Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04.03.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON Tu es d ay , Ap ril J , 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Chmn. Izant, Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Shapiro. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Smith ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Kim Reardon Crites, Planning Intern APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve the Planning Connnission minutes of March 20, 1984. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION P.C. 84-5 Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P.C. 84-5. AYES: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Smith HOTEL PROPOSAL, EIR, LCP AMENDMENT, VARIANCE Chmn. Izant noted that this issue would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 12, 1984. OFF-STREET PARKING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -CURB CUTS Chmn. Izant noted that this issue would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 12, 1984. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 TO R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE Comm. Newton noted her possible conflict with this issue. She stated that she had represented, without compensation, a friend in this action. Even though the City Attorney felt that this did not create an actual conflict, Comm. Newton felt that in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, it would be in the best interest for her to abstain from participating in the discussion of this item. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She,noted that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commissioners requested information concerning the nature of the development that surrounds this property. She felt that slides would be the best method of depicting the surrounding area. Ms. Sapetto showed slides of the area. The first slide depicted the project site, which is a vacant lot abutting commercial use. Slide #2 depicted a view across the street from the site and included the view of some multi-family uses. Another slide depicted the view loo.king north. The next slide showed the view looking west, towards the beach. Slides were presented showing the views to the southwest and northwest. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3 , 1984 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission had also requested information concerning the explicitness · of the state law which requires that the zoning designation be consistent with the general plan. The City Attorney felt that the state law is very explicit in stating that the general plan guides zoning decisions. She further noted that the R-2 zoning is consistent with the general plan. She stated that the 25 du/a is consistent with the zoning. Therefore, the R-2 designation and 25 du/a would be consistent with the general plan, but R-3 zoning would not because R-3 allows for a inaxiinum ,cif 45 du/a. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Attorney has stated that wherever the zone designa­ tion allows for density of development higher than general plan designation, that plan is inconsistent with the general plan. Ms. Sapetto noted that staff's recommendation to the Commission at the last meeting was to allow the zone change to a residential zone, but to make the change to an R-2 designation instead of the R-3 that the applicant had requested. Ms. Sapetto noted that the lot is currently zoned C-1, although in the general plan it is nebulous as to where the N designation begins and ends. She noted that a precedent had been set in the past in the 2nd Street area where the N designation was as nebulous as it is in this issue. In that case, the Commission acted to rezone to residential. Comm. Shapiro asked why the lot east of the applicant's lot came to be zoned R-2. Ms. Sapetto replied that the subdivision practices in the zoning map pre-date the general plan. She suspected that the zoning in that surrounding area is indicative of that. She noted that just about every zone is now in that neighborhood. Comm. Shapiro noted that the reason for his asking that question was to determine whether there is some consistency is zoning the site R-2, if that is the route to be taken. He stated that if the C-1 and the R-2 were all C-1 at one time and it was changed to R-2 for the same rationale being used here, he would tend to agree with staff that R-2 would be an appropriate use for this applicant's property. Ms. Sapetto noted that R-2 zoning is consistent with the general plan designation. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether this property was previously designated as C-1. know Ms. Sapetto did not/the prior designation. She felt that it is very important to remember that if this property is to be rezoned, it must be consistent with the general plan; therefore, the only zones that would be acceptable are the C-1 or R-2 designation. Chmn. Izant asked for the lot size, Ms. Sapetto stated that the lot is 1,934 square feet. of the zone designation, only one unit could be built size of the lot. In order for two units to be put on must be 2,400 square feet, as is true for an R-3 lot. She noted that, ~regard;l..ess on this site because of the a lot in an R-2 zone, the lot Chmn. Izant asked for clarification on the 2,400 square feet. Ms. Sapetto stated that the zoning code allows for development of two units on an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3, 1984 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) R-2 lot if there is a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether it is realistic to believe that in order to make the zoning consistent with the general plan, that those properties :would all need to be down zoned. Ms. Sapetto stated that this has been attempted in the past, and it has not been done. The last attempt was to establish what is known as an overlay zone to reduce the height limit but not the density of the development in the area; however, this was repealed by the City Council. Ms. Sapetto stated that the new effort is now concentrating on the general plan and trying to determine whether the general plan should be changed or the zoning. She noted that they have not come to that portion of the land use element as yet, but they will. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the difference between R-2 and R-3 relative to this lot is the 30 feet versus the 35 feet. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the applicant could build a two-story home with a loft within the R-2 designation. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Soulakis asked for clarification of a loft. Ms. Sapetto replied that a loft is a story within a home. It is usually implemented with high ceiling heights. Rather than one having an eight-foot ceiling, perhaps there would be a sixteen-foot ceiling. A portion of that area would abut into this ceiling height, and this would be considered a loft, It would be less than fifty percent of the floor area. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the open space must be at least fifty percent. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that the height limit is thirty feet. Comm. Soulakis noted that the applicant could have only two stories in an R-2 zone with or without a loft. He questioned whether the applicant would be able to build an adequate home within the limitations of the R-2 designation. Ms. Sapetto noted that it is staffs' interpretation that an R-3 designation would be inconsistent with the City's general plan. Comm. Soulakis concurred with Ms. Sapetto, but noted concern over the inconsistencies between the.::general plan and · zoning. He felt that to leave the lot C-1 would be virtually useless to the owner, and to rezone it to R-2 would allow for a very small structure. Ms. Sapetto noted that it is the feeling of the Planning Department that the R-2 designation would allow for thirty feet and two stories, which is considered to be reasonable. Comm. Shapiro noted that with a 65% lot coverage of 1,900 square feet, the applicant could have 1,200 feet for each floor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3. 1984 Page 4 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. Cathy Anderson, 1003 Broadway, Santa Monica, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Niger. Ms. Anderson noted that she would like to address several questions to the Commission. She noted that she had concerns over the questions relative to the number of stories that could be developed other than the difference between the 30-foot height limit and the 35-foot height limit. She questioned whether three stories would be allowed only in an R-3 designation. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Ms. Anderson questioned whether the loft could only be a certain percentage of the floor area. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Ms. Anderson questioned th ~· outcome were the lot to remain C-1. She felt that up to four units could be permitted on the site. Ms. Sapetto noted that in this case there is a minimum lot size. She stated that R-3 development standards indicate a minimum lot size. Ms. Anderson stated that there are many substandard lots in the City. Ms. Sapetto noted that -these are all over 2,400 square feet. Ms. Anderson stated that approximately one year ago, Mr. Niger's house burned down due to a fire that originated in the commercial building located next door. The reason his house burned down was because the commercial building was built without a setback. The h6me , was just under 1,000 square feet. Since the time of the fire, he has been attempting to rebuild his home. Ms. Anderson stated that, in going through the plans and on a preliminary basis, it became apparent that the three-story aspect was going to be very important in this situation because of the limited lot size and with a 65% lot coverage and in keeping within the setback requirements and the requirements for an enclosed two-car garage. She noted that the preliminary plans at this point are for a house of only 1,600 square feet. He is planning a three-bedroom home. Ms. Anderson suggested that the Commission might like to have a continuance on the matter to further study the plans. She stated that Mr. Niger. is planning only a modest home. She stated that there is no reason to insist upon the R-3 designation if the home could be built within the R-2 limitations. She stated that it is Mr. Niger's contention that the project cannot be done in an R-2 zone. Ms. Anderson noted that in looking at the parcel map, it is obvious that there ~re a number of different zones in this area. She noted that she did understand the concerns over the conflict with the general plan and agreed that something should be done about these inconsistencies. Ms. Anderson felt that a compromise could be reached on this issue. She proposed a deed restriction that would restrict Mr. Niger's lot to a single-family use only. By doing this, he will have the R-3 designation which would give him the standards needed to build an adequate home. By putting on the deed restriction, it gives the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL J, 1984 Page 5 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) City the legal reduction in density that would be required to keep the consistencies between the general plan and zoning. She noted that the general plan requires certain densities, but the general plan doesn't talk about building requirements, heights, and setbacks per se. By doing this, it would provide for a zone that would give Mr. Niger the parameters necessary for building his home, but it would also provide the City with this restriction, She felt that this could be something that the City Attorney, Chip Post, might care to look at. She felt that possibly a resolution could be worded in such a way that a conflict would not exist. She felt that the one dwelling unit would fall within the medium density designation were this idea acceptable. She stated that the deed restriction would be permanent and would be a condition of the zone change. Ms. Anderson stated that 30 feet would be acceptable, but with 30 feet it would allow an extra five feet to do something attractive with the roof, What is critical is that there be three stories. She noted that Mr. Niger is handicapped and would like to install an elevator in the home, She stated that with the two stories and a loft, he would still be putting in an elevator, but the loft would cover only ten percent of the floor area; therefore, the loft really is a very small area that is not usable for much more than a den or sitting room or something similar. She noted how important the three stories are to Mr. Niger. Ms. Anderson noted that it would not be feasible for Mr. Niger to stagger the house because of the requirements of the elevator. He must have distinct floors, and the space needs to be usable. Ms. Anderson stated that Mr. Niger is currently living in an apartment, His only other real choice, were he not able to go to the three stories, would be to sell his lot and build in some other area which could provide the building parameters that his home requires. The unfortunate thing, though, is that the only logical buyer of this property, if it is to have these requirements, would be the commercial property owner next door. Being a commercial zone, if purchased by the property owner next door, he could go up to 45 feet with no setbacks. She noted that this would then create a situation which is not very desirable. Ms. Anderson stated that the fact of Mr. Niger's lot being so small and the property next door being small keeps the commercial building from being developed to any magnitude because of the lot area. The combining of these two sites would provide the area for someone to build a sizable commercial building, She felt that there is a real benefit in keeping these two sites zoned differently. She felt that this would be a benefit to the City. Ms. Anderson stated that Mr. Niger has been a resident of the City for more than ten years. He has one child and has a need for adequate living area. He is not asking for a megahouse, only a single-family development that would be afforded to anyone else with this particular lot size. Comm. Shapiro questioned the necessity of the deed restriction, stating that because of the square footage he could only have one unit. Ms. Anderson stated the a deed restriction might be necessary in order for the City to make a finding that the zone change was consistent with the general plan by virtue of restricting the density. She noted that a deed restriction might be necessary in the opinion of staff or the City Attorney. She stated that technically Comm, Shapiro was correct, though. She stated that what Mr. Niger would be doing is giving up any future rights if the surrounding property or the general plan were to change, If PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3·,. 1984 Page 6 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) there were a change to the general plan for higher zoning, Mr. Niger will have cut himself off from ever developing that site with anything more than single-family. She noted that this is a risk to him in terms of the decrease in his property value. She stated that it is a risk worth taking because Mr. Niger prefers to stay in the area. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether Mr. Niger could get a maximum of 3,000 square feet on the property. Ms. Anderson felt that 3 ,000 square feet would not be possible, stating that she had not seen the plans. She noted that the architect had told her that the three-story plan is for only 1,600 square feet of livable area. She stated that they were talking of 2,000 square feet structural, but 400 feet is for the garage. Chmn, Izant questioned whether this figure would cover the loft area, Ms. Anderson stated that the figure covered all three floors. Comm. Strohecker noted that Triad Design showed 3,000 square feet as the size when they filled out the environmental forms. He noted that this was as a three~story house. He noted that if Mr. Niger wants to build only a 1,600 square-foot home, then there would not be a problem with the R-2 zoning. Ms. Anderson noted that this information had not been made avilable to her. She was told the size of the house being proposed was 1,600 square feet livable area. She noted that this matter could be looked into further to straighten out the issue. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned when the City went from 30 feet to 35 feet. She thought that the heights were 25, 35, and 45 .feet for the three different R designations. Chmn. Izant stated that R-1 is 25 feet, R-2 is 30 feet, R-3 is 35 feet,and commercial is 45 feet. Mrs. Burt noted that the City Council had voted that one should alter the general plan instead of down zoning. She questioned why it is so essential now to go to the general plan rather than changing the general plan. She felt that this approach is illogical. Chmn. Izant noted that he felt it was the intention of the Council that this would occur in a situation where there is an existing conflict between the zoning and the general plan. He noted that in this particular case, the Commission is being asked to create something entirely riew. He noted that it is staffs' opinion that when something new is being created it should hot automatically be put in conflict. He noted that the City Council was talking about existing conflicts, not newly-created conflicts. Mrs. Burt felt that the entire area is in conflict. She felt that applicants should be given the best choice because the area in question has so many existing conflicts. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. Chmn. Izant noted that there are currently two lots, those being the vacant lot and the other being the commercial Denim Duck area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3,, 1984 Page 7 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Comm. Soulakis questioned the amount of lot coverage on a 1,900 square foot lot in an R-2 or R-3 designation. Ms. Sapetto replied that the lot coverage would be 65%. Comm. Soulakis noted that with a 65% lot coverage, that would be roughly 1,200 square feet; therefore, with three levels it would be 3,600 minus 400 square feet per garage. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the height is determined from the mean grade or from the low point of the grade. Ms. Sapetto replied that the height is determined from the actual existing grade, stating that a-line is drawn parallel to the existing grade to determine the height; therefore, if the lot slopes down, the height goes up ~ Comm. Soulakis noted that in an R-2 designation, only a two-story with a loft home could be built. He questioned whether there is any other solution, specifically, a variance. Ms. Sapetto replied that in order to obtain a variance, one must prove that he is being denied a property right that his neighbors have. In this case, she felt that this would be difficult to do. Comm. Soulakis questioned why there is a restriction of two stories and a loft in this zone designation. Ms. Sapetto stated that the main reason is to keep the height down. Chmn. Izant noted that every building in the R-2 zone is not exactly the same height. One of the ideas for allowing extra height was to allow for architectural diversity in the design of the roofs. Comm. Soulakis noted that one citizen opposed the R-3 designation because his view would be blocked were a three-story structure to be built in front of his home. Chmn. Izant empathized with any citieen whose view might be obstructed, but he noted that if the lot were left commercial, the height could go to 45 feet which would be worse than the R-2 which would allow for 35. He noted that any structure to be built on that site would partially block the view. Chmn. Izant recommended making a zone change to R-2. His initial feeling, though, was to leave it as commercial and encourage neighborhood development. His own preference was to itezone ·:the property to R-1 and one dwelling unit only. He noted that in this case it differs from other parts of the City where a conflict already exists. He felt that legally the Commission is bourid to designate this site as R-2. He noted that 2,000 square feet seemed to be adequate for living space. He felt that 2,000 square feet in an R-2 zone is more than fair in a town of this size. He felt that the applicant was not being denied any rights by allowing him to rebuild in a commercial zone. He noted that the applicant did have a non-conforming home. He noted that it is not a right to have that property rezoned from commercial to residential. He noted that the zone change would be a discretionary action on the part of the Planning Commission. He felt that there is no reason to give the property owner an extra advantage, so to speak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3~ 1984 Page 8 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Chmn. Izant stated that he would support a motion to rezone this property to R-2. Comm. Soulakis agreed that the Comrnission should follow the guildelines as set forth by the general plan, but he noted that there has been nothing either from the City Attorney or staff that states that the Commission is legally bound to the general plan. He felt that although the zoning would be inconsistent, it would not be illegal. Ms. Sapetto noted that in the opinion of the City Attorney, this would indeed be illegal. She further noted that this is governed by state law. Gomm. Soulakis felt that the Commission would be restricting the property owner in this case. He noted that he would not be in favor of a motion to rezone to R-2. Comm. Shapiro stated that the amount of square footage that would be allowed in R-2 is not insufficient. He noted that he is very sympathetic to the situation of the app~icant, but stated that he could see it as R-2. He noted that he was not willing to gamble on the fact that in five or six years the general plan might be changed. Chmn. Izant noted that the intent of the City Council in stating that the general plan might be changed would only be in cases where a conflict exists, not in cases where there is no conflict with the zoning. He noted that if this :·were to be R-2, there would be no conflict and there would be no reason to change either the zoning or the general plan in years to come in regard to this particular situation. Comm. Soulakis noted that he had no difficulty in designating the property R-3 since there are already so many properties zoned R-3 in the area. He felt that it would not be fair to deny the applicant three stories within the 30-foot height limitation. Comm. Shapiro noted that the applicant wants the R-3 designation so that he can go to 35 feet and have the extra five feet. Comm. Soulakis asked whether it would be possible to get around the question of the loft and have three stories in an R-2 area. Ms. Sapetto noted that the only remedy would be to seek a variance. Comrn. Strohecker noted that the applicant has not requested an R-2 designation. He questioned whether it is appropriate for the Commission to make the change to R-2 when he has in fact requested the R-3 designation. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commission could deny the request for R-3 and make the change to R-2, but she noted that it would be appropriate for the Commission to inquire whether the applicant would prefer the R-2 or would prefer to have it remain C-1. Ms. Anderson questioned whether a zone change could be conditioned. She further noted that she could not answer whether the applicant would accept the R-2 or whether he would prefer to have the lot remain C-1. Comm. Shapiro raised the issue of spot zoning. Ms. Sapetto noted that she had discussed this issue with the City Attorney. He felt that to designate the site R-3 would constitute spot zoning because of the problem with the general plan. , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3,, 1984 Page 9 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HEPJ10SA AVENUE (Cont.) Ms, Sapetto noted that she understood the concerns raised by Comms, Soulakis and Shapiro. She suggested the possibility of asking the applicant to wait until the land use amendments have been made to make a decision, She felt that this would be the only alternative. Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to continue this item in order to obtain feedback from the property owner on whether he would accept the R-2 or would prefer to have it remain C-1; to obtain more information from the City Attorney in this matter. Chmn. Izant asked whether this alternative would be agreeable to the applicant. Ms. Anderson felt that C-1 would not be acceptable to the applicant, Mr. Niger, because he wants to build a single-family home. She stated that if he is not given the R-3, he would like her to appeal this decision. She noted that if the Commission did vote to continue this matter, she would like to have staff consult with the City Attorney in regard to whether or not a deed restriction would resolve the conflict. Ms. Sapetto noted that all zone changes automatically go to the City Council. Comm. Strohecker questioned whether it is proper to move to change this to an R-2 since it was publicly noticed as a request to change it to R-3. Ms. Sapetto replied that this is a proper motion. Comm. Strohecker withdrew his original motion and offered a substitute motion. Chmn. Izant, as the seconder of the original motion, concurred, Motion by Comm, Strohecker, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to recommend a zone change from C-1 to R-2 at 2604 Hermosa Avenue. Comm. Shapiro noted that he would like to return to the original information from the City Attorney in regard to the questions of also noted that he would be happy to abide by the second motion, is very important that ·the Commissioners do their jobs properly. motion and obtain spot zoning. He He felt that it Comm. Soulakis questioned what would happen if there were a tie vote. Chmn. Izant noted that the motion would fail. Chmn. Izant argued in favor of the motion, He felt that technically the motion is correct. He noted that it is against state law to vote either an R-1 or R-2 for this property, He felt that the amendment is technically correct to R-2. He also felt that the square footage is appropriate for an adequate home. He noted that are really two questions, those being obtaining a verification that this would be against state law and the question of spot zoning. He noted that both of these questions can be answered at the City Council level. He noted that in order to avoid holding up the applicant, he would support the motion and send it forward to the City Council, He felt that these questions were not of such a magnitude that they should hold up the applicant, stating that this procedure would save Mr. Niger time and money. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether these arguments are favorable to the applicant. Ms. Anderson had no problem with the continuance of the issue in order to allow the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL J ,, 1984 Page 10 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Commission to obtain further information. Ms. Sapetto noted that decisions can be appealed by letter; one does not need to go before the City Council. A letter may be sent to the Council stating the objections as to the Planning Col!llllission's action. Ms. Anderson favored a continuance if the Commission feels that these questions of the City Attorney might make a difference in the decision. She noted that she would prefer to not go to the City Council with a negative vote, If a continuance would make a difference in the action taken by the Commission and be in her client's favor, she would prefer to have it. Ms. Sapetto noted that were the applicant given R-2 instead of R-3, he would need to voice an objection, not necessarily file an appeal, She noted that if the applicant were given an R-3, it would still go to the City Council for approval. Comm. Soulakis felt that it would be proper for the Planning Commission to approve the R-3 and let the City Council come to grips with the inconsistencies. Comm. Strohecker noted that he would not support such a motion to approve the R-3. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded ·b ye Comm ,. Soµil.akis ,-to · approv ~ the·'. z0ne change from C-1 to R-'3 ,, • (Vote on whether Comm. Shapiro's motion sh~uld become the main motion, as opposed to the motion by Col!Ilil. Strohecker to approve the change to R-2.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis Comm~.· Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Newton Comms . Brown, Smith (Vote on motion by Comm. Strohecker to recommend to the City Council a zone change from C-1 to R-2.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Strohecker, Chmn. Izant CoITlllls, Shapiro, Soulakis Comm. Newton Comms. Brown, Smith Chmn. Izant noted that since there was a tie vote, the issue would be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, scheduled for April 12, 1984. Comm. Shapiro noted that he wanted more information in regard to the spot zoning and how strong the argument is against it. Chmn. Izant noted that staff should obtain an Eopinion:, from the City Attorney as to whether or not it is permissible for the Planning Commission to create a conflict between the general plan and zoning. The other question for staff to investigate is that of spot zoning. Ms. Sapetto noted that staff would look into adjacent properties on the question of spot zoning. f PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3, 1984 Page 11 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-l to R-3 AT 2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Ms. Anderson noted that she would try to obtain the conceptual plans for the project to present to the Commission at the next meeting. Ms. Sapetto noted that that would not bind the applicant to building that particular dwelling. A Commission approval of the zone change is not bound to approval of a plan. Comm. Strohecker noted that the plans do not relate to a zone change at all. TWO-UNTT CONDOMINIUM -33 4th COURT (Continued from 3-20-84) Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commission has received a revised elevation from that w•.:'_c h was submitted to the Commission previously. She noted that the plans submitted were for a two-unit condo which virtually was consistent with the subdivision code. She felt that discrepencies have been mitigated, and staff recommended approval of the project. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commission had continued this item last time because there were concerns regarding the elevation and the design of the structure and whether it was compatible with the surrounding area. She noted that the applicant has revised the plans. She stated that staff recommends approval of these revised plans. Public Hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. Dennis Cleveland, 444 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, displayed a rendering to the Commission showing the design of the building and the color scheme. Comm. Newton noted that she was very happy with the revised design. Ms. Sapetto noted that the only change has been the addition of the awnings. Comm. Newton noted that she would like to see the awnings made a condition of the granting ., of the C. U .P. Public Hearing closed at 8:48 P.M. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve the project with the additional condition of the awnings. Comm. Strohecker noted that he is basically opposed to the condition of the awnings, He felt that awnings tend to become tacky with time in the beach area, Ms. Sapetto noted that there are requirements which provide for proper maintenance of the awnings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker Chmn. Izant Comms. Brown, Smith Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P.C. 84-6 approving the C.U.P. and parcel map #16198 located at 33 4th Court, with the addition of the awnings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker Chmn. Izant Comrns. Brown, Smith PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3, 1984 COASTAL PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURE (Cont.) Page 13 Comm. Soulakis referred to Page . 8, Section 14, PRECEDENCE OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, He questioned whether this section governs or takes precedence over local ordinances. Ms. Sapetto noted that the local ordinances are inconsistent with the local coastal plan, but it would not take precedence over it. She stated that this is an area over which they have no choice. Cormn. Newton commented on Section 11. She noted tbat care should be taken in terms of continuing public hearings. She noted that the applicant would have the burden of noticing the public hearings. Ms. Sapetto noted , that '; because of this, much additional work needs to be done. Permits will now be issued and there will be review of projects within the 300 feet of the beach. Also there will be review of projects which are changing more than 10% of the structure. Currently, there is not a review in projects altering under 40% of the structure. Comm. Newton questioned whether hearings :": would now be required in projects altering more than 10% of the structure. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that now applicants wishing a change of 10% or more go to the coastal commission for approval. This applies to cases only where the structure is within 300 feet of the beach. Comm. Soulakis referred to Page 3, Section 5, (c), (1). He questioned what is meant by "intensity." Ms. Sapetto replied that this refers to changes in a building; for example, a change from retail use to restaurant use. This would refer to a change in intensity. Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to recommend the :document to the City Council to become the Coastal Permit Issuance Procedure to be adopted and applicable only to the coastal zone area of Hermosa Beach, with the changes as so stated. AYES: Conuns. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Smith Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to adopt P.C. 84-7 with wording as recommended by staff. AYES: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Smith STAFF ITEMS Ms. Sapetto noted that it was necessary to obtain all conflict of interest forms immediately. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners have received their zoning code supplements. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Chamber of Commerce held a retreat where a land use plan for the down~own area was presented. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL -3 1 1984 COASTAL PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURE Page 12 ( Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commission is being given the implementation portion of the Local Coastal Plan for review in order for staff to resume the permit authority. The first portion concerns the implementing ordinances to the coastal plan which was adopted several months ago by the City Council. The second portion concerns the initiation and issuing of coastal permits in the coastal zone. What the Coastal Overlay District does is allow the City to issue the permit, and in those areas within 300 feet of the beach, the City will issue the permits. They must be consistent with the Jcocal coastal plan. Appeals will be filed with the Local Coastal Commission by any appellant. The basic intent of this is to allow the City tb 'issue coastal permits so that the applicants need no longer go to the Coastal Commission unless their project is appealed. Comm. Soulakis made reference to Page 4, Paragraph (f), zoning requirement applicable at time of replacement." would constitute any conflict. He also mentioned (2): as the destroyed structure." (1): "Shall conform to He questioned whether this "Shall be for the same use Ms. Sapetto stated that there could be a conflict if the zoning is changed, but stated that this could be changed to an "or" condition. Comm. Soulakis noted concern over the worliing in this section. Ms. Sapetto felt that this should be an "or" condition: "(l) Shall conform to zoning requirement applicable at time of replacement; or, (2) Shall be for the same u~e as the destroyed structure." She also suggested an''and/or~wording. She noted that this could be changed. Ms. Sapetto noted that most of this material is taken directly from the Coastal Act, so in some cases there may be no discretion to change it. She did note, though, that the particular wording in this item should be changed. Comm. Strohecker noted that item (1) would always be necessary, though. Comm. Soulakis felt that (2) would be a restriction. Comm. Shapiro stated that (2) could read: "Shall be for the same use as the destroyed structure if applicable to the current zoning." Ms. Sapetto noted that that wording would be appropriate. Comm. Soulakis noted that there are inconsistencies. Comm. Soulakis referred to Page 4, Section 6 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE. He mentioned specifically the last sentence: "The Director of Building shall exercise discretion in granting requests for such conferences so as not to infringe upon other staff duties." He questioned whether this is feasible. Ms. Sapetto felt that the purpose of that wording is to schedule when those conferences shall be. She felt that the intent is so that the Building Director may schedule conferences at his discretion. She noted that the wording could be changed in this regard. The wording could be to the effect that he shall exercise discretion in scheduling, rather than in granting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL J ~ 1984 STAFF ITEMS (Cont.) Page 14 ,..-Ms. Sapetto noted that a draft environmental document must be prepared to accompany the land use plan. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Chmn. Izant noted that he drove by the Poop Deck. He noted that the Poop Deck had riot . done what he had in mind 'When he voted at the Commission meeting. Ms. Sapetto noted that an ordinance had not yet been adopted at the time of the Commission action. Chmn. Izant mentioned the satellite antenna at Critter's. Ms. Sapetto replied that the antenna at Critter's actually went in before the antenna at the Poop Deck, but stated that she would check on how long it had been there. Chmn. Izant noted that there is no fence at all covering the satellite antenna at Critter's. Chmn. Izant raised the issue of tandem parking. He noted that this has always bothered him that it has been allowed in the City. He requested support from the Connnission as far as having a resolution of intention to hold a public hearing on this issue. He noted that the requirements for tandem parking are not the same for residential as in commercial. He felt that tandem parking generally does not get used. Chmn. Izant proposed holding a public hearing in order to change that section of the code in regard to residential tandem parking. He proposed allowing tandem parking in residential areas only after the basic requirements have been met. Comm. Strohecker concurred with Chmn. Izartt's comments, stating that he would support a public hearing on this issue. Comm. Shapiro noted that he would like to obtain more information before holding a public hearing on this issue. He noted cbncern over the cost of holding a public hearing. Chmn. Izant questioned the cost of noticing a public hearing on this matter. Ms. Sapetto noted that issues are grouped together in each notice in the Easy therefore, there would be no substantial cost to notice this particular item. place a display ad in the paper is approximately $75. Reader; To Comm. Shapiro felt that it is necessary to have more time to study the available materials before offering support on this issue. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff 'Would prepare a fact sheet to be made available in May. A resolution of intention will also be prepared. Chmn. Izant mentioned the problem of cars parking across the City sidewalks. He was not sure whether anything could be done to prevent people from storing things in their garages, but he felt that something could be done. He felt that the current setback requirements affect this situation. He proposed a resolution of intention to study the setback requirements in the different zones in the City. He noted that old problems cannot be remedied, but this could help alleviate future problems. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL J , 1984 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS (Cont.) Page 15 ;~ Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the City could enforce the use of gargge space, ensuring that people would park in their garages and not in the driveway. r Ms. Sapetto noted that it is by law that people are supposed to park in their garages and not in the driveway; but the City does not have the right to trespass on property to inspect how garages are being used. She also noted that the City does not have the staff to send people but to check to see whether people are using their garages for parking or storage. Chmn. Izant noted that the current setback requirements are not adequate to alleviate this problem of cars being on the sidewalk if they park tn the driveway. Wilma Burt suggested the possibility of using police enforcement, She suggested that the Planning Commission suggest the possibility of increased fines for offenders. She felt that the Commission could make this recommendation to the City Council. Chmn. Izant questioned whether this suggestion is within the purview of the Planning Commission. Ms. Sapetto felt that it would be within the purview of the Commission to make this recommendation. She noted that when people must pay for a permit to park their cars, this is an encouragement for them to clean out their garages to enable them to park their cars in them. Chmn. Izant noted that if this problem were to be looked at in a public hearing, this suggestion could be raised at that time. Comm. Strohecker noted his willingness to look at these problems. Chmn. Izant directed staff to prepare information on this issue. Ms. Sapetto noted the shortage of staff in the Planning Department. She noted that she would not be able to return with information of these issues until the end of May. Chmn. Izant noted that the setback criteria differs for condominiums and the setbacks for zoning. He asked why different criteria were established; Ms. Sapetto stated that it was developed the way it was to encourage a planned development concept where there were clusters of open space. She stated that the condominium requirements are different because it was trying to provide for people who were to be buying into a subdivision project. Motion by Comm. Soulakis to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. No objections, So ordered. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 3~, 1984 Page 16 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 April:~, 1984. Date ( '