Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-20-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce Comms. Ketz, Rue Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Peirce stated that the minutes of September 6, 1988, would be available for approval at the meeting of October 4, 1988. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-71, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIAN CE TO MAINTAIN BALCONIES WHICH ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 2000 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 21, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Peirce commented on Resolution P.C. 88-74, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE AN OUTSIDE DINING AREA AND ADD 845 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, WAITING AND STORAGE AREA AND PARKING PLAN AT 1100 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA VILLA TRACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. He referred specifically to Condition No. 6: "The patio area shall be open to the sky, i.e., no roof or similar covering." He stated that it was his recollection that the Commission had approved only a temporary covering. He noted that the wording needs to be modified to state: "The patio shall be open to the sky; and a temporary covering shall be allowed." Mr. Schubach stated that the resolution would be modified and returned to the Commission for approval at the next meeting. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-76, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. I P.C. Minutes 9/20/88 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 77, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119790 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1415-1423 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 25 AND 26, TRACT 1124. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-78, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 17-FOOT SETBACK AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 222 24TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOT 12, BLOCK 3, HERMOSA TERRACE TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 80, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BEER AND WINE AND OUTSIDE DINING AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A RESTAURANT AT 23-25 TWENTY-SECOND STREET, KNOWN AS MARTHA'S. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 81, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING STANDARDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE SEAT CAPACITY OF MARTHA'S RESTAURANT AT 23-25 TWENTY-SECOND STREET AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20077 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 835 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 9/6/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 14, 1988. This project is located in the R-2, two-family residential zone. The general plan designation is multi-use corridor. The lot size is 5686.6 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 6, 1988, continued the Public Hearing to allow staff to review the new plans and setback survey which were submitted by the architect at the meeting. Staff has prepared a new zoning analysis for the revised plans which were submitted by the applicant. The applicant has set back the building at 19 feet as was recommended by staff. The previous plans had a five-foot setback. The plans are basically the same, with the exception of the front yard setback. It should be noted, however, that the size of the units and lot coverage was reduced to compensate for the increased front yard setback. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements. 2 P.C. Minutes 9/20/88 The setback survey submitted by the applicant appears to be an approximate list of existing setbacks for structures along 15th Street. Staff's analysis of the survey was conducted from site inspections and aerials. Additional background information and analysis was provided in the staff report dated September 6, 1988. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is still recommending a 19-foot setback at this project, since that is what the City Council had imposed for the neighboring property at 845 15th Street. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that Mr. Compton was supposed to speak on this issue; however, he was unable to attend the meeting. He stated, however, that information had been submitted, and he hoped that the Commission has had time to review those materials. Public Hearing closed at 7:41 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Edwards asked what the rationale was for imposing the 19-foot setback requirement on the other property. Mr. Schubach explained that the house to the east of the proposed project has a 19-foot setback; therefore, the City Council felt that there would be a view blockage if this project had less than a 19-foot setback. He noted that the Council made that decision on appeal. This project had previously been submitted and approved by the Planning Commission without the 19-foot requirement. On appeal, that particular condition was added by the Council. Mr. Lough added that the City Council made their findings based on the square footages in the neighborhood and applied that information to the general findings in the condominium ordinance. They felt this to be proper planning. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, felt that there are sufficient findings to impose the 19-foot setback requirement on this project. He felt that if the view to the east is to be protected, the view at this project should also be protected. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-79. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Ketz, Rue 3 P.C. Minutes 9/20/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19969 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 918 7TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1988. He stated that this site is included within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The general plan designation for this area is low density. The City Council recently studied this area and changed its zoning from R-2 to R-2B. A general plan amendment is needed to bring this site into consistency with the recent zone change. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 6, 1988, recommended that the City Council amend the general plan for this area from low density to medium density. The third quarter general plan amendments are scheduled for the City Council meeting of October 11, 1988. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the general plan is amended. A tentative tract map cannot be approved until the inconsistency is resolved. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of October 18, 1988. No objections; so ordered. Public Hearing opened at 7:45 P.M. and continued to the meeting of October 18, 1988. RESUBDIVISION OF A TWO-UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 228-234 29TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1988. The City approved in 1978 a two unit planned development unit condominium for the subject property as a requirement under the now defunct combined lot ordinance provision which allowed additional dwelling units with a planned development, which is not the same as a planned development unit. The repealed combined lot ordinance allowed the maximum number of units which could be placed on a property under the existing zoning with a planned development. The subject property, therefore, in 1978 could have had up to four units; currently it can have only two units. Article 7 .5 in the planned development ordinance, neither in 1978 nor currently, requires a P.U.D., which is a form of condominium whereby "postage stamp" lots are created for each condominium and the surrounding property is held in common with all owners. Staff is not certain why a P.U.D. was required except to keep the lots together; it may have been to limit density, even though both the combined lot ordinance and the planned development ordinance both specifically state that the maximum number of units under the specified zoning is allowed. Further, the existing building layout conforms to the zoning standards and the original lot lines for single dwelling units each on its own lot. Therefore, these structures would not become non-conforming as a result of the proposed tentative parcel map which will return this development to the original two lots, thus eliminating the third common area lot. By eliminating the third common area lot, the property owners will be able to sell and refinance their property more easily. Also, the burden of maintaining a homeowners' association, as well as other requirements of the required CC&R's, will be lifted. 4 P.C. Minutes 9/20/88 :) Staff cannot find good reason to maintain the existing P.U.D., especially now that the combined lot ordinance has been repealed and the zoning standards have been changed which now limit density to one unit per lot in this instance. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve tentative parcel map 1120409. Mr. Lough continued by further explaining planned unit developments, st a ting that typically "open cities" such as Irvine have P.U.D.'s; however, t hey are not com mon in cities built with many 25-foot lots. He stated that P.U.D.'s are not typical. Comm. Edwards noted that in this case, the square footage is so small that no more than two units could be built. Comm. Ingell asked how many P.U.D.'s are located in the City. Mr. Schubach knew of only one other P.U.D.; however, this property is different from that one. Public Hearing opened at 7 :53 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Sally Leibfried, 228 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and explained that she would like to revert back to the old designation in order to make it easier to sell or refinance the property. She stated that she has no intention of changing the property in any way, explaining that the two structures will remain as they currently exist. Public Hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Edwards stated that approval of this request would in no way increase density in the City; therefore, he would favor approval. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-82. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Ketz, Rue REZONE OF AREA 20 FROM R-2 TO R-lA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1988. The Planning Commission and the City Council originally studied this sub-area with Area 2. Since neither R-1 nor R-2 zones were appropriate for this sub-area, a new zone classification, R-lA, was created. According to the City Council's adopted schedule, the subject area should be considered for rezoning at this time. Changing the zoning to R-lA would result in consistency with the general plan and would be in compliance with Proposition EE. 5 P.C. Minutes 9/20/88 The new zoning classification, R-lA, was created to allow parcels larger than 6700 square feet to have two units. This zoning classification is consistent with low density general plan standards, since low density allows a maximum of one unit per 3350 square feet of land. Analysis of this sub-area indicates that most of these parcels are large enough for two units under the proposed R-1 A zone. Almost half of these parcels are large enough to allow four units under current R-2 standards. Therefore, the recommended zone change will reduce density by approximately 50%. Area 2 contains 213,740 square feet, with a total of 30 lots. There are currently 52 dwelling units with an average number of 1.73 units per lot. The existing density is 10.61 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-2, with a general plan designation of low density. The potential number of units under the current R-2 zoning ordinance is ll0; the potential number of units under the proposed R-lA zone change would be 57. There are no lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 zoning. Six of the units were built within the last ten years. Five units were built 10 to 20 years ago. Twenty units were built 20 to 30 years ago, and 21 units are over 30 years old. The land use maps of 1930, 1943, 1956, and 1978 were all R-2. There are 27 lots over 6700 square feet, and 3 lots are under 6700 square feet. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that Area 2 be rezoned from R-2 to R-lA. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Seeing no citizens coming forward to testify, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-83. Mr. Lough explained that, since this action would be a recommendation to the City Council, a majority vote would be necessary, not a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would tend to favor leaving this area R-1. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, explained that R-lA is a currently existing· zone in the City. He continued by explaining the differences between R-lA and R-2. He stated that staff is recommending the zone change in order to make this area conform with the surrounding areas. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Ketz, Rue 6 P .C. Minutes 9 /2 0 /88 HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-7 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 12, 1988. He stated that originally four requests for appeal had been received; however, two applicants have withdrawn their requests. The properties withdrawn are those at 36 9th Street and 316 8th Street. The property located at 707 Manhattan Avenue is comprised of two 30 by 100-foot parcels. The total parcel area is 6000 square feet. Aerials indicate the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal nonconforming apartment with seven units. Staff has determined that only 65 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The general plan designation is high density, and the zoning is R-3. The property located at 520 8th Street is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Alterton who also own three adjacent parcels. Two meet all conditions for merger. Parcel 4187031014-was not included with the City's intent to merge lots since this parcel is vacant; i.e., there is no structure straddling the property line. It is thus exempt from merger. However, the property owners have requested that parcel 4187031014, a land-locked parcel, be merged with the other two parcels and a lot line adjustment be recorded. The lot line adjustment will create two parcels of 30 by 83 feet each. Chmn. Peirce noted that, since two of the property owners have withdrawn their requests, the resolution would need to be modified to reflect that change. Hearing opened at 8:05 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. No one appeared to address the Commission, and the hearing was closed at 8:05 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation regarding property located at 707 Manhattan Avenue to combine the two 30 by 100-foot lots into one parcel. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Ketz, Rue MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation regarding property located at 520 8th Street to merge the 30 by 83-foot parcels. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Ketz, Rue SPECIAL STUDY TO CONSIDER AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR BUSINESSES CURRENTLY OPERA TING WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1988. At the City Council meeting of January 12, 1988, the Council directed staff to return with a Resolution of Intent to send to the Planning Commission for their recommendations of the subject amortization period. 7 P .C. Minutes 9 /2 0 /88 On March 8, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution of Intent 88-5116, which directed the Planning Commission and staff to study the possibility of amending the zoning code to create an amortization period. Following examination of the proposed amortization period, the Planning staff and the City Attorney had some concern about its implementation; the reason being, this ordinance would affect numerous businesses. The Commission was provided with a list of such businesses. The City Attorney has noted that it would take him at least a month and a half to determine the separate amortization clause for each use. According to the City Attorney, the time is needed to research any legal constraints. In addition, the financial impact of requiring a conditional use permit for each of the subject uses must be determined. This information is needed to establish an appropriate amortization period. Therefore, staff recommends approval; however, recognizes that, due to the size of the task, full implementation may not take place immediately. Mr. Lough continued by explaining the concept of an amortization period, stating that an amortization period is required when there is a change in the rules applying to an existing business or residence, and the new rules are more restrictive. It is necessary for them to recover their investment; therefore, an amortization period is established. Mr. Lough continued by giving background information on the creation of amortization periods. He stated that it will be necessary for staff to study the issue with an attorney in order to determine the amounts of time necessary to amortize various businesses. Mr. Lough stated that the Commission may wish to determine which of the listed businesses actually exist in the City before making an attempt to definitize time periods for amortization of particular uses. He suggested further that the list be prioritized, noting that this is not a typical study, but one which will require a tremendous amount of time and funds. Chmn. Peirce suggested that some of the uses be studied first; others can be inventoried at a future time. Mr. Schubach stated that the list presented to the Commission contains all those uses which are permitted in the various zones, not necessarily uses which are currently in the City. If so desired, applicants can request certain uses to be added to the permitted use list. Hearing opened at 8:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Seeing no one coming forward to speak on this matter, the hearing was closed at 8:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to direct staff to proceed with the study, taking into account first the uses of: entertainment/special performances; game arcades; and live entertainment. Other uses can be added for later study if deemed necessary. Also, to direct staff to inventory the rest of the uses on the list. Comm. Ingell, noting the current staff shortages in the Planning Department, suggested that staff obtain from the Police Department a listing of businesses which have caused problems in the City. 8 P.C. Minutes 9/20/88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce None None Comms. Ketz, Rue a.) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report b.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 9/13/88 City Council Meeting c.) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Items d.) City Council Minutes of August 23, 1988 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Peirce stated that he would be absent from the meeting of October 18, explaining that he would be away on vacation. Mr. Lough stated that he would also be absent from the meeting of October 18; however, someone else will be substituting for him. Comm. Edwards asked for an update on the issue of "The Wave" and the number of riders using the transit system. MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to adjourn at 8:26 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 September 20, 1988. JaitfosPeirce, Chairman ~~~~ ichael Schu 6 ach , ecretary - Date 9 P.C. Minutes 9/20/88