Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-02-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION· MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 2, 1998, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Comm. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peir'Ce* Comm. Edwards Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (* Chmn. Peirce entered Council Chambers at 7:40 P.M.) Comm. Rue presided until the arrival of Chmn. Peirce. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Ketz referred to the motion ·on Page 6 of the minutes. She stated that it was the intent of the Commission that the wall or fence to be constructed would encroach into the public right of way; therefore, there could be no parking in the right of way area. Mr. Schubach stated that the Resolution itself reflects the intention of the Commission on this matter. He stated that the north and west sides of this property are the rights of way. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell to approve the minutes of July 19, 1988, as amended. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Ingell discussed Resolution P.-C. 88-55, stating that he does not feel the findings accurately reflect the sentiment of the Commission. He ref erred specifically to Findings (E): "Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan and is compatible with the immediate environment." and (F): "The project will conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will be compatible with neighboring residential properties." He did not feel that the project will conform and be compatible. Comm. Ingell noted that approval of this project was based strictly on the fact that the project conformed to all codes and requirements, not that it was compatible. Mr. Lough noted, however, that tonight's approval is as to form only. He explained that unless those findings were specifically amended at the previous hearing, they would remain in the resolution. He noted that the Planning Commission decision of this matter is being appealed to the City Council; therefore, Council can refer to the minutes which show why the project was approved. 1 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 .. , MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve Resolution P.e. 88-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANN NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119728 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 845 15TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7 OF THE HEFNER, FLO RINI, ALLEN TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-59, 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 SEVENTEEN-FOOT SETBACK AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 20 4TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 47.5 FEET OF LOT 8 AND THE WEST FIVE FEET OF THE NORTH 1+7.5 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 4, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.-C. 88-60, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119512 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1021 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, TRACT 1516. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C; 88-61, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119594 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 521 11TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 15 OF THE KNUTSEN TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolutio-i-1 P-.C. 88-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 1325 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16, 17, AND 18, BLOCK 14, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve Resolution P.-C. 88-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT THE HERMOSA VIEW SCHOOL SITE, 1800 PROSPECT AVENUE AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No· objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P~C. 88-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. 2 P .C. Minutes 8/2/88 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Ruth Brandt, 1231 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked that they consider making a recommendation to amend the proposed Ordinance 88-949. She strongly favored the proposed ordinance; however, in the interest of fairness, there are areas in the City which should be afforded the same protection as those delineated in the present Exhibit A of Ordinance 88-949. One such area deserving equitable treatment is located on Barney Court in the southeast corner of the City. West-facing R-1 properties on Barney Court border a strip of land between Meyer Court and Barney Court is presently zoned R-2. Ms. Brandt stated that this situation is no different than that of the properties selected for relief in Ordinance 88.;;949. These properties should be afforded the same relief. She stated she would support including this R-2 zone between Meyer Court and Barney Court because the area is designated in the general plan as part of the scenic view corridor and as such is subject to Policies 26 and 27. It is presently a hodge-podge of usage comprised of a new three-unit development, some duplexes, some two-on-a-lot developments, and some single-fam ly homes zoned R-1. The only required change to the proposed ordinance, which would be required, would be to amend Exhibit A to encompass the R-2 strip between Meyer and Barney Courts. Ms. Brandt requested that the R-2 zone between Meyer and Barney Courts be incorporated into Ordinance 88-949. She also requested that she be informed of any actions to take place on this issue and the ultimate disposition of this request. Mr. Schubach explained the zoning situation on Barney Court. He stated that Ms. Brandt wants her area to be included in the moratorium area. He clarified the view blockage situation in regard to the various height limitations in R-1 and R-2 zones. Comm. Rue asked if this particular area is located in an inconsistent area. Mr. Schubach was not certain and stated that it would be necessary for him to consult the downzoning map. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the time length of the current moratorium. Chmn. Peirce suggested that Ms. Brandt attend the City Council meeting at which the moratorium issue will be addressed. Mr. Schubach stated that there is currently a study underway in regard to the measurement of height in the City. He stated that the -Planning Commission will direct staff to prepare a text amendment which will then go forward to the City Council. He stated that it takes approximately ·100 days before such a text amendment becomes effective. He continued by explaining the moratorium as it relates to the concerns raised by Ms. Brandt. Chmn. Peirce suggested that Ms. Brandt call the City Staff for further clarification on this subject. HEARING FOR DETERMINATION OF LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-.5 (CONTINUED FROM 6/21, 7/.5, AND 7/19/88 MEETINGS) AND L.M. 88-6 (CONTINUED FROM 7/19/88 MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1988. The City Council, at their meeting 3 P .C. Minutes 8/2/88 of April 26, 1988, amended the zoning ordinance to delete Section 29.5-21 (d): "The Planning Commission and/or the City Council may make a determination of nonmerger whether or not the affected property meets the standards for merger." This Section was replaced with the following (d): "If the merger of parcels results in the creation of a parcel that is at least 8,000 square feet in size, the Planning Commission and/or City Council may, with the consent of the property owner, redivide the parcel into separate parcels that are at least 4,000 square feet in size." Therefore, the discretionary action of nonmerger has been deleted. The··p1anning Commission and/or City Council must now merge all parcels that meet the standards for lot merger. 3001 The Strand Applicants: Kenneth and Marilyn Snyder The Planning Commission, at their meeting of 7 /5/88, continued this hearing to allow staff time to review a survey submitted at that meeting. The applicant submitted a survey which indicates the parcel is 8,000.84 square feet. Staff recommended a lot line adjustment to create two parcels out of the existing two and a half lots. The State Subdivision Map Act, Section 66412, states no tentative or final maps are required for a lot line adjustment as long as no additional lots are being created. A certificate of compliance can be recorded to create the lot line adjustment. Staff recommended that the applicant submit a survey which shows the lots divided into two parcels, each with at least 4,000 square feet.· Staff will then be able to prepare a certificate of compliance for recordation upon receipt of the survey. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the merger of 3001 The Strand into two parcels and to approve the lot line adjustment. Mr. Lough stated that there · is an ordinance in the City requiring a minimum number of feet for frontage on newly created lots; however, new parcels are not being created by the lot line adjustment, so this property does not fall under that particular ordinance. Mr. Lough stated that he has seen a copy of the survey, and it appears to be accurate. Marilyn Snyder, 3001 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission and requested that the staff recommendation be approved by the Planning Commission. • MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to accept staff's recommendation to approve the merger of 3001 The Strand into two 4,000 square-foot parcels and to approve a lot line adjustment. No objections; so ordered. 2532 Hermosa A venue Applicant: Dorothy Kovich (not present) This parcel is com prised of a 30-foot by 80-foot lot and a 15-foot by 80-foot lot; for a total parcel area of 3600 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this is a nonconforming four-unit structure. ,_✓ Staff can determine no reason to exempt 2532 Hermosa Avenue from merger since the site meets all standards for merge"r. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning 4 P .C. Minutes 8/2/88 Commission deny the appeal for unmerger of 2532 Hermosa Avenue~ The general plan designation is high density, and the zoning is R-3. Mr. Schubach stated that this is the first hearing of 2532 Hermosa Avenue; it was previously continued due to the late hour of the meeting. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staff's recommendation to merge the lots at 2532 Hermosa Aven\Je based on the fact that all the lots on this block are a lot and a half and are built over the lot line and because of the fact that the lots are owned by the same person. No objections; so ordered. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /119820 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 621 9TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 27, t988. This project is located in a general plan/zoning inconsistent area. The development is in compliance with the general plan density requirements; however, it is to be developed at all other R-3 development standards. This project is in the R-3, multiple-family residential zone. The general plan determination is medium density residential. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The proposed units are approximately 2300 square feet in size. Each unit will contain three bedrooms, a loft, and two and a half baths. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and two guest spaces. No additional guest spaces ·are required due to the fact that no new curb cuts are proposed; The existing curb cut is merely being relocated~ A condition of approval will require the removal of the existing curb cut. The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide 325 square feet of open space. The open space is distributed between a second-floor deck and a loft deck. Private storage for the units is provided in the garage area. Each unit will provide 384 cubic feet of storage. The trash facilities are located in the landscaped area adjacent to Unit 1. The block in which this project is proposed contains 18 lots. The average number of units per lot is 2;44, The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommended that the· Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map II 19820, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project meets all the requirements of the Hermosa Beach general plan area and zone in which it is located. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative,' He noted that the proposed location is in an inconsistent R-3 area; however, the project is being developed to the lower density R-2 standards; 5 P .C. Minutes 8/2/88 -. Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Bill Cameron, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, project designer. Sybil Hess, 647 9th Street, opposed, stating no more than two units should be allowed, and she noted concern over loss of trees. Sumi Ho, 731 9th Street, opposed the project and noted concern over the zoning in the area. Jim Lyle, 619 8th Place, opposed; he also noted the opposition of neighbor John Hales of 624 8tn Place because of incorrect zoning on street and the resultant spot zoning. Dennis Cleland, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, project developer, spoke on behalf of the project. Public Hearing closed at 8:18 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue noted, for the benefit of the audience, that if the majority of people in a neighborhood desire their neighborhood to be downzoned and they sign a petition to that effect, the City Council can be requested to take such action and would probably do so.· Comm. Ingell noted that there is only one small section of R-1 zoning in this particular area;rthe rest of the area is R-2. He felt that the recommendation for this area, when the downzoning issue comes up, will be for medium density. He noted that this project is to be built to the R-2 density and to the R-3 building standards. Mr. Schubach explained the differences between the R-2 and R-3 development standards. Comm. Ketz noted that the area seems to be R-2 m~dium density. She noted that the height issue will be studied by the Planning Commission later in the agenda. Chmn. Peirce noted that it is necessary to apply the standards in effect at the time the plans were submitted. Comm. Ingell noted that the resolution states the project "will be compatible with neighboring residential uses." He stated that he disagreed with that portion of the reso{ution, explaining that this area will be subject to rezone very soon. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the number of properties on this block already developed. Participants from the audience stated that the majority of the lots have been developed, noting that only four single-family homes remain. Comm. Rue stated that this is an attractive project which conforms to all standards and which conforms to the medium density requirements. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-67, with the amendment that Finding G shall be modified to read: "The project will conform to all R-3 zoning and condominium criteria." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards 6 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Chmn. Peirce noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS WITHIN THE SEVENTEEN-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE (CONTINUED FROM 7/19/88 MEETING) Chmn. Peirce stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter; however, this abstention would not preclude his participating in future actions on this matter. Comm. Rue acted as chairman during the hearing of this matter. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 21, 1988. The applicant is proposing an addition to his existing residence and would like to have solid walls for architectural enhancement and to keep animals, burglars, and so on, out of his proposed atrium area. Policy Statement 86-2 , which was confirmed by the City Council, states: "3. Walls that are clearly architectural treatment may be permitted in the setback when it is determined by the Planning Director that the intent and purpose of the ordinance is being met." The matter of controlling walls in the setback was a result of concern that the Planning Commission had about the setback area being improperly used for storage instead of parking. Also, by walling this area, it would be easy to add a garage door, making it the primary parking, substandard in size, and bootlegging the garage into another unit. Hermosa Beach has a serious problem with bootlegged units, and this policy toward walls is another effort to curtail such activity. Staff agrees with the Planning Commission's approach and encourages the Commission to continue this effort. In the subject case, staff finds that architecturally the elimination of two walls would not have any significant impact; decorative pillars of substantial size would be equally attractive. The opening to the atrium could be resolved with fencing of various types. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant is proposing to use glass blocks to enclose the area. He felt that since these would be solid walls, the intent of the code would not be met. He suggested to the applicant that, if he felt the Planning Director's interpretation to be incorrect, he (the applicant) could appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that this area, once enclosed, could very easily become converted into a bootleg unit or storage area. He noted the importance of the 17-foot setback area. Mr. Schubach stated that the Building Inspector has informed him that many of the bootlegs in the area are newer than ten years, and many are quite new. Many structures are being built and designed for the purpose of bootlegging. Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends denial of the applicant's request. Comm. Rue asked if there are any other similar projects in the City. Mr. Schubach replied that there was only one; therefore, this policy statement was adopted. Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that on April 3 he submitted plans to the Building Department, which he felt to be acceptable and which he felt accommodated everyone. He then discovered that the Planning 7 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 .. ' Director found fault with the plans because of the walls adjacent to the setback. Mr. Nuttall felt the determination by the Planning Director was unjust. Mr. Nuttall was told that he could appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. It has taken from April until now for this matter to be heard by the Commission. Mr. Nuttall stated that the final decision is very important to him because of the two walls. The dght wall will serve to provide security and privacy." The front door is somewhat the locked entry. If there is no wall enclosing the front door, there would be no barrier to the outside which would preclude the intrusion of animals and strangers. Mr. Nuttall stated that the atrium is to be the main design feature of the proje_ct, and he is trying to make a private, large atril.1f(l; that is why the wall on the right is so important: The wall on the left is there for appearance. Mr. Nuttall stated that he is attempting to remodel, and the mass of the existing structure can't be changed; therefore, he is attempting to balance it by putting in a solid wall on the left side; ·To enclose the area or to convert it into a bootleg would present difficulties. Mr. Nuttall stated that the ground level in the area slopes up four feet going up to the garage door. Also, the two walls in question are of different lengths. The wall on the left is one foot shorter than the wall on the right because the left wall hits a ten-foot diagonal setback. Both walls terminate into pillar sections. Mr. Nuttall could not see how one could put a garage door across this area because of the fact of the diagonal conditions. Mr. Nuttall stated that, after studying the proposed resolution, he is susp1c1ous of it, explaining that the wording approved by the Planning Commission is not the same as the wording presented to the City Council for approval. He stated that the phrase "clearly architectural treatment" was added in the interim. Mr. Nuttall stated that the intent and purpose of the City Council in regard to the ordinance seems to be to provide additional o·n-site parking and safety so that people don't have to walk into the street if cars are parked over the sidewalk. He stated that his project would not infringe on the intents and purposes of the· 17-foot setback requirement. Mr. Nuttall stated that his garage setback area · is 17 feet deep and · ·16 feet wide. He referred to previous City Council minutes and stated that they refer to "impeding parking within the area/' This would refer to cases where there are walls in the area or abutments or supports in the area, to preclude cars from parking in the area. • ·He stated that his project would be completely open in the required setback, and the walls are peripheral several feet beyond the required setback area; therefore, he questioned whether Section 3 of the ordinance is applicable to his project. Comm. Rue discussed the left wall which is to serve as an architectural balance; He asked if it would be possible to somehow open up that wall so that the parking area is not so enclosed. He noted the City's deep concern over bootleg uni-ts. Even though the area slopes up four feet, he noted that the area could easily be enclosed and converted into a bootleg unit; • He felt that a more open, airy feeling in the guest parking area would be appropriate. 8 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Mr. Nuttall stated that if that area is opened up, he would like to perhaps have wrought iron in the wall openings. He stated that he would like to preserve the mass while opening up the area. He did not want to put one pillar on the end. He stated that he could repeat the pattern several times along the wall using wrought iron as opposed to the glass blocks. Comm. Rue felt that wrought iron would be acceptable, depending on how it was done and if it preserves the open feeling. In that case, it would be an improvement. He stated that his main objection is that the area is so closed off. He did not feel that the atrium is a problem. He stated that he likes the glass blocks between the atrium and parking area; however, he felt the area should be opened up more on the left side by use of the wrought iron in order to open up the parking area so that it is more of a parking area, as opposed to a garage area. Mr. Nuttall stated that he was not opposed to doing this. He noted that he wants to keep a feeling of mass. Comm. Rue stated, however, that the City desires to open up this project quite a bit more on the left side. Comm. Ketz asked if there are living quarters above the garage. Mr. Nuttall replied that he is the first person to trigger the 17-foot setback requirement on a remodeling project. He stated that the garage is detached, and his is a very small house. He explained that the garage must be destroyed because he cannot attach a detached garage. He is planning to add living space over the garage. The existing space is 820 square feet, and the addition will be approximately 900 square feet. Comm. Ingell did not like the idea of an atrium or patio. He felt that the project appears to be two houses on one lot. He noted deep concern over the bootleg issue in the City, and this proposal would appear to be very easy to convert. He stated that he would favor a pillar instead of a wall. Mr. Schubach explained that the issue before the Commission at this time is how to separate the walls which are in the setback area. Comm. Ingell discussed the proposed plans. He noted that the home is actually on the right side of the lot. The proposal is to add several walls. There will then basically be another unit which will not be connected except by the exterior wall. Mr. Nuttall disagreed, stating that there must be complete interior passage. He continued by discussing the proposed plans. He stated that the main difficulty regarding the plans for this project regards the heat loss calculations, and he continued by discussing the atrium in regard to Title 24. Comm. Ingell again stressed concern over the bootleg issue in the City. He noted that even though Mr. Nuttall may have no intention of creating a bootleg, future owners could very easily do so. Mr. Schubach stated that the proposed plans basically meet all of the City zoning ordinances. Mr. Nuttall stated that anything could be converted into a bootleg if someone so desires; however, it would be economically unfeasible for him to convert this into an illegal unit. 9 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Comm. Ingell noted concern over the bulkiness of this project. He felt that part of the intent of the 17-foot setback requirement is to reduce bulkiness and provide parking. He noted concern over the closed in wall. He felt that a pillar would solve the problem. Comm. Ketz noted concern over the outer wall, stating that she feels it should be opened up so that it looks more like a parking area, as opposed to merely moving the garage door and enclosing it the way it is. Comm. Rue asked Mr. Schubach whether the project would be acceptable if the exterior of the wall on the left were opened up with wrought iron, and the atrium was done with additional glass blocks. He questioned whether the City's concerns would be eased by such a modification. Mr. Schubach stated that if the Planning Commission deems such a plan to be acceptable, he would follow that direction. He noted that this is a precedent-setting case. He noted that staff's main concern is with the bootleg issue. He stated that he would feel more at ease if Mr. Nuttall followed the Commission's recommendation; that way, if problems arose in the future with other projects, there would be a method of enforcement to resolve the problem and to prevent recurrences of the same problem. Mr. Schubach suggested that a policy statement be made by the Commission. Comm. Rue suggested that the main exterior wall be open at least fifty percent, possibly with a combination of stucco and wrought iron fencing. The wall facing the atrium could incorporate additional glass block in two or three of the sections in order to add to the open feeling. He felt that such a requirement would allay his fears over the bootleg potential. Comm. Rue stated that this should be a policy statement for this as well as future cases. Mr. Schubach stated that this requirement could be used as an example in the future At a later date, if so desired, a new policy statement could be affirmed. Comm. Ingell felt that it would appropriate to add percentages. He questioned whether fifty percent openness would be acceptable. Comm. Rue explained that he suggested additional glass blocks because there are residences in town where that wall would be adjoining the main structure of the house, and it would be a common wall to the house. In this case, there is an atrium, and he was being more lenient because other structures have a similar condition, but there is a house next to it. He noted that Mr. Nuttall has an alternate design; however, he noted that he does not like to get in the way of people designing projects. He felt that if people can design projects which conform to the code and has the basic intent, that is fine. Comm. Rue discussed this particular project and stated that the north wall could be left open fifty percent. Mitigating measures could be done to the the interior wall to the atrium. Comm. Ingell felt that 75 to 80 percent openness would be more appropriate to the exterior wall. The interior wall actually would appear to be more of a wall of the house. Mr. Nuttall explained that the length of the left wall is only eleven feet, ten inches. It is set back 5 .2 feet on the required 17-foot setback, for a difference of 11 feet, 8 inches. Comm. Ingell felt that the exterior wall should be enclosed no more than 20 to 25 10 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 percent and that it should be strictly an architectural projection. Comm. Ketz agreed that she would prefer the exterior wall to be 75 percent open, meaning not merely windows, but totally open. She noted that the interior wall presents a more difficult situation, stating that many homes have a similar wall as a part of the house. She felt that the area to the atrium should be more open. Comm. Rue stated that exterior walls adjoining parking setbacks would require a 7 5- percent opening in the wall. Openings could be done by use of open fencing or wrought iron railings, perhaps. If there is no residence adjoining the other side of the parking area setback, no more than fifty-percent of a wall opening shall be required; however, he felt it would be appropriate to leave open for discussion a discretionary method of determining the exact percentage. Comm. Rue discussed Mr. Nuttall's project and stated that the north-facing wall on the left should be open 75 percent and unsealed to provide ventilation; and there should be additional glass blocks used on the wall adjoining the atrium with no more than fifty percent required. Mr. Nuttall stated that fifty percent is a significant amount for the inner wall. Comm. Rue stated that the purpose is to allow the Planning Director discretion in determining the appropriate percent in order to ascertain whether the percentage meets the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Nuttall asked whether doubling the open space on the interior atrium common wall would be acceptable. Comm. Rue felt that would be adequate. Comm. Ingell felt that by opening up the interior wall, there would be more light to the atrium. Comm. Rue stated that the interior wall should be changed to 25 percent, as opposed to the fifty percent previously discussed. Guy Bartoli, 4159 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, architect, addressed the Commission and stated that he will soon be doing some projects in the City. He stated that rather than making a policy statement now, it would be more appropriate to study this issue further. He felt that a decision should be made on the project at hand, and the policy statement can be made after additional study. He volunteered to do some studies on this issue and report his results to staff. He noted deep concern over this issue. Mr. Schubach clarified that staff has made many studies on this issue. Additional study can be done; however, there is a great concern over the issue of bulk in the City. Skip Collector, 919 15th Street, addressed the Commission and noted his support of Mr. Nuttall's project. He attested to the fine character of Mr. Nuttall and stated that he is certain Mr. Nuttall has no intention of converting his project into a bootleg unit. He felt that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Schubach stated that he had ample direction from the Commission to form a policy statement. He noted that if the Commission deems it to be necessary, the percentages can be modified in the future. 11 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 019867 FOR A FOUR­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 840-844 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1988. This project is located in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The Building Department approved a permit for a four-unit apartment on May 4, 1988. The site is presently under construction. Building inspection records indicate that only the foundation inspection has been approved. Conditional use permits for condominium conversions are subject to approval from the City Council. The zoning ordinance requires tenant assistance programs for occupied apartments which are undergoing a condominium conversion. Since these units are unoccupied, the applicant is not required to provide tenant assistance information. The applicant is requesting to convert four apartments which are under construction into a four-unit condominium. The units are approximately 2000 square feet. Each unit will contain four bedrooms and four baths. The layout of the units is two floors above a partial subterranean garage. The overall design of the units is Mediterranean. The basement floor plan will contain the garages and a bedroom and bath. Staff is concerned about a bootleg potential on the lower level. Staff is recommending that the bathroom plumbing fixtures be limited to a toilet and a sink. The plans meet the minimum parking requirements. Each unit will provide two enclosed parking spaces. Two guest parking spaces are also provided. Additional guest parking spaces are not required since no on-street parking is lost due to curb cuts. Staff has some concern regarding the open space. The zoning code requires 300 square feet of open space per unit, of which 100 square feet may be common. Units 1 and 2 provide 262 .5 square feet of private open space on decks; Units 3 and 4 provide 200 square feet. The additional open space requirements will be met with a 400 square foot common open space deck area over the turning area for the vehicle parking. The common open space area will have access from the side yard and from doors adjacent to Units 2 and 3. While this deck may meet the general requirements for open space, it does not meet the intent of the ordinance. Common open space should be equally available to all units. As designed, Units 2 and 3 will have direct access to the deck area from a door adjacent to their bedroom. Therefore, the common deck area would be more utilized as private open space for Units 2 and 3. The other two units would have to access the common deck through the side yard. In a social and psychological respect, the common open space deck will not be "common" to all units. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to provide direct access to the common open space from all units. The construction plans approved by the Building Department show the front decks projecting to within two feet from the front property line. The zoning ordinance allows decks to project within three feet of the front property line. The architect has made this correction on the plans submitted to the Planning Department. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit revised plans to the Building Department. Storage is provided in the garage. The trash area is provided adjacent to the garages. 12 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements. The development is similar to others along Loma Drive. The Planning Commission has approved several similar condominiums in the immediate area. Therefore, staff recommended approval of a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map 1119867, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. In response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, Mr. Schubach explained the difference between condo conversions and regular condominium projects. Public Hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Ivars Janieks, 2453 Silverstrand, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the bathrooms on the lower level of all four units have been removed. Mr. Janieks explained why he did not obtain the permit before starting the project. He stated that initially, he had intended to build this project as apartments. Circumstances then changed, and it was decided to build a condo project. Mr. Janieks discussed the access to the common open space and stated that the area can be blocked off to two of the units, and all units could then use the same access way. However, it is difficult to make equal access to all units with the layout of this project. Chmn. Peirce asked if it would be possible to either move the deck or enlarge it in order to provide equal access to the common open space. Mr. Janieks was not certain if the decks could be enlarged without encountering structural difficulties. He discussed the problems associated with relocating the decks. He stated that the foundation for this project has already been poured. Public Hearing closed at 9:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce asked whether this project meets all of the requirements for the zone in which it is located. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Peirce noted that the project appears to be slightly under the lot coverage requirement; he felt that the project would be enhanced if the deck were built slightly larger to allow access from the units to the common open space area. Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to see the open space area increased. Comm. Rue noted that the common recreation area is directly adjacent to bedrooms, and he did not think that such a layout is the best possible design. He did not feel the layout is conducive to common open space, and he suggested that the applicant change the location. He noted concern over noise. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-64 with the addition of conditions requiring: (1) that there shall be no bathrooms on the basement floor of the units, and (2) that the applicant shall work with the Building Director in order to provide for equal access for all four units to the common open space. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards 13 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP fl 19868 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 858 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1988. The project is located in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3183 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The Building Department approved a permit for a two-unit apartment on March 30, 1988, and the site is presently under construction. According to Section 7 .2-17 of the Condominium Ordinance, condominium conversions are subject to approval by the City Council. The applicant is proposing to convert a two-unit apartment into a two-unit condominium. Unit 1 is approximately 219 5 square feet. The design of Unit 1 includes two stories over a partial subterranean garage. The first floor contains three bedrooms and two full baths, and the second floor contains the living area and a half bath. Unit 2 is approximately 1983 square feet. The design of Unit 1 includes two stories and a basement level. The first floor contains two bedrooms and two full baths. The second floor contains the living area and a half bath. The basement level contains a bedroom and a full bath. Because of the potential bootleg at this level, staff is recommending that the plumbing fixtures be limited to only a toilet and a sink. The plans meet the parking requirements. Each unit provides two enclosed parking spaces plus one guest space for both units. The units share a common enclosed garage located under Unit 1. As a condition of approval, revised plans shall show a curb stop located in the guest parking area to protect the gas meters. Additional guest parking spaces are not required due to no on-street parking lost by curb cuts. The plans conform to the open space requirements. Unit 1 provides 452 .8 square feet of private open space on the roof deck. Unit 2 provides 454.25 square feet of private open space on the roof deck. The storage and trash areas are located in the garage. Lot coverage is 65 percent. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are consistent with the surrounding uses. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map 1119868 for a two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Schubach discussed the tandem parking at this project, stating that the proposed parking is acceptable and is actually providing additional parking at the site. In response to a question from Comm. Ingell, Mr. Schubach discussed the issue of turning radius and studies which have been done on the matter. Public Hearing opened at 9:32 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Ivars Janieks, 2453 Silverstrand, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that tandem parking is better than no parking. Mr. Janieks stated that the bathrooms will remain on the lower level of these two units. He stated that there are interior stairs down into the lower level, where there will be located a bedroom and bath. He stated that it would be difficult to block off that area. 14 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 .- Public Hearing closed at 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-66. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 27, 1988. The current zoning ordinance requires a variance for any hedge, wall, or fence which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The required findings to justify granting such a variance are non-existant. The City Council, at their meeting of May IO, 1988, adopted Resolution 88-5145 which was a resolution of intent to study whether hedges should be treated differently than fences in the City's zoning ordinance. The environmental staff review committee, at their meeting of July 7, 1988, recommended a negative declaration for this project. This item was previously studied by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to fences, wall, and hedges. The City Council rece ived and filed their recommendation. The original recommendation has been modified pursuant with the revisions requested by the City Council. Most cities allow hedges and fences to exceed the maximum allowable height with a conditional use permit. Often there are legitimate grounds for permitting a hedge, fence, or wall to exceed the maximum allowing height; for example, noise attenuation, security, and privacy. However, these grounds seldom meet the required findings that justify the granting of a variance. The primary concerns of the City are that the wall is decorative; will not block views, light, or ventilation; facilitate the efforts of criminals; serve a purpose, and is not opposed by the neighbors. Through the use of a conditional use permit, these kinds of issues can be resolved to everyone's benefit. The proposed resolution will also provide general added provisions to the section of the code pertaining to fences and hedges. Upon reviewing the current zoning sections pertaining to hedges, walls, and fences, it was noted that there was no section of the code which prohibits the use of barbed wire, razor wire, broken glass, or similar materials on walls and fences. There are several types of businesses that often attempt to add these types of materials for security purposes. Sheppard hook fencing would be more attractive and would provide security. Also, staff would like to amend the code to include a provision which states the types of materials allowed for walls and fences. These types of materials should include split face rock, wrought iron, or other similar types of decorative materials. Since fences and hedges may potentially create the same problems, i.e., view blockage, obstruction of light, air, and ventilation, staff has not differentiated between the two. 15 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Staff is recommending that a conditional use permit be required for any fence, wall, or hedge which exceeds the maximum allowable height. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution. Chmn. Peirce had no problem with treating hedges as walls. However, he noted concern over requiring a conditional use permit because the issue becomes less definitive as to what is good or bad for the City. He questioned on what grounds conditional use permit requests could be denied. Mr. Schubach stated that walls could be conditioned and reduced in height; the Planning Commission would not be required to approve walls which are too high. Comm. Peirce noted concern over this issue, stating that people will hire consultants to appear and testify that the wall is necessary to mitigate noise. Mr. Schubach stated that a wall request could be denied based on facts such as being unsightly, causing a nuisance to the neighbors, or causing view blockage. Under those circumstances the request could be denied, or the height could be substantially reduced. Public Hearing opened at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Nellie Strohl, 824 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed the height of walls in the City. She noted concern over safety and privacy in the area. Public Hearing closed at 9:49 P.M. by Chrnn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that two walls in the City have been denied in the past few years by the Planning Commission. He stated that he could see no particular reason to make it easier for people to put up higher walls or fences in the front yard setbacks or the rear yard. He felt that the current zoning code is more than adequate. If a person has a good reason and can meet the findings required for the granting of a variance, he can apply for a variance. Chmn. Peirce stated that the intent for having front yard setbacks is to provide public open space; not to isolate the area by having hedges or fences. He stated, however, that he had no opposition to staff's recommendation to treat hedges as a fence or wall. But he noted opposition to allowing conditional use permits for walls and fences and changing the method by which walls are approved. Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Peirce. He noted concern over the walk streets where people put in walls and fences. He stated that a more open City with less bulk should be encouraged. Comm. Ingell questioned whether the conditional use permit process is desirable for walls and/or fences. Comm. Ketz agreed that openness should be encouraged in the City. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-68 with the following modifications: (1) to delete Condition No. 5: "Residential walls, fences, or hedges may exceed the maximum height noted above in subsections l and 2 if a conditional use permit has been granted by the Planning Commission." (2) Delete items B and C of the resolution; and (3) Modify Paragraph 3, 16 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 No. 4 to read: "The wall or fence shall be constructed of an aesthetically pleasing material approved by the Planning Director. Plain gray block is prohibited." Chmn. Peirce directed staff to include wording in Paragraph 3, No. 4 delineating the appropriate types of materials acceptable. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Edwards Recess taken from 9:56 P.M. until 10:06 P.M. STUDY OF VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 7/5 AND 7/19/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 25, 1988. At the meeting of April 26, 1988, the City Council requested the Planning Commission and staff to study the issue of height limitation in the R-1 zone in cases where rezoning has occurred and view blockage may result. Mr. Schubach used an overhead projector to illustrate the staff recommendation for measuring height. He stated that neither the alternatives nor the recommendation will guarantee that view blockage will not occur, especially on flat terrain. Because of the amount of existing development and existing contours, it is not possible to develop an ordinance which would effectively protect all views. Therefore, this effort is an attempt to enhance the potential of limiting view blockage. Changing the method of measuring height appears to be the best means to limit view blockage. From the diagrams provided to the Commission, it could be observed that a significant height variation occurs from one side of a street to the other when using the "averaging method'' which means using the average slope of the lot based on its highest and lowest points. The current method forms a parallelogram. Further, even though a dwelling on the downsloping side of the street has been constructed using the current method, the dwelling on the upsloping side will still have a potential view included, even if the up-slope side is or is almost flat terrain. This method is also easier to use when determining height of a proposed development, and it is also more conducive to building design of structures. It should be noted that until 1973, the averaging method was used in the City. Judging from the age of the dwellings in the City, two thirds to three fourths of the developments were developed under the averaging method. Another factor that should be considered is the exception to the height standards, Section 1201, which allows roof-mounted equipment to exceed the maximum height. There are no parameters as to how large a roof structure housing mechanical equipment can be or how extensive the screening of such equipment can be. The Biltmore project is one example; the mansard roof was described as screening and proposed to be nine feet above the maximum height of 45 feet and to be constructed around the perimeter of the roof. 17 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Allowing screening nine feet high and completely surrounding the roof is the result of having no maximum or limitation on how much of an exception is permitted. Staff believes that roof equipment and screening should be limited, but to what degree is difficult to determine. As for equipment itself, it possibly could be limited to the absolute maximum height necessary. Staff believes certain limits should be imposed. However, those limits may need modifications over time to reflect genuine development requirements. Alternative 1 would focus only on the area where the concern for view blockage originated. Placing an exception to the maximum height of 25 feet in the R-1 zone could probably resolve any view blockage along Myrtle Avenue when the lots have a slope, since there is an (approximate) 0' to 10' slope on the east side and an approximate 0' to 15' slope on the west. However, along Silverstrand on the east, a 0' to 6' slope exists; allowing five additional feet of height, therefore, may not provide sufficient height to see over the existing structures on the west which were built to 30 feet prior to the rezoning. For example, a 30-foot high structure could have a mezzanine which by the Building Code would have a floor at a maximum of 22 feet high, making eye level at 26 1/2 feet to 28 1/2 feet. Consequently, only on the lots with a slope variation and only on the rear portion of the lots would there possibly be enough height to see over the structures on the west side of Silverstrand, since it is necessary not only to see over, but also to be able to look downward for an ocean view. Alternative 2 suggests that the west side of Myrtle Avenue be rezoned to R-1. It is somewhat of an island of R-2 in the midst of R-1. However, the rezoning would not resolve the problem of view blockage along Silverstrand. Further, 50 percent of the dwellings along the west side of Myrtle A venue are duplexes. Alternative 3 would allow a maximum height of 30 feet in areas where R-1 interfaces with R-2 on the view side; however, this would be awkward to implement and may not resolve the problem of view blockage in the Myrtle-Silverstrand area since an additional five feet of height, making the structures equal in height, will probably be inadequate, except where there is a great deal of slope to see over interfacing structures to any great degree. As noted under Alternative 2, the potential to see over interfacing 30-foot high structures, even with a mezzanine, is questionable. Alternative 4 would allow a 30-foot height in all R-2 to R-1 rezoned areas and would probably be overkill. The same problems noted in Alternative 3 would probably be experienced. Staff recommended amending the method of measuring height to the averaging method and limiting the bulk and size of roof-mounted equipment. Comm. Ingell stated that it would be helpful to have information as to what other cities do in regard to the measurement of height. Mr. Schubach discussed various methods of calculating heights used by other cities. He stated that most cities use the averaging method; however, he stated that staff could do a survey to find out what other cities are doing. Comm. Ketz felt it would be helpful if staff could find out why the measurement of height was changed in 1973. 18 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 ,,. r"'\ Comm. Ketz questioned what areas of the City would actually benefit by the new height measurement, noting that most areas of the City have already been developed. Mr. Schubach stated that it would benefit the north-south streets as well as the east­ west streets. He stated that it would be an improvement, but not necessarily a guarantee, in regard to view blockage. Hearing opened at 10:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Bill Grove, Building Director, addressed the Commission and stated that he did not know why the method of measurement was changed in 1973. He stated that he is familiar only with the current method of measuring height. Mr. Grove explained two different methods of measuring height based on the elevation and topography of the land. He continued by discussing the fact that there should be a maximum height limit for front facades in order to reduce bulkiness of buildings. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Guy Bartoli, 4519 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, favored the staff-proposed method of height measurement, provided there is a minimum dimension allowing a two-story design on the street side. Steve Peterson, 2460 Myrtle Avenue, favored the staff-proposed method of height measurement, stating that some circumstances would warrant two-story structures on the street side. Steve Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, favored the staff-proposed method of height measurement. He discussed the topography of Myrtle Avenue. He favored the same zoning on both sides of Myrtle Avenue. Hearing closed at 10:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce felt that there should be a general method for measuring height throughout the City, stating that problems could arise if a specific method is determined for one particular area of the City. Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to study the properties on the west side of Myrtle Avenue. He stated that he favors Alternative 2, which is to rezone the west side of Myrtle Avenue from R-2 to R-1; however, he needed additional information as to the lot sizes in that area. He also suggested that staff provide additional information on what methods other cities use to measure height. Chmn. Peirce, after studying his zoning map, stated that most of the lots on the west side of Myrtle Avenue are 3,000 square feet. Comm. Ketz agreed that there should be a consistent method of measuring height throughout the City; therefore, exceptions should not be made for certain lots. She suggested that perhaps the west side of Myrtle should be rezoned from R-2 to R-1, since it is inconsistent with the area in that only one unit per lot is allowed. Comm. Ketz stated that it would be helpful to have additional information on the averaging method versus the stepped method in order to determine what the ramifications would be on streets which are perpendicular to the coastline as well as parallel to the coastline. She also stated that it would be helpful if staff could discover why the method was changed in 1973, noting that ordinances are usually not changed 19 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 unless there are specific problems. Comm. Rue favored additional study on the method of height measurement. He wanted to study further the lots on Myrtle A venue. He also favored more study on the height measurement, suggesting that possibly staff could glean information from previous City Council minutes. Chmn. Peirce favored Alternative 3, which would allow 30 feet in the R-1 zone where the zone interfaces with the R-2 zone on the view side. Chmn. Peirce felt that the issue of a general method of height measurement throughout the City should be separated from the issue of the specific area of Myrtle A venue in the north end of the City. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to adopt a Resolution of Intention to downzone the west side of Myrtle Avenue from R-2 to R-1 at the earliest possible time. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Rue asked for information in regard to what the City would look like design-wise using the various methods, especially in regard to elevations. Comm. Ingell asked if there are additional methods in use to measure height. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to do additional study on this issue and bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. He suggested that staff study other areas which have steep slopes and high density, such as San Francisco and San Pedro. APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S APPLICATION OF SECTION 306 OF THE ZONING CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2930 THE STRAND Comm. Rue stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Grove, Building Director, gave staff report dated July 28, 1988. He showed slides depicting the project in question as he gave the staff report. On November 5, 1987, Frank and Betty Fouce were issued a building permit as "owner/builder" for the remodeling of the single-family structure located at 2930 The Strand. The building permit application characterized the work as an interior remodel, reroofing, and upgrade of framing. The plans submitted for the project indicated that no additional floor area would be added and no exterior walls or roof framing removed. The plans did indicate that a few interior walls would be removed and new floor joists would be added to the existing floor joist on one level. Roof rafters were to be added to existing rafters to decrease the spacing to provide for new roof sheathing and covering. Additional structural work included adding shear panels for lateral resistance and two new foundation pads. On April 12, 1988, while traveling to a nearby inspection, Inspector Kowatischitsch noticed that the second story appeared to have been completely removed and reframed. An inspection the following day by Senior Inspector Anschel and Building Director Bill Grove confirmed his observation. The second story had been completely removed down to the floor line, and new exterior and interior walls and roof framing members were 20 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 erected. The building was observed to be substantially over the allowable 25-foot height limit in the R-1 zone. The workman in charge of the project was advised to stop work on the second-story portion because it did not comply with the approved plans and could not be approved because the construction violated the zoning code. On April 19, 1988, a meeting was held with Frank Fouce, Building Director William Grove, and City Manager Kevin Northcroft to discuss this matter and the code requirements. On June 23, 1988, Frank Fouce submitted an appeal to the Planning Department regarding the application of the code to his project. Section 1902 of the zoning code charges the building official with the responsibility of enforcing the zoning code. The building official's decision that a nonconforming building or portion of a building thereof cannot be removed and reconstructed is based on Section 306 of the zoning code and the lack of any other specific code sections which would permit such reconstruction. Section 306 states: "Except as provided in this ordinance, no building shall be erected, reconstructed, or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as hereinafter specifically provided and allowed in the same zone in which such building and land is located." Article 13 of the zoning code contains the provisions for remodeling of existing nonconforming structures. Those provisions do not indicate that a nonconformity can be resconstructed. The building, as constructed, exceeds the R-1 allowable height of 25 feet by 6.2 feet at the worst case, which is the west elevation. The building is 2.3 feet over the height limit on the east elevation. The appellant has indicated that the new roof is within inches of the previous roof line. While exact comparisons are impossible at this point, the scale drawings submitted by the appellant indicate that the new roof is approximately 1.5 feet higher than the previous roof. The appellant has indicated that the demolition was done in error and that his carpenter was complying with the building code requirements to abate unsafe conditions. While the Uniform Building Code addresses technical matters relating to building construction, it does not supercede local zoning regulations. If the second story was in such poor condition as to require complete removal, the appellant should have submitted revised buildings plans which demonstrated compliance with the zoning regulations. This may have been an unintentional error on the part of the appellant; however, it should not be excused on this basis. Mr. Grove recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the building official and require the building to be revised to conform to current zoning requirements. Chmn. Peirce discussed the chimney and asked whether the plans show the location of the previous roof. He noted that the City has no pictures available depicting how the roof looked before this new construction. Chmn. Peirce and Mr. Grove discussed the plans submitted for this project. 21 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Chmn. Peirce commented that the new roof line appears to be at a different slope than the old roof. Mr. Grove explained that the previous roof at the old level served as an attic. The plate line has now been raised thereby making the roof pitch slightly higher. Mr. Grove stated that the issue of remodeling is a "gray area." He discussed cases where very little of the original building remains, and new framing members are interspersed. He stated that if some of the existing members remain and new ones are added, it is easier to justify a project as a remodel. Chmn. Peirce discussed the plans submitted last November by the appellant. He continued by stating that it is not possible to know the exact location of the original structure. He stated that from the plans originally submitted, it would not have been possible for the Building Department to know whether the owner was intending to do this or not. Mr. Grove stated that since the appellant did not indicate that he would be going outside of the existing building envelope or that he was replacing the existing building, the issue was actually moot at that point because the Building Department had no reason to expect that that was going to be done. The plans did not indicate that any exterior walls would be removed. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission had received the letter dated June 22, 1988, from Mr. and Mrs. Fouce in regard to this project. Mr. Fouce, appellant, addressed the Commission and presented several old photographs depicting the project site. He also presented photographs depicting the floors, ceiling, and bricks which were torn out of the back yard to accommodate the installation of plumbing. Mr. Fouce continued by discussing the photographs which he presented. He stated that once demolition started, it was discovered that the old rafters were sponge. He stated that the carpenter blundered by removing the old pieces and finally did away with the end pieces. He stated that there was absolutely no intention of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes in regard to this project. He stated that by the time he had discovered what happened, it was already done. Mr. Fouce stated that the house in question is 90 years old. When he purchased the house from the original owner, he was given a document indicating that the building permit for this house was Number 8 of the City of Hermosa Beach. He stated that he has attempted to retain the original character of the house. He explained that the construction of this old house was of the old "barn-type" construction, and he was amazed that the house had stood up for so long. Mr. Fouce noted that the architectural rendering was done from memory, and was not meant to be exact. He stated that the plan was to replace what was existing originally. Mr. Fouce discussed Section 1309, stating that it does not apply in this case because he did not enlarge or expand, but was merely replacing what was existing. He noted that state law requires that a building must be made safe if necessary, and this is what was attempted in this case. He stressed that everyone was trying to make the building safe; however, the Building Department was not notified in advance because no one knew in advance that there would be problems with the old building. 22 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 Mr. Fouce stated that it is costing him many thousands of dollars per month while the City is attempting to resolve this matter. Mr. Fouce explained that he had his plans drawn, and he hired a carpenter to carry out the work. When work was started, it was discovered that there was dry rot on the upper level. The carpenter, without consulting Mr. Fouce, discovered the problem, and he tore out the damaged portion and proceeded to rebuild according to the original set of plans. Chmn. Peirce stated that the house appears to be slightly different from the original structure. Mr. Fouce stated that he has no technical knowledge in regard to blueprints; however, the house appears to be virtually the same as it was originally. Chmn. Peirce stated that what was an attic before has now become a much larger room on the third floor of the house. Mr. Fouce stated that, to his untrained eye, the new structure has more of a slope into the chimney area. He thought that the project would be done the same as the original structure. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the carpenter built the third story according to the plans submitted last November. Mr. Grove responded in the affirmative, stating that the floor plan outline is the same. Comm. Ketz asked whether people are supposed to return to the Building Department for approval after roofs have been removed, such as in this case. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative, explaining that two things should have triggered the process. First, the carpenter should have returned for approval of the revised plans. Secondly, the architect who draws plans should indicate that the plans are intended to comply with ail City ordinances. However, contractors are encouraged to propose alternative methods to accomplish remodeling, providing approval is obtained before commencing with the alternative plans. Also, the Building Department stamps all plans indicating that any revised plans should be submitted for approval. Mr. Grove stated that, in the City's opinion, once the roof was removed, the project would need to comply with all regulations, including the 25-foot height limit. In response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, Mr. Lough stated that he concurs with the staff recommendation in regard to this matter. Chmn. Peirce outlined the options available to the Commission: (1) allow the building to remain as is; (2) require that the third floor be rebuilt according to the zoning code; or (3) apply for a variance; however, this project cannot meet the required findings. Mr. Grove stated that the nonconforming issue continues to be a gray area in the City. He stated that many nonconformities are unintentional; however, many are intentional. He noted that this issue is to be studied by the Commission in the future. He stated that as zoning in the City is changed, many people will circumvent the system. Mr. Fouce stressed that he had no intention of circumventing the regulations; he was merely attempting to reconstruct the structure as it existed. Chmn. Peirce stated that Mr. Fouce should have hired a general contractor instead of a carpenter. 23 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88 Chmn. Peirce stated that there is no question that the remodel is different from what was shown on the plans. Chmn. Peirce stated that if the appellant is allowed to maintain the structure, others in the City would be encouraged to do the same thing. Even though an honest mistake was made here, others should not be encouraged to proceed in the same way thus circumventing the system. He noted that if Mr. Fouce is required to tear down the third floor, it will be an economic hardship; however, since only the framing has been done, the economic impact would not excessive. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, real estate broker, stated that Mr. Fouce purchased the house with the intent of maintaining the integrity of the house as it has stood for 90 years. She did not feel it was his intent to change the structure. She stated that if this building must conform to the 25-foot height limit, the roof line of the house will be altered five feet from its original state. Comm. Ketz agreed that if Mr. Fouce is allowed to maintain this structure, others in the City would be encouraged to do the same thing. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ket , to uphold the recommendation of the Building Department and require the third floor of the building to conform to the current zoning regulations. Chmn. Peirce asked that the Building Department make every effort to help Mr. Fouce speed this project along once the revised plans are submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Rue Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce stated that, had there be any leeway at all in this case, he would have voted differently on this matter. Chmn. Peirce noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Mr. Fouce stressed that the plans were drawn before the problem with the original structure was discovered. He stressed that he had no intention of violating the code, and that the results would have been the same if a general contractor had been doing the work. STATUS REPORT FOR 23-25 22ND STREET-MARTHA'S Mr. Schubach stated that at this time Martha's is in compliance with the conditions of their conditional use permit and that the owners do not need to do anything at this time. He stated that an error had been made by staff in regard the status of Martha's. Leslie Hoffman, 2203 Hermosa Avenue, owner, addressed the Commission. She stated that Martha's has been in compliance with their conditions, and she took exception to the fact that the City had stated for the second time that they were in violation because they had failed to return a signed and notarized Acceptance of Conditions form. She felt that it is unreasonable to have to appear before the Commission when they are in 24 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 .. compliance. She stated that she was advised by the Planning Director not to record the CUP until such time that the variance was also filed. Ms. Hoffman felt that it is unfair to have required her to spend two long evenings in front of the Planning Commission vindicating Martha's reputation when in fact things were in order. Chmn. Peirce agreed and suggested that staff study more carefully these matters before requiring people to appear before the Commission. He stated that if an alleged violation is discovered, staff should send a letter requiring the person to comply within a certain number of days. After that, the person can then appear before the Commission for review. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN REVIEW -REDESIGNATE AREAS 9B, 9C, AND AREA 7 FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 25, 1988. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission or City Council may request general plan amendments. Area 9B and Area 7 were recently rezoned R-2B. R-2B is equivalent to medium density in the general plan; therefore, these areas should be redesignated on the general plan for the sake of consistency. Area 9C, which is zoned R-3, needs to be redesignated from medium density to MUC or high density. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to conduct an environmental assessment and schedule a public hearing for the specified amendments. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation. No objections; so ordered. AUTO DEALERSI-DP IN THE C-2 ZONE Chmn. Peirce stated that this matter would be continued to the next meeting. STAFF ITEMS a. b. c. No action taken. Memorandum regarding City Council/Planning Commission workshop Chmn. Peirce suggested possible dates for the subject workshop: October 5, 6, 12, or 13. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for 8/9 /88 City Council meeting No one volunteered to attend. 25 P .C. Minutes 8/2 /88 d. City Council minutes of July 12, 1988 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Ingell suggested that, if a staff member has come to a meeting to speak on a particular issue, the agenda be rearranged so that the staff member does not have to wait to speak on his particular matter. Chmn. Peirce asked for an update on the circulation element. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to adjourn at 11 :47 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 August 2, 1988. J '-,/iLJtS!'d~,, Michael Scn ubach , Secretary Date 26 P.C. Minutes 8/2/88