condominium developments. The south side is similar; however, there is an auto body shop on the southeast corner of 2nd Street and Ardmore Avenue. 3rd Street has a new condominium and three single-family homes near the corner of Ardmore Avenue. The size of the proposed condominiums is compatible with the newer residential developments. The proposed development will consist of three separate buildings; two buildings with one unit each and one building with three units. The proposed units will vary in size from approximately 1700 square feet to 2600 square feet. The units will be two floors over a partial subterranean garage. The design of the building is mediterranean. Architectural treatments include composition shingle roofing, brick veneer, stained glass, stucco finishing, and decorative banding between floors. The overall design of the structure is attractive and will be compatible with surrounding dwellings. The proposed development meets the minimum number of required parking spaces; each unit has a two-car garage, and three guest parking spaces are provided. However, staff has some concern with the location of two guest parking spaces located within the seventeen-foot setback of the garage of Unit 1, Building 3. The zoning ordinance permits guest parking within the seventeen-foot setback; however, it is highly unlikely that visitors in one of the rear units will ever park in the seventeen-foot setback of the front unit. Only one other guest parking space is provided which would realistically be utilized by all five units. The intent of the ordinance which permits guest parking within the seventeen-foot setback is to allow for guests of the unit is which the setback is located to park, not to provide guest parking for an entire development. Other concerns with the proposed development include the required turning radius and bootleg potential. The proposed development does not meet the required turning radius for the garage located within Building 3. The proposed development has a 26-foot turning radius; 28 feet is required. Also, the units have some bootleg potential. The basement level bedroom has a full bath which will simplify the creation of an illegal unit. The proposed project conforms with other planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on roof decks. Unit 2 is also proposing to utilize the "rear yard" as open space. Again, because of the unusual configuration of the lots, it is difficult to determine which is the rear yard and which are the side yards. If the applicant desires to resubmit the project as two new two-unit developments, the fees paid for this five-unit development can be applied to the new two-unit applications if the new applications are received within six months. Staff discussed several alternatives, one of which is to tentatively approve the subdivision map and require the applicant to revise the proposed condominium development with modifications. Since the recommended modification will require that the proposed development be significantly modified, staff is recommending that this matter be continued to allow the architect time to redesign the project for review by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended modifications to include: (1) provide minimum of three guest parking spaces which can realistically be used by guests of all units; i.e., not within the seventeen-foot setback of any individual garage; (2) provide a minimum five-foot setback 10 P.C. Minutes 2/7/89 ~. on all sides of the property, including those which front onto a public street; (3) increase the turning radius of the garages in Building 3 to conform to the zoning ordinance, and; (4) revise the open space for Building 2 so as to not utilize any of the setbacks. Public Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chris Coale, 217 5th Street, Manhattan Beach, noted that one of staff's major concerns involves the irregularly-shaped lots. He noted that there are many oddly-shaped lots in the area; however, he said these would be the first "T" shaped. He said that, so far as he could see, the "T" shaped lots would have no negative affects to the neighborhood. He said that if he built two two-unit projects, the effect would virtually be the same. Mr. Coale stated that he would work with staff in order to resolve the problem with the turning radius and the side yard setbacks. Mr. Coale discussed the guest parking, stating that he felt he could obtain an additional guest parking space off of the rear of Building 1. It would be to the left of the building on the southeast corner of the building. Chmn. Peirce asked for the purpose of having bathrooms on the basement level of Unit 1. Mr. Coale stated that there is a bedroom located there; therefore, there is also a bathroom. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the bootleg potential. Mr. Coale, however, noted that a creative person could make a bootleg unit out of any configuration if he so desired. Comm. Rue asked about the access to Buildings l and 2. He noted concern over the proposed configuration for the guest parking. He noted that the parking could be blocked at Buildings 3. Mr. Coale explained the parking, and he continued by stating that he can provide an additional guest parking space at Building 1. Tom Arp, 233 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, favored four units and agreed that there should be additional parking as recommended by staff. He said that the area is already very congested, and curb cuts are being made by other projects, thereby reducing even further the available on-street parking. He felt that ''T" shaped lots are not appropriate for the neighborhood. He also noted that there are currently only two units on the site; with the "T" shaped lots, five units would be allowed, as opposed to only four if the "T" shaped lots are not approved. Mr. Coale pointed out, in regard to parking on Ardmore, he would be adding space on Ardmore. He stated that the project would look exactly the same whether he builds the five-unit project or a four-unit project. With four units, he would have to add a driveway, but he would lose a parking space on Ardmore. Public Hearing closed at 9:03 P .M. Comm. Ketz did not feel that the "T" shaped lots provide a good design for parking. She felt that the parking spaces as proposed would be unusable except for Unit l. She also felt that the open space for Unit 2 would be unusable because left over land from the 11 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 rear sideyard is merely being taken into use as open space. She felt that a better design could be provided which would better address parking and open space. She concluded by stating she felt four units would be more appropriate than five for the area. Comm. Ingell stated that he has less of a problem with the "T" shaped lots than with the idea of assembling lots in order to gain an extra unit. He noted that the "T" shaped lot would provide an extra parking space on Ardmore; however, if there were a way to take out one unit of Building 3, additional parking spaces could be added. Comm. Ingell agreed that four units or five units would look the same; however, he felt that the guest parking as proposed is inadequate. He did not favor assembling the lots in order to have five units. Comm. Rue stated that innovative designs should be pursued. He stated that he agreed with the applicant that the project would look the same whether there are four or five units. However, on this project the open space is all concrete, and he favored an attempt to make the area nicer for the project on the whole. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would favor only a project with four units. He stated that the intent was never to allow "T" shaped lots in the City; this proposal is merely an attempt to obtain the five units by a loophole. MOTION by Comm. Ingell to approve staff's recommendation to deny the conditional use permit and tentative tract map #47230 for a five-unit condominium project located at 228 Ardmore Avenue and 615 2nd Street. Chmn. Peirce stated that the project can either be denied, or it can be continued so that the applicant can provide revised plans for a four-unit project. Mr. Coale stated that he would prefer to return with revised plans for four units. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Ingell. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the first meeting in March. No objections; so ordered. VARIANCE TO ADD THIRD STORY AND MAINTAIN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 623 MONTEREY BOULEVARD Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 25, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny a variance to maintain a 2.3 foot setback and a 2.5 setback along the sideyards rather than the required three feet. The staff review committee, at their meeting of December 8, 1988, recommended that the Planning Commission recommend a negative declaration for the proposed project. The staff review committee, after reviewing the original plans also noted that the proposed project was also in violation of building code requirements for egress from the third floor. Since then, the architect has revised the plans to conform to the building code by providing two means of egress from the third floor. 12 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of November 8, 1978, approved a variance which allowed a second story addition which maintained nonconforming setbacks. It should be noted, however, that the approval of this variance was largely based on the location of the existing structure, not the physical site itself. This project is located in the R-3, multi-family residential zone. The general plan designation is high density residential. The lot size is 2500 square feet, and the existing use is as a single-family dwelling. The proposed third story will be over an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling. The north and south sideyard setbacks are 2.3 feet and 2.5 feet, respectively. The zoning code requires a minimum three-foot setback. The zoning code permits additions to nonconforming structures; however, Section 1309 requires the addition to conform to the regulations in which the structure is located. In this project the proposed addition does not conform to required setbacks. Therefore, a variance is also required to Section 1309 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. The existing structure is approximately 1850 square feet. The proposed third story will provide an additional 590 square feet of living area and a 395 square-foot deck. The site has two parking spaces. The proposed addition will extend a nonconforming condition which may have some impacts on adjacent neighbors including further reduction of light, air, and ventilation. A structure within three feet of the side property line also creates some fire concerns. The building code requires structures within three feet of the property line to be one hour fire rated; i.e., heavy timber construction and stucco. The building code also prohibits any openings on a wall within three feet of the side property line. Staff cannot determine the required findings to justify approval of the variance. Although this site is narrow, the minimum three-foot side yard setback can be obtained. The existing structure will require some structural modifications; however, a third story can be added with conforming side yard setbacks. Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question by Chmn. Peirce, that in staff's opinion the BZA did not address the four necessary findings when they approved the variance in 1978. Public Hearing opened at 9:13 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Joe Winslow, 623 Monterey Boulevard, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the wording in the application seems misleading, in that he is not asking for a variance to build a third-story addition; he is merely requesting the variance which was approved by the BZA in 1978 when the second story was added to the original dwelling. Mr. Winslow stated that he does have an alternate set of plans in the event this variance is not approved. He did not think the alternate plan requires a variance, stating that it complies with the three-foot setback requirements. He noted, however, that the architect said it might need a variance only for a 14-inch beam which would support the third story. Mr. Winslow gave a copy of the alternate plans to Mr. Schubach. He said that it is for an addition to the front portion of the house. 13 P.C. Minutes 2/7/89 ,,-----, Mr. Schubach stated that he could review this plans at this time; however, he would not be able to make a decision at this time. Mr. Lough suggested that, if the Commission desires, the public hearing be continued in order to give staff adequate time to review the alternate plans. Kevin Snyder, 618 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, felt that the applicant should be required to comply with the code requirements. He noted that the variance approved by the BZA in 1978 contained very ambiguous reasons for approval. He noted that today the buildings on either side of this project are three stories, and they were not three stories in 1978 when the variance was approved. He felt that the three-foot setback is very important when dealing with three-story buildings because of the egress for emergency equipment. Paul Stevens, 620 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over fire problems, stating that it would be difficult to get ladders up the side of the building with only the small setbacks. He also felt that the proposed design would be conducive to the creation of a bootleg unit, noting that the proposed third story has a complete bedroom, bathroom, fireplace, and outside entrance. Larry Berlant, representing the Monterey Villa Homeowner's Association, stated that the homeowners oppose the granting of this variance, based on the fact that there will be a safety hazard. He also stated that the project will not be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood; it will only detract from the area. He felt that the applicant should comply with the current code requirements. Mr. Lough stated that, in looking at the alternative plans just provided by the applicant, it appears that the third story does have a three-foot setback .. However, at the bottom there is a very small portion of a supporting beam which would run across to the existing walls. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1989. No objections; so ordered. Public Hearing continued to the next meeting at 9:23 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. RECONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE GUEST PARKING SPACE AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1139 SIXTH STREET (CONTINUED FROM 11/ 15/88 MEETING) Chmn. Peirce stated that this item had been continued because the applicant had requested that the matter be heard before a full Commission. He suggested, however, that the matter be heard at this time. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the subject variance. At the November 15, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested that the Commission reconsider their decision to deny the variance but to also reconsider this when all Commissioners are present. On June 14, 1988, the City Council passed Ordinance 88-930, which rezoned Area 9A from R-2 to R-1. The subject development was protected by the grandfather clause which allowed projects submitted prior to May 24, 1988, to be developed at R-2 14 P.C. Minutes 2/7/89 standards. However, the grandfather clause states: " ... projects that have submitted a complete building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance." This project has exceeded the time allowed to obtain building permits; therefore, R-1 zoning standards must now apply. According to the Building Department, no building permits will be issued. Comm. Rue asked if the reason the appl icant could not obtain a building permit was because of the variance. Mr. Schubach replied that that was only part of the problem. The applicant, after the November l 5, 1988, meeting did not come back until December 22, 1988, for the renoticing. Therefore, the project was not within the required timeframe to get the public notices out. The first available time was this meeting. He said, however, that the November 15 date fell within the appropriate time, but this date puts the matter into an entirely new category of not being within the six-month time limit. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the Commission could address this project as if it were within the R-2 standards. Mr. Lough stated that the only way the applicant could remain under the grandfather clause is pursuant to the terms of the ordinance; and that is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. He stated that the only issue here is that of the variance. Mr. Lough, noting that Comm. Ketz was absent during the first hearing of this matter, stated that she has reviewed all of the information and can participate in the discussion. An R-1 zoning analysis has been completed and revealed the. subject project will still require a variance to provide no guest parking. Also, a variance is now required for the open space requirement in the R-1 zone. R-1 zoning requires 400 square feet of open space; 300 square feet must be located on grade, and 100 square feet may be located on decks and balconies. The proposed development has approximately 66 square feet of open space at grade and 350 square feet on decks and balconies. In addition, the Building Director has reviewed the current plan and determined that this development still constitutes a "new" structure, not a remodel; the reason being that demolition of the existin g struc ture will result in the (1) Complete removal of one third of the existing 757 squar e-foot structure; (2) 55 li nea l feet of the exterior wall will be retained out of 118 existing lineal feet of exterior wall. A portion of retained exterior wall will become interior wall requiring resurfacing. New and reframed openings in the wa ll s will result in additional wall remova.1; (3) All cei l ing and roof e lem ents will be r emo ved. 29 lineal feet of interior wall w ill be retaine d ; an d (4) The pro ject will provide a nonconforming structure of over 2300 square feet, of which less than 20 percent will be the elements of the existing building. Further, the method by which the Public Works Department calculates on-street parking spaces bec ame an issue at th e November 15, 1988, me eting . Therefore, sinc e t hat time, the Pub lic Works staff ha ve conducted a field ins pect ion and made several fi nd ings: (1) There is no exist in g curb cut; (2) The proposed develo pment will resu lt in onl y one on­ st r eet parking sp ac e in front of the site; (3) Only two on-street parking spa c e s will be provided between the proposed driveway and the neighbor's driveway, regardless of whether a single or double curb cut is initiated; the reason being the distance required for three legal on-street parking spaces is 58 feet. The distance in question is 48 feet; and (4) If a double curb cut is initiated, the applicant could receive a driveway parking 15 P.C. Minutes 2/7/89 permit, which would allow parking in front of the driveway, thus providing three on­ street parking spaces between the proposed driveway and the neighbors. Staff cannot justify any findings to grant the subject variance. The lot is adequate in size to provide the required guest parking space. Also, a provision of the general plan is to promote off-street parking whenever possible. Other projects have been approved on smaller lots which provide all required parking. Comm. Rue asked why an action does not continue within the specified time limit, if a City body decides to continue a matter. He felt that the matter is not straightforward. Mr. Lough explained the legal aspects of the timing in regard to grandfather clauses. He continued by explaining the aspects of diligent pursuit by an applicant. Chmn. Peirce stated that the only matter at issue now is that of the guest parking. Public Hearing opened at 9:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, stated that he had provided a drawing depicting the project site. He agreed that the grandfather clause is not at issue here; the matter is that of the guest parking. Mr. Compton discussed the drawing he prepared, explaining that between the two existing curb cuts is 62 feet. He felt that the information provided by the Public Works Department, where they assert there is only 58 feet, is not accurate. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the measurements, stating that he is proposing a single-car driveway with two on-street parking spaces. If a lar.ger driveway is required, there could only be one on-street parking space, because there would be a double curb cut. Mr. Compton disagreed completely with the staff analysis of what would happen to the on-street parking with this proposal. He stated that there are currently two legal parking spaces between the two driveways. With a single curb cut, such as is being proposed, nothing on-street would be changed in terms of legal parking spaces on the street; there will still be two. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the City requirements in regard to the measurements. He stated that the maximum number of spaces which could be striped on the street by the City would be two based on the minimum requirements; if the single­ driveway is allowed, there will be no change whatsoever on the street. He stated that actually an extra space will be created for the applicant. He is requesting to be allowed to have a tandem guest parking space in the driveway. He also noted that there will be space in the 17-foot setback for parking, whether or not the City acknowledges it as a parking space. Mr. Compton contended that if the City requires a two-car garage, an additional on­ street space will be lost due to the larger curb cut which would be necessary for the garage. Mr. Compton requested that this matter be continued, so that he can clear up the discrepancies between his interpretation and that of staff. He also suggested a continuance so that all Commissioners could be present to hear this matter. 16 P .C. Minutes 2/7 /89 .• ,I Mr. Compton noted that this house currently has no parking whatsoever. His proposal would create additional parking, with a net gain of one space in addition to the two spaces which would be created on-site. Chmn. Peirce asked whether Mr. Compton cared to discuss the point that the Building Department feels this structure is a new structure as opposed to a remodel. Mr. Compton did not feel that is germane, noting that if this were a remodel, he would not even be before the Commission because they would not be required to provide the extra space. He felt that this is obviously a remodel. He noted that the code is not specific on what constitutes a remodel. Mr. Compton discussed the currently existing home, stating that 36 linear feet of the rear portion is an addition which was done to the back of the house which should have been torn down a long time ago because it is substandard. The original house was a square box, and this addition is not even actually part of the main structure. He noted that staff is taking into consideration that 36 feet in its calculations of what will be removed. He did not feel that the 36 feet should be included. Mr. Compton requested clarification of the Public Works Department's interpretation of this issue. Dan Rodriguez, 1408 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, applicant addressed the Commission and stated that he has spent a great deal of time and money on this project and he wants a good project, not something inferior. He stated that he has been attempting to move his project along, and it is not his fault that it is taking so long. He stressed that he is attempting to provide parking and a garage. He currently must park on his neighbor's property. He stated that this is a very small lot, and he wants to improve the house, provide parking, and beautify the neighborhood. Mr. Rodriguez stressed that he is attempting to improve this property as well as the neighborhood. Mr. Rodriguez requested that this matter be continued so that additional information can be obtained from the staff. Dave Fugate, neighbor of Mr. Rodriguez, stated that he favored the tandem parking proposed because one parking space will remain in front of each house. If a double curb cut is required, there will be one less on-street parking space. He noted that the parking is very bad in this neighborhood. He stated that his family and the neighbors approve of the proposal. Public Hearing continued at 10:03 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce asked if this project were considered as a remodel in the R-1 zone, would the parking configuration of double tandem parking be allowed by the code. Mr. Schubach replied that it would because of an oversight in the current code. He continued by explaining the old code section versus the new section. He said that this issue will soon be studied by staff. On a remodel, only one parking space would be required. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the double tandem parking would be allowed on new construction. 17 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 , ~ Mr. Schubach stated that it would not be allowed per the code. He also stated that the code does not allow three cars to be stacked in tandem parking. Chmn. Peirce favored making a decision on this matter now, rather than continuing it, so that the applicant can proceed. Comm. Ingell favored a continuance, noting that that is the desire of the applicant. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the next meeting in order to have another Commissioner present and for the purpose of obtaining additional information. Comm. Rue felt that the variance is actually requesting three cars to be parked m tandem. Mr. Compton stated that the only reason he is proposing a two-car tandem garage situation is because the City requires the 17-foot setback in front of the garage, whether it is tandem or not. He said that the space will be used for parking whether or not the City recognizes it as a legal space. Mr. Compton stated that he would like to have a continuance so that the Public Works Department can provide additional clarification. Chmn. Peirce felt that this project is new construction; therefore, he would oppose the continuance. He felt that the real issue is whether or not to allow no guest parking on new construction in the R-1 zone. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce felt it is counterproductive to continue this matter again. Comm. Rue stated that it will be difficult to make the findings to grant the variance. However, he understood the need to obtain additional information. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 REGARDING A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE C -2 ZONE AT 45 14TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM 1/17/89 MEETING) Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant had requested that this matter be continued since he was unable to attend this meeting because he is be out of town. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. lngell, to continue this matter to the meeting of February 21, 198 9. No objections; so ordered. SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING OPEN SPACE PERMITTED USE LIST REVIEW Mr. Lough suggested that this matter be continued because the text definition of what is allowed in the open space zone does have current impacts on the real estate negotiations which are currently taking place between the City and the AT &SF Railroad. He said that the delay would not be very long. 18 P.C. Minutes 2/7 /89 J ~ Chmn. Peirce stated that this item would be continued until such time that the City Attorney agrees that it should be heard. FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS a.) b.) c.) d.) e.) To Redesi nate and Rezone from Medium Densit , R-2 to General Commercia l C-3 at 1107 Pacific Coast Highway Lot 4, Block 1, Tract 6851 only To Redesignate from Low Density to High Density for Area 6 To Redesignate from Low Density to Medium Density for Area 10 To Redesignate from General Commercial to Low Density and High Density for Area 12 To Stud Re ealin S ecific Plan Area Amendment and Zonin for Private! Owned Portion of the "Biltmore Site" Continued from 1 17 L89 Meeting Comm. Rue felt that repealing the SPA is disappointing because he felt it would have been an appropriate method by which to ensure a nice project in the area. f.) To Study the Multi-Use Corridor MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to include the above-mentioned six items for the next quarter general plan amendments. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a.) Letter From and Resgonse to Mr. Richard Sullivan MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. b.) Planning Department Activity Report for December 1988 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. c.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 2/ 14/89 City Council Meeting Chmn. Peirce stated that the minutes accurately reflect the sentiments of the Commission; therefore, no one will attend. d.) City Council Minutes of December 13 and 19~ 1988, and January 10, 1989 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. 19 P .C. Minutes 2/7 / 8 9 J ~, ~ ... I e.) SCAG Revisions to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell suggested that a memo be sent to the City Council recommending that the Planning Commission meetings start earlier; i.e., 6:30 or 7:00 P.M. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:19 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 February 7, 1989 . .,.... J-: I ffl IJ t--#f Date 20 P.C. Minutes 2/7/89