Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-21-1988... l .1 l • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 21, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. DeBellis. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Several corrections were made to the minutes of June 7, 1988: Comm. lngell noted a typo on Page 4, second paragraph from the bottom, noting that it should state: "two eight QY twenty-foot areas." Comm. Ingell stated that Page 5, Paragraph 2 should state: "Comm. DeBellis noted, however, that the lot was purchased ... " Chmn. Compton noted a typo on Page 6, Paragraph 2,. s.tating that it should be " ... quadr icy cl es on the Strand." Chmn. Compton clarified Page 6, Paragraph 9, stating that the first sentence should state: " ... because cycles built for three are long, there is a potential for them to be turned sideways and block traffic." MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as amended the minutes of June 7, 1988. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-43, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING _COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AND RENTAL OF BICYCLES AT 74 14TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, BLOCK 14, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. DeBellis, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP :/119555 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 803 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK "A," TRACT 1667. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. P .C. Minutes 6/21 /88 MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 46, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD "ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, GRADES K-8, C.U.P. REQUIRED" TO THE R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. ZONE CHANGE FROM MANUFACTURING ZONE TO R-2 ZONE OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 601, 615, 619/621 SECOND STREET (CONTINUED FROM 5/17/88 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 16, 1988. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of November 17, 1986, recommended a negative declaration for the general vicinity in conjunction with a City-initiated General Plan amendment and zone change. On May 17, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this item to allow staff to study and notice an extended rezone area for two adjacent lots at 601 and 619-621 Second Street. Public Noticing for the May 17, 1988, Planning Commission meeting only stated a zone change for 615 Second Street. Staff has renoticed the proposed zone change to include 601 and 619-621 Second Street, in addition to the previously !"Ii.@posed zone change at 615 Second Street. The subject area is General Plan designated as medium density. The abutting lots to the north and east are also designated medium density and are zoned R-2. To rezone the subject lots to R-2 would be a logical extension to the surrounding zoning. The existing land uses to the north, east, and west are residential. Only to the south do manufacturing uses to a small degree exist. Manufacturing uses can be both a health and safety hazard because of the kinds of chemicals and highly flammable materials that are many times used in manufacturing various types of products. Therefore, staff believes these lots should not remain zoned for manufacturing since they are abutting a residential zone and residential uses. All three lots should be rezoned, since leaving one lot M-zoned would result in spot zoning. Since the lot where the property owner has not requested rezoning is a dwelling unit, the rezoning will make the existing use conforming. It should be noted that all three lots are currently residentially developed, and therefore rezoning to R-2 would not result in any significant increase in density. Four dwelling units currently exist. Under R-2 zoning, six dwelling units would be allowed. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a zone change from M-1, Manufacturing Zone, to Two-Family Residen~ial, R-2, at 601, 615, and 619-621 Second Street. 2 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Chmn. Compton asked whether staff had discussed this matter with the applicant. Mr. Schubach stated that he had talked to the person who made the initial request and also the other property owner. They both favored the rezone. They were also notified of this public hearing. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Jared Locano, 567 Second Street, Hermosa Beach, favored the zone change; however, he noted concern over parking problems if six units are to be allowed. He stated that there are already p a r king problems on the street, especially since clients of the athletic center park on this street . He suggested that the City devise a parking plan for any proposed new units. Chmn. Compton noted that the parking requirements are much more stringent than they were in the past. Also, if a resident has complaints about business parking, he can call City Hall to register a complaint. Public Hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation. Comm. Rue stated that it has become a goal of the Planning Commission to rezone this area because it is largely residential, and manufacturing uses are now outdated. Chrnn. Compton stated that the M zoning in this area was originally related to the railroad access which is no longer available. He agreed that the manufacturing use is now outdated for this area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cornms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119757 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1057 LOMA DRIVE Chrnn. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter because he is the architect of record on the project. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated _June 9, 1988. The project is located in the R-3, multiple-family residential zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 2760 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant proposed to construct two units. Each unit will be appro x imately 1800 square feet and will contain two bedrooms and two and a half baths. The design of the units will be two stories and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and four guest parking spaces. Two guest parking spaces are required for the development; one for the two units and one for on-street parking lost along Lorna Drive. -The guest -parking spaces will be located within the 17-foot garage setback area. 3 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 The plan conforms to the open space requirements as amended by the City Council at their meeting of April 12, 1988. Countable open space at ground level is 145 square feet per unit. Each unit will also provide 71 squar e feet of open space on a second-sto ry deck and an 85-square foot deck located on the mezzanine level; therefore, each unit will provide 301 square feet of countable open space. There is an additional deck on the second floor that is not included in the open space calculations since the deck is totally covered. Private storage and trash areas are not specified on the plans. A condition of approval is to require revised plans indicating the location of the areas designated for trash and storage. The plans are similar to a two-unit condominium located at l 061 Loma Drive, adjacent to this site, which the Planning Commission approved at their meeting of May 17, 1988. The plan conforms to all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval of a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map II 19757, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Rue asked whether it is required that utility-type spaces, such as gas meters, be enclosed and out of the public view. Mr. Schubach stated that there is no such requirement in the zoning code. That type of matter would be in the building code, and he did not know of any such requirement in that code either. Comm. Rue asked if the locations of such areas are depicted on the plans, whether they must remain in that same location shown on the plans. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Comm. DeBellis felt that the submitted plans appear to be lacking; he though t staff was now requiring more complete plans before accepting them. He noted th at these plans did not contain several locations; therefor e, the plans would actually be approved by the Planning Commission subject to staff approval on the location of those items. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission had stated in the past that they would like to see landscape plans and some type of conceptual color drawings. Mr. Schubach stated that many plans have been sent back for further detail. He noted that staff is now requiring all architectural details tQ be shown. However, he stated that if the Commission feels it necessary, more requirements can be added for plans being submitted. He stated that a policy statement will be written in regard to what is required on the plans in the future. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Michael DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the plans were somewhat incomplete because they were submitted on April 5. It has taken this long to come before the Commission. He stated that he is aware of the new requirements to submit more complete plans, and this n~quirement is being cemplied with -on all new submittals. 4 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Mr. DeVere stated that the trash enclosure area will be located near the utility area. In response to a question from Comm. Rue, he explained that utilities are normally placed in the central courtyard area, and they are placed within a planter. They are not visible to the public. He noted that utility enclosures are kept out of the sideyard area. Comm. Rue noted that some utility areas are placed within plywood enclosures. After several years the plywood rots, and the view is somewhat tacky. Mr. DeVere assured that plywood enclosures will not be used at this project. Public Hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Comm. Ing ell referred to Page A7 of the plans and asked about the fireplace in Unit B. He noted that it appears to be below the roof line, stating that he has never before seen such a configuration. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue is within the purview of the Building Department. The fireplaces will be examined during the structural plan check to ensure that they are in conformance with the code. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map II 197 57 for a two-unit condominium project located at l 057 Loma Drive, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue None Chmn. Compton None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119525 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 532 11 TH STREET Chmn. Compton abstained from discussion on this issue because he is the architect of record on this project. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 13, 1988. This project is located within the R-3, multiple-family zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The proposed units are approximately 1744 square feet for Unit A, 1744 square feet for Unit B, and 2210 square feet for Unit C. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit plus two guest spaces. In addition, one space shall be provided for the on-street parking space lost due to curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. Unit A will utilize a second-floor deck and a roof deck to provide 437 square feet of open space. Unit B will utilize a second-floor deck and a roof deck to provide 460 square feet of open space. Finally, Unit C will utilize a first-floor deck, a second-floor deck, and a roof deck to provide 557 square feet of open space. 5 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 ,-------.._ Private storage for the units is located in the garage area. Units A and B will provide 672 cubic feet, while Unit C shall provide 1152 cubic feet. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map 1119525 for the project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:55 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Michael DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the architect, addressed the Commission and asked whether there were any questions. Mr. DeVere explained, in response to a question by Comm. DeBellis, the fireplace on the previous project. Comm. Rue commented that the plans are very attractive. Public Hearing closed at 7:57 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 50. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue None Chmn. Compton None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SNACK SHOP TO SELL JUICES AT 113 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1988. The project is in the C-1, neighborhood commercial zone with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a snack shop which will provide natural blended fruit juices. The site is 416 square feet in size and provides no customer parking. Under the previous retail use, two parking spaces were required; however, the proposed snack bar use requires four spaces if determined to be a restaurant use. Given the fact that the business shall be limited to the sale of fruit juices only, and any expansion will be prohibited, it is in the opinion of staff that no additional parking spaces need to be provided. Another factor is that the fruit bar is a seasonal-type of business whose customers will constitute members of the neighborhood and visitors to the beach. Section 1152 of the Hermosa Beach zoning -code enables · the Planning Commission to require less parking for a snack shop if the characteristics of the building, its location, 6 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 and other mitigating factors deem it feasible. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Schubach noted that the City now has an officer to enforce conditional use permits. Comm. De Bellis asked what type of business occupied this location previously. Mr. Schubach stated that previously the business was a tourist shop, selling post cards and novelty items. Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, that the applicant is proposing to sell only natural fruit juice, such as lemonade and orange juice. The applicant has stated that she is not intending to sell snacks. Staff has talked with the applicant and informed her of the concerns of both staff and the Commission in regard to their attempting to sell more than is being requested. Mr. Schubach stated that it is up to the Commission what the business is allowed to sell. It is also within the purview of the Planning Commission to decide whether this use is more intensive than what was previously located there, and whether additional parking should be required. Mr. Schubach stated that the definition of "snack shop" includes an establishment which does not serve breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and which does not have the type of equipment necessary to serve those meals. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Monica Ravines, 24035 Ocean Avenue, Torrance, applicant, addressed the Commission. Chmn. Compton noted concern that the applicant may not fully understand the strictness of the conditions being imposed on this business. He felt that it is necessary to allow some leeway in what stock a business may wish to sell. He noted that this CUP specifically states that nothing more than fruit juices are to be sold; there are to be no snacks of any kind. The applicant asked whether it would be permissible to sell finger foods of the natural type. If they are allowed to sell such things, it would be more versatile for the business; however, they have no intention of installing a grill. Chmn. Compton replied that that would not be allowed, according to the conditions of the CUP. He stressed that if that is the desire of the applicant, that must be requested at this time. Comm. Peirce asked whether there would be any cooking. The applicant stressed that there would be no cooking. They are proposing only natural type finger foods, such as watermelon slices or pineapple. Public Hearing closed at 8:05 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Peirce felt . that the applicant should be allowed,,to -sell snack foods.,. He noted that there is a restriction that there shall be no cooking on the premises, ensuring that 7 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner will not be served. He saw no objection to allowing the sale of fruit slices, finger foods, or frozen juice bars. He did not feel that the business could succeed if only juice is sold. Chmn. Compton agreed with Comm. Peirce. He continued by stating that there is no sample CUP list of requirements fo r snack shops. He suggested that a condition be added to this CUP to require that the premises shall be kept clean. Comm. Rue stated that he would have no objection to the sale of sandwiches; however, he noted that that could become a problem because there are also hot sandwiches. He felt that if the applicants are restricted too much, the business could not succeed. He felt that new businesses should be encouraged in the City. He stated that he would support a motion to approve so long as no cooking is allowed. Comm. Ingell stated that the fact that this business is located so close to the beach is actually an asset. He felt that this business could not survive if it were located elsewhere. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve the conditional use permit with the following amendments: (1) that a condition be added to require that the vicinity, especially the sidewalk in front of the business, be kept clean and free of trash and debris and that loitering shalJ not be encouraged; (2) a condition stating that the only background music to be allowed shall be below the noise levels imposed by the City; (3) Condition No. 3 shall be modified to state that the use shall be limited to food items not requiring cooking ; and breakfast, lunch, and dinner are not allowed; (4) that the manager shall be required to read a sign a copy of the conditional use permit; (5) if there is adequate room, a bicycle rack shall be required. Comm. Ingell asked if there are requirements in regard to vending machines. Mr. Schubach stated that there are no vending machine requirements in the City; therefore, they are technically not allowed. However, there is a requirement allowing a maximum of four video machines. Comm. Peirce stated that this establishment is too small to install any vending machines. Comm. DeBellis asked when a snack shop becomes a restaurant. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue can be determined by the P tanning Commission. More specifically, when an establish ment has the facilities to prepare hot food and cooking, it then becomes a restaurant. A restaurant also has the capability to serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell t o add a requirement that the seating shall be limited to a maximum of six. AMENDMENT ACCEPTED by Comm. Rue and Chmn. Compton as maker and second. Comm. Ingell noted concern over the layout of this establishment. Comm. Peirce stated that the plans are deceptive, noting that the floor space is actually quite small. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis None None 8 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Recess taken from 8:14 P.M. until 8:43 P.M. VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 501C AND 1309 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING GARAGE TO EXPAND FURTHER INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 1056 7TH STREET AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1988. This project is located in the R-2B zone. This zone change was approved at the City Council meeting of May 24, 1988. The general plan designation is low density. This general plan area is to be amended to bring it into consistency with the zone change approved by the City Council. The lot size is 5200 square feet. The applicant is proposing t o expand the existing garage to conform with the minimum parking space requirement and to expand an exis t ing rental unit located above the garage. The garage and unit are located 1.3 feet from the side property line. The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the side yard setback with the garage addition and to maintain the existing setback. The site has two units. Building records indicate that a new dwelling was constructed on the front portion of the site in 1987. The survey submitted by the applicant reflects the site prior to the construction of the new structure. The plot plan submitted for the variance also is incorrect since the new structure is not indicated properly. The existing garage is 16.3 feet deep by 20. l feet wide. The minimum size for a new garage is 20 feet deep; existing garages may be 18 feet. The applicant is required to provide four on-site parking spaces; two spaces for the new unit plus a guest space, and one space for the existing unit. The site presently has only two legal size parking spaces which are located on the driveway since the garage does not constitute a parking space because of its depth. There are no permits on file for the unit constructed over the garage, although the Sandborne maps do indicate the presence of two units. It appears that the unit is over 50 years old and was constructed prior to the existence of any building codes. The Building Department has noted that the unit above the garage is dilapidated. The unit constructed over the garage is also constructed within 1.3 feet of the property line. The existing unit is 372 square feet. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the rear unit to 748 square feet and enlarge the garage to 22 by 20 feet with a large storage room. Staff is recommending denial of the variance since the site is large enough to reconstruct the garage and addition with required setbacks. The applicant can easily relocate the garage and unit above by removing the westerly wall and relocating if four feet from the property line. The site also has a rear alley access. The ten-foot alley can also be used for parking access. There are no grounds to meet the required f indings that justify granting a variance. Economics cannot be used as a required finding for a variance. The site is not unusual in size, shape, or t opography. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to encroach into the required side yard. 9 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Mr. Schubach responded, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, that the zone change to R-2B for this area will become e ff ective soon. Once that becomes effective, the general plan designation for this area will be amended to medium density in order to bring the area into conformity. With these changes, the applicant will have no problem in having two units at this property. Chmn. Compton stated that the plans indicate that the applicant is proposing to demolish more than fifty percent of the existing structure. Mr. Schubach stated that the Building Department examined that issue and did not feel there was a problem. Mr. Schubach described the circumstances more fully, stating that the applicant is proposing to cut back the second floor four feet and then expand on the other side outward and also to add on below. This is where the variance comes in because the garage is not the adequate depth for a garage. This me a ns t hat th e ap plic an t mus t expand to the rear, and the expansion will go into the s ide yard in or d e r t o follo w the general line of the garage as it exists now. He stated tha t curre nt r egula t ion s say tha t there must be a side yard. Otherwise, expansion of a nonconforming structure is not a problem; however, the project must meet the current code which requires a four-foot setback. Therefore, the extra four feet of the garage would need to jog off in order to be off of the setback, unless the variance is approved. Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant is requesting the variance for that back portion of the garage; however, staff feels that the plans could be redrawn in order for the project to be in conformance with the code. Public Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Gary Gladdys, 1056 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, property owner, and Mike O'Leary, designer of the plans, addressed the Commission. Comm. Ingell asked about the access to the driveway. Mr. Gladdys stated that access to the driveway would be from 7th Street. He stated that he would hope to use the 6th Street alleyway for the rear unit access. He stated that there will be driveways for both the front and rear units. Mr. Gladdys asked how this problem could be remedied so that he could get on with his project. Chmn. Compton explained that staff is suggesting that the carport be shifted over. Mr. O'Lea r y explained that at the time work began on this project, he was working with the Bui ldi ng Department in order to have the project designed properly. He was then held up because of the moratorium, and they were allowed only to .. tear down a certain portion of the unit in the rear. It was then suggested to him that the wall on the back side remain and to remodel in order to make an addition out of the unit. All along, it was desired to build a new structure, but that was not being allowed. It was necessary to widen the garage and maintain the 17-foot setbacks. It was also necessary to install additional support for the upper floor. He stated that he would have preferred to demolish the wall and move the entire project back, but that was not allowed because of the moratorium. He noted that ·under this · p-Ian;· he is not ·proposing ·to · demolish more than fifty percent. 10 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Mr. O'Leary stated that there was actually a deck on top which was removed on the c han ge d pl an s. A she d roo f was then put on there. However, Mr. Perea of the Planning De par t ment d id not fe el t h is woul d be accept able. The plans were then redrawn to remove t he de c k a l t oge th er an d p ut a she d r oof on there. He then requested to have the extension of the wall so that there could be a wider garage. Also, the upper dwelling was moved back off the property line in order that it would not infringe on the setback at all. Mr. O'Leary noted, however, that the rules in the City are now changing again. Mr. Schubach stated that consistency between the general plan and zoning will be completed in October. At that time, the applicant would be able to construct two units on this property. Chmn. Compton noted that the applicant was in a situation where he was trying to design around a moratorium which was in place; however, two subsequent Council actions relating to the zoning and nonconforming uses affected this project. Mr. O'Leary stated that he and the owner have patiently been waiting to get on with this project. Chmn. Compton noted that it is very difficult to make the required findings necessary to grant a variance. He stated that he didn't really have a problem with what the applicant is proposing; however, he did not see how the necessary fin dings could be made. Chmn. Compton stated that if the wall can be moved over two feet, they could proceed with the project. He noted, however, that there could then be problems with the Building Department if they feel more than fifty percent of the structure is being torn down. He felt that this applicant is in a Catch-22 situation until such time that the zoning and general plan are brought into consistency. Chmn. Compton suggested that if the variance is not granted, that the applicant talk to someone in the Building Department about the predicament of the wall. Public Hearing closed at 9:03 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Ingell stated that the spirit of the fifty percent rule does not seem to apply here. He thought the entire situation seemed to be somewhat unfair. Chmn. Compton asked whether it would be possible for the Planning Commission to grant a variance allowing someone to demolish more than 50 percent of a structure. Mr. Lough replied in the negative. Chmn. Compton noted that the applicant desires to comply with the requirements; but he is precluded from doing so because of two ordinances which are about to be changed. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant can proceed with his plans based on the assumption that he will get what he wants in October when the zoning and general plan are brought into conformity. He could then submit the new plans with a letter to the Building Department explaining the situation. Chmn. Compton noted that there is every reason to believe that the area will be rezoned to R-2B. .. Once the -general plan has been· ·modified to -reflect -· the -· medium density requirements, the applicant would be able to build two units. 11 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-52, denying a variance to allow a garage expansion with unit above to encroach within 1.3 feet of the side property line at 1056 7th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None Chmn. Compton noted that any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. VARIANCE TO SECTION 1157C TO ALLOW A GARAGE TO ENCROACH INTO THE 17- FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 20 4TH STREET AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 16, 1988. This project is located in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density. The lot size is 1282.2 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct two enclosed parking spaces located within the 17-foot parking setback area. The applicant is also proposing to expand two existing nonconforming units. The applicant has proposed a 94 square foot addition to the lower unit and a 256 square foot addition to the upper unit. The site is located on a half lot, approximately 1282 square feet, and is on a walk street. The only access for on-site parking is from Beach Drive, which is an alley. The area where the proposed garages will be located is presently a brick courtyard that is being used for parking. There is no other parking on the site. The proposed plans have several problems associated with the request for the variance to encroach into the 17-foot setback. The development will be over lot coverage. The scale of the project can be slightly reduced to conform with the allowable 65 percent lot coverage. The plan also has a problem with open space. The upper unit has open space provided on the deck. The lower unit only has about 100 square feet of open space. Since the new open space ordinance has taken ef feet, the required front yard setback cannot be counted toward open space. This problem can be resolved by locating the proposed garages adjacent to the existing living room wall. This will allow for a 10.5 foot front yard setback, of which 5.5 feet can be included as open space. The existing structure has many nonconforming setbacks. The zoning ordinance allows expansion of the nonconforming structures provided that all new construction conforms with current setbacks. Therefore, plans should be revised to show all required setbacks. Staff has received several written correspondences regarding the side of the garage which will front onto the walk street. The concern is that the side of the garage will front onto the walk street. To keep in harmony with the neighborhood, staff is recommending that the revised plans show architectural treatment along the northern garage wall. Since the architectural treatment on the garage wall is a sensitive issue, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the revised elevation. Other neighbors are also concerned about view blockage. The garage will maintain a large front yard setback. Most horr1es along the walk street are built to their required front yard setback or encroach into the setback; therefore, the garage should not obstruct many views. 12 P .C. Minutes 6/21/88 ~ Because of the size of the lot, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the variance to encroach into the 17-foot setback for parking. The lot also has access only from Beach Drive; therefore, providing the required setback would be impossible. Staff is also recommending that the approval of the variance be withheld until the applicant revises the plans to conform with other zoning requirements and plans are reviewed by the Planning Commission. A resolution with approval of the variance will be included with this item when it returns before the Planning Commission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to a specific date to be set by the Planning Commission and require the applicant to return with revised plans which conform with open space, lot coverage, and setback of the stairway. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission grant .approval of the variance to encroach into the required 17-foot parking setback subject to conformance with all other zoning requirements including providing a trash area and storage space. Comm. Peirce asked how many units are presently at this site. Mr. Schubach stated that there are currently two units, one upper and one lower. He stated that there are two parking spaces on a brick pad on the property. Mr. Schubach replied, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, that the applicant is proposing to expand the upper unit over the garages. The brick pad currently used for parking will be enclosed into a garage. The expansion over the top would be for the upper unit. Then there is an area between the garage and the lower unit which will be expanded into a new front room. That space is what staff is suggesting not be included in the floor space to allow for additional open space along the walk street. Comm. Peirce asked several questions about the plans and stated that they are not very complete. Mr. Schubach explained the layout of the present building. Comm. Peirce asked why the applicant is not being required to provide additional parking. Mr. Schubach explained that under the current code, only one space is required for each nonconforming existing unit. Chmn. Compton noted concern that the plans do not depict the existing parking, noting that that information is necessary in order to make a decision. He .also noted that parking spaces must be of a certain size and have a certain turning radius to be in compliance. Without this information, he could not make a decision as to whether these two units should be expanded. He stressed that this issue must be clarified, especially as to whether this parking area is private property or on the public right of way. Chmn. Compton stated that the deck and fenced in yard also are not shown on the plans. He suggested that Mr. Schubach contact the applicant in order to obtain more complete plans. Comm. Peirce asked whether there is a limit on how much one can expand before it becomes necessary to add · additional parking. 13 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Mr. Schubach replied in the negative, explaining that that was part of a proposed ordinance that was not adopted. That matter, however, is still being studied, and staff intends to bring it back before the Commission. Chmn. Compton noted that people were present for the public hearing, and he favored opening the hearing in order to take testimony even though staff is recommending a continuance of this matter. Mr. Lough suggested that if the public hearing is opened, it be continued to a date certain. He noted, however, that two commissioners' terms are expiring soon. If those commissioners are not reappointed, other new commissioners would not be able to vote on this matter. Conversely, the new commissioners could read the minutes in order to familiarize themselves with the issues and vote on the matter. Comm. DeBellis noted that the plans are very incomplete; therefore, he questioned how the public could give testimony related to those plans. Public Hearing opened at 9:24 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pam Sapetto, 936 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, repr ese nti ng the applicant, Leonor Salido, addressed the Commission. She stated that the applicant desires to continue discussion of this project until the plans have been modified pursuant to the staff recommendations. Ms. Sapetto noted that the present parking does not encroach onto the public right of way. She stated that they can provide plans to clearly depict the parking at this location. Comm. Rue asked whether it would be possible to subm.it. .. plans w:hich depict the elevation from the walk street so that the residents can see what the proposal looks like. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. She asked that the Commission continue this matter to the meeting of July 5. Comm. DeBellis noted concern over the short amount of time available to both the applicant and staff if this matter is continued to July 5. Ms. Sapetto stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Compton, that plans can be prepared showing the existing parking. Com m. DeBellis felt that to take further public testimony on this matter would co m pou n d t h is is s ue, noting that the plans a r e incomplete and the applicant is proposing to su b m it ne w p la ns. He rec ommended c onti nuing the public hearing at this time. Chmn. Compton favored hearing a d ditional testimony, noting that people have made an effort to appear and give their co mme nt s. He felt that if the applicant hears the concerns of the neighbors, the new plans could reflect those concerns. Comm. DeBellis noted, then, that a neighborhood meeting between the applicant and the neighbors would be more appropriate. Ms. Sapetto stated that they are willing to hold a meeting in the neighborhood to show the new plans. -She stated that they can rrreet prior to submittal ·of the ·new plans so that the concerns can be addressed. 14 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 ~ Ellen Goetz, 33 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she is very willing to meet with the applicants to discuss the neighborhood concerns. This would also provide an opportunity for other neighbors to comment on the plans. She noted concern over continuing the meeting to July 5, stating that that might not be adequate time for all the neighbors to participate. Ms. Goetz stated that if the applicants wish to preserve the two units in their current nonconforming condition, they will need to discuss the matter with the applicants. Chmn. Compton asked if the applicant would agree to continue this matter to the meeting of July 19. Ms. Sapetto stated that a continuance to July 19 would be acceptable. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1988 , s o that the ap pli cant can return with revised plans, including the dimensions before a nd after the proj ect , site plans, existing parking and parking sizes, relationship bet ween the p ropert y line at the front of the property and the actual sidewalk dimension between the sidewalk and the property line. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ing ell noted that several people had written regarding this matter . He ad vi sed that if those people change their opinions of the project after the ne ighbor hood meet ing, they should write to let the Commission know their feelings. TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE ORDINANCE 87-751 (CONTINU ED FROM 6/7/88 MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 15, 1988. He stated that the Planning Commission had continued this matter in order to have additional time to study this document. Mr. Schubach stated that the Biltmore site is between the Strand and Hermosa Avenue, between 13th and 15th Streets. On December 15, 1987, and City Council adopted a resolution of intent to study r epealing the specific plan area. On March 15, 1988, the Planning Commission recom mended a comprehensive study to consider alternatives to repealing the SPA. On May 24, 1988, the City Council directed staff to study amending and/or repealing the existing SPA and to have this matter brought back before the City Council within 60 days. The staff has prepared an analysis and has made a recommendation concerning repealing the ordinance. The report was submitted to the Planning Commission on March 15, 1988, and to the City Council on April 26, 1988. In essence, staff believes that a co m pr eh e ns ive study should first be conducted so that the LCP and LUP can also be ap pro priately amended with the approval of the Coastal Commission. The existing SPA is lacking comprehensiveness and in some cases is ambiguous. However, the SPA is conceptually acceptable to the State Coastal Commission and meets the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP. 13y amending the existing SPA; an · improved version ·woald result· which-would not be in conflict with the Local Coastal Program or the certified Land Use Plan. 15 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commission discuss the document section by section, especially the sections pertaining to permitted uses and development standards. Comm. DeBellis discussed the permitted uses section and noted that the document contain four sections under Permitted Uses. He noted that Category A, Hotel, could stand by itself; however, the other compatible uses are permitted only so long as they accompany a hotel or conference center. He felt that the separate categories for compatible uses are misleading and could lead people to think that the land could be used for a jewelry shop, for example, just because it is listed under 4J. He noted that the jewelry shop would need to be within the hotel. He suggested that there be additional wording incorporated into Section D, Compatible Uses, to clarify this issue. Mr. Schubach suggested that the wording be changed to "ancillary uses," as opposed to "compatible uses." He further suggested that parking facilities should be a given fact, since they are required for any use. Comm. Peirce suggested that the only permitted use shall be a hotel; any other uses shall be ancillary uses. Chmn. Compton noted, then, that the only letter under this section would be (A) Hotel. The other ancillary uses would begin with the numbering sequence of 1 through ---. All Commissioners agreed to this change. Mr. Lough suggested that the Commission address the issue of conditional use permits required, such as hours of operation and service of alcoholic beverages. Chmn. Compton noted, however, that a very strict set of conditions would need to be imposed to cover every aspect, since it has not yet been determined what will be built there. Comm. Peirce favored leaving the document as it is under ancillary uses, agreeing that it would be very difficult to decide what conditions should be imposed if it is not known what will actually be built there. Mr. Lough noted that other cities include the conditional use permits required into the specific plan area. If problems arise after six months, additional conditions can be imposed on an establishment at the time of the CUP review. Comm. DeBellis noted that developers would be put off if they have to appear before the Planning Commission every time they need to obtain a CUP for things such as a restaurant or cocktail lounge. Chmn. Compton asked why ''health and fitness facility" is listed under the category requiring a conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that such a facility could add a great demand on the parking. Comm. DeBellis suggested that health and fitness facility be included elsewhere in the document, with the stipulation that such facility shall be for the use only of hotel guests. Chmn. Compton stated that if the facility is to be used by the general public, a conditional use permit would be requ ir ed. However, a small gym for the use of hotel _guests "'only would not require a --CUP;···He ~noted that"hotel guest" means one actually paying for a room in the hotel. 16 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 r Mr. Schubach stated that wording could be added stating that conditional use permit shall be required for health and fitness facility catering to other than hotel guests. This use could also be added under service related items, designated as health and fitness facility for other than hotel guests. • Comm. Peirce referred to Retail Related, Section 4(K) Liquor and food shop. He asked for clarification of this use. Mr. Schubach stated that such a shop would sell wine and spirits as well as snacks. Comm. Rue stated that many hotels have shops which sell wine and snacks. He noted that a conditional use permit would be required for the sale of alcoholic beverages; therefore, he did not feel that such a use would be a problem. Comm. Peirce stated that there are many liquor stores downtown if one desires to purchase wine. He stressed that this use should be deleted. All Commissioners agreed to delete retail use 4(0) permitting liquor and food shop. Comm. Ingell asked about service related use 3(E) ticket sales agency. He asked whether such a use would require a conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that a ticket sales agency would indeed require a CUP. He noted that travel agency is the use allowed in Section 3(F); therefore, ticket sales agency is not necessary. All Commissioners agreed to delete Section 3(E) ticket sales agency. Mr. Lough noted that a concierge would provide services such as obtaining tickets for guests. Comm. DeBellis discussed Section 9.620, Use Approvals, aad cead aloud that section: "No use requiring a CUP as provided for in HBCC, Appendix A-Zoning, Section 1403-1414 shall be established except after the issuance of such permit." He noted that Section 9.618, Permitted Uses, makes the uses very clear; therefore Section 9.618 is unnecessary. Mr. Lough suggested that additional wording could be included stating that "except for uses permitted under Section 9.618. Chmn. Compton noted that if a use it not permitted, the applicant would need to come before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. Comm. Rue felt that Section 9.620, Use Approvals, is redundant. All the Commissioners agreed to completely delete Section 9.620 from the document. Chmn. Compton discussed Section 9.621, Subject Property Development Standards. He noted that he has been contacted by developer David Greenwood in regard to this issue, and that Mr. Greenwood suggested that the height limit be left at 45 feet. Chmn. Compton did no t feel it would be appropriate, from a planning point of view, to base the development standards around a specific project, specifically the prior proposal which did not come to fruition. He noted that if the standards are based on a specific project which is not built, then the specific plan area becomes so stringent that it becomes difficult to plan another project around it. He noted that the area may change, and the amount of property available for a hotel could change. Section 9.621 (B), Building Height, was discussed. 17 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Comm. De Bellis noted, however, that the previous hotel designer proved that an attractive project could be built within 39 feet. This proves that another developer could design a project within 39 feet. Chmn. Compton favored leaving the 45-foot maximum height requirement in, and sending it to the Council. If they oppose, it can be changed at the Council level to 39 feet. He did not feel it is up to the Commission to design a project which fits specific plan area requirements. Comm. Peirce favored the 39-foot maximum, stating that it would be more consistent with the surrounding C-2 area, which has a maximum height of 35 feet. Comm. Rue noted that from past public testimony on the issue of height, it would seem that 39 feet would be more appropriate than 45 feet. Chmn. Compton stated that it would be very difficult to design a project within the 39- foot height maximum. Comm. Rue suggested rounding off the height to 40 feet. All of the Commissioners agreed to a height limit of 40 feet. Comm. Ingell referred to Section 9.621, (a) Intensity, (1): "The above grade lot coverage of the Project shall not exceed 56% of the Subject Property (a variance of 2% shall be permitted.)" He asked why there is a two percent variation allowed. Chmn. Compton agreed, stating that he felt the lot coverage should be 65%, as it is in the rest of the City. Mr. Schubach noted that this SPA was tailored around the pr e..vi 0J.:1s project. All of the Commissioners agreed that the figure should be changed to 60% lot coverage, with the deletion of the 2% variance. Comm. DeBellis asked about Section 9.621, 3(C), Parking. Mr. Lough noted that the parking requirements in the City have changed since the time this specific plan area was designed. He continued by discussing the new parking requirements in the City. The Commissioners agreed to change the wording in the parking section to include wording requiring that l 00 spaces shall be reserved for public parking and that the project shc3,H comply with all the requirements of the-Parking Ordinance. It was also agreed that a parking plan must be approved according to Article 11.5 of the zoning ordinance, which is the section pertaining to parking. Comm. DeBellis wanted to ensure that the concept of a shared parking plan remains. Mr. Schubach stated that it would, because of the requirements contained in Article l 1.5. The Commissioners discussed Article 11.5, and Commissioner Rue read aloud from the ordinance. The Commissioners discussed Section (d) Open Space, (2), and all agreed that the _ requirement for a 1/-2 acre -park for general use SlioUld remain. 18 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 ,,,---. Chmn. Compton discussed Section 9.621 (e), Architectural Considerations, and suggested the addition of wording to Item (1): "Compatible architectural treatment shall be carried out on the front, rear, and sides of the entire development." All Commissioners agreed to this change. Chmn. Compton discussed Item 2, Roof. He suggested changing the wording to state: "The roof shall be sand-colored." He did not feel it would be appropriate to require that the roof be flat as the present wording requires. All the Commissioners agreed. The Commissioners discussed Section (f), Equipment. It was agreed that that section shall not be changed. Chmn. Compton discussed Section (h), Landscaping. He suggested that wording be added denoting that work shall be done by a licensed landscape architect to do the irrigation plan and landscape plan; and that such plans shall be subject to review of the Planning Director. Also, that an automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be required. All the Commissioners agreed. All Commissioners agreed that Section (i), Signs, shall be modified to state: "The signage sizes on the hotel shall not exceed that currently permitted by the HBCC. Signs shall be allowed .... " The Commissioners agreed that Section (k), Sprinklered Buildings, is important. Mr. Lough assured that any developer would want to require that the building be sprinklered. The Commissioners agreed that Section (1), Trash Storage, should include wording requiring that a hose bib shall be located at the trash storage area. All Commissioners agreed that Section 9.623, Bicycle Parking :stiaH be amended to state that not less than 100 permanently mounted bicycle parking stalls shall be provided and shall be disbursed around the site. Comm. Rue suggested that the exhibits be used for reference purposes only, in order to avoid locking a developer into a particular design. Comm. DeBellis suggested that staff review the document to ensure that the numbers in the document are changed to correctly reflect the density. Public Hearing opened at 10:35 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. No one appeared to testify at the public hearing. Public Hearing closed at 10:35 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 47, recommending to the City _council adoption of Ordinance 84-751, as amended by the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None 19 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW ZONE, R-lA Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 13, 1988. At the City Council meeting of May 10, 1988, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to study creating a new zone so that large lot areas of 6700 square feet or less could be rezoned, if desirable, to allow for a two-unit maximum. The proposed new zone would allow a maximum of two units per lot on lots of 6700 square feet, which is consistent with the General Plan. According to the General Plan, a minimum of 3350 square feet of lot area per unit is needed for low density designated areas. The standard for setbacks, lot coverage, etc., are equivalent to the R-2 zoning as requested by the City Council at their April 26, 1988, meeting. However, the open space standards have been based on R-1 zoning since the minimum lot size is more than adequate to meet the higher standard of 400 square feet per unit. This zone does serve a useful purpose in that it allows for the rezoning of an area which was designated by the General Plan to low density to recognize the existing, relatively new two-unit developments in the area and at the same time provide consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Schubach stated that if approved, the R-lA zone would need to be added to the parking ordinance so that it would require the 17-foot parking setback. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed ordinance recommending a new zone for areas of the City where lots are a minimum of 6700 square feet in size. Comm. Rue asked whether the condominium ordinance would need to be amended to allow condominiums in the R-lA zone. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. Comm. Peirce noted that staff is recommending that the height be limited to 30 feet. Mr. Schubach stated that several new buildings in the area are at the 30-foot height, noting that this was formerly an R-2 zone. Public Hearing opened at 10:41 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. No one appeared to give testimony at the Public Hearing. Public Hearing closed at 10:41 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. DeBellis for purposes of discussion, to approve staff's recommendation to recommend a new zone of R-lA for lots which are a minimum of 6700 square feet. Comm. DeBellis stated that the Planning Commission has an opportunity at this time to make a decision in regard to setbacks. He noted that these lots are quite large; however, only a , five,-,foot front setback is required. He suggested that that amount be increased, noting that owners would still be able to build two units, and the streetscape would be 20 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 improved by a wider setback. Comm. DeBellis suggested AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION that there be a requirement of ten feet or ten percent for the front setback, but the setback shall not be required to exceed ten percent. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION agreed to by Comm. Ing ell as maker. Chmn. Compton favored that the maximum height be 30 feet, so long as the density can be kept down, it does not create view blockages, and does not create additional nonconformities. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that these particular lots are quite large and a maximum of 25 feet would be appropriate. Two-story houses could also be built so long as they do not exceed the 25 feet. He noted that there would be nonconformities, but he stated that every time a zone is changed, nonconformities unavoidably result. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce that the maximum height in the R-lA zone shall be limited to 25 feet. Amendment accepted by Comms. Ingell and DeBellis, as maker and second. Comm. Rue stated that he would support the 25-foot height limit, noting that he feels the bulk needs to be reduced. Guerillmo Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification on this issue. Chmn. Compton commented that, because the motion states that the height shall be limited to 25 feet, he would vote against the motion. He state.d that because of the way the City measures height, it is very difficult to design a project on a hill with a maximum height of 25 feet. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Peirce Chmn. Compton None None Recess taken from 10:47 P.M. until 10:53 P.M. HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-5 Mr. Lough stated that he was contacted by Mr. Kenneth Snyder who requested that the hearing for 3001 Strand be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Schubach state.d that the Planning Department was contacted by an attorney for the owner of 3443 Hermosa Avenue who wishes to withdraw his appeal to the lot merger for his property. He suggested, therefore, that the Planning Commission merge the parcel. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 13, 1988. Eighteen Notifications of Intent to Merge Lots were mailed on April 7, 1988, and four hearing requests were received. The Planning Department has determined that the lots included ·in LM· 88...;5 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and 21 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451-21. The City Council, at their meeting 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 Sec tion was replaced with the following Section (d): "If the merger of parcels results in the creation of a parcel that is at least eigh t thousan d square feet in size, the Planning Commission and/or the 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 non merger has been deleted. The Planning Commission and/or City Council must now merge all parcels that meet the standards for lot merger. The lots at 3417 and 3423 Hermosa Avenue are comprised of 30 by 61-foot lots and a 15 by 61-foot portion of an adjacent lot. Aerials indicate the main structures straddle the property lines. Building records indicate these structures to be single-family dwellings. The zoning is R-1, and the General Plan designation is low density. Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than 80 percent of the block has been split, and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. Staff cannot determine reasons to exempt these lots from being subject to merger; therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applicants' request to maintain their parcels as two separate lots. Comm. Ingell noted that there has been a change in the previous Code Section; therefore, the discretionary measure has been deleted. He asked what action is to be taken by the Commission. Comm. DeBellis noted that the Planning Commission could find that staff has made an error in its determination of the property. Mr. Lough clarified the staff report, explaining that these letters of Intent to Merge Lots were mailed on April 6 before the Section was amended on April 26. Therefore, the old rules apply for these properties, and the Commission still has the discretion not to merge lots. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to continue the hearing for 3001 The Strand to the meeting of July 5, 1988. No objections; so ordered. Hearing opened by Chmn. Compton. Janet Hamilton, 3417 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that she was also representing Mr. Raymond, the owner of 3423 Hermosa Avenue. She opposed the merging of her lots, stating that her property rights would be taken away as well as her right to build two hoLJses on the lots. If these lots were unimproved and owned by .three separate owners, three houses could be built. She did not feel that density would be lowered by merging these lots. Mrs. Hamilton stated that she does not object to the rule that she would be able to build only one house on the lots; however, if she decided to buy the property at 3423 Hermosa Avenue in the future, it would seem reasonable that she should be able to tear down the existing two -houses -and build either three new ··houses·or ·one ;•large house and one small house. 22 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Mrs. Hamilton stated that the lot merger would take away her building rights. She stated that the new rule of the 4,000 square foot minimum doesn't make sense in the City. She stated that the average house on her street is under 2,000 square feet. Mrs. Hamilton stated that she supports the City's decision to lower density; however, it doesn't seem right to her that the City could merge her lots with no due process. Chmn. Compton noted that at this time there is a 15 by 61-foot lot at this site. He stated that it is actually a legally constituted lot and could therefore be built on unless it is merged with the larger lot. Chmn. Compton explained to Mrs. Hamilton that there is really no such thing in the City as a "half lot." Therefore, it must be merged or someone could build a single-family house, even though that would be quite difficult. Mrs. Hamilton stated that the Code should be written to prohibit building on a half lot. Mr. Lough stated, though, that there is no such thing as a half lot. Therefore, the lots must be merged. Hearing closed at 11:12 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to merge the lots at 3417 Hermosa Avenue and 3423 Hermosa Avenue. Chmn. Compton stated that he would vote for the lot merger, based on the fact that the 15-foot lot is too small to build anything on. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to merge the lot at 3443 Hermosa A venue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None Chmn. Compton stated that he voted to merge the lot at 3443 Hermosa Beach, based on the fact that the owner requested it to be merged. FRONT /REAR YARD ON THROUGH LOT POLICY STATEMENT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1988. Staff has recently become aware of a deficiency in the City's zoning ordinance regarding lots that front onw two rights-of­ way with widths greater than 20 feet, therefore constituting streets. Generally, lots fronting on two streets would require a front setback on both streets. However, it has been an unwritten policy to designate one street frontage as the front and the other as the rear. Along th e Strand, the front has always been determined to be 23 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 the Strand by staff; however, in other instances, the choice has been given to the property owner. This policy has resulted in adjacent development facing in opposite directions resulting in the garages and rear yards abutting the front yards and doors of the neighboring property. Problems in regard to open space, fences, and setback thus occur. Fences in the rear yard are allowed up to six feet tall, and buildings may be as close as one foot from the property line. Having a building with a one-foot setback and/or a six­ foot fence abutting a neighboring property with the opposite side as the front yard could have a significant impact aesthetically. Open space is also a problem in the R-1 zone along the Strand. A small strip of R-1 zoned lots exists along the Strand with frontage on both the Strand and Hermosa Avenue. Since the new open space ordinance prohibits the use of the front yards to count for open space, staff believes the frontage on the Strand and on Hermosa A venue be declared both front yards, except in regard to open space and that the front yard along the Strand be coutable toward open space. Based on the range of lot sizes, approximately 30 feet by 70 feet to 30 feet by 90 feet, and zoning standards including the required 17-foot setback, there could still be 63 percent lot coverage. The most significant impact would be the extent that the second floor would be allowed over the 17-foot parking setback since the second floor would be set back approximately seven to nine feet instead of the minimum three feet. The approximate average size of a dwelling on the subject lots would be 3000 square feet. Staff believes that a policy statement declaring both frontages as front yards, except that the Strand side could be counted for open space, would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the newly adopted open space ordinance by encouraging front and rear yards, reducing building bulk, and creating actual open space. It should be noted that there are 12 lots at the very south end of the Strand that are also through lots, but which are zoned R-3 instead of R-1. Staff sees no reason why the policy should not be imposed for these lots also. There are also 14 lots zoned R-1 between 22nd Street and the 24th Street which front on the Strand, but which do not have frontage on Hermosa Avenue. These lots are not affected. These lots may need a variance or an amendment to the zoning ordinance because of their size; but this policy statement is not the vehicle for that matter. Staff is working on an amendment which would provide an exception to the 17-foot setback for lots on 10-foot wide alleys; this would affect those lots. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed policy statement designating the front and rear yard on "through lots." Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on the boundaries of these areas. Mr. Schubach explained the various locations. 24 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Hearing opened at 11 :25 P .M. by Chmn. Compton. Martine Sapetto, 936 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he favored adoption of the policy statement as proposed by staff. Hearing closed by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Policy Statement 88-1. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Consideration of Special Meeting for Condom i nium Projects b. c. d. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would request the Planning Commission to give consideration to holding special meetings when there are numerous requests for condominium conditional use permits. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the concept of additional Planning Commission meet ings when necessary to handle conditional use permit requests for condominiums. No objections; so ordered. Correspondence R e garding Hope Chapel MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to receive and file the letter from Hope Chapel. No objections; so ordered. Memoran d um Re g ar d ing P la nning Co mmi s s ion Li ai son for 6/2 8/88 C it y Council Meeting Chmn. Compton stated that he would attend the 6/28/88 City Council meeting as Planning Commission liaison. Cit y Council Minutes of Ma y 24, 1988 MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to receive and file. e. Memorandum Concerning Pacific Coast Highway Parking Lane Removal Mr. Schubach stated that CalTrans has indicated they will not do an EIR for removal of parking along the west side of PCH during peak traffic hours. Consequently, this will result in the City paying $15,000 for an EIR. Therefore, both the Planning Director and City Manag e r would recommend that the Planning Commission reconsider their recom men dation to have a separate EIR for this issue. He noted that the traffic circulation element will contain this information. Comm. Peirce stressed the importance of studying this issue. He asked what additional information would be contained in an EIR as opposed to the circulation element. Mr. Schubach stated that the information would probably be the same in both reports. He stated that the circulation element would contain the necessary data. 25 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 Comm. Peirce did not want to include this study in the circulation element because it will get lost in the shuffle. He wanted to obtain the information previously compiled by CalTrans. Mr. Schubach stated that Ca::Trans is not willing to provide that information to the City. Comm. Peirce stated that he believes CalTrans does have information based on previous studies of this issue. He stressed the importance of obtaining all the materials from CalTrans. Comm. Peirce suggested that a formal letter be sent by the Mayor to CalTrans requesting that the information be sent to the City. COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No comments. b. Miscellaneous Chmn. Compton asked staff to follow up on the requirements for the R-2B zone. Chmn. Compton thanked staff and the Commission for their help during the time that he has served on the Commission. Comm. DeBellis stated that it has been a pleasure to serve _on the Planning . Commission, and he thanked the Commissioners for their fine work. MOTION by Comm .. Ingell, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to adjourn at 11:47 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 26 P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 ) 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 June 21, 1988. Date P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 21, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALJ;... COUNCIL CHAMBERS . -· . . . -. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Several corrections were made to the minutes of June 7, 1988: Comm. Ingell noted a typo on Page 4, second paragraph from the bottom, noting that it should state: "two eight Q.i'. twenty-foot areas." Comm. Ingell stated that Page 5, Paragraph 2 should state: "Comm. DeBellis noted, however, that the lot was purchased ... " Chmn. Compton noted a typo on Page 6, Paragraph 2, stating that it should be " ... quadricycles on the Strand." Chmn. Compton clarified Page 6, Paragraph 9, stating that the first sentence should state: " ... because cycles built for three are long, there is a potential for them to be turned sideways and block traffic." MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as amended the minutes of June 7, 1988. No objections; so ordered. rt •-.-,~, ... , •----------··•-• ,,...--·-···""' • • • ~,---•·~-•-----4' , ...... • l P.C. Minutes 6/21/88 " .... ..