|
|
Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 2003
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
JUNE 17, 2003, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker, and Chairman Hoffman
Absent: None
Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Ken Robertson, Senior Planner
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary
Oral / Written Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE the May 20, 2003 minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is seeking clarification with regard to the condition concerning the 6-month review process for Conditional Use Permits; explained that staff is proposing to use the following wording -- if acceptable to the Planning Commission -- as the format for similar Conditional Use Permits (CUP's) where the Planning Commission wants a periodic review: "The Planning Commission shall review the operation of the restaurant for compliance with conditions of approval and compliance with the Noise Ordinance in 6 months and one year from the approval of this resolution and thereafter, as necessary, to respond to complaints." He indicated that this wording would provide consistency for periodic reviews of these businesses.
Director Blumenfeld noted that some of the periodic reviews date back as far as 28 years; that there are CUP's for businesses that are no longer in business or have changed hands; and explained that while the intent of the periodic review is sound, the Planning Commission may want to consider eliminating this condition for the older CUP's where periodic reviews are no longer relevant or where there does not appear to be a problem with a particular establishment. He stated that before any action is taken on removing the periodic reviews for the older CUP's, he would first like to discuss this matter with the City Attorney to find out how staff could modify these CUP's or whether a policy can be adopted by the Planning Commission. He added that staff is proposing the elimination of the 6-month review for old CUP's where there is no evidence of any problems with the business; and stated that this action for each old CUP would need to incorporate any police reports, staff review and discussion of any complaints, and staff inspection of the business for changes to the interior layout.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that a 6-month review and annual follow-up is sufficient; and that if a problem arises, staff and the Planning Commission would review the situation.
Chairman Hoffman concurred that some of the older CUP's need to have a sunset period - pointing out that some of these establishments are the best operating businesses in the City.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 03-23(PDF File), modifying a Conditional Use Permit for on-sale general alcohol, in conjunction with an existing restaurant with live entertainment, at 1320 Hermosa Avenue.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that when there is a change of ownership of an establishment, the Planning Commission should review the CUP to be clear that the new owner is aware of any problems that may exist.
Commissioner Pizer noted his concern that the City may not be aware of any layout changes that may have occurred with some of the older businesses.
Responding to Commissioner Pizer's concern, Director Blumenfeld stated that further review of a business would have to be complaint driven or if a change to the interior layout were requested; and pointed out that the Planning Commission would always have the ability to bring a CUP back for review if there were concerns with violations.
There was consensus among the Planning Commission to direct staff by way of Minute Order to start the process to make this a policy, 6-month review, an annual review, and a further review if there is concern with a possible violation - citing the following as triggers for further review: police activity reports, staff inspection of the business for changes to the interior layout, weekend nighttime inspection if the police report and/or Police Chief indicate frequent or severe problems, and staff review and discussion of any complaints.
Public Hearing(s)
-
HLE 03-1 -- A Height Limit Exception, pursuant to Section 17.16.020, to allow a 35' building height for a proposed single family residence at 321 Monterey Boulevard (continued from May 20, 2003 meeting). (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that a thorough and detailed staff report was provided at the previous meeting; that testimony was obtained from the applicant, the residents, and the Planning Commission; and that this matter was continued to this meeting for a full Planning Commission vote.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that he had viewed the tape and read the staff report.
Dennis Nivens, applicant, 321 Monterey Avenue, distributed new photographs which depict the current views and the anticipated views following the construction of this project; stated that he and staff reviewed the survey and made a determination which points he needed to use for the calculation of the building height -- pointing out that a completed and accurate set of plans will be forthcoming, with the elevations correctly marked; and advised that the 30-foot height level has dropped by approximately 10 inches on the west end. Mr. Nivens explained that the height exception is needed to access scenic views and to enjoy light and air above the surrounding properties - displaying once again some photographs from the proposed heights; and stated that he is walled in by his neighbors' homes. He urged the Planning Commission to allow him the same views to the ocean and Palos Verdes that his immediate neighbors enjoy; stated that the additional height would allow him those same views. Mr. Nivens highlighted the fact that the Municipal Code requires a 30-foot height limit with exceptions; and stated that he meets the four criteria to support the need for additional height on his property.
In response to Commissioner Perrotti's inquiry, Mr. Nivens explained that the plans for the house have not changed; that the only changes that were made were to the elevations points that he and staff are using for height calculation; and stated that with the recalculation, the deck level will be 33.9 feet, and the peak of the gable will be 34.1 feet.
Mike Costello, 316 Monterey Avenue, stated that he is a neighbor of Mr. Nivens; and noted his complete support for Mr. Nivens' request. He supported Mr. Nivens' assertions that his property is surrounded by properties that have been built at a higher level than his.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for Mr. Nivens' request, stating that after viewing the photographs, he does not believe this project will create a significant change to the neighbors' views.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that the exception would allow Mr. Nivens to build to 35 feet or less in height; and stated that at this time, staff does not have a precise calculation for the proposed height of this home, due to missing information on the survey at the time the report was drafted.
Because Mr. Nivens is surrounded by higher buildings, Commissioner Pizer stated that he would support Mr. Nivens' request.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that Finding No. 3 has not been met, stating that the impacts of the proposed project are potentially significant for some of the neighbors and future developments.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he is not able to make Finding No. 1; pointed out that the only view this applicant will have is from the rooftop deck; and expressed his belief that the rooftop deck can be built at the required 30 feet and remain in compliance. He stated that the applicant will still have a view from his deck after lowering it 3 feet. He reminded the Planning Commission that if this request is approved, the applicant will be able to go up to 35 feet in height.
Commissioner Kersenboom expressed his belief that the applicant has met all four findings. Chairman Hoffman advised that three letters had been received for this item, one letter in support and two in opposition.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE HLE 03-1 -- a Height Limit Exception, pursuant to Section 17.16.020, to allow a 35' building height for a proposed single-family residence at 321 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Hoffman, Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
PDP 03-6/NR 03-5 -- Precise Development Plan and Nonconforming Remodel to allow an 1,124 square foot expansion and remodel to an existing nonconforming office building resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 824 1st Street. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is zoned Commercial, Specific Plan Area 7, and is located in the commercial corridor along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); advised that the lot contains 5,578 square feet; and that the existing building is a 2-story office building with 2,990 square feet and 10 parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing an expansion of 1,124 square feet, which will result in a building square footage of 4,114; stated that the required parking for this addition, based on the office parking requirement, is 4 spaces; and noted that the project does provide those additional 4 parking spaces. He commented on the history of this proposal, which involved a much more substantial proposal for expansion of 4,500 square feet and involved the use of the adjacent water company property for the required parking space. With this project, he stated that the applicant proposes to expand the 2-story office building by reconfiguring the first and second stories and adding a partial third story; that the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to increase on-site parking by 4 spaces in order to meet the requirements for the expansion; and explained that the proposed expansion and remodel does exceed the maximum 50-percent increase in valuation, a 73-percent increase, which is allowed by the Zoning Code relating to nonconforming buildings.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the existing building was constructed in 1979 in compliance with zoning requirements that were in place at that time, but noted that the building is considered nonconforming to current parking requirements, which require a total of 12 parking spaces for a building of this size. He stated that the plan involves alterations to the first floor, to enlarge the parking area, to relocate the entry and lobby in the front, to add a centrally located elevator access from the middle of the parking level, to reduce and reconfigure the second-floor office space, to provide a 33-foot wide atrium, and the addition of office space and deck areas on the third floor. He stated that the plans are to upgrade the appearance and function of this building, both for the applicants use and to attract quality, long-term tenants.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that the project will still maintain the existing nonconforming status of 2 deficient parking spaces; that it is subject to the nonconforming remodel provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and that while the existing deficiency with respect to parking is maintained, the proposed changes do appear to be consistent with the intent of the code which allows for these expansions. He reiterated that this building was originally built in compliance with a different parking standard that were later modified. He expressed staff's belief that the overall project addition and alteration is limited and moderate in scale and is reasonable considering the existing condition of the property; and stated that the plan does comply with the building height, subject to verification of a final survey.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the proposed new design has substantially reduced the overall height and bulk of the building as compared to the prior proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission in October 2002; stated that the height of the building will be the same or slightly lower in the front third of the lot; and that at the rear of the lot, the building height will be within the 30-foot height limit to the roof -- 32'6" to the parapet wall, about 7 to 8 feet higher than the existing building. He stated that the overall scale and design of the project with separate office areas lends itself to occupancy by small professional and other lower intensity type office uses, which should minimize parking concerns - noting that with this reduced scale of the project, all parking will remain on site; and stated that the project will not require any special parking variances or off-site parking arrangements. He indicated that staff is recommending approval, with the following inclusions: that final verification be provided that the entire building complies with the first-tier height limit of 30 feet; that the occupancy of the building be limited to professional and general office uses; that no changes be allowed to the parking or parking layout without Planning Commission approval; and that expansion not exceed 1,124 square feet. He amended Section 6, No. 2, first sentence to reflect "30 feet."
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Hoffman that staff did have the opportunity to review the 12 letters that had been distributed to the Planning Commission in regard to this matter; stated that the letters primarily deal with 4 issues of concern, such as potential blockage of views to the ocean, parking relative to actual need based on what might occur in the building, concern that the proposed cutouts would create a code enforcement problem with possible conversion to office space, and inadequate landscaping in the front setback.
Responding to the letters, Director Blumenfeld pointed out that this project does not exceed second-tier SPA 7 standards; and that as a result, it need only comply with first-tier standards. He added that these standards are only guidelines; stated that there is no view ordinance in the City and that none of the view criteria apply to this project; and with regard to parking relative to actual need, he explained that if the uses change, the applicant would be in violation of the conditions of approval and would be subject to review, as with any other discretionary permit. He expressed his belief that if the cutouts are being converted in the future, they would likely be discovered the same as any illegal construction on the commercial corridor. With regard to the landscaping, he stated that staff believes the 5 percent landscape coverage issue can be cured by providing landscaping on the decks, which has been discussed with the architect. He stated that one of the letters requested that trees on the decks not be allowed so as not to further impact views and that the stairs be moved to the center of the building.
Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Perrotti that no general retail use would be permitted from this site, pursuant to the Conditions of Approval.
In response to Commissioner Pizer's comment, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant need only park the new project at 100 percent of the parking requirement, but that the existing parking can remain at the 2-space deficiency.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
David Tomblin, Tomblin & Associates, 824 First Street, thanked staff for their professionalism and courtesy throughout this process and thanked the neighbors for their support and input. He advised that 22 neighboring residents have noted their support of this project; stated that Tomblin & Associates will run its business from this address, taking up approximately 70 percent of the space; and noted his intention to convert this abandoned building to one that the community will be proud to have in this City. Mr. Tomblin explained that the original proposal for this building was decreased in size from 4,500 square feet to 1,124 square feet; and addressed his need to install an elevator in this building. He indicated that the second-story roof was lowered by 2.5 feet in order to accommodate the view corridor concerns.
Jeff Goeckner, project architect, Sherman Davis Incorporated, stated that this firm has been working on this project for two years and has spent a considerable amount of time redesigning and downsizing this proposal as a result of the feedback from the last Planning Commission hearing in October 2002. He noted that the existing building is 2,990 square feet, with 10 parking spaces; stated that the ground level is a parking garage, which limits the number of spaces that can be provided - pointing out that the parking has driven the entire design of this project in order to achieve the additional 4 parking spaces, thus allowing the additional 1,124 square feet of new space; and noted that the existing parking layout dictates to a large extent where the elevator and exit stairwell can be placed.
Mr. Goeckner stated that this parcel is only 40 feet wide and approximately 140 feet deep; and noted that because of the narrow lot width, the applicant faces issues that will have to be addressed under the building code with regard to separation of exits, in particular. He explained that placing the elevator in the center of the project allows them to open up the middle of the building to create the atrium, which they believe would be a very marketable and significant design feature in this project. He stated that a lot of the square footage on the second floor has been eliminated; that they have attempted to locate most of the rental office space in the rear half to two-thirds of the building - pointing out that one of the reasons for doing this was to address the concern from the previous Planning Commission meeting where a lot of public comment was given in regard to loss of views and the aesthetics of the project. He expressed his belief that the open deck on the front of the building top will open the view for the residents in the condominium two lots over. Mr. Goeckner stated that they have been very careful to comply with all of the first-tier requirements in this zone and all of the development standards; explained that the landscaping will be brought closer to the property line; and that they will be putting landscaping on the third level deck, such as planters and open trellises along the east property line of the building.
Mr. Goeckner noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the trellises will not protrude above the roofline; and that the trellises will be open wood structures that will interweave between the horizontal members.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiries, Mr. Goeckner explained that the tunnel is an exit corridor built below the ground level and tunneled out below the slab of the parking garage, allowing egress in a protected environment; stated that the tunnel runs the length of the building, approximately 130 feet long; that it's covered by the slab of the parking garage; and that the slab is presently on grade.
Vice-Chairman Tucker questioned whether if the valuation had included the size of this tunnel; noted his delight with the look of the proposed building, but questioned whether the plans will comply with building code standards - expressing his belief that a 3-hour separation is needed between the garage and the first floor and highlighted the noncompliant wooden trellises; and noted his hesitation on voting on this matter this evening until some explanations are given on how this project will comply with the Building Code standards.
Addressing Vice-Chairman Tucker's comments, Mr. Goeckner stated that this building will be fully sprinklered; advised that the parking garage is already sprinklered; and explained that they are comfortable that all building code issues have been adequately addressed. With regard to the openings that are on the property line, he indicated that those would not be classified as openings because they're less than 5 feet from the property line; that they would have to have a fire rating; and stated that there are rated products on the market that will allow them to have clear glass for the wall system.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff and the architect had addressed some of these issues. With regard to the windows, he explained that no openings are permitted within 5 feet of the property line for this occupancy and type of construction; advised that the architect has pointed out that he may have an alternative material or method that he may want to consider; and stated that staff would take a look at that alternative material to determine if it's code compliant. He pointed out that staff is exclusively talking about the north and south sides of the building in this regard; that wherever there is combustible material, such as the trellis materials, the applicant would obviously have to meet the protection requirements at the property line; and indicated that the code also allows for some innovation in terms of orientation of windows - pointing out that there may be some allowances, some opportunities to reconfigure some of the windows. In addition, he indicated that if the windows are rated, they would have to be non-opening; and stated that there may be some options that the architect will have to employ to deal with some of these conditions.
Chairman Hoffman reminded those present that if there are any significant changes precipitated by the building code, these plans would have to come back before the Planning Commission for review.
Mr. Goeckner noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the atrium has a partial roof on it, not a skylight; and stated that it measures approximately 4 by 12 feet.
Responding to Commissioner Pizer's inquiries, Mr. Goeckner explained that there is only one driveway into the building; that they will be keeping the existing curb cut, driveway and maintain the existing entrance into the garage; that virtually the entire first level is taken up by the parking garage; that the exit stair leads all the way from the third level down into the tunnel, then from the tunnel, exits the length of the property out to the front and exit onto First Street. He mentioned that there is only a 12-inch difference in elevation from the front of the property to the rear of the property. He added that this driveway is not a one-way exit system; and explained that by taking the existing corridor and putting it below the building, they have been able to pick up 5 feet of width of the property, which has allowed for additional parking spaces. He mentioned that handicapped parking is provided.
Maureen Creen, 904 First Street, Apartment No. 2, Hermosa Beach, expressed her support of the proposed project; addressed her concern with the lengthy period this building has sat abandoned; and expressed her belief that some of the parking problems are caused by the nearby Land Rover dealership.
Larry Daniels, 415 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, commercial real estate broker with Grubb & Ellis, representing Mr. Tomblin, advised that after Tomblin & Associates moves into this building, roughly 1,100 square feet of space will be available for other tenants. He stated that those tenants would provide a low impact service, such as an attorney, accountant, insurance agent, ones which would not generate a lot of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Daniels noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that Tomblin & Associates has 5 employees.
Cynthia Fernberg, 912 Second Street, expressed her belief that the City's code is ambiguous as to protecting the views for any development and stated that it is subject to interpretation; and she commented on her concerns that the plans for the offices should be altered - noting her opposition to the proposed cutouts. She noted her opposition to the additional deck and small patio on the third level and suggested that it be replaced with additional office space and suggested that the plan be condensed a little and moved more to the south; suggested that the stairwell tower be moved to the center of the building in order to free up some of the ocean view for the residents - stating that the current plan takes up 74 percent of the view with the length of the building. She stated that there is a 10-foot discrepancy and that this additional footage requires the applicant to provide 5 parking spots, not 4. She requested that the applicant reflect in the plans the length and width of the office spaces; stated that the landscaping requirements have not been met; noted her opposition to the wooden trellises; addressed her concern with the requirement for a 3-hour separation between the garage and the first floor; and noted her concern with the safety of the tunnel and inadequate setback requirements.
Mark Hullman, 838 First Street, noted his support of the applicant's proposal; and addressed his concern with the possibility of converting the cutouts sometime in the future, thus creating a greater need for parking.
Dave Lewis, 840 First Street, urged the Planning Commission to consider the cumulative parking impacts from all of the construction projects in this area; questioned if the size of the tunnel had been calculated into the plans; and requested that landscaping be put on the water property as an additional buffer zone for the neighbors' benefit. He addressed his concern with the cutouts and the possibility for future conversion.
Ann Lewis, 834 First Street, stated that she lives directly to the east of this project; noted her opposition to this proposal; and noted her concern with the safety for pedestrian passage throughout the length of the tunnel.
As a matter of economics and feasibility, Mr. Goeckner explained that if this proposal is not approved, the applicant would have to consider an alternate plan to demolish this building and erect a new building that will accommodate a larger number of businesses, which would have a larger impact on parking and views than what is currently being proposed. He pointed out that the plans for the tunnel are code compliant; and stated that all of the issues discussed this evening have been adequately addressed with professional staff. He stated that if there is a math error in the calculations, it will be corrected in the plan check phase.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hoffman reiterated the fact that the accuracy of the plans, construction drawings, code issues will be checked over by staff during the plan check stage; stated that this City is aggressively working on getting rid of illegal bootlegs; and reiterated that there is no view ordinance in this City.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that this proposal is the best use for this neighborhood when compared to an entirely new building.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that as long as this complies with the first-tier standards, he would support this proposal.
Commissioner Kersenboom expressed his belief that the parking for this site will not impact the existing parking problems in this area; and stated that this is a dramatic improvement with what's currently on site.
Responding to Commissioner Tucker's previous question, after having recalculated the area requirement, Director Blumenfeld stated that the approximate 800-square-foot tunnel contributes approximately 4 percent to the overall number, making it a 77-percent valuation.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that this will be a nice looking building, but expressed his belief that as currently proposed, the building plans will not pass code inspection; and noted that if the plans have to be amended and it changes the appearance of this building, this should come back before the Planning Commission for review. He suggested that the atrium be a little more open at the roof level; he expressed his belief that the applicants have been proactive in addressing the neighbors' concerns and that this will be a nice addition to the area.
Chairman Hoffman stated that the final plans will have to be consistent with what the Planning Commission has discussed this evening; and stated that this project is far superior to the applicant's alternative plan to demolish the existing building.
Director Blumenfeld highlighted the minor revisions to the resolution: Section 6, Item No. 2, show the maximum building height of 30 feet; and suggested that the Planning Commission may want to add a condition that the expansion be no larger than 1,124 square feet.
Vice-Chairman Tucker requested that the City's Building Department conduct an on-site field measurement of this project.
Chairman Hoffman stated that this body routinely makes its motions contingent upon staff plan checks and that it is not customary for this City to do field measurements.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City uses the professionally prepared survey from a licensed civil engineer/land surveyor in order to ensure that a project conforms to the height requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE PDP 03-6/NR 03-5 -- Precise Development Plan and Nonconforming Remodel to allow an 1,124- square-foot expansion and remodel to an existing nonconforming office building resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 824 First Street, and to include the change to Section 6, No. 2. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:13 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 P.M.
-
CON 03-4/PDP 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54429 for a seven-unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2006, 2014 and 2024 Pacific Coast Highway. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this proposed project is a 7-unit condominium complex to be located on the east side of PCH between 20th and 21st Streets; explained that the site currently consists of 3 lots, each containing a single-family dwelling; stated that if the 3 existing lots were separately developed under the R-2 Zone standard, they could each be developed with 2 units, making it a total of 6 dwelling units; and that by combining all of these lots, there is sufficient lot area to develop 7 total units. He noted that the project consists of 7 detached condominium units with 2 stories and a basement level; stated that all of the vehicular access will be provided from a common driveway on 20th Street; that all the garages are accessed from the common driveway; and that guest parking is provided with 2 spaces accessed from the common driveway and 3 spaces accessed from the alley to the east. Director Blumenfeld stated that there is a proposed curb cut on 20th Street that will result in the loss of 2 on-street parking spaces; that if those 2 parking spaces are lost as a result of the curb cut, a total of 6 guest parking spaces would be required on site rather than 5; and that if this becomes a requirement, the applicant would need to find additional space on site. He noted that staff has suggested that the common trash area be revised to include this extra guest parking space.
Director Blumenfeld stated that overall, this project complies with R-2 development standards relative to parking, building height and lot coverage, and setback requirements, except for a 2.5-foot easterly side yard setback requirement at grade instead of 5 feet, which is required off the alley. He noted that the requirement for a 23-foot turning radius must be satisfied, which can be readily accommodated on site; stated that there are 2 common open spaces which comply with the open space requirements for 5 or more units; mentioned that most of the private open space is located at the second floor level, which is consistent with policy requirements; and indicated that the common open space is passive open space area.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has requested of the applicant to provide an analysis of the view shed immediately to the east, which is not typically a requirement of the Planning Commission; explained that this issue came up during the Environmental Review Committee meeting wherein concerns were addressed by some of the residents to the east that some of their views would be blocked. Director Blumenfeld indicated that these issues would more effectively be addressed at the hearing this evening. As a result, he stated that the architect prepared a view analysis, which indicates that there is a material impact upon some of the buildings to the east; that the second lot closest to the project moving to the east has its views blocked at the second floor level; and that the lot furthest to the east has its view blocked from the second floor level. He pointed out that the Municipal Code doesn't require that the Planning Commission consider this issue; however, it caused staff to study whether the building ought to be massed differently to open up view corridors. He noted that having studied 3 options relative to building mass and view shed, it is staff's opinion that none of these options is superior to the applicant's proposal. The alternated proposals attached to the staff report reflect clustering the units to create large common open space.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Commission policy typically requires compliance with the setback requirement prevailing on the street; noted that if the setback requirement was applied to this project on 20th Street, it would significantly impact the project and affect the locations of guest parking and would most likely have a dramatic effect on the buildable area on this site; and advised that staff believes the applicant has provided a project that is consistent with the requirements of the zone.
Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's inquiries, Director Blumenfeld explained that when the setback in the alley is revised, it will affect the site plan but that the more significant change would be on 20th Street if there was a full 10-foot setback required. With regard to the extra guest parking space, he explained that the proposed common trash area could be eliminated, accommodating trash areas within each of the garages. Addressing the issue of impervious materials for driveway paving, Director Blumenfeld expressed that the use of impervious materials is not yet a policy or ordinance.
In response to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission could require that the applicant provide trees in the public right-of-way only, with Caltrans approval.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the property owners and the applicant, stated that this proposal is in full compliance with all of the development standards and that in some areas, it exceeds the development standards, such as lot coverage. She expressed her belief that these high-quality detached units maintain a high level of neighborhood compatibility; stated that all of the units are self-contained, include many amenities, and have very useable private open space areas. She explained that by relocating and consolidating the entry into this site from 20th Street, it allows greater open space; that it does change the configuration of this site, resulting in the 20th Street frontage becoming the front of the lot as opposed to the side of the lot - pointing out that currently, the front of this property is on PCH. She requested that the Planning Commission consider allowing the same type of consideration on the 20th Street side as exists on the south side of 20th Street, where a fairly large, new single-family home exists utilizing the same R-2 development standards; stated that the lot of the new home is less that 40 feet wide; that the side yard in this situation is 10 percent of the lot width, which results in less than a 4-foot side yard - reiterating the applicant's request for this same type of consideration. She stated that the applicant concurs with the conditions of approval; advised that the surrounding neighbors were invited to a meeting to discuss this proposal; noted that approximately 10 residents came to view the plans and elevations; stated that the residents addressed their concerns with views; and expressed her belief that this proposal is a good balance for the City and the applicant.
Nagy Bakhoum, 3800 PCH, project architect, explained that this project was designed to have the main entrance off 20th Street; that the fronts of the 4 rear units are designed to face the alley rather than having a series of garage doors facing the neighbors; and stated that the parking has been internalized into the center of the complex. Having had discussions with the neighbors, Mr. Bakhoum stated that the roof top deck railing has been designed to minimize the view impact to the neighbors; that one of the walls has been altered in height to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors' views; and that the chimneys will be no higher than 2 feet above any roof element. With regard to the potential loss of 2 parking spaces on 20th Street, he explained that they could narrow the driveway neck to 20 feet to minimize that loss. Mr. Bakhoum expressed his primary concern that requiring the prevailing setback would significantly alter the plans for this project, that creating a 10-foot setback on 20th Street would significantly impact the plans for this individual home concept - pointing out that they would end up putting the units together and creating more bulk and more view impact to the existing homes to the east. He reiterated staff's statement that there aren't any other superior proposals to put before the Planning Commission; that these units incorporate significant articulation on the buildings; that they're designed to minimize bulk; that the buildings will be painted different colors; and that there are cantilevers and open spaces between buildings. He pointed out that they are not maximizing the height at the most critical point with respect to the rear of the property along the alley; stated that they will work with the City's planners on the 5-foot setback off the alley side - noting that this was an error on their part. He added that the services of a landscape architect will be procured to address some of the concerns and that they would like to include landscaping in the public right-of-way, with Caltrans approval.
Mr. Bakhoum explained for Commissioner Perrotti that the spaces between Building Nos. 1 and 2, 3 and 4 are currently designed with concrete - pointing out that the required 23 feet of backup space has affected the landscape buffer; and he highlighted the common open space that will include trellis arbors with climbing roses, palm trees and other plantings and a raised play area.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that 2 of the 4 units in the back be flipped to break up the identical design.
Mr. Bakhoum stated that he would look into that possibility; and explained that the plans were designed so that the front entrance doors to each unit did not have a common shared entry.
Mr. Bakhoum noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the window well from the alley could be pushed back a bit; and stated that a 10-foot setback on 20th Street will result in a significant density impact with regard to larger building mass.
Vice-Chairman Tucker expressed his belief that the elevations are too similar.
Mr. Bakhoum stated that there will be a sidewalk on 20th Street.
John Shoestack, 1934 PCH, stated that he lives just south of these units; noted that he is not opposed to the plans; and he urged the City to make sure this project has adequate open space and setbacks. Mr. Shoestack addressed his concern with the adequacy of turning radius into this site, noting his belief that cars might cue in front of his home; and he addressed the limited maneuvering room for vehicles and parking on 20th Street. He expressed his belief that the large trash trucks will not be able to maneuver on this site; and he asked that sidewalks be installed.
Kelly Doke, 2014 Road Street, expressed his hope that the complex residents will park in their garages; and noted his concern with the limited driveway width and the difficulty of parallel parking full-sized vehicles on 20th Street.
Margaret Jacoby, 2024 Road Street, stated that she lives behind this project and that she received no notification from the applicant for the neighborhood meeting; and she urged the City to maintain the small ocean view that she enjoys from her home.
Randy Firestone, 831 20th Street, stated that his home is the first 2-story house directly behind the project, believing that his view will be the most impacted by this project; stated that he has been communicating with the applicant and architect to address some of his concerns; and requested that any trees that are to be planted be those that have as little impact as possible to views. Mr. Firestone stated that he would concur with Director Blumenfeld's suggestion that the trees not exceed the height of the buildings.
Responding to Commissioner's questions, Director Blumenfeld mentioned that a smaller trash vehicle could enter the site for collection purposes.
Mr. Firestone mentioned that a smaller trash vehicle could enter this site for collection purposes; explained that the notification for the neighborhood meeting was specifically sent to those impacted neighbors to the east of this project on Road and 20th Streets; advised that a total of 19 parking spaces will be provided on site; stated that 4 of the garages are 23 feet by 22 feet; and that the remaining parking spaces are 20 by 18 feet. Addressing Ms. Jacoby's concern with view impact, Mr. Firestone explained that there is a 35-foot 10-unit apartment building on Rhodes Avenue, between Ms. Jacoby's property and this project, and that this project will not come anywhere near the height of that existing structure. Mr. Firestone stated that he would not be opposed to planting slow growing king palm trees to address the concerns with view.
Commissioner Pizer suggested that the central trash area be covered with a trellis or other feature.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that this is a nice project but suggested that the 4 units in the back be reduced to 3 units in order to lessen some of the parking issues and make more room on site and to change the elevations.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that this is a nice project; urged the applicant to change the elevations; noted for consistency purposes that he would support a 10-foot setback; expressed his belief that this should be a 6-unit complex - stating that there is too much mass for the neighborhood; urged the applicant to give serious consideration to using impervious concrete wherever possible; and noted his support that all of the units should have an individual design, something that sets them apart from one another.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer his belief that the majority of the setbacks in the neighborhood is 10 feet.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for a 10-foot setback on 20th Street and his support for some variations on the design of each building.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a new site plan would have to be submitted if a 10-foot setback is required on 20th Street because it will dramatically change the plans.
Commissioner Pizer suggested that Section 5-1-E be amended to include that a 10-foot setback shall be provided on 20th Street.
Chairman Hoffman noted his support for a 10-foot setback on 20th Street; and suggested that this item be continued to allow the applicant make the requested changes to the plans.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE CON 03-4/PDP 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54429 for a seven-unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2006, 2014 and 2024 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Hearing
-
A14 -- Appeal of Community Development Director's decision regarding open space and lot coverage connected with underground storage at 916 3rd Street.
(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff is seeking clarification with respect to interpreting the required open space and lot coverage requirements for this single-family dwelling; stated that this property owner is proposing to remodel this single-family home, which is located in the R-1 Zone; that the applicant would like to utilize an area that encroaches in the back yard below the proposed finished grade; that the purpose of the encroachment is to maximize the additional floor area for storage, while minimizing the impact on the back yard; that the owner is proposing the finished floor level of the basement be lowered enough to create a code-complying amount of head room; and that the basement extend beyond the building footprint into the rear yard - pointing out that the rear yard elevation will consequently be raised approximately 3 feet and would bring it level with the finished floor level. He stated that the issue for the Planning Commission to consider is whether the encroachment, extending beyond the face of the building out into the rear yard, violates the open space and lot coverage requirements of the zone; and noted that in order to comply with open space and lot coverage requirements, all yards and open space must be free of obstructions or structures from the ground to the sky. He stated that the Planning Commission must determine whether this encroachment of a below-grade structure satisfies the requirement of open space in that it would be free and clear from the ground to the sky; that the Planning Commission must also determine whether the below-grade extension of the house violates the lot coverage requirements, which are defined as that portion of the lot covered by the area within the foundations of the main building and all accessory buildings and structures, the area covered by cantilevers projecting from a building and the area covered by decks and stairs more than 30 inches above the grade. Director Blumenfeld explained that the proposed basement extension will not extend 30 inches above grade; however, it will extend the foundation of the main building and would be considered covered based on the definition.
Director Blumenfeld explained that other below-grade structures, such as pools, have been prohibited when they've been proposed to encroach in the front, side or rear yard setbacks; and advised that this proposed extension complies with the rear yard setback, but it will be located in the required open space. He explained that staff believes this is arguable that the proposed finished grade of the basement roof represents "unaltered grade" as the code specifies. He stated that the existing retaining walls are basically protecting a cut; that the patio area is an excavated area; and that the argument could be put forward that the area, were it not retained, would be approximately 3 feet higher in elevation, which is demonstrated by the survey elevations and by the field conditions as viewed by staff. He stated that it may be possible to determine that this area represents "unaltered grade" and further that it would be free and clear of obstructions from the ground level to the sky to comply with open space requirements.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the definition for lot coverage specifically includes that portion of a lot covered by the area within the foundation of the main building - noting that there is the foundation of the main building that will extend out into the yard; that strictly looking at the definition of lot coverage, it's not possible to find that the lot coverage regulations are not being violated. He explained that the Commission may determine that lot coverage requirements are meant to guide how the City treats the development of a lot relative to the visible area of the lot that is above grade. He advised that the owner's representative has pointed out that there are some ambiguities in the City's code relative to lot coverage; that the applicant is pointing out that there are specific conditions that apply to this property that won't apply to other properties; and that if the Planning Commission were to make these findings, it would be making them based on the existing condition with the retaining walls at the same elevation. He stated that this would not create a precedent due to conditions unique to the site. He added that the applicant argues this project will comply with all yard setback requirements; and that lot coverage is unaffected since the project extension is less than 6 feet in height, which is a reference to the basement qualification requirement under the building code and is a separate issue.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Pizer that the storage area is meant to be contiguous with the rest of the building.
Responding to Chairman Hoffman's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld pointed out that this is a remodel of an existing single-family dwelling with a finished floor elevation that is consistent with the prevailing elevation of the surrounding adjacent grades; and that in order for this to be code compliant, 7 feet of clear head room would be necessary for this proposal. He indicated that there will be no windows.
Vice-Chairman Tucker pointed out that accommodating a 7-foot ceiling could make this a habitable area.
Jeff Gleason, owner/applicant, stated that he has owned and occupied this property for 18 years; explained that this proposal is to accommodate his need for extra storage; stated that the architect has designed the most effective storage area as possible while maintaining code standards; noted that the entrance to this area is on the outside, not through the house; and he mentioned that there is currently a cement patio throughout the whole back portion.
Wayne Fukuda, project architect, PaulRio Architectural Group, 14661 Myford Road, Tustin, explained that there are steps from the outside of the house into the basement; that the foundation portion of the house is a retained earth portion of the building in which there is a slab on grade; that the soil at that level mimics the soil that is on the adjacent north and south side; and stated that it is not the intention of the applicant to occupy this area and that is why the proposal is for 6 feet. Mr. Fukuda explained that this is a challenging lot; that due to the slope of the back yard area and its sunken nature, this project will have no impact to any neighbor, that it is a very private area. He expressed his belief that the plans do not violate the height of the finished grade; that the construction and design does not violate the property line requirements; mentioned that there will be 6 steps leading into the basement storage area that will include a rail on one side; and noted that the applicant's backyard is a garage wall.
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted his preference for the extra footage; expressed his belief that the railing restricts the open space area because of the gate and the wall to the garage; and that he would prefer a concrete lid/deck.
Mr. Fukuda stated that he could continue the stairs from the basement level on up to the deck; and that it be dropped a bit to give more space in the back.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that this request complies with the Building Code as long as it does not get any closer than 3 feet to the property line; and that 7 feet clear will be needed for head room.
Mr. Fukuda noted his appreciation for the assistance of Director Blumenfeld and Senior Planner Robertson.
The Planning Commission directed staff by minute order to find that this proposal is consistent with the open space and lot coverage requirements.
-
Staff Items
-
Status report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for the Underground Pub and Grill at 1334 Hermosa Avenue. (PDF File).
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this business operates under a Conditional Use Permit which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1988; that it was amended at that time to add a second bar serving area and dance floor in the northwest of the main restaurant/bar and seating area; and that the resolution at that time included a provision requiring a 6-month review. He advised that recently, the ownership of the restaurant changed from Bestie's to Underground Pub and Grill; and that the new ownership has made cosmetic changes to the building, including new windows, doors, signage, painting and other interior improvements and upgrades. He added that the building permit for window and door changes was finaled in December 2002; and that staff is providing this review, as the 6-month period has elapsed since final approval of the building alterations. He noted that police activity for this location has totaled 25 incidents since the beginning of the year, which involved incidents inside and outside of the building; advised that the Police Chief believes the number of incidents in this area is fairly typical of other restaurants/bars in the Downtown area that provide these same type of amenities. Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff's inspection of the interior found that the interior floor layout is essentially the same as it was with Bestie's, which was approved in 1988; stated that the business owner does provide extra security personnel every night of the week, roaming the parking lot and alley to prevent loitering; and mentioned that if the Planning Commission so desires, staff could do a weekend night inspection of this business.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff reviewed the type of address inquiries as noted in the police incidents/activity report and pointed out that it is considered average and not unusual.
There was Planning Commission consensus to receive and file this report.
-
Director Blumenfeld read a letter to the Planning Commission which commended this body for its fairness and thoughtful consideration to all parties involved with respect to the project at 900 PCH, the auto sales project.
On behalf of the Planning Commission, Chairman Hoffman noted his appreciation of the resident's commendation.
-
Commissioner Items
Commissioner Perrotti requested that, if possible, staff alter its copying of staff report photographs for clarity purposes.
Vice-Chairman Tucker requested that a future Planning Commission agenda include discussion of requiring enclosed garages for new residential construction; and he thanked the City Council for reappointing Commissioners Hoffman and Perrotti for another well-deserved four-year term.
-
General Plan Update
Chairman Hoffman distributed a letter which incorporates Commissioner Pizer's suggestions for updating the City's General Plan process, asking if the Planning Commission would like to add anything to the letter prior to it being forwarded to City Council.
There was consensus to forward the letter on to City Council.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that some of these ideas should help to save the City some money with this effort.
-
Adjournment
At 11:27 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned.
|
