|
|
Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2004
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
FEBRUARY 17, 2004, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kersenboom at 7:03 P.M.
Commissioner Pizer led the Pledge of Allegiance.
On behalf of the Planning Commission, Chairman Kersenboom welcomed new Planning Commissioner Kent Allen.
Director Blumenfeld commented that Kent Allen is well qualified to serve as a Planning Commissioner due to his background in civil engineering and his work in the construction and real estate fields; and he noted that Mr. Allen has extensive experience in working with municipalities in the permit process. On behalf of staff, Director Blumenfeld welcomed Kent Allen to the Commission.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Kersenboom
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 Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the January 20, 2004 minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Allen
ABSENT: None
Resolution P.C. 04-3 (PDF File) validating the legality of nonconforming room addition at 2050 Manhattan Avenue.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 04-3, validating the legality of nonconforming room addition at 2050 Manhattan Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Allen
ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a request for a 3-unit condominium project with basements and 2 stories above; stated that each unit has 3 bedrooms and a roof deck; that the end units have 2.5 bathrooms; that the middle unit has 3.5 bathrooms; and that the project complies with the 30-foot height limit. He noted that there are several issues that need to be considered that are not yet resolved on the current plans; advised that the building height needs to be more clearly shown on the roof plan relative to critical point elevations; with respect to lot coverage, he advised that the building is approximately 4 percent over the maximum coverage that is permitted; that the southerly yard is shown at 3.5 feet and that it needs to be 4.5 feet; that guest parking will need to be increased from the proposed 16 feet to the required 17 feet of clear space; that the driveway slope is shown at 19.33 percent and that it can only be 12.5 percent; and that open space is insufficiently provided because some of the second story decks are covered more than 50 percent. Director Blumenfeld stated that while staff is recommending approval of the project, it is believed these issues can be resolved; stated that the necessary changes may affect the design/appearance of the building; and noted that staff believes this project can be designed to meet the zoning codes.
Commissioner Pizer questioned the policy for staff bringing a case before the Planning Commission before the applicant has clearly met all requirements.
Responding to Commissioner Pizer's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld explained that staff uses its judgment to determine if last-minute changes can easily be made before bringing matters to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, explained that the timeframe is always tight when a project is being designed; noted that by the time staff looked at these plans and discovered a few errors, the applicant was not able to generate revised plans prior to this Planning Commission meeting; advised that the project architect has been able to address most of the issues of concern; and she noted that the changes will not substantially change the outcome of the project. She added that most of the time when the Planning Commission is approving plans, those plans are basically conceptual plans and not working drawings; and that many times after the Planning Commission makes its decision, the plans get tweaked further to make a better project. She stated that the changes are not significant and that they can be adequately addressed.
Howard Crabtree, Studio 912 Architecture, project architect
Mr. Crabtree apologized for the inconsistencies in the plans; advised that his office did not receive staff comments until this afternoon; and stated that he has resolved almost every issue of concern. With regard to the first issue of lot coverage being 69.6 percent, Mr. Crabtree explained that the setbacks on the north and south sides are not consistent across the lot; that the lot is not square or rectangular; that the building is not parallel to the north and south lot lines, but that it is parallel to the east and west lot lines; and that his calculations came to 67 percent, which is still over the maximum permitted. He stated that with the south side yard being too small, the building will be reduced by a little over a foot, which will increase the side yard to what it needs to be per code and that it will reduce the lot coverage to the 65 percent maximum. Mr. Crabtree stated that the guest parking stalls will be increased to 17 feet; that the building will be raised 1'-2" and stay under the maximum height limit in order to reduce the slope of the driveway on the westerly unit to 12.5 percent. He stated that the roof hang will be reduced to comply with open space; that they will separate the storage space from the trash area by changing the nomenclature on the plans; that the common walls in between the units will have a STC value of 52 minimum; and that 3 trees will be added to the landscape plans.
Commissioner Hoffman requested that additional ornamental/specimen landscaping be installed on the southwest corner of the property.
Mr. Crabtree stated that additional landscaping will be provided in this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that the proposed resolution has adequate conditions to cover all of the inadequacies; and that staff should be able to resolve the issues without this matter being continued.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a Condition 5B would be added: a roof plan shall be submitted with correct corner point elevations and all critical point elevations shown.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 04-1/PDP 04-1 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060571 for a three-unit condominium at 403 11th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property currently contains a single-family residence that was constructed in 1937 on one legal lot; explained that a parcel map combined the two original lots from the original tract which created this single lot; and that this parcel map, which was approved in 1981, was for the purpose of developing 3 condominium units - pointing out that the project was never constructed and, instead, the current owners substantially remodeled and expanded the existing home in 1987. He advised that the lot can still be developed for up to 3 units in accordance with the current lot area per dwelling unit standards of the R-2 zone. He advised that, instead, the applicant is seeking a Variance from the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance to develop 2 single-family homes on separate and individual lots. He noted that precedents for this type of Variance have been established for similar situations at 501-507 29th Street and 836 Beach Drive, granted by the Planning Commission in 2000 and 2003.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance is requested to create 2 lots substandard in width and area as an alternative to constructing 2 or 3 units on one lot; advised that the proposed width of the lots is 30 feet rather than the required 40 feet; that the proposed lot sizes are 2,893 square feet and 2,840 square feet, which is less than the required 4,000 square feet in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; however, the prevailing lots in the neighborhood consist of lots with 30-foot widths and vary in size from 1,420 square feet to 2,792 square feet and represents the majority of surrounding lots in the R-2 zone in this same neighborhood area. He stated that these proposed lots are consistent and larger with the prevailing lot sizes and widths in this neighborhood/area.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the facts and circumstances in this case may arguably be consistent with the principle of a Variance, as the applicant's proposal to develop these lots as 2 single-family dwellings will result in a project more consistent with surrounding development than the development of the property with a 3-unit condominium. He advised that the proposed lot sizes are generally in character and actually larger than most in the neighborhood.
Senior Planner Robertson highlighted the findings in order to make a Variance; expressed staff's belief that the findings can be made for an exceptional circumstance because the lot in its combined condition is only 1 of 2 lots within a 300-foot radius in the same zone that have been combined in a similar manner; therefore, the lot size of 5,733 square feet is arguably an exceptional and unique condition as compared to other lots. Secondly, he stated that a Variance can be argued that it's necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties as the owners wish to exercise their right to subdivide this lot into 2 lots from the original tract to create a lot similar to other lots in the neighborhood. Further, he stated that this proposed Variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare of surrounding properties, that the lots will be more consistent with prevailing lot patterns in the area. Finally, he noted that the granting of this Variance will not conflict with the provisions or be detrimental to the General Plan because the project will result in a density of 15.2 units per acre, which is consistent with the density range category for the medium density category of the General Plan, which is 14 to 25 units per acre.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that if the Planning Commission does approve the Variance, they can then approve the Parcel Map for the proposed subdivision - noting that there are 2 separate resolutions, one for the Variance and one for the Parcel Map.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that her first inclination was to file a Reversion to Acreage document, which under the Subdivision Map Act allows the applicant to take property that's been subdivided and revert it back to what it was prior to the recordation of this parcel map for condominium purposes; but advised that this can only be done if a City has this provision in its ordinance - noting that this City does not. She mentioned that with a Reversion to Acreage document, an applicant does not need to make the findings for a Variance. Ms. Vargo stated that on the map, once can see that in its current configuration, this lot is much larger than all the other lots in the R-2 zone in this area; that it is the applicant's intent to take this property back to what it previously was zoned; and that the property owner wants to build 2 single-family homes, not the 3 condominiums.
There being no further input, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he could make the findings for the subdivision ordinance; stated that the map clearly indicates that the entire neighborhood has 30-foot frontage on the lots; and that by granting this Variance, he would not consider this to be unusual for this area. He expressed his belief that the City and neighborhood is better off with one less home on this site.
The Commission concurred with Commissioner Perrotti's comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE VAR 04-1/SUB 04-1 -- Variance from the minimum lot size and lot width requirements of 4,000 square feet and 40-foot width. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Parcel Map No. 060842 for a two-lot subdivision resulting in two 30-foot single-family lots consistent with the prevailing lot sizes in the vicinity at 2226 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the project involves a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and discretionary permit for a two unit condominium. Should the Planning Commission approve this condominium project, it will only go into effect following City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. He stated that the subject property is located on the south side of Second Street, the first lot west of the commercial development that fronts Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); stated that the commercial site was previously an auto dealership, which included auto repairs; and noted that it's currently under construction as the new Sav-on site. Director Blumenfeld stated that the subject lot is located at a depth of 230 to 270 feet from PCH; that the SPA zoning for this site would allow reconstruction of a new single-family residence but would not allow any multi-family residential development.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the lot is currently developed with a single-family home that was built in the 1920's; that it is nonconforming to the zoning code; that prior to 1982, the property was zoned residential and then rezoned to commercial in 1982 from R-3 to C-3, which was done at the request of the property owner. He advised that the new property owner is requesting to rezone and redesignate the property for residential use; and advised that the properties to the west are designated for residential purposes - pointing out that there is some compatibility with the proposed use. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff report should correctly reflect on the second page, line 3, that the uses surrounding this site are residential only to the north, south and west. He stated that the applicant is proposing to redesignate and rezone the property to medium density residential and R-2, which would allow exclusive residential use of the lot and allow either a single-family dwelling or a 2-unit condominium project. He advised that approving this change will preclude future expansion of this parcel with other property fronting on PCH - noting that this is not probable because the property to the east is being developed at this point by Sav-on and that grading activities are already taking place on site. He stated that this property would tend to be an isolated piece of property that could not be developed commercially because it cannot be an independent commercial property fronting on a side street; and that this effectively prohibits using it for an alternate purpose other than the current nonconforming purpose and that it will basically remain until such time as the Sav-on site is developed.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is arguing that this is a unique property; and that given this side of the block that's currently under construction, it's unlikely to be assembled with other property to the north, south and east. Further, he stated that there is a large change in grade; that if the property was to be redeveloped, that grade would have to be resolved from the east to the west, which would require substantially altering the grade; and that, therefore, the opportunities for commercial development of the property are limited and probably not the best use for this neighborhood.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the condominium project consists of 2 detached 3-level structures that contain basements with 2 stories above; that the units contain 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, and a roof deck; that the units are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style; that both units are designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit at the critical points; that all required yards are provided; that lot coverage is below the 65 percent maximum; and advised that the front yards are proposed to be 5 feet, which is not consistent with the prevailing front yards of the block which are approximately 12 feet. He stated that staff is suggesting that a minimum 10-foot front yard be provided for this neighborhood consistency issue; advised that the proposed open space is provided on second story decks adjacent to the living, dining areas and roof decks, which is consistent with the requirements of the code. Director Blumenfeld stated that the total open space provided exceeds the minimum requirement of 300 square feet; that the required parking is provided in garages on the ground floor of each unit with access to a common driveway; that one guest parking space is provided at the end of the driveway; and that the project does not cause any loss of on-street parking.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Council and Planning Commission have previously resisted redesignating property commercially zoned; but that in this case, he stated that the circumstances appear to be substantially different.
Commissioner Allen questioned whether there is a guarantee that Sav-on will carry through with its plans for development of this site.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti stated that the 10-foot setback requirement may alter the design of the project.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested that the buildings be moved closer together instead of reducing the size of the buildings.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that that buildings could be moved 2 feet closer.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that the way the lot is currently, it is useless as a commercial lot because there is no access.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that this project is vastly different from the others that have previously been before this body for zone changes; explained that this property was under the same ownership as the other portion of the property that was bought by Sav-on, but that Sav-on did not feel they needed it and, therefore, acquired all of the property but this piece. She noted that the family trust then put this small piece of property on the market to be sold separately, subject to the zoning being changed. She explained that this is a 40-foot piece of land that is situation significantly far from PCH; advised that at the current time, the Sav-on site is being graded, a significant wall is being placed at the property line that separates the subject site with the Sav-on site; and that when that site is completed, this subject property will not have frontage on PCH and won't be able to be developed commercially. She pointed out that most of the properties around this parcel are multi-family units; advised that there are 5 R-2 residential properties fronting on Second Street on the south side of the street; stated that 3 lots west is a 2-unit condominium complex that has a 5-foot setback; noted that there are properties that have been recently constructed that have 5-foot setbacks, as well as a few condos on the other side of Second Street which were recently constructed with a 5-foot setback. She noted the applicant's preference to keep the 5-foot setback. She advised that the property line wall that's dividing this property from the new Sav-on site is very high and within a couple feet of the sidewalk and that with there only being a 5-foot setback, it would not have a jetting out appearance or stand out from the rest of the properties developed along this street.
Commissioner date palm tree can it be relocated to another portion of this lot, Ms. Vargo explained for Commissioner Perrotti that date very mature palm trees do not usually survive being transplant and that this one will most likely not be relocated on this parcel.
Peter Barks, 1217 Second Street, representing Sav-on, stated that the Sav-on project will go to completion; advised that Sav-on has a 30-year lease with the property owner; noted that Sav-on has no use for this small parcel; and noted his support for the proposal.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated that with the understanding Sav-on will finish this project, he would support rezoning this to residential.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that this is effectively a landlocked parcel because it can't be accessed from PCH; stated that residential would be more consistent with the neighborhood; and noted that he would support the 5-foot setback because this is the first property behind a parking lot that does not affect anyone's view corridor and that it would also be consistent with other setbacks in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that this lot in comparison to some of the other rezoning requests is much smaller in size; noted that this lot from PCH drops down in grade; and expressed his belief that rezoning this parcel would not have an impact on the commercial corridor. For consistency purposes, he noted his support of the 5-foot setback.
Chairman Kersenboom stated that because this lot is smaller, is back off PCH and being walled off, he would support the request; and noted that he would support a 5-foot setback for consistency with the majority on this block.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will come back with a resolution; that the zoning matter will be referred to City Council for final decision; and that approval of the condo project would be dependent upon a Zone Change by City Council.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Zone Change from Commercial SPA7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two-Family Residential and General Plan Amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MD). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060398 for a 2-unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 710 Second Street, subject to final approval by City Council of the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment; and moved to delete Section 5.1A. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Kersenboom recessed the meeting at 8:05 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:10 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this request is to provide the substitution of mechanical storage space in the building and not have it contribute to the overall parking requirement for the building; in this case, he explained that the applicant is requesting consideration based on the uniqueness of the mechanical room, to house some telecommunications equipment which is occupied by the existing telecommunications equipment for the existing wireless telecommunications facility on the roof; and noted staff's recommendation that a covenant be required to limit the use of the property and/or designate the method by which the required parking will be provided. He stated that in this case, if the Planning Commission supports the proposed Parking Plan, staff will recommend that a covenant be required to limit the use of the portion of the building intended as a mechanical room to contain only the telecommunications equipment, with no office functions which would otherwise contribute to the parking demand for the building. He noted staff's belief that the reduced parking requirement for the existing building is appropriate since the conversion of the proposed 331 square feet of existing office space into a mechanical room, which is essentially storage, offsets the additional 318 square feet of additional floor area; advised that this proposed addition will not increase the parking demand for the building; that the telecommunications equipment intended to occupy the proposed mechanical room does not require a Conditional Use Permit since this is an existing facility, and was permitted and installed prior to adoption of the City's ordinance concerning wireless facilities; and stated that staff is proposing approval of the project along with a covenant on the use of storage/mechanical room.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Michael Lee, project architect, representing the property owner, explained that the applicant is proposing to substitute 318 square feet of the 768 square feet of existing office; that the applicant is requesting to convert that into mechanical space and make the 318 square feet of deck into office space - pointing out that this is a 1-to-1 swap of office space. He clarified that the existing office space is 384 square feet; that the 2 existing office spaces total 768 square feet; and that all the applicant will be doing is enclosing an existing deck that's currently in place, that he is not adding any bulk to the building.
Mr. Lee explained that both Space Nos. 304 and 305 are full of switching equipment for Verizon; advised that the cell site has been there for approximately 12 years; that the rooms are used to house the expensive mechanical equipment; and stated that the deck space, Space 302 and 303, has a roof over most of it, with walls on 3 sides, and that the applicant is proposing to add some windows to the front for it to become office space. Mr. Lee reiterated that the applicant is asking to be allowed to use 318 square feet of deck because he is using 768 square feet of the building as office with virtually no parking attached to that use. He advised that Verizon has a 20-year lease; and that they're been there for approximately 12 years. He mentioned that the deck is almost totally enclosed at this time.
Mr. Lee noted for Commissioner Hoffman that he is very confident the owner will sign a covenant.
Dr. Joseph Jacaloni, building tenant, stated that he has operated his medical office from this site since June 1983; explained that this building was originally 4 individual suites; that each suite had a downstairs of approximately 1,185 square feet with an upstairs of 375 square feet; that somewhere around 10 or 12 years ago, the landlord at the time, Sharon Brooks, converted 2 of the upstairs suites for Verizon; and that the suites downstairs were closed off, which had common stairwells up to the upstairs suites. He stated that he has assigned 6 parking spaces; noted that he treats approximately 40 patients each day; and expressed his concern that the limited parking will have a negative impact upon his business. He expressed his understanding that Verizon will not be at this site much longer; and commented on his concerns that these areas will be converted into additional suites in the future.
Dr. Peggy Magneson, building tenant, stated that her lease provides 4 assigned parking spaces for this building; advised that she has 8 years remaining on her lease; and noted that she was recently notified by the landlord that due to the increase in office space that he is contemplating, she will be required to forfeit one of her assigned parking spaces. She expressed her belief that parking issues at this site have not been properly addressed.
Mr. Lee stated that this building will comply with the parking ordinance; advised that the tenants will have to sacrifice one parking space each.
Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Lee noted for Commissioner Hoffman that these are new, independent offices that are not linked at the south end of the building.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's inquiry regarding assigned parking, Director Blumenfeld explained that the City usually does not get involved with assigned tenant parking spaces, but that the Planning Commission does consider shared parking; and he stated that this proposal is supposed to be a 1-for-1 change and that there shouldn't be a material increase. He stated that if this is ever converted to office, it would violate the covenant and it would be subject to code enforcement activity. He expressed his belief that the tenants would not hesitate to report a nonpermitted use in this building.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Hoffman that the City can use its enforcement powers under the Municipal/Zone Code to make sure that the covenants and conditions are followed per the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned the effectiveness of the covenant and how it will be enforced.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE PARK 04-1 -- Parking Plan to allow the addition of 318 square feet to an existing office building while converting 331 square feet of existing office space to a mechanical room, without providing additional parking at 3201 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is zoned R-3 and is designated high density in the General Plan; that the lot size is 3,993 square feet; and advised that the site could have potentially been developed with 3 units, but that the applicant is proposing a 2-unit condo project. He noted that the project consists of 2 attached units containing basements with 2 stories above; that each unit has 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; and that the building is designed in a Mediterranean style with sand stucco and stone veneer finishes, tile roof, wood trellises above the second story decks, and decorative wrought iron and precast balusters as deck guardrails. Senior Planner Robertson explained that staff evaluated this project based on an initial submittal in the agenda packets and generally found that the project could be approved subject to correcting a few problems with the conditions of approval. He noted that the Planning Commission had been provided this evening a supplement for its agenda packet, adding that the applicant submitted revisions to the plans; and advised that staff has not yet had the opportunity to perform a complete evaluation or zone check of the changes because of the late submittal.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the initial plan had a roof deck on Unit 1; noted that because the applicant believed there were some privacy issues with having that deck adjacent to the decks on Unit 2, they removed that roof deck and attempted to compensate for the lost open space by enlarging the decks on the second floor. However, in reviewing these plans, he indicated that the plans are now short of qualifying open space because part of the area provided on the second floor does not meet the 7-foot requirement. He suggested that the Planning Commission may want to continue this matter to allow staff additional time to review the revised plans.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that it appears the applicant attempted to resolve some of the inconsistencies between the landscape plan and the site plan, but noted that there still seems to be problems with the garage height, setbacks, etc.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that she only received the staff report this afternoon; advised that the architect wasn't aware of the other issues with grade and the discrepancy with height; that the architect was working on doing a revised plan to eliminate the deck off the unit on the Palm Drive side and placing it on all the deck space on the second level off the living area. She explained that by placing the deck on the second level, it lowers the height of one unit because it no longer has a roof deck on it. She explained that they will construct the deck across the entire frontage and that the roof deck would be eliminated.
Ms. Vargo stated for Commissioner Perrotti that even with the revisions and necessary changes, this project will basically look the same, but that the living space will be a little smaller because the deck will have to be increased in size.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Because of the last revisions, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff ample time to review the revisions.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE CON 04-3/PDP 04-4 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060945 for a two-unit condominium at 1107 Manhattan Avenue (AKA 1106 Palm Drive). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject building is located on the south side of Pier Avenue, near the corner of Monterey Boulevard; that the existing building which is proposed to be demolished was constructed as a residence in 1941; and advised that the most recent uses of the building have been for commercial purposes, although there is a history of joint residential and commercial use previous to the recent retail uses. He advised that the building is nonconforming to parking, as only one parking space exists in the basement level with access from the alley, while 6 spaces would be required under current zoning for retail commercial use.
Senior Planner Robertson commented on the Planning Commission's past denial of the applicant's request to remodel and expand the existing building with less than required parking and maintenance of its legal, nonconforming status with respect to parking; at that time, he stated that the Planning Commission was concerned that the amount of demolition did not warrant keeping the building's legal, nonconforming status and was concerned with the lack of adequate parking for what was essentially going to be a new building. He advised that the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's decision; that the City Council sustained that decision at its meeting in October 2003; and that the City Council expressed its concern with the revised plan and the parking layout, which included tandem parking for 8 spaces. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the new proposal involves the construction of a 3-level, 30-foot high retail commercial building in a craftsman/bungalow style similar to the existing building; and advised that the floor plan is similar to the previous proposal, with parking on the ground floor accessed from the alley, with the bulk of the square footage on the floor above the ground floor and a mezzanine level accounting for approximately 675 square feet on the third level. He stated that the project differs from the previous proposal in that none of the existing structure will remain, and that there is no attempt to use the parking credit for the existing nonconforming parking deficiency. Instead of a modern style building, he advised that the architect is proposing a style of architecture similar to the style of the existing building, using wood shingle siding, wood beams, divided light windows and stone veneer.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project does meet the basic zoning requirements of the C-2 zone; beyond these basic standards, he stated that the project plans show a substantial improvement to a very old and under-utilized building in an attempt to revitalize a prominent location in the City's Downtown area; and stated that the architectural features of the proposed new building are consistent with the existing style of architecture. He noted that the retail commercial use of this type is certainly compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the general objectives of the City Council to balance the existing predominance of restaurant and bar uses with retail uses. He noted that the height of the building, while it will be increased a floor higher than the current building, is consistent with the height limit of adjacent commercial and residential zones.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the critical issue with this project relates to parking; and stated that based on the current parking ratio proposed for the Downtown District of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office or retail space, the proposed 2,803-square-foot building requires 9 parking spaces. He noted that the applicant is proposing to provide 8 of these parking spaces in tandem and is requesting consideration that all of these spaces be counted towards the requirements of the parking ordinance, which allows for Planning Commission consideration of reduced parking requirements. He noted that this still leaves the applicant one parking space short; and that the applicant is asking to pay an in-lieu fee for the last required space.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission should consider whether the use of the tandem parking for a retail use is an appropriate application of the Parking Plan section; while the tandem parking would qualify under the Parking Plan section as other methods for reducing parking demand, he stated that it may not be an appropriate solution for retail uses, as customer turnover is frequent; and mentioned that tandem parking is normally recommended for office or residential uses. He stated that the applicant is attempting to address this issue by proposing to use 2 of the rear spaces for employee parking, which would allow the remaining spaces to be used for customers. He noted that another option the Planning Commission could consider if tandem parking is not considered appropriate, the project would be considered to be deficient 5 parking spaces; and that the applicant would be required to pay the in-lieu fee for 5 parking spaces or otherwise redesign the project. Given that these options are available, he stated that staff is seeking direction with the two distinct options, whether to accept the 4 tandem spaces or require 5 in-lieu fee parking spaces.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Pizer that the in-lieu fee is currently $12,500 per required space.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Hoffman that the architect tried to work toward the maximum number of parking spaces but that due to the configuration of the property, he is only able to provide the tandem configuration.
Senior Planner Robertson pointed out that looking at the amount of frontage the applicant has on the alley, it is limited to 4 spaces unless they go to the tandem configuration; and stated that there is not enough depth or width where the applicant can have a driveway entering the site unless they go subterranean parking.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Ed Beall, project architect, representing the applicant, explained that they have tried everything possible to get additional parking for this building and because of the oddity of this site, it does not go beyond what is being proposed. Mr. Beall stated that this building was designed for general retail.
Jose Sayola, previous project architect, stated that the new rendition of this building is much more pleasing; and explained that the revised design pays homage to the existing style.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman commended the applicant for the redesign of this project; and stated that because this is an unusually shaped parcel, a Variance might be justified for parking.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Allen that the Planning Commission had recently approved tandem parking for a mixed use development; advised that tandem is allowed in residential areas, but that it is not generally approved for commercial areas; and he mentioned that this body has also approved parking with large single tenants in a building, such as the Pavilion.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that the proposed new building would be an attractive improvement; commented on the major parking problem in this City and questioned the practicality of tandem parking for retail operation. He suggested that the building be reduced in size so that it requires less parking; and stated that because of the parking situation, he would not support this proposal.
Chairman Kersenboom commended the applicant for the revised project; stated that he would like to see this project go forward, but he commented on his concerns with the parking.
Director Blumenfeld commented on the limited requests for parking in-lieu fees and the limited waiving of these fees. He added that this project will also need to be reviewed by the Coastal Commission.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE PDP 04-3/PARK 04-2 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan to construct a new 2,800-square-foot retail building with a reduced parking requirement using tandem parking and parking in-lieu fees at 238 Pier Avenue, but that the applicant be required to pay for 5 in-lieu spaces. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer
NOES: Allen, Perrotti
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is an appeal for the Planning Commission to approve by Minute order that the subject slope is a convex slope and to interpolate from intermediate points on the top of the slope, as requested by the appellant, or to determine that the retaining walls at the northerly corner points represent unaltered grade and interpolate from the top of the wall elevations. He noted that this property is located on the north side of 33rd Street; and advised that the lot is zoned R-2, with a height limit of 30 feet; that it can be developed with one dwelling. He stated that compared with the other lots on the north side of this block, the lot is relatively flat for the majority of the lot from where it fronts on the street and then slopes down at the rear 10 feet of the lot; and advised that the grade at the rear of the lot appears to have been cut to provide access to a garage fronting the alley with retaining walls at the rear corner portions of the lot that appear to represent unaltered grade. In looking at the photos, he noted that one can see but for the retaining walls, the grade would probably extend out beyond that area retained. He commented on the method for determining building height, as reflected in staff report. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting consideration of this lot as a convex lot and is proposing alternative points at the top of the bank as the basis for measuring height, which would allow for the construction of a proposed roof deck. He explained that with a straight line method of projecting from the corner points, it is not possible to construct the roof deck because the roof deck would be over height; and advised that the applicant's request appears to be reasonable given the existing condition of the lot and surrounding terrain; however, he stated that it does not necessarily appear to be a convex slope. He stated that staff believes it's possible to consider the corner point elevations as the top of wall condition as representing unaltered grade; and that there doesn't appear to be a knoll or convex condition uniformly on the lot.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that this isn't the typical convex lot that the Planning Commission has been seeing recently; and noted that he would support Option No. 3, determine that the retaining walls at the northerly corner points represent unaltered grade and interpolate form the top of wall elevations.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that this is not a convex slope; noted that it's difficult to determine what this site originally looked like; and stated that he would support Option No. 3.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief that Option 3 is the most appropriate option.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this is not a convex lot and that they would support Option No. 3, a determination that the retaining walls at the northerly corner points represent unaltered grade and interpolate from the top of wall elevations.
-
Revised
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the property owner is proposing to add a rooftop deck to a single-family dwelling located in the R-3 zone; that the new roof deck will be accessed by a steel spiral stairway from the second story deck; that the new stairway will encroach into the required 5-foot rear yard by 1 foot, 4 feet from the rear property line; he stated that a review of the City's code requirements that regulate architectural encroachments into required yards indicate that architectural projections do not include stairways; and that staff has determined there is no way to allow this encroachment as an architectural encroachment. He noted that the Planning Commission is permitted in the code to add architectural projections to the list where it deems justified; he stated that the applicant states in his letter (of record) that "architectural projection" is not defined in the Zoning Code; and that this is a matter for Planning Commission judgment as to whether a stairway qualifies for such encroachment. He stated that another section of the code specifically addresses the issue of stairway encroachment into yard areas, not allowing any encroachments into the rear yards. He noted that the applicant also stated that this may be considered a fire escape into a yard area because the code does allow those to encroach up to 30 inches; however, he stated that staff is not supportive of this assertion because the stairway would be the required egress from the roof deck and would extend only to the second floor and not be a fire escape all the way to the ground. Therefore, he noted that staff believes the proposed stairway does not qualify for any of the allowed encroachments referred to previously; and stated that it would be easy to comply with the code setbacks by making a small inset into the existing wall of the family room.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned the rationale for not allowing an encroachment into the rear yard as opposed to the side yard.
In response, Senior Planner Robertson explained that the only stairway encroachments allowed in the side yards are solid concrete stair landings on grade, which are limited to 4 feet above grade; and that they are allowed in front yards as long as they do not encroach any closer than 36 inches.
Director Blumenfeld explained that there has not been compelling reason to extend this encroachment into the rear yard since side yards are typically the narrowest yards.
Senior Planner Robertson reiterated for Chairman Kersenboom that the stairway encroaches 1 foot into the rear yard, 4 feet clear from the property line instead of the required 5 feet; and mentioned that this property abuts another property.
George Bradley, 515 Bayview Drive, applicant, expressed his belief that this is a modest and reasonable proposal and that this project meets the intent of the code on several fronts; and expressed his belief that he has been treated unfairly with the Department's rejection of his proposal. He stated that this is a reasonable request because his lot is extremely small and noted that there is no other area to place this stairway without restructuring the building. He stated that a recent Beach Reporter article noted fairness as one of the top two issues in the City Council campaign; advised that the article quoted Council candidate Alan Benson as stating there are contractors who are part of the in crowd and contractors who are part of the out crowd; and that if a resident selects the wrong contractor, that resident will have problems and will not be treated fairly. He stated that as he reviews the facts given by staff, he cannot find a consistent logic, and that he is concerned that he is being unfairly discriminated against on several forums - one, being of Hispanic descent. He stated that while the Hispanic population is increasing in Los Angeles County, the Hispanic population in Hermosa Beach is decreasing. He stated that discussions with staff regarding this matter over the past several months has contained many reversals in their criteria and that he feels staff is unfairly denying him the position he has taken with the concept of this element being one of egress - stating that this is a building code requirement and is not in the zoning code; and stated that there is nothing to say that it can't be both a stairway and a fire escape. He stated that he feels the code has been mixed and matched to prevent me from exercising my right to open space.
Highlighting the accusations Mr. Bradley made against staff concerning the way he feels he has been treated, Commissioner Perrotti stated that just because staff makes a decision doesn't mean that they're being discriminatory or being unfair; and that staff is only doing their job by reading the code and applying the code. He stated that he is not pleased with Mr. Bradley's presentation and that he believes he wrongly accused staff of being unfair.
Chairman Kersenboom stated that staff is only doing the job they were hired to do; advised that he has witnessed inspectors walk people through a project; that he does not believe there is any preferential treatment; and that it is unfair of Mr. Bradley to make those statements.
Responding to Chairman Kersenboom's question, Director Blumenfeld explained that if this were brought as a Variance, the standards for review would be much tougher; noted that as an appeal as an architectural encroachment it is just an interpretation; and that the Planning Commission would not need to make mandatory findings.
Commissioner Pizer, echoed by the remaining Commissioners, concurred with Chairman Kersenboom's belief that this is a functioning element of the design, not an architectural projection.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this is not an architectural projection.
Section IV
-
Staff Items
-
Director Blumenfeld commented on the detailed incident reports which were provided by the Police Department in regard to all the businesses in the Downtown area; and he provided a summary of what was written by the Police Chief (of record), and reviewed the contents of that memo and summary report. He advised that the Police Chief reflects that the Downtown area enjoys a popular night life and that it has become very popular on weekend nights. Director Blumenfeld highlighted the call history period from December 1, 2002 until approximately January 10, 2004 for the various businesses. In addition to the downtown businesses, he advised that information was also provided for the Pitcher House because of residents complaints of excessive noise. He explained that many of the reported incidents did not happen inside the establishments where police activity was commenced, but stated that it is difficult to determine fully where some of the problems originated. He stated that in order for the Planning Commission to review a Conditional Use Permit, the Chief of Police would have to require that that review occur; and suggested that a code enforcement officer could visit the sites to observe whether there are issues that need to be addressed.
Chairman Kersenboom commented on the high disturbance calls for the Sangria and the Sharkeez establishments.
Michael Moretti, 845 Second Street, stated that he lives very close to the Pitcher House; urged the City to enforce the Conditional Use Permit at the Pitcher House; and commented on the numerous calls he has made to the Pitcher House, the Police Department and the City regarding the noise that comes from this establishment and its patrons leaving the facility. He expressed his belief that this establishment is not adhering to the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit.
Piper Moretti, 845 Second Street, commented on the noise coming from the Pitcher House establishment and its patrons; expressed her belief that the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit are not being followed; and asked that parking permits be given for the residents on First, Second and Third Streets.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Kersenboom that the Alcoholic Beverage Commission has its own enforcement officers that check for conformance with its regulations; and mentioned for Ms. Moretti that permit parking isn't within the purview of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Moretti highlighted the numerous communications she and her husband have had with the Pitcher House owner, City staff, City Council and the Police Department.
Discussion ensued with regard to obtaining more substantial input from the Police Department and the Fire Department and to send a code enforcement officer out during the evenings to investigate whether there are issues that should be addressed within the establishment Conditional Use Permits.
Commissioner Pizer asked that a public hearing be scheduled so that all parties involved can provide input.
With regard to late night enforcement activity, Director Blumenfeld advised that the code enforcement officer can be placed on a flexible work schedule to conduct evening inspections.
Chairman Kersenboom noted his preference that a code enforcement officer investigate the matter first before scheduling a public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that a representative from the Police Department be present at a scheduled public hearing to address these issues.
Chairman Kersenboom asked that all feedback and findings be reviewed prior to scheduling a public hearing and then to decide at that meeting whether to schedule a public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman commented on following up with the Police Chief's requests to review an establishment's Conditional Use Permit when necessary.
Ms. Moretti stated that the noise is usually at its worst between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M.
The Commission directed staff to schedule a formal review of Sangria and Sharkeez Conditional Use Permits in response to reported Police incidents.
-
Commissioner Items
Commissioner Pizer stated that a General Plan Committee meeting was conducted today; noted that the next meeting will be March 26, 2004, 2:00 P.M.; and advised that members of this General Plan Committee will visit various organizations/groups to invite further public participation in the General Plan Update process.
-
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 P.M.
|
