|
|
 Planning Commission Minutes NOVEMBER 16, 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 7:06 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 time, Chairman Perrotti requested that Agenda Item No. 13A, Review of Historic Preservation Plan, be considered at this time. No objection was noted.
REVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Select Subcommittee has been working on this plan for several months at the direction of City Council; and highlighted some of the components in the plan: historical summary, action steps that include a citywide survey, discussion of the Mills Act, economic incentives for rehabilitation and future actions, training of staff and City Council to identify historic properties or districts and establishment of a new Commission. He explained that some of these actions require follow-up studies and surveys by the City to identify historic properties and stated that one of the key components is for an architectural historian to provide a survey of the City as a first step to identify the historic resources in the City.
Steve Pinard, Select Committee Chairman, explained that this is basically the same plan the Planning Commission reviewed in August; advised that the Committee reworked the implementation and action steps component; that the Committee attempted to incorporate the Planning Commission’s suggestions regarding the demolition process; and included further clarification regarding the Mills Act. He explained that discussion of staff time was one issue that would have to be considered by the City, not the Committee. He stated that the Committee anticipates presenting this plan to City Council by the end of this year.
Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that this matter should be agendized for a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pinard clarified that at this time, the Committee is seeking Planning Commission comments or concerns, and that the Committee will be seeking approval of the plan at City Council level.
Commissioner Hoffman noted that this matter was initiated and requested by City Council and stated that he would support this plan going before City Council for review.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that the plan as currently proposed is not ready to go before City Council, believing that it is not comprehensive enough. He noted his desire to see a community workshop on this issue, allowing for a free exchange of ideas as opposed to a public hearing.
Commissioner Koenig thanked everyone involved for their time and effort in this process; and noted his support of a community workshop.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief that this plan needs to be pushed forward to Council.
Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that Council gave the Committee direction on what it was seeking to accomplish and that Council expects this matter to be returned to them; and he expressed his belief that Council may be able to garner more community input than what is being realized with the attempts for community input on the General Plan Update. Commissioner Hoffman stated that it is vital to impart to the residents this is a completely voluntary program. With regard to the proposed plans, Commissioner Hoffman noted some reservation with the potential delays within the discretionary process, such as reviewing the demolition process for a dwelling/structure that has been identified but not necessarily designated; and he expressed his belief that it would be beneficial both to the City and a property owner that the plan include some type of renewable/sunset designation/clause, similar to the Mills Act.
Vice-Chairman Pizer asked for clarification on the Mills Act.
Mr. Pinard explained that the Mills Act is good for a 10-year period, a rolling 10-year period, but renewable each year.
Vice-Chairman Pizer reiterated his desire that a community workshop take place on this plan.
Chairman Perrotti suggested that the wording for coordination of plan reviews be reconsidered/reworded, noting that the Planning Commission currently assumes this responsibility; and noted that there are a lot of built-in costs to this plan that need to be considered if this is implemented – pointing out that there has been zero funding approved for the General Plan Update efforts. He noted his support for a community workshop, believing it is important to obtain input from various community groups. He stated that the wording regarding “demolition” and “downtown character” needs further clarification. He noted his appreciation for all those involved in this process thus far, and ask Director Blumenfeld for his comments.
Director Blumenfeld mentioned that implementation of a historic preservation plan will impact some existing ordinances and that it will involve CEQA issues.
Commissioner Hoffman reiterated that this is completely a voluntary plan and that there is no mandatory component to any of this.
Section I
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of October 19, 2004 minutes.
With regard to Page No. 5, fourth paragraph down, Commissioner Hoffman amended the language as follows: “…14 linear foot master bedrooms…”
MOTIONby Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE the October 19, 2004, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Koenig ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for adoption
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, July 20 and August 17, September 21 and October 19, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 18, 2005 meeting and require that the applicant pay public noticing fee.Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant is still working on coordinating plans among the various property owners; and that he is seeking a continuance. He advised that the matter will need to be re-noticed and advised that this cost will be borne by the applicant. Because this has been continued, he explained that the applicant will not be required to pay for a new application fee.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE to January 18, 2005, 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. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 18, 2005 meeting and require that the applicant pay public noticing fee.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is requesting this matter be continued to January 18, 2005, because the applicant’s plans need refinement to conform with building codes; and advised that the applicant will be paying for a re-noticing fee.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE to January 18, 2005, 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, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 18, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the February 15, 2005 meeting; and explained that the applicant will be reworking the proposal to reconfigure the facility.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTIONby Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE to February 15, 2005, CUP 04-5 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-premises wine tasting in conjunction with an existing market with off-sale beer and wine at 302 Pier Avenue. 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 advised that staff is requesting this matter be continued to the December 1, 2004 meeting, noting that the applicant was not able to attend this evening’s meeting.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to CONTINUE to December 1, 2004 L-5 -- Determination of whether there are four legal dwelling units at 1533 Manhattan Avenue and 1534 Palm Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the project site is located on the north side of 1st Street, between Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway; noted that it consists of two detached units, which contain basements with two stories above; advised that each unit has 3 bedrooms; and stated that the front unit has 4.5 bathrooms and the rear unit has 3.5 bathrooms. He advised that the project complies with all zoning requirements; explained that the front steps encroach into the front yard setback; and noted that the prevailing setback in the front is approximately 10 feet. He stated that both units have the required open space, which is provided on the second story and on the roof decks; and noted that the rear unit also has open space provided on the first story deck. Director Blumenfeld advised that the garage for each unit is accessed from a common driveway with a centrally located turnaround area; noted that the required parking is provided in two-car garages; that there is one guest space provided at the end of the driveway; explained that the proposed curb cut at the driveway replaces an existing curb cut – pointing out that there’s no loss of on-street parking. He stated that this project meets all the requirements of the condominium ordinance; and mentioned that the landscape plan will need to include two 36-inch box trees, which has been incorporated as a condition of approval.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, pointed out that the existing structure is a duplex; with regard to the front stairs, he noted there is enough room to pull the stairs back into the building at the front entryway and that maintaining a 3-foot setback to those stairs is no problem. He noted that there does seem to be a bit more setback than 5 feet on most of the new homes in this immediate area; and explained that he worked with staff in using the mass of this building and stepping it back to try to achieve what has been achieved on other neighboring properties. He pointed out from the plans that the second floor completely steps back quite a bit; advised that the first floor entryway is 6’6” from the property line; mentioned that the master bedroom is 8 feet from the property line; and that the floor above is significantly further back from that, approximately 8 to 10 feet. He explained that the second floor mass steps back quite a bit; and expressed his belief that it’s a perceived bulk/mass issue more than an issue of where the front setback is. He stated that the property located two houses to the west of the subject property fronts quite a bit to the street, but noted that the mass is pretty much vertical. Mr. Tomaro stated that it appears most of the newer structures are anywhere from 15 to 17 feet back from the front curb, which would place the setback area around the 8- to 10-foot range. He expressed his belief that this project is within a couple feet of the norm.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his delight with the project design.
Director Blumenfeld explained that 3 feet is required at the front stairs and the building does not conform. He mentioned that only an open/unenclosed balcony can protrude into the front setback.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated that the large open space on the second floor is aesthetically pleasing and noted that he is supportive with the plans for the front yard.
Commissioner Koenig, echoed by Vice-Chairman Pizer, that this is a nice looking plan.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that in looking at the building, the rear setback is already at the property line and stated that any change to the setbacks would create a very significant redesign of the structure. He noted that he would not support a reduction in the size of the master bedroom to address the setback, believing that this decrease would create a new concern. Given the location where the street flattens out and the dwelling to the west of this one and the one beyond that facing Ardmore Avenue, he questioned whether anything would be accomplished by making this setback consistent with the neighborhood setback. He stated that he is more concerned with maintaining neighborhood view corridors.
Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that this is a well designed plan; and noted his concern that increasing the setback to 10 feet would create the need to dramatically revise the plans.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 04-22/PDP 04-24 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061509 for a two-unit condominium at 631 1st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this site is located on the north side of 17th Street, a walk street at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue; stated that the proposed project consists of two detached units with basements above two stories; noted that the unit fronting the walk street is the larger unit, containing 3 bedrooms, a large bonus room, and a basement; and that the rear unit contains 3 bedrooms, provides the primary living space on the upper floor, includes a bonus room, a basement and a roof deck. He advised that the building complies with the 30-foot height limit on the rear half of the lot and that it complies with the 25-foot height limit on the walk street portion. He added that all required yards are provided; explained that entries to the units are from the Hermosa Avenue frontage; and explained that the steps from the sidewalk level going up to the first floor along this frontage are within 3 feet of the sidewalk, which isn’t allowed in the front yard; but he explained that because Hermosa Avenue frontage is the side yard in this case, due to the configuration of the property, these steps are allowed because they do not exceed 4 feet from the finished grade. He added that the steps in the front yard, which is on the 17th Street side and provides access between the walk street patio and the landscaped areas, are not consistent with the front yard requirements and noted that these steps will have to be relocated. He noted that this project otherwise complies with the zoning ordinance, lot coverage and open space requirements, and conforms to the Condominium Ordinance. He mentioned that all required parking is provided; and that the project complies with lot coverage requirements and meets the open space requirements. He explained that because of the layout of the building and the lot, the extra parking was easily accommodated.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, thanked staff for their guidance in improving the parking on this site; explained that he was able to successfully camouflage the parking; with regard to the front stairs into the setback, he explained that it is a large porch that’s in front of the great room and that it will be possible to move it out of the required 3-foot required area. He noted his attempts to create a lot of character with the design of these buildings.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his delight with the project design.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman, echoed by Commissioner Allen, stated that he is pleased with the architect’s creation of two different units that look as though they are two separate homes/lots.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that this project has some unique conditions and that he would be supportive of approving it as requested, with the encroachment of the stairs.
Director Blumenfeld clarified that the Planning Commission cannot bypass the requirements under Section 1746.110B, that it’s necessary for the project to maintain the front yard setback to comply with the Zoning Ordinance; and he suggested that a Condition 1C be added to the resolution: “The project shall maintain the required front yard setback pursuant to Section 1746.110B.”
Chairman Perrotti noted his delight with the design of this project, with its distinct two units.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 04-23/PDP 04-25 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061602 for a two-unit condominium at 94 17th Street and to add Condition 1C to the resolution, “The project shall maintain the required front yard setback pursuant to Section 1746.110B.” 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 explained that the Commission is being asked to consider whether the slope conditions of this lot can be considered a convex, allowing the owner to interpolate from intermediate points on the top of the slope rather than using the corner point elevations of the lot. He explained that the lot is located on the south side of 34th Street between Manhattan Avenue and Highland Drive; advised that the lot is zoned R-2; and that it has a height limit of 30 feet. He explained that the lot along the eastern property line is relatively flat for the majority of the lot from where it fronts on the street; that it then drops down from the top of the retaining wall -- about a 3.14-foot difference in elevation at the southwest property corner -- dropping down to 1.92 feet at the southeast corner of the retaining wall. He explained that along the westerly property line, the property to the west of the subject property has a steep, initial slope from the front of the lot, and that it levels out and drops down to the top of the retaining wall to the alley pavement. He passed around a drawing of the street profile map. By illustration, he explained that the entire street had been cut along the entire length of the block; and stated that when the streets were cut, the lots were cut in order to make them accessible. He explained that one can deduce from the photos that the elevation along the street and the lots were cut. In addition, he provided photos reflecting 34th Street and along the alley, stating that what is visible is a large stepped grade from the sidewalk areas at the property line in order to access the properties; and that photos of the block show that all the properties have similar cut conditions along the lot frontage and along the alleys. He stated that this is important because this condition exists for not only the subject property, but the properties along the length of the street.
Chairman Perrotti noted that there were several letters from residents that were submitted indicating there was a lot of soil or trash dumped on this site for years which caused an artificial increase in the elevation of the lot and he questioned if that has any bearing on the Commission’s decision.
Director Blumenfeld explained since the photo evidence and street profile of the block reflect a large cut of the grade on an area wide basis that it doesn’t have much bearing on this case; and advised that staff has no way of knowing where and if people dumped soil. He advised that staff does know that all the adjacent properties share a similar slope condition and that this condition exists for the entire block and is not unique to this lot.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that the street profiles are very helpful in determining these matters and asked that future cases include street profiles when possible.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this is a convex slope.
Hearing
Section IV
-
Staff Items
Director Blumenfeld provided the Commission with a draft letter that will be sent to local planning schools, asking for help with the City’s General Plan Update
Commissioner Hoffman suggested including on the list of schools to communicate with the University of Irvine and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, expressing his belief that those schools are not too distant to consider.
The Commission noted its support of the draft letter.
-
Commissioner Items
None
-
Adjournment
At 8:36 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |