Agendas / Minutes Menu

Planning Commission Agendas

Planning Commission Minutes

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2002, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pizer at 7:05 P.M.

Commissioner Kersenboom led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call

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

Oral / Written Communications

Betty Ryan, representing the Women's Club of Hermosa Beach, invited everyone to attend the group's 10th Annual Pancake Breakfast on Sunday, October 20, 2002.

Dean Krole, 830 Monterey Boulevard, noted his appreciation for the completion of the undergrounding of utilities in his neighborhood; and briefly commented on the placement of his sewer line.

Chairman Pizer suggested that Mr. Krole address his sewer line concerns with either the Public Works Department and/or with the Public Works Commission.

Chairman Pizer advised that one written communication had been received from Jim La Point (of record) regarding Einstein's Restaurant, which is located at 1301 Manhattan Avenue; suggested that at this point in time, this letter be received and filed; and requested that staff provide a follow-up report in regard to the concerns reflected in this written communication.

Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that the last paragraph in the written communication appears to have a typo and that it is his belief the author meant that he had addressed these issues with Einstein's "without" success and asked that this be clarified when staff investigates the allegations in the written communication.

In response to Vice-Chairman Hoffman's inquiry regarding whether there are any legal issues that should be addressed concerning how the conditions are written and interpreted, Director Blumenfeld explained that it is staff's opinion that the project conditions are clearly written but that the intent of the Commission needs to be reviewed since the approval of the project.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this matter not be discussed any further until staff has prepared a follow-up report and a representative from Einstein's Restaurant is in attendance.

Commissioner Perrotti requested that staff investigate whether any complaints have been received by the Police and/or Fire Departments.

Jim Lissner stated that when Einstein's Restaurant received permission to operate as a pub, the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) imposed approximately a dozen conditions on the restaurant in an attempt to address neighborhood concerns with this restaurant's operations; advised that in March 2002, Einstein's made two applications to ABC to strip off five of those conditions, one having to do with the serving of food during the same hours of serving liquor, and one having to do with liberalizing live entertainment or amplified entertainment and dancing restrictions; and stated that because some adjustments have been made to these conditions, the neighbors are starting to experience problems with the activities at this business.

Mr. Lissner read Jim La Point's letter into the record:

"I have the following concerns regarding the operation of Einstein's:

1. Einstein's is no longer being operated as a restaurant but is being operated as a nightclub with its main focus being a dance club. This represents a change to P.C. Resolution 96-10 and the subsequent amendment, P.C. Resolution 00-33.
2. The outdoor patios are being fully utilized right up to closing time. On Saturday, August 17, 2001, at 1:00 a.m., the lower patio was completely filled with patrons standing elbow to elbow with the doors standing open. When I complained to management, I was told 'we are only prohibited from seating anyone after 10:00 p.m., and they're standing, not seated.' This clearly runs counter to the intent of Condition No. 2 of P.C. Resolution 00-33, which was imposed to restrict outside activity after the prescribed hours. On August 23rd, I spoke to the manager, Greg, at 11:45 p.m. to complain about the noise and the fact that the doors were open to the patios, which were completely filled with patrons. Greg explained to me that they were required to keep the doors open while people were on the patios and again stated that they were not in violation of their CUP by having patrons on the patios after 11:00 p.m.
3. The operation has an adverse effect on surrounding residential and commercial tenants. Besides the noise issue, patrons routinely litter the common areas, urinate in the common areas, including stairways and elevator, and generally vandalize the premises.
4. The doors and windows are kept open as a normal..."

At this point, Mr. Lissner was advised by the Chair that his time to address the Commission had run out.

Director Blumenfeld stated that he would include this letter in his follow-up report that he will provide to the Planning Commission at the next meeting; and noted that out of fairness to Mr. La Point and the owner of Einstein's, discussion of this matter should be continued to the next meeting when they will be notified of the discussion. He stated that staff will look into the allegations that this business is not operating in compliance with the approved conditions.

Consent Calendar

With regard to Page 14 of the August 20, 2002, Minutes, Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that "does accomplish the intent" should be replaced with "does not accomplish the intent."

With regard to Page 3, third paragraph, of the August 20, 2002, Minutes, Commissioner Perrotti stated that the word "Garry Compton" should be amended to reflect "Jerry Compton."

MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE the August 20, 2002, Minutes as amended. Motion carried as follows:

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

Resolutions for adoption

With regard to Resolution P.C. 02-32, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26773 for a three-unit condominium project at 510, 512 and 514 Ardmore Avenue, Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that the Planning Commission will be provided a copy of the new rendering -- noting that the color and facade of the buildings have been altered as requested by the Planning Commission; and stated that staff believes the intent of the Planning Commission has been met.

MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 02-30 (PDF File), approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26262 for a three-unit condominium project at 300 Hermosa Avenue; Resolution P.C. 02-31 (PDF File), approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26830 for a two-unit condominium at 1901 and 1903 Palm Drive; Resolution P.C. 02-32 (PDF File), approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26773 for a three-unit condominium project at 510, 512 and 514 Ardmore Avenue (AKA 615 5th Street); Resolution P.C. 02-33 (PDF File), approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26812 for a two-unit condominium at 1002-04 6th Street and; Resolution P.C. 02-34 (PDF File), approving a greater than 50% expansion and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling while maintaining nonconforming parking at 2716 Hermosa Avenue. Motion carried as follows:

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

6. Item(s) for consideration

None.

Public Hearing(s)

7. PDP 02-8/PARK 02-6 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a 4,500 square foot expansion of an existing office building by the addition of a third floor at 824 1st Street with three tandem parking spaces and added off-site parking on the adjacent property at 828 1st Street through a long-term lease, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration. (PDF File)

   Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the October 15, 2002, meeting and re-notice due to applicant's revision to project.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that substantive changes have been made to this project and that it will be necessary to continue and to re-notice this matter to the October 15 Planning Commission meeting.

   There was no public input.

   MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE this matter to the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried as follows:

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

8. PARK 02-7/PDP 02-14/VAR 02-2 -- Variance, Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a 3,410 square foot warehouse/storage building addition at 618 Cypress Avenue with on-site parking including one tandem parking space and one space accessed from adjacent property through long term lease. (PDF File)

   Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 15, 2002, meeting in order to provide time to review the lease agreement.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that additional time will be necessary to review the lease agreement; mentioned that the applicant is considering significant changes to the project; and stated that if changes are to be made, it also will require re-noticing.

   There was no public input.

   MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE this matter to the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried as follows:

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

9. VAR 02-1 -- A Variance to maintain two units on a lot substandard to minimum lot size requirements at 136 2nd Street. (PDF File)

   Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a request for a variance to maintain two units on a lot, which is substandard to the minimum lot requirements, and also a variance for off-street parking requirements; that the property is located at the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 2nd Street; and that it contains a single-family dwelling, a garage, a bedroom and a bath above a garage with separate exterior access from the main dwelling. He explained that this dwelling was constructed in 1938; that the bedroom and bath addition were permitted in 1977; advised that the City does not have any record or copy of any plans that were submitted for this permit; and that it is not clear whether this addition was approved with separate exterior access, which is relevant as to whether or not there are lawfully created units on this property. He advised that the applicant purchased the property in 1987; and that she signed a copy of a Hermosa Beach residential building report that identifies the property as one unit. He stated that the project was subject to a zone violation investigation in August 2001 regarding possible illegal conversion of a bedroom and bath above the garage; that according to the complaint, the rooms above the garage were being used as a separate dwelling unit; that the main house was being rented; that the City followed up with a zoning investigation, which revealed that a wet bar in the bedroom was being used as a small kitchen and a larger kitchen was installed in the bathroom above the garage, which contained a double sink and a garbage disposal. Director Blumenfeld explained that a kitchen is one of the distinguishing features of what constitutes a dwelling unit under the Zoning Ordinance.

   Director Blumenfeld explained that the owner maintains that the property is being used as it was permitted when the building permit to construct the room above the garage was issued in 1977; and that rather than eliminate this condition and the kitchen facilities, the owner decided to pursue obtaining a variance to legalize the two units.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has thoroughly researched the City's records and could find no evidence that a second unit was lawfully created on the property; that there was no permit history to back up that the unit was created in 1959, which is the cutoff date in order for the Planning Commission to make a legal determination regarding the number of units on a property as prescribed under the zoning ordinance. He stated that the applicant is requesting this variance to allow two units based on the continued use of the property's two units; that the property was two legal units at the time of purchase; and that the 1977 addition over the garage was permitted and was built to the then applicable codes allowing separate access to the rooms above the garage. He noted that the applicant states that she purchased the property because it allowed her to use the property for roommates and that she was under the assumption it could lawfully be rented out.

   In order to grant a variance, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission would have to make four mandatory findings: 1) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions of the property involved; 2) the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone; 3) the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property and improvements in the vicinity and zone and; 4) that the variance is consistent with the General Plan. In reviewing these findings, he stated that it is staff's determination that it is not possible to make any of the findings.

   With regard to Finding 1, he stated that 18 out of 116 lots in a one-block radius have been split; and that the split lots range in size, some being significantly smaller. He advised that with respect to the applicant's statement that the lots were legally two lots prior to being merged by the City, the property did contain two remnant lots, but that the two remnants were merged by the City under its merger requirements to reflect ownership and tax assessment parcels created by the split; and that at no time has there ever been a connection between the lot merger and number of legal units on the property. Director Blumenfeld stated that some of the lots in the vicinity may have been split with two units on a lot and staff has identified 8 of 35 lots which have two units that were legally created prior to 1970. He pointed out that the Zone Code evolves and the minimum lot area per dwelling unit has become more restrictive over the years. The majority of the split lots are in the same situation as the subject lot, contain one dwelling unit.

   With regard to the last two findings, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes both the variances for use and relief of off-street parking requirements do present potentially detrimental effects on the surrounding properties with respect to increased on-street parking, congestion and density. Director Blumenfeld noted staff's belief that this variance will be detrimental to the General Plan because it exceeds the high-density designation of 33 units per acre.

   Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that staff has no record that there ever was more than one unit permitted on this lot; stated that the house was built in 1938; that it was remodeled in 1977 to add the bedroom and bath over the garage; and at that point, it was still listed as a single-family residence. He highlighted Page 14 of staff report which reflects that the building permit application identifies this property as an existing single-family residence; and mentioned that the RPR from 1987 shows the building as one unit by permit.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant has been asked to eliminate what constitutes a kitchen -- removing the kitchen sink; and that staff is recommending that the exterior door be removed -- pointing out that a unit has to be internally connected to the rest of the property to not constitute a separate unit and that it can't have a separate kitchen. He stated that if it's returned to a bedroom and bath, then it can lawfully be used as it was originally permitted.

   Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned whether a separate exterior entrance to the bedroom/bathroom was permitted in 1976.

   In response, Director Blumenfeld advised that he will research the 1970's code when the permit was issued.

   Vice-Chairman Hoffman highlighted his assumption that staff will need to make the applicant current with the 1976 code.

   Director Blumenfeld noted his belief that because it was permitted in 1977, the applicant would have to conform to the code in effect at that time

   Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that no aerial photographs are available, but advised that Sanborn maps dating back to 1923 and then updated in the 1950's indicate that there was one single-family residence on this property.

   Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

   Maureen Anderson, 136 2nd Street, applicant, expressed her belief that a number of things in staff report are not consistent with what has been discussed with staff in the past year. She advised that the house was originally built in 1938 as a two-bedroom, one-bath, with a double detached garage; that in the 1960's, a workshop addition was added to the garage; and that in 1976/1977, with permits drawn, there was a large master bedroom and bath added over the garage and workshop addition and a stairwell. Ms. Anderson explained that she purchased the house in 1987; that she specifically purchased it because of the way it was set up; and mentioned that she is a single woman who needs the extra income. Ms. Anderson advised that two years after she purchased the property, she got a letter from the City stating that it wanted to merge her two lots; that she called the City to ask what possible repercussions she might endure with this merging activity; and that because she was assured that there would be none, she agreed to the merger. She stated that the building reports reflect that it was all permitted; and that all of the research indicates it was all done to code in the 1970's when it was built. She added that in researching the Building Department materials from 1976, her findings indicate that an exterior entrance was legally permitted on an addition.

   She stated that her lot is 800 square feet smaller than the average full lot -- pointing out that it could be two very small split lots; she added that the house hasn't been changed; that she's now remodeling a bathroom upstairs; advised that she is not proposing to do any exterior construction or any change in use; mentioned that it is her understanding that a kitchen is defined by a stove; and reiterated that as far as she is aware, the house has been used as two units since it was built. She mentioned that she currently lives upstairs and that her tenant lives downstairs; advised that there are two cars between her and her tenant; that there currently exists three parking spots; and pointed out that in 1977, only two parking spaces were required for two units. She mentioned that there are full lots in the area with multiple units all around her; that she believes she is being denied the right to have this studio unit; and that she is using the house the same as it has been for the past 25-30 years.

   Ms. Anderson stated for Commissioner Perrotti that when she purchased the property, she believes the purchase/listing agreement probably stated that this property was a single-family residence; and that when she qualified for the loan, that the lender considered it a single-family residence.

   Responding to Commissioner Tucker's inquiries, Ms. Anderson stated that her property was merged in 1989; that she did not ask the City to have her property declared as two units at that time because she was not under the impression that it wasn't usable as is; and she reiterated that she was told by staff that the merging process would have no negative impact on the use of her property.

   There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

   Director Blumenfeld confirmed for Commissioner Kersenboom that the allowable lot area per dwelling unit requirement at one time was no more than one unit on any lot less than 2,400 square feet.

   In response to Chairman Pizer's inquiries, Director Blumenfeld reiterated that Ms. Anderson has been asked by staff to conform to code by removing the kitchen sink and garbage disposal; and that he will research the 1977 Zone Code to determine if the exterior door was permitted.

   Ms. Anderson noted her interpretation of kitchen is that it have no cooking appliance.

   Director Blumenfeld clarified that the Zone Code states that a kitchen means any room or space used or intended or designed to be used for cooking or the preparation of food.

   Commissioner Perrotti noted his support of staff's findings to deny the applicant's request; and highlighted the applicant's admission that when she purchased this property, it was listed as a single-family dwelling.

   Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that the findings for a variance have not been met.

   Commissioner Tucker concurred with the Commission's comments; stated that depending on staff's investigation of the 1977 code, he would not be opposed to the exterior access door but stated that the two interior doors should be removed.

   MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation to deny the applicant's request for VAR 02-1 -- a Variance to maintain two units on a lot substandard to minimum lot size requirements at 136 2nd Street. Motion carried as follows:

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

   Director Blumenfeld stated that following his review of the 1977 code, he would notify the applicant to address his findings with respect to the exterior access.

10. PDP 02-13 -- A Precise Development Plan amendment for a two-story 5,000 square foot commercial office building at 2697-2699 Pacific Coast Highway. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission previously reviewed a substantially different proposal on January 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting; that it was a proposed new two-story, 6,500-square-foot commercial office building; that the project now proposed is a 5,028-square-foot office building; advised that 20 parking spaces are being proposed consistent with the Zone Code and is consistent with the C-3 uses. He explained that the parking layout shows parking that occupies most of the street frontage and additional parking at the rear; and that because there is residential immediately to the west, staff is recommending that the employee's park in the rear lot and that some type of landscaped trellis structure that doesn't interfere with the parking layout be installed in the parking area at the rear. Because of the large expanse of parking located at the street frontage, he suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to consider bermed landscaping -- noting that staff had provided the Planning Commission with an example of bermed landscaping for consideration

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Michael Wuerth, representing the applicant, concurred with staff's suggestion for bermed landscaping on the street frontage; stated that the residential properties immediately behind the property sit at a lower grade than this site and that one can barely see the residential roof lines -- noting that he does not believe there is an aesthetics concern for those residents. He noted his intent for the employees to park in the rear parking area.

    The project architect noted for Commissioner Tucker that the air conditioning condensers will be located on the roof inside a chimney treatment.

    There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for the landscaping berm, the landscaping trellis at the rear of the property, and the employee parking at the rear of the property.

    Commissioner Tucker noted his preference that the condenser unit covers on top of the roof match the architecture of the building; addressed his concern that the noise from the condensers not impact the neighbors; and noted his support for the trellis.

    Chairman Pizer noted his support for the landscaping berms and employee parking to be designated at the back of the building but stated that the rear trellis is not necessary.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE PDP 02-13, a Precise Development Plan amendment for a two-story 5,000-square-foot commercial office building at 2697-2699 Pacific Coast Highway; moved to include the addition of a front landscaping berm; and that the air conditioning units be incorporated in a chimney structure on the roof. Motion carried as follows:

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

    Commissioner Perrotti offered a friendly amendment to include a condition that the employees parking be designated at the rear of the property.

    The friendly amendment to the motion was accepted and carried as follows:

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

11. CON 02-8/PDP 02-10 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26844 for a two-unit condominium at 186 2nd Street. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that this project consists of two detached 3-level structures, each containing basements with two stories and roof decks above; that each of the units include three bedrooms and a full bath; and noted that the required parking is provided on the ground floor of each unit with direct access to Manhattan Avenue. He advised that the entries to the units are oriented to 2nd Street; that the guest parking is provided for each unit in front of the garages, with one space on the alley and two spaces on Manhattan Avenue; explained that there's a curb cut on Manhattan Avenue that results in the loss of one curbed on-street parking space and that this lost parking space has to be compensated for on site; and noted that the building has been designed at slightly less than the maximum allowable lot coverage of 65 percent. Director Blumenfeld stated that all the yards are provided as required; noted that the mandatory separation between the buildings is 8 feet; that the proposed open space is provided on the roof decks and second-story decks adjacent to the living rooms and in the additional yard areas between the units, thereby meeting the overall 300-square-foot requirement; but stated that the deck on Unit B needs to be enlarged by 3 square feet in order to comply with the minimum 100 square feet adjacent to a primary living area. He noted that conditions have been included for the 3 additional feet on the deck of Unit B and for 36-inch box trees.

    Director Blumenfeld clarified for the Planning Commission that the City has no records to indicate that this house is a historic structure.

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant and the architect, advised that this project is situated on a corner; and highlighted the benefit that the two buildings are detached, providing an opportunity for some relief from the street. She stated that both the Manhattan Avenue elevation and the 2nd Street elevation are very attractive, that there is a lot of articulation; and advised that modifications will be made with regard to the upper decks in order to comply with the open 50-percent requirement and that the deck for Unit B will be modified to comply with the square footage requirement. Ms. Srour noted the applicant's concurrence with the conditions of approval. With regard to parking, she explained that it would be difficult to develop this site without the loss of at least one on-street parking space.

    The architect noted for Commissioner Tucker that grass in between the concrete parking spaces can become a maintenance problem and that he would prefer not to place any grass in this area.

    Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that staff does not distinguish trim or other architectural treatment that's made out of metal.

    There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted his disappointment in the loss of this older building but stated that because the project does comply with code, he would support the request.

    Commissioner Perrotti stated that the proposed modern architecture is pleasing.

    In response to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry regarding the Coastal Commission's interest in seeing more percolation rather than run-off, Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is attempting to develop a draft Zone Code change that the Coastal Commission would support in accomplishing the Coastal Commission's goal of recharging the ground water; and that at this point in time, staff would encourage planting wherever possible along the perimeter of a project site, around parking areas, or in this case, around the driveway.

    Commissioner Tucker noted that he agrees with the project architect that a grass strip in the parking area can become a maintenance problem; and noted his preference that the driveway include some type of decorative enhancement, such as a sawcut or concrete stamping.

    MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation for CON 02-8/PDP 02-10, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26844 for a two-unit condominium at 186 2nd Street.
    Motion carried as follows:

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

Chairman Pizer recessed the meeting at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 P.M.

12. CON 02-9/PDP 02-11 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26807 for a two-unit condominium at 666 and 668 3rd Street. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that the project consists of a 3-level structure; that each of the units contain 4 bedrooms and a full bath; that a living area is located at garage level; and that parking is provided in two 2-car garages, which are facing an internal court. He noted that there's a shared guest parking space at the end of one driveway, which means that it's open and available to all the units; and explained that the curb cut will be narrowed for the proposed driveway so there's no loss of on-street parking. Director Blumenfeld stated that the roof plan for the project will need to be revised, which is one of the recommended conditions for approval; and because the building is slightly over maximum allowable lot coverage, the plans will also have to be revised to no more than 65 percent. He stated that all the yards are provided; and explained that the Planning Commission may want to consider including the condition that the 10-foot setback be maintained to be compatible with the neighborhood -- noting that there's currently a 5-foot setback. He noted that the plan shows a front entry stair which encroaches into the front property line; and that the stairs can only encroach 3 feet into the front yard and that this also will have to be corrected. He stated that the proposed open space is provided on the roof decks and second-story decks adjacent to the living rooms, and since the roof deck can only count for 100 square feet of the required 300 square feet for both units, the project is somewhat short on this requirement, and, therefore, staff is also including a recommended condition that the project be revised to be consistent with the open space requirement. He added that a condition has been included for two 36-inch box trees.

    Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's question as to what effect a modification to the front setback of 10 feet would have on this project, Director Blumenfeld explained that as the setback changes, the building size and location changes somewhat; and noted that the required turning radius at the parking area would have to be maintained.

    Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that it does not appear all the neighboring setbacks are 10 feet; and stated that he would support a front setback of 7 feet -- noting that this would bring the setback more in to compliance with the neighborhood while not having to change the building specifications.

    Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that most of the setbacks in this area are a minimum of 10 feet.

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is willing to work with staff in regard to the front-yard setback and open space issues. She stated that there are a number of other properties that haven't been developed yet, and that her concern would be that while this is a recommendation today, it may not be something that's imposed tomorrow; and that if the property to the west of this one were developed and permitted to go to the 5-foot setback and this property is at a 10-foot setback, then it would be an unfair disadvantage to this applicant. She suggested a compromise of 7 to 8 feet in setback; and explained that it's very difficult to figure out where the property line is in relation to the curb and the sidewalk. She stated that if the Planning Commission did impose a wider setback than the 5 feet, that would take care of the encroachment of the stairway and most likely also take care of the lot coverage issue. She mentioned that the rear setback is 7 feet rather than the required 5 feet - noting that there is a little room in the back to obtain the additional 2 feet. In talking with the project designer, she stated that he did indicate that the look of the building would not change significantly if an additional setback would be required. She noted the intent to comply with the 65-percent lot coverage restriction; stated that this modification will be taken care of during the plan check phase; and added that the project does comply with all development standards with regard to the zone and condominium use.

    The resident living at 704 3rd Street (*didn't give name), immediately adjacent property owner to the east of the proposed project, expressed his concern that this proposed project will have a negative impact upon his property, stating that the height of the proposed building will block his view to the ocean; and that it will reduce his property value -- stating that his property value will be decreased by $77,700 with the loss of his ocean view. He passed out computer renderings of how this proposed project will obstruct various views and sunlight to his building. He stated that he is not opposed to redeveloping this property, but that he is opposed to it blocking the views to the ocean -- pointing out that he would like to see the overall height decreased so that there is an unobstructed view from the top decks of his building. He noted his concern that the construction activities may have a negative impact upon the wooden fence along the driveway that divides the two existing properties; that he is concerned with the hazardous waste, such as asbestos, the demolition activities will have upon the neighbors; and that he is concerned with the proposed new trees causing a mess and the roots damaging the sidewalks, driveways, and water/sewer pipes. He expressed his belief that the proposed project is not consistent with the neighborhood.

    Christine Nesburn, property owner at 702 3rd Street, nearby resident, stated that the loss of ocean view from her property will create an approximate $70,000 decrease in property value; and expressed her concern that the close proximity of the two buildings will create an invasion of privacy.

    Barry Silver, property owner at 702 3rd Street, nearby resident, expressed his concern that the demolition activities will have a negative impact upon his asthma -- noting his concern with the potential for dust and hazardous waste leached into the air; highlighted his opposition to this proposed building blocking his sunlight; expressed his belief that the proposed 6,000 square feet of living space is too large for this neighborhood, that it is not compatible with the neighborhood; and expressed concern with the safety of the proposed palm trees -- noting his belief that they could fall over during windy conditions.

    Mr. Silver stated for Chairman Pizer that he and his neighbor currently have views on the second and third floors; and expressed his belief that what would be fair would be a new building which would allow the current residents to continue to enjoy their views from their third-floor decks.

    Chairman Pizer advised that there's no view ordinance in this City.

    Ms. Srour pointed out that there is a natural rise in the street, about a 5-foot rise, from the west to the east in the front of this property which continues up 3rd Street to the east, indicating that the property to the east does benefit somewhat from that natural increased elevation. She mentioned that there are no open spaces or decks on the east side of the building that will interfere with privacy.

    Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Kersenboom noted his preference for a 10-foot setback.

    Commissioner Tucker stated that while he sympathizes with the loss of the neighbors' ocean views, nothing can be done at this point because of the lack of a view ordinance; stated that if the fence is damaged, the builder will have to repair it; and explained that if any hazardous material is found, such as asbestos, it will be analyzed and properly removed from site before the building is demolished. He expressed his belief that this new project will enhance the property values in the area; pointed out that palm trees are very stable in windy conditions; noted his support for a 10-foot setback; expressed his preference that the full bath in the rear unit be changed to a three-quarters bath; and questioned if there is adequate head room for the circular staircase in the garage.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that the builder will be required to relocate the staircase if there is a head room clearance issue.

    Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted his support of a 10-foot front-yard setback; and questioned if the architect will have to redesign the project if the front-yard setback of 10 feet is maintained.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that there will be a cumulative effect if the building gets pushed back -- noting that the footprint of the building may have to be shrunk to make this design work; and noted that staff is comfortable that it can be done without substantially altering the project.

    Chairman Pizer re-opened the public hearing.

    Ms. Srour stated that the architect has reflected that a reduction in the footprint can be accommodated without a material change to the building.

    The public hearing was closed.

    Commissioner Perrotti noted his support of a 10-foot setback; and noted for the neighbors that the City has dust control restrictions for demolition activities -- pointing out that the site can be wet down to prevent a lot of migrating dust.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that the owner will have to obtain a manifest of the hazardous contents, if any, within the structure; advised that the developer is required to abate that condition prior to demolition; that when the demolition activities occur, the applicant is required to wet down the site to avoid migration of dust. He suggested that enforcement would be easier if a condition of approval were to be included to address wetting down the construction site.

    Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that the palm trees will be secure during windy conditions, stating that many palm trees remain in the ground following a hurricane; and he explained that the property owner has a certain amount of rights to develop this property.

    Chairman Pizer noted his support for a 10-foot front-yard setback and noted his concurrence with the Commission's statements.

    MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation for CON 02-9/PDP 02-11 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26807 for a two-unit condominium at 666 and 668 3rd Street; moved that the restroom on the rear unit be reduced from a full bath to a three-quarter bath; that there be a 10-foot front yard setback; that during the course of demolition, that the site be maintained in a manner not to cause any undue dust migration and that it be wet down during construction activities. Motion carried as follows:

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

13. CON 02-10/PDP 02-12 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 24249 for a two-unit condominium conversion project at 1723 and 1725 Golden Avenue. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld noted that this request is for a condo conversion of an existing structure; that at the Planning Commission meeting on Oct 29, 1996, the Commission voted to approve a CUP to allow the two existing units to be converted to a condominium, subject to the standard conditions of approval for condominiums; advised that the Planning Commission also granted three 1-year extensions to the expiration date; and noted that the project expired on October 29, 2001. He stated that the two detached units were constructed at different times -- the front unit in 1981 and the rear unit in 1982 and a remodel in 1977; advised that the front unit has a two-car garage directly accessible from the street; and that the rear unit has a two-car garage accessible by a common driveway which is shared with the adjacent property. He stated that the applicant is requesting to convert the existing dwelling units to condominium ownership pursuant to the zoning requirements; and noted that the applicant must conform to all the current development requirements for condominiums. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is required to submit a recorded joint easement agreement with the adjacent property for common driveway access to the rear unit -- noting that the applicant has submitted this recorded easement agreement for review. He stated that the building conforms with the lot coverage requirements; and noted that staff has suggested a condition that the owner shall submit a roof plan indicating the property corner point elevations and a current survey that demonstrates the project is consistent with the height requirements of the zone.

    Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that very minor changes are being proposed for the exterior of the building.

    Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.

    Ms. Srour, representing the applicant, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that it was always the owner's intent to convert these homes into condominium use; that the owner had begun compliance with the conditions that were previously approved by the Planning Commission; stated that he did have the easement recorded with the neighbor; and advised that the recorded document runs with the land; that it states it may not be amended, altered or changed without prior written consent of the city of Hermosa Beach. She added that this covenant cannot be removed nor can the property be insured without compliance with the covenant; noted that it also states that the participants to the covenant, the two neighbors, and the City all concur with the provisions of the covenant; that in the event they fail to perform their obligations to maintain the reciprocal driveway, the city of Hermosa Beach may exercise any remedy, whether civilly, criminally or administratively, that it may possess under its police powers in the State of California. She explained that there are quite a few conditions which will be revised to conform to code and that these will be verified during the plan check phase. She added that the owner does intend to make some improvements to the exterior of both buildings, but that there is no intention at this time to alter the buildings or change the architectural presentation; and stated that the buildings do comply with parking and open space requirements.

    There being no further public input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that all the requirements have been adequately covered by the conditions of approval; and that he does not believe the existing structures need to be architecturally modified.

    Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Tucker that staff has recommended that the landscape plans be submitted showing landscaping on the site; that 36-inch box trees be planted; and that the landscaping incorporate automatic sprinklers.

    Commissioner Tucker noted his preference for decorative concrete on the driveway, such as stained or stamped concrete; and commented on his disappointment that the owner does not plan to upgrade the architecture of the building.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation for CON 02-10/PDP 02-12 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 24249 for a two-unit condominium conversion project at 1723 and 1725 Golden Avenue. Motion carried as follows:

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

Hearing(s)

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 (continued from July 16 and August 20, 2002 meetings). (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 15, 2002 meeting.

    Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has not submitted revised plans at this time and, therefore, additional time is requested.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation to continue this matter to the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in regard to 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. Motion carried as follows:

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

15. CON 00-15/PDP 00-16 -- Request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26020 for a two-unit condominium at 866 Monterey Boulevard. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map by one year, to August 15, 2003.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant is requesting a continuance in order to have additional time to clarify some of the construction issues relative to obtaining the building permit.

    MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation to extend the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map by one year, to August 15, 2003. Motion carried as follows:

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

16. NR 02-9 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1242 Bonnie Brae Street. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the October 15, 2002, meeting in order to permit the applicant to revise project plans.

    Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant filed a request for an addition and remodel of an existing dwelling; that upon initial review of the project, staff had determined that the valuation was far in excess of what could be approved as a nonconforming remodel; and that staff is requesting that this matter be continued in order to allow the applicant time to redesign the project so it doesn't exceed the 100-percent threshold.

    Lannie Truants, representing the applicant, explained that the first floor is 1,800 square feet; that the second floor is 1,700 square feet; that it includes three decks; and noted that it includes two furnace rooms and one water heater room, which are enclosed spaces but not livable spaces. She stated that if they eliminate the second floor square footage and just calculate the existing living spaces, it would measure 1,400 square feet of living space -- pointing out that this is actually less than a 100-percent modification. She stated that the house meets all setback requirements; that it meets the 24-foot maximum requirement for height; and she urged approval of her request at this time.

    Chairman Pizer stated that the plans were not included in the agenda package; and that it was staff's recommendation that this matter be continued to the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.

    Ms. Triantis advised that the project architect had resubmitted the plans a month ago.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that staff's review of the latest project plans on file show the project to be in excess of 100 percent; and stated that staff will meet with the applicant and architect to go over the calculations. He added that staff has calculated that the project is 120.2 percent, which is 20.2 percent over what is allowed to be approved; and reiterated staff's recommendation to continue this matter to October 15.

    MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation to continue this matter to the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to permit the applicant time to revise the project plans. Motion carried as follows:

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

    Due to a possible conflict of interest, Commissioner Tucker recused himself from consideration of Item No. 17.

17. NR 02-10 -- A 232-square-foot expansion to an existing duplex, nonconforming to use and parking at 241 Longfellow Avenue. (PDF File)

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that this project is a two-story building which contains a separate dwelling unit on each floor and a detached garage on the front of the lot facing Longfellow Avenue; that it was originally built in 1936; and that the detached garage was added in 1962. He advised that staff does not have a clear permit history on whether the two units were originally permitted; however, he stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments in 1977 approved two units through a legal determination relative to the property; and mentioned that this duplex is currently nonconforming to the lot area per dwelling unit requirements, which is considered a nonconforming use. He stated that the duplex is also nonconforming in parking requirements -- pointing out that only one parking space is provided for each unit in the two-car garage; and that the duplex is also nonconforming with open space requirements. He explained that under the parking section of the nonconforming ordinance, an owner can construct up to 250 square feet of addition with at least one parking space onsite; however, nonconforming uses seeking this expansion, if wishing to go beyond that, require Planning Commission approval.

    He mentioned that the Planning Commission also must approve more than 10 percent linear footage of removal of the exterior walls; advised that the applicant is proposing to remodel and expand the existing first floor and add a roof; that the area of expansion is located on the southwest corner of the building, all of this resulting in approximately 25 percent of the existing walls being removed. Director Blumenfeld stated that the second-level decks and the stairway access to the second level are in disrepair and must be replaced; and noted that this expansion will increase the livable area from 1,616 square feet to 1,848 square feet. He advised that the applicant is proposing to place a deck on the roof of the existing garage; and mentioned that the expansion and remodel together come out to approximately 49 percent, which is consistent with the requirements for approval under the zoning ordinance relative to nonconforming remodels. He advised that the proposal generally conforms to the planning and zoning requirements but that there are a couple corrections relative to yard areas and the distance between the main buildings; and that with these corrections, staff is recommending approval.

    Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Hoffman that staff believes the deck area will have to be forced back somewhat in order to provide the necessary clearance, but that with this adjustment, the open space will be sufficient.

    Robert Shoenberger, 241 Longfellow, stated that modifications will be made to conform to City codes; and stated that he currently lives at this address and intends to live there following this remodel.

    MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation to approve NR 02-10 -- A 232-square-foot expansion to an existing duplex, nonconforming to use and parking at 241 Longfellow Avenue. Motion carried as follows:

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

18. Staff Items

    1. Status report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for auto service use located at 555 Pacific Coast Highway. (PDF File)

       Director Blumenfeld provided background information on this matter; and stated that following the last 6-month review this August, it is staff's opinion that this property has substantially improved and that it is in compliance with the conditional use permit.

       It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to receive and file this status report.

19. Commissioner Items

    Commissioner Tucker requested that consideration be given to changing the Zoning Code to require that all garages be enclosed.

    With regard to trellis treatments, Vice-Chairman Hoffman requested that staff investigate how Manhattan Beach is dealing with this issue in its city and that examples of its ordinance be obtained for review.

    Commissioner Tucker noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the subcommittee addressing trees is giving consideration to drought resistant varieties.

20. Adjournment

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, for adjournment at 10:00 P.M. No objection was noted.

Agendas / Minutes Menu

Planning Commission Agendas

Planning Commission Minutes