Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12.20.83MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Comm. Shapiro at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker Comm. Smith, Chrnn. Izant ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1983. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Soulakis noted that P.C. 83-30 rescinds P.C. 83-25. P.C. 83-25 was the resolution concerning the automatic C potential .rezoning. He noted that, in the City Attorney's opinion, this was felt to be illegal. Mr. Mercado stated that P.C. 83-30 rescinds the entire action. The City Council approved one of the options. The entire matter will be coming back to the Planning Commission on January 3, 1984, to be considered again. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether one could apply for a separate C-3 zoning before submission of a final plan. Mr. Mercado stated that the process will now be to request the rezone. Beyond that point, the application will be considered as any other commercial project. Comm. Brown questioned whether the City Attorney put his opinions in writing. If such a memo does exist, he noted that he would like to see a copy. He felt that this would clarify matters for the Commission. Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve P.C. 83-30. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker None Comm. Brown, Newton Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by· Comm, Soulakis, to approve P. C. 83-31. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker None Comms. Brown, Newton Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 43055 Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that this project received environ­ mental review on December 8, 1983, and was granted a negative declaration. This property was rezoned from C-1 to R-3 (July 5, 1983). A few months ago the developer pulled a building permit for a single family residence. They PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 20~ 1983 Page 2 FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 4305 5 (Cont.) have since submitted this proposed project to the Commission. In the process of developing for the single family residence, the developer was permitted two curb cuts which resulted in the removal of two on-street metered parking spaces. Mr. Mercado stated that this project consists of a five-unit condominium on a 5,800 square foot lot zoned R-3 and has a land use designation of high density. Mr. Mercado noted that the project meets all of the condominium and Subdivision Map Act requirements (with the exception of the CC&R's, which were in preparation). Since the project provides 15% of its gross floor area in the form of common recreation space, it is permitted to provide 100 square feet of private recrea­ tion space (as opposed to 150 sq. ft. as is usually required). A landsc~ping plan has also been provided for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Mercado stated that this project meets all condominium ordinance requirements; therefore, staff recommends that the resolution approving this project be adopted. Mr. Mercado further noted that the developer, while in the process of developing the site as a single-family residence, was permitted two curb cuts, but was not required to replace the lost parking spaces. This occurred because the Zoning Code requires only subdivisions to replace on-site street parking removed due to curb cuts. The Zoning Code does not have such a requirement for other types of development, i.e., single family homes and apartments. In order to mitigate this discrepency, staff suggested that the Commission adopt a Resolu- tion of Intention to amend the Zoning Code by requiring that all curb cuts removed, irrespective of the type of development, be replaced on the development site removing such curb -cuts. Mr. Mercado noted that, should the Commission desire to take an action regarding this project, they have the option to continue this item and request an opinion from the City Attorney. Comm. Soulakis asked whether this project contained any exceptions to ordinances on the books at the present time. He noted that in the past, some projects contained exceptions. Comm. Strohecker referred to a project that had previously come before the Planning Commission. There was a question cm that project relative to side and rear setbacks. There was a question of the 30-foot height limit being exceeded. Mr. Mercado stated that the project at hand is more complex than it may appear at first glance. He noted that there will be problems with small lots. He noted that several alternatives will need to be developed to mitigate the situation, It is not just a matter of providd:.ng more space on a piece of property if curb cuts are removed. He stated that for some people, this would simply not be feasible on a small lot. In other cases, it would be impossible. He stated that this is a matter that will be looked into further in an effort to determine what will be in the best long-term interest for the City. Comm. Soulakis asked for clarification on the relationship of curb cuts to small lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 20, 1983 Page 3 FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND CONDITIONAL USE PER_MIT AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 430 5 5 (Cont.) Mr. Mercado stated that the parking requirements that exist now are very bad , for the small lots. If it is essential to have curb cuts, the curb cut would remove one additional parking space on the street. CoIIIIIl, Soulakis felt that it is more appropriate to park in the driveway than on the street. Mr. Mercado replied that parking in the driveway would be of benefit only to the property owner and his guests. It would not be of benefit to the public, however, because the curb cut removes one parking space on the street. Mr. Mercado noted the need to reach a compromise on these interests between the private property owner and the general public; although, he was not certain that a compromise could be reached. Ue did note that some types of developments, such as subdivisions and condominiums, need to provide on-site parking for the lost street parking. In the case of apartments, though, the Code does not require compensation for the lost parking spaces, Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the applicant had requested a curb cut, be Mr. Mercado replied that a single-family dwelling was to/put on the site initially, The applicant was granted two curb cuts by the Building Department, therefore removing two public parking spaces. The Zoning Code did not require him to replace those lost parking spaces. If he had initially come in with a condo­ minium, he would have been required to replace them. Comm. Soulakis noted that the applicant is going from a residential, single­ family dwelling unit with two curb cuts to a condominium, The curb cuts will be retained, thereby eliminating two public parking spaces on the street. Mr. Mercado stated that those spaces have already been eliminated, that the question at hand before the Commission is the request~for condominiums and whether or not it is appropriate that they should site. He noted the five be on this Cormn. Soulakis questioned whether off-street parking would be provided for the five condos. Mr. Mercado replied in the affirmative. He also noted that one or two additional parking spaces would be provided, Comm. Newton questioned the possibility of requiring the applicant to close the curb cuts if they are no longer necessary. She questioned whether this would be burdensome or prohibitive. Mr. Mercado replied that it is the option of the Planning Commission to continue this item in order to get an opinion from the City Attorney as to what would be an appropriate course to take. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. Comm, Newton asked whether both curb cuts were needed at the site. Alien Juckes, 27310 Rainbow Ridge Road, Palos Verdes Peninsula, stated that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 20, 1983 Page 4 FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE, .AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 43055 (Cont,) both curb cuts were necessary for access onto the lot. He noted that he is providing twelve parking spaces for the five units. He stressed that both curb cuts would be necessary regardless of the number of units put on the lot. Comm. Newton questioned if any curb cuts were made before construction commenced on this site. Mr. Juckes replied that after a permit is taken out, one can make the curb cuts. Mr. Mercado stated that Mr. Juckes was permitted by the Building Department to make the curb cuts. He further noted that it is inappropriate to burden a developer because certain discrepencies exist in the Code. Comm. Soulakis noted that if only one curb cut had been allowed, only four units could have been put on the site, and four to eight parking spaces would be required. The fact that there are two curb cuts allows him to put in five units and still accommodate the twelve-space parking requirement. Comm. Soulakis questioned whethe~ the developer should be penalized because there are two CHrbs at the site. Comm. Strohecker noted that the developer did nothing improper. Mr. Juckes noted that there are flaws in the ordinance which should be further examined and corrected for future projects. Comm. Strohecker suggested that this problem be addressed in a future meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Mercado stated that this particular project is consistent with the subdivision map act and the local condominium ordinance. He saw no valid reason for denial of the project, He asked that the Commission adopt a resolution of intention to address this inconsistency in parking requirements. Mr. Juckes felt that it would be more fair to increase the parking requirement than to penalize someone for not putting in a curb cut at some future time. Public Hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Mercado noted that everything done by Mr. Juckes up to this point has been consistent with the local laws. There is a problem in that the local laws are slightly inequitable for certain types of developments. The laws are more prohibitive for subdivisions than they are for single-family dwellings. He stated that staff feels this is inappropriate. Comm. Newton felt that the project is an attractive one and will be of benefit to that~section of the City. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P.C. 83-32 as presented by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 20, 1983 Page 5 FIVE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 4 3055 (Cont.) AYES: NOES': ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker None None Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant Comm.Newton suggested alternative wording for the third WHEREAS. She felt that the more:appropriate wording would be: "WHEREAS, this dd!screpency has recently been demons,t:rated and has resulted in two on-street parking spaces being lost for a single family residence, now being developed as a five-unit condominium located at 166 Hermosa Avenue, without such spaces being replaced on-site," Comm. Soulakis concurred with Comm. Newton. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve the five-unit condominium and conditional use permit at 166 Hermosa Avenue and tentative tract map no. 43055, AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm, Smith, Chmn. Izant Motion by Comm, Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Newton to approve P.C. 83-32, AYES: Connns. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant RESOLUTION OF INTENTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 11.5, OFF STREET PARKING, TO INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR ON STREE T PARKING SPACES LOST DUE TO CURB CUTS AND/OR DRIVEWAYS Mr. Mercado noted that the applicant applied for a permit to develop a single­ family residence. He then made two curb cuts, Now the applicant has applied for a five-unit condominium instead, resulting in one on-street parking place being lost. Comm. Strohecker suggested continuing this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting, if possible. He further stated that he would like to hold a public hearing on the issue of considering to amend the Zoning Code. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve P.C. 83-33. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker None None Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Soulakis suggested a motion to say the Pledge of Allegiance before each PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -DECEMBER 20, 1983 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Planning Commission meeting. Page 6 Comm. Shapiro made a motion to have the Pledge of Allegiance on the next agenda of the Planning Commission as item No. 1. No objections. So ordered, Comm. Strohecker referred to a memo that he saw concerning Sign Ordinance. He noted that he would like to have a Planning Commission workshop session on the matter if staff feels it would be of benefit to the Commission. STAFF ITEMS Mr. Mercado commented on the antenna located at the Poop Deck. He stated that the owner of the Poop Deck has indicated that the antenna will be screened on tl:e east and west sides soon. Seven-or eight-foot screening will put be up. He is unable to go any higher due to wind problems. Comm. Shapiro asked Mr. Mercado to prepare another update on the antenna at the Poop Deck to be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Soulakis noted that he would like to see the original plan. He questioned the problems of going beyond the five-foot height limit. He noted that a variance would be needed in those cases. Mr. Mercado felt that the City Council had recently adopted a new ordinance stating that the antennas must be screened. He also noted that the antenna cannot exceed the height limit for any particular zone. felt Comm. Soulakis/that the situation deserves more investigation because there might be a ·conflict. Motion to adjourn at 8:26 P.M. No objections. So ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete recotd of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meeting of December 20, 1983. Joel Shapiro• Secretary Date