Presentation by Public Works Commissioner Jean Lombardo regarding the work of the Street Tree Committee.
Jean Lombardo, member of the Hermosa Beach City Tree Subcommittee and Public Works Commissioner, commented on the formation of the tree subcommittee, which members consist of Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Peter Tucker, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Bill Siegler, and Superintendent of Public Works Michael Flaherty.
Tree Subcommittee Member Peter Tucker advised that this subcommittee was formed 6 months ago to address the large number of the City's existing trees that are not compatible with the City's streets, sidewalks, sewers, utility lines, line of sight, etc.; explained that the subcommittee divided the City into quadrants for proposed types of trees that would be root friendly - highlighting the list of appropriate trees reflected in the subcommittee's report that is attached to the Planning Commission's packet (of record) this evening. He advised that the subcommittee developed a pilot plan to beautify the City's gateway at Aviation, between Harper, westbound to Prospect. He noted that the report reflects certain specifications on how to plant various trees, the watering needs of various trees, placement of tree grates over the top of the planters to comply with ADA requirements and the addition of some decorative pavement. He stated that this report will be presented to the Public Works Commission tomorrow evening and then on to the City Council for final approval.
Ms. Lombardo noted for Chairman Hoffman that the subcommittee would like to start its pilot program with possibly alternating palm trees and with a specific flowering tree down Aviation; mentioned that consideration had been given to an adopt-a-tree program for those business owners who may be interested or to help out in some way with this expense; and she pointed out that the report is very specific about the type of trees to be used, including associated maintenance of deciduous trees.
The Planning Commission expressed thanks and appreciation for the thorough efforts of the tree subcommittee members, and there was consensus to recommend that the tree subcommittee report be forwarded to the City Council for approval.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this request is to amend the original conditional use permit that was granted to Brewski's for on-sale beer and wine; stated that an application was subsequently filed and approved for the restaurant with on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment; and noted that the on-sale general alcohol portion of the permit was not put into effect. He explained that the owner is proposing a change to the format of the restaurant, changes that are appropriate to the zone and General Plan; advised that the applicant is proposing some cosmetic changes to the exterior of the building; that the interior will be altered to eliminate the micro-brewery portion of the original project; that standard table seating will be created - pointing out that the high-top tables will be eliminated; and that within this area, the restaurant will be slightly reconfigured. He noted that there would be no changes to the bar area; that wine service will be added; stated that the location of the previously identified stage for live entertainment has been eliminated; but that the owner is proposing to maintain the entertainment aspect of the conditional use permit, the intent being to have non-amplified entertainment. He expressed staff's belief that the modified proposed use is fitting for the Pier Plaza area; that it will not create additional nuisance problems; and noted that it will not increase the occupant load above the original use.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiry regarding the removal of the brewing tanks and the original Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licensing, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant will have to reapply for their ABC license.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Albaro Lundy, representing Mediterraneo Restaurant, handed out a packet of information depicting what is being proposed.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned the likelihood of this business becoming more of a club or bar atmosphere in the future.
Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's concern, Mr. Lundy stated that limited food service will be available one half hour before last call; advised that the applicant has no intent of this establishment becoming a bar or dancing facility; and explained that the music most likely to take place will be a trio, singles drummer or harp player, something that will add to the elegant ambiance of the establishment. He stated that the quality of the food will make this business a success, not the entertainment.
Charile Cheetum, 548 Second Street, expressed his belief that this business should not be permitted to obtain an on-sale general alcohol license, believing that this will allow this establishment to eventually become a bar; and asked that drinking on the patio should be prohibited after 11:00 P.M.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief that the proposed hours of operation are appropriate for a bar, not a restaurant; and stated that this establishment should close at midnight on the weekends and 10:30 P.M. on the weekdays.
Roberta Moore, 930 9th Street, stated that she is not opposed to bars in Hermosa Beach.
Mr. Lundy stated that this business will raise the business standards in this area; that this business will seek to cater to the older crowd, not college aged individuals; advised that the applicant is in the process of negotiating a transfer for the full liquor license; and stated that if the transfer is refused, the applicant will carry on with the smaller brewing activities.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for this higher end restaurant; pointed out that it already has a liquor license; and stated that he is looking forward to it opening for business.
Vice-Chairman Tucker pointed out that the establishment already has a liquor license; commented on the City's periodic review of conditional use permits for conformance; and expressed his belief this business will be a good addition to the Downtown area.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that because of the 2:00 A.M. closing of this business, it will likely become a drinking and music establishment; stated that he would prefer not allowing the general alcohol use; and noted that in 6 months, the Planning Commission should review the operations of this business to determine how it is truly performing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that this is a perfect area for this type of restaurant; stated that a rowdy/nuisance business is more of an issue with poor management than it is with serving general alcohol; and stated that he would support a 6-month review of this permit.
Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that the location for this business is appropriate and noted the need to encourage a vital Downtown area.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 03-9 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to convert a brew-pub to a full-service restaurant with on-sale general alcohol at 73 Pier Avenue.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker
NOES: Pizer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this project involves an existing duplex which is proposed to be converted to a single-family dwelling; stated that the addition in the project involves 233 square feet; and advised that the project will provide a full complement of parking. He advised that the project is nonconforming to front and side yard, open space and lot coverage; and explained that the subject variance relates to lot coverage - pointing out that the proposed lot coverage is 71 percent. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission had approved this project in 1997 as a nonconforming remodel, allowing a 250-square-foot addition to the duplex that maintained the conforming use of the two units and the nonconforming parking; noted that the remodel was completed in 1999; and explained that since the project involved an addition of 250 square feet, there is no further expansion that is allowed under the nonconforming status of the project. He stated that this request is to remove some of the nonconformities; that the owner is proposing to eliminate one of the units by removing the first floor kitchen and connecting the floors with a second floor and a spiral staircase; and noted that the garage will be relocated and reconstructed closer to the alley, which will allow the addition of 175 square feet of floor area on the first floor for an additional bathroom and bedroom and the addition of a master bath on the second floor.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed remodel and addition brings the project into conformance with the zone code with respect to the use by eliminating one of the units; advised that the nonconforming front and side yards will remain; that the project will remain nonconforming to the small lot open space requirements; and stated that the project, as designed, causes lot coverage to increase by approximately 58.5 square feet, which relates to the excess lot coverage for the project. He added that the applicant is requesting this proposal for more livable space as a single-family dwelling and to accommodate his growing family. He stated that the applicant is proposing to maintain much of the existing structure and to not substantially alter it; advised that staff has discussed options for reconfiguring the building to eliminate the need for a variance on lot coverage, which would primarily involve removing the front stairway access to the second floor; and explained that this would require reconfiguring of the floor plan, to which the owner is reticent to do. He added that the removal of the front stair would also remove the second floor access; advised that there are two means of access to the property; explained that the applicant is not interested in pursuing these options because of the cost factors involved and because it would require reconfiguring major parts of the building. He highlighted the four mandatory findings for a variance.
With regard to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld explained that this small lot condition exists for 38 lots in the vicinity and that staff believes this is not exceptional or unusual; and pointed out that the property has already been given some relief from the development standards because the owner is proposing to maintain some of the nonconformities in the existing structure. He stated that the proposed use is unusual since the remodeling involves the conversion of a duplex to a single-family dwelling, which condition exists on 7 other lots on the block; however, he stated that the existing building is nonconforming to several development standards and that it affords several benefits that wouldn't otherwise be available to other nonconforming properties; and he questioned whether these conditions make this property exceptional or extraordinary.
With regard to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission will need to determine that the applicant's preference for the size of the project is a substantial property right that has to be preserved; and expressed his belief that making this finding would be difficult - noting that it is possible to comply with the lot coverage standards and still meet the applicant's general remodeling objectives.
With regard to Finding No. 3, Director Blumenfeld noted staff's belief that these improvements are not so great that they'll have a material impact on the properties in the vicinity and zone and stated that this is not considered a major expansion.
Relative to the Zoning Ordinance, Director Blumenfeld stated that this project is not unusually large or out of scale with the neighborhood; and he mentioned that if the Planning Commission approves the applicant's request, staff will need to come back with a resolution at the next meeting.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is proposing to change this duplex into a single-family residence; explained that the applicant needs to add 58 square feet to put in a modest-sized master bathroom next to the master bedroom; commented on the mix-up which reflects that the approved plans from 1999 indicate that the applicant could still build 58.9 square feet of building; and noted that it was discovered in the process of putting together the plans that the additional 58 feet are not available. He explained that the area for the addition being proposed is already covered by a landing area; expressed the family's desire to stay in this home and community; and stated that the addition is necessary for this growing family. He pointed out that this proposal eliminates nonconformities, such as parking.
Mrs. Stacy Schwartz, applicant, expressed her desire to stay in this home; commented on her plans to increase the size of her family and the need for the additional square footage; and stated that the proposed changes make this a functional single-family residence. She commented on her original plans to have a kosher home with two kitchens, but pointed out that she and her husband made a compromise after staff noted their concerns with a two-kitchen home; mentioned that she will close off the laundry room which currently has access to the outside; that an entry to the house from the garage will be added; and pointed out that she and her husband are willing to execute and record a deed restriction stating that the house will not be used as a duplex. She reiterated her intent to maintain this home as a single-family residence. She explained that what will be added fits into the footprint of the house; and that they will be adding the bathroom on the existing balcony.
Jonathan Schwartz, applicant, highlighted the existing balcony area where the proposed addition will be located; stated that the overhang from the rooftop deck already covers a good portion of what they intend to cover; and stated that approval of this negligible 58-foot area will make the difference with them staying in the house or moving out.
Mrs. Schwartz stated that this proposal benefits the City by removing the nonconforming duplex and alleviating parking concerns; and advised that they have the full support of their neighbors for changing this to a single-family home.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hoffman advised that the City had received a letter from Ms. Martin at 329 31st Street (of record), dated October 20, 2003, in opposition to this project.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that this lot is not unique in the neighborhood; that he could not support Finding No. 1 and, therefore, could not approve the variance.
Commissioner Pizer noted his pleasure with the plans to convert this duplex to a single-family home; but stated that he could not make a case for Finding No. 2.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he could support Finding No. 1 for a variance because the City had already granted this piece of property a variance in 1997; with regard to Finding 2, he stated that he could make a finding for livability, not only for the owners of the property, but also for the neighbors; and stated that this project is not out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. He highlighted the improvement to parking, thus improving the quality of life for the residents; pointed out that the building footprint will not change much; and stated that he would support the applicant's request for a variance.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concurrence with Vice-Chairman Tucker's comments.
Chairman Hoffman stated that he could not make Finding No. 1, believing there is nothing physically unique or unusual about this property.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to DENY VAR 03-4 -- Variance to allow an addition, remodel and conversion of a duplex to a single-family dwelling resulting in lot coverage greater than 65 percent at 259 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Kersenboom, Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission act on two issues: the first being the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map; and, the second, that the Commission confirm whether the property is a convex slope relative to determining building height. He explained that this project consists of two detached condominium units with basements with two stories above; and noted that each unit has 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths. Director Blumenfeld explained that grade is ordinarily determined at the corner point variations, but that the height ordinance also allows for a determination of grade using convex contours if it can be determined that there are convex contours on a lot; and he stated that this requires a detailed topographic survey for the subject lot.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the applicant is requesting consideration of the lot as a convex slope and that he is proposing alternative points, as shown on the survey, Points 113.19 and 113.83; stated that the contours seem to reflect the fact that the lot does have a contour shape; and pointed out that the condominium next door to the proposed project was constructed in April 1999 without consideration as a convex slope, 644-646 Monterey. He stated that without the convex slope determination, the proposed project is 2.8 feet over the 30-foot maximum height limit as determined from the corner points. Director Blumenfeld noted that the project otherwise conforms to the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance; that the lot coverage is 65 percent; that all the required yards are provided; that open space is adequately provided adjacent to living areas with a minimum 300 square feet; and that required parking is provided in the ground floor garages, which has direct access from Monterey Boulevard and Sunset Drive. He indicated that there is also a proposed curb cut on Monterey Boulevard that results in the loss of two on-street parking spaces; and stated that those lost spaces are picked up on the plans with two extra guest parking spaces, one provided in front of the front unit garage on Monterey Boulevard and Sunset Drive and one provided on the driveway off Monterey Boulevard and incorporates the access right-of-way on Monterey. He stated that the Monterey Boulevard driveway has a slope in excess of 26 percent - pointing out that 12.5 percent is what the driveway is limited to, so there will have to be alteration to the plan; and noted that the slope can probably be cured by lowering the finished floor of the garage without compromising the height envelope of the design of the project. He indicated that staff is recommending approval, with conditions.
Director Blumenfeld noted that while the survey is not properly labeled, staff is not questioning its accuracy; and stated that the applicant will have to re-submit a survey with the correct nomenclature so that there is no question in regard to the front elevations on Monterey Boulevard. He stated that after having looked at the two elevations, 113.83 and 113.19, the topography, the plan view and projecting those up in profile, one can begin to see what the contour in profile is from elevation; and expressed staff's belief that this demonstrates there is a convex slope.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Patrick Killen, project architect, 58 11th Street, stated that the property, as they have determined, is a convex slope because the site does rise up dramatically off Monterey and flattens out as one gets half way across this site; noted that when he equally divided the lot between the two units, even by putting the open space at the very front of it, the back unit ended up with a 7'10" clearance at the end of the house, ceiling height, where the windows would be at the point of the height limit; and advised that on the newly revised plans, it's the back unit that is suffering from the height limit - pointing out that the front unit is well underneath the height limit. Referring to the back unit, he explained that at the very front of the development, its furthest west point is where the applicant is trying to get the additional height in order to create the higher clearance, thus taking this opportunity to use the convex rule. He explained that both of the roof lines are similar; that the portion which dips back up on the rear unit is the portion that would benefit from the convex determination versus the traditional determination of the height limit. He advised that the applicant is not proposing any roof decks on these buildings because they could achieve the views and get the building to be a little softer with its current design.
Mr. Killen noted for Commissioner Perrotti that this development will contain a metal, internal gutter system that will run the entire length of the building.
Director Blumenfeld stated for Vice-Chairman Tucker that staff believes the plans are approximately 2.8 feet above the height limit; and reiterated staff's belief that the topography indicates it's a convex slope.
Jennifer Lacerna, 701 Monterey Boulevard, stated that she lives across the street from this proposed development; commented on her concerns with the negative impacts from construction activities, such as noise, dust/debris, negative impacts to vehicles; and addressed her concern with the loss of much needed parking in this neighborhood. She urged the City to start keeping track of the loss of parking and new development in this City.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his approval of this project as long as the driveway comes within the 12.5 percent requirement.
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted that this project meets all the requirements; commented on a property owner's right to build; and urged the public to contact the City's Code Enforcement Department if construction activities are starting or ending at inappropriate hours.
Commissioner Pizer stated that while he can appreciate the quality of life issues with ongoing construction in this City, this project does comply with all the requirements specified in the City's codes.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that the lost parking spaces will be gained on the development itself; stated that the applicant has complied with all the requirements; and he urged the public to utilize the services of the Code Enforcement Department should the need arise.
Chairman Hoffman concurred with the Commission's statements.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to make the determination that this is a convex slope.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 03-11/PDP 03-14 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060281 for a two-unit condominium at 706 Monterey Boulevard. 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 advised that this project is located east of Pacific Coast Highway along 6th Street on the north side; stated that it is a relatively large lot located in the R-2B Zone, containing over 7,200 square feet; noted that the proposed units are moderate in size, consisting of approximately 2,500 square feet each; explained that the project consists of two units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit has 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms and roof decks; that the buildings are designed in a modern style with smooth stucco and stone veneer finishes, metal fascia and roofs and stucco deck guardrails; that the buildings are designed to comply with the 30-foot maximum height limit, except for a couple minor conditions that need to be corrected and added as conditions of approval; mentioned that the lot coverage is 41 percent, which is well below the maximum permitted; that all the required yards have been provided or exceeded; that the open space areas for both units are provided on the second story decks with a fairly large yard area between the units; and that parking is provided with ground floor garages for each unit, with access to a common driveway. He stated that the curb cut on 6th Street will cause the loss of one on-street parking space, which will be compensated for with an extra guest parking space at the end of the driveway; and noted that the project does meet all the requirements of the condominium ordinance, with the exception relative to height and providing and showing some storage areas, which should not present a problem given that there are adequate locations to provide such storage. He indicated that the plan provides for landscaping in the areas of the front, rear and west side yards, including the proposal for 4 new, mature sized Washington Robusta palm trees.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff received some late correspondence from some of the neighbors and the adjacent project at 831 6th Street, a 6-unit condominium, in which the homeowners association addresses its questions and concerns with this project, such as whether the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning standards for condominiums, loss of views, sunlight, air, whether the general criteria have been taken into consideration for the Precise Development Plans (PDP), question of whether the maximum building height has been adequately addressed for the proposed development, whether skylights have been taken into the maximum height calculations, issues concerning the rooftop deck railings, question related to the proposed removal of the existing large palm tree and public nuisance concerns with regard to construction activities. He added that the letter summarizes some alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider.
With regard to the first question concerning consistency with condominium standards and view obstruction, Senior Planner Robertson explained that these sections are general purpose sections, not development standards, and pointed out that this City does not have a view protection ordinance. He noted that the Planning Commission can consider the view, topography, wind for both the proposed project and adjacent properties, but that it would not be intended to make view obstruction the primary consideration or a prescription to protect views of adjacent properties. Senior Planner Robertson explained that this project is at a low intensity relative to the maximum allowable requirements; that there is a 20-percent separation between the buildings; and that there is a 12-foot clearance from the eastern property line where these adjacent condos are located. With regard to the neighbors' concern with consistency for the PDP, Senior Planner Robertson stated that all these criteria are not prescriptive standards; that it is subject to project consideration of the entire neighborhood - pointing out staff's belief that this project is not dissimilar to the overall neighborhood and that it will serve to enhance and improve property values in the area. He noted that the existing mature palm tree will be replaced with new trees; and stated that the property owner is within his rights to develop this site. With regard to the neighbors' suggestions for this project design, he explained that the Planning Commission does not impose such restrictions when an applicant has complied with the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Patrick Killen, 58 11th Street, project architect, pointed out that the 6-unit building adjacent to this proposed project is on a similar sized parcel; and stated that the applicant is only proposing 2 units, noting that they are 24 percent below the maximum allowable for lot coverage. He explained that they have created a 20-foot view corridor between the structures; that the height limit of 30 feet is only achieved at the two deck areas; and that the balance of the roof planes are between 2 and 3 feet below the height limit in order to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. He stated that they have created a decent setback between themselves and their easterly neighbor; advised that the driveway configuration allows for an abundance of additional parking on site; and reiterated that the scale of this project has been downplayed.
Vice-Chairman Tucker questioned if the neighbors have voiced any concern on the height of the wall from the deck area where the skylight is located.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Tucker's inquiry, Mr. Killen stated that the deck wall can be minimized or dropped down in scale so that it's not as high as the 36-inch guardrail for the deck.
Jeff Bryce, 831 6th Street, president of the Homeowner's Association that provided the correspondence referred to this evening, briefly addressed the concerns in the letter (of record); stated that the residents in this area currently have unobstructed panoramic views of the ocean, from Palos Verdes to Malibu; and noted his concern with the likelihood of losing these views, losing the ocean breeze - pointing out that these homes were purchased because of these valuable views. He addressed his concern that this project will have a negative impact upon the neighbors' property values; requested that the 30 feet in height be reduced; and that the building be redesigned to lessen the impact to the neighbors' views. Mr. Bryce stated that some of the neighbors will lose their privacy due to the proposed location of the living rooms. He addressed his concern with the quality of life issues during the construction phase, reduced parking availability; and suggested that their properties be protected from the dust that will be generated during the construction activities.
Louise Rankin, resident, asked that consideration be given to erecting a wrought iron railing instead of solid railing.
Mr. Killen explained that he can drop the stairwell element down so that it is just above the roof; that he could place some type of coping detail there to help maintain that line straight across for the railing of the roof deck; and that he could change the top portion of the stucco to two thin rails to bring it down a little bit, just above the other pitched roof line, which should resolve some of the neighbors' issues. He explained that there would be a portion of that element that will remain solid, but that it would convert to a rail system up above that point, approximately the top 18 inches that would be more open.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that this is a good project; highlighted the applicant's willingness to compromise on some of the roof elements; and noted that this City does not have a view ordinance. He noted that the Code Enforcement Department should be contacted when necessary.
Vice-Chairman Tucker concurred with Commissioner Pizer's statements; and pointed out that the applicant could have built a much larger project than what is being proposed.
Commissioner Perrotti and Chairman Hoffman concurred with the Commission's statements.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission could add a condition to the conditional use permit to require that the site be watered down during grading activities and that the equipment be washed down daily during the initial phase of construction.
Vice-Chairman Tucker urged the residents to keep the lines of communication open to avoid any problems.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 03-9/PDP 03-12 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060280 for a two-unit condominium at 817 6th Street; that the applicant reduce the amount of dust and inconvenience to the neighbors; and that the applicant drop the stairwell down just above the roof enough to maintain a coping for drainage, to maintain that line for a railing, and to change all stucco deck railing to stucco and pipe railing. 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 9:25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:32 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project is a 2-unit condominium development in the R-2B zone, located on the east side of Oceanview Avenue; noted that it consists of two detached units, two stories above the basement level, and each unit containing 3 bedrooms and a roof deck; and advised that the buildings are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style with exterior stucco finishes, stucco trim molding/banding, tile roofing and decorative railings. He noted that the required parking is provided along the common driveway and a centrally located turn-around area; stated that the curb cut for the driveway replaces an existing wider curb cut at a different location; and noted that it does not result in the loss of any on-street parking. He stated that all required yards are provided; that the lot coverage calculates to be 64.9 percent; that the open space areas are provided within the second story decks adjacent to the living rooms and on the roof decks; that the amount of open space provided on the second floor decks adjacent to the primary living space is 200 square feet and 130 square feet, which complies with the minimum requirement of 100 square feet to be located adjacent to primary living areas; and that the balance of open space is provided on the roof decks, with one of the units on the first floor deck yielding a total of 300 square feet for Unit 1 and 322 square feet for Unit 2. He noted that the height of the proposed structure is under the 30-foot height requirement; stated that the landscape plan is sufficient and provides landscaping in the front, side and rear of the buildings and includes two 36-inch box palm trees; and stated that the plans also provide for decorative surface material in the driveway.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that the project does comply with the development standards; explained that these lots slope fairly steeply from the street up; stated that the rear unit is not taking advantage of its maximum potential, in that it's about 7 feet below the height limit; and noted that the trees will be placed in the parkway.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the 11-foot driveway width meets code and stated that there should not be any problem with access or maneuverability.
Per Chairman Hoffman's request, Ms. Vargo stated that the railings will be enhanced to create more visual interest.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for this project and his support to add more decorative railings.
Vice-Chairman Tucker suggested that the balusters be made of concrete, creating more consistency with the Mediterranean style.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 03-12/PDP 03-15 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060263 for a two-unit condominium at 406 Ocean View Drive, with the inclusion of more decorative railings. 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 this project is located in R-3 zoning, a high density residential area; noted that the project consists of two attached units containing basements with two stories above; advised that each unit has 3 bedrooms; that the front unit has 3.5 bathrooms; that the rear unit has 2.5 bathrooms; and that each unit has a roof deck. He stated that the building is designed in a modern style with two different colored smooth stucco finishes with some limestone veneer facing, flat tile roofs and galvanized steel guardrails with tempered glass balusters; that the building design complies with the height limit of 30 feet on the rear half of the lot and 25 feet on the front half of the lot; that all required yards are provided; that the parking is provided in two-car tandem garages for each unit with direct access off the alley; and that one guest space is provided for the units adjacent to the garages off the alley. He noted that the project meets all the requirements of the condominium ordinance and zoning ordinance, with some exceptions that staff believes can be corrected with conditions of approval - noting that as planned, the lot coverage exceeds the maximum allowed and has some issues concerning open space. He added that these minor corrections can be taken care of administratively. Senior Planner Robertson explained that the plan provides for landscaping in front of the property and the landscaped area of the public right-of-way; that it includes two 36-inch Mexican fan palm trees; and noted that an irrigation plan will have to be submitted.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 300, representing the applicant, stated that the minor modifications will be made in order to comply with the standards.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer addressed his opposition to tandem parking.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that tandem parking is a concern of his, but pointed out that it is allowed by code; and he explained that after having reviewed this project, he believes that tandem parking will effectively work on this site. He highlighted Condition Nos. 1B and 1C of the resolution which covers the modifications that are necessary.
Vice-Chairman Tucker explained that he normally does not like tandem parking because it allows a developer to cram an extra unit on site; but stated that because there are only two large sized units being proposed, he would support the tandem parking for this project. He added that in this case, it can only be parked as proposed. He added that he is delighted with the large square footage of these two units.
Chairman Hoffman highlighted his concern with the demolition of another California bungalow in the City and concurred with the Commission's statements.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that if possible, the architect should attempt to break up the mass of the elevations.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 03-10/PDP 03-13 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 60478 for a two-unit condominium at 62 8th 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.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject lot is located at the corner of The Strand and 24th Street with access available from the 10-foot wide alley on Beach Drive; and that the property includes the vacated portion of 24th Street zoned Open Space Overlay, which can be used for parking and landscaping, but which cannot be used for complying with any of the development standards of the R-1 Zone. He stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling with a basement and a two-car garage with access from the 10-foot alley to the rear; and noted that the building is designed to meet the requirements of the R-1 Zone, with the exception of the open space requirements.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the ground level open space requirements of the R-1 Zone, which normally provides that 75 percent of the required 400 square feet of open space be located on the ground; that the applicant is instead proposing that this open area be provided within the front yard and an entry courtyard along the side, with minimum dimensions of 8 feet in the front and 7 feet on the side - pointing out that these dimensions would not normally qualify as open space; and stated that the request for relief from the ground level open space requirement is similar to variances that were granted by the City Council in 2000 for the adjacent property to the south at 23 34th The Strand and two variances that were granted by the Planning Commission nearby on The Strand just last year. In these cases, he stated that the variances were granted allowing the front yards with less than 10-foot dimensions to meet the open space requirements because of the unique constraints on developing these properties because of their small lot size and alley-only access in the rear yard. He added that this applicant is asking for the variance for the same reasons in order to allow the building to extend all the way to the front setback line, 8 feet from the front property line at The Strand; otherwise, in order to provide the required 300 feet on the ground, he stated that the building would have to be set back approximately 20 feet from The Strand.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that alternatively, open space could be located in a courtyard area in the middle of the lot; however, providing it in the rear yard is not possible given that the alley is the only reasonable location for a garage; and that overall, the building would have to be substantially reduced by 900 square feet or more to comply with the ground level open space requirements. He noted that the findings have to be made for variance approvals; stated that the applicant is making this request because of the small lot size, which is not quite small enough to qualify for the R-1 small lot exception from ground level open space requirements which applies only to lots less than 2,100 square feet; stated that it is not within 10 percent of that area; and that the alley is the only access in the rear. He noted that these conditions force the ground level open space to be provided towards the front of the lot, significantly limiting the potential building size and southerly view potential since neighboring buildings on The Strand are built close to the front of the lot.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that this combination of factors is unique relative to other Strand fronting properties, as it is limited to the two-block stretch of The Strand between 22nd and 24th Streets. To the south of 22nd Street, he stated that The Strand fronting lots with similar alley conditions are zoned R-2B or R-3, allowing all open space to be provided on decks with 7-foot dimensions; that to the north, the lots are through lots with Hermosa Avenue and The Strand frontage; and that due to a special provision in the Zoning Ordinance for through lots, these lots may count their Strand front yard setback area towards their open space requirements.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that the other lots which were granted variances were not corner lots.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Austin Peters, project manager representing the applicant, offered to answer any questions.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that this project is similar to the other properties that had been granted variances, that this is a unique situation and that a variance should be granted.
Commissioner Perrotti noted for consistency purposes, he could make the findings to support a variance for this project.
Vice-Chairman Tucker noted his concern that the other lots were not corner lots and suggested that this building could be placed further back than what is being proposed.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the new building will sit back further than it now exists and stated that he would support the applicant's request.
Chairman Hoffman stated that he could make the findings to support the applicant's request for a variance.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE VAR 03-5 -- Variance to allow the required ground level open space to be located in the front yard and side yard areas with dimensions of less than 10 feet at 2340 The Strand. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
