Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12.04.84MINUTES OF THE PLA._~NING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn, Izant at 7:30 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Izant. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. lzant None Kim Reardon, Planning Assistant; Linda Brown Brayton APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Compton clarified comments he made at the open forum of the Planning Commission on November 20, 1984. He referred to Page 10, Paragraph 9: "Comm. Compton felt that 45 feet is fine so long as parking can be provided.11 He noted that he felt that 45 feet seems to be too high, and he detailed the manner in which 45 feet is determined in the City. Comm. Compton clarified a comment on Page 10, Paragraph 13: "Comm. Compton felt that the 45-foot height would be considered a plus by developers coming into the City because there would be more square footage for parking." He noted that this comment was in direct response to a question by Comm. Schulte on whether 45 feet would be an asset or a liability. He wanted to strike "because there would be more square footage for parking" and replace it with ''but only if lots were large enough to provide adequate parking.n Comm. Newton noted Page 6, Paragraph 4: " ... residentially-zoned property should not be subjected to individual review." She noted that the word "not" should be deleted. Motion by CoI!llU, Sheldon, seconded by Comm, Compton, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 1984, as amerided. No objections. So ordered. 401 MONTEREY -TRlIBE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #16379 Ms. Reardon gave staff report, stating that this project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board on 11-15-84. The project was granted a Negative Declaration indicating that the project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts. Ms. Reardon stated that the proposed project was submitted for consideration with the applicant having full knowledge of the minimum required lot size of 4,275 sq. ft. for a three-unit development in an R-3 zone; the applicant's lot comprises 4,000 sq. ft. in area. The question raised by this application is one of why the Condominium Ordinance is more restrictive than the General Plan. The requirement of 4,275 sq. ft. of lot area for three units yields a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, which is within the high density range but is more restrictive than the General Plan. The ordinance makes no restrictions for developments of greater than three units; a four-unit condominium would be able to develop on a 4,355 sq. f t. lot in the same zone. This is a difference of only 80 sq. ft. between a three-unit condo and a four-unit condo. Ms. Reardon stated that one possibility would be for the Planning Commission to examine PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 2 401 MONTEREY -THREE-UNIT CONDO , CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #16379 (Cont.) the Condominium Ordinance to bring it into agreement with the General Plan. Earlier in the year, the Planning Commission examined removing the 25 du/a limit in R-2 zones for condominiums. At that time the Commission voted to impose the same minimum lot size for three units located in R-2 and R-2B zones in high density areas as that specified for R-3 zones, 4,275 square feet. While this requirement is one method of dealing with the inconsistency of an R-2 zone in a high density designation, it does not seem appropriate to impose the same restrictions in an R-3 high density area. Ms, Reardon stated that the project itself conforms with all of the subdivision map act requirements and meets all of the standards of the condominium ordinance with the exception of minimum lot size. In addition, the applicant has provided one parking space more than is required, providing for three guest parking spaces instead of two. Under Section 9,5-2 Policy, the Planning Commission has the power to approve a condominium proposal which does not meet all of the precise development standards if the project is in substantial compliance with development standards and criteria. Ms. Reardon stated that it is staff's recommendation to approve the project due to the fact that it is in substantial compliance with the development standards and has provided an extra parking space as a mitigating factor. Comm. Sheldon noted concern over the minimum lot sizes for units in an R-3 zone. He noted .that 950 square feet is necessary for units; but the problem is complicated by the fact that the 40 du/a require 1176 square feet. Ms. Reardon stated that apartments need not have a finding that they are in conformance with the General Plan; the minimum unit size is -what applies. Condos do need to be in conformance; therefore, in some instances, more apartment units could be put in than condo units. Ms. Reardon stated that the question here is the inconsistency between the Condominium Ordinance and the General Plan. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether the requirements for condos are more restrictive than those for apartment units in the same zone. Ms. Reardon replied in the affirmative. Comm. Newton felt that the Condominium Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan because the density factor falls within the range as specified by the General Plan. Hs. Reardon stated that there is not a specific inconsistency; but problems are created in that some projects which would conform with the General Plan are faced with the additional requirement wherein a larger lot size is required than the General Plan would normally specify. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether this more restrictive element is a result of past Commission and Council actions or whether it was an oversight. Ms. Reardon stated that in researching this issue, it was difficult to determine how these particular figures were arrived at. She stated that confusion arises because different standards apply in the cases of apartments and condos. She noted that this creates a difficulty for developers and applicants. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 3 401 MONTEREY -THREE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, A..~ TENTATIVE MAP #16379 (Cont,) Comm, Compton asked staff's opinion of the 4355 square feet. Ms. Reardon stated that 4355 square feet would be adequate for four units in the same zone. Conrrn. Compton felt that the issue of the additional 80 square feet for another unit needs to be addressed. Ms. Reardon stated that the ordinance addresses only units of three or less, She again noted that her research turned up no clues as to how these figures were arrived at. Public Hearing opened at 7:46 P.M. Jesse Negrete, 4231 181st Street, Torrance, stated that this is a good project with no tandem parking and requiring no variances other than the issue before the Planning Commission. He noted that this is a corner lot and that the project has good architectural design. He did note the issue of density, stating that there is an inconsistency between the General Plan, zoning ordinance, and the condominium ordinance, Mr. Negrete noted that the General Plan allows for 26-40 dwelling units per acre. This project would be 30 units 'per acre and would fit the General Plan and zoning. Mr. Negrete stated that if the project i .s not allowed for three units as a condo, and if it were to be two units, there would be a density of approximately 22 du/a which would not be in conformance with the General Plan, Mr. Negrete stated that the Condominium Ordinance on this particular restriction does not fit the General Plan in this instance. He noted that the 275 square feet in question is very minimal in this case, Mr. Negrete felt that the additional parking is a mitigating factor in this project as is the fact that this is a corner lot as opposed to an interior lot, Mr. Negrete noted that if the three-unit condo project is denied, then a four-unit apartment would be allowed, requiring only eight parking spaces. He noted that this project is in conformance with the parking requirements. Mr, Negrete felt that the issue really comes down to the 275 square feet issue. He stated that the project is within the range of the General Plan, and he asked for the Planning Connnission's consideration because he could find no justification for the figure given in the Condominium Ordinance, Comm. Peirce commented on the mezzahihe, asking for clarification. David Boyd, architect, 2409 Grand Summit, Torrance, stated that the mezzanine is a very nice design feature for a condominium. Re further noted that the plan calls for fireplaces, and to perch on the mezzanine to enjoy the ocean view is very nice, He noted that the mezzanine is one third of the space below; so it is well within the ordinance. Cornm. Compton noted concern over the north elevation, stating that it tends to be very massive, very flat, and faces the neighbors to the north in a manner which tends to obstruct their views. He stated the importance of protecting Hermosa Beach property owners. He noted that he liked the idea of the mezzanine, but he felt that the volume is unnecessar-y. He felt that, as a mitigating measure, this could PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 4 401 MONTEREY -THREE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #16379 (Cont.) be lowered. Mr. Boyd stated that the project is well within the height limitations as noted by staff; but he did note that the final survey has not yet been done. Comm. Compton felt that the project appears to be over the height limitation. Mr. Boyd felt that the project is conservative insofar as the height is concerned. He stated that if the survey shows the project to be over the height limitation, the project will be lowered. Mr. Boyd addressed the issue of views and aesthetics. He stated that even if a gable roof were put on and the mezzanine were eliminated altogether to tone down the massing, the ridge level would still be the same height as the parapet line; so this feature will not affect the view; it would remain the same. Mr. Boyd also noted that the street slopes upward leading north on Monterey; therefore, those homes are higher, He stated that providing for views was not felt to be a critical issue in this project, Comm. Compton noted that he was not suggesting that the mezzanine be eliminated. He felt that the volume is adding problems, though; and it would be better to lower it. Mr. Boyd stated that the south elevation has been lowered somewhat. If it was the strong desire of the Conrrnission to have it lowered more, he felt that that request could be accommodated, Comm, Compton stated that he would feel much better about the project if it wasn't so flat and so large. Mr, Negrete stated that the design could be modifi ed, though n ot as a requirement of the project. He also stated that use could b e ma de of skyl igh ts over the kitchen areas. He stated that this is a height probl em wh ich could be adjusted, Pat Dougherty, 411 Monterey, noted concern over the issues of privacy and views. She stated that she would like to see some adjustments in the architectural design of the project, She noted that a compromise would be an ideal solution. Mr .. Negrete stated that the issue of views is a problem to be considered; but the property is being developed for the owner. He did state that so far as d e nsity, a three-unit condo is better than a four-unit apartment building. Public Hearing continu_ed at 8 :03 P .M. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether this is the first time this issue of the inconsistency has ever been addressed, Conrrn. Peirce could not recall this issue being ~ddressed in the past. He noted that it is more of a restriction than an inconsistency in the General Plan. He noted that it is more restrictive than the General Plan. Comm, Sheldon felt that this is not an error or an oversight. He felt that this was very carefully drafted into the Condominium Ordinance to preclude there being three units on a 40-foot lot, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 5 401 MONTEREY -THREE-UNIT CONDO , CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP tll6379 (Cont.) Chmn. Izant remembered that this wording was not accidental. Comm. Compton stated that he would rather see three quality condos with nine parking spaces on .one lot than four apartment units with eight parking spaces, He felt that to approve the condo project would be in the best interests of density; but he stated that ne is in a quandary because he is not particularly a low-density advocate. He felt that the meaning of density is rather vague. Comm. Sheldon felt that four apartment units could not be built on that lot. Comm. Compton noted that apartment units do not need to have special approval. Comm. Compton felt that it is better to have condo units because owners would be living in them as opposed to apartments having renters. Comm. Peirce disagreed with this observation, stating that many condo units are rented out. Comm. Compton noted that if that were the case, and three condos were rented out, that would still be better than four apartments being rented out. Connn. Peirce noted that the rents would be very high to maintain the condos. Comm. Peirce felt that the layout of the project is odd. He noted that the bottom floor is very conducive to bootlegging, and he noted the single entryway. He stated that for this project to gain his support, a restriction on the number of units would be necessary. Chmn. Izant noted the staff report and the comments by Mr. Negrete, wherein the applicant feels that the mitigating measure of the parking offsets the deficiency in square footage. He noted that the Planning Commission must determine whether that is enough of a mitigating factor to approve the project. Also, the Planning Commission needs to determine whether it is more desirable to approve a three-unit condo project or to have a four-unit apartment building. Chmn. Izant stated that it is necessary to gamble on whether the applicant would build a four-unit building and then try to sell it. He noted that this would be a difficult decision. Comm. Sheldon felt that the mitigating parking space is a real plus. He questioned whether the wording in the ordinance could be such that for future applicants there would be a requirement of providing additional parking space for additional units. Comm, Schulte felt that each time this issue comes up, it will be necessary to go through the process again. Cornn. Schulte also noted concern over the possibility of bootlegging. He also noted that a provision has been made as to this issue in the Resolution under Number 8. Cornn. Compton did not feel that bootlegging would be a problem. Comm. Compton noted concern over opening the door on three-unit developments on 40-foot lots. He noted, though, that this is not a typical 40-foot lot because it is a corner lot. With streets on three sides, there is a potential to look more reasonable as a larger structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 6 401 MONTEREY -THREE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #16379 (Cont,) Comm. Newton stated that the Planning Commission had gone over this issue on several occasions in early 1984. She stated that after much discussion, it was decided to leave Section 9.5.22(3) of the Condominium Ordinance as it was, She stated that this was a deliberate action. Comm. Sheldon also noted concerns over the elevations of this project. He stated that he would tend to vote for this application if substantial changes could be made in regard to the aesthetics, i.e., light, air, energy, and view. He questioned the course of action of the Planning Commission pending review of the modifications which have been suggested. Chmn. Izant stated that one choice would be for the P.C. to vote on the,issue, and if the project failed, the applicant could appeal to the City Council. Another option would be to continue this hearing. Comm. Shapiro felt that the protection of views is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. He further felt that the issue of bootlegging is adequately covered in Number 8 of the Resolution, He further noted that approval of this project will not set a precedent. Comm. Shapiro suggested a straw vote to approve the project, with an added restriction limiting the project to three units; and with modifications in the architectural aesthetics in regard to the view and adjacent property. Chmn, Izant entered a substitute straw vote motion to approve the project with sub­ stantial modifications made to the bulk of the building, particularly on the north side. Comrns. Compton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, and Sheldon all favored approving the project with substantial modifications made to the bulk. Chmn. Izant and Comm, Newton did not favor the straw motion. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Peirce to continue this item until the applicant can return with modifications specifically addressing the issue$ of ceiling height, bulk, etc. Chmn. Izant asked Mr. Negrete whether he wanted this motion to pass or fail. Mr. Negrete stated that the owners and the designer are willing to do modifications in agreement with a continuance. He noted that the main issue for them is that of density, because there would be no sense in modifying the project if they could not get the density. He stated that there would be no problem with a continuance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon Comm. Newton, Chmn. Izant None Chmn. Izant noted that this issue would be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Comm. Sheldon felt that the elevations were not prepared with enough attention to detail. He felt that they should be more detailed, especially in regard to height, bulk, and architectural creativity. He felt that the project should be designed with respect to the neighbors to the north, He~also felt that there should be changes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 7 401 MONTEREY -THREE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #16379 (Cont.) in the elevations of the structures themselves. Comm. Compton agreed with Comm. Sheldon's remarks. He raised the issue of glazing, stating that that needs more clarification. He · said he would like to see some protection of the entry by having some type of break in the wall. He further felt that the height should be reduced, and that the parapet is not necessary. Chmn. Izant directed Mr. Negrete to meet with staff to interpret the feelings ·.expressed by the Planning Commission. 629 11th STREET -TWO-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #16380 Ms. Reardon gave staff report, stating that this project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board on November 15, 1984. The project was granted a Negative Declaration indicating that the project will not have significant adverse environmental impacts. Ms. Reardon stated that the proposed project of two units yields an 18 du/a density which is well within the 14-25 du/a allowed in medium density. The proposed project consists of a two-unit condominium located on a 4794 square foot lot zoned R-2, medium density. Ms. Reardon stated that the proposed development will be replacing the existing single-family house with a two-unit condominium. Each unit will contain a ga-rage and storage area at the ground level; two bedrooms and two baths on the first level, and living room, dining room, kitchen, and deck on the second level. Ms. Reardon stated that the project will conform to the 30 1 height limit and consists of two stories over a garage. The garage is partially below the average grade of the site and therefore does not count as a story. Due to the large amount of storage space provided, the Environmental Review Board recommended that the storage area be restricted to storage use only. The applicant has agreed to include this provision in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Ms. Reardon stated that the project meets all of the Subdivision Map Act Requirements as well as the condominium ordinance requirements. She concluded by stating that it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the two-unit condominium, CUP, and tentative map #16380 located at 629 11th Street. Comm. Newton asked for clarification of the term "partially below grade" as it refers to the garage. Ms. Reardon stated that garages and basements are not counted as stories under certain conditions;, It must be fifty percent below the natural grade to not be counted as a story. Public Hearing opened at 8:43 P.M. Jesse Negrete, 4231 181st Street, Torrance, stated that this project meets all of the codes and regulations of the City. He felt that the project is a welcome addition \.. to the block and to the neighborhood. Public Hearing closed at 8:48 P.M. \ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 8 629 11th STREET -TWO-UNIT CONDO , CUP, AND TENTATIVE }l~P #16380 (Cont.) Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to approve the project as presented. Comm. Sheldon noted that there is a deed restriction on this property limited to two units. This is Number 8 in the Ordinance. Comm, Newton noted that her motion would also include the restriction as recommended by staff. AYES: Connns. Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Comm, Motion by Comm. AYES: Caroms. NOES: None P. ;-;SF.:"t-!T ! None ABSTAIN: Comm. Compton Newton, Newton, Compton seconded by Comm. Schulte ~ to approve P.C. 84-32. Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, ChfTIIl, Izant 926 1st STREET -FIVE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #43848 Ms, Reardon gave staff report, stating that this project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board on November 15, 1984. The project was granted a Negative Declaration indicating that the project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts, Several conditions to the project were suggested at that time and they were further discussed. Ms. Reardon stated that the proposed project consists of a five-unit condo located on a 6778 square-foot lot zoned R-P/high density, Residential developments in R-P zones are permitted subject to the same regulations as provided in R-3 zones (Section 700). The project yields a density of 32 du/a which is within the limits delineated by the high density designation. Ms. Reardon stated that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing single­ family residence with five condo units. Each unit consists of parking at the ground level; two bedrooms and two bathrooms on the first floor; and kitchen, living/dining room, laundry room, half bath, and storage area on the second floor. Ms. Reardon stated that the applicant is providing a large rooftop deck (1720 sq. ft.) as common recreation space. The private recreation space provided meets requirements in that the common space is far in excess of 15 % of the gross square footage of the project and the lot exceeds 5000 sq. ft; hence the private recreation space may be reduced to 100 sq. ft. (Secti6n 9.5~27 (G)). Ms. Reardon stated that the progect meets all of the Subdivision Map Act requirements and the City's condominium ordinance requirements with one exception: the storage provided is located on the second floor, and the condominium ordinance requres that at least half of the storage space must be accessible and contiguous to the ground floor level (Section 9.5-27H). The Environmental Review Board recommended that additional storage space be provided at the garage level in storage spaces that overhang the parking stalls. The applicant has agreed to furnish such space. . , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 9 926 1st STREET -FIVE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #43843 (Cont.) Ms. Reardon stated that it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the five-unit condo, CUP, and tentative map #43848. Comm. Peirce noted that there are to be no garage doors on this project. He asked what the Condominium Ordinance says on this issue, Ms. Reardon stated that if the garage is in the front 50 feet of the lot and is facing the street, garage doors are required. However, the applicant has designed the garage so that access is from the side. The view of the garage is shielded from the street and from neighbors. Comm. Peirce commented on the tandem parking at the project. He thought that the Cordominium Ordinance stated that in order to have tandem parking, it must be a common garage and off of an alley. Ms. Reardon stated that tandem spaces need not be off an alleyway according to the Condo Ordinance. It allows the tandem spaces in a connnon garage, which is defined as a garage having four or more spaces. Comm. Sheldon asked for clarification on what the parking will be. Ms. Reardon stated that the parking area will be covered on three sides. There will be no garage doors. Comm. Sheldon questioned why the zone is designated as R-P and not R-3 or C. Ms. Reardon stated that R-P allows for residential and professional, although she was unable to say what the impetus was for creating that particular zone designation. The R-P zone carries the same restrictions as an R-3 zone. Public Hearing opened at 9:03 P.M. Allen Jukes, 27310 Rainbow Ridge Road, Palos Verdes, addressed the Commission, but there were no questions. Andre Gerzinsky, 916 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the tenants of the building right below the proposed site of the project. He opposed the project because of the lack of air and lack of light which would result from this project. He also noted concern over the parking situation, stating his concerns over exhaust fumes. He further noted the already congested streets in the area. He then presented a petition signed by the people in the building. Mr. Gerzinsky again stated the seriousness of the parking situation in the area, stating the tenants in his building must park on the street or in some cases on the telephone company parking lot. He said that cars have been towed away. Martna Whittle, 916 1st Street, Apartment 4, Hermosa Beach, spoke on behalf of the renters in the City. She stated that she has lived in her apartment for eight years and is very stable. She also noted concern over the issue of car exhaust blowing right into her windows. She noted that the light will be cut off. She felt that the lot in question is too small for the proposed project. Connn. Newton noted the possibility of having roll-up doors on the garages. \ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 10 926 1st STREET -FIVE-UNIT CONDO, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #43848 (Cont.) Mr. Jukes stated that roll-up doors could be installed, but they weren't planned on because then the garage would not be considered a collll!lon garage~ allowing for the tandem parking, Cormn. Peirce commented that the east facade of the building did not have much ornament. Mr. Jukes stated that it is planned to have Victorian-style front and sides on the building. Comm. Compton questioned whether fences are part of the requirements according to the Condominium Ordinance. Ms. Reardon replied in the negative. Mr. Jukes stated that a concrete fence is planned, He also noted that landscaping is planned along the front and back of the project. Ms. Whittle noted that a recreation area is planned for the roof-area of the project. She noted concern over the noise factor, especially from loud music. Public Hearing closed at 9:15 P.M, Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Cormn. Shapiro, to approve the project as is, with the additional -requirement that staff approve the treatment of the facade on the east side of the building, Comm. Compton suggested that something be done in regard to the garage doors. He also felt that a solid concrete block wall might help cut down on the emissions. He suggested that this solid concrete block wall be made a condition of approval. Comm. Peirce, as the maker of the motion, agreed that the condition of the solid concrete block wall be included in the motion. He also stipulated that that land­ scape plan be made subject to approval of the planning departmart. Comm. Shapiro, as the seconder, agreed to the amendments to the motion, Chmn. Izant noted that the proposed project meets all the codes of the City, but he noted that he is not in favor of tandem parking in residential areas. AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn, Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Comzn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to approve P.C. 84-33, with the additional requirements concerning the treatment of facades, block wall, and land­ scaping. AYES: CoIDins. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None (Recess from 9:21 to 9:30 P.M.) ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 WITH C-POTENTIAL TO C-3 Ms. Brayton gave staff report, stating that it is the recommendation of staff that PLANNING COW1ISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 11 ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 WITH C-POTENTIAL TO C-3 (Cont.) the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve a zone change from R-1 with C-Potential to C-3 at 821 2nd Street. She stated that on November 8, 1984, this project was granted a negative declaration by the Environmental Review Board indicating that the project will have no significant adverse impacts. Ms. Brayton said that the subject parcel is 3627.5 square feet in size and is located within an area of Pacific Coast Highway that is designated as "Multi-Use Corridor" by the Land Use Element. The site is zoned R-1 with C-Potential. The present use of the site is a single-family dwelling. The applicant, who is the owner of the adjacent Felder's Body Shop, has resided in the existing single-family dwelling for ten years. Ms. Brayton stated that if the zone change is approved, it is the intent of the applicant to demolish the residential unit and extend the automotive repair facility. The entire area of the site would be paved and used for parking and light maintenance activities, such as sanding. Ms. Brayton stated that the site existing residential uses to the are zoned R-1 with C-Potential. site at the corner of 2nd Street C-3. is bounded on the south by 2nd Street. There are east and north of the project site. These areas Felder's Body Shop is immediately west of the project and Pacific Coast Highway. That property is zoned Ms. Brayton said that the proµosed use is compatible with the existing commercial development to the west. In addition, as indicated in the Precise Plan of Design, the applicant proposes to retain the existing fencing and construct additional fencing along 2nd Street. The adjacent residences to the east are zoned R-1 with C-Potential. Ms. Brayton noted that the project is compatible with the long-range goals of the City to promote a successful commercial corridor. Increased parking is a positive benefit associated with the proposed project. Ms. Brayton stated that the Environmental Review Board made recommendations regarding the proposed use. The first is to examine a reasonable time period to demolish the existing house or to change the existing use to a commercial zone.; the other is at the time the building is removed and is paved with the parking area, then drainage to the storm drain system in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department is suggested. Ms. Brayton stated that it is staff's recommendation to approve the zone change subject to amendments to the Precise Plan of the Design, including: 1. The Precise Plan of Design shall indicate that storm drainage will be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer, 2. That portion of the site proposed as parking area shall be striped in accordance with City standards so that it may be clearly distinguished from the open maintenance area. Ms. Brayton suggested that the Planning Commission establish a time period for removal of the existing residential structure for purposes of amoritizing the non-conforming use that would be created following the change-of-zone, Comm. Compton asked whether the applicant has taken any precautions to insure that the activities of sanding would not spill over into any of the adjoining residential areas. Ms. Brayton stated that the applicant did not state anything. She felt that this issue ,...-.._ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 12 ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 WITH C-POTENTIAL TO C-3 (Cont.) would come under the Nuisance Section of the code. Public Hearing opened at 9:33 P.M. Alonzo Felder, 821 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Planning Commission, He noted that he did not provide for a buffer zone or walls, but he noted that he would be happy to c9mply with any recommendations given by the Planning Commission. He noted that an existing wood fence was there when he purchased his property, but he stated that it does very little to cut down on the noise. Cornin, Compton voiced concerns over dust. Comm. Sheldon asked whether the property owner to the east would have more noise as a result of this demolition.and paving than he currently has. Mr. Felder could not answer that question and he noted that the property owners to the east of him were not present at the hearing. Col!lIIl, Shapiro asked whether the applicant intended to use the property for parking. nr. Felder stated that it is his intention to use the site for parking and sanding, but no heavy body work. He noted that heavy body work is done inside, Comm. Sheldon asked whether the property owner to the east of Mr, Felder was aware of this proposed project. Mr. Felder replied in the affirmative. Gomm. Sheldon asked whether Mr. Felder had spoken to the people to the east of him. Mr. Felder stated that they are renters and had only lived there for three or four weeks. He did not talk to the renters, but he did speak with one of the young people who live there. Comm, Sheldon asked what the height limit was for the wall. Ms. Brayton stated that it was six feet, Comm. Sheldon asked if the height limit could be designated as ten feet. Ms. Reardon felt that that was not a possibility. Comm. Peirce noted that when a C-3 zone change is approved, the owner can do whatever he wants to within the C-3 restrictions. Ms. Brayton noted that there is a precise plan of design. She noted that the code is not definitive on this, but one is held to the precise plan which is submitted. Connn. Sheldon asked whether the site would remain parking even if the property were sold. Ms. Brayton replied in the affirmative, stating that the C-Potential would remain and that the precise plan must accompany it in detail. Comm. Sheldon asked what would happen if the property wer£ sold. He questioned r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 13 ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 1"11TH C-POTENTIAL TO C-3 (Cont.) what a subsequent purchaser would be bound to. Ms. Brayton said that if a new owner wanted to change it, a new precise plan would need to be submitted. Mr. Felder asked what would be necessary if he wanted to build something on this property. Chmn. Izant noted that he would need to go through the proper hearings. Ms. Brayton noted that the precise plan is included as part of the file, noting that this is the purpose of a precise plan. This is to insure compatibility with the Multi-Use Corridor, Chmn. Izant read from the code and noted that the precise plan does run with the land. Ms. Brayton stated that the precise plan accompanies the zone change. Chmn. Izant noted that whatever the Planning Commission decides on the precise plan, that zoning will remain in effect until someone comes in and applies for a new use of the property. Richard Sullivan, 824 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he has lived at that address for seven years, He felt that the zone change as proposed would be a nightmare, noting the horrendous dust situation emanating from Felder's. He noted that there is ·so much noise coming from Felder's that probably 80% of the people living in the vicinity of Felder's are renters. He stated that in the time he has lived there, he has made three to four complaints to the Building Department where people have had to go out and correct the situation at Felder's. Mr. Sullivan noted that his lot looks down onto the Felder property. He noted that the Felder property is a terrible eyesore, and he presented photographs that he had taken of the property in question. He connnented on the very loud noise that comes from Felder's, Mr. Sullivan suggested that the Planning Commission reject the proposed zone change for several reasons: health and safety, horrendous noise, visual effects, and Mr. Felder's disregard for his neighbors and the law. Mr. Sullivan stated that on Mr. Felder's property, there are pa~nt cans and solvents outside. He felt that this may be violating OSHA's rules, noting the potential for explosions. He noted that workers use spray paint cansand the fumes must go up at least ten feet into the air. He also noted that ~he wind factor carries all noise uphill. He also stated that the workers there do not wear masks while painting. Mr. Sullivan also stated that Felder's appears to be a junkyard, with rubble and tires everywhere. Mr. Sullivan suggested that the Commission delve into the public records to see what the history of Felder's really is. Mr. Sullivan noted that Felder's employees do much work outside in that R-1 area. Mr, Sullivan noted that he does not mind the property being C-3 so long as the use is acceptable to the neighborhood and is not a health hazard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 14 ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 WITH C-POTENTIAL TO C-3 (Cont.) Mr. Sullivan stated that he does not object to a concrete fence or parking, if that is what the site would really be used for. He noted that Mr. Felder's idea of light sanding is in reality heavy·, loud grinding and use of air compressors. Comm. Sheldon asked whether Felder's Body Shop was in its present configuration when Mr. Sullivan purchased his home seven years ago. Mr. Sullivan replied in the affirmative, but stated that a fence was present. Mrs. Sullivan stated that when their home was purchased, a house existed there; but it is now just a commercial lot. She noted that their bedroom balcony looks out over the Felder property. Mr. Sullivan statled 'that when his property was purchased, Felder's did exist, but there was a house adjacent to 821 to the west with a fence between the two houses. Now, with that house gone, Mr, Felder can drive cars into his backyard and body shop, which he frequently does. When his house was purchased, Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Felder was not doing body work and painting outside. Mr. Sullivan displayed an aerial photo and pointed out his home in relation to Felder's Body Shop. Mrs. Sullivan again noted the extreme noise problems created by Felder's, and she stated that they do not wish to sell their home because of these problems. She felt that it is very unfair that Felder can do business practically right in the Sullivan's backyard. Eric LaPierre, 906 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he has lived there for nine and a half years, He stated that he objected to Mr. Felder's tearing down this house.· He no·ted his ob_g·ections in regard to noise, grinding, sanding, dust, and cars that might explode. He noted that he has installed double-paned windows in his home to cut down on the noise from Felder's. He noted that the pounding and grinding takes place seven days a week. He noted that before the other house was demolished, work was done indoors at Felder's. He noted that if this house is removed there will be more commercial activity facing 2nd Street than will front P,C.H. Mr. LaPierre felt that it would be unfair to have a commercial structure put on that lot. He felt it would be unfair to the neighbors in the area. He also noted concern over fire dangers. He objected to a building extending up 2nd Street, Comm, Shapiro asked what the success rate has been so far as the complaints are concerned. Mr. LaPierre stated that after a complaint has been made and someone from the City comes out, things quiet down for a few days, and things are back to normal with the noise, etc. Comm. Shapiro felt that Mr, Sullivan and Mr. LaPierre might be acting in an unfair fashion in trying to have the Planning Commission act as a watchdog in this matter. He noted that ·the applicant wants to make this site a parking lot and nothing more. If something else is done to the site, then that would be ·up to another agency. Mr. LaPierre noted his grave concerns over the property being rezoned from residential to commercial. r \.. PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 15 ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 WITH C-POTENTIAL TO C-1 (Cont,) Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Felder wants more than a parking lot; he wants an area to do sanding and grinding, He felt that a Planning Commission decision should be put off until the Health and Safety Department can further look into this matter, John Guerra, 911 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he lives approximately four houses up from the property in question. He noted that there are traffic bottlenecks in the area. He questioned what the traffic problems would be, He further voiced concern over the fume problem, which he felt would only be increased were this project approved. Mr. Felder noted that when he originally purchased his property, it had two houses, one of which he tore down which was commercial property, He noted that all work done on his property has been legal and conformed with the City's codes, He stated that every improvement made on his property had been done with the proper permits. Chmn. Izant asked for the general hours of operation at Felder's. Mr. Felder stated that the busiuess hours are 8:00-5:00 Monday through Friday, but sometimes work is done on Saturdays. He said that the shop is not open on Saturday or Sunday, but sometimes he or his employees work on their own cars on Saturday. He could not give a percentage on the number of Saturdays that he or his employees are doing work on their own cars, though, He stated that on Sundays, there is generally no one there, Comm. Peirce questioned whether Mr. Felder would still want the zone change if the property were to be only for parking and no ;· sanding or any other work. Mr. Felder said the zone change would then be unnecessary. He felt that he would then need only apply for a variance. He noted that he would be willing to just park cars on the lot, but he noted that as the nature of his business is body work, this would include junk cars. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Felder what measures he could take to alleviate the problems brought up in the testimony in regard to noise, paint, fumes, etc. Mr. Felder stated that he is within the law now. He felt that he is conforming to all laws at the present time. He stated that probably nothing could be done to cut down on the noise levels, though. He said that he would be willing to put up a wall, but he did not feel that that would be an adequate buffer. He noted that this site has been an automotive business for 63 years. He stated that one of his reasons for purchasing this property is because it is commercial property. Mr. Felder stressed that he has empathy for his neighbors, bu_t he stated that he needs to make a living. Comm, Compton felt that a solid concrete block wall would help the noise problem. Mr. Felder stated that if he keeps the property, he plans to phase out the auto body business in approximately five years. Comm. Sheldon asked whether it would be grossly unfair to Mr. Felder to restrict all outside noise to 8:00-5:00 Monday through Friday. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 ZONE CHANGE AT 821 2nd STREET FROM R-1 WITH C-POTENTIAL TO C-3 (Cont.) Mr. Felder did not think this was an unfair request. Public Hearing ttoseii a,t 10:35 P.M. Page 16 Comin. Peirce read from the zorni;ng code, Page 494, Section 801, "Limitations on Permitted Uses in C-1, C-2, and C-3 Zones." He felt that Mr. Felder was operating his business in violation of this section of the zoning code. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comin. Newton, to refer this matter to the Building Department for an opinion on whether or not the current use of this property is now legal in that zone. Comm. Peirce further noted that he would like an op1.n1.on on whether or not it is legal to park junk cars in a C-3 zone. He further said that he did not see a precise plan accompanying this application. AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Peirce, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Izant noted that this Public Hearing will be continued at J'.0:,41 P.M. AMENDING COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS IN THE COASTAL ZONE Ms. Brayton gave staff report, stating that the Phase III program of the City of Hermosa Beach LCP is presently pending review by the California Coastal Commission. It is anticipated that the formal review will take place in March or April, 1985. During a preliminary review of the Phase III Implementing Actions by the Coastal Commission staff, it was noted that further diversification of commercial parking requirements would be desirable. She noted that the Phase III document presently states: • New existing development or expansion or intensification of existing commercial facilities shall be permitted only if the applicant on such a project has committed himself/herself to participate in a program which would function to provide parking space on site, in the amount of one space per 250 sq. ft, of commercial area, With respect to restaurants and other uses which generate greater than usual demand for parking, the LCP shall specify: additional mitigation measures such as btcycle parking spaces or additional off-site parking within a convenient distance and the like, Exceptions may be made for small restaurants or other uses that do not operate during peak parking demand periods which would assure that beach parking/access in the commercial area would not be impafted. Such a program shall insure that the number of parking spaces available to beach users after the development is completed is equal to or greater than the number of spaces available prior to the development. • If physical constraints limit the prov1.s1.on of commercial parking spaces on site, the applicant shall commit himself/herself to a program of mitigation for the number of parking spaces not provided, Such a program shall be the payment of in-lieu fees to the Vehicle Parking District (VPD) or its successor agency. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 Page 17 .AMENDING THE COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS FOR THE COASTAL ZONE (Cont.) • Acceptance of in-lieu fees for parking mitigation shall be geared to a threshold limit on the increased parking deficit. This threshold limit shall be established at 100 spaces greater than the existing deficit of 76 spaces in the VPD. Ms. Brayton went on to describe the methodology behind this issue. Comm. Peirce noted that these changes would have a great impact on new businesses and new developments. Ms. Brayton suggested that the Commission would like to first look at the LCP. Comm. Peirce noted that no mention was made in the staff report in regard to the impact of the proposed changes. He suggested that input be gathered in this area. Public Hearing opened at continued at 11:04 P.M. Comm. Shapiro left the meeting at 11:10 P,M. Motion by Comm. Compton to direct staff to prepare a resolution of intention to study this issue and return with possible amendments. Motion died due to lack of a second. Ms. Brayton noted that possible amendments have already been presented to the Planning Commission. If the Connnission is not comfortable with those, then she suggested that the Commission have further discussion on how to modify the possible amendments. Comm, Schulte noted that he would like to see what the impacts would be. Comm. Sheldon felt that Hermosa Beach should have very strict parking requirements. He stated that the parking standards should be scrutini~ed in order to insure adequate parking for all future new buildings, Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Connn. Sheldon, to pass a resolution of intention to hold a public hearing to modify the zoning code and make it compatible with the recommendations of staff in the coastal guidelines. AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Shapiro STAFF ITEMS Ms. Reardon discussed the upcoming Planning Commission schedule, and noted that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be December 18, 1984, followed by a meeting on January 15, 1985, due to the holidays. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to study the Condominium Ordinance as it relates to land area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 4, 1984 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS (Cont.) AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Shapiro Page 18 Jim Rosenberger, 1123 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Planning Commission and referred to a mailing in regard to the hotel issue which he received at his home, He stated that it is totally inappropriate for Planning Commissioners to include their names and official titles in such matters. He noted that he has referred his complaints to the City Council who will take this matter up at their meeting. He felt that for Commissioners to do this is illegal and unethical, and he requested that the Commissioners who have done this should correct this problem and also correct errors made in their statements, Motion to adjourn at 11:25 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 their regularly scheduled meeting of December 4, 1984. Leslie Newton, Secretary Date I I