The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pizer at 7:09 P.M.

Commissioner Kersenboom led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Present: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker, and Chairman Pizer
Absent: None
Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the July 16, 2002, Minutes as submitted. Motion carried as follows:

AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Hoffman
ABSENT: None

5. Item(s) for consideration

   1. Director Blumenfeld stated that the final Resolution for Okell's Fireplace incorporates conditions that the plans shall provide a clearly defined and dedicated pedestrian access corridor to the storage area at the rear of the parking area to the main showroom to ensure that there is adequate pedestrian access from the rear parking area. With regard to the height of the ceiling in the storage area, he explained that the Building Code does not have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height requirement for commercial buildings, but it does for mezzanine. He noted that it would not be prudent to approve a project with less than a standard ceiling height of less than 7 feet.

      Commissioner Tucker requested that a covenant be required to ensure that the storage area shall only be used for storage purposes.

      MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 02-28 (PDF File), approving a Parking Plan to allow a 1,500-square-foot addition for storage/warehouse purposes and a storage loft, with less than required parking, at 134 Pacific Coast Highway, Okell's Fireplace; and that a covenant be signed to ensure that the upper storage area shall only be used for storage purposes. Motion carried as follows:

      AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker, Pizer
      NOES: None
      ABSTAIN: Hoffman
      ABSENT: None

   2. With regard to second Resolution P.C. 02-29, Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant had requested to make a change to the design of the building, substituting some horizontal banding in lieu of the design that was previously approved by the Planning Commission. He noted that staff has worked with the applicant on this issue; and that with this slight variation, it is staff's belief that the applicant is in conformance with what the Planning Commission previously approved and that it does not change the design intent. He mentioned that the project is in the construction phase; that one of the units has been completed; and he added that the applicant has conformed with the design requirements on the first unit but is requesting a change on the second unit -- pointing out that the second unit is in the framing phase. He stated that the applicant and staff had developed an over-the-counter drawing.

      It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to review the revised drawing before the next Planning Commission meeting.

      Director Blumenfeld stated that the drawing could be faxed to the Planning Commissioners if they desired; and that if there is any objection to the revision, that the matter be brought back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

      MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to approve Resolution P.C. 02-29 (PDF File), approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26749 for a two-unit condominium at 301 Manhattan Avenue/302 Palm Drive (PDF File); moved that staff send a drawing of the alteration to the Planning Commission for approval; and that should the Planning Commissioners not approve of the alteration, that this item be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting for further consideration. Motion carried as follows:

      AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker, Pizer
      NOES: None
      ABSTAIN: Hoffman
      ABSENT: None

6. ORAL / WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Public Hearing(s)

7. CON 02-2/PDP 02-4 (PDF File) -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26262 for a three-unit condominium at 300 Hermosa Avenue (PDF File) (continued from July 16, 2002 meeting).

   Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

   Director Blumenfeld provided clarification with regard to roof decks, open space and side yard setbacks; advised that there currently is a side yard requirement of one and a half times the minimum width for row-type housing; stated that one of the units for this proposal faces the street and that the other 2 units face a common side yard. He mentioned that at a previous Planning Commission meeting for a project located at 106 8th Street, the Planning Commission had determined that since there wasn't a shared yard for more than 2 units, and the additional yard requirement was not necessary. With regard to whether the required open space is met on roof decks, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff confirmed in researching the previous Planning Commission's actions that when there is less than 3 steps or 3 feet to the adjoining roof deck, that the roof deck area is considered to meet the open space requirement of open space that adjoins a livable area. He stated that beyond these 2 issues, the proposed project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the condominium ordinance. He added that there are some changes required to ensure that the building conforms to the height limit.

   Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

   Gary Compton, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 300, Hermosa Beach, project architect, highlighted the rendering which was displayed before the Planning Commission; and explained that this project is sandwiched between two very large apartment structures, both at least five feet taller than this proposed building and less dense than either of the neighboring buildings.

   Vice-Chairman Hoffman suggested opening up the side access area, especially on the north side of this building -- expressing his belief that it is a dark and narrow alleyway.

   Mr. Compton advised that there is 9 feet between the buildings along the north side; and explained that the higher building is on the right of this building; that the setback on that side is more than what is required, 5' 9 1/2" -- pointing out that what he is doing is creating the open space on the side, where the decks are located for the units and the sunlight.

   Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that it would be helpful to see the cumulative modifications to this project.

   Commissioner Tucker stated that Sheet 4 of the plans should reflect a three-quarters bath.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that the three-quarters bath would be included in the Conditions.

   Commissioner Tucker expressed his opposition to using a mezzanine as a means to get access to the deck -- expressing his belief that it loads up the upper area more and is not how a mezzanine was to be used.

   The public hearing was closed.

   MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 02-2/PDP 02-4 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26262 for a three-unit condominium at 300 Hermosa Avenue; and moved to add the condition for a three-quarter bathroom. Motion carried as follows:

   AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
   NOES: Tucker
   ABSTAIN: None
   ABSENT: None

8. CON 02-4/PDP 02-6 (PDF File) -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26830 for a two-unit condominium at 1901 and 1903 Palm Drive (PDF File) (Picture).

   Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

   Director Blumenfeld explained that this project consists of a 4-level structure that contains a basement below a garage level and 3 stories above the unit; stated that each unit contains 3 bedrooms; that at the garage level, there are 2 additional bedrooms; and that each unit contains an elevator as a second means of access to all floors, except the very top deck. He stated that the garages and guest parking are accessed from Palm Drive; that the required parking is provided in 2-car garages; and that the guest parking is provided within the 17-foot setback, measured from the curb line. Because Palm Drive is improved as an alley, he stated that no sidewalk will be required; that the entire width of the alley will be needed for backup guest parking; stated that at least one of the existing 2 on-street parking spaces across the alley will have to eliminated or relocated to provide adequate backup for the guest parking; and that if one of the guest parking spaces is lost, the project would still comply -- however, with the parking requirements, the parking on site would compensate for the loss of the on-street or alley parking. He stated that the building complies with the 30-foot height limit; that the project slightly exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage by one and a half percent, but that it can be reduced without dramatically altering the project -- pointing out that a condition has been included for this reduction. Director Blumenfeld advised that the proposed open space is provided on the third floor deck and second-story decks adjacent to living rooms; that additional open space is also provided in access yard areas and on the ground level and that the total complies with the minimum 300-square-foot requirement for each unit. He mentioned that the plan provides adequate landscaping.

   Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that it is not known at this time if the extra parking space in the alley will be affected, that the applicant will be working with the Public Works Department on that issue. He stated that the turning radius would have to be determined. He noted that the proposed trellis is designed to the more restrictive requirement and that he does not believe it will be a problem.

   Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

   Elizabeth Srour, representing the owner/applicant, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, noted that the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval; stated that lot coverage will be reduced during the plan check phase; that with regard to parking, she advised that one of the 2 spaces will stay; and that in addition to the 2 parking spaces in the garage for each unit, there are also 2 spaces in front of each garage, totaling 4 guest spaces for this site. She added that the top level does meet the Building Code requirement for a loft; and stated that the access provisions will be met.

   Jeff Dahl, 1868 Huntington Beach, project architect, clarified that the driveway is 12.5 feet; noted that he does not agree with staff's calculation that there is 66.5 percent lot coverage and that he will work with staff in clarifying this calculation; and stated that these condos are a high-end project.

   Chuck Wilson, 1921 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he resides at the property directly across the alley from this development; stated that there currently is difficulty with the turning radius for the existing parking spaces and garage, that it is a very tight alley; and addressed his concern with the loss of parking spaces. He questioned whether any shoring activities would take place with this development, and whether City can require a bond to protect his property.

   Director Blumenfeld addressed the provisions within the Municipal Code for the protection of adjacent properties during shoring activities; stated that if there is damage to the adjacent properties, the City can withhold final approval until the issue is addressed in civil litigation; and noted that the Municipal Code does not require a bond for work on private property.

   Lisa Vanderzanden, 1929 Manhattan Avenue, noted her concern with shoring activities and the loss of public parking spaces.

   Alice Vialobos, 1947 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that methods can be used to make the shoring activities much quieter -- suggesting that this method be utilized for this project; and suggested that the garages be accessed from 19th Street.

   Ms. Srour explained that there was very little choice as to where the garages could be placed.

   Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

   Commissioner Tucker stated that his largest concern is the loss of parking. He urged the Public Works Department to study the turning radius at this site; and stated that the residents should be notified of the shoring activities so many days before commencement. He suggested that additional articulation be placed on the east elevation wall.

   The Planning Commission concurred that additional articulation is needed on the large expanse of wall between the two windows on the east elevation wall and in the driveway areas.

   Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that any parking spaces that are lost on the street must be replaced -- pointing out that this project does have all required parking on site; stated that staff believes this project is unlikely to affect more than one parking space on the street; and suggested that if the Planning Commission desires, staff can add to the Conditions of Approval that prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's traffic engineer shall give a final determination on the street parking issues.

   MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the request for CON 02-4/PDP 02-6 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26830 for a 2-unit condominium at 1901 and 1903 Palm Drive; and moved that more articulation be provided on the east elevation. Motion carried as follows:

   AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
   NOES: None
   ABSTAIN: None
   ABSENT: None

9. CON 02-5/PDP 02-7 (PDF File) -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26773 for a three-unit condominium at 510, 512 & 514 Ardmore Avenue (AKA 615 5th Street) (PDF File) (Picture).

   Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that this proposal is for three detached 2-story condo buildings; advised that the front entry is oriented to Ardmore Avenue; that the garages and guest parking are located along a common driveway that is accessed by an existing curb cut on 5th Street -- noting that no on-street parking will be lost; and that the required parking is provided in 2-car garages and 3 on-site guest spaces, with 2 spaces located in tandem with one of the garages. He advised that the building conforms with the 30-foot height limit; noted that lot coverage is 50 percent, which is less than the maximum allowable; and mentioned that a requirement has been included to provide for 36-inch box palm trees on the street side along Ardmore Avenue.

   Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

   Cindy Cooper, project architect, 936 Hermosa Avenue, Suite 104, explained that because the site is a triangular lot, with difficult access; and mentioned that all street parking spaces will be maintained.

   Addressing Commissioner Perrotti's request for street trees, Ms. Cooper noted her concern that street trees not become a problem with the utility lines in the future.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that it is possible to have the sidewalk slightly meander relative to the street trees planting, and he recommended that the applicant and architect work with the Public Works Department on an appropriate plan for street trees and sidewalk design.

   With regard to guest parking in front of garages, Ms. Cooper stated that other parking spaces would be provided, but noted that the CC&R's can handle the guest parking issue.

   Scott Aldin, 646 6th Street, noted his concern with the loss of open space and his opposition to calculating rooftop decks as open space.

   John Cherry, 641 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, expressed his belief that this project will create more of a parking problem for this congested area.

   Allen White, stated that he lives in the house next to this proposed development; and requested that the utilities be undergrounded for this project -- pointing out that he would share part of that expense. He requested that the subcontractors be required to park offsite and not permitted to park in front of his house and that the trash receptacles not be placed on the street.

   Ms. Cooper reiterated that this project is under the allowable lot coverage; and noted that one-third of the open space is actually on the ground.

   Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

   Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concern with limited parking and homeowners with multiple automobiles.

   Commissioner Tucker expressed his belief that there should be plenty of parking on the east side of the construction site for contractor parking and trash receptacles; noted that the planting of sidewalk trees shall meet ADA requirements, such as ring grates; and noted his concern that all the buildings look identical and suggested that the colors or facades be altered to improve the visual aesthetics. He added that the expansive driveway should be broken up with some landscaping.

   The Planning Commission concurred with Commissioner Tucker's comments regarding the need to improve the exterior individuality of the buildings.

   MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti , to APPROVE the request for CON 02-5/PDP 02-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26773 for a 3-unit condominium at 510, 512 & 514 Ardmore Avenue (AKA 615 5th Street); that between Units 2 and 3, the applicant break up the concrete with a landscaping treatment; that the elevation of Unit 2 be altered so it doesn't exactly resemble the other 2 units; that if trees are put in the public right of way, that the planting treatment conform to ADA requirements; and that at the next meeting, the Planning Commission will review that change and consideration of a resolution.

   AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
   NOES: None
   ABSTAIN: None
   ABSENT: None

Chairman Pizer recessed the meeting at 8:46 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 P.M.

10. CON 02-6/PDP 02-9 (PDF File) -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26812 for a two-unit condominium at 1002 6th Street (PDF File) (Picture).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that this proposal is a 2-story, 2-unit project; advised that the front unit currently contains 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms; and that the rear unit currently contains 4 bedrooms, 3 baths and a half bath. He stated that the garages for both units have separate driveway access off 6th Street; that the required parking is provided in the 2-car garages and that guest spaces are provided in front of the garage spaces. Director Blumenfeld stated that the new curb cuts for the front driveway will not result in the loss of on-street parking spaces; advised that there is a 12.5' maximum allowable slope and that it will have to be adjusted -- pointing out that the adjustment shouldn't dramatically affect the project. He stated that the height of the buildings are 30 feet; that all the required yard space, private open space, and storage and trash areas are provided; and pointed out that the lot coverage is substantially lower than what is allowed, 49 percent, which is well below the 65 percent maximum. He added that an additional condition would be developed for additional landscaping on the driveway.

    Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the neighbor to the south side of this property had provided any input concerning the possible loss of privacy to their backyard.

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, explained that this property has an expanded rear yard setback from the neighbors to the south, 12 feet, 9 inches, and that this area will be landscaped to provide further buffering to the neighbors to the south. She stated that lot coverage is 49 percent; that it provides a great deal of open space and distance between the neighbors; and that with regard to the driveway slope, the architect is prepared to work with staff during plan check. She added that the proposal is in full compliance with condominium standards; and highlighted the rendering before the Planning Commission, noting a great deal of articulation and relief from the streetscape.

    Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that additional articulation be added on the north and west elevation on the front unit along the garage.

    Responding to Commissioner Kersenboom's suggestion, Ms. Srour stated that the property owner and architect would be amenable to incorporating some additional detail into the front exterior of the building.

    Commissioner Tucker stated that no roof plan is exhibited on A-400.

    Nathan McCoomb, 23332 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 201, project architect, confirmed that there is a roof deck located to the furthest north; advised that additional articulations will be incorporated into the north and west elevations; and mentioned that 2 guest parking spots can be accommodated on the front and rear units.

    Terry Layten, 1032 6th Street, requested that the first building be located closer to the street so as not to impact the view of those residents in the area.

    Ms. Srour urged the Planning Commission's approval and noted for Ms. Layten that the front yard setback must conform to the municipal code.

    Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that additional articulation be incorporated into the north and west elevations on the front building and that the expansive driveway be broken up with some type of landscaping treatment.

    Commissioner Tucker suggested that the basement indicate a three-quarter bath; that Sheet A-400 limit the bar size to a condominium standard; and that more landscaping be placed on the southern retaining wall to the neighbors to the south.

    MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE CON 02-6/PDP 02-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26812 for a 2-unit condominium at 1002 6th Street; moved to acquire more articulation and windows on the north and west elevations; that the driveway be broken up with additional plantings or landscaping treatment; that Sheets A-100 and A-400 reflect a three-quarter bath; that the basement counter be limited to no more than 4 lineal feet in each unit; and that more landscaping be provided at the south end of the property. Motion carried as follows:

    AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
    NOES: None
    ABSTAIN: None
    ABSENT: None

11. CON 02-7 -- Conditional Use Permit minor amendment for aesthetic modifications to the exterior façade and landscaping plan of a previously approved condominium project at 1728 - 1730 Golden Avenue (PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that this 2-unit condominium project was approved in April 1999; that the standard Conditions of Approval included that architectural treatment shall be shown as approved by the Planning Commission on the decision date; that staff found that there had been changes modifying the design of the building and that staff is now referring the matter back to the Planning Commission prior to releasing it for final approval. He indicated that the rendering shows that the facade has been modified, omitting some windows and changing relief on the building; and stated that the applicant changed the railing design so that the metal portion is smaller than what was originally approved; and noted that the belly bands are missing on the fa栤e and that some of the doors have been changed. He stated that the applicant is proposing instead to use a pre-cast treatment around the windows; that staff believes the changes are significant in total, but that the design intent is the same; and that staff believes the design is comparable to the originally approved plans.

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Nathan McCoomb, 23332 Hawthorne Boulevard, representing the owner, advised that there have been some changes that have occurred during the process of construction -- pointing out that the building is not complete; stated that the railing and the stucco were altered in an attempt to give more privacy to the units since it is sitting above the school; stated that a change is being requested for the detail underneath the window for improved overall enhancement of what was originally proposed; and added that the applicant is proposing at this time not to do the belly band.

    Mr. McCoomb stated for Commissioner Tucker that this will be pre-cast concrete, not the foam with stucco on it.

    Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Perrotti noted his concern with the railing design, some of the exterior facade around the windows, removal of the glass block windows and the aesthetics of the south elevation.

    Mr. McCoomb noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the glass block windows were removed because the mechanics of the treatment didn't line up.

    Vice-Chairman Hoffman addressed his concern that the alterations cheapen the aesthetics of the south elevation and noted caution with applicants not following through with what is approved for their projects.

    Commissioner Perrotti expressed his concern with the changes, but looking at the new plan as a whole, he stated that he would consider the changes minor.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that if the Planning Commission deems the changes minor, then staff can work with the owner on finalizing the plan.

    It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to consider the modifications minor and that this matter be referred to staff for finalizing the applicant's plan; and that there be a consistent level of design treatments to all the elevations.

Hearing(s)

12. NR 02-5 (PDF File) -- Addition and remodel of an existing nonconforming single family residence resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 2716 Hermosa Avenue (PDF File) (continued from May 21, June 18 and July 16, 2002 meetings).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld advised that this proposal has been revised; that it complies with both the Building Code and zoning ordinance, except that the garage door width is a foot less than the required 19 feet; and that the architectural projection on the side exceeds the maximum allowable encroachment of 6 inches into the side yard -- pointing out that Conditions of Approval have been added to correct these two conditions. He stated that the property owner had submitted a survey at 2-foot contouring intervals; noted that the Planning Commission can either confirm or not confirm the existence of a convex slope condition; that if the Planning Commission believes the slope is convex based on the evidence submitted, it would enable staff to take the project height into consideration with the rate of the slope at the westerly edge of the property. Director Blumenfeld highlighted the site plan and the grade shown along the property line; he noted a sharp grade to the lot which is visible at the street edge and a retaining wall which protects the cut of the street and the property line; and noted staff's belief that a convex slope condition exists at this site.

    Russ Barchoe, No. 3 Malaga Cove, Palos Verdes Estates, representing the applicant, stated that the garage door width is normal and that his site plans will be amended to reflect this correction.

    Mr. Barchoe confirmed for Commissioner Tucker that a convex slope determination will help in the overall height calculation by approximately one foot.

    Commissioner Tucker noted his concern with the convex lot/slope determinations and stated that the Planning Commission had previously set a standard that should be adhered to and not tweaked on a case-by-case basis.

    Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the submittal of a survey at 2-foot contour intervals, which is the assumption for a convex slope; and stated that the Planning Commission has used this calculation in the past and that it should be used this evening.

    Vice-Chairman Hoffman, echoed by Chairman Pizer, expressed his belief that this appears to be a convex lot.

    MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff, finding that this site is a convex slope. Motion carried as follows:

    AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
    NOES: Tucker
    ABSTAIN: None
    ABSENT: None

13. NR 02-7 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 420 29th Street (PDF File) (continued from June 18 and July 16, 2002 meetings).

    Staff Recommended Action: To receive and file.

    Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has confirmed they're no longer pursuing their original non-conforming remodel project and that they are requesting that this matter be withdrawn.

    MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to receive and file. Motion carried as follows:

    AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer, Tucker
    NOES: None
    ABSTAIN: None
    ABSENT: None

14. NR 02-8 -- Remodel and expansion to an existing two-story dwelling, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation and exceeding 30% or more in exterior wall removal at 2408 Hermosa Avenue (PDF File) (continued from July 16, 2002 meeting).

    Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 17, 2002 meeting at the applicant's request.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE this matter to the September 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried as follows:

    AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer, Tucker
    NOES: None
    ABSTAIN: None
    ABSENT: None

15. CON 00-22/PDP 00-25 -- Request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26172 for a three-unit condominium at 636 9th Street (PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration of Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan by on one year to August 20, 2003 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to February 20, 2004.

    Director Blumenfeld advised that the State Map Act allows for map extensions; stated that this project was approved by the Planning Commission on January 16, 2001; that a final resolution was adopted February 20th; that the applicant filed for a CUP extension prior to the expiration deadline of August 20th; and that staff is recommending approval of the map extension.

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Richard Haglin, 1003 10th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant was not able to attend this evening's meeting.

    Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE the extension of the expiration of Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan by one year, to August 20, 2003, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to February 20, 2004.

    AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker, Pizer
    NOES: None
    ABSTAIN: None
    ABSENT: None

16. A-14 -- Appeal of Community Development Department Director's decision regarding determination of convex slope and street cut at 224 Hollowell Avenue (PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.

    Director Blumenfeld commented on the determination for elevations or data to be used for measuring grade, highlighting options to use the grade from the existing corner points -- which is the standard method for establishing grade -- to use an alternate point at the top of the retaining wall as the best representation of an altered grade or to use a grade at one-half the distance between the bottom and top of the retaining wall -- all of which are permitted methods for establishing grade. He highlighted the corner points for consideration which are located on the west side of the lot along Hollowell Avenue. He advised that the applicant is requesting consideration of an alternative point at the top of the retaining wall, which is constructed to protect the street cut and indicates that it doesn't contain fill. He added that the applicant has provided a Public Works street profile/survey that shows Hollowell Avenue, between Second and Third Streets, is cut lower than the prior street grade -- which proves the point that since the street was cut, the property and the retaining walls are protecting cut and do not contain fill soil. He stated that the northwest corner of the property was cut approximately 2.5 feet, and that the southwest corner was cut approximately 5 feet; and stated that the difference between the top of the retaining wall and the existing retaining wall are shown at the corner points on the corner survey and are consistent with the street profile information. Director Blumenfeld stated that in light of the evidence submitted by the applicant, it does appear to staff that there is a retaining wall at the property line protecting the cut; that it would be reasonable to use the top of the wall number for this calculation; and that it would be reasonable not to split the difference.

    Jerry Compton, representing the applicant, displayed pictures of the existing wall and the original survey map of the property; explained that the largest problem he has with developing this project is that there are three points of the four that are lower than they are supposed to be; and added that when he adds a second story to this 1-story house, adding a pitched roof, he can't get it under the height limit if he uses those three points -- pointing out that a 2-story building cannot be built on this site if one uses the points at the bottom of the grade. He mentioned that this house was built in the 1920's and that there are other properties with this same condition in the neighborhood. He explained that plans have been submitted for an extensive remodel that will eliminate all non-conformities on this site; and noted that a 2-car garage will be added.

    Having reviewed the old photographs and the original survey map, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to support Alternative No. 2, measuring from the top of the retaining wall.

17. Staff Items

    1. Memorandum from Planning Commission to City Council regarding proposed mixed use ordinance (PDF File).

       It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to concur with the memorandum drafted by staff, which shall be forwarded to City Council.

    2. Memorandum regarding interpretation of limitation on open space coverage in multi-family zones (PDF File).

       Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission had previously determined that only 50 percent of required open space should be covered, whether by trellis or solid cover; and that this 50 percent limitation needs clarification.

       Discussion ensued with regard to this issue.

       Commissioner Kersenboom stated that he would support the 50-percent coverage as long as none of the joists go past the balcony line.

       Following discussion, Director Blumenfeld took as direction from the Planning Commission to calculate the interior uncovered space within a trellis structure. He added that a graphic will be presented to the Planning Commission at its next meeting highlighting examples of a typical condition showing 25, 50, and 75 percent coverage.

18. Commissioner Items

    1. Consideration of appointment of Planning Commissioner to serve on Public Works Commission Landscape Subcommittee.

       The Planning Commission supported Commissioner Tucker's volunteering to serve on the Public Works Commission Landscape Subcommittee.

       Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that construction activities in the City are now permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and no construction activities on Sundays and national holidays.

       Director Blumenfeld stated for Commissioner Perrotti that the City Council had discussed some reconfiguration of Hermosa Avenue and also future improvement of upper Pier Avenue, with various parking improvements, the creation of one traveling lane and additional sidewalk area; and explained that depending on the nature of the changes, it is not likely to come back to the Planning Commission for consideration.

       Vice-Chairman Hoffman requested that the Planning Commission re-address the issue of requiring three-quarter baths on the ground floor level, expressing his belief that this does accomplish the intent to discourage apartment bootlegging.

       The Planning Commission concurred to have this matter brought back to the Planning Commission for discussion.

19. Adjournment

    MOTION by Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, for adjournment at 10:42 P.M. No objection was noted.