|
|
Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2003
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoffman at 7:04 P.M.
Vice-Chairman Tucker led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker, 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 Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the July 15, 2003, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Hoffman
ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the project site currently consists of 3 lots with single-family dwellings; explained that if these 3 lots were individually developed under the existing R-2 zoning, each of the lots could be developed with 2 units; and that by combining the lots, the applicant has sufficient lot area to develop 7 units. He noted that the project consists of 7 detached condominium units with basements and 2 stories above; advised that there are 2 building types for this project; and stated that the applicant has made a slight change to the building orientation - pointing out that the "A" units have less open space and garage space than the "B" units that front on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Director Blumenfeld stated that all vehicular access is provided from a common driveway on 20th Street; that all garages for the "B" units are accessed via this common driveway, whereas the "A" units are accessed from the alley; that the guest parking is provided with 3 spaces from the alley and 2 spaces accessed from the common driveway; and he suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to condition that all guest parking spaces are signed and clearly identified and clarify that access can be made from the driveway and alley.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the project complies with R-2 development standards relative to parking, setback, building height and lot coverage; indicated that there is a slight discrepancy in the proposed plans, which shows a slightly smaller turning radius than is permitted; and noted that staff believes this can be corrected in the plan review stage. He explained that the common open space is a passive recreation area, supplied in 3 common open space areas, and that it more than complies with the open space requirements of 100 square feet per unit of common area. He highlighted the following 8 issues that were of concern to the Planning Commission at its past meeting:
-
change and enhance the exterior appearance of the building elevations on the alley side.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the building elevations remain the same, but that the floor plan has been flipped with one of the rear units and that the overall appearance of the exterior is the same.
-
add additional front yard setback to the project for neighborhood consistency with the prevailing setbacks.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the new project complies with all setback requirements, however, a setback of 7 1/2 feet has been provided on 20th Street in contrast to the prevailing setback along 20th Street, which is 10 feet; noted that the zoning east of the proposed project is R-1 wherein a 10-foot setback is mandatory; that on this R-2 zoned property, this 5-foot setback would normally be mandatory for all the required setbacks for the project; and explained that if the Planning Commission requires the applicant to provide a 10-foot setback on 20th Street, the applicant would be able to use that excess yard area as required open space.
-
provide adequate turning radius dimensions to ensure use of on-site parking.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this issue can be addressed in the production of the final plans and that, otherwise, the project conforms to the code for turning radius.
-
add guest parking to compensate for the lost on-street parking caused by a proposed curb cut.
Director Blumenfeld stated that in the new iteration, the applicant has reduced the size of the driveway curb cut from 18 feet to 14 ¼ feet in order to address the loss of on-street parking; that this eliminates the previous problem, but that it does create a new problem in that ingress and egress from this site is simultaneously precluded because of the new driveway width; noted that the minimum driveway width is 9 feet - pointing out that the Planning Commission in the past has approved driveway widths of 18 feet for projects greater than 5 units, which permits the passage of 2 cars simultaneously.
-
change the trash enclosure to permit greater open space and cover it with a trellis structure.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant has relocated some of the trash areas; that they're relatively smaller in comparison with some of the other projects the Planning Commission has approved; and, therefore, staff is recommending that some additional areas be reallocated within the individual units to accommodate trash storage.
-
ensure tree plantings will not exceed the height of the buildings.
Director Blumenfeld suggested that it would be possible to add maintenance provisions for tree trimming activity in the conditions of approval.
-
use pervious paving for driveway and parking areas.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the plan currently shows turf block; advised that there are many varieties of these products; and that it would be staff's recommendation to allow the applicant some latitude to provide this pervious paving material at their discretion so long as it achieves the objective of recharging the ground water supply.
-
reduce the density of the proposed project from 7 to 6 units.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed 7 units are commensurate for the zone; and explained that the Planning Commission could reduce the number of units permitted if it finds negative impacts to the neighborhood, such as circulation or parking due to an excess number of dwelling units in the project.
Director Blumenfeld explained that overall, this project complies with R-2 development standards; and indicated that if the Planning Commission decides to approve this project, staff will return with a resolution at the following meeting.
Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Perrotti that a minimum driveway width code requirement for two cars using the driveway simultaneously is not specified nor is it based on the total number of units served. It is more of a design policy; and that the Code only requires a 9-foot minimum driveway width which permits one car to enter or exit at a time.
Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's inquiry with regard to sufficient turning radius, Director Blumenfeld stated that there is adequate turning radius to get into the garages, both turning radii from the alley and motor court into the garages. By increasing the driveway to 18 feet, Director Blumenfeld explained that that would have a cascading effect, that the displaced parking space would have to be put on site and that the overall calculations for common open space would be reduced. While this displaced on-street parking space could be adequately compensated for on site, Director Blumenfeld explained that the plans would have to be changed to reflect it.
Director Blumenfeld explained for Commissioner Pizer that requiring a 10-foot setback on 20th Street and an 18-foot driveway would reduce the common open space area and may also eliminate the easterly common open space area, that there would be a number of collateral effects.
Vice-Chairman Tucker questioned whether the Consolidated Trash Company had been consulted on the plans for this project.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the trash contractor has set out specifications for their preference on picking up trash at various sites; noted that smaller trash vehicles are able to enter a site for dumpster pick up service; that the trash plans for this site are consistent with other projects that have been approved; and expressed staff's belief that the trash hauler will not have a problem with this arrangement.
With regard to pervious paving, Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the City does not have in place any regulations for pervious paving; mentioned that the Planning Commission has indicated its preference to comply with NPDES concerns for replenishing ground water supplies; and briefly commented on the problems with some pervious paving combined with turf and the need for limited automobile traffic.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Gelb, 2726 El Oeste Place, Hermosa Beach, property owner at 2024 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), one of the three lots that is being merged for this proposed development, stated that he is co-partner with Norm LeBeau in the development of this project.
Nagy Bakhoum, project architect, commented on his efforts to develop this project to get the highest and best use; commented on the numerous discussions with City staff and the neighboring residents on the best way to integrate this into the neighborhood and to maintain the residential integrity; and he stated that this project will greatly improve the quality and appearance along PCH and buffer PCH from the residential neighborhood. He explained that this project is designed with 7 detached units; that this design opens up some view corridors; that the design makes the project appear as a single-family neighborhood as opposed to massing the units, which is typical of condominium projects. Mr. Bakhoum stated that this project does abut a 5-unit apartment building on 21st Street.
With regard to the Planning Commission's comments concerning a 10-foot setback on 20th Street as opposed to the proposed 5-foot setback, Mr. Bakhoum explained that staying with the detached units, they are able to now provide a 7.5-foot setback; and indicated that the residents were opposed to massing the buildings at the rear. He noted the residents' preference that this would create a better looking project, more guest parking on the alley, and more of a view corridor and not a solid wall. He expressed his belief that the 7 detached units would create a higher quality project for both the owners and the neighboring residents. He pointed out that the existing property on the corner of 20th Street has a 6.5-foot setback and the property across the street has only a 4.5-foot setback. Mr. Bakhoum stated that the applicant is entitled to build the 7 units and pointed out that they are only developing 58 percent of the lot coverage as opposed to the 65 percent that is permitted. He stated that this creates a greater amount of open space on the property and more closely conforms to the neighborhood.
Mr. Bakhoum explained that the driveway approach was designed to maintain a minimum width such that none of the 4 on-street parking spaces will be lost; advised that there is a handicap parking space and 3 additional parking spaces on site; and reiterated that the applicant has tried to maintain a maximum number of spaces on site but also giving the neighborhood as much on-street parking as possible on 20th Street.
With regard to Vice-Chairman Tucker's concern for trash pickup, Mr. Bakhoum stated that if need be, the number of trash pick-ups per week will be increased to accommodate the size of the proposed trash enclosure, rather than increase the size and number of enclosures.
With respect pervious paving, Mr. Bakhoum explained that the entire site is approximately 27 percent pervious; that the applicant is proposing approximately 30 percent of pervious area; and commented on his interest in using turf cell plastic composite that is placed underneath the grass, which allows the grass roots to run through so that when vehicles drive over the turf, it does not kill the root system.
Ellen Birenbaum, 832 21st Street, expressed her belief that the proposed project does not fit in with the rest of the single-family homes in this neighborhood; expressed her concern with the narrow driveway, limited parking, and the impacts to the neighborhood. She stated that this is too large a project for this neighborhood.
Don Karasevicz, 1441 Monterey Boulevard, commented on the shortage of housing supplies; and noted his delight that the units being adjacent to PCH will help to lessen the traffic impacts to the neighborhood, believing that most of the project traffic will be directed to PCH.
John Shustak, 20th Street, stated that his home has the 6.5-foot setback because it was an existing wall when he did his home remodel; expressed his belief that a wider turning radius is necessary for the driveway; and noted his preference to see a limited number of single-family homes on this site.
Randy Firestone, neighboring resident, stated that his view will be the most impacted by this project; noted his support for the 7.5-foot setback as opposed to the 10-foot setback - pointing out that he would prefer losing his view at the street elevation. He noted his opposition to creating a tight condominium complex which would greatly impact his view corridor. He stated that Bruce Gelb has kept in contact with him throughout this process and addressed his concerns and expressed his belief that the applicant has worked with the neighbors to the extent possible.
Mr. Bakhoum stated that the applicant does not have any objection to increasing the driveway width to 18 feet; advised that there is ample on-site space, over 1,000 square feet, of common open space to easily accommodate a 6th on-site parking; and reiterated that the applicant believed it would be in the community's best interest to create the traffic on his own property rather than lose an additional parking space on the street. He explained that the open space increases the view corridors for the neighbors that located behind this project from the east. He stated that there are no findings that necessitate reducing the number of units; and pointed out that these units will look like single-family homes rather than a condominium project.
Mr. Gelb stated that there has not been a lot of opposition; noted that he is within all zoning requirements; and reiterated that this project will create an attractive buffer from PCH for the neighborhood.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that the applicant did a good job addressing the 8 issues of concern by this Commission; noted his support for the 7.5-foot setback compromise and its correlation to maintaining an adequate view corridor for the neighbors; and highlighted the applicants' attempts to work with the neighbors in the design of this project.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for the compromise on the 7.5-foot setback; highlighted the parking limitations throughout the City and his preference not to lose any on-street parking; and expressed his belief that the 14-foot driveway will provide enough turning radius. He stated that he would like to see additional articulation with the buildings.
Commissioner Kersenboom commented on the importance of maintaining the street parking spaces; and stated that he would prefer the proposed setback as opposed to limiting the view corridors for the neighboring residents.
Vice-Chairman Tucker addressed his disappointment with the lack of building articulations; and noted his preference to maintain the 10-foot setbacks and 18-foot driveway widths consistently throughout the City. He stated that 6 units would fit better into this neighborhood.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that addition building articulation is needed; and stated that a good compromise has been met with regard to the setback issues. He stated that this body has not found sufficient grounds to eliminate the 7th unit.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE 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; moved that the square footage for the turning radius be included in the resolution; that the trash enclosure be addressed in the resolution; that a condition be added for tree trimming maintenance; and that the pervious paving materials be left up to the applicant and included in the resolution. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 16, 2003 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting a continuance of this matter in order to allow more time to establish the appropriate datum and to prepare an adequate survey.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to CONTINUE CON 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment to add a roof deck to an existing condominium at 927 17th Street -- to the September 16, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To recommend approval of the Zone Change and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. 2) To approve said request for a two-unit condominium project.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission had expressed support for the proposed zone change because it would make the property consistent with the General Plan designation of medium density residential; but added that the Planning Commission continued the hearing because of concerns with the design and appearance of the condominium project as depicted on the elevations and the rendering and directed the applicant to return with enhanced building elevations and a rendering to clearly show the design intent. In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, he advised that the applicant has obtained the assistance of a design professional to complete the project plans; noted that the overall project layout and scope, including the site plan and floor plans, have not changed but have been more fully developed and delineated; and that the elevation plans have been enhanced pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction to include more details that would allow the Planning Commission to make a more informed decision. While the buildings still do not seem to represent any particular design style that's easily recognized, he indicated that the plans do show more features to enhance the building, such as contrasting stucco between the window trim and the face of the building, decorative wrought iron treatments, stucco columns, a variety of window types, and concrete shingles; and stated that the project plans are in compliance with the requirements of the R-2 Zone.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that there is one design issue to consider relating to the decks, which provide the required open space between the two buildings, whether they can be considered open space because they're open on two sides; advised that the applicant has modified the decks in response to staff's concerns/discussions to provide a 36-inch high wrought iron railing on the outside of the decks to match the rest of the building; and noted that the 6-foot barrier between the two decks is probably acceptable for privacy reasons but should also be constructed of a material compatible with the building. With these changes, he noted that the decks would at least be open above the low rail on one side and above the 6-foot wall on the other and would seem to be in compliance with that particular section of the code. With these modifications, he stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed project.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that staff is now able to adequately read the plans.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Leonard Fredrick, representing the applicant, stated that tile roof was incorporated into this project; that various decorative fascia moldings, window trims, wrought iron treatments were incorporated along with the use of different roof pitches on both units so that the look of the buildings would be slightly different than each other. He pointed out that a large separation between the two units has been maintained, which provides good light. With regard to the deck areas, he noted that the applicant discussed with staff the need to have open area on the end, and therefore, the applicant incorporated into the design a wrought iron railing, which makes the decks unobstructed and open.
Susan Scott, 603 3rd Street, applicant, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for its input on the plans; stated that she procured the services of Mr. Fredrick to help bring the plans up to the required standards.
Vice-Chairman Tucker addressed his concerns with the lack of privacy with the decks on the ground floor; and suggested that the tile be brought all the way around to make the roof line match.
Mr. Fredrick noted that there is a 6-foot fence between the two buildings.
Ms. Scott pointed out that there is a good amount of space between the two buildings, a much larger open space area than one will find anywhere in that neighborhood; and stated that she would be amenable to placing some decorative banding around the roof line to continue around the building.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that the deck issue is sufficiently addressed in the proposed resolution; and stated that he would support the applicant's request.
Chairman Hoffman stated that he reviewed the discussion of this matter from the last meeting; stated that this proposal brings this project into conformance with the General Plan; and expressed his belief that the aesthetics can be improved.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE ZON 03-1/CON 03-6/PDP 03-4 -- Zone Change from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to R-2, Two-Family Residential, or to such other zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 27161 for a two-unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 603 3rd Street and to include the banding along the roof line. Motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this site currently consists of 4 businesses; stated that immediately east of the subject site are other auto-related uses that comprise the full commercial depth of this zone; and noted that this property has been commercially zoned for many years. He stated that in 1989, the City approved a Multi-Unit Use Corridor Study and as a result, rezoned the property from C-3 to SPA-7, which essentially retained the commercial zone designation. He added that this maintains the depth of the commercial lot at 290 feet; advised that the applicant is proposing to rezone and re-designate the property to R-2 and Medium Density Residential, which would be consistent with the property to the south but inconsistent with the property to the north.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the central issue in this zone change is where the commercial lot depth is to be established and/or whether it should be maintained. In the present zone case, he added that the zoning will reduce the commercial lot depth by 150 feet, basically from 290 feet to 140 feet, which would preclude the opportunity to more efficiently redevelop the property commercially if the demand develops. He added that the question of what can be developed on assembled property on a 290-foot lot depth versus a 140-foot lot depth is helpful in making a decision about rezoning this property - stating that, hypothetically, a 150-foot lot depth allows development of a strip center with in-line shops and surface parking or, alternatively, a 10,000-square-foot office building with two floors of subterranean parking. He explained that in contrast, a 290-foot lot depth readily accommodates development of 70 plus room hotel, with surface parking. The larger lot size the greater the opportunity for more hotel or retail development. He added that the City Council has generally supported maintaining the commercial lot depth but most recently approved the rezoning and re-designation of a parcel on 10th Street.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant argues that the property cannot be commercially redeveloped because of ownership patterns, economic consideration, and neighborhood compatibility; that patterns of ownership preclude the ability to assemble the property for larger commercial projects and that the traffic analysis demonstrates the proposed residential use is a lower traffic generator than any commercial use for the property. He added that the fiscal analysis compares the financial impact in terms of revenues to the City and indicates that a successful commercial development on the site provides no greater revenue to the City than a residential project due to property tax gains; and in a separate correspondence, he noted that the applicant argues that a residential project also yields more revenue than the current commercial project.
In response to the applicant's arguments, Director Blumenfeld explained that the issue of commercial neighborhood compatibility is subject to the kind of use proposed for the site; that some commercial uses, such as hotels, are, in fact, very good commercial neighbors and have very little impact upon adjacent residential uses. He advised that the traffic analysis accurately reflects that residential uses are generally a lower traffic generator than commercial uses, however, the fiscal analysis does not reflect the fact that the property could be fully assembled to accommodate larger uses such as a hotel or mini-box retailer which would produce substantially greater tax gains if developed.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the point of the SPA designation is to force land assembly to a higher and better use and that a better fiscal analysis would have shown the net affect of such uses assembled with property for a fairer comparison. He added that the owner argues that for 30 years the SPA-7 zone has not resulted in such projects being developed, however, both the SPA zone and the underlying C-3 zone have produced this sort of redevelopment north and south of the subject property, such as the Hampton Inn Hotel and the Holiday Inn. He stated that these projects were developed over the last 5 years. Director Blumenfeld explained that mixed use development is a real possibility for the City's commercial corridors - pointing out that this is currently under consideration by the City Council. He stated that with regard to questioning where to draw the commercial lot depth, the City would have to come to some accommodation between the benefits of rezoning and re-designating the commercially zoned property against the disbenefit of losing some of the relatively small commercially zoned property in the City. He mentioned that 14 percent of the City is commercially zoned, 6 percent of that being comprised by the commercial corridor.
Relative to the proposed project, Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant is proposing 9 detached units served by a common driveway at 5th Street; that the prevailing setback along 5th Street is 10 feet; that the project provides a setback of 7 to 8 feet; that the common open space proposed is consistent with the City's requirements, 900 square feet being provided; but stated that the plans are deficient in the amount of private open space directly accessible to primary living area, with the common areas being shown as passive recreation areas rather than containing other amenities that are suggested in the code, such as a pool, spa or active use. He stated that there are 9 parking spaces required for the project; that the project is fully parked with all parking in garage spaces; that all guest parking is supplied on site per code; and mentioned that the project units are not varied, which has been a previous concern of this Commission. Overall, he stated that the project complies with all development standards in the zone but for the open space issue directly adjacent to primary living area. He added that staff will return at the next meeting with a resolution if the Planning Commission decides to approve the zone change and General Plan Amendment.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Steve Kaplan, 1219 Morningside Drive, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, highlighted the numerous signatures on the petition to support this application; stated that he is not challenging the underlying philosophical/policy arguments in support of retaining the present General Plan and zoning classification on the property; explained that the purpose is to encourage the development of high quality commercial projects along PCH. He expressed his belief that the City's policy goals are not achievable in this area - pointing out that all 3 projects mentioned in staff report, Sav-on and the hotels, were developed at a depth far less than 300 feet, closer to the 150 in question. He highlighted the following 9 reasons/practical arguments in favor of amending the General Plan and changing the zoning classification for his client's property at 725 5th Street:
-
The stated policy goal of both the SPA-7 and the Commercial Corridor has not produced the desired results, at least as it affects the 3 larger parcels in SPA-7.
Mr. Kaplan stated that there are only 3 parcels in the SPA-7 zone that have 300 feet in depth - his client's site, the Verizon site, and the Learned Lumber site. He added that the Verizon and Learned Lumber sites are under single ownership and controlled by one party; stated that the site he is representing here this evening is tucked behind a site that fronts 5th and 6th Streets, goes down 6th a little bit and does not front PCH and, thus, to have any sort of integrated quality development that would include his client's property would require some sort of cooperation between the property owners, at least in the sort run. He stated that none of the 3 sites have been redeveloped with new commercial projects since the goal of the Commercial Corridor has been put in place - pointing out that the larger users need larger sites, better access and more parking and that none is available on PCH; and that because of congested traffic, parking and restrictive the nature of these sites, he expressed his belief that this goal cannot be met.
-
His client's property does not front on PCH -- it fronts on 5th Street, and the access is from a residential street.
-
The proposed 9-unit project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Kaplan stated that at the moment, the applicant's property contains 4 businesses within the property lines; that these businesses are filled with cars coming and going; and that these uses are not compatible with the 3 consecutive 4-unit residential apartment complexes across the street.
-
The surrounding neighborhood residents support the applicant's proposed project, as noted in the petitions that have been provided.
-
The proposed project would lessen traffic impacts in the surrounding neighborhood.
-
The proposed project would not cause any negative impact to the City revenue and fiscally.
-
The existing PCH frontage property between 5th and 6th Streets provides sufficient depth for new potential development.
Mr. Kaplan stated that in all 3 of the projects noted in staff's presentation, the two hotels and the Sav-on, are all developed with PCH frontage depth of approximately 140 feet.
-
The owner of the PCH frontage property which land-locks the applicant's property is unwilling to develop integrated commercial property and unwilling to consider swapping the properties.
-
Approving the requested action is not precedent-setting, noting that City Council has recently approved a similar request near PCH.
Mr. Kaplan concluded that these 9 reasons are practical and outweigh the philosophical policy of hoping to attract large-scale commercial development on the PCH corridor, given the reality that larger parcels are needed and are not available on PCH.
Rick Learned, 2716 Via Alacones, Palos Verdes Estates, owner of apartment buildings directly across the street from the proposed project site, expressed his support for all 9 points addressed by Mr. Kaplan; and addressed his support for the proposed request.
Bill Klavo, 714 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed his concern with weekend and night disturbances with a large business at this site in the area; and stated that he would prefer to see homeownership over commercial development.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Tucker addressed his concern with the City losing this commercial parcel and stated that the City cannot afford to lose anymore commercial parcels along PCH.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that in the he last 5 years the City has experienced major businesses locating on substantial lots within the City; and stated that because of these changing times, he would not support any loss of commercial land.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the low percentage of available commercial land in the City; stated that he would not support the applicant's request, believing that this could set a precedent for future proposals; and expressed his belief that the proposed condominium units are small and that it may create a parking problem in the area.
Commissioner Pizer concurred.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that there is no compelling argument that this needs to be done at this time.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to DENY GP 03-2/ZC 03-3/CON 03-7/PDP 03-8 -- General Plan amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MD); zone change from Commercial SPA-7 to R-2 Two-Family Residential; or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 60067 for a nine-unit condominium project; and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 725 5th Street. 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 8:56 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:04 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the property is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue at the corner of Lyndon Street; that it is an assembly of 3 lots; that the lots are zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial; and that the General Plan designation is also Neighborhood Commercial. He stated that the lot area contains 7,200 square feet; that the applicant is proposing 3 residential units ranging from 2,168-2,183 square feet above 3,120 square feet of commercial space; pointed out that the applicant applied for and obtained approval of a similar project that was only 2 units on the northerly portion of the property back in March of 2002; and advised that the applicant has recently purchased an additional parcel at the corner and would now like to expand the project to 3 units. Pursuant to the Commercial permitted use list, he explained that one or more units may be built above commercial subject to approval of a conditional use permit; stated that a Precise Development Plan is required because the project exceeds 1,500 square feet and that a conditional use permit is also required for the condominiums. He noted that the City Council approved a text amendment to allow condominiums as a permitted use in the C-1 Zone, an ordinance which will go into effect in 45 days.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing a 3-story building with 2 floors of residential and a roof deck above ground floor commercial; that the 3 residences are located side by side and contain 3 bedrooms and 3 baths in a split-level floor plan; and that most of the parking is provided in the subterranean level, with access from the alley, additional private garages located on the alley, and a handicap accessible parking space located with direct access from Lyndon Street. He indicated that the project is subject to the development standards contained in the C-1 Zone and the development standards of the Condominium Ordinance for residential condominiums; stated that the zoning ordinance does not contain standards specific to residential projects in the C-1 Zone that would apply to the residential portion of this project, such as open space, lot coverage, and setback requirements that would typically apply to multiple unit projects; and that staff has reviewed this project for compliance with C-1 requirements and condominium requirements and has evaluated the project relative to R-3 development standards. He mentioned that the surrounding residential zoning is R-3. Senior Planner Robertson stated that if the Planning Commission is interested in seeing some consistency in the residential portion of this project, these standards could be considered for application to this project.
With respect to C-1 Zone development requirements, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the only development standard that applies to this project is a maximum building height of 30 feet - noting that this project does comply with this standard; advised that the proposed project does generally meet the minimum R-3 development standards; that the project does comply with the standard for storage requirements for condominiums and minimum unit size - noting that the applicant intends on bringing the project into compliance with other detailed construction requirements and the Condominium Ordinance; and noted that it does not comply with the minimum 5-foot front setback for the residential floors of the project. He advised that the proposed 3 units are lower than the density allowed on a 7,200-square-foot lot in the R-3 Zone; stated that the 30-foot height limit of the R-3 Zone is the same as that of the C-1 Zone; and that the open space does comply with the R-3 standards.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the following 3 aspects of the project would not be consistent with R-3 standards: the lot coverage is over 90 percent, which exceeds the 65-percent maximum in the R-3 Zones; that the front yard setback does not conform to R-3 lots; and that the project does not provide rear yard or side yard setbacks.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that two parking spaces per residential unit are being provided in tandem in a subterranean garage, a guest parking space for the residential units in the garage and an additional guest space with access from Lyndon Street, which is the handicapped accessible space. He stated that code-compliant commercial parking is provided, with 9 spaces in the subterranean garage and 3 in private garages with access from Palm Drive. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this project with the following additions to the conditions of approval: a 5-foot front yard setback shall be provided; the parcels comprising the subject property shall be merged prior to issuance of building permits; precise building height information shall be provided on final project plans; and that a geotechnical soils report shall be provided for the subterranean garage.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Julie Oakes, representing the applicant, stated that the project will comply with setback and parking requirements, with the exception of the front yard setback being only 5 feet; and stated that a soils report will be obtained.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned whether the CC&R's will dictate the types of commercial use that will be permitted so that the homeowners do not have to rely on code enforcement; and suggested that dry cleaning and laundry businesses not be permitted.
Ms. Oakes explained that because of limited parking, various uses will be precluded from this site; explained that concrete lids will be placed between the condos and the businesses below to mitigate noise; and stated that she would not be opposed to prohibiting dry cleaning and laundry businesses at this site. She pointed out that these will be high-end units and will house people who will closely scrutinize what businesses will be allowed.
Commissioner Pizer urged some flexibility with the front yard setback.
Skip Boomer, Hermosa Beach property owner, noted his concerns with limited parking in this area; stated that the building plans do not clearly identify the height of the project; addressed his concerns with limited parking in this area, traffic congestion, concerns with the geotechnical issues, especially that in the subterranean garage; and noted his opposition to the 90 percent lot coverage in this area. He stated that the applicant should meet the setback requirements; and addressed his concern with trash pickup and space.
Charlotte Cross, 122 1st Street, expressed her belief that this project is too large for this area and is out of scale for the neighborhood.
Robert Sherwin, 117 Lyndon Street, expressed his belief that this project is too massive for this area; addressed his concerns with the increase in traffic and lack of parking; and stated that the setback requirements should be met. He stated that this project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Ms. Oakes stated that the zone allows for C-1 development, which would allow a number of offices or retail on this site; that it allows the building to be 30 feet tall and from property line to property line; and stated that this proposed project will have less of an impact than what can be permitted at this site.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld mentioned that the 5-foot setback is a requirement of the Condominium Ordinance and that it is not discretionary; with regard to the curb parking being eliminated, he indicated that this proposal will require Coastal Commission approval; and that one on-street parking space would need to be accommodated - suggesting the possibility of restriping. He stated that the floor plan may have to be reconfigured to accommodate the egress/ingress of the handicapped stall on site instead of a curb cut - pointing out that the architect will have to look at this issue. He mentioned that the loss of the curb space will be an issue that will have to be addressed.
Chairman Hoffman questioned the limitations that will be placed on signage.
Responding to Chairman Hoffman's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that the business signs will be no higher than the first story and well below the parapet; stated that the Planning Commission could require that the applicant submit a sign program.
The Planning Commission noted its preference that the signs be located below the residential units and above the awnings.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that, in general, he approves of the mixed use concept; requested that Page 6 of the resolution, Paragraph 2, include a provision to prohibit dry cleaning or laundry business from this site; requested that the resolution also include sign provisions; and that staff work with the applicant concerning the location of the handicapped stalls.
Commissioner Pizer pointed out that the property owner can develop this site all commercial; noted that this project does not have the same density as an all commercial building; and requested that in the future, mixed use approval should be weighed with the neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Tucker concurred that a commercial development at this site could create a larger impact upon the neighborhood; and suggested that the front of the building be set back to break up its mass.
Chairman Hoffman concurred with the Commission's comments; and commented on what's reasonable and fair to expect for this zoning; and stated that this proposal is a better alternative when compared to a 100-percent commercial building.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that a hold harmless clause will be included in the conditions of approval, Condition No. 19.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 03-8/PDP 03-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 60189 for a mixed use building with three residential condominiums over 3,120 square feet of commercial with subterranean parking at 30-44 Hermosa Avenue; moved that Section 5, Paragraph 2, include dry cleaning and laundry businesses as prohibited uses; that a hold harmless clause be added as Condition No. 19; that language be added for signage provisions below the residential units; and that staff work with the applicant concerning the handicapped stall, parking space and access off Lyndon Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this project involves the Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and a Variance for the subject project, and involves an amendment to the Precise Plan to permit the expansion and remodel of the existing retail and entertainment center; stated that the applicant is proposing the following modifications to the approved plan: the health and fitness club to now be 46,500 feet; office development, 26,000 square feet; retail development, 28,500 square feet; and the addition of a restaurant of 4,000 square feet - pointing out that the proposed new total square feet for the project is 105,000. He stated that the proposed project is consistent with the zone; and noted that the new complement of uses can be adequately parked on site. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant submitted a shared parking analysis to reflect these changes; and advised that the analysis indicates the shared parking for these various uses will reach a peak demand at 5:00 P.M., needing 411 parking spaces, which can be satisfied by the proposed on-site supply of parking within the structure. He noted that staff is recommending approval; and pointed out that the new parking analysis shows a range of uses that will allow some flexibility in the future should the applicant choose to make some minor modifications.
Director Blumenfeld noted that this proposal requests changes to the interior layout only; and pointed out that the project is proceeding with demolition.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Gene Shook, applicant, Shook Development Corporation, 27941 Suffolk Lane, San Juan Capistrano, stated that the square footage for the 24-Hour Fitness is being reduced but that the look will be the same; expressed his belief that more than adequate parking will be provided; and requested that certain spaces be set aside for assigned long-term parking and that this provision be approved by the Community Development Director.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he met with the applicant and that he believes this applicant is dedicated to making this project work; and expressed his belief that this project will be a great benefit to the City.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support that the parking provisions be addressed after 6 months of operation; and addressed his concern with the lack of progress in redeveloping this site - pointing out that he is happy to see this project moving forward.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that parking has been adequately provided.
With regard to the applicant's request for some assigned parking, Director Blumenfeld explained for the Planning Commission that the flexibility of shared parking would be lost if assigned parking was implemented.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE PDP 03-11/PARK 03-4 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan amendment to modify the allocation of the proposed uses consisting of a health and fitness center, offices and retail within the Hermosa Pavilion at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant is proposing a substantial modification and retrofit to the existing building on Pier Avenue in order to expand the main floor, add a mezzanine level, and provide additional parking in a parking garage at the ground floor; and he advised that the building is currently nonconforming to current parking requirements. He explained that the project involves substantial demolition of the interior and exterior; that the existing first floor will be completely remodeled to create the large open retail space with added floor area in the front and rear of the existing space, with a mezzanine/storage level above; that additional parking will be created in the basement level by providing 4 additional parking spaces in tandem in the existing unimproved under-floor area; and that the project also involves the addition of an elevator, site and landscaping improvements.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the proposed project meets the basic requirements of the C-2 Zone; that the building is designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit; and he noted that the project plans show a substantial improvement and modernization to a very old and under-utilized building in an attempt to revitalize a prominent location in the City's downtown area. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the retail commercial use is compatible with the surrounding uses and is consistent with the general objective of the City Council to balance the existing predominance of restaurant and bar uses with retail uses.
Based on the current parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet, Senior Planner Robertson explained that the proposed 691-square-foot addition requires 3 additional parking spaces; however, he stated that the added mezzanine space would require 3 more parking spaces, for a total of 6 required parking spaces. He noted that the applicant is requesting that the mezzanine/storage level space be considered as storage only, requiring only 1 space, for a total of 4 parking spaces; and that the applicant is proposing 4 parking spaces in tandem and is requesting that these 4 parking spaces be considered adequate for the project. He stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to consider reducing on-site parking requirements based on factors such as uniqueness of the proposed use, bicycle and walk-in traffic, and peak hours of the proposed use relative to peak hours of other businesses in the vicinity. While parking for storage uses in not a separate requirement in the commercial zones, he stated that there is another section in the code relating to industrial uses that allow for a reduced parking requirement for buildings or portions of buildings used exclusively for storage purposes, a ratio of 1 space per 1,000 square feet.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission should consider whether the use of tandem parking for a retail use is an appropriate application of the parking plan; he noted staff's belief that tandem parking is not typically the best solution for retail uses because customer turnover is frequent; and stated that tandem parking is usually recommended for office uses. In order to address this issues, he noted that the applicant is proposing to use the back 2 spaces for employee parking, allowing the customers to utilize the outside spaces. He stated that the Planning Commission should consider whether it is appropriate to reduce required parking for the storage area, as had been done for the O'Kells Fireplace business; advised that the storage area is proposed to be unfinished and off limits to the customers and would allow the retail shop to store and stock merchandise; and advised that the applicant is required, and has agreed, to sign a covenant restricting the use in this area to storage purposes.
Summarizing the parking issues which are critical to this project, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the tandem parking and the storage use give the Planning Commission two possible methods for approving the reduced parking in this case in considering the parking adequate; additionally, he stated that the Planning Commission should consider the building's location in the Downtown district, which provides substantial public parking - noting that there is street parking in front of this building; and stated that the peak parking demand for this retail business will not coincide with the peak parking demand for most of the businesses in the area.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that another issue relating to this building is the nonconforming remodeling provisions; and stated that the Planning Commission must determine whether this project conforms to the provisions of the zoning ordinance because this expansion does exceed 50 percent valuation and requires a substantial removal of the building, more than 30 percent of the existing linear feet of the exterior walls. He stated that the project involves removing the walls of the basement and first-floor levels, complete removal of interior walls on the first floor, and the addition of space towards the front, towards the rear, and the addition of storage space. He stated that the alterations and additions to the building results in a 98.4 percent increase in valuation, again, assuming a lesser valuation for the storage area, and it does require removing over 50 percent of the existing exterior walls.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that since the existing deficiency with respect to parking is to be maintained and very little of the existing structure will remain, it is questionable whether the proposed changes are consistent with the intent of Chapter 17.52, which does allow expansion of buildings with existing nonconformities. He noted that the existing deficiency relating to parking is 5 spaces; and that this is not unusual in the Downtown area, but that it is significant for such a small site. He noted that this attempt to maintain the legal, nonconforming status with such an extensive demolition and reconstruction should be carefully considered by the Planning Commission and weighed against the benefits that will be achieved by the upgrading and improvement of this building. Given the complexity with these issues, he stated that staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission in regard to these issues and noted that staff will return to the next meeting with a resolution based on the Commission's direction.
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted his preference to review a termite inspection report and an engineer's report on the existing condition of the footings.
Responding to Vice-Chair Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that because the building is substantially being enlarged the project design includes additional footings to carry the extra load.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Jose Sayula, project architect, representing the property owners, stated that the applicant is doing an addition of 690 square feet; explained that this building is essentially a house that has one garage in the lower part; and noted that the garage was not being used for parking but for storage by the previous business. Mr. Sayula stated that the applicant is adding 691 square feet, which requires the 3 parking spaces; noted that if the Planning Commission accepts the applicant's interpretation, they would like to make the mezzanine area into retail space, reducing it to 500 square feet, which would require an additional 3 parking spaces. He noted that the applicant will be seeking the input of an engineer to address the structural integrity of the building and foundation; and noted the applicant's goal to keep as much of the footprint as possible. He stated that most of this site will need improvements to comply with code. He reiterated that the garage was not being used for parking, but for storage; and that changing this area to retail space, 5 new parking spaces will be provided, one being for handicapped.
Mr. Sayula noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the surface water fountain and flood light will operate off a timer and will shut off at a certain hour in the evening.
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted the absence of a staircase on the plans; and he suggested that the applicant rethink the possibility of starting from scratch on this project - pointing out that not much of the original building will be left with this remodel.
Director Blumenfeld noted that stairs would be required for the mezzanine area as the required means of egress/ingress and stated that it would be incorporated into the plans.
Jeff Stoner, property owner, commented on his family's long association with this City and his interest in following in his grandfather's footsteps with improving this City.
Glenn Gragg, property owner, stated that this property was purchased in 2002; and explained that the process of rehabilitating the existing property would have left the owners with a piece of property not capable of supporting the desired use and would have been cost prohibitive. He expressed his desire to maintain the original character of this building and to modernize it; stated that the building will have its own unique features that will be consistent with the rest of the Downtown area; and he urged the Planning Commission's to support this request.
Responding to Commissioner Kersenboom's inquiry, Mr. Gragg noted that the proposed use will be retail clothing, surf wear.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that much of the building will be removed; addressed his concern with the safety of the individuals that will be doing this work; and urged the applicants to look into the cost of retrofitting this building as opposed to taking it down and starting from scratch - pointing out that the cost may be less or the same to start from scratch.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that in order for tandem parking to be successful, it will have to be proactively monitored; stated that this parking arrangement could work if the employees take the inside spaces and leave the rest for the customers; and noted his support for the following 4 items that staff is recommending: 1) property owner to record a covenant that the mezzanine/storage level will be for stocking and storage of merchandise only and shall otherwise be off limits to customers of the building; 2) a revised roof plan shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance with the maximum building height of 30 feet. The plans shall clearly show property lines, property corner elevations, and maximum heights critical points; 3) a wet stamped survey clearly identifying property corner elevations; and 4), the back 2 tandem parking spaces shall be assigned for employee use only, with the outside spaces for customer use.
Commissioner Pizer noted his concurrence with Commissioner Perrotti's comments; urged the applicant to objectively review the cost of teardown versus remodel; and stated that the 4 new parking spaces will be an asset to the Downtown area.
Vice-Chairman Tucker reiterated his belief that it might be easier to start from scratch; stated that a termite report and engineer's report should be submitted.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for staff's 4 recommended conditions; and concurred with the statements that it might be better to start from scratch.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that the intent of the nonconforming ordinance has not been met; pointed out that the building is nonconforming with respect to parking; that the applicants are not trying to preserve/restore this historic building; and that it is a 95-percent demolition of an historic building.
Vice-Chairman Tucker concurred with Chairman Hoffman; and after having read the nonconforming building issues in Chapter 17.52, he would deny the applicant's request.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to DENY PDP 03-10/NR 03-9/PARK 03-3 -- Precise Development Plan and Nonconforming Remodel to allow an addition and remodel to an existing commercial building, nonconforming to parking, resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation, and Parking Plan to provide required parking in tandem and to include a mezzanine for storage only at 238 Pier Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Tucker
NOES: Perrotti, Pizer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of the street vacation and confirm conformance with the General Plan.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this request is to vacate a portion of Porter Lane, between Morningside Drive and 25th Court; stated that the Planning Commission is required to advise on whether the proposed vacation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan; and noted that the Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final decision. He stated that the proposed street vacation was requested by a property owner to correct some code violations related to yard and fence zoning violations at 2516-2518 Morningside Drive; and pointed out that the proposed street vacation will only eliminate the southerly one half of Porter Lane as public right-of-way, 10 feet, as was previously done for the first 90 feet of the street. He stated that the area to the north of the subject area will remain a public right-of-way; that the existing right-of-way for pedestrian traffic will remain; and explained that only the southerly portion that has already been illegally taken up by some of the adjacent property owners or the property immediately adjacent to Morningside will be the beneficiaries of this vacation. He noted that staff finds the proposed vacation does not conflict with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and will have no material affect on area circulation; that it will help the other property owners enjoy the same property right that are enjoyed by the property owner within the first 90 feet of Morningside Drive who currently benefits from a previous street vacation. He added that this vacation will help rationalize some of the existing lot lines that are currently skewed as a result of the previous vacation.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that when this property is vacated, it will be added onto the tax bill of the property owners.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Terry Dunbar, 2524 Morningside Drive, requested and received input on the delineation of his property line with this vacation; and noted his support for this action.
Karen Nelson, property owner of 2516 and 2518 Morningside Drive, stated that she had talked to the other property owners and that all had signed the request, with the exception of two property owners who are long-time owners and users of this particular property that is being proposed for street vacation.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE AC 03-1 -- Street vacation and General Plan Circulation Element consistency - south side of Porter Lane street right-of-way (paper street) adjacent to Valley Park. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
With regard to Mr. Dunbar's concern, Director Blumenfeld stated that he will refer the issue of the corrected and continuous lot line adjustment to the Public Works Director.
Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition of 952 square feet and convert 404 square feet of basement storage area into livable floor area; advised that the existing deficient side yards will be continued on the second story; noted that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 1,274 square feet to 2,630 square feet; that the applicant is proposing to add a deck over the existing garage and a roof deck with exterior stair access; advised that the addition and the exterior stair increase the lot coverage to 46 percent; and that the overall expansion results in a 97.3 percent increase in valuation. He noted that this proposal conforms to all planning and zoning requirements, except for a minor modification that is necessary in the proposed height of the parapet wall around the roof deck, which is 0.2 feet higher than the maximum allowed at that location - pointing out that staff believes this condition can be resolved in the detailed plans and as a condition of approval. He stated that this is consistent with the nonconforming ordinance.
Brent Gordon, project architect representing the applicant, stated that he has attempted to design the expansion in a way that respects the original structure of the house that was built in 1936; and noted that the existing nonconformities are not severe or unusual and that maintaining these nonconformities will also maintain the integrity of the house.
Vice-Chairman Tucker suggested that the applicant either sign a covenant restricting this use to single-family use and/or open the stairwell, thus removing the door.
Mr. Gordon stated that the applicant would not oppose the removal of the doorway and make the stairway more open.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 03-7 -- Addition and remodel of an existing single-family residence with nonconforming parking and front yard resulting in a greater than 50 % increase in valuation at 2540 Manhattan Avenue, add that the property owner will sign a covenant that the bottom will only be used for storage. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date to August 15, 2004.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that this is a condominium project under construction and almost near completion; and stated that the applicant is having issues with getting his survey monuments clarified to the satisfaction of Los Angeles County, and is therefore requesting additional time to prepare the final map.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 00-15/PDP 00-16 -- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26020 for a two-unit condominium at 852 and 856 Monterey Boulevard to August 15, 2004. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff is recommending approval of this expansion subject to the conditions attached in the resolution; and advised that it is one of the 30 by 70 small lots located in the Shakespeare tract that receives special consideration on open space. He noted that the applicant is proposing to construct a first and second story addition of 758 square feet; that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing nonconforming garage and construct a new garage; that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 761 square feet to 1,519 square feet; that lot coverage after the expansion will be 62 percent; that the expansion will result in a 95.9 percent increase in valuation; and stated that the proposal conforms to planning and zoning requirements, as the new garage will comply with current parking and turning radius requirements. He noted that the garage door needs to be one foot wider to comply with the stall opening standards for a garage with a 22-foot turning radius, which is proposed in this case.
Senior Planner Robertson pointed out one issue to look at closely relates to the open space issue exception for small lots of 2,100 square feet; and explained that this section allows the open space to be a minimum dimension of 7 feet instead of 10 feet, which is otherwise required, and allows all the open space to be accessible on decks or balconies, provided at least 60 percent of the useable open space is directly accessible to the primary living area. In this case, he noted that the applicant wants the primary living areas on the ground floor; therefore, the 60 percent of the required open space (180 square feet) has to be available on the ground. He noted that staff worked with the applicant to provide a solution to accommodate the open space requirement at grade while bringing the existing garage into compliance by applying the standard which is normally applied in the R-2 and R-3 Zones, where staff uses the 7 feet as part of the side yard, and then staff allows the applicant to use the excess yard area towards the open space. He advised that the zoning code is silent as to whether staff can do this in the R-1 Zone, but that it seems reasonable in this case and probably with other cases on small lots such as this. As part of this request, staff is requesting direction on whether the required side yard can be used for determining a minimum dimension requirement for open space on a small lot in the R-1 Zone; and he stated that, otherwise, the plan is consistent with the zoning code relating to nonconforming buildings.
Chairman Hoffman requested that the conditions of approval include the standard boiler plate for maximum height requirements.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that Condition No. 2 will be expanded to reflect the addition with the maximum height limitations.
Dale Adams, representing the applicants, project designer, stated that this is a modest addition to accommodate a growing family; explained that the new garage will be done to code; noted that a master bedroom and bath will be put over the garage and another bedroom and bath over the back of the house; and stated that the front 24 feet of the house will remain single story.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE NR 03-8 -- Addition to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 456 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Hoffman recused himself from consideration of Agenda Item No. 17.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this project involves constructing a first story addition of 278 square feet under the existing floor area above and enclosing the lower portion of an existing stairway; advised that the livable floor area of the house will increase from 1,872 square feet to 2,382 square feet; that the valuation will increase by 30.8 percent; and explained that approval by the Planning Commission for this case is necessary due to the extension of the wall with the nonconformity of the side yard of less than 3 feet. He stated that, otherwise, this proposal conforms to planning and zoning requirements. Because of a concern potential to be converted into an illegal dwelling unit, he stated that staff recommends the interior door between the stairs and the added area be removed or that a deed restriction be filed restricting the use of the property to single-family residence only.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the nonconforming side of the house has no windows.
Mark Osterkamp stated that he would not oppose the removal of the interior door between the stairs and the added area; and noted that this area will be used as a television and playroom.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE NR 03-10 -- Nonconforming Remodel to extend an existing wall with a nonconforming side yard at 827 Sunset Drive and moved that the door between the stairs and the added area be removed. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Hoffman
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to decide the issue of whether this business is a snack shop that needs to be parked as a retail establishment (1 space per 250 square feet of floor area) or as a restaurant (1 space per 100 square feet of floor area); and explained that the appellant is appealing staff decision because of the addition of an outdoor grille to the business. He stated that the applicant currently has an approval for a snack shop and is permitted to operate the business under the retail parking requirements, which is 1 space per 250 square feet of floor space. He stated that the most current definition prohibits table or waitress service and limits the amount of seating and public service area; pointed out that a snack shop does not serve full meals but serves snacks and/or nonalcoholic beverages, does not have a kitchen capable of serving meals, but instead serves snacks for consumption on the premises or takeout, such as donuts, potato chips, other baked goods, ice cream. He expressed his belief that since the appellant has introduced grilling activities to the business, staff believes it now operates more like a restaurant and is not consistent with the operation of a snack shop. He noted that the Planning Commission had been provided a copy of the menu for this establishment.
Diane Franklin, owner/operator of the Vanilla Bean, stated that she has added a grille to the business; that this grille is used no more than two hours a day for grille chicken and ribs; stated that there is no waiter services at this establishment; and noted that she does offer baked goods, sandwiches, salads, and other snack items. She explained that the service area is approximately 380 square feet, which includes the patio; stated that there are 12 tables, including 4 that are on the patio; and that approximately 30 seats are available. She noted that the escrow business across the street has offered 5 additional parking spaces and that a neighboring establishment has offered one space for her vehicle to be parked. She expressed her belief that even with the grilling activities, the limited floor area and limited seating qualifies her as a snack shop.
Ms. Franklin noted for Chairman Hoffman that only bread is served with the ribs and chicken.
Ms. Franklin noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that both the Health Department and Fire Department have given her approval for this activity.
Vice-Chairman Tucker questioned whether AQMD had provided approval of the barbeque emissions.
Ms. Franklin stated that she had not sought AQMD approval.
Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, noted the Chamber's support for the appellant's request; stated that the grille is a small outdoor barrel shaped grille that emits very little smoke and is only used between 1 or 2 hours a day; and she urged the Commission to work with the appellant and to help her maintain a business that is fairly new.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that some of the menu items run around $17 and that it is his belief this business's activities have gone beyond a snack shop business.
Commissioner Pizer stated that because these grilling activities only occur for 1 to 2 hours a day, he would support the appellant.
Commissioner Kersenboom expressed his belief that this business has gone beyond the service of a snack shop.
Vice-Chairman Tucker expressed his belief that the seating should be reduced to conform to a snack shop limit; and stated that with the type of food being prepared, it is his belief this business is operating more as a restaurant.
Chairman Hoffman stated that the ribs and chicken are not snack shop menu items; and that he believes this business is operating more like a restaurant.
There was general consensus by the Planning Commission to concur with staff's findings.
-
Staff Items
-
Memorandum regarding annual reviews for Conditional Use Permits for restaurants. (PDF File)
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission conduct annual reviews for all conditional use permits at one hearing in the beginning of the calendar year; noted that staff will prepare a list to reflect all outstanding CUP's with annual reviews; and that the list will also reflect the date for the calendar to review and indicate whether there have been any reports of problems. He noted that if there are any problems with the CUP's, the Planning Commission would be able to revisit that CUP at a later date.
-
Memorandum regarding response to correspondence on the timing for Planning Commission reports and public notification. (PDF File)
Responding to a correspondence provided at the July 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting with regard to posting and hearing notifications, Director Blumenfeld commented on several statutory requirements and the Permit Streamlining Act that affects the timing for report production, public notification and agenda preparation. He commented on the high volume of Planning Commission and staff workload; and noted that this City goes beyond the normal requirements of the law for public noticing. He expressed his belief that extending the review process by 5 additional days would unfairly penalize a project applicant and would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. He stated that staff will implement some of the recommendations, such as revise the public notice to include the Community Development operating hours, the department fax number, the website address; that the public notice will also be posted on the website; and that staff will ensure that the website is current with all the code sections.
The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to go forward with these additional notifications and actions, but to leave the current schedule in tact.
Chairman Hoffman suggested that the relevant Municipal Code be available on the website.
-
Commissioner Items
Commissioner Pizer noted that he and Chairman Hoffman had a meeting of the General Plan Review Subcommittee, but that the other two subcommittee members who were not in attendance still need to review the materials prior to the materials being provided to the Planning Commission.
Addressing Commissioner Perrotti's suggestion to possibly revise the application process, Director Blumenfeld stated that the City's application packet is pretty thorough; and noted that a copy of the application will be provided to the Commission for review. He explained that the City Attorney has advised staff to reject plans if staff does not fully understand them.
-
Adjournment
At 12:02 P.M. the meeting was formally adjourned.
|
