Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_74.10.28MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1974, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chairman Rosenberger at.7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Comm. Burt, Chiu (arrived late), Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Absent: Comm. Hough APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Collis, to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 15, 1974, with correction as follows: Page 8: Correct "Comm. Haller passed out the C.C.F-R's." to read "Comm. Haller passed out copies of a newspaper article which related to C.C.F,R's." Ayes: Comm. Burt, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Chiu APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Haller, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-988 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Chiu Comm. Peirce suggested amending Resolution P.C. 154-989 as follows: 3. That there be no additional activities such as classes. (delete remainder of sentence) 4. delete 5. delete 6. Will be numbered 4., to read "That the applicant does not make the renting of kiln time her prime business. 7. To be numbered 5. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Burt, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-989 as amended. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Chiu Comm. Chiu arrived. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-990 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Comm. Chiu Mr. Merl said the next action would be to notify the Alcoholic Beverage Control that the permit no longer exists. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 2 AMENDMENT NO. 9 OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mr. Merl reviewed changes proposed by the Zoning Subcommittee reflecting concern for bringing about changes in conformance with AB 1301; bringing the land use element into conformance with the zoning. For the benefit of the audience, he pointed out on the map the areas where changes are recommended to reflect actual current land usage. Comm. Haller recalled that the Commission had previously decided to designate the corner of He,rondo and Valley as Neighborhood Commercial potential. Public hearing opened 7:48 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Closed 7:49 p.m. Comm. Collis said designation of Neighborhood Commercial at Herondo and Valley would create a spot zone which is contrary to the policy of the Commission. He questioned whether the site is large enough to support itself as a commercial venture, one consideration being lack of parking. He said he favors the other recommended changes but believes this corner should be considered a special study area. Comm. Haller said this corner has received special attention because there was a petition for a lot split which would have allowed 39 units, which was turned down to prevent raising the density level. She said she wished to leave it open rather than making a decision; and does not want to create a new apartment complex. Chmn. Rosenberger suggested some alternative way of keeping it open so that it would not be used for apartments, and still remain consistent in the zoning; such as a multi -use corridor which would allow consideration of various types of proposals. He recalled Sunnyglen's statement that they could not economically develop fewer than 39 units.. Mr. Merl said a multi -use corridor would allow commercial or apartments, but would not allow single-family dwellings. Concerning the other proposed changes, Chmn. Rosenberger said only three of those had been on the memo and he would prefer a report from the subcommittee or from staff before acting on the others. Motion by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Burt, to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: None 7nniG runnir_F Zone change from R-3 to C-2 of Lots 10-14 and 30-31 of Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract, known as 36,40,42,56 and 60 - 15th Street. Mr. Merl said this item came from the City Council which concern is in relationship to the rezoning of the Biltmore site. He said staff would comment that more reflection of this item could be made as there is an overall study being made for an action program in the Downtown area. The Coastal Commission wants an overall downtown plan. The City Council in discussion of development of the Biltmore site was concerned with an overall plan rather than an incremental approach. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 3 Public hearing opened 8:09 p.m. Joann Ritter, 42 - 15th Street, said she has a four -unit apartment on Lot 10, a ten- year old building having an economic life ❑f 30-40 years, which will be residential for years to come. She said she is a real estate broker trying to negotiate a sale of the property and it is impossible to get loans on nonconforming use; if the property should burn down more than 50%, she would not be able to rebuild. She said if the city changes these properties to commercial zone, these residential buildings will all be non -conforming; she would rather see spot zoning on 8 and 9. Mr. Merl said 8 and 9, plus lots 1 through 7, are C-2. (and lots on 15th Court to the south) Albert Ackroyd, 36 - 15th Street, Lot 31, said he opposes the zoning change for the same reasons: economic, ability re resell, make improvements and replace a dwelling unit if it burns down. He said Hermosa Beach needs more residential, not more commercial zoning, especially in the Downtown area, to support the businesses. He says he believes high rise on the Biltmore site is the motivation for making the changes. He said he lives on the property; the buildings are, perhaps, 40 years or older. Chmn. Rosenberger asked if Mr. Ackroyd believes residential is more economically rewarding than commercial. Mr. Ackroyd said yes, it is much more difficult to sell, and get bank loans for commercial. He said he is not a real estate dealer and has not considered commercial use. Public hearing closed 8:15 p.m. Comm. Collis asked the purpose for the proposed change in zoning. Mr. Merl said it was to square off the commercial zone and make it an even block; also concerned with com- mercial facing residential across the street. He said the Zoning Subcommittee reviewed it and recommended holding the public hearing. He said the Downtown businessmen's committee basically favor squaring the district but have not gone into the matter in any depth. Motion by Comm. Chiu, seconded by Comm. Collis, to continue until January in expecta- tion of having the Downtown plan finished and before us. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough LEGAL DETERMINATIONS 1901 Palm Drive/115 - l9th Street Mr. Merl said the Building Department is recommending approval of three apartment units and one single dwelling unit with only two parking spaces; the report was made by Mr. Clavell. Comm. Peirce asked if an interior inspection was made, and noted that one unit is substandard. Mr. Merl replied that an interior inspection was made; that the Planning Commission cannot vaive Health & Safety requirements but will pass only on the zoning. Public hearing opened 8:24 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Closed 8:25 p.m. Motion by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1574 Page 4 1430, 1430' and 1432 Bayview Drive Mr. Merl said he has additional information from the County Assessor's records which the applicant brought in, with "3" stamped on it. He said the report was made by Mr. Clavell of the Building Department, and approval is recommended. Public hearing opened 8:27 p.m. Mr. Joe Skiras, representing Mrs. Gardner, said the report is correct and he requests approval. Public hearing closed 8:28 p.m. Motion by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough 1427 Montere 11426 and 1428 Ba view Drive Mr. Merl said this request is by the same applicant, County Assessor's records were made available, and the Sanborn map shows three units. He said Mr. Clavell has inspected the interior and feels that it was actually built as three units originally; approval recommended. Public hearing opened 8:29 p.m. Mr. Skiras again confirmed the information and requested approval. Public hearing closed 8:30 p.m. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Collis, to approve. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger 901-935 Aviation Blvd. Mr. Merl said the application is for recognition of 12 units; the 1957 Sanborn map shows 12 units and the building conforms to the building codes at the time the permit was issued. He said the permit was issued for a 21-unit motel of 47 rooms; everything else shows 12 units. Public hearing opened 8:31 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Closed 8:31 p.m. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Chiu, to approve. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough 1850 Hermosa Avenue 112-114 19th Street Mr. Merl said the applicant requests recognition of six units, and Mr. Clavell, in his report, has recommended approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 5 Comm. Peirce questioned whether the three garages facing Hermosa Avenue, and the five on 19th Street, are being used for cars. Public hearing opened 8:34 p.m. Mr. Leslie F. Chikami, 114 - 19th Street, said two of the garages on 19th Street are his and he uses them; the others are not used because the approach is so steep that they scrape the bottom of the automobile getting in and out, and also the garages are so narrow that it is difficult to get in and out of the car. He said there is 8" of clearance with a stationwagon. Public hearing closed 8:38 p.m. Comm. Peirce said he would like to see the possibility of improving the driveways to make the garages more useful, and recommends sending a letter to the City Engineer on the feasibility of such action. Motion by Comm. Peirce to tentatively approve with stipulation that the City Engineer examine the approaches to the driveways with the possibility of improving access; if he deems that such access is possible, it should be made part of the conditions for the determination. Mr. Chikami said the garages are less than 8' across and too narrow for use even if the driveways were usable. The above motion did not receive a second. Motion by Chmn. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Haller, to approve. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Haller, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: Comm. Peirce for the reasons stated above; Comm. Collis, for same reasons. Absent: Comm. Hough 23 -239 - 29th Street (re -hearing) Mr. Merl said this request was previously denied and the owner asked to abate use. The applicant has requested a re -hearing, which the City Attorney recommends. Chmn. Rosenberger asked why the Planning Commission is having a hearing on a matter that should have been appealed to the City Council once a Planning Commission decision was made; why it returned after an 11 month delay; and on what basis the City Attorney decided that it should return to the Planning Commission. Comm. Peirce said the City Attorney did not state his reasons; it was a policy decision. He said the motion should have been positive rather than just the denial of the request. Comm. Collis reviewed the data on the conversion. Comm. Peirce said the Commission is now trying to determine whether there was ever two garages there for any period of time after 1960; therefore requiring a building permit to convert to a room. Chmn. Rosenberger read the recommendations in the Analysis, page 2. He said the question is the size of that garage and whether the size was up to a minimum standards. Public hearing opened 9:50 p.m. Mr. Robert M. Jonas, (attorney for W. Oldaker) 818 Manhattan Beach Blvd, Manhattan Beach, said there is an error in the agenda, which should read "239 29th Street"; there is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 6 only one building, built about 1937, on an R-2 lot. He said it is a single-family residence. He said in 1947 there was a conversion from a two -car garage to a one -car garage and room; the question is whether since 1962 the unit was ever again used as a garage within the definition of the zoning. He said the testimony given clearly indicated that the unit was never used as a garage of those standards; and that there always had been a room in it, of various sizes and various modifications, by various owners. He said Mr. Oldaker subsequently applied for a permit, was granted a permit and did some construction including plumbing. He said there was no intent of renting it out; as affidavit and covenant running with the land was recorded, and said that he would use this property and'that the den was not to be a separate unit. It was dated October 19, 1973, approximately the same time he got the building permit. Chmn. Rosenberger asked if the signed affidavit is binding on present and future owners. Mr. Jonas said in his opinion, since the affidavit runs with the land, it is binding on future owners. Comm. Chiu said a covenant bears both a benefit and a burden; what is the benefit. Mr. Janas said the permit to build the den was the benefit. Comm. Haller asked if the definition of a garage is in terms of space only, or also usage. Mr. Jonas said the previous owner did open the garage and make the room smaller. It was build of wall board and 2x4, a permanent room. That owner reduced the size of the room to put an antique car in there. Mr. Jonas read the basic definition of a garage from the code and the zoning requirement as to size; he said within the definition it does not qualify. Chmn. Rosenberger asked why this was not appealed sooner. Mr. Jonas said it was appealed, but one day later than the appeal period and he was denied the appeal. Comm. Collis said it came back because of his inquiries as to the status of it in June. He said he thinks the Building Department was in error for granting the permit because it lacked conformity at that -time; no notification to property owners and did not meet the require- ments of R-2 development. He said he is interested in the intent and concern for the residents of the area. Chmn. Rosenberger asked the use of the room now. Mr. Jonas said it is being used as a den. Comm. Haller asked if, at an earlier date, the required size of a garage was less. Mrs. Ebey said there used to be no size requirement; just a garage. Mr. Jonas said that was changed in 1962. Chmn. Rosenberger said in regard to intent it was turned down; it was not approved. When that process failed and he did not get the appeal in, he went ahead and did what he wanted to. This _is how bootlegs come in; the work actually started even before the permit was taken out. The city is remiss to allow this. Mr. Jonas said one of the objections was the plumbing; the plumbing has been capped off. Comm. Collis said that Mr. Knapp, in the minutes of November 26, 1973, said that in 1967, the dardroom was torn out and two cars were kept in the garages at that time. Mr. Jonas'said Mr. Knapp was the only one; and the other man's testimony was "suspect", there being several discrepancies in his testimony. Comm. Collis said the interest of this Commission is in intent and conformity with the zoning ordinance. Mr. W. Oldaker, 239 29th Street, said he would like to reaffirm that he only intended it to be a den. Public hearing closed at 9:21 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 282 1974' Page 7 Comm. Collis said no new information has been presented; it is clear that it was used for parking and though at one time there was a laundry room and then darkroom facility, parking was an intention and use for that particular area; he considers it a two -car garage. Comm. Burt said it never was legal size which prohibits classifying it as a garage even though they had an antique car in there. Chmn. Rosenberger said he considers the letter from staff on September 3, 1974, new infor- mation; also, the two letters sent requesting an inspection of the property, with very little response until Mr. Jonas' response in October. He said there might have been some action by the appellant; this shows intent. He said he cannot favor the legal non -conforming status of this property. Comm. Peirce read from Section 1162 the reference to garages or parking spaces. Mr. Merl said that according to the zoning code, the final determination is up to the Planning Commission on definitions. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Collis, to approve as legal non -conforming. Ayes: Comm. Burt Noes: Comm. Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Absent: Comm. Hough Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Haller, to deny this application for recognition as legal non -conforming use, for the following reasons: 1. having found that the space in question was used as a garage for parking a car for a number of years prior to the attempt at conversion, and 2. there was a garage door on this building with, at some time, a laundry facility which was later used as a darkroom and subsequently torn out, and two cars were parked in the area. Ayes: Comm. Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: Comm. Burt, as he does not think it was ever a legal sized parking space since 1962. Absent: Comm. Hough Chmn. Rosenberger said normal procedure is that notice will be given the applicant of Planning Commission decision and he has 10 days to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Oldaker gave his address as P. 0. Box 111, Big Bear City, CA 92314, asking that notifications or communications be sent to that address. SUBDIVISION - 637 FOURTH STREET Tentative Parcel Map #5360 and Final Approval of Planned Development Permit. Mr. Merl reviewed this project, previously approved for Planned Development. He said the applicant has submitted, as requested, a work schedule, plans of landscaping, access to the rear yard, 6' redwood fencing on the perimeter. There is a jacuzzi in the back. Chmn. Rosenberger asked for the resolution, since the information submitted must conform to the preliminary plan. Mr. Merl read the conditions from Resolution P.C. 154-981. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 8 Public hearing opened 9:36 p.m. Jim Cariker, 1035 Manhattan Avenue, said he is providing a tentative parcel map, but having difficulty defining 29.5 in the subdivision code to determine whether to provide a tentative parcel map or- tentative tract map. He said he has asked the City Attorney to define it. The real estate director accepts either one; both go through Division of Real Estate and both are accepted for four or less units; the difference being that the parcel map is easier to understand and has fewer signatures. Comm. Collis said anyone who has an interest that could change into a fee requires a signature on a tract map. He said for four units or less, an applicant should be able to file a parcel map. Mr. Merl said this may be a policy decision; it is not well defined in the subdivision or in the State Map Act. He said there is no advantage to the more restrictive map. Miss Romo, 636-638 Fourth Street, said notices were not posted on the property and were not mailed out to get to the people before the meeting; only two people in that area received any notice. She objected to building a condominium because of lack of parking. She said that according to City Council, there were to be no more condominiums in Hermosa Beach. She said she will sue the city. Mr. Merl showed the commission the notice mailing list in the file which listed Mrs. Romo and her neighbor. Comm. Peirce said what the Planning Commission has done is in accordance with the zoning ordinance; that four apartments could be built on the site rather than three condominiums without any approval. Chmn. Rosenberger advised her that any decision made by the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council within ten days. Public hearing closed 10:00 p.m. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Burt, to establish the tentative parcel map as policy procedure for subdivision of parcel for four units or less. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough Motion by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Development Permit. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Collis, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-991 affirming that the parcel map conforms to the zoning and the final map conforms to the requirements of the preliminary development plan. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Collis, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 9 REPORT FROM ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE The proposed workshop session of Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustments has been approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for 7:00 p.m. Monday, November 4, 1974, to discuss zoning matters. Chmn. Rosenberger, re the chart of city standards under the various zones, said there is one error in the R-3 (45'), and asked if the proposed changes could be entered in parentheses. Mr. Merl suggested a second chart for the proposed standards. Chmn. Rosenberger asked that he include lot area per dwelling unit, and information in regard to usable open space. Comm. Chiu asked if information regarding condominiums should be covered in the guide lines. Comm. Peirce read some proposed changes submitted by Comm. Haller: instead of 10' front setback, she suggested a formula (100/o for example) for more flexibility; side yeard, not less than 3 nor more than 5' minimum required; roomers should not be eliminated from R-1; and space between buildings should be left at 8' rather than changing to 61. Comm. Peirce said he personally preferred the 10' setback for front yards. Chmn. Collis said about four years ago the Commission discussed having some sort of bulk control; a formula that changes as size increases. He said he does not approve of the 35' height limit because it forces building outward. Comm. Peirce said Comm. Haller has suggested a 30' rather than a 25' limit to give more latitude in planning two stories over a garage without allowing another story. She has suggested sending a memo to City Council ii, regard to the things that are 110L being cleared through the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Chmn. Rosenberger said there should be an agenda for the meeting with Board of Zoning Adjustments and requested one from staff. COMMISSIONERS' NEW BUSINESS Chmn. Rosenberger said the discussion at League of California Cities meeting delt with population growth and management of city perspectives. He said he would make the bulletin available to anyone who wants to read it. Seminar on condo conversions: some cities have more laws for regulation; coop apartments may require a whole new set of laws. Concerning the condo case that the city lost, Mr. Merl said they will have copies; the court said the General Plan was not grounds enough, and the city did not have a condominium ordinance at that time. Mr. Merl said Councilman Widman expressed concern about a parking element as a subsection of the circulation element; an overall plan to meet residential, commercial and tourist needs. The Development Subcommittee established a meeting date on Thursday, October 31, 1974, 8:00 a.m. at the Surfboard. Regarding the findings for Commercial Planned Development, Chmn. Rosenberger suggested that they be reviewed and that one be added to the effect ''that the proposed development has attempted to conserve critical energy resources.'' Comm. Burt suggested that the Develop- ment Subcommittee consider the findings. Motion by Chmn. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Burt, to hold the next regular meeting on Wednesday, November 13, 1974. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Collis, Chiu, Haller, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Comm. Hough PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - October 28, 1974 Page 10 Meeting adjourned lOt38 p.m. CERTIFICATION hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Public Hearing held the 28th of October, 1974. DATE r SUE HA LLER$ ACTING SECRETARY JIM ROSENBERGER, CHAIRMAN J