Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05.01.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 1, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Izant Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Izant ROLL CALL PRESENT : Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant ABSENT : Comm. Newton ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Gregory Meyer, City Manager; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve the April 4, 1984 and April 12, 1984 Planning Commission minutes. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Smith noted that he did not recall making any reference to the applicant's right to develop his property through R-2 zoning in Resolution P.C. 84-8. He believed that it was denied because it was inconsistent with the General Plan. Ms. Sapetto stated that she attempted to reflect the consensus of the Commission. She felt that some of the Commissioners voted against the project due to the applicant's unwillingness to accept an R-2 zone. She added that the Commission may amend the Resolution. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Commission wished to make an amendment to lines 9, 10, and 11 of Resolution P.C. 84-8. Comm. Shapiro recalled that the Commission had determined that they would either deny or approve the request for the zone change to R-3; however, they decided that they would not provide the applicant with suggestions. The Commission's only concern was whether the request should be approved or denied. Comm. Strohecker stated that there had been a motion to recommend R-2 zoning, which motion was defeated. Comm. Brown recalled that the Commission simply denied the project. Comm. Smith believed that the motion recommending R-2 zoning had been withdrawn prior to a vote by the Commission. Comm. Strohecker stated that a vote had been held on the motion to recommend R-2 zoning, and it was a tie vote. ; _,---\ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 1, 1984 Page 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.) Comm. Smith noted that the vote was not reflected in the minutes. Comm. Shapiro stated that the motion was made at the March 20, 1984 meeting. Comm. Smith suggested deleting lines 9 through 11 from the Resolution. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-8 with the deletion of lines 9 through 11. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Soulakis Comm. Newton Comm. Soulakis stated that Page 2, lines 10 and 11 of Resolution P.C. 84-10 indicated that if additional levels are built on Lots C and B, those spaces could accommodate new development. He noted that Commissioner Smith was adamantly opposed to this idea. Comm. Smith stated that it was the consensus of the Commission that any additional levels that were built above and beyond what was in the specific plan could be used for the in-lieu of; however, those involved in the specific plan that met the 365 spaces could not be used for the in-lieu of. He felt the wording was unclear in the resolution. Chmn. Izant believed that if new spaces were built, the current number of spaces allowed by the Coastal Commission could not be applied to new development. Comm. Smith stated that those levels approved on Lots Band C in relation to the specific plan discussed by the Commission could not be used on the in­ lieu-of-$6,000 provision by VPD on any other development. Any additional levels that were built on those structures could be used in conjunction with the in-lieu-of 'provision. Chmn. Izant summarized by stating that the first four levels could not be used; however, those extra spaces on the fifth floor not being lost by the development of the structure could go towards the allowable spaces by the Coastal Commission. Comm. Smith suggested that the following wording be used for Page 2, lines 10 and 11 of Resolution P.C. 84-10: "However, if additional levels are built on Lots C and Bin addition to those in the specific plan, then those spaces could be used by the VPD to accommodate new development under the in-lieu-of provision." Comm. Soulakis opposed allowing the in-lieu provision to be used for new development on the fifth and fourth story respectively. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 3 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.) Comm. Smith recommended postponement of approval of Resolution P.C. 84-10 until such time that the Commission receives the minutes of April 19, 1984. He believed that Comm. Soulakis was changing his position since the last meeting. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission will postpone approval of Resolution P.C. 84-10 until such time that the April 19, 1984 minutes are reviewed by the Commission. Comm. Brown requested a straw vote on Page 2, lines 10 and 11 of Resolution P.C. 84-10 .to determine the consensus of the Commission. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission had indicated that there was no need for a straw vote at this time. Comm. Shapiro stated that Page 1, lines 11, 12, and 13 of Resolution P.C. 84-10 was in conflict with the determination of the Commission. The Commission had indisputably determined that there would be a shortage. He noted that it was not simply a question of economics. He felt that this point should be brought out after the April 19, 1984 minutes are submitted. He noted that the calculations in the packet showed a surplus; however, the calculations of the Commissioners showed a shortage. He believed 1 (a) should read, " ... if economically feasible and needed." Chmn. Izant stated that the above may be reviewed; however, it was his recollection that the consensus of the Commission was that the condition that it be economically feasible was the other condition imposed by the Commission. Comm. Smith recalled that there were deficiencies in the first appendix to the parking situation; however, there were surpluses in the second appendix. Comm. Soulakis stated that he had calculated that the City was losing approximately 160 spaces. The hotel needed 300 spaces, and they were building 385 spaces. It reflected that in a carryover to both Lots Band A and the Community Center. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Resolution reflects the action that was taken by the Commission. She informed the Commission that the action may not be amended. She advised the Commission to postpone approval of this item until the April 19, 1984 minutes had been reviewed. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-9. Comm. Strohecker stated that line 12 of Resolution P.C. 84-9 states that every lot is entitled to vehicular access via alley or one curb cut if there is no alley access. Ms. Sapetto stated that line 12 was the intent of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 1, 1984 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.) Chmn. Izant concurred. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Soulakis Comm. Newton Page 4 Chmn. Izant announced that the hearing on the Biltomore site would be heard in Councils Chambers on May 2, 1984. Mr. Meyer noted that it will not be a public hearing; it will be a study session jointly convened by the Vehicle Parking District Board and the City Council. The public is invited; however, public testimony will not be allowed. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW Mr. Meyer gave staff report. H~ Stated that this item is long overdue. He noted that the Planning Commission has a state law mandate to look at the capital improvements of the City on an annual basis and make some formal recommendations to the City Council. In the past, the Planning Commission has not been asked to make those recommendations; however, the Planning Commission will be asked to make these recommendations on an annual basis commencing with the 1984-85 year. Staff will submit a list of deficiencies of capital improvements and solicit from the Commission comments to be forwarded to the City Council. Capital improvements are defined as items that are at least $5,000 in cost and with a life of at least five years. Streets, sewers, street lighting, storm drains, open space, and others, will be items that will be dealt with in 1~84. Each time the Planning Commission approves a development, there is an impact to the community. It is, therefore, logical that the Planning Commission is part of the decision-making process when it comes to capital improvements . He stated that he would return to the next Planning Commission meeting with a specific list of deficiencies in the way of capital items. At that time, priorities will be solicited from the Commission. He stated that the document dated September 22, 1983 deals with the 1983-1984 Capital Improvement Program, and it was adopted by the City Counci 1 on . ,.,,, September 27, 1983. It is miniscule; yet, the need is great. Under the item entitled General Fund, Street Accessories and Street Lights add up to the sum of $2,000. For the current year, the City has a $6,000,000 operating budget and over $1,000,000 allocated for other items. This document indicates that only $2,000 of general taxpayers' money was allocated to be spent for capital improvements. He stated that the $2,000 allocation for capital improvements was inadequate. The restoration of Gould/Valley/Ardmore was to be paid for out of the State Gas Tax. The South Park Improvement comes from the bed tax. The Asphaltic Overlay reconstruction was funded by an outdoor recreation grant. He stated that for the last several years, the City has had no moneys that were discretionary available for capital improvements. The City has not been setting aside any money for capital replacement. He noted that the largest problem of the City at the present time are the sewers. He stated that there are no sewers less that 50 years old in the main thoroughfares. It is readily - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) apparent that not only does the City have a need to improve the quality of life with open space acquisition and such, but also there is a long list of defic i encies that are not visible such as the sewer system, inadequate water flow, and inadequate storm drains. Therefore, there is a need to look at the deficiencies. He informed the Comm i ssion that six months ago the City Council authorized the City to retain a consulting firm to look at the tasks performed and match those tasks with fees and charges so that items that should not be funded by the general taxpayer could be funded by the direct user. Management Services Institute was retained by the City to do this study. He stated that the entire study is available to the Commission. The City 1 s cost for a copy is $30.00. The study that was submitted to the Commission was a summarized version of the study. Comm. Smith questioned whether a copy of the study will be available in the library. Mr. Meyer replied that a copy of the study is presently available in the library. Additional copies are available in the City Clerk 1 s office. Mr. Meyer continued his staff report by stating that the study has looked at time and motion in an industrial-engineering sense where all of the Ci ty's employees spend their time. It is able to produce knowledgeably and articulately the cost of providing a service. The study then suggests where are the specific benefits rather than the general benefit. The charge should be made against the person benefitting equal to those costs. The report indicates that there is $41,700,000 in fixed assets. No money has been set aside to replace these fixed assets. Assets translate into capital improvements. He asked the Commission to look at Page 25 which lists the assets of the City. There is $38,000,000 in assets of a facility-type nature that clearly do have a life of 20, 25, or 30 years. The replacement costs were listed in 1984 dollars. The far right-hand column is the suggested amount by the consultant to be set aside each year to deal with replacement and refurbishment of the assets. The consultants determined that $1,300,000 per year is needed to be set aside in order to adequately deal with these items. The consultant recommended that the City have a cost-center-service-business approach to the human services as much as to the brick-and -mortar things. The City should attempt not to engender a loss or added costs to the taxpayer. There is no detriment to the taxpayer footing the bi l l ; however, it shou l d not be done out of ignorance or at the 100 % rate. The cons ul tants 1 re port will indicate that the greatest deficiency in dollars is th e city sewer system . Hermosa Bea ch is part of the County Sanitation District; t herefore , on e cou ld think that the problem does not lie with the city of Hermosa Beach. That is true in the sense of the final end product treatment, but the City must maintain the sewer system. He noted that the City is not charging any fee at this time. Most cities have a fee, sometimes proportional to water consumption, to collect in order to pay for the sewer maintenance and for replacement of the local system. Page 84 of the study suggests that there should be a $7.52 per month per parcel charge in order to pay for the overall maintenance costs. The maintenance costs are $500,000. The report attempts to list the deficiencies and to point out how the need could be met. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the sewage rate is going into the General Fund commencing this month. Mr. Meyer replied in the negative, adding that there is no charge at this time. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the City could go broke if no steps are taken to correct the sewage problem. Mr. Meyer replied in the affirmative, stating that the City should replace the entire sewer system which would cost from $18,000,000 to $20,000,000. The City of Hermosa Beach is not able to pay for the entire sewage system. He stated that the City has been averaging one collapse of a major sewer line per year. Page 95 of the report deals with all of the capital improvements. It outlines the means in which money could come about. He stated that it could come from cash flow of fees and charges or developer fees at the time a project is approved or special assessments. He urged the Commission to examine these three sources of funds and to recommend one 1-or more of them. Staff felt that any one of the three or a combination thereof would deal with the problem. He stated that he will hold a conversation with the Planning Commission on May 15, 1984 concerning the deficiencies and proposals to alleviate those deficiencies. Comm. Smith requested a definition of "core vs. non-core services." Mr. Meyer replied that a core service would be peril of life and property such as police patrol and paramedic service. A non-core service would be a community theatre, ballet class, purchasing, et cetera. He informed the Commission that Page 101 of the report suggests that based on current state law in the process there are seven different methods in which fees can be required and utilized as projects come through the process. At this time, Hermosa Beach is involved in only one of those seven methods to the tune of $16,300 in income estimated for the current budget year. Comm. Soulakis requested the City Manager to explain the mechanism of special assessments and how they would impact the City. Mr. Meyer replied that there will be a special assessment on the ballot in November. In the laymen ,'.s sense, it is considered a tax; however, in the legal sense, it is not considered a tax. Comm. Soulakis stated that two major capital assets are buildings and streets. He asked whether they were equally shared. Mr. Meyer replied that all buildings are for general purpose for the community. There are very few recreational buildings that are considered the turf of only one neighborhood. The buildings are city-wide and of general community benefit. Streets are different because there are many grades of streets, i.e., residential, collector, primary. In regard to streets, the City tends to have gas-tax types of moneys. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Comm. Brown stated that the report looks at methods of increasing fees in order to accompli~h obtaining the costs of certain projects. He asked in what areas the report recommends cutting back on. Mr. Meyer replied that there were only three or four categories where the study found Hermosa Beach levying more of a cost. One category is the condominium conversion process. The cost in these -three categories were expected to be decreased. He noted that these three categories were not in capital improvements; they were in services provided. He noted that the different departments have prpared a five-year estimate of deficiencies. It is so momentous that it has not been fully reviewed. Comm. Brown questioned whether the City 1 s income does not allow ftJ .r. the $1,300,000 to be put away every year for capital improvements or whether the City has the money but is disbursing the money elsewhere. Mr. Meyer replied that the City does not have the money. Hermosa Beach 1 s current operations exceed current income by very little. He -. stated that several years ago it was considerable. He added that property tax is $1,000,000 on a $6,000,000 budget. Sales tax is slightly under $1,000,000. Parking citations are now approximately $500,000. The per capita sales tax received per year is $45.00. The state-wide average is $65.00. The average in neighboring communities such as Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach is $85.00. Torrance receives $140.00 per capita because of Del Amo Shopping Center. The citizens of Hermosa Beach have above-average income, but they spend their money elsewhere. The City must come up with $443,000 a year for non-facility i terns . Chmn. Izant summarized staff 1 s request by stating that staff will provide the Commission with a 0 recomm~nded J tApital budget for the fiscal year 1 84-85 and staff would like the Planning Commission to review the document and to set priorities for the long-term capital needs of the City and to recommend those priorities to the City Council. Also, the Planning Commission should recommend methods on how the long-term needs are to be funded. Public Hearing continued until the May 15, 1985 meeting at 8: 20 P.M. FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1079 LOMA DRIVE Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the applicant had requested a conditional use permit for a four-unit condominium at 1079 Loma Drove~ The project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee, and it has been given a negative declaration, meaning that it was the opinion of the committee that it would not have a significant impact on the environment. The project consists :,of a four-unit condominium built on a 4,583 square foot lot zoned R-3 with a high density general plan designation. The project meets all subdivision map act requirements as well as the Condominium Ordinance requirements. The applicant is not submitting a tentative map because they have obtained an approved final map on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 8 FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1079 LOMA DRIVE (Cont.) Chmn. Izant stated that a project of this size and type requires two guest parking spaces. He stated that this project contains 10 parking spaces, two of them being tandem spaces; however, he noted that there were no guest parking spaces indicated on the plans. Ms. Sapetto suggested that the issue of guest parking spaces be addressed to the applicant during the public hearing. Comm. Soulakis asked if it were a requirement that there be open space between the two buildings. Mr. Sapetto replied that open space is a requirement; however, the location of the open space is up to the plan. The requirement for this project is that the applicant have a common open space area of 496 square feet. The applicant is providing 550 square feet of common open space area. Comm. Smith stated that this project has a five-foot setback provid~drin the front which meets the requirements; yet there is a deck that extends 2 1 611 out. Therefore, there is basically only half of the normal setback. He questioned staff about the Commission's position on this matter. Ms. Sapetto felt that the deck was not allowed in the setback. She noted that she may not be aware of a regulation in use due to the fact that the Building Department had indicated that the deck is within the setback. She stated that the Building Department could better address this issue. Comm. Smith noted concern for both the parking situation and the deck extending into the setback. Chmn. Izant recalled that if a deck faced on to an alley, it could extend into the setback; however, if it faced on to a normal street, it could not extend into the setback. Comm. Brown recalled that the second story may encroach two feet in the rear setback. He did not recall any regulation for the front setback. Comm . Soulakis believed that both guest parking spaces were in one building. He stated that there were six spaces in one building and four spaces in the other. He quest ·i· oned whether his interpretation were correct. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative, adding, however, that there is no requirement that the spaces be evenly distributed. Comm. Soulakis felt that, in essence, one building had no guest parking. Comm. Shapiro stated that because it is a four-unit condominium, parking may be placed anywhere on the property. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission could require that parking spaces #5 and #10 not have garage doors and be labled guest parking spaces. Comm. Smith asked for a reference to the Condominium Ordinance that allows for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIOM AT 1079 LOMA DRIVE (Cont.) trapped or tandem spaces. Page 9 Ms. Sapetto replied that she was not certain whether the Condominium Ordinance provided for trapped or tandem spaces. She stated, however, that trapped or tandem spaces were allowed on an alley. Comm. Smith stated that this project deals with two streets; it does not deal with alleys. Public Hearing opened at 8:43 P.M. Alan Jukes, 27310 Rainbow Ridge Road, Palos Verdes, applicant, stated that he was required to install garage doors on both the regular parking spaces and the guest parking spaces on his previous project. The doors were required for the guest parking spaces because they were within 50 feet of the street. Comm. Smith informed the applicant that a garage door would prevent guest parking. Comm. Soulakis questioned why there is a water closet and a lavatory .j·n : • the smaller storage area. Mr. Jukes replied that it is on the landing as one comes in the front door. The parking area is one-half flight below it, and the living area is one-half flight above it. He stated that he was required to have garage doors on his last project because it was on Hermosa Avenue. Comm. Brown asked if the parking on Hermosa Avenue was for guest parking. Mr. Jukes replied in the affirmative. Comm. Brown asked for the number of units in his previous project. Mr. Jukes replied that his previous project consisted of five units. He added that one guest parking space was provided on the Hermosa Avenue side. The other guest parking spaces were provided on the alley side. Comm. Shapiro asked Mr. Jukes if he was required to appear before the Planning Commission for his previous project. Mr. Jukes replied in the affirmative, adding that the Planning Commission had approved his plans. Chmn. Izant stated that Page 525 of the Condominium Ordinance states, "Automobile parking spaces located within 50 feet of the front lot line or side lot line of the street side of a corner lot shall be within a garage except that those garages which face the interior of the lot or interior lot line need not provide doors. Where a lot line in the R-2, R-3, or R-P zones is less than 35 feet in width, one open uncovered parking space not less than eight feet in width may be allowed within 50 feet of any front lot line but not within ten feet of a street line.11 PLANNING COMMISSffiON MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 10 FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1079 LOMA DRIVE (Cont.) Chmn. Izant asked the applicant if his previous project was near the corner of a street. Mr. Jukes replied that it was the second lot from the corner. Comm. Smith stated that usually tandem parking is allowed once the parking requirements are met. Ms. Sapetto stated that the above is not true in this situation, adding that it does not apply to residential projects. Chmn. Izant asked the applicant if he would accept designating spaces #5 and #10 as guest parking spaces. Mr. JuRes replied that it was his intention to designate parking spaces #5 and #10 as guest parking spaces. Chmn. Izant asked the applicant if he had submitted a landscaping plan. Mr. Jukes replied in the negative. Chmn. Izant recommended that the applicant submit a landscaping plan to staff if the Commission acts to approve the project. Comm. Soulakis asked if the applicant could move parking space #7 to the other building. Mr. Jukes replied in the negative, stating that the Ordinance will not allow tandem parking on the street side. Ms. Sapetto stated that Loma is considered a street, and Sunset is considered an alley. Chmn. Izant asked for a clarification of when an alley becomes a street. He asked whether it was defined by width or usage. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is defined by width. Chmn. Izant asked if the Commission could declare Sunset as a street for future considerations. Comm. Smith stated that the balcony line is 3'8" from the setback point on the Sunset side. Therefore, there'is not a full five-foot setback. Mr. Jukes stated that he was informed by the Building Department that the deck could come within one foot of the property line on the alley side and within two feet of the property line on the street side. Comm. Smith noted that he was still not clear about the interpretation of the setbacks with a deck. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 11 FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1079 LOMA DRIVE (Cont.) Debby Kaylo, 322 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, spoke in opposition to the construction of a four-unit condominium in the area in question. She stated that there were two parking spaces on Sunset immediately in front of the house. She noted that one had been eliminated earlier in the year; however, she questioned whether two new parking spaces would be provided on Sunset. She asked for the height of the proposed project. Chmn. Izant replied that the height of the project will be 29 1 6 11 , and the allowable height in that zone is 35 feet. No one else appeared to speak in opposition to the project. Public Hearing closed at 9:04 P.M. Comm. Smith requested that the colors, materials, textures, and landscaping plans of the proposed project be supplied to the Planning Department. He also requested a clarification of the setback problem. Ms. Sapetto stated that Sections 1212 and 1214 allow protrusions into the front yard. She believed these sections applied in this case. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission recommends that parking spaces #5 and #10 be designated as guest parking. Comm. Soulakis stated that if parking spaces #5 and #10 were left open, tenants could use them as a carport. He felt the garage doors were acceptable on all ten spaces. Comm. Soulakis departed at 9:15 P.M. on a personal note. Comm. Smith stated ,1 that guest parking spaces would be appropriate without the garage doors. He stressed that the Commission cannot regulate the applicant's using those spaces for guest parking or for carport purposes for the tenants. Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the four-unit condominium at 1079 Loma Drive with the following conditions: That spaces #5 and #10 be designated in the CC&R's as guest parking spaces; that the garage doors as shown on the plans for parking spaces #5 and #10 be removed; that a partition wall be placed between spaces #5 and #6 and between spaces #9 and #10 so that #6, #7, #8, and #9 become the enclosed garage and #5 and #10 are open guest parking spaces. Secondly, approval of this project is subject to the applicant's submitting to staff's satisfaction a landscaping plan and a description of colors and materials that will be used for this project. Comm. Smith stated that he would vote in favor of the project because he believed it met all of the necessary requirements. He was not in favor, however, of using up every available space including the setback. He stated that he would support the motion; however, he felt that the project would not be beneficial to the City. He stated that it is tearing down two units and building four. It is not contributing anything except to the parking and traffic problems. He felt that staff should require landscaping plans prior to appearing before PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 1, 1984 Page 12 FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1079 LOMA DRIVE (Cont.) the Commission. Chmn. Izant concurred, adding that the Commission should require that all parking requirements be met before tandem parking is allowed in residential areas. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the Commission will receive information on tandem parking before it is discussed at the May 15, 1984 meeting. Ms. Sapetto explained that the Commission will receive information at the time the Resolution is received. Therefore, it will be supplied in the next packet. After reviewing the Resolution of Intention, the Commission may then determine whether there should be a further study. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton, Soulakis Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-11 with the conditions set forth in the motion and changing the wording in #9 of the Resolution from "Planning Commission" to "Planning Department." No. 10 shall be the provision in regards to the guest parking, and No. 11 shall be the provision in regards to submitting the colors and materials to staff. AVES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton, Soulakis Recess from 9:23 to 9:27 P.M. TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 927 SIXTH STREET Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the Resolution which approves a two-unit condominium. The project was reviewed by the Staff Environmental Review Committee on April 12, 1984. It was given a negative declaration indicating that the project did not have a significant impact on the environment. The project consists of a two-unit condominium built on a 6,810 square foot lot zoned R-2 with a low density land use designation. The front unit proposes 2,848 square feet. The back unit proposes 2,219 square feet. The project meets all of the Condominium Ordinance requirements. Comm. Smith asked for the maximum square footage that is allowed for a loft. Ms. Sapetto believed that those figures were in the Uniform Building Code. She believed a loft may be 50 percent. ·-------- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 1, 1984 Page 13 TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 927 SIXTH STREET (Cont.) Comm. Strohecker believed the 50% requirement was only applicable if it exceeded the maximum number of stories. In other words, if there were two stories plus a loft, that loft could cover a greater percentage. Comm. Smith stated that in an R-2 zone, a project may be 30 feet or two stories. He stated that a loft is a protrusion over air space. Chmn. Izant noted concern for the size indicated being appropriate for a loft. Public Hearing opened at 9:32 P.M. Ed Engle, 645 18th Street, Manhattan Beach, appeared to answer any questions of the Commission. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Reinhard ladder met the requirements to have an independent exit from the top floor to the ground. Ms. Sapetto replied that she was not certain whether it was required at a second story level. She believed that it was only required from a third ,level. Chmn. Izant asked Mr. Engle if he had spoken with the Building Department in regards to the lot coverage. Mr. Engle indicated that his son spoke with the representatives of the Building Department and they made no mention of the lot coverage. Comm. Brown questioned whether the loft is a bedroom. Mr.. Engle replied in the affirmative. Comm. Brown stated that the open space the Commission was concerned with was 8 1 x 6 1 6 11 • No one else appeared to speak in favor of the request. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the request. Public Hearing closed at 9:37 P.M. Chmn. Izant stated that he was not certain how the Reinhard ladder functioned. He stated that it may be an attractive nuisance for children. He questioned whether it was a fixed ladder on the side of the house. Paul Engle, 1050 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that the Reinhard ladder is a fixed ladder. It is permanently attathed to the side of the building. It fits flush to the building, and then it pops out. He noted that he has not yet seen the type of ladder that he will be using. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 1, 1984 Page 14 TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 927 SIXTH STREET (Cont.) Chmn. Izant questioned whether the ladder can be popped out from both the top and the bottom. Mr. Paul Engle replied that there is a latch on the top; therefore, one must be on the top to pop it open. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the ladder was fabricated into the structure of the building. Mr. Paul Engle replied in the negative. Ms. Sapetto believed that an exterior exit is needed when one has a deck situation. It is a Uniform Building Code and a Fire Code regulation. Comm. Smith asked the applicant for a description of the colors that will be used on the project. Mr. Paul Engle replied that the house will be a light gray stucco, and the wood siding will be gray. The fascia, the windows, and the French doors will be white. The fence will be redwood. ~-. Ms. Sapetto informed the applicant that the City requires that the colors be called out. Those colors stated by·the applicant will be the required colors on the plans. Comm. Soulakis arrived at 9:52 P.M. Mr. Paul Engle stated that the colors mentioned were for use on the front unit. The same colors will be used on the back house except the trim will be gray instead of white. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the two-unit condominium at 927 Sixth Street subject to the condition that the Reinhard ladder be checked by the Planning Department and meet with the Planning Department's approval and that the colors as stated by the applicant be adhered to. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Soulakis, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None C~mm. Newton Ms. Sapetto recommended that the Land Use Element Amendment be heard prior to hearing the C-Potential Amendment. Chmn. Izant accepted the recommended change. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Pa9e 15 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that he would like to have a consensus of the Commission as to the direction it wishes to take on the Draft Land Use Element. He stated that the first alternative to the Multi-Use Corridor was to make no change to the text or map. The second alternative was to redefine the meaning and intent of the Corridor, and the third alternative was to eliminate the Multi-Use Corridor altogether and change the area to general commercial or highway commercial. Staff felt that the second alternative would be the most beneficial, which is to redefine the meaning and intent of the Corridor as well as the boundaries. The main change is to acknowledge that residential land use is an allowed use within the Corridor and that eventual transition of residential land uses to commercial is desired. As a result, staff concluded that many of the R-C­ potential property within the Corridor would then belong in the Multi-Use Corridor designation. Staff also felt that existing R-property which does not have a C-potential designation would be excluded. There will be a potential for another 15 to 18 acres of commercial development. There would be a potential for a reduction in the housing supply of approximately 400 units if all of the R-C-potential property is changed to commercial. Chmn. Izant asked Mr. Casteneda if he wished the Commission ':to discuss the Multi -Use Corridor before proceeding with the remai nder -•of·the report. Mr. Casteneda replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith asked if Alternative #2 would be adding anything that is not C-potenti al . Mr. Casteneda replied in the negative. He stated that the boundaries will include all of the commercial categories. It will then broaden to include all R-C-potential property, and it will exclude the single-family neighborhood that is zoned R, but not C-potential. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:17 P.M. with regard to the Multi-Use Corridor. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Smith, to recommend Alternative #2 under Multi-Use Corridor, as recommended by staff. No objections; so ordered. Mr. Casteneda stated that the second item to be discussed was the Residential General Plan/Zoning Inconsistencies. Staff attempted to devise an alternative which recognizes some growth potential in the areas of inconsistencies and which could be accomplished through a change in the Land Use Element Map as well as the residential land use categories. In this way, no parcel-by-parcel zone changes to effect a consistency would be required. Staff suggested that in the low density areas where there is a potential for development to span a range of 13 to 25 units, it shall be narrowed by splitting that residential land use category into two of 13.l to 19 and 19.l to 25. In the areas that are presently inconsistent in low density and R-2 zoning, the existing number PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 16 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) of units in those areas are 672. If development were to follow the R-2 zoning, a potential build out of l ,149 units would be possible or a net addition of 477. Staff's suggestion was to attempt to reflect the existing density where possible and to create a low-medium density category of 13.l to 19 du/ac. This would result in the potential development of 892 housing units or a potential addition of 22. The recommendation would attempt to resolve the inconsistencies through a general plan amendment in terms of both the map and the text and still allow some development in those areas. The same type of logic was practiced for the medium density R-3 zoning inconsistency areas. The net result is an existing development of 706 units and a potential development of 162 units in the current zoning. If the recommendation to create another land use category is followed, the potential development would reach 789 or an additional 83 units. Under current zoning, there is a potential of 639 additional housing units. Following Alternative 2, which is the addition of some residential land use categories, there are 303 housing units that are potentially developable for a net result of a 50 % reduction. If the two actions are then combined, the Multi-Use Corridor action will result in a certain loss of housing units. This recommended action would allow some additional housing units, and the net result of both actions is a net reduction of the housing supply of 100 to 150 units. Comm. Shapiro stated that low density is presently Oto 13 du/ac. He questioned what the figures are for medium density. Mr. Casteneda replied that medium density is 13.l to 25 dufac. High density is 25.l to 40 du/ac. Comm. Shapiro questioned what the change will be for medium and high densities. Mr . Casteneda explained that an area that is zoned R-2, low density, and the development is 15 du/ac, the potential under the current designation would be 25 units per acre. Comm. Soulakis questioned how much downzoning is anticipated. Mr. Casteneda replied that this project does not consist of downzoning .. Comm. Soulakis and Comm. Smith believed that this project will cause downzoning. Comm. Brown concurred that this is an act of downzoning. He stated that it is a way of downzoning without changing the zone. Comm. Soulakis noted that he was not necessarily against the proposal; however, he wished to know the impact this action would have on property owners. Comm. Smith stated that he called for overlays because the issue is so vol~tile in the community. He believed that the City should be able to call out the action's effect. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 17 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Mr ~'.£asteneda stated that the first approach is to determine the existing level of development and determine . the easiest way to resolve the inconsistencies. Comm. Shapiro asked staff to show him an area that would be low-medium density, that is, an area that would fall from 13.l to 19. Mr. Casteneda showed Comm. Shapiro areas depicting low density, R-2 zone. Comm.Soulakis questioned whether the Commission would have to consider the lot size and square ·-footage allowance. Ms. Sapetto stated that the above has been completed through the downzoning hearings. Every lot with inconsistencies that would be affected was considered. It was determined what the build out could be based upon the parcel size for every parcel. Those tables were given to the Commission. Comm. Smith stated that one does not know what the effect will be until a complete parcel-by-parcel analysis is done.and the information is consolidated. He stated that eventually 15 du/ac parcels .will support 19 dwelling units per acre 'if there is sufficient square footage. He stated that people will eventually build out to 19 dwelling units per acre. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether low-medium density is in comformance with the General Plan for a low-density area. Mr. Casteneda explained that a new category would be defined. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the General Plan would be amended. Mr. Casteneda replied in the affirmative. Comm. Shapiro stated that an alternative brought up at the workshop with the City Council two years ago was to have a buffer zone on each density. Chmn. Izant stated that using a buffer zone would present a problem because many people would build to the greatest degree. Comm. Soulakis questioned why Alternative #2 was chosen by staff. Mr. Casteneda replied that staff felt that the majority of the community would see 300 units as a considerable difference; they would see it as being v,ery significant. Comm. Soulakis felt that Alternative #2 will cause resistance from several landowners. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission is discussing whether or not they should allow either 300 additional units or 600 additional units in the colored areas. That ignores the build out potential in the uncolored areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 1, 1984 Page 18 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) He noted that there is still significant build out potential left in the remainder of the City. He stated that a possible approach was to leave the density to change the zone to reflect the General Plan , and to lower the cap on the two upper zones. The 25 du/ac could be reduced to 20 city wide, and the 40 du/ac could be reduced to 35 city wide. From the standpoint of total units, in terms of the city build :out overall, it would be doing the City a big favor. He noted that it would spread out the burden. He noted that it may be the solution to the density problem. The General Plan would not be changed; the Zoning would be changed to match the General Plan. Comm. Smith felt that Chmn. Izant's approach was politically astute. He felt that a problem such as this will work only if everyone pays a small price. Chmn. Izant stated that the Planning ·.:Ccimmission should make it mandatory that the citizens vote on whether or not to reduce the density in two General Plan areas from 40 to 35 and from 25 to 20 and to upzone all of the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. All R-1 areas would be low density; R-2, medium density; and R-3, high density. Mr :.' Casteneda questioned whether the Land Use Element, both in the text and the map, would indicate adjustments to the density ranges within each of those categories. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. adding, however, that there will be some zone changes. He stated that there would be some situations where the General Plan would have to be amended to reflect the zoning, that is, where it is low density in R-2, the low density would be changed to medium density. He stated that R-3 would never be changed to R-2 and R-2 would never be changed to R-1. Chmn. Izant di'rected staff to obtain information relative to the impact to allow the Commission to make a reasonable decision, Public Hearing opened and continued at 11 :16 P.M. Mr. Casteneda continued staff report, stating that the third item to be discussed is the Commercial Land Use Element. He stated that staff wished to reaffirm the Commission's direction, that being, that after analyzing the potential of one or three or five categories, the Commission felt most comfortable with having a General Commercial Land Use Category and a Neighborhood Commercial category with the Neighborhood encompassing the small convenience shops . as well as the neighborhood shopping center. This would be so defined in the text and also applied on the map. Staff felt that that was the general consensus of the Commission based on the previous meetings. He stated that the purpose of bringing it up at this meeting was to see if that was, in fact, the consensus of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 19 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Chmn. Izant stated that he was not certain that 45 feet was appropriate for a C-1 zone. Comm. Shapiro stated that Pagel of the Commercial Land Use category says under Alternative #1, 11 ••• establish two land use element categories." He questioned whether that should be three land use element categories. Mr. Casteneda replied that it should state three land use element categories. He added that staff has not suggested major changes to zoning either by way of categories or by way of development standards. HbWever, the Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council that certain of the zoning districts as well as the standards be examined in light of implementing the land use element. He stated that the development standards may be changed. A downtown commercial zone could be created. Comm. Shapiro questioned why Alternative #3 was selected by staff. Mr. Casteneda replied that he selected Alternative #3 because he felt it conformed to the wishes of the Commission. Comm. Smith stated that he preferred Alternative #1. Comm. Soulakis asked if C-1 is generally the convenient commercial. He felt that it would be more descriptive if the neighborhood area be the C-1, or convenient commercial. He noted that he would accept staff 1 s recommendation of Alternative #3; however, he would change it to 0a neighborhood which would encompass the existing convenience commercial and a general which would encompass everything other than the downtown. Comm. Brown concurred, stating that he did not wish to split it into too many different categories. Comm. Smith stated that the categories are simply to differentiate 1the 1 :'·- different uses. He noted that they are different levels of development. Comm. Soulakis stated that he would like to see three commercial zones. Comm. Smith and Chmn. Izant concurred. Chmn. Izant stated that the desire of the Commission is to adopt Alternative #1. This would encompass the C-1, C-2, and C-3 categories, and the other area would be downtown. There would be no commercial recreation. Comm. Soulakis stated that he did not wish to adopt Alternative #1. Mr. Casteneda stated that staff's recommendation would be that it be implemented through a specific land use procedure which means that the Commission would not be impeded or restricted by current zoning. Comm. Soulakis stated that there will not be a one-to-one situation. There will be three zones; however, there will be four designations in the land use element, one of those being the downtown area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May l, 1984 Page 20 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Chmn. Izant directed the Commissioners to retain their Capital Improvement Plan, take home the revised Land Use Element ,and C-Potential material and Amending the Parking Standards and the Planning Commission Priority List. He noted that Items #8, #10, and #11 would be continued until the May 15, l 984 meeting. S:JAF5 ITEMS :· ·.• 1 None Motion by Comm. Smith to adjourn at 11:54 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERT! FI CATION 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 sched uled meeting of May l, 1984. / nt, Chai rman // r,1,/ey Dat e 7