Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-15 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 15, 2003, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL.COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman Tucker at 7:04 P.M. Commissioner Perrotti led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, and Vice -Chairman Tucker Absent: Chairman Hoffman Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Ken Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the June 17, 2003, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffinan 6. CON 03-4/PDP 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54429 for a seven -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2006, 2014 and 2024 Pacific Coast Highway (continued from June 17, 2003 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To continue the item for the applicant to submit completed plans. Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant requested additional time to resubmit his plans for this project. There being no public input, Vice -Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE this matter to the Planning Commission's August meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffinan 7. CUP 03-8 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a large family day care home for up to twelve (12) children at 11201st Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission had originally approved a Conditional Use Permit for a large family day care home for the same applicant at 1150 1st Street in 1997; and stated that the applicant has since been operating a large day care facility at that address and is now proposing to continue that operation at the new location, 1120 1 st Street. He explained that the State Legislature adopted the Child Day Care Facilities Act, which spells out policies for family day care homes for children, which primary intent is to ensure that these day care operations are properly carried out in a residential environment; and he explained that as a result, the Child Day Care Facilities Act basically eliminates many of the Conditional Use Permit requirements that many communities have adopted in order to regulate such uses. Director Blumenfeld explained that because of this Act, staff has determined that this City's current regulations are out of sync with the State -mandated requirements — pointing out that this issue will also necessitate a text amendment that will be considered later this evening. Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission has the ability to waive the current parking requirement of 6 additional spaces for a project of this kind; explained that since the new Ordinance preempts providing parking requirements that exceed those allowed in residential zones, that the Planning Commission would need to consider this application in light of the newer requirements as well, which is only providing that parking required to meet the residential parking requirement; advised that the Planning Commission can waive that parking requirement; and that this body can approve this project consistent with the City's existing large family day care regulations and the new Ordinance that will be shortly considered this evening. Director Blumenfeld stated that this new Ordinance basically circumscribes the issues that the Planning Commission can consider with this proposed application -- for example, the concentration of such uses, traffic control, noise control and parking; noted that staff believes the proposed project is in conformance with the new statute; and stated that staff is recommending approval of this application because there is no concentration of such uses in the area and no evidence of traffic, parking or noise problems with the previous use. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that staff has received no complaints in regard to the operations of this business. Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Perrotti that if there is a complaint relative to 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 this business's operations, the complaint would have to be directed to the Department of Social Services; and with regard to regulating noise in the surrounding neighborhood, Director Blumenfeld advised that the City would have the ability to implement its own ordinance relative to controlling noise. Responding to Vice -Chairman Tucker's inquiry regarding Building Code issues, Director Blumenfeld explained that this application does not constitute a change in occupancy or an alteration to the dwelling; and stated that the Fire Department will continue its normal review of this business. Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Randy Keen, attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, representing the applicant, Ms. Turner, stated that the applicant has successfully operated her large family day care center for 6 years at the previous address without any complaints; and stated that two of the neighbors have provided letters in support of Ms. Turner's request. He pointed out that Ms. Turner is providing a much needed service to the community; and he noted that she is only moving 6 houses down the street. Mr. Keen stated that he does agree with staff s analysis that State law does preempt the City's current code requirements; and noted that the applicant will meet the City's proposed new code requirements. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 03-8 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a large family day care home for up to twelve (12) children at 1120 1 st Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffinan 8. TEXT 03-10 -- Text amendment to allow large family day care facilities without a Conditional Use Permit in the residential zone consistent with Sections 1597.44- 1597.465 of the Health and Safety Code. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment. Director Blumenfeld noted that this matter is a follow-up item to the item previously considered; advised that this text amendment would bring the City's current regulations into conformance with State regulations; explained that the zoning regulation for day care homes provides for day care of 7 to 14 children; and advised that staff has basically taken the definition for this text amendment directly from the State Health of Safety statute for small and large family day care homes. Director Blumenfeld stated that large family day care defines a home that provides family day care for 7 to 14 children, inclusive of children under the age of 10 who reside at the home; and that small family day care defines a home that provides family day care for 8 or fewer Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 children, inclusive of children under the age of 10 who reside at the home. With respect to the requirements to be met to increase the number of children from 12 to 14, he noted that the City is simply allowing up to 14 children to be permitted in a large family day care facility. Relative to parking, he indicated that the proposal is to reduce the parking requirement to only that requirement necessary to meet parking for the primary residential use. In terms of noise, he added that the restrictions would comply with the Municipal Code regulations in Chapter 8.24. In terms of findings for approval, Director Blumenfeld stated that the City is permitted to impose conditions of approval and to require approval of the permit only after the Director finds that all of the required standards have been met; advised that the standard for review is noise, concentration of use, parking, traffic; and noted that the intent is to make sure that when a permit is granted, it is not detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare, injurious or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity. Director Blumenfeld advised that in terms of procedure, rather than applying for a Conditional Use Permit, as the City does under its current Ordinance, the procedure would require review by staff; that the Director would review the request and conduct a hearing, a hearing as if the Zoning Administrator was considering the matter; and that if the matter is appealed, if the applicant is dissatisfied with the Director's decision, it could be appealed to the Planning Commission, which is consistent with the State statute. He indicated that there is a 100-foot notification radius requirement as opposed to a 300-foot notification radius currently required for a Conditional Use Permit. Director Blumenfeld advised that the City's Building and Fire Codes only come into play if there is a proposed new improvement made on the property. In terms of environmental review, Director Blumenfeld stated that this review is consistent with State law and is not subject to CEQA review; and that based on the proposed changes reviewed, staff would recommend approval of this text amendment. Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice -Chairman Tucker that there would be no hearing unless it's requested by the applicant or an affected individual who received notice, that it is an administrative permit process. Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Vice -Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE TEXT 03-10 -- Text amendment to allow large family day care facilities without a Conditional Use Permit in the residential zone consistent with Sections 1597.44-1597.465 of the Health and Safety Code. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 9. GP 03-2/ZON 03-2/PARK 03-2 -- General Plan Amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to High Density Residential (HD) and Zone Change from Commercial SPAT to R-P Residential or R-3 High Density, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, for the surplus Verizon switching facility parking lots located on 1st Street; General Plan Amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Low Density Residential (LD) and Zone Change from Commercial SPA7 to R-1 Low Density, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, for the parking lots on 2nd Street; Parking Plan to reduce available parking for the Verizon switching facility; and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 102 Pacific Coast Highway, Verizon. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the properties involved for the General Plan Amendment and Zone changes are located east of the Verizon facility structure that fronts Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); that the properties are currently improved as parking lots and are exclusively accessed from 1st and 2nd Streets; that the General Plan designation for these properties is currently Commercial Corridor; and that the zoning designation is currently SPA-7, which is a Commercial Specific Plan area. He indicated that the total site/area for the Verizon property is approximately 80,000 square feet; that the areas proposed to be rezoned include 28,200 square feet along lst Street and 6,800 square feet along 2nd Street; that the area of the switching facility/building contains approximately 56,600 square feet with 2 floors; that the existing parking contains 131 spaces; and that the proposed number to remain is 48 parking spaces. With regard to the 1st Street properties, Senior Planner Robertson explained that the lots are currently being utilized by the Land Rover dealership to store new vehicles, which was approved by a parking plan in 1991 and also approved by the Conditional Use Permit for the auto dealership in 1993; and advised that these properties became commercially designated as a result of the Multi -Use Corridor Study in 1989, at which time the City Council extended the depth of the commercially zoned property along 1st Street from 300 to 500 feet. He stated that prior to that time, all parcels east of the Multi -Use Corridor were designated High Density Residential and zoned R-P (Residential, Professional), consistent with the other properties on 1 st Street east of the Multi -Use Corridor boundary; and noted that the purpose of these changes in 1989 was to clarify what was then a patchwork of existing zoning and to clearly define the commercial/residential boundary to reflect the existing commercial use and, if possible, to provide for potential commercial expansion of the PCH fronting property. He stated that historically, the parking lots now being identified as surplus were still necessary for a much more intensively used GTE exchange building, and at the time represented potential commercial expansion should the use have changed to another commercial use. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant is proposing to establish the depth of the commercial zoning at 380 feet rather than 500 feet; and stated that the applicant believes this is a logical new boundary at the eastern edge of the primary parking lot for the Verizon parking facility, given the reduced usage of the facility. He stated that the properties could be rezoned to R-P, which would allow multi -family or office uses or multi -family residential, which would Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 limit development options to residential uses only. If the Planning Commission does consider the rezoning, he stated that staff would recommend the use of the R-3 zone classification for consistency with the High Density Residential designation that's proposed; that in either case, he stated the residential density would equate to 33 units per acre or up to 15 units for the 3 parcels on 1 st Street, which would result in a density consistent with surrounding residential densities in the R-P zone along 1st Street. With regard to the property's parking lots along 2nd Street, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the re -designation request is for 2 parcels which are currently improved for parking but have no current use; and noted that these properties are also the subject of the Multi -Use Corridor Study which was conducted in 1989 and changed to Commercial Corridor and SPA-7. He explained that previously, one lot was zoned R-P and one lot was zoned C-3 as part of the patchwork of zoning that existed prior to that time, and that the lots containing nonconforming residential uses to the west were zoned R-1. He added that at that time, the Commercial Corridor depth was therefore established at 340 feet, including rezoning the existing houses, which was done to clean up the patchwork of the existing zoning, and to create a logical depth for commercial use consistent with the parking lot and with the goals of the study; and in this case, he stated that the applicant is proposing to make both parcels Low Density Residential and R-1 to be consistent with the designations and land uses along 2nd Street. Senior Planner Robertson explained that approving these changes would preclude expansion of the PCH fronting commercial property eastward up the slope along 1 st Street and remove potential parking to supply any expansion along 2nd Street. He added that the loss of 80 feet of commercial depth on 2nd Street and 120 feet on 1 st Street reduces the utility of the property for commercial development; and noted that in the past, the City Council has generally supported maintaining the commercial depths along PCH but has most recently supported a rezoning and re -designation of a parcel located on 10th Street, west of PCH. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant's argument in this case is that this property is somewhat unique and does not fit in with the intent of encouraging new commercial development along PCH; and mentioned that the current use of this public utility contains substantial switching and computer telecommunications equipment and is the central location for all underground Verizon cabling, conduit and network facilities that will remain for an extremely long-term horizon, thereby precluding the possibility of any future commercial projects that would front on PCH. He added that under the current zoning, this leaves only the rear portion of the facility available for commercial development; and advised that the standards of the SPA zone do not allow development of a commercial use with access only on the residential streets nor does it seem desirable. With respect to a parking plan, Senior Planner Robertson stated that none of these General Plan Amendments or Zoning changes can occur until Verizon resolves the parking issues; stated that the parking plan is necessary to reduce the parking requirements of the Verizon structure and thereby makes the land available for other uses; noted that the applicant argues that since the facility is largely automated, containing telecommunication switching and routing equipment, and the second -story area is vacant with no intent to be used for any other purpose, the parking requirements for a commercial use no longer applies; and that, in effect, the applicant is Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 requesting a reduction from the existing 131 parking spaces available for the building to the 48 available in the primary parking lot; and that the Planning Commission has authority, through the parking plan, to consider less than required parking based on various factors — stating that in this case, it would be the uniqueness of the existing building and the automation in the facility. He indicated that this section of the code which allows consideration of parking plans also states that a covenant with the City may be required to limit the use of the property and/or designate the method by which the parking will be provided. In conclusion, Senior Planner Robertson stated that given the variety of issues involved here, the Planning Commission must weigh the benefits of rezoning and re -designating this property along the Commercial Corridor against the lack of benefit in losing some of the relatively small number of commercial properties in the City; and advised that reducing the depths of these commercial lots renders the remainder of the site less usable for quality commercial and tends to have collateral effects on abutting properties since it becomes harder to provide the kinds of mitigation for a project, such as setbacks and landscaping, that larger sites afford. Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice -Chairman Tucker that a total of 15 units would be permitted, that there would be no bonus to merge the 3 parcels. Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Stephen Slater, 3961 Blackford Way, Calabasas, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is fully aware of the residents' concerns; advised that the applicant conducted a small community meeting wherein these concerns were addressed — noting that there were 7 residents who attended this meeting; and expressed his belief that no matter what is developed on this property, it's going to be a difficult situation due to the close proximity of the neighboring homes. Mr. Slater explained that the applicant has closely worked with staff on this proposal since April in an attempt to package this application in the most compatible manner as possible. Mr. Slater explained that the applicant received letters from the residents who focused mainly on the parking; and stated that the applicant believes this is a situation of 68 stalls being reduced to 48 stalls, not reducing it from 131, due to the resolution that was passed in 1991 wherein the upper lots were already deemed unnecessary for use of the building — pointing out that this also was approved by the Planning Commission in 1991. In terms of the neighbors' concern with Verizon coming in to occupy the building, Mr. Slater explained that the applicant does not see that as legally possible — pointing out that the upper story does not currently comply with City codes. Mr. Slater pointed out that this building has been operating in its current condition for the past 12 years and that the parking lot is never fully utilized. Mr. Slater mentioned that Verizon is a combination of Bell Atlantic and GTE; and that in this building, it would continue to basically house GTE and stated that it is not under new ownership. Mr. Slater noted that some of the other concerns of the residents were with store fronts or reutilizing portions of the building; and explained that the entire first floor of the building is switching equipment and all of the conduit to support the infrastructure needs and service to portions of Redondo Beach and almost all of Hermosa Beach; and that transitioning this building to a wireless facility would be extremely remote. He explained that Verizon has deemed these Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 properties to be surplus; that Verizon operates on the premise that surplus properties need to be sold off; but added that Verizon does not believe these properties are sellable in their current state under the current zoning because of the commercial implications addressed in staff report. He stated that the application returns the zoning to what previously existed; that the applicant would not ask for any zoning that is different from what the abutting properties have; and that with the residential zoning that is being proposed, the applicant believes that they acknowledge the fact that it's not going to turn over to a commercial use — pointing out that this zoning is necessary to sell the properties in the back of the building. Mr. Slater reiterated for Commissioner Pizer that there are 6 full-time employees who are assigned to work out of this building, but explained that the few vendors who co -locate with Verizon will periodically come in and out of this facility; and that at any one time, there may be an average of 10 to 12 individuals inside this facility. He stated that the parking lot is not fully utilized from an operational standpoint; and confirmed that the second floor is vacant and unused. Vice -Chairman Tucker questioned whether this property has ever been marketed for sale to the commercial realtors in the area. Jim Povance, 25862 West Hammet Circle, Stevenson Ranch, CB Richard Ellis, real estate consultant to Verizon, explained that this property has recently been submitted to the open market for sale under its current zoning with the understanding that the applicant is looking for residential zoning of this site. He stated that depending on the offer/terms, a commercial offer would be considered. Mr. Slater reiterated for Vice -Chairman Tucker that Verizon would agree with the covenant to be recorded on the property reflecting that the upper floor cannot be used; and stated that the second floor has not been occupied for 12 years and that it's in no condition to be occupied, that there would have to be substantial renovations made to the second floor. Mr. Slater stated that the ground floor is 37,300 square feet, which is fully dedicated to equipment, and that the second floor is 19,000 square feet, of which approximately 9,800 square feet is open space. James Pinset, 926 1st Street, stated that he is a full-time realtor and that he is not aware of any marketing of these commercial lots; addressed his concerns with the current parking crisis on 1 st Street; and he expressed his belief that increasing the density to more residential will make the parking problem worse. He expressed his belief that Verizon will not maintain its building after they sell off their land or that Verizon will lease this facility in the future. Dave Price, 2nd Street resident, addressed his concerns with parking in this area; and noted his belief that Verizon's plan is to sell off the land for commercial use. Eloise Schlichman, 935 1st Street, addressed her concern with the lack of parking in this area; questioned whether Verizon will allow this building sit vacant; and noted her opposition to an R- 3 multi -family zone. Valerie Torland, 930 2nd Street, addressed her concern with the lack of parking in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 Cynthia Fumberg, 912 2°a Street, expressed her belief that the parking plan will exacerbate the limited parking conditions that already exist for future use of this building; stated that Verizon is currently in violation of the current parking plan — stating that it is illegal for Verizon to reduce parking and lease this parking out; questioned the applicant's intent for future use of this building, noting that Verizon is making no commitments. She noted her opposition to rezoning these lots and stated that there is no basis for the rezoning; and she urged the Planning Commission to consider the long-range plans for this building and to deny the request for parking and rezoning. Jim Lois, 922 2nd Street, stated that his property abuts this property on the north side; explained that he is not opposed to the residential R-1 use of the 2nd Street lots; but stated that he can't support putting 15 units behind his house with a 30-foot height limit — pointing out that every one of those units would look down into his backyard. Mr. Lois addressed his concern with the lack of parking in this area; urged the Planning Commission to reduce the zoning to R-1 with the normal setback requirements and height limitations under the R-1 zone. Judith Medson, 920 2nd Street, stated that she concurs with Mr. Lois' statements; expressed her opposition to the loss of her ocean views; and addressed her concerns with the limited parking in this area. Ms. Medson urged the Planning Commission not to rezone this to the highest density possible. Sandy Kandra, 925 2nd Street, addressed her concerns with the tremendous traffic and parking problems in this area; questioned the intent and sincerity of this proposal by Verizon; and urged the City to keep the residents in mind when making a decision concerning this property. Mr. Slater pointed out that Verizon is not contributing to the parking problems in this area at this time; stated that he understands the neighbors' concerns with future development of this site; expressed the applicant's belief that selling off the building and the equipment would be too expensive and cost prohibitive; and reiterated the fact that Verizon has allowed the second floor of this building to go unused for the past 12 years. Mr. Slater assured the City that Verizon has no hidden agenda to sell the facility tomorrow. He reiterated that the ground floor is totally occupied with equipment and that this is not considered a vacant building; and stated that the applicant is asking for a rezoning identical to what the abutting properties have. Mr. Slater pointed out that the building is protected with an upgraded fire suppression system. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the second floor of this building could be leased if substantial improvements were made. He indicated for Commissioner Perrotti that the City has no funds to acquire this property for parking purposes. Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that given this evening's testimony, he believes some of the parking area is excess for Verizon when considering the automation that is going on in the telecommunications industry and the need for fewer employees. He pointed out that staff report indicates approximately 14 percent of the City is zoned commercial and less than 6 percent of 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 that land is located along the City's Commercial Corridors; and he stated for that reason, these lots should not be rezoned to residential. He stated that these lots should remain commercial in case there is a commercial purchase of this property in the future; and he highlighted the controversial parking issue in this City. Commissioner Pizer highlighted his concern to protect the rights of property owners; expressed his belief that the applicant can continue with its current operation with the current zoning; and, therefore, he noted his belief that this business would not suffer in denying this request. He highlighted the City Council's desire not to decrease commercial space in this City. Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support to maintain as much commercial space as possible; and stated that he could support changing the parking lot on 2nd Street into two R-1 lots. Vice -Chairman Tucker addressed the critical condition of parking availability throughout the City; highlighted the increasing density in this City and its impacts upon the City's infrastructure; stated that he could support rezoning the two lots on 2nd Street, which might help to alleviate some of the problems with the parking and people cutting through this area; and stated that at this time, he would deny the applicant's request. Commissioner Perrotti noted his agreement that the parking is excessive for the company's needs; and that he would support reducing the parking to 48 spaces. Vice -Chairman Tucker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Slater stated that the applicant would like to reconsider its proposal and look at lowering the request for zoning to R-1 on 2nd Street and stated that at this time, the applicant would withdraw its application. Vice -Chairman Tucker so noted the applicant's withdrawal of this application. RECESS AND RECONVENE Vice -Chairman Tucker recessed the meeting at 8:36 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M. 10. TEXT 03-11-- Text amendment to allow condominiums in addition to apartments above commercial as a permitted use in the C-1 zone. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment. Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request to amend Section 17.26.030 of the Zoning Ordinance; noted that the Zone code allows for one or more apartments to be built over commercial buildings; and noted that the intent of that Ordinance is to allow residential use above commercial in the C-1 Zone. Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission considered a project at 44 Hermosa Avenue last year and at that time, the applicant had proposed a 2-unit project; at that time it was the applicant's intent to have condominium ownership in the 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 project. He added that the Planning Commission directed staff to go forward with a text amendment that would allow condominium uses, in addition to residential apartments, above first floor commercial uses. He stated that the proposed text amendment would read as follows: "Residence: Residential uses above ground floor commercials use(s), including condominium developments." He stated that development standards would be unaffected by this text amendment, other than compliance with the condominium ordinance. Director Blumenfeld explained for Vice -Chairman Tucker that this text amendment only adds the issue of ownership to the property and provides the option for an owner/occupant of both units or simply to be a residential owner above commercial use. In response to Vice -Chairman Tucker's inquiry regarding a Parking Plan, Director Blumenfeld explained that each one of these permits will have to go through a Conditional Use Permit process; and stated that the Planning Commission's intent for future projects was to make sure that each future project had its full complement of parking. He added that this issue will be considered in the 44 Hermosa Avenue hearing when it comes before the Planning Commission in August. Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Pizer that this allows for the development of residential uses, including condominium developments and for commercial/condominiums. There being no public input, Vice -Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE TEXT 03-11 -- Text amendment to allow condominiums in addition to apartments above commercial as a permitted use in the C-1 zone. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffinan 11. CUP 03-7 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on the City parking structure at 1301 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that the zoning on this site is C-2; that the site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 13th Street and Beach Drive; and that the applicant is requesting to allow the installation of an antenna array that would sit atop a new light pole that would replace the existing light pole on the upper deck of the parking structure. He stated that there would also be a wireless communication cabinet located on the second floor of the parking structure in an area that is not used for parking; advised that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan for this zone; and stated that this structure will not exceed the highest point of the building, which is the elevator tower. He added that the parking structure is 27 feet in height; that the full complement is approximately 20 feet; and that it will be no more than 47 feet in 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 height from the finished grade. He mentioned that the light pole will not exceed the height of the remaining light poles on site; advised that the equipment and antenna array will be effectively screened; and he pointed out that the lease agreement is being considered by the City Council, pending the Planning Commission's review. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that no parking will be lost. Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Ryan Shields, 394 South Evergreen Drive, Ventura, representing the Sprint PCS, noted his appreciation of staff for their assistance with this proposal; and stated that the applicant concurs with the conditions of approval. He explained that the applicant looked at several other buildings in this area but selected this site due to its amenable position to view shed as well as co -location opportunities. He explained that the height of the structure will not be increased; noted that the facility will be a compact design; that it will be pleasingly camouflaged; and that it will not affect the existing businesses in the area. He added that this project will not impact any parking. Mr. Shields noted for Vice -Chairman Tucker that the new requirement for 911 service will be provided; and that the applicant will incur the cost of the pole and pay a lease fee to the City for use of this site. Vice -Chairman Tucker requested that the applicant enclose this area in the parking structure with a material other than chain link fencing. Mr. Shields stated that the applicant would be amenable to erecting other type of fencing than the chain link; and explained that alterations to the installation will be made to offset the lowering of the lights so that it does not impact the light shed. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 03-7 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on the City parking structure at 1301 Hermosa Avenue, with the inclusion of decorative fencing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffinan 12. CON 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment to add a roof deck to an existing condominium at 927 17th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson stated that this is a 2-unit condominium project, which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1997; that it's located on the north side of 17th Street between PCH and Prospect Avenue; advised that the applicant is proposing to add a 365-square-foot roof 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 deck on the rear unit; that access to the roof deck is by a single spiral staircase from the existing deck on the first floor below; explained that the deck addition, as proposed, is somewhat too high to comply with the 30-foot height limit for the R-2B zone, which calculation was based on the survey; and advised that staff has determined the roof deck is approximately 3.5 inches over the allowable height limit. He stated that staff has other concerns that didn't come to their attention until yesterday; advised that there is some discrepancy between the survey that was provided by the applicant and the survey information that was used for the basis of the height measurement when this project was approved in 1997; and that there is some concern that the numbers that staff is basing this on may not be totally accurate as to what is the unaltered grade. He added that this could potentially present a problem and that staff is not comfortable with the height calculation following this discovery yesterday. He added that in light of this problem, the Planning Commission may wish to consider adding another condition to this project or perhaps continue the matter until staff can look at a survey that may give staff some grades of the adjacent property to better determine whether the grade in the back of the lot has been altered, that this new height calculation may be based on some numbers that are not as accurate as they should be. Senior Planner Robertson stated that one of the problems is that staff has not been able to locate the survey that was done in 1997. Director Blumenfeld explained that staff must be able to review a comparable survey prepared by a licensed civil engineer to do a height check, and make sure it's consistent with the original survey and height check. He highlighted staff s preference to continue this matter. Senior Planner Robertson explained staff is not sure if the numbers represent the top of the wall or a grade that has been altered since 1997. Vice -Chairman Tucker noted his concurrence with staff to continue this matter. Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Jim Risso, 1601 Sepulveda Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, explained that he and the applicant discussed this issue with staff; and that staff recommended that they obtain the existing survey done of where the property was when it was built. He stated that the applicant has made no improvements to the rear yard or any part of the building; noted that the applicant's land surveyor was only directed to find the final corners, as staff had explained, and to find the final roof elevation to determine the height; and noted that he did not have the surveyor do a topographic survey of the entire lot. He explained that what they tried to do is establish the height elevations of the four boundary corners as well as the height elevations of the roof at 927 17th Street. Mr. Risso noted for Vice -Chairman Tucker that the original survey has not been located; and that he was able to find some data points off the architectural drawings that were approved under the construction of the condominium unit. He stated that the applicant hired a new, registered land surveyor who found the benchmarks, shot the points, and determined the final points of the existing roof at 927 17th Street. 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 Gary Wigodsky, 927 17th Street, applicant, confirmed that he bought the house new and advised that he has made no improvements on the property. Mr. Risso pointed out that the backyard has clearly not been raised; stated that cement steps go up to the grass area which proceeds to the back fence, along with dirt where the trees are located. He stated that as one of the conditions, there has to be subsequent approval of the final plans; and that once they submit the plans, he suggested that everyone could agree on the same numbers at that point in time. John Sergeant, 1009 17th Street, stated that he is not opposed to improvement as long as the improvement is within the allowable height restrictions and is accurately. He stated that he does have the calculations from the original plan on file with the City; and he noted his concern that the original condominium calculations for the elevated plan points are different than what the new plans indicate. He stated that the original condominium calculations show Elevated Plan Point A: 103.1; Point B, 109.2; Point C, 101.9; Point D 107.9; and that the new proposed calculations show Point A: 101.9; Point B: 110.4; Point C: 105.1; Point D: 111.2, reflecting a 2-foot growth from 1997 to 2003 with these calculations. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE CON 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment to add a roof deck to an existing condominium at 927 17th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman 13. ZON 03-1/CON 03-6/PDP 03-4 -- Zone Change from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to R-2, Two Family Residential, or to such other zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 27161 for a two -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 603 3rd Street. Staff Recommended Action,: 1) To recommend approval of the Zone Change. 2) Direct staff as deemed appropriate in regard to the condominium project. Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project is located at the corner of 3rd Street and Ardmore Avenue; with respect to the zone change to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan, he indicated that staff does not have any problems with this request and that they would recommend approval of the zone change. With respect to the condominium project, he stated that the plans were prepared by the applicant and not by a design professional and, therefore, staff is seeking direction; noted that the Planning Commission could consider the approval of plans as submitted; and that the Planning Commission could consider continuing the hearing to give the applicant further opportunity to more fully develop the plans, or that the Planning Commission could direct the applicant to hire a design professional to complete the 14 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 architectural plans. He expressed staff s belief that the plans are not consistent with the customary submittal standards for Planning Commission review; and advised that most plans that are reviewed are prepared by a design professional familiar with design techniques for indicating relevant construction and development information necessary for the Planning Commission to make informed decisions. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the plans don't show a distinct and clear architectural style that staff and the Planning Commission typically sees; mentioned that while plans for past projects have not been prepared by licensed architects, they have been at a minimum prepared by design professionals. He added that the applicant and staff have worked very hard to complete a set of plans for acceptance by the City and compliance with the basic standards of the code; and questioned whether these plans demonstrate the higher standards and quality expected for multiple unit condominium projects. He pointed out that the elevations and rendering especially do not show any clear architectural style and do not depict a level of design quality that achieves unity or integrated design within the buildings or the project. Senior Planner Robertson explained that in evaluating this project, it does meet basic requirements to comply with zoning standards; advised that the project consists of 2 units connected by a deck on the first floor; noted that the buildings will be separately accessed from 3rd Street and Ardmore Avenue; and that the project does generally comply with the R-2 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for lot coverage, yards, open space, and the 30-foot height limit. He indicated that landscaping is provided, including the retention of some existing trees as shown in the separate landscape plan. Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's question regarding any requirement that this applicant must submit professional drawings and plans, Director Blumenfeld explained that the requirement in the Business and Professions Code reflects that a licensed design professional needs to prepare plans for projects greater than 4 units, but for smaller projects, such as this, the applicant is not required to hire a licensed architect. He added that the issue here is what will ultimately get communicated on the plans relative to what the Planning Commission is reviewing this evening, how easily staff can review the plans, and whether or not the Planning Commission's decisions and intent in its motion is fulfilled. Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to reject plans that are not consistent with their standards or do not meet the standards for effective plan review; explained further that staff s point is that they had trouble reviewing the plans; that staff spent a large amount of time reviewing these plans; and that staff still believes these plans are rudimentary and don't communicate the level of design that the Planning Commission typically requires for a project. He noted staff s desire that the plans be fully developed; stated that the customary nomenclature and the level of construction and design information is not present; and that the architectural style is not clear with this project. Director Blumenfeld indicated for Commissioner Pizer that the plans will ultimately have to be engineered. Commissioner Pizer noted that the Planning Commission has approved plans in the past that have not been done by a professional. 15 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Jim Walker, 603 3rd Street, stated that he has worked as a residential builder for over 25 years; he questioned what staff means by the word "style"; and expressed his belief that the plans for this project do fit in with the other units and buildings in this area and other projects that are currently under construction, that it conforms to the neighborhood design. Mr. Walker stated that in his work with project plans throughout the years, he routinely has to return to the architect and other building professionals for plan clarification or alterations. Mr. Walker advised that the applicant, Susan Scott, had presented to this body another project that she designed last year which was approved by this Planning Commission. He advised that the applicant has lived in this home for 8 years; that she intends for this project to be a long-term investment, and that she is attempting to increase the value of her property as well as improve the value within the neighborhood. He advised that the applicant is willing to sign an affidavit indicating that she will not sell the home within the required period of time. Susan Scott, 603 3rd Street, thanked staff for their input and help throughout this process; stated that while there are many drafting conventions and practices that she is not a proficient in, she modeled these plans after previously approved plans, City guidelines and staff feedback; and advised that these plans meet and/or exceed all City zoning requirements. She stated that a licensed engineer will draw the structural plans and that all the plans will be reviewed for building and safety requirements by her consultants. Presenting a copy of approved plans that she used as a model as well as another set of plans drawn by an architect, she reiterated that both of the plans demonstrate a similar level of design intent and detail on them that her plans reflect; and that the elevations on the two examples are no more detailed than her plans. She advised that State law allows for an owner/builder to undertake this very specific type of project, a residential property under 4 units, 2 stories, plus a basement of wood construction. Ms. Scott pointed out that she has had other projects approved in this City; advised that she has owned and lived on this property for 8 years; that she plans to keep this property and rent the units out upon completion and that it is not her intention to sell these properties. She stated that she would sign an affidavit indicating that she would not sell this property for at least one year. Ms. Scott stated that she will have a continuity of work that gets done on this project because of Mr. Walker's experience and help with her project; expressed her belief that this project will have architectural unity and design; stated that "architectural style" is not mentioned anywhere in the code; and noted that while there is no particular architectural style in these plans, the plans are consistent with the existing neighborhood and new construction in the area. She advised that the garages will not face the streets; that there is plenty of off-street parking; that there are no adjoining walls between the units; that there is plenty of open/private space, 37 percent more than what is required; that the plans include spacious and separate entries; and that the landscaping plans include the retention of 3 large eucalyptus trees and the addition of 2 palm trees and other landscaping consistent with newer homes in the area. Ms. Scott urged the Planning Commission to approve the plans as submitted or to give very specific areas of design that she can directly address; and stated that if the approval of the PDP is not given tonight, that the Planning Commission hold the request for the zone change, that it be approved together. 16 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 Tim Brown, 623 3rd Street, stated that his property is immediately behind the proposed project; noted his support for redeveloping this site; addressed his concern with the 3rd floor balcony and sound mitigation in relation to his property; and asked that the balconies face out onto the street so as not to disturb the residents. Bob Catilano, 323 Ardmore Avenue, requested and received input regarding the applicant's plans in relation to his property. Mr. Catilano asked that this project not create any limitations on future improvements he may make to his own property and noted some concern with the close proximity of her driveway to his building wall. Vice -Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perrotti noted that the quality of plans should be a standard requirement so that the review process uses staff s and the Planning Commission's time efficiently; stated that while an applicant has the right to prepare their own plans, the plans should be up to the normal standard; and expressed his belief that this applicant should hire a design professional to get a more efficient product so that it will take less staff and Planning Commission time to review. Commissioner Pizer stated that the applicant spent a lot of time addressing the problems pointed out by staff; and noted that the plans will have to eventually go before engineering before the project is built. Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for rezoning this site; suggested that the applicant add a few more sheets to the plans — pointing out his belief that the plans incorporate too much information on each sheet; and stated that his main concern is to see better elevations, that these plans in the current state do not exactly reflect what this project will look like. Vice -Chairman Tucker concurred with Commissioner Kersenboom's comments for better elevations, wanting to see more detail on the elevations and indicate what type of materials will be used; and stated that he would support the zone change. He suggested that this matter be continued to give the applicant more time to improve the detail on the elevations. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE ZON 03-1/CON 03-6/PDP 03-4 -- Zone Change from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to R-2, Two Family Residential, or to such other zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 27161 for a two -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 603 3rd Street, allowing the applicant to provide more detailed elevations. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Pizer, Tucker NOES: Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman 17 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 HEARING(S) 14. NR 03-6 -- Nonconforming remodel to extend an existing nonconforming side yard of three feet rather than the required five feet at 1246 24th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that this proposed addition will be made to a single-family dwelling, which would effectively extend the existing nonconforming side yards; noted that the proposed addition behind the existing garage is only 330 square feet; that the increase in valuation is only 25.8 percent; advised that the zoning is R-1; and mentioned that the existing dwelling was built in the 1950's. He explained that the dwelling is nonconforming to the current side yards and rear yard and to guest parking requirements, as there is only 2 parking spaces on site; stated that the side yards are 3 feet rather than the required 5 feet for this 5,000-square-foot lot; and that there is an existing accessory recreation room that was built along the rear and west side property lines. Director Blumenfeld stated that the amount of expansion or remodeling or alteration is limited when one has a nonconforming condition, such as this existing side yard; explained that this nonconformity can be continued, but that this improvement is subject to Planning Commission review; and noted that since the level of expansion is minor, staff believes this is not unusual or unique and that staff is recommending approval. He added that the 3-foot side yard setback is not unusual since the majority of lots in the City also have nonconforming setbacks. Vice -Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Jay Ward, 1246 24th Street, stated that he needs the additional room because of his expanding family. Vice -Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perrotti stated that he would support this request due to it being a small addition because it is not an unusual condition in the City. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 03-6 -- Nonconforming remodel to extend an existing nonconforming side yard of three feet rather than the required five feet at 1246 24th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman 15. STAFF ITEMS None. 18 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003 16. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Council, at its last meeting, looked favorably on the proposal to have the Planning Commission do a first step review of the General Plan, to make a determination about how to proceed prior to hiring a planning consultant to conduct a standard General Plan update; and stated that the City Council required that the Planning Commission prioritize the items to consider in the review. He noted the City Council's intent on playing a role in the prioritization of these items. Commissioner Pizer stated that Councilwoman Kathy Dunbabin will join him and Chairman Hoffinan on the General Plan Subcommittee; noted that the subcommittee will present to the Planning Commission this requested prioritization list at the next Planning Commission meeting; and he noted that the subcommittee would develop a work plan for proceeding with the General Plan activities and present this plan to the Planning Commission. He noted his desire to make some progress with this effort at each Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Perrotti stated that his packet did not include a copy of the June loth City Council minutes. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that staff will address the July 13th letter that the Planning Commission received tonight with respect to the schedule for putting the Planning Commission packet together and advised that staff will respond to the letter and indicate some compelling reasons for the existing schedule staff has for both statutory requirements for processing and reviewing permits and also for staff and Planning Commission workload. He added that the author of the letter was advised that a staff item on this matter would be presented at the Planning Commission's August meeting. 17. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned. 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 the regularly scheduled meeting of July 15, 2003: r� Petry Tucker Vile -Chairman Date 19 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2003