|
|
 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2004
MINUTESPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Langley Kersenboom | Chairman |
| Sam Perrotti | Vice Chairman |
| Ron Pizer | |
| Peter Hoffman | |
| Kent Allen |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:02 P.M.
-
Pledge of Allegiance
Commissioner Hoffman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
-
Roll Call
Present: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary -
Oral / Written Communications
None
At this point, Chairman Perrotti requested that the report be given by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee on the proposed Historic Preservation Implementation Plan. No objection was noted.
(Agenda Item No. 16A was taken out of agenda order.)
Steve Pinard, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Subcommittee, requested that the Planning Commission review and provide its input on the proposed plan that is anticipated to be presented to City Council later this year.
Chairman Perrotti questioned whether the subcommittee is suggesting that a professional be hired to conduct the survey to identify and evaluate the City’s historic resources.
Addressing Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry, Mr. Pinard explained that the subcommittee is not currently asking for funds to be established; advised that the subcommittee is suggesting an RFP be done to determine what the cost would be to perform this survey; and highlighted the options that could be considered for this survey. He explained that the survey could be detailed enough to cover the entire City; or that it could be limited to include a portion of the City; or that it could be done on an as-needed basis. He noted another option that the subcommittee might be able to guesstimate what the cost might be, presenting some ideas the City may be able to consider.
In response to Chairman Perrotti’s concern with the possibility of adding another layer to the permit process, Mr. Pinard explained that if the plan is approved, someone from the City might be assigned to manage the plan; but pointed out that the plan is not in a final stage, that it needs further development. He pointed out that this is an entirely voluntary concept.
Commissioner Hoffman noted the intent to concentrate on buildings 50 years or older.
In response to Vice-Chairman Pizer’s inquiry regarding the adoption of the Mills Act, Mayor Yoon explained that the Mills Act is a State statute that creates an incentive for property owners to obtain historic preservation designation.
Director Blumenfeld added that the Mills Act provides tax incentives to designated historic properties and provides significant annual tax relief to owners for these recognized private property landmarks.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his concern that the City’s budget may not be able to handle the additional staff time needed to carry this effort forward; and he suggested that the plan maintain simplicity at this time and be applicable to Hermosa Beach, believing that it will have a better chance in getting to the next step. He noted his belief that the plan as presented may be too complex, too comprehensive for the City at this time; and he noted his concern with limited City staff. He stated that this plan should be included in the City’s General Plan Update.
Mr. Pinard expressed his belief that the plan is not developed enough to be included in the General Plan Update at this time.
Commissioner Hoffman echoed the concerns with the City’s budget and the expenses that may be necessary to implement this plan and questioned if the Community Development Department has the time to undertake this effort.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City has not added staff to this department in some time; expressed his belief that because of the detail that needs to be considered in this plan, extra staff most likely would be required; and pointed out that a decision to enact such a plan with a corresponding increase in workload, will require additional staff. Director Blumenfeld explained that some of the proposed recommendations are not labor intensive, that some of the recommendations could be done by way of making amendments to the City’s ordinances, such as nonconformities, making the ordinances more responsive to historic preservation.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that public support of this concept may shift Council’s budget allocation priorities.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his support for Director Blumenfeld’s suggestion to possibly change some ordinances to be more responsive to historic preservation.
Mr. Pinard stated that the target date for the plan to be presented to City Council is mid-October, assuming the plan is acceptable to the Planning Commission. He questioned whether the subcommittee could enlist the help of Planning Commissioner Koenig to further develop the plan.
Director Blumenfeld stated that he would check with the City Attorney on Commissioner Koenig’s participation.
Commissioner Koenig commended everyone involved for this comprehensive report and for their efforts in historic preservation.
Geoff Hirch, member of the subcommittee, suggested that the Planning Commission consider putting a dollar limit on the amount to be expended for a survey.
Mayor Yoon thanked and commended the Commission and the subcommittee for their efforts in this endeavor.
Chairman Perrotti stated that setting a dollar limit should be left to the discretion of Council.
There was unanimous consensus to endorse the subcommittee’s plan.
Section I
Consent Calendar
Any Planning Commissioner or member of the public wishing to pull an item from below may request to do so at this time.
-
Approval of Approval of July 20, 2004 minutes.
Chairman Perrotti stated that because Commissioner Koenig was not on the Planning Commission in June, his vote on the June 15th Minutes should have been to abstain.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE the July 20, 2004, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for adoption
a. Resolution 04-28 approving an addition and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling with nonconforming guest parking, and front yard, side yard and garage setbacks resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 760 Loma Drive.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE Resolution No. 04-28. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None
Section II
Public Hearing(s)
-
CUP 04-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to an R-1 Planned Development for four single-family homes to modify the retaining wall and landscaping areas at the rear of the homes at 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941 Power Street (continued from June 15 and July 20, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 21, 2004 meeting.Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is asking for another continuance of this matter in order to complete the hydrology studies.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE CUP 04-2 to the September 21, 2004 meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To approve the floor plan alterations, extended hours and outdoor dining. 2) To direct staff as deemed appropriate in regards to the request for on-sale general alcohol.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is asking for a continuance of this matter to the September 21, 2004, meeting because the applicant is not able to attend this evening’s meeting.
Chairman Perrotti pointed out that a letter was received from one of the neighbors living near this facility, indicating that they too would not be able to attend this evening’s meeting.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing and reminded the audience members that they would have a chance to speak at the next meeting.
Norm Levin, 720 24th Street, requested clarification on how staff analyzes projects.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff does conduct site visits, takes into consideration the surrounding area and the effects upon neighboring properties, and that staff prepares an evaluation based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance as well as other codes. He added that a summary of the findings are found in staff reports.
Mr. Levin noted his concern that the open patio activities will create a nuisance for the neighbors; addressed his concern with the negative impact this condition may have upon his property value; and noted his concern with the loss of privacy, increased noise, limited parking in the area, and potential need for more security. He questioned if the public hearing notice cited the proposed extended hours and request for an alcohol permit.
Elaine Lipkin, 727 24th Street, echoed Mr. Levin’s concerns; stated that she is a tenant in the office building; advised that she works in her office until 9:00 P.M. two to three evenings a week as a psychotherapist; and that she leases her office one or two other evenings. She addressed her concern with parking and expressed her belief that the outside dining will be disruptive to her business and to the business of other office building tenants.
Jason Wallace, resident living on 24th Place, noted his concerns that the patio dining will create a nuisance and suggested that consideration be given to replacing the existing wall with a full glass wall, thereby giving the applicant the view they are seeking.
Teryl Bernette, 24th Place resident, echoed the concerns with the inadequate parking in this area; stated that this neighborhood should not be subjected to a neighborhood bar; and expressed opposition to approving a full liquor license at this establishment. Ms. Bernette expressed her belief that the 6-foot glass barrier will not provide relief for the residents.
Mike Brudek, 725 24th Street, highlighted his concerns with parking, excess noise and disruptive bar activities.
Bob Albert, 730 24th Street, echoed the concerns expressed this evening.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE CUP 04-3 to the September 21, 2004 meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request to permit the construction and remodel to an existing single-family home; explained that the proposed increase in valuation is 148 percent rather the 100 percent maximum allowed; that the lot coverage is proposed at 70.9 percent as opposed to 65 percent; advised that the property has a nonconforming front yard of zero feet; that it has less than 60 percent required open space directly accessible to the primary living area required under the code; and that it has one parking space as opposed to the required two parking spaces, plus the guest space required under the parking ordinance. He stated that the applicant is proposing to enlarge the garage and driveway, to remodel the existing 956-square-foot structure, noting that the living area will now be 2,224 square feet. He noted that the nonconforming front yard will remain as well as the nonconforming open space; and advised that the proposed addition causes the lot coverage to increase by approximately 14 percent primarily to accommodate the new garage. He commented on meeting the four mandatory findings for granting a Variance: 1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question; 3) the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and 4) the Variance is consistent with the General Plan.
With respect to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes the applicant is not able to make this finding since there are 38 other lots of similar size in the vicinity which are classified as small lots; that since the lot is classified as a small lot, it’s permitted to provide all its open space on decks, which means that it has an advantage that isn’t possessed by other properties – pointing out that the property already has some relief from the development standards relative to location of open space.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicants note in their correspondence that the location of the property on a walk street is unique, that the condition limits the location of the garage to the rear of the property and complicates providing 60 percent of useable open space directly adjacent to primary living area; however, he noted that this condition exists for all properties along a walk street and that it is not unique to this property.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Finding No. 2 could only be made if the Commission agrees that the applicant and owner wish to exercise their property rights that are possessed by others in the neighborhood to construct a home to meet their current standards of livability and reasonable size. If the Planning Commission supports this finding, he stated that the Commission would have to concur with the applicants’ idea of what constitutes livability and that a preference for a certain size home, is considered a substantial property right. He advised that the Planning Commission also has to determine whether the lot coverage and valuation standards are so restrictive that the owners are otherwise being denied a property right. He pointed out that making this finding is difficult since the applicant can simply construct a new home that would meet the applicants’ general objectives without the need for a Variance for lot coverage or valuation standards.
Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief the other two findings are possible to make, that the proposed project is not overly large, that it is consistent with project sizes in the area, and that it also is not a violation of the Zoning Ordinance or General Plan.
Commissioner Hoffman requested clarification on the applicants’ assertion that a precedent had been set at 259 31st Street.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission made a determination to deny that request; and that on appeal, the applicant was granted by City Council a variance from lot coverage, since the work was at the second floor level and in an area not readily visible to surrounding properties.
Commissioner Allen requested further clarification on Finding No. 2.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the Commission needs to find whether there are other properties that enjoy a property right that is basically denied to this property owner and if the applicants are put at such a disadvantage that there is not parity between the project and the properties in the surrounding area.
Barbara Zondiros, 311 31st Street, applicant, stated that a larger house is needed to accommodate her growing family; noted that while there is a zero front yard setback, they do have an easement and do use the front 12 feet as their front yard; and she requested that this area be considered as part of the open space requirement – noting that this is a 12 x 30 foot area. She indicated her plans to put on a second story to accommodate the three bedrooms, opening up the bottom floor for the living room, kitchen and dining areas. She highlighted her preference to keep the bedrooms upstairs; and she stated that it is important for her family to continue to enjoy the sense of community in her neighborhood, on this walk street. She added that if they do leave the bedrooms downstairs, they will have to set back the front wall 14 feet, which leaves too little room for a kitchen, dining area and living room, sitting back from the street 26 feet on a 30 x 70-square-foot lot. Ms. Zondiros pointed out that none of the neighbors’ views will be affected; noted that the renovations to the 259 31st Street project maxed out the lot coverage; and stated that she should be afforded the same variance – pointing out that her project will not be as large.
Tom Zondiros, 311 31st Street, applicant, stated that he does not wish to build a new house; expressed his love for this neighborhood; and expressed strong opposition to not being able to watch his kids play outside from the first floor living room areas – pointing out his plans to put the bedrooms upstairs. He stated that this is a modest plan.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that he is not able to make Finding No. 1, noting that there’s nothing about this lot that differentiates it from other lots in the area; and pointed out that there are already other exemptions given on this property.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he is not able to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2.
Commissioner Koenig noted his concurrence with the lack of findings.
Commissioner Allen stated that he is not able to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2.
Chairman Perrotti stated that he cannot make Finding No. 1; noted his concern that there are 38 other lots of similar size and the potential with setting a precedent; mentioned that the City has already made an exception for lots of this size and that modifications have already been made to the building standards to give these small lots a break; and he suggested that the applicants consider modifying their plans.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to DENY VAR 04-2 -- Variance to allow greater than 65% lot coverage; to allow greater than 100% increase in valuation while maintaining a nonconforming front yard; and to allow required open space not adjacent to a primary living area at 311 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Section III
Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this project consists of a single lot on the south side of 1st Street, east of Ardmore Avenue, west of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); mentioned that the lot is unusually large -- 50 feet in width and a depth of over 130 feet; explained that the proposed project consists of four attached two-story units with a common driveway to be located along the westerly side of the lot; that the units are designed with two floor plans, with the front and rear units (Nos. 1 and 4) being a mirror image of each other and entering from the front and rear of the project; and that the middle two units (Nos. 2 and 3) being a mirror image of each other and entering from the side. He stated that each unit will contain a basement with a private garage and two stories, with a mezzanine above; noted that the buildings are designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit; that lot coverage is 56 percent, well under the 65 percent maximum allowed; that all required yards are provided – pointing out that the front yard exceeds the required minimum by 4 feet. He stated that the project conforms to all zoning requirements. He advised that parking for each unit is accessed perpendicular to a common driveway provided along the west side of the lot and is possible because of the 50-foot lot width. He explained that while parking maneuverability is tight, it does comply with the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance, but pointed out staff’s concern with the columns that fall within the parking area, which could interfere with the turning radius. He added that the driveway curb cut will replace an existing curb cut located on the eastern side of the street and noted that there will be no loss of on-street parking.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Fran Uralman, representing the applicant, stated that the project conforms to all zoning and design standards – pointing out that it exceeds several of those standards; advised that the front yard setback of 9 feet also goes to 15 feet at the deepest portion; and explained that the design will be contemporary Mediterranean architecture, which fits well in the neighborhood. She indicated the applicant accepts all conditions of approval.
Mr. Goiton, project architect, stated that it has been determined there is enough room to safely maneuver the parking space for Unit 3, near the columns.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned why the architect chose to load this property from the west as opposed to the east.
Aram Badoyan, project architect, explained for Commissioner Hoffman that the site is sloped, that it has a significant grade difference; advised that the views tend to be towards the west; and explained that if it were situated to the east, the building would have had to been placed further to the back of the lot.
Otto Palmer, applicant’s representative, stated that all these conditions were taken into consideration, but that the primary difficulty with the project is the steep grade of the driveway to the east – noting that it exceeded 12 percent. He noted their intent to create a site that is more open.
Walt Kasha, 601 1st Street, noted his concern with the limited parking in this area and stated that this project should have more guest parking spaces on site.
Director Blumenfeld stated that City code requires one guest parking space per two units and advised that this project complies with the parking requirements.
Peter Gramski, resident in the 10-unit complex on 1st Street, west of the property, stated that his complex requires one guest parking space per unit; commented on the growing demand for parking in this neighborhood; and he urged the Commission to require additional parking spaces. He asked that his property, the pool/spa on the west side, be protected from project dirt/debris.
Cindy Landing, 540 1st Street, echoed the concerns for parking demand.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted that this applicant meets the parking requirements.
Commissioner Koenig highlighted the shortage of parking areas citywide.
Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned what can be done to protect the neighboring properties during construction.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the City does have building code provisions to protect adjacent properties.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that the City needs to address the increasing parking problems; and stated that an independent parking review should be done to determine if maneuvering room around the columns in the parking area is adequate.
Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that most of the City’s residents are faced with limited parking areas; and stated that this project conforms to all City ordinances.
Commissioner Allen suggested that a plan be submitted by the applicant to reflect how the adjacent property will be protected from construction dirt/debris.
Director Blumenfeld stated that it would be reasonable to attach a condition that the project be developed to minimize disruption/damage to adjacent properties; and that the applicant submit a plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department to protect the adjacent property with such things as protective sheeting or other devices. With respect to grading activities, he noted that the City aggressively enforces storm water quality requirements with sandbagging and other measures; and pointed out that the site can be wet down during grading activities to minimize dust.
Chairman Perrotti suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors to keep the complaints at bay; noted that the project does comply with the City’s parking ordinance; and suggested that a study be made to determine if safe maneuvering around the columns can be accomplished.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CON 04-18/PDP 04-19 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 61623 for a four-unit condominium at 598 1st Street; and moved that an independent parking engineer evaluate the parking report with respect to the location of columns and turning radii.
Commissioner Hoffman offered a friendly amendment to the motion, requesting that a condition be added to protect the adjacent neighbors’ property during construction.
Vice-Chairman Pizer and Commissioner Koenig accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.
Director Blumenfeld clarified the Commission’s intent for the applicant to submit a plan that will protect the adjacent property from debris or construction material; and with respect to grading, that the soil be wet down to prevent migration.
Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Palmer stated that they will meet with the neighbors to address their concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
The amended motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 21, 2004 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicants are requesting to continue this matter in order to allow more time to make corrections to the plans.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Kevin Souza, 501 Manhattan Avenue, noted his concern with another beach cottage being torn down; addressed his concern with parking limitations during the construction phase, construction noise, and migrating dirt/debris from the project. He requested that a temporary retaining wall be constructed during construction and that the site be wet down during grading activities.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE CON 04-16/PDP 04-17 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061452 for a three-unit condominium at 445 Manhattan Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at 9:00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:07 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this three-story home was constructed in 1982; stated that the building is currently nonconforming to the 30-foot height limit and current parking setback requirement since the existing setback is 11.5 feet as opposed to 17 feet, as required under the code; noted that these nonconforming conditions are not proposed to change with the improvements; and explained that the variance is necessary because the applicant is proposing to merge the two existing 30-foot wide lots together, which would now require a 5-foot side yard requirement – pointing out that this side yard condition is not proposed to increase. He advised that the applicant is also proposing to demolish the existing dwelling at 111 34th Street, proposing to construct an addition to the existing dwelling at 3410 Hermosa Avenue; and stated that the addition will create one single-family home over the two lots. Director Blumenfeld noted that the proposed merger creates the need for a variance and that the lot merger is needed to accommodate the applicants’ plan to connect the southerly expansion to the existing dwelling for a guest room rather than constructing a detached separate dwelling on the property. He advised that the applicants are attempting to restore what they consider to be a historically and architecturally significant building.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant argues the required 5-foot setback on the north side of the existing Lawrence House, which was designed by a noted architect, cannot be achieved without demolition of the existing house; stated that the setback is not the result of the modification to the Lawrence House on the side in question, but is due to the proposed expansion to the south and the merging of the two lots. He commented on the meeting of the four primary findings for a variance, as noted in staff report 1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question; 3) the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and 4) the Variance is consistent with the General Plan.
With respect to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld stated that the subject lots in their current configuration are fairly typical of surrounding properties and that they do not contain any unique physical conditions; that they are two 30-foot wide lots, and the prevailing lot width in the area is 30 feet; therefore, he stated that the standard yard for all lots in this situation is 3 feet. He pointed out that what’s unusual in this case is that when the two lots are combined, the side yard requirement increases; since the lot will now be 60 feet wide, he indicated that the new side yard requirement for the lot is 5 feet; that application of the 5-foot side yard requirement to the existing condition is inconsistent with prevailing side yard requirements in the area and would seem to be extraordinary and exceptional; and that this arguably creates an unnecessary hardship for this property.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner wishes to exercise a property right to expand an existing single-family home to take advantage of the purchase of an adjacent property; and while the variance is necessary for this dwelling addition to be connected, as proposed by the applicant, he stated that there are other options available to the applicants to exercise their property right that would not require a variance, such as developing a detached single-family home. He pointed out that the Commission may wish to consider the unique circumstances that surround this case relating to the historical conditions of the property and the fact that the subject variance is limited to the right to maintain a 3-foot side yard, which is typical of side yards on other properties in the area characterized by 30-foot lots.
With respect to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Director Blumenfeld stated that the project will not be materially detrimental to property improvements in the area; and, in fact, it’s unique in that one building will be developed where conceivably two separate buildings can be developed; and concluded that the project is otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that this is a nonconforming remodel at its most basic element; that one could create a condition of approval that this project, as configured, shall remain one dwelling and that the lot shall not be unmerged. He questioned the possibility of future expansion on this property.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the valuation is based on the existing building versus the proposed project, that it’s a cumulative calculation.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Kevin Dailey, project architect, provided the Commission with additional drawings to reflect the overall scale of the development; stated that staff report was comprehensively written; explained that one of the reasons for developing this project was to provide the existing house with some outdoor space; and stated that the proposed project will increase the neighbors’ views, will increase air circulation in this area of the block; and he pointed out that this is a low density project.
Chairman Perrotti asked for input on the exterior use of the stainless steel.
In response, Mr. Dailey stated that the zinc coated stainless steel will quickly oxidize to a pale color.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that the applicants have created an extraordinary situation given the combination of the two lots; stated that it is a reasonable expectation of anyone that an existing home would not be torn down so that one might acquire an additional lot; and that the reasonable expectation would be that an existing home, were someone to purchase the adjacent property, would be able to remain with the existing footprint; and stated that he could make Finding No. 1.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he is not able to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2 because there are other options available to exercise their property rights.
Commissioner Koenig stated that he is able to make Finding No. 1, but that he is not able to make Finding No. 2, expressing his belief that there are other options available.
Commissioner Allen noted his concurrence with Vice-Chairman Pizer’s and Commissioner Koenig’s comments.
Chairman Perrotti stated that the circumstances are unique, noting that this situation does not often happen in Hermosa Beach where one has two separate lots becoming merged; and he noted his support in making all four findings. He stated that this is an opportunity for the City to approve something that’s not only unique, but also increases open space and air circulation, and decreased density.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to DENY VAR 04-3 -- Variance to allow a three-foot side yard rather than the required five feet at 111 34th Street and 3410 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer NOES: Hoffman, Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 21, 2004 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld noted the applicant’s request for a continuance.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE CON 04-17/PDP 04-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for a two-unit condominium at 85 15th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment corrections.
Director Blumenfeld explained that it is necessary to make corrections to these code sections due to errors made during the text amendment process; in the course of making a change to the Parking Ordinance and to the M-1 Permitted Use List, he explained that there were some clerical errors made; advised that changes to the Parking Ordinance were approved that allowed non- required parking to be permitted as an option for offsite parking; noted that Council had also considered, and rejected, adding leased parking as an option for providing required parking offsite; and that direction by Council was not carried forward in the Ordinance. He noted that the current code includes the option for leased parking, along with other changes that were approved by Council in that Ordinance, and that it incorrectly shows storage and ministorage on the M-1 Permitted Use List; advised that the Ordinance in its final form was not reviewed by the Community Development Department; and that presently, the City Clerk routinely routes all code text amendments that originate in the Community Development Department (CDD) back to the CDD for review prior to final reading by Council. He pointed out that no projects had been approved on the basis of these incorrect code provisions.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE Text amendment corrections to Sections 17.44.090 -- Off-Street Parking Location and 17.28.020 -- M-1 Permitted Use List. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 21, 2004 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant needs more time to evaluate project plans and to evaluate whether there is evidence to support a legal determination on their property.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to CONTINUE to September 21, 2004, NR 04-2 -- Roof deck addition to an existing duplex with a nonconforming side yard resulting in the extension of an existing nonconforming side yard at 1085-1087 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date to August 15, 2005.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting an extension of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map; and that the applicant expects to conclude the map process over the next year, but is requesting an additional extension in order to complete the project.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CON 00-15/PDP 00-16 -- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26020 for a two-unit condominium at 852 and 856 Monterey Boulevard, extending the expiration date to August 15, 2005. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
HEARING(S)
Section IV
-
Commissioner Items
None
-
Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:43 P.M.
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |