|
|
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2003
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON NOVEMBER 18, 2003, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoffman at 7:05 P.M.
Vice-Chairman Tucker led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Hoffman
Absent: Kersenboom
Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Ken Robertson, Senior Planner
Scott Lunceford, Associate Planner
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE the October 21, 2003, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 03-56 (PDF File), denying a Variance request for lot coverage requirements at 259 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Perrotti, Pizer Hoffman
NOES: Tucker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
Public Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this property currently has 2,909 square feet; that it is currently developed with 3 units; noted that the applicant is proposing an addition of 898 square feet; stated that the property is currently developed with a single-family home on the front portion of the lot, with a single-story garage; and a two-story stacked duplex on the rear, with a 2-garage access to the alley. He advised that the dwelling situated at the front of the lot was constructed in 1931 and was partially remodeled in 1986; advised that no records are available regarding the duplex, but noted that it was determined to be a legal two-unit complex in 1974; and that in 1984, it was substantially remodeled and expanded pursuant to a variance granted at that time which allowed expansion despite the nonconforming side yards and nonconforming parking. Senior Planner Robertson noted that the current use as 3 units is a nonconforming use in the R-3 zone, as the lot size only permits 2 units; and advised that the property is also nonconforming with respect to front and side yard requirements, parking, parking setback requirements, open space, and separation between buildings.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the proposed project involves adding a second story and a roof deck to the single-story dwelling at the front of the property and expanding the existing garage to a 2-car garage with a code complying 17-foot setback on the sidewalk. He indicated that the remodel and addition will bring the property into conformance with the front yard setback and the parking setback requirements; and stated that while this proposal increases parking for the front unit and brings it up to code and increases open space, it will not bring the property into conformance with any of the other nonconforming conditions. He explained that the applicant is seeking a variance in order to add more than the 250 square feet that is permitted. He stated that the reason for the applicant's request is to make the front unit more livable as a single-family dwelling and as a request to recognize that the proposed changes to the front unit will bring its parking into conformance; added that no changes are being proposed to increase or intensify the duplex structure in the rear; and noted that the applicant is attempting to achieve parity with other dwellings in the area in terms of livability while maintaining as much of the existing structure as possible. He mentioned that the intent of a variance is to create parity with other properties in the vicinity and to avoid creating a unique or special privilege. In order to grant a variance, he noted that the Planning Commission must make all four findings as listed in staff report (of record).
With regard to Finding No. 1, Senior Planner Robertson stated that in this case, the subject lot is only 29 feet wide; that it is located in an area that is dominated by wider lots -- 40 feet or more -- containing nonconforming apartment buildings and multi-family structures that also exceed existing density requirements of the zone; and stated that, therefore, the small width of the lot and the existing condition of the structures are somewhat unique and unusual for this block, as it has historically contained a duplex in the rear for rental purposes and an owner-occupied one-story home in the front. He noted that there is one other lot with a 29-foot lot width neighboring to the north that contains a new 2-unit condominium project. With regard to this first finding, he explained that while it may be arguable that the existing circumstances could be considered as exceptional and extraordinary, it is not a compelling case in this instance given that several other properties contain older nonconforming structures as well that exceed current density requirements.
With regard to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson advised that the owner wishes to exercise a property right to add on to an existing single-family home to meet basic standards of livability and to be a reasonable size - pointing out that the house in front is approximately 1,000 square feet; stated that a variance is necessary for this dwelling in order to add more than 250 square feet and to reach a size that the applicant finds comfortable without also being forced to significantly reconfigure or remodel the existing structures on the property; and explained that supporting this finding depends on whether the ability to meet the applicant's preferences for livability or a certain size home is considered a substantial property right and whether the parking standards applicable to this expansion -- which limits the expansion to 250 square feet -- is so restrictive that it is denying the applicant this right. He stated that it should be considered whether maintaining a nonconforming duplex rental generating income is a substantial property right since the property could be developed with 2 conforming units. He mentioned that the Planning Commission may wish to consider the small size of this 1,008-square-foot dwelling, which is out of parity with standard sized dwellings in the area and throughout the City and the limited options for complying with parking requirements in making this determination. He noted that the parking problem is also related to the nonconforming use as 3 units; and that this could be resolved by converting the rear duplex to a single-family dwelling - pointing out that with that option, parity could be reached without a variance.
With regard to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Senior Planner Robertson advised that staff did not have any problems with making these last two findings. He noted that staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting based on the Planning Commission's direction. He added that if the variance is approved, it would require a condition that the proposed stairway that encroaches into the public right-of-way be eliminated and that a signed and wet-stamped survey be provided.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that there are quite a few lots in the City with 29-foot lots and that these additional lots can be included in the Commission's consideration of this proposal, but stated that the majority of lots in the City are at least 30 feet.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Tucker that this project will probably cause a loss of one on-street parking space, but that the loss will be compensated for with the provision of guest parking in front of the garage.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Bill Febbo, 1427 Monterey Boulevard, applicant, stated that the units in the back had a permit for the remodel; and advised that the setback variance was necessary for only 1 inch on the corner of the building, plus the existing setback on the south side. He explained that the new plans now reflect to relocate the stairway, moving the garage to the north and a stairway on the south, which will result in retaining the parking space in front of the house. He pointed out that his property is flanked by a 35-foot condominium on one side of his property and a 30-foot condominium on the other side of his property. He noted that his small 1,000-square-foot house is situated above the garage; stated that the driveway is only 13 feet - pointing out that a car cannot be parked in this small space without it sticking out on the sidewalk; and advised that he will be providing a full 2-car garage and 2 guest spots in front and that he will be retaining the parking space on the street. Mr. Febbo stated that decreasing the back units to one unit would be cost prohibitive for him; and explained that he is really only adding 1 room and 2 bathrooms. He explained that that the existing small bedroom will be used for the stairway of the second story, a hallway, and for some closet space.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated that even with the limited size of his home and the aspect of adding 3 more parking spaces, he is not able to make the Finding Nos. 1 and 2. He pointed out the possibility of being able to construct a 2-unit condo and noted that there are other 29-foot lots in the City. He expressed his belief that this request is more of a preference for livability than it is for property rights.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he could not make Finding No. 1 being that there are other 29-foot lots in that area and throughout the City; and pointed out that the lot just north of this one is a 29-foot frontage that was developed in conformance with the City's regulations.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he concurs with the Commission's comments and stated that he could not make Finding Nos. 1 or 2.
Chairman Hoffman reiterated his interest in preserving historic homes in this City; and mentioned that this City just received a C- from the Los Angeles Conservancy in terms of this City's efforts with historic preservation. That issue aside, Chairman Hoffman concurred with the Commission's statements and stated that he could not make Finding Nos. 1 or 2 in this case.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to DENY VAR 03-6 - a variance to allow a greater than 250-square-foot addition on a property containing three units with less than two parking spaces per unit at 1427 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Lunceford advised that the subject site is located on the south side of 17th Street, between Raymond and Prospect Avenues; that the project consists of 2 detached units containing basements with 2 stories above; stated that each unit has 3 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms; and that the buildings are designed in a modern style, with smooth stucco and wood-siding finishes, painted redwood fascia, raised wood window trim and stucco and wood deck guardrails. He stated that the building is designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit - noting that the roof plan needs to be revised to show the proper locations of the maximum height critical points. He stated that the lot coverage calculates to be 61.2 percent, which is under the City's 65 percent allowable; that all required yards are provided; that the project includes a 10-foot front yard setback to be consistent with the prevailing setback for the block. He stated that the required parking is provided in ground floor garages for each unit with access to a common driveway; advised that the curb cut on 17th Street will not cause the loss of any on-street parking; and that guest parking will be provided for both units at the rear end of the common driveway.
Associate Planner Lunceford pointed out that there is a discrepancy between the site plan and the east elevation drawing for the finished grade elevation at the bottom of the main driveway slope by approximately a half foot; and stated that staff believes this issue can be resolved as a condition of approval. He stated that the project complies with the open space requirements, except that the rear unit does not have enough usable open space to comply with the minimum requirement of 300 square feet; that the front unit has open space provided on second story decks with enough square footage provided to meet the minimum requirement of 300 square feet; that each unit has adequately sized decks adjacent to the primary living areas, over 100 square feet each; and advised that the rear unit has open space provided on one second story deck and in an excess side yard area, which adds up to 270 square feet. He noted that there is a 56-square-foot entry patio for the rear unit that could be counted as usable open space if the eave above it is reduced by 6 inches, thereby reducing the coverage to 50 percent over that space; and stated that this issue could also be resolved as a condition of approval.
Associate Planner Lunceford stated that this project generally meets all the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance; noted that storage areas are shown in both units to comply with the requirement of providing 200 cubic feet of storage space per unit; that the plans provide for landscaping in the areas available in the front, rear and side yards, but that the plans do not show any of the proposed trees as being mature size 36-inch box trees.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicants, stated that the 3 minor issues can all be resolved during the plan check phase; stated that the driveway slope will also be worked out during plan check phase as well as the eave over the entry area. She stated that this is an attractive, clean project and noted that the units are self-contained and have with good separation.
Commissioner Pizer highlighted the letter (of record) from neighbor Virginia Cooke in regard to this proposed project concerning the garage layout. In response, Ms. Srour stated that the proposed driveway width does meet the requirements of the City.
Commissioner Perrotti commented on Virginia Cooke's letter and her concerns with losing her privacy as a result of the decks looking down onto her property; and suggested that additional landscaping be added for screening purposes.
Ms. Srour stated that they would be willing to work with staff to provide this landscaping for screening purposes, but asked that the views not be impacted.
Addressing Ms. Cooke's letter, Vice-Chairman Tucker suggested that the balcony be moved back somewhat.
Chairman Hoffman pointed out that moving the balcony back will impact the open space.
Ms. Srour explained that the shortage pointed out by staff can be resolved with the design of the eave over the entry area.
Associate Planner Lunceford explained that if the eave over the entry patio on the rear unit can be reduced, it would resolve this issue.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he would prefer to see more design on the elevation; and stated that the adjustment with the deck/eave and the additional landscaping should alleviate the neighbor's concern with privacy.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that the applicant work with staff to screen the neighbor's property.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 03-13/PDP 03-16 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 27099 for a two-unit condominium at 1016-1018 17th Street; moved that the rear balcony on the rear unit be reduced by 2 feet; that the porch eave be reduced by 6 inches to comply with the open space requirement; and that landscaping be installed along the southerly property line for screening purposes for the neighbor. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project involves 2 existing lots on the south side of 10th Street, just west of the Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Corridor; stated that the easterly lot, 726 10th Street, was recently changed from a General Plan designation of Commercial Corridor and a zoning designation of C-3 to its current designation of Medium Density Residential and R-2; advised that the original property owner sold the property after receiving City Council approval for the zone change; and noted that the new owner is proposing 4 units on the assembled lots. He noted that an existing barrier is located on the front of the property that results in making 10th Street a dead-end street, with access to the residential lots available from the west end of the street, from Ardmore Avenue only.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project consists of 4 detached 2-story units with a common driveway in the middle; that the units are designed with almost identical floor plans, with the westerly 2 units being a mirror image of the easterly 2 units; that each unit contains a basement with a private garage, with 2 stories and a roof deck above; and that the 4 buildings are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style, with sand stucco finish, stucco trim and sills, galvanized iron deck guardrails and concrete tile roofing. He stated that the R-2 zoning for this site with the 2 lots combined would allow up to 5 dwelling units; and that the applicant is only proposing 4 units, 2 units per existing lot, which is consistent with other recent condominium projects on the street that have been developed with 2 units per lot. He stated that the project complies with the height limit, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, required yard setbacks and open space. He mentioned that this project will not cause a loss of any on-street parking; and added that staff is recommending that at least four 36-inch box trees be provided.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, stated that this development will have very nice landscaping, private entries, and a nice separation between the units; noted that these units will be oriented away from the commercial to the east; and stated that the applicant concurs with the conditions of approval. She stated that the applicant will work with Public Works staff on the issue of the barrier - pointing out that it does provide emergency access for public safety vehicles.
Commissioner Pizer, echoed by Vice-Chairman Tucker, noted his preference for more articulation.
Robert Treman, project architect, noted his intent to create a cohesive development with a unifying theme; addressed his attempts to get these units to focus towards themselves and to try and orientate towards the north and the south where the primary view is; and added that some trim will be added around the windows with an extended sill. He stated that the railings would be more ornate than what is reflected in the rendering.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted his support for more detail with this project, such as the ornate railing.
Chairman Hoffman noted his support for more detail on the railing and suggested changing some of the colors to differentiate the buildings.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Tucker, to APPROVE CON 03-14/PDP 03-17 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 60519 for a four-unit condominium at 714-722 10th Street; and moved to add No. 3A, "The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to redesign and relocate the street barrier to the easterly property line." The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Lunceford stated that the subject lot is located on the east side of Loma Drive, between 11th Street and Pier Avenue; noted that the lot is zoned R-3, with a height limit of 30 feet; that the lot can be developed with up to 3 dwelling units; and explained that the lot, similar to others along the east side of this block, is relatively flat for the first three-quarters of the lot where it fronts on the street, but then slopes down steeply at the rear quarter of the lot. He stated that the grade used for the height measurements is based on the surveyed elevation points at the property corners; however, the method for determining building height may consider convex contours of the lot. Associate Planner Lunceford stated that the applicant is requesting consideration as a convex lot and is proposing alternate points at the top of the bank as the basis for measuring height rather than the easterly corner points; and mentioned that this will allow the project to have construction with 2 stories above a basement on the flat portion of the lot.
Associate Planner Lunceford noted that if a standard straight line interpolation from the corner points were used, the construction of a second story above a basement and first story would not be possible unless the building is lowered into the grade. He noted that there are two adjacent lots to the north that were developed with 2-unit and 3-unit condominium projects that also used convex slopes for their maximum height determinations and that each of these units have 2 stories above basements. He stated that staff believes the applicant's request is reasonable given the existing condition of the lot and surrounding terrain; and that the convex condition appears to be natural grade.
Commissioner Pizer stated that because the last 30 percent of the lot drops down rapidly and the rest of the lot is pretty flat, he would consider this to be a convex slope.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to make a determination that this is a convex slope.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To set for public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff has developed preliminary development standards as a result of past discussions with the Planning Commission; stated that the Planning Commission should carefully look at the permitted uses throughout the C-3 zone; mentioned that the Planning Commission may want to consider having special setback and open space requirements particularly where the City has abutting lower density uses, he stated that consideration might be given to lower density adjacent lower density uses and to discourage more intense commercial uses in that case; and stated that the Planning Commission might have a much more limited list of permitted use than would be generally allowed, either by right or with a conditional use permit, in the zone.
Chairman Hoffman questioned that if the Planning Commission were to make the determination to start with Aviation Boulevard as a pilot project, how would the City address this from a zoning standpoint and avoidance of a spot zoning.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City can adopt a mixed use overlay zone with special zoning provisions, similar to a historic district or Coastal Zone overlay. He stated that the Planning Commission can start initially with an overlay zone as a pilot project, see how it works and then refine the standards; if necessary before continuing with any other changes to the rest of the commercial corridor.
Chairman Hoffman mentioned that the goal of introducing mixed use into this City's commercial corridors is a different reason than it would choose to do on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) versus that on Aviation Boulevard; and stated that he is not personally convinced that there's a reason to do this on PCH. Because of the proximity of R-1 to Aviation Boulevard and given the way in which Aviation has developed and/or hasn't developed recently, he expressed his belief that some of the reasons the City might want to do this would be for incentive purposes, to encourage a different kind of development. He noted his preference to restrict this to the Aviation corridor for now and to begin to use this as a real incentive to stimulate a revitalization of that commercial district.
Commissioner Pizer urged the public's participation in this process; and noted his support for concentrating these efforts first on Aviation.
Chairman Hoffman stated that it is necessary to distinguish the goals for introducing mixed use in various areas.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the newspaper article, "Mixed Reviews for Mixed Use," and some of the problems that were identified in this article, such as mixed use and residential competing for success; and noted his preference to see a final product in the C-1 zone, how it is working, before this goes much further in the C-3 areas. He noted his support to focus on Aviation Boulevard as a pilot program.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will gather information on available sites to evaluate prototypical projects to get a sense of how many units can be developed on a site, what are some of the effects, what would be the commercial lot depth, what would be the residential lot depth abutting, etc.
Vice-Chairman Tucker supported the suggestion for community input as to what the residents would support on Aviation. He suggested that the City could have the residential come off 10th Street, but that down below, it could tuck the commercial back deeper into the lot and create more of a pleasant type of atmosphere in the front.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff would like to fine tune of the standards as they relate to open space, setbacks and also proximity to some of the R-1 areas; and stated that staff will concentrate on the Aviation corridor with a pilot project.
Julie Oakes congratulated Vice-Chairman Tucker on his victory as new City Councilman. She noted her support for a pilot program on Aviation; and suggested that consideration also be given to the M-1 zone, creating an incentive for commercial, manufacturing and residential, since it's backed up to R-1.
-
Staff Items
-
Memorandum regarding General Plan update.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the General Plan Subcommittee has met on two occasions this month to discuss ways to bring about improved public input into this process. He noted that the subcommittee is suggesting that a website be produced that would contain General Plan update information as a way to gather public input along with the public hearings, meetings, workshops; and announced that Daniel Sofer, of Hermosa Wave, has offered his services free of charge in developing and maintaining this web page for at least a period of one year. He stated that the following workshops have been suggested for the month of December:
Wednesday, December 3, 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, at the beginning of the next Planning Commission meeting; and stated that public input will be gathered and provide an opportunity for reviewing the General Plan issues and gathering public input - noting that the regular Planning Commission meeting would commence following that workshop;
Saturday, December 6, 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M., City Council Chambers; and that this workshop will involve some of the local design professionals to help with some of the documentation, to look at problem identification, and to begin to establish some of the goals and objectives for the General Plan;
Wednesday, December 17, 3:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, looking at some of the goals and objectives and then to fine tune a work program, looking at the proposed outline that was drafted by Commissioner Pizer and embellishing the outline if necessary.
Commissioner Pizer noted his excitement with Dan Sofer agreeing to support the City for a year on this project; stated that Mr. Sofer can have this website up and running in a week; and stated that the outline was drafted to give Mr. Sofer an idea of what should be included on the web page. He noted that the web page will be a powerful tool, in that it will allow people to write in and discuss issues with regard to the General Plan. He invited everyone's input on the draft outline; and he requested that Pete Tucker also be on this subcommittee.
Vice-Chairman Tucker suggested that Adelphia Cable place an ad spotlighting this website and listing the dates of the workshops; and asked that press releases be sent to the 3 local newspapers in town.
-
Commissioner Items
Having been elected to the City Council, Vice-Chairman Tucker advised that this will be his last meeting as a Planning Commissioner; and he thanked staff and his fellow commissioners for the many years they have served on this body together. He expressed his belief that this body has made a lot decisions that have been for the betterment of this community and stated that he is confident this body will carry on its good work.
Speaking for the rest of the Planning Commission, Chairman Hoffman stated that it has been an honor serving with Pete Tucker on this body.
The Planning Commission congratulated Pete Tucker on his victory and expressed best wishes in his new position on the City Council.
Commissioner Perrotti reiterated congratulations and best wishes to Pete Tucker; and asked if he would continue with the Aviation/PCH meetings. He stated that he would like to continue his participation with this subcommittee.
The Planning Commission fully supported Commissioner Perrotti serving on the Aviation/PCH subcommittee.
Vice-Chairman Tucker stated that he will continue his work on this subcommittee; stated that another subcommittee meeting will be scheduled for December.
-
Adjournment
At 8:45 P.M. Commissioner Pizer moved to formally adjourn the meeting.
|
