HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03.20.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1984,
IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Comm. Smith.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Brown.
ROLL CALL
PRESEllT:
ABSENT:
Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker
Chmn. Izant
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director
Comm. Smith was designated to act as Chairman at this meeting of the Planning
Commission.
Comm. Shapiro joined the meeting at 8:02 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve the Planning
Commission minutes of March 6, 1984, with the following addition:
Page 16, Paragraph 9, should read: "Chmn. Smith asked for the exact wording in the
Code that pertains to the 40-day time period. He noted that on this issue, the
40-day limit was long ago exceeded; therefore, consideration at the next meeting where
a full Commission is present would not make the situation any worse."
No objections. So ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
Ms. Sapetto noted that further information had been obtained pertaining to P.C. 84-5.
She suggested holding this issue to the end of the meeting for discussion.
Comm. Newton made reference to P.C. 84-4. She noted that originally there were 11
conditions. There are now 10. She asked for clarification on this issue,
Ms. Sapetto replied that the condition pertaining to the landscaping plan had been
omitted as was the condition pertaining to the final map. She continued that the
Commission had originally received the old set of standard conditions for the approval
of resolutions. One of the items contained was no longer necessary. She felt that
this information was redundant, and it was therefore eliminated.
Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P.C. 84-4.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Smith
None
Comm. Brown
Comm. Shapiro, Chmn. Izant
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that this project consists of a two-unit
condominium on a 2,859 square foot lot zoned R3/high density. The project meets
~ all the Subdivision Map Act requirements as well as the Condominium Ordinance
requirements with the exception of one factor: according to the plans, the project
will be 8% over the allowable lot coverage, The Environmental Review Committee
recommended that the Planning Commission look favorably upon the lot coverage
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 2
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM , CUP, AND PARCEL MAP /116198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
situation because of the following:
1. The Condominium Ordinance contains a provision which restricts building
height in the front half of the lot thereby limiting square footage and
encouraging a spread-out structure; and
2. This property has use of approximately 23 x 30 feet of City property
right-of-way in the front yard.
Currently, the lot is occupied by an older house that is in a deteriorated
condition. This is felt to be the mitigating factor. The existing land
scaping is limited to sand and a few plants. The applicant proposes to
spend $4,000 for landscaping purposes.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the project itself consists of two units: the unit abutting
4th Court has two stories and roof deck over the garages that both units will
utilize; the unit abutting 4th Street has two stories and a roof deck. Both units
contain two bedrooms and a den, two and a half baths, dining and living rooms, as well
as a kitchen and either a family area or nook. She noted that the Commissioners
had been provided with plans to enable them to see the layout,
Ms. Sapetto stated that, based on the merits of the project and the improvement
of the property created by the replacement of a deteriorated house, staff recommends
approval of the project,
Comm. Newton noted that the staff analysis indicates that a two-unit condominium
requires two parking spaces per unit. She noted that the proposal is two units
in tandem per unit. She questioned whether this is permitted.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. She stated that fifty percent of the parking
may be in tandem. Four parking spaces are required. The two spaces in the front
will not"be in tandem, but the two spaces in the rear will be in tandem. This would
constitute fifty percent in tandem.
Comm. Strohecker questioned the logic of this issue. He questioned whether all
tandem spaces are fifty percent tandem.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that there could be a situation where
three or four cars could be in tandem where you would have two cars parking behind
the first.
Chmn. Smith stated that this situation would not be in tandem. In the situation
envisioned here, there would be three cars in a row with two cars trapped. In this
particular case, this is not the situation.
Comm. Newton noted that she was not satisfied as to the parking in general for this
project under the Condominium Ordinance.
Comm. Newton commented on the mitigating factors for this condominium. She noted
that because this property fronts a walk street, it can only go up 25 feet in the
front; therefore, there is a compromise. She stated that something is being lost
by reason of the lot location, She stated that in Section 9.527(e)3 a condominium
) :.n an R-2 zone can only build 125 percent of the lot, or can only be 125 percent of
the square footage of the lot.
Chmn. Smith noted that at the time the public hearing opened, the applicant could
address this question.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 3
TWO-UNI T CONDOMINIUM , CUP , AND PARCEL MAP #161 98 LOC ATED AT 33 4 th CO URT (Cont.)
Comm. Newton noted that, according to the staff report, the only problem with the
proposal is that there is an excess of 8% in the development of the building. She
noted that one of the mitigating factors is that the-•applicant to some extent is
being penalized because the property is located on a walk street, thereby allowing
him to go only 25 feet up in the front. She questioned whether the applicant is
truly being penalized; because under the Condominium Ordinance, they are building
as many square feet as they would be allowed to anyway, which would be 3,574.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the general plan allows for two units on the lot. She
stated that the overriding consideration of this review, or this discretionary
approval, by the Planning Commission is to see whether the project conforms with
what the Commission feels to be the objectives of the land use element, which calls
out for a certain density which is allowed. The zoning allows a certain number of
units. According to the zoning and the general plan designation, the construction
of two condominium units on this site is appropriate, She stated that the Commission
has the ability in the Condominium Ordinance to vary any of those requirements if
it is felt that they do not further the objectives of the general plan.
Ms. Sapetto continued by stating that, because of the restrictive nature of the
Condominium Ordinance, staff is suggesting that those restrictions are not
appropriate because the general plan says that this is high density and that the
zoning is R-3 to implement that,
Ms. Sapetto noted that, if she were following Comm. Newton's line of thinking, only
one unit would be allowed on the R-3 lot.
Comm. Newton agreed with Ms. Sapetto's comments on the zoning and the general plan,
but was concerned with the rationale that says since they can only go up 25 feet
in the front, the Commission should overlook the 8% excess.
Ms. Sapetto replied that it appeared to the staff review committee that this is an
unfair regulation based on the zoning and general plan designation of the lot. In
other words, it restricted through a different mechanism the ability to build to
R-3 or general plan high density use,
Comm. Newton stated that, even if ~this were not a walk street, they are still building
to the maximum that the Condominium Ordinance permits,
Ms. Sapetto stated that if this were not on a walk street, they would be meeting all
of the condominiµm requirements.
Comm. Newton felt that the applicant was not really being penalized with respect to
being on a walk street.
Comm. Brown felt that this is not a mitigating circumstance, He said that being
on a walk street does not mitigate the 8% excess. Anywhere the applicant built,
there would still be the 8% excess.
Comm. Newton noted that the Condominium Ordinance refers to an Improvement Commission
with respect to architectural review.
Ms. Sapetto replied that that wording is incorrect and should be changed. She
suggested adopting a resolution of intention to change that worliing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 4
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
Chmn. Smith noted that when the Improvement Commission was phased out, the Planning
Commission and BZA took over certain functions. He stated that it is within the
purview of the Planning Commission to consider design review.
Ms. Sapetto stated that this is a finding that the Commission must make. This is
noted on Line 18 (h) of the Resolution.
Comm. Strohecker referred to the drawings. He stated that he felt the side elevations
exceed the height limits. He mentioned specifically the portion where the stairway
goes to the roof.
Ms. Sapetto replied that, according to the Building Department, the height limitations
are not being exceeded.
Comm. Strohecker noted that the drawing shows horizontal lines drawn at both 25 feet
and 35 feet. He noted that the stairways go above both limits.
Ms. Sapetto stated that that is because stairways are not included, that there is an
exclusion in the code pertaining to them.
Chmn. Smith asked for clarification of mitigating factor No. 2 which states: "This
property has use of approximately 23 x 30 feet of City property right-of-way in the
front yard."
Ms. Sapetto replied that this is a situation which exists on all walk streets. She
-noted that all of the portions that are fenced off are part of the City right-of-way.
The actual City right-of-way extends beyond the area of the fence, and the City has
granted use permits to allow for this because there has never been an intention on
the part of the City to use those portions and exercise its right-of-way. Walk
streets are the only areas where this condition exists along with certain portions
of the Strand.
Comm. Newton questioned whether this is included in the lot dimensions.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the applicant would be better able to address this question~
Dennis Cleveland, applicant, stated that this area is not included as part of the lot
coverage.
Public Hearing opened at 7:51 P.M.
Dennis Cleveland, 444 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Connnission, He noted
the 25 foot front elevation was the only limitation. He stated that were this to be
a duplex or single-family dwelling or apartment building, he would be allowed to go
to the full 35 feet which is allowed in R-3. This is basically what is being denied.
He stated that this is not a problem as far as the construction of the building. He
felt that the project is very straightforward.
Comm. Newton asked what materials would cover the outside of the building.
, Mr. Cleveland stated that the building would be of contemporary design. The
J exterior is to be blown-on stucco which, from a distance, looks smooth, He stated
that there will be five balconies in the back unit with different overhangs and
end cuts. This will give the project aesthetic beauty. There will also be land
scaping in the front.
PLANNING COMMI~SION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 5
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont,) ,---,
Comm. Newton commented that this project is very similar to one located on Monterey
near Pier Avenue,
Mr. Cleveland stated that the projects are similar. He noted that he did that project
on Monterey near Pier Avenue. The current proposal is similar the the rear unit
of the condo on Monterey. On the current proposal, there are no balconies or cut-ups
on the front unit.
Chmn. Smith asked for the address of the other condo done by the applicant.
Mr. Cleveland replied that it is located at 1430-1431 Bayview at Monterey,
Public Hearing closed at 7:54 P.M.
Motion by Connn. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to accept the recommendation
of staff to accept P.C. Resolution 84-6, two-unit condominium, CUP, and Parcel Map
#16198 locat ed at 33 4th Court.
Comm. Newton felt that the condo will be an improvement over what is currently on
that particular site, but she did note concern over the design of the building, She
felt that this building might look like the project on Monterey, which she feels is
not attractive.
Mr. Cleveland responded by saying that the.reason the building on Monterey was
,------. designed as it was is because of the street being so busy. He noted that the
balconies were put in the rear;-otherwise, it would be far too noisy.
Comm. Brown asked a question pertaining to design review. He asked what the Commission
was doing differently now that was not done in the past when the Commission was not
looking at design reviews.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the Planning Commission has actually been conducting design
reviews for approximately one year, She felt that the best course of action would
be for the Commission to look at the Design Review Ordinance, She stated that the
Commission should look to see whether there is anything in the design that does not
fulfill the objectives of the zoning or the general plan and that the project is
compatible with the environment. She further stated that if the Commission were to
find that the project did not meet these specifications, the project could be denied
on that basis.
Comm. Brown felt that the project is quite unattractive. He noted that the Comm~ssion
had not dealt with the same type of problem before, He felt that the groundrules
had not been discussed for this type of issue,
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission could discuss with the applicant components of
the design that they are not comfortable with. The applicant could be requested to
amend the plan.
Comm. Brown felt that the issue is a matter of taste.
Mr. Cleveland noted that it is difficult to envision the project merely be looking
at the drawings.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the applicant has not called out the materials to be used.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 6
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto noted that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to request
that the applicant return with a list of the materials to be used.
Mr. Cleveland replied that it will be all stucco. He stated that stucco is much more
durable in the beach area. He felt that wood requires too much maintenance.
Ms. Sapetto noted the topic of color. The applicant had not stated the color scheme.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it considered general practice to require that the applicant
call out materials and color scheme.
Mr. Cleveland replied that the exterior will be light sand color. The trim will be
wrought iron and a darker shade of brown. He stated that there will be a single
steel tubing around the balconies. There will be a single tubular railing that goes
around. This will provide definition. There will also be tinted glass ·. windows.
Chmn . Smith stated tha t it wo uld not be a pp ropriate to d ev elop devel opmen t st a n d ar ds
at t his particular t i me in r eg ard to desi gn review. He noted that s pecif ic ques tions
in r egard to the pl an s would b e appropria te . He stated that if the Commi ssio n wou l d
like to further addr e ss the question of t he ir role in t he design rev iew proce ss , t ha t
would better be addressed under Commissioners' Items.
Comm. Newton felt that this suggestion might leave the applicant in an awkward position,
She felt that the project would be beneficial for 4th Court, but she noted concern
over the design of the building.
Chmn. Smith stated that specific objections should be called out.
Comm, Newton stated that it would be difficult to call out specific objections if
the Commissioners are not aware of what the ~esign parameters are.
Mr. Cleveland stated that it is unfortunate that with the elevations, it is not
possible to accurately e nvi si on the project, Granted, the project on Monterey does
have a box front, but so do ma ny other projects that face busy streets. He noted
that windows are usually p l aced so that they face the ocean. This also helps on
the noise problems. He stressed the difficulty in visualizing by use of the
elevations. He stated that the east side is not as attractive as the west side,
because that is where the balconies are located. The balconies are facing the ocean,
as is the standard way to do it. He noted that it is not possible to construct a
pitched roof because they are already at the maximum height allowed.
(At this point in the proceedings, Comm. Shapiro joined the meeting. 8:02 P,M.)
Comm. Newton suggested the use of planter boxes or awnings to make the front of
the building more attractive. She felt tha t there are a number of things that could
be done.
Ms. Sapetto also su gg ested a more exciting use of color to make the facade more
appealing, She sta te d that she could show the applicant trade manuals and other
information pertain in g to the use of colors,
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether it would be appropriate to request that the
applicant provide a three-dimensional color rendering which would show the land
scaping.
Ms. Sapetto replied that this is a very costly request to make, She suggested
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 7
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
that·the applicant be requested to provide color scheme and :more details to be called
out, She felt that it would be appropriate to request more detailed information as
to the colors and materials. She felt that this information could be introduced at
the next meeting.
Mr. Cleveland felt that it is unfair to compare this project to the one on Monterey.
He felt that it sounded as if the Commissioners had already made up their minds that
they did not like the project, He stated that basically everything in the beach area
is quite boxy looking.
the Commissioners
Chmn. Smith reminded/that there is a motion on the floor. He felt that it is not
appropriate to compare this project to other structures in the area, unless :the
Commissioners wished to call out specifics and make any requests of the applicant,
He felt that this action would be more appropriate than just deciding whether or not
the Commission liked or disliked the project,
Comm. Brown questioned the other Commissioners' feelings regarding requesting the
applicant to return with more information as to colors, awnings, etc,
Comm. Soulakis felt that this is a matter of aesthetics. He felt that it would be
inappropriate to ask the applicant to make a definite statement as to the colors
and materials. Even though a request of this nature would be technically appropriate,
he felt that it would not be proper to ask the applicant to make definite statements
as to those issues.
Chmn, Smith noted that colors and materials become part of the specific approval.
Comm. Soulakis noted concern over the topic of aesthetics.
Ms. Sapetto stated that more detailed information concerning the colors and materials
should have been included in the application.
Comm, Newton stated that, even if more detailed information was provided in regard
to color and materials, she would still have trouble with the design of the building.
She felt that it would not be overly costly or unfair to request that the applicant
again meet with the designer to come up with a more attractive facade.
Mr. Cleveland felt that the Commission did not have a clear idea of the project,
He noted the five balconies and the cut-ups. He felt that they give the building
some design. He noted that there are many buildings in the City that appear very
boxy.
Comm. Newton agreed with Mr. Cleveland in that there are many boxy buildings in the
City. She noted that when proposals come up, it is feasible for the Commission to
avoid having more boxes.
Mr. Cleveland stated that, by having five cut-ups on the rear, the boxy effect is
being avoided.
Mr. Cleveland noted that he must provide some appeal for the buyer. He stated
that they want to sell the building, and therefore the building must be appealing.
He noted that appearance is a major consideration.
Comm. Brown again mentioned the possibility of awnings.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 8
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont,)
Mr. Cleveland stated that it is unfortunate, but on the east and west sides, there
are structures. He stated that the only things-that can be seen are the front and
rear elevations. One is an alley, and one is a walk street. He stated that since
this is a walk street, it is a very valuable piece of property. He noted that there
are plans to have a number of SO-gallon plants. He noted that with a contemporary
design, it is difficult to go with a number of different colors. Buildings done
in the contemporary style are usually one color and a darker accent color. He noted
that he did not mind calling out the colors, because those are the colors they plan
to stay with. He felt it was inappropriate that the Commission request planter boxes
on the balconies. This would then require drainage and other problems that they did
not want to deal with at this time.
Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P,M.
Chmn. Smith asked if anyone cared to make a substitute motion. If not, he felt
that the discussion should be confined to either the support or non-support of
the motion already on the floor.
Comm. Shapiro apologized for being late to the meeting.
Chmn. Smith very briefly outlined the issue before the Planning Commission.
Chmn. Smith asked whether any on the Commission would care to request that the maker
of the motion accept amendments to the motion as it stands. He noted that this is
just a possibility. He stated that this might be appropriate if there are to be
other requests incorporated into the motion, either items to be reviewed by staff,
or requests of the applicant.
Motion by Comm. Brown to approve the project with the addition conditioned on the addition
of awnirigs on the-front and rear on the major windows and to specify the color of the
trim on the building on the plans.
Comm. Strohecker stated that, as the seconder of the first motion, he opposed the
motion by Comm. Brown.
Comm. Brown's motion died due to lack of a second.
Motion by Comm. Newton that the matter come back to the Planning Commission with
changes to the facade, front and rear, in ways that the applicant perceives the
Planning Commission would find acceptable after listening to its comments that have
been made here this evening, without specifically stating what Ghanges need to be made.
~omm, Brown asked whether the Conunission should give the motion consideration before
being seconded.
Chmn. Smith stated that that is not necessary because it is a substitute motion,
Comm. Shapiro seconded the motion by Comm. Newton,
Comm, Soulakis questioned whether this motion by Comm. Newton is within the purview
of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Comm. Shapiro questioned whether this motion would hold up the applicant in his
moving forward with the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 9
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that approval of the project would
then be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, which is scheduled
for April 3, 1984.
Comm. Shapiro withdrew his second to Comm. Newton's motion,
Comm, Brown seconded the motion by Comm. Newton.
Connn. Strohecker felt that t h e drawings are slightly mislead ing . He felt that the
building will not look quite as b oxy as it appears in the dr awin gs. He noted that
it is unfortunate that the Commi ssion does not have a three-d imensional view of the
project. He felt that if it were possible to get a better view, Comm. Newton ~ight
not be as opposed to the project.
Comm. Newton stated that she is willing to approve the project with the excess 8%,
but she would feel better if the applicant could provide drawings that ease her
concerns about the building and how it will look on 4th Street.
Mr. Cleveland urged the Commission to again look at the floor plans. He stressed
that by looking at the balcony cut-ups, they could better understand the design
of the building.
Chmn. Smith noted that it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission that the
plans are not sufficiently clear in regards to that aspect. This is one of the
issues being addressed.
Chmn. Smith asked Ms. Sapetto if she could clarify what the Commission should be
looking for, thereby enabling the applicant to work on a more problematic basis.
Comm. Soulakis asked whether the applicant is being asked to restructure or redesign
the front and rear, or whether he is being asked to clarify the front and rear.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the applicant is being requested to redesign the front and
rear.
more
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether this would be/expensive than requiring the applicant
to do a rendering.
Ms . Sapetto re pl i e d t hat a r e n dering only allows one to read the existing plans of
wha t is p or tray ed. She s ta t e d tha t, if t he applicant wishes, he may bring a
r e nde r i n g t o t he next mee t ing . He ma y a lso bring a redesign, and the Commission
cou l d t hen choose at t h e next mee t ing .
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether it is within the purview of the Planning Commission
to consider designs.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that Section 9,5-21 very clearly
points out that this is within the purview of the Planning Commission.
Comm. Shapiro spoke in opposition to the substitute motion. He felt that people
are not willing to throw down money on a box. He felt that the applicant is not
the type of person who would put up a box just to make a quick buck. He stated
that the applicant knows the state of the market, and is aware of the number of
vacant new buildings.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 10
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
Comm. Shapiro stated that he had no problem supporting the original motion.
Comm . Br own noted that what h e wanted was f o r the app l ic ant to g o back to the
Bu Ll d i ng De partment or the Pl ann ing Depar tmen t to wo r k with th em t o mak e a n e ffort
t o imp rov e not necessarily th e s tructure, b u t to d o some thing t o im prov e t he facade.
He s t r ess ed that he is not aski ng for tot a l r edes ign , b ut mere ly f or some imp rovement
to the facade.
(Vote on the substitute motion by Comm. Newton and seconded by Comm. Brown.)
AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Soulakis
NOES: Comms. Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Smith
ABSENT: Comm, Izant
(Vote on the original motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm , Strohecker,)
AYES: Cornms, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Smith
NOES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Soulakis
ABSENT: Comm, Izant
Chmn. Smith noted that since there was a tie vote, the matter can be continued to
the next meeting of the Planning Commission for a full commission vote, or it goes
to the City Council.
Ms. Sapetto stated that a motion is necessary in order to continue this issue to
the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Comm. Brown felt that this issue is one that should be handled by the Planning
Commission.
Motion by Connn, Brown, seconded by Comm. Newton, to continue this issue to the next
meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, 1984.
No objections. So ordered.
Mr. Cleveland noted that there is a new remodel on the Strand between 2nd and 4th
streets which has a bl own-on stucco texture very much like the texture being proposed
for this project. He no ted that he had no objections to doing a rendering, but
they are very expe n sive , in the neighborhood of $750.
Comm. Brown stated that it would have been more helpful if the architect had shaded in
areas of the drawings.
Mr. Cleveland stated that he is somewhat at a loss as to what to tell the architect.
Ms. Sapetto replied that she would be able to give him more clarification on this
issue.
Chmn. Smith suggested to the applicant that he consider the discussion by Comrns. Brown
and Newton pertaining to the facade, awnings, and better design review on the front
and back, and also materials. He suggested that the applicant discuss these areas
'with the Planning Department.
Public Hearing on the two-unit condominium, CUP, and Parcel Map #1.6198 located
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 11
TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16198 LOCATED AT 33 4th COURT (Cont.)
33 4th Court is continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled
for Tuesday, April 3, 1984.
POOP DECK UPDATE
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the antenna is surrounded on the east
and north sides by a six-foot wood fence, This fence screens the platform from view,
but the dish is visible from the north side and to a lesser extent the east side,
Ms . Sa p ett o s t ated that at the p u blic hearing before the Planning Commission, the
applican t i nd i c ated t ha t th e an t enna wou ld be partially screened from the north side;
the a p pl i can t ha s c ompl i e d wit h th at c ommi t ment. She further noted that the Commissioners
h a d b een pr ov i d ed wi t h t h e minut es o f 1 0-8-83 and Resolution P.C. 83-28 that pertain
to this issue.
Comm. Brown questioned what the original purpose was of putting up a six-foot fence.
Ms. Sapetto replied that it was to screen th e antenna from vi ew. Sh e noted that wh en
this was approved there was not a Satellite Antenna Ord ina n ce; ther e fore, the co ndi t i ons
placed by the Planning Commission were basic al ly prel im ina ry to th at ordinance,
She stated that the ordinance is more restri ct ive tha n the c on dition s that were pla c e d
on the applicant by the Planning Commission.
Chmn. Smith noted that -the Commission was not as specific as it needed to be in
relation to what it wanted to have done.
Comm. Soulakis stated that it was his recollection that the reason this issue was
to be brought back to the Planning Commission was because Chmn. Izant had gone
by the Poop Deck and had noticed that the fencing was not in keeping with what the
Commission had approved.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it was her recollection that the antenna could be seen from
the beach,
Comm, Soulakis noted that it was unfortunate the Chmn, Izant was absent from this
meeting,
Chmn. Smith noted that the antenna is very visible as one approaches it from the
east side on the corner of 15th Street and the alley, If one goes straight down
the alley, the antenna is completely visible. He fel t t hat this is no more of an
eyesore than a lot of other things on that particular b uildin g, particularly the
absence of coverage of the g arbage containers and a numb er of other items. He noted
that the antenna does not appear to be visible from t h e front. He stated that by
reading the previous minutes, it s eems ev id ent that the applicant h a s met the
requirements set forth by the Pl annin g Commission. He didn't knm;;r wheth er Chmn, Izant
had any other objections other t h an t h e f ac t that it was not covered ad e quately,
Comm, Newton questioned why the antenna is surrounded only on two sides, those being
the east and north sides, She questioned whether the antenna was to be surrounded.
Ms, Sapetto replied that the resolution did not require that,
Chmn, Smith noted that in the minutes of October 18, 1983, Page 6, Paragraph 1,
the applicant stated that "the antenna will be screened by a surrounding six-foot
fence."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984
POOP DECK UPDATE (Cont.)
Page 12
Comm. Newton questioned whether that would then change the view from the alley.
Chmn. Smith noted that there is a fence; the problem is that the antenna exceeds
the fence.
Comm. Newton questioned whether the screening of the other two sides would change
the view.
Chmn. Smith could not say for certain whether the view would be changed, He stated
that even though a fence is up, it is not screening the antenna.
Comm. Newton made a suggestion for future applicants. She suggested that the
resolution state that the covering be as high as necessary to cover the antenna,
so long as it does not e~ceed the height limit.
ZONE CHANGE AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE FROM C-1 to R-3 DESIGNATION
Ms. Sapetto stated that this item has been continued again because it was not
advertised in the paper; She stated that this is the responsibility of the
applicant, and she does not know why it was not advertised. She stated that a zone
change not only requires mail notification, but also advertisement in the newspaper.
Ms. Sapetto noted that there are several interested parties, She stated that the
issue could be brought up at this meeting and then continued to the next meeting
for action.
Comm. Newton stated that she may have a conflict with this particular issue. She
asked if Ms. Sapetto could discuss this possible conflict with the City Attorney,
Ch1p Post. She stated that approximately a year and a half ago this applicant had
requested a zone variance from the BZA which was granted. She stated that she
represented a friend in this matter but without compensation on the appeal to the
City Council. She noted that the variance was reversed on appeal. She was not
certain whether this would constitute a conflict of interest.
Ms. Sapetto stated that conflict of interest is basically tied to receipt of income.
She did state that she would like to get the City Attorney's opinion on the matter.
Chmn. Smith directed staff to make inquiry to the City Attoney in regard to this
matter and return with some type of opinion at the next meeting.
Comm. Newton questioned whether she should participate in the discussion.
Chmn. Smith felt that it would be appropriate for Comm. Newton to abstain from
participating in the discussion of this issue at this time.
(Comm. Newton left her seat on the Commission during the discussion of this matter.)
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the lot is zoned C-1, although it
has been developed residentially since the initial construction on the lot. Last
year a fire destroyed the existing structure, and the lot is now vacant. Because of
the C-1 zoning law, that unit may not be constructed to a single-family dwelling unit.
Since the applicant desires to build a residential unit, he is now requesting a zone
change.
Ms. Sapetto stated that staff is recommending the zone change be approved for R-2, not
R-3.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 13
ZONE CHANGE AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE FROM C-1 to R-3 DESIGNATION (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto noted that there are several concerns at this point that need to be
addressed. First, this lot is in an area that is designated as medium density in
the General Plan. Traditionally, medium density corresponds with R-2 zoning. While
this is not mandatory, the City has been spending a great deal of time and effort
in an attempt to get the General Plan and zoning code in conformance with one another.
In addition, zoning this lot R-3 could be considered "spot zoning 11 (due to the
General Plan designation) and as such would be illegal.
Ms. Sapetto stated that another consideration is one of neighboring uses. This
property is surrounded by C-1, C-2, R-2, R-3, and even R-1 across Hermosa Avenue.
There is no one predominant use that would set a prec e dent for this zone change. One
could argue that it should agree with the R-2 lot directly east of the lot in question,
Or, an equally firm case can be made for conformance with the R-3 lots directly south
along Hermosa Avenue.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the applicant's main argument for the R-3 zoning is that the
applicant would like to build a three-story dwelling unit and a three-story dwelling
is not allowed in an R-2 zone (although one may build two stories with a loft). The
height limit in an R-2 zone is 30 feet, whereas it is 35 feet in an R-3 zone,
Ms. Sapetto stated that by contrast, the height limit in a C-1 zone is 45 feet; so
either residential zone would create a decrease in the height limit from the current
allowable height limit.
Ms. Sapetto stated that although staff is sympathetic to
General Plan should take precedence in this case, and an
No resolution will be forthcoming at this time, though.
requirements, the decision on this project will need to
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
the applicant's desires, the
R-2 zoning is recommended.
Due to public noticing
be continued to the next
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the zone change requires a specific plan.
Ms. Sapetto replied that that only pertains to the C-Potential.
Comm. Brown asked how many feet could be built in a C-1 zone if there are only
three parking spaces.
Ms. Sapetto replied that he could build 900 square feet.
Comm. Shapiro noted that that means 900 square feet per level.
Comm. Brown questioned whether that would be possible.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it would be possible if he were to provide subterranean
parking and go up three stories to 45 feet and have a mezzanine.
Chmn. Smith noted that in the staff report there is mention of the fact that zoning
this lot R-3 could be considered 11 spot zoning" to the general plan designation
and as such would be illegal. He asked what conclusion that was based on.
Ms. Sapetto stated it was because of the inconsistency in the general plan designation.
Comm. Strohecker questioned whether R-2 zoning would be considered as "spot zoning."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 14
ZONE CHANGE AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE FROM C-1 to R-3 DESIGNATION (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that R-2 would be within the general
plan designation of . the area. It would be compatible with the medium density.
Connn. Brown felt that the general plan designation calls for a C-1 zone. He felt
that if the general plan calls for C-1, then that is what it should be. He felt
that it is inappropriate that something zoned C-1 and in non-conforming use can
burn down, and the owner would then want to rezone it to residential. He felt
that there is no justification in this case for the owner to put two units on the
site,
Ms. Sapetto stated that it would not be possible for him to put in two units, no
matter what the zone designation is.
Comm. Brown felt that it should be zoned R-1 or else just left as C-1, because
subterranean parking is not to be provided due to the size of the lot. He noted
that he is strongly in favor of leaving this property C-1 or rezoning it to R-1.
Comm. Soulakis asked what could be put on an R-1 lot.
Ms. Sapetto replied that he could put in a two-story with 25 foot height, but she
stated that R-2 is more in keeping with the general plan designation.
Chmn. Smith asked in what ways do C-1 and R-1 not conform to the general plan.
Ms. Sapetto replied that C-1 does conform with the general plan designation, but
R-2 would be in conformance with the medium density.
Ms. Sapetto stated that because of the size of the lot, only a single unit can be
built.
Ms. Sapetto noted that unless the general plan is amended, this property could not
be zoned R-3. She stated that it would be more likely that the zoning would be
changed instead of amending the general plan.
Comm. Shapiro noted that in looking at the map that was provided for this project,
he noticed that the zoning seemed to go in rows. There is a row of R-1 and a
row of R-3. He felt that if the Commission were to be consistent with the general
plan, as staff is advocating, that this would appear to be "spot general planning."
Ms, Sapetto stated that there is no such designation as "spot general planning."
Comm. Shapiro felt that changes in the zoning should be made when the general plan
is being checked for inconsistencies, not as buildings burn down~ He felt that the
changes should be done as a whole.
Chmn. Smith pointed out that in many of the areas, R-3 is not compatible with the
general plan. He stated that the only time the general plan would be amended is if
there were overwhelming evidence that there were patterns of inconsistencies in the
city. This would be the compelling factor to change the general plan. He noted
that during his time on the Commission, it has been the practice to try to resolve
the inconsistencies in the general plan.
Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M.
Dave Henrickson, 2540 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, spoke in opposition of the R-3
zone request.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 198l1 Page 15
ZONE CHANGE AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE FROM C-1 TO R-3 DESIGNATION (Cont.)
r Mr. Henrickson stated that his property is R-1, as is the alley. The area in
front of his property is R-3, as is the back. He stated that if this area is
r
to be rezoned to R-3, he would like his property to also be rezoned to R-3. He
noted the inconsistencies in zoning in the area.
Chrnn. Smith stated that Mr. Henrickson could request a zone change.
Mr. Henrickson stated that he will probably request a zone change,
Mr. Henrickson stated that he is very much opposed to this property being rezoned
to R-3. He stated that he would favor a designation to allow for a single family
dwelling. He noted that if the R-3 zoning goes in, he would lose his view.
Chmn. Smith noted the many inconsistencies in zoning. He noted that the City is
currently involved in the revision of the land use element. He stated that this
particular area has been looked at in the meetings, but no decisions have been
made as of this time.
Public Hearing continued at 9:03 P,M. to the Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 1984.
Conun, Soulakis asked whether staff could find out what the height is of the existing
structures in that general vicinity. He noted that, if the roof lines are kept
consistent, that is fairly attractive.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to direct staff to look into
the existing heights .-of R-3 surrounding buildings and the potential long-term age
of them and the likelihood of their changing.
No objections, So ordered.
Comm. Brown questioned the possibility of leaving this a C-1 zone.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the two choices of the Commission, really, are to either
leave it C-1 or rezone it to R-2.
Comm. Soulakis noted concern over the inconsistencies in the general plan,
Ms. Sapetto stated that it is not possible to make a zone change designation based
on a future general plan amendment.
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the Commission could designate this pnoperty R-3.
Ms. Sapetto stated that she felt the Commission had no legal grounds to make that R-3,
Chmn. Smith noted that the application is not for a general plan change; it is for a
zone change.
Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Conun, Soulakis, to direct staff to research
what the legal implications would be were the Commission to grant the zone change
to R-3 and to return with an opinion from the City Attorney.
No objections. So ordered.
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 16
FENCE HEIGHT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR SATELLITE ANTENNA
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. At their regular meeting of January 10, 1984, the
City Council adopted the Satellite Antenna Ordinance. The ordinance requires
satellite antennas to be in conformance with Building, Zoning, and Electrical codes.
The Planning Commission was concerned that discrepencies would arise in the applica
tion of the code because the maximum allowable fence height is six feet. At their
regular meeting of January 17, 1984, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of
Intention to consider amending the zoning code to include a provision for fence
heights as they pertain to satellite antenna (P,C, 84-2),
Ms. Sapetto stated that the major concern that prompted this discussion was that
roof-top antennas would not be adequately screened due to the six-foot height
limitation for fences, However, a fence located on the roof of a building is no
longer considered a fence; it is considered to be part of the structure on which it
is located, As such, the only height limitations imposed upon the structure are the
height limits of the zone in which the building is located, The Satellite Antenna
Ordinance restricts the height of roof-top satellite antennas and their concomitant
structures to the height limits on the zone in which it is located or 20 feet, which
ever is less. Hence, the zoning code does not need to be amended to allow fence
heights to exceed six feet in height for screening of roof-top satellite antenna.
Ms. Sapetto stated that most satellite antenna will be placed on roof tops to better
receive satellite signals. However, some antennas will be placed in backyards.
Staff does not feel that ground-level fence heights should be allowed to exceed the
six-foot limit. Not only might this set an undesirable precedent, but also it is
.questionable that a ten-foot fence is any less unsightly than the top of a satellite
antenna. If this were allowed, fences on all sides of the property would be allowed
to exceed six feet, Visual clearance will be unduly impaired by an excessively high
fence. Staff does not feel that this was the intent of the Satellite Antenna Ordinance
and recommends that a motion be made to leave . the Wall or Fence Be Maintained section
of the zoning code (Section 1215) as it now exists,
Comm. Brown noted that Section 3.2 mentions the satellite antennas should be designed
so as to reduce visual impact, He noted that it mentions nothing about completely
obliterating them from view, He questioned whether this would have any problems,
Public Hearing opened at 9:20 P.M.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that they shouldn't be taking up
open space. She felt that this issue had already been discussed and decided. She
felt that the only issue should be that of the screening of the roof.
Public Hearing closed at 9:22 P.M.
Chrnn. Smith noted that the code says that the satellite antenna shall be screened
from passersby at ground level. He felt that that is analogous with what the ordi
nance is trying to effect,
Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Brown, to leave the Wall or Fence
May Be Maintained Section of the zoning code as it now exists.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comrns. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Smith
None
Comm. Izant
Recess from 9:25 P.M. to 9:34 P.M.
PLA...~NING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 17
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report, She noted that what staff is now suggesting is
that the Planning Commission take action on this issue. She noted that at the
previous meeting, it was recommended to hold the matter over until a decision
had been made as to the future of the multi-use corridor and the land use element.
She stated that this is still an option. She noted that the Planning Commission
can recommend to the City Council that nothing be done at this time and leave things
as they now stand until the Commission has had an opportunity to examine the
multi-use corridor and the land use element.
Ms. Sapetto noted that staff is suggesting, as a way to resolve the issue, the
deletion of the specific plan requirement of converting as a requirement of con
verting residential property, or C-Potential property, to the C-Potential property
and implement development standards which have been tailored to complement commercial
abutting residential and would apply only to those C-Potential properties as a
floating zone.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners had each received an environmental PEIR
describing the effects of implementing these standards. She stated that, if the
Commission were to ·take act'ion on this issue at this time, the Commission would
then need to recommend to the City Council to delete the specific plan. Also a
determination would need to be made on the environmental review report, in effect
stating that this project creates no significant impacts. A negative declaration
would then be filed,
Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners had requested infonnation as to other
cities and their development standards. She noted that information on four
different cities had been -included, those being Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach,
El Segundo, and Laguna Beach, as well as Hermosa Beach.
Ms. Sapetto noted that Hermosa Beach's proposed floating zone is not as restrictive
as El Segundo's height restriction or Redondo Beach's rear and side yard setback .
provisions. She further stated that it is felt that in staff's opinion there is
merit in deleting the specific plan requirement and adopting special standards.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission had also requested information with regard
to the difference between the existing development standards for C-3 and for the
C-Potential for .the floating zone. She stated that staff is recommending that these
standards be changed for those commercial zones that abut residential, and that they
should be more amenable to the residential that it abuts. Therefore, it is being
suggested that where commercial abuts residential, a height of 35 feet should be
allowed; but it could go to 45 feet at the part of a corrnnercial structure that does
not abut the residential zone. The proposed lot coverage would be minus setbacks.
Where the commercial stru~ture abuts only commercial usage, none is required except
for three feet on an alley. Where the commercial structure abuts a residential
zone, a setback of at least five feet is required.
Ms. Sapetto continued by stating that with respect to parking, no tandem parking
is to be allowed, Or, tandem parking could be allowed in a ratio of no more than
50% trapped or untrapped sp~rces, those trapped spaces being assigned to occupants
of the structure. Tandem·pa~king would be allowed in the case where the minimum
parking requirements are already met.
Shapiro
Comm. /asked for clarification on the matter of trapped and untrapped parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 18
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont,)
Ms. Sapetto stated that those vehicles which have other vehicles parked behind
them and therefore not allowing them to get out, are considered to be trapped.
Comm. Newton stated that she did not receive the information containing the
comparisons with the other cities.
Ms. Sapetto noted that that information was distributed at a previous meeting.
Chmn. Smith requested, for the benefit of the public, that Ms. Sapetto briefly
outline the C-Potential properties and where they are located, He then requested
that she give the comparative standards.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the C-Potential properties are those residential properties
along the multi-use corridor that abut commercial property.
Chrnn. Smith questioned what the owner of a C-Potential piece of property must do
in order to develop that piece of property.
Ms. Sapetto replied that tbe.-owner must submit to the City a specific plan for
what they are going to devel op ; and then that specific plan then becomes the
zone change so that they can g et their property rezoned to C-3 which allows for
the 45-foot height limit. On e hundred percent lot coverage, however, by virtue
of a speci fic plan, make s t he conversion a discretionary action. Therefore, the
Planning Comm ission can imp ose conditions on the specific plan which they feel
would be n ece ssary to ameli orate or mitigate residential usage abutting commercial.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the~e had been concern over the C-3 properties by virtue
of the project. The City Council had asked whether it would be possible to delete
that; and, if so, how it should be done; and is it, in fact, a good idea to delete
it.
Ms. Sapetto stated that if the Commission wished to delete that portion, they might
wish to consider different development standards for those zones which they feel
would make the conversion of that property still a discretionary action; but this
would still lay out specific standards for development.
Comm, Strohecker asked, with these development standards, what discretion the
Planning Commission has.
Ms. Sapetto stated that a zone change must still be requested.
Comm. Strohecker asked a question in regard to height. Where commercial abuts
residential property, it has been suggested that the height be limited to 35 feet.
He questioned how far the 35 feet would extend and whether it would be discretionary
Ms. Sapetto replied that the height would depend on the slope. The topography
plays an important role in this determination.
Comm. Strohecker noted that if the slope were not critical or extremely pronounced,
then, in effect, they could 'build up to a horizontal.
Comm. Newton noted that som~ buildings would require terracing.
Ms. Sapetto stated that terracing is a design option and is not mandatory.
PLANNING COMlUSSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 19
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.)
the
Comm. Strohecker referred to the drawing on/blackboard. He noted that it would
not be feasible to have a straight line to 45 feet on the high side.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission and already discussed this and had
decided they wanted to maintain the 35-foot height limit on the west side of the
highway.
Comm, Strohecker stated that that is true, but he questioned how far the 35 feet would
have to extend from the residential property.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the area would be sloped, not terraced,
Comm, Newton questioned whether this would pose problems for the designer,
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, She stated that she could get some recommendations
from the Building Department if there were concerns over the 45 feet,
Comm, Brown noted that the Building Department has a way of figuring the grade level
and figuring whether it is existing grade level or natural grade level,
Comm. Brown stated that if one takes the four corners of a lot on a sloping lot
which is legitimate, and one ·goes for the 45-foot height, then one would actually
get a longer building than . if one starts at 35 feet on the finished grade, In
other words, the 35-foot level on the street side would need to be determined, He
questioned whether it would start at the 35-foot maximum height limit by using the
finished grade or the existing grade,
Ms. Sapetto stated that it would be figured from the existing grade, She noted
that there is an interpretation on file on this issue, She stated that it is
difficult to determine the natural grade because of the amount of the filling.
Therefore, it states that the existing grade is that grade which is the grade of
the street from the sidewalk, the street, or maybe across the street. In other
words, the existing grade may be determined by looking at other surrounding areas.
Comm. Brown questioned whether it would be the actual configuration of the lot itself.
Ms, Sapetto replied in the negative.
Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to see wording to the effect that the
45-height limit is only at that point on the highway and it follows a straight line,
or not to exceed a line drawn from that to the 35-foot limit and the rear.
Ms. Sapetto stated that that would be a good idea,; but what is needed is another
drawing and another explanation for the other side of the highway.
Comm. Newton questioned whether a building would ever be 45 feet at the highway,
Ms. Sapetto stated that that is a possibility, if it were terraced.
Comm. Newton questioned whether there would need to be a drop-off.
Ms. Sapetto replied that th~re could be a drop-off.
Chmn. Smith noted that staff could be directed to work on the language, or motions
could be amended, He noted that there are also other possibilities.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 20
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.)
Comm. Brown noted that he had requested the information on how Laguna Beach figur e d
the differences in grade. He noted that they had very elaborate guidelines. He
noted that he requested this information from Mr. Mercado some time ago.
Ms . Sapetto stated that the guidelines in Laguna Beach are more restrictive than
in Hermosa Beach. She noted that their highway commercial abuts residential, The
height of the building is determined by the · amount of setback, so there is a ratio.
Comm, Brown felt that, even though this method is more complicated, it might be more
fair.
Comm. Strohecker noted that the Commission had requested Mr. Mercado to provide some
worst-case examples of different buildings and how this particular document would
affect the particular lot in a hypothetical situation in Hermosa Beach, The
Commis·sioners were particularly interested in cases on the highway.
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether staff could provide, through the Building Department,
some recommendations as to a terraced setback.
Ms. Sapetto questioned whethe,r Comm. Soulakis wanted a variety of ways that a
building could be designed in this situation.
Comm. Soulakis noted that the highway slope is, generally speaking, fairly flat on
the west side.
Ms. Sapetto noted that there is somewhat of a slope.
Comm. Soulakis stated that knowing the depths of the lots and the setbacks would
better enable one to determine the slope or the pitch of the roof, He felt that
maybe the Building Department could come back with some type of a recommendation.
Ms. Sapetto replied that there would be a problem with the lot sizes.
Comm. Brown stated that the information he requested showing the guidelines in
figuring grade might be helpful in this case.
Comm. Strohecker noted that the discussion has related so far just to properties
that boarder on Pacific Coast Highway. He ques tioned whether C-Potential properties
could sometimes extend in back of existing co mmercial properties. He questioned
whether this would be an entirely different matter,
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that one would then not have to worry
about the 45 feet abutting commercial structures. She stated that this would make
no difference.
Comm. Soulakis questioned what happens ,to those properties that abut residential to
the north and south. He questioned how the 35-foot limit would apply there,
Ms. Sapetto replied that this could not take place,
Comm, Shapiro noted that it might be possible if the property were wide enough and
long enough and someone were right next to you.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the question would then become whether it is abutting
C-Potential property; if so, the 35-foot limit should apply, not th e 45-foot limit.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 21
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.)
Comm. Shapiro questioned whether there is a problem with putting walls between
residential and conunercial.
Ms. Sapetto stated that walls can be put between commercial and residential. She
questioned whether Comm. Shapiro's qu~stion was in relation to setbacks,
Chmn. Smith stated that it is being suggested to have setbacks in the floating
zone; there are none in commercial as it now exists. He felt that there is no
reason why this issue cannot be addressed,
Chmn. Smith commented on the situation in the north/south application where commercial
abuts residential. The Planning Commission will need to determine a definition as
to what a residential rezoned C-Potential property is to be t~eated as in that
situation.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it will be necessary to look at the maps and see where
these instances occur.
Chmn. Smith questioned the ·_ topic of commercial abutting residential. He asked
whether it means existing use or zoning or both.
Ms. Sapetto replied that it is zoning.
Public Hearing opened at 10:05 P,M,
Wilma Burtlll52 7th Street, Herm osa Beach, addr es sed tbe Commission. She st a ted that
two things have concerned her f or a long time. On th e e a st s i de o f t h e h ighway, most
of the hills slope up. She st a ted that she is appall ed a t wha t h a ppen ed to Betty
Brown's house when it was permitted to go to th e lot li n e . She f el t t h a t this should
be prevented. She noted that Ralph Casteneda presented a very good plan of cutting
back on the east side because of the slope of the hill. She noted that this has been
a controversy ever since they wanted to redevelop the highway.
Mrs. Burt f elt that th e problem is n o t being addressed in the a pp ropriate way.
She stated t ha t a town must have c omm ercial, but the town also ne eds peop le to buy
from that comme rcial a r e a , She st ate d that if we extend too muc h east of t h e high
way, it will be extended into basically a residential area. She felt that this area
needs to be protected,
Mrs. Burt felt that one should not be permitted to cover the entire lot without
s h oring up for the houses t h at are g o in g to be undercut, She felt that the case
of Bet ty Brown 's house is a pr ime example of the danger on the east side o f the
hi ghway. Sh e stated tha t. most of the land on the west side is comparativ e ly
level for th e 300 feet th a t wa s pr op os e d.
Mrs. Burt felt that when one is talking about the floating zone, it needs to be
identified what is going to be called commercial, particularly on the east side.
She noted the steepness in many of the streets.
Mrs. Burt also felt that standards .. wi!ll:,be necessary if total lot coverage is to
be allowed. This would prevent the land from sliding out from under someone's house,
She stressed the importance.of these standards for Hermosa Beach.
Mrs. Burt stressed that she is not opposed to development, but she is opposed to
development at the expense of the citizen who has the property next to it.
(--·-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 22
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.)
Public Hearing continued at 10:10 P.M. to the next meeting of the Planning Commission
scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, 1984.
Comm. Soulakis noted that he would like to see a sliding scale on the setbacks depending
on the lot depth.
Ms. Sapetto noted that Laguna Beach does that,
Chmn. Smith noted that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the issue
of the 40-day limit was discussed, He noted that he had made the statement that
the 40-day response time had already been exceeded by quite some time; therefore,
he felt that it was not significant. At the other end, he felt that something
should be done even if it is only to pass a motion of no change so that the Commission
may continue to study the issue so that it can be wrapped up with the City Council.
He felt that the issue could not be held over indefinitely , because the Planning
Co mm ission should honor the request of the City Council to adopt a resolution of
int e ntion to look at this issue. He felt that the Commission is required to do this ,
within a certain period of time. He noted that there have been scheduling problems
and informational problems .th~reby making it impossible for the Commission to respond
within the 40-day period.
Chmn. Smith suggested that a motion could be made in regard to the floating zone.
Another option would be to .do nothing and continue to -ask . questions. A third
option would be to carry the issue over to the next meeting, with the idea that
the answers to the questions would,.·provide the Commission T,dth enough information
to make a decision.
Comm. Soulakis questioned the possibility of using a sliding scale, as far as the
floating zone is concerned, for the depth of the property. He felt that something
of this nature would help to mitigate some of the impact to residential.
Comm. Newton noted that she would very much like to hear the City Attorney's opinion
as to whether or not he feels that something should be included in the ordinance
imposing a duty on the developer to provide lateral support to adjoining property.
Ms. Sapetto stated that if that were a concern, the Building Department could describe
what happened at Betty Brown's house. She suspected that in that case, resolutions
were not followed. She thought that the project had been stopped because of that.
She noted that this was in direct violation on the part of the contractor, and noted
that that had nothing to do with the zoning ordinance.
Comm. Newton noted that these problems are covered by case law,
Comm. Brown noted that there are very specific guidelines which developers must
follow.
Ms. Sapetto noted that she would provide a status report on the situation that
occurr.eci at Betty Brown's.
Chmn. Smith noted
concerned with is
can be minimized.
if anything.
Mrs. Burt ''s concerns. He felt that something everyone should be
the issue of the impact of the floating zone and how the impact
He also guestioned what the City should have done in this case,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUrES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 23
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont .. )
Ms. Sapetto noted that the floating zone regulates even further what the existing
zone is; therefore, she felt that this is not a problem. She felt that it is a
mitigation to the problem because setbacks will now be required where none are now
required. She noted that she could obtain an opinion from the Building Director
as to the concerns of the Commission.
Chmn. Smith noted that each individual project would be different. He noted that
the Building Department might be called on to advise the Planning Commission as
to what measures are currently taken in regards to projects of this type. Also,
the Commission would need advice as to whether or not there are mitigating measures
that can be added in the consideration of this floating zone. Personally, he
felt that the virtues of a precise plan are where these issues can be addressed.
Ms. Sapetto noted that if the Commission wants a specific plan as opposed to this
development standard, the Commission can decide not to change it.
Chmn. Smith noted that that would be a possibility.
Comm. Shapiro noted that he -_\yould like to find out from the Building Department
what requirements are necess~ry when shoring up is needed.
Comm. Newton noted that the sense of the City seems to be to promote c omme rcial
development. She questioned what the problem would be with requiring a sp ecific
plan.
Ms, Sapetto noted that people will always protest when there is a zone change,
The concern of the City Council was whether or not they were discouraging people.
from applying.
Comm. Newton questioned whether there would be any problem with having a precise
plan but also having a floating zone that states, some of these things.
Ms. Sapetto noted that conditions could be added. This could state that the precise
plan shall include mitigation measures. It could also address the commercial
structure uses, These are just some of the possibilities,
Comm, Newton felt that these added guidelines would be quite beneficial.
Comm, Strohecker noted that he would like to see the precise plan stay, but he
would like further definitions to be used as guidelines, He felt that the only
problem is that of the developer's standpoint, He questioned the benefit of a
developer spending money on plans and drawings that are at best questionable, and
then not knowing whether they will be approved or not,
Comm. Brown noted the difficulties of going to the Building Department with
vague plans.
Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to keep the precise plan as discretionary
as possible because of the site-by-site basis. He did not want the Commission to
act arbitrarily in these matters.
Ms. Sapetto felt that this is a very appropriate alternative to pursue.
Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to see very definite guidelines, but
within parameters.
r
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984 Page 24
SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C-POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.)
Chmn. Smith questioned whether it is possible to be consistent.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. She noted that she could return with some
guidelines.
CoTIIIIl, Strohecker felt that guidel in es might be helpful. He felt that for the moment
it might be better to make no change on this. He felt that further study is necessary
to come up with adequate guideline s .
Ms. Sapetto noted that the interpretation of the lfO-d ay limit was made by Mr. Mercado.
She noted that in re-reading the code, she interpreted it to mean that it was not
necessary to make a f in ding until 40 days after the public hearing. Since the public
hearing has been continued, she felt tha t there is not a problem, because they are
not dealing with a private project. Sh e not ed that there is no time frame for the
Commission to make their f inding; ther ef or e , she noted that she would like to amend
the previous recommendation.
Chmn. Smith requested guidance on the issue of flexibility. As an example, he
specifically mentioned height.
Comm. Brown stated that he would like to see the document prepared by Laguna Beach,
Ms. Sapetto noted that that .. document covers development standards as opposed to
guidelines on a zone change. She noted that she would like to see in the specific
plan mitigation measures for those areas where commercial will abut residential
building. She noted that she would like to see reduced height in that portion of
the building. She noted, t;hough, that it might be necessary to obtain the City
Attorney's opinion in regard to the height.
Ms. Sapetto noted that it would not be possible for her to have this inf.ormation
ready in time for the next meeting. She requested that this issue be continued to
the second meeting in April.
Chmn. Smith so ordered that this issue be continued to the second Planning Commission
meeting in April.
STAFF ITEMS
Ms. Sapetto outlined the tentative agenda for the next meeting of the Planning
CoTI1IUission.
Ms. Sapetto explained to the Commission the process of advertising the pub lic
hearings in the newspaper. She stated that items to be noticed in the newspaper
need to be in several weeks before the actual hearing due to deaalines of the
newspapers.
Ms. Sapetto discussed P.C. 84-5, the resolution of intention to amend the condominium
ordinance. She noted that she had obtained further information from the Building
Director in regard to this resolution. The Building Director felt that it is
necessary that the Planning Commission also look at Section (3) of this ordinance.
which refers to development on R-3 lots. She noted that a full staff report would
be presented in regard to t~is issue and its impacts.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the resolution should now read: "A resolution of intention
by the Planning Commission .of Hermosa Beach to consider amending Section 9,5-22
(2) and (3) of the Condominium Ordinance to be consistent with the City's General Plan."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 1984
STAFF ITEMS (Cont.)
Page 25
Comm. Newton suggested adding wording to the effect that the number of units to
be allowed shall be consistent with the general plan and shall be compatible with
the surrounding area, She noted that this is mentioned in Section (2) but not in
Section (3). She felt that this should be noted in (3).
No objections. So ordered.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Comm. Soulakis noted that at the last meeting he requested the workshop information
on the EIR relative to the School District proposal. He noted that he would like
to see the comments and responses.
Ms. Sapetto noted that, since the item was withdrawn, the final EIR was not made
complete with the responses.
Chmn. Smith mentioned Pier Avenue between Valley and Monterey. When it was repaved,
a double double yellow line was painted on Pier Avenue. He felt that maybe this
is an issue staff would wish: _to raise with Charlie Clat.k. He noted that with vans
parking on Pier Avenue where ,it curves, it creates a very dangerous condition,
Chmn, Smith raised the issue of the design review function of the Planning Commission.
He noted that one of the reasonshe voted against the substitute motion tonight and
for the original motion was because he felt that the Commission is not cognizant of
its design review functions. He felt that development standards are necessary to
avoid this problem in the future. He felt that maybe a workshop might be in order
to address this issue of design review.
Ms. Sapetto noted that she would compile the design review ordinance material and
make it available to the Commissioners. She felt that a workshop is in order on
this issue.
Comm. Brown noted that his term will be expiring in June of this year. He questioned
what the procedure is to get another four-year term.
Ms. Sapetto replied that a letter must be written to the City Clerk :which then goes
to the City Council for review for consideration,
Motion by Comm, Brown to adjourn at 10:57 P.M.
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 March 20, 1984,
Date