|
|
 Planning Commission Minutes MARCH 15, 2005
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of February 15, 2005 Minutes..
Addressing Commissioner Hoffman’s inquiry regarding a memorandum from the Director, on how Commissioners should recuse themselves from consideration of a matter, Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commissioner should indicate their reason for recusal and he gave specific examples.
Commissioner Hoffman advised that he had recused himself from consideration of February 15, 2005 Agenda Item No. 16 because that project representative was working for him on a different project at that time and stated that the Minutes should reflect that reason.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE the February 15, 2005, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
a. Resolution P.C. 05-8 approving an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for an R-1 planning development to modify the retaining wall and landscaping areas at the rear of the residences at 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941 Power Street.
b. Resolution P.C. 05-10 approving a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-premises wine sampling in conjunction with a market with off-sale beer and wine at 302 Pier Avenue.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE Resolution Nos. P.C. 05-8 and P.C. 05-10. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
For the benefit of those in attendance, Chairman Perrotti asked that those matters being continued this evening be considered as the first order of business: Item No. 6 (which is being withdrawn by the applicant), Nos. 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16; and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on any of these items. There being no request for input, Chairman Perrotti asked that one motion be made to continue these items.
Director Blumenfeld advised that most of the requests for continuances were made by the applicants, with the exception of Item No. 11, which was requested by staff because there was not ample time to review the newly submitted technical study.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE Item Nos. 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16. The motion carried as follows:
| AYES: | Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer |
| NOES: | None |
| ABSTAIN: | None |
| ABSENT: | None |
-
Staff Recommended Action: The project was withdrawn by the applicant. (Refer to the discussion above).
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from this matter, indicating that the applicant’s representative is currently working on a project for him.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a request to rezone and redesignate the property at 722 1st Street from SPA-7 to R-2; stated that the lot is currently vacant and is located 130 feet from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); and mentioned that the lot was most recently used for auto storage as part of the Vasek Polak auto dealership. He advised that the property to the north is also designated SPA-7, which contains a Holiday Inn Express; and that the property borders commercial uses to the south, located in the City of Redondo Beach. Director Blumenfeld explained that the issue of where to establish the commercial lot depth is a recurring concern for the Planning Commission and City Council; stated that the most current zoning patterns were established in the ‘80s under the Multi-Use Corridor Study; and that over the years, there have been several proposals to rezone/redesignate commercial properties, thereby reducing the commercial lot depth. He stated that for the most part, City Council and the Planning Commission have supported maintaining the commercial lot depth, with a few exceptions to rezoning transitional lots that could not effectively be tied into their surrounding commercial frontage; and noted that these sites which were rezoned include properties on 2nd, 4th and 10th Streets, properties all west of PCH. He added that unlike this property all others were located a greater depth from PCH, with the prevailing commercial depths on the same block or adjacent blocks.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the current property combined with the adjacent commercial frontage provides a potential commercial site of 12,741 square feet; advised that if the property was rezoned/redesignated, it would be reduced to 8,221 square feet; and that the commercial lot depth would be reduced from 190 feet to 130 feet. He pointed out that a reasonable question for the Planning Commission to consider regarding the proposed rezoning is what one can expect to develop on a parcel of 8,221 square feet with a depth of 130 feet; advised for example that a parcel of this size will support approximately 5,700 square feet of 2-story retail development with 26-car parking, or with tuck-under parking. Currently one could accommodate up to 8,700 square feet of 2-story development with 40-car parking, noting that there is an approximate 35-percent reduction in commercial development with the proposed zone change and General Plan Amendment.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant argues the property cannot be effectively developed because of its small size and even if it’s combined with the commercial property along PCH, it suffers from poor access and poor visibility; further, that there has been no interest in commercial redevelopment for office condominium or retail use. He advised that the applicant provided a fiscal analysis, which is attached to the report, with arguments that there is more tax revenue generated with the proposed residential use than a potential commercial use; and that the analysis concludes residential property taxes are slightly higher than the sales tax generated if it was redeveloped commercially. He pointed out that staff believes there are some problems with that fiscal analysis, because it is limited in scope, doesn’t address potential sales tax and commercial revenues generated over time or the increased service cost for residential use over time; and that it also does not analyze the potential revenue generated by combining the subject property with the commercial property to the east or to the south, which can also be commercially developed. He advised that the Commission must weigh the benefits of rezoning the commercially designated property along the commercial corridor against the drawbacks in losing the relatively small amount of commercial property that exists in the City. He added that reducing the commercial depth also renders the remainder of the site less usable for quality commercial development since there’s less land available for enhancing the site or for providing project mitigations.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Bill Messori, Senior Vice-President of Mar Ventures, owner of the property, advised that Mar Ventures purchased four properties from the Vasek Polak company approximately 6-7 months ago, including the property listed on Agenda Item No. 6, 737 3rd Street, two empty lots between 2nd and 3rd Streets, and this property at 722 1st Street. He stated that Mar Ventures first intention was to develop each of these properties commercially; advised that the applicant hired a firm to develop floor plans for all these properties, providing layouts for office condominiums and medical condominiums at each of these sites; and that they hired Grubb & Ellis to market the properties in August of last year. Mr. Messori explained that they have been attempting to market these properties for the past six months; that six weeks ago, they started to market it just as commercial land for sale; and pointed out that they were unsuccessful in developing these sites and thus began a proposal for build-to-suits. He advised that they did get significant interest for the properties at 737 3rd Street and the lots between 2nd and 3rd streets, and that they withdrew that item from the Planning Commission agenda because they believed the depth of those lots were pretty much aligned with other projects the Commission has rejected in the past.
Mr. Messori expressed his strong belief that 722 3rd Street can never be viably developed as a commercial property; that there’s really no place to access this site, which is key to a successful development; that understanding if this site were combined with the Coast Glass site, they would have a larger potential for development; however, if one is not able to access the site, it’s unlikely that anyone will want to build something of any significant size on this property. He commented on the route one has to take to access this site, expressing his belief this lack of access is one of the reasons for the poor performance of the Vasek Polak dealership at this location. He added that this site is not a very big piece of property, and therefore, one can’t create a critical mass, that it’s not a destination property. He stated that this site is not visible from PCH, that it’s too isolated for commercial development; and noted that it is essentially landlocked from the north and extremely difficult to access. He reiterated that there is no critical mass, that it’s isolated, that it’s not visible from the main highway, and that there’s no access to the property, all reasons why Mar Ventures, as a commercial developer, believes this site is not a viable commercial piece of property.
Mr. Messori commented on the last three similar requests that were approved by the Planning Commission; and he expressed his belief that the project at 722 1st Street falls into the category of the three that were approved in the past by the Commission. He advised that the current site yields the City only $460 a year; and that as a residential development, it would yield the City approximately $5,700. He stated that they did run the analysis combining it with Coast Glass, with the assumption that the Coast Glass site combined with theirs may be accessible, and their analysis suggests that as a combined project, it would yield the City $15,000 if it were all residential and $12,800 if it were all retail/commercial. Mr. Messori expressed his belief that rezoning this property will not have any significant or detrimental effect upon the City’s commercial property because they do not believe it will ever be developed in that manner. Mr. Messori mentioned that this site was residential in the early 30’s through the early 60’s, then demolished, and that it has been a car lot for the remaining years. He concluded that their proposal will create a significant benefit for Hermosa Beach, both aesthetically and fiscally.
Larry Daniels, Senior Associate with Grubb & Ellis, stated that he has been attempting to sell the four lots since August of last year; and advised that the demand for three of the lots has been fairly good but that there has been zero interest with this lot. He explained that real estate developers look for two things: location and highest and best use – pointing out his belief this parcel does not lend itself to either of those creeds. He noted that one businessman was initially interested in the property until he learned there was no exposure to the main highway. He commented on the lack of access to this site; expressed his professional opinion that the highest and best use for this parcel is residential; and stated that because of its inadequacies, this property will never support a commercial venture.
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, explained that the proposed project will be far below the 65-percent lot coverage restriction; and stated that these two units will look more like single-family residences with nice driveways and individual, private backyards.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that this property was recently purchased at fair market value, knowing the conditions, zoning, etc.; and that as far as an economic gain/loss, he stated that he does not feel he can take that into consideration. He noted that what he will take into consideration is the City’s policy of attempting to maintain commercial properties; expressed his belief that this property does have potential if it were combined with the property on PCH; and stated that he is not in favor of changing the zoning.
Having once lived at 608 1st Street, Commissioner Allen expressed his belief that this small parcel is way off the main street; that it’s narrow and that he does not see any great commercial development potential for this site; and stated that while he does not like giving up commercial property, he would approve the applicant’s proposal because of the limitations of this site.
Chairman Perrotti stated that the rezoning proposals for these properties along the highway have been difficult decisions; explained that some of those proposals have been easier because they were quite a big distance from PCH; pointed out that in this instance, there is commercial on three sides, even though some of the commercial is in Redondo Beach; and because the City has such limited commercially zoned property -- 14 percent zoned commercial and only 6 percent of that on the commercial corridors -- he noted his reluctance to rezone this parcel. He expressed his belief there may eventually be some commercial use, if not with just the Coast Glass, possibly with the adjoining parcel on the Redondo Beach side.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to DENY the applicant’s request for GP 05-1/ZON 05-1 -- General Plan amendment from CC, Commercial Corridor, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and zone change from SPA7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two-Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, to allow the development of up to six residential units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 737 3rd Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to April 19, 2005 meeting. (Refer to the motion on Page 2).
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from this matter, indicating that the applicant is his next door neighbor.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on the north side of 25th Street in the R1-A district, which is the only R1 district that allows two units per lot; and noted that it’s designated this way because the lots are rather large, in this case 7,755 square feet. He explained that the proposed project consists of two detached units containing basements with two stories above; that in each case, the primary living area is in a traditional floor plan, with the living area on the first floor and bedrooms on the upper level; noted that the units are designed in a Mediterranean style, with a smooth stucco finish and mission tile roofs; and advised that the project complies with all zoning requirements for this zone. He stated that the buildings are designed to comply with the height limit of 25 feet; noted that the required yards are provided; that the parking is provided at the basement level for each unit, with a common driveway access from 25th Street; and mentioned that the project provides an extra guest parking space, one more than what is required. Senior Planner Robertson noted that the driveway slope has a maximum of 20 percent with 10 percent transitions, which is allowed by the zoning ordinance; and explained that in this way, they are able to get three levels of building in the 25-foot height limit. He added that the project complies with the lot coverage maximum of 65 percent, as it calculates to be just over 60 percent; and that both units provide ample open space, the open space being provided at the ground level for both units.
Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned if there is enough room to maneuver cars.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that there is adequate room for maneuvering and advised that it meets the City’s requirements.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, commented on the advantages of having a 50-foot wide lot, especially for the turning radius; noted that not only is there 30 feet between the garage doors, but there is also better accessibility before making a turn to come out of the driveway; and noted that the open space is on the ground level. She stated that the applicant concurs will all conditions of approval, noting that the project meets all standards. She added that a few minor revisions will be necessary and will be corrected. She highlighted the numerous details on the plans and added that the owner/developer plans on living in one of the units.
Sal Mayo, 525 25th Street, stated that he has lived in his home for 18 years; and asked for clarification on the allowance of his neighbor’s boundary wall at 531 25th Street to extend beyond the public right of way.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Sheet T-1 of the project plans show that the wall is located 5 feet from the curb. Director Blumenfeld advised that the wall would require an encroachment permit because it does encroach into the public right of way; and stated that it would be permissible to put a wall in this area as long as it’s not part of the structure on the encroachment area.
In response to Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry, Director Blumenfeld explained that this is the area where City Council decided they weren’t going to require sidewalks because they wanted to maintain this neighborhood look, with lawns extending out to the curb rather than with concrete sidewalks.
Mr. Mayo asked if he or his neighbors could have the same condition.
Director Blumenfeld explained that an application for an encroachment permit would require review by the Public Works Director with an appeal possible to City Council; and reiterated that as long as a structure isn’t being built, as long as it is a wall or other improvement, then it is permissible to obtain an encroachment permit.
Mr. Mayo noted that in some instances, this creates a safety hazard, noting that some vehicles must pull out further into the street away from the wall to allow for passengers to load/unload; and he mentioned that this is a narrow street.
John Green, 501 25th Street, noted his concern with the amount of square footage being proposed, believing that the size is too large for this area; asked for, and received, input with regard to measuring the 25-foot height restriction and critical points; addressed his concern with the driveway excavation immediately to his east and the possible ramifications to his cinder block wall which separates the two properties; and questioned if the site will be fenced off so that his kids and others will not be able to gain access to the construction site.
Chairman Perrotti noted that Mr. Green can make an appointment with staff to review the plans and obtain further clarification if desired; and stated that construction sites of this magnitude are typically fenced off to prevent unauthorized individuals from accessing the site.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Mr. Green that staff can review with him the location of the wall in question, noting that the proposed plan shows that wall remaining; with regard to the grade, he indicated there is not a huge difference in elevation between the two sites, so while the property needs to be protected, there is little issue with the change of grade. He added that if there are any problems with respect to damage to his property as a result of construction activities, the Building Code addresses that issue and stated that Mr. Green would need to directly communicate with the City if any damage occurs – noting that the applicant would be required to correct the condition, or if the damage is severe, the applicant would be required to post bond to correct the condition as a means to recover costs to correct the condition.
Chairman Perrotti noted for Mr. Green that the contact phone numbers are supposed to be posted on all construction sites.
Mr. Green stated that this project abuts Valley Park and he asked that the construction debris be thoroughly discarded and questioned how much construction notice the applicant is required to give the neighbors.
Director Blumenfeld cited Condition No. 13, which reflects that prior to the issuance of a building permit, abutting property owners and residents living within 100 feet shall be notified of the commencement date of construction and advised that a building permit is not issued until that notice is sent out. He added that there is no set requirement for a certain amount of notice time.
Director Blumenfeld commented on the routine activities and visits by building inspectors who verify the siting of the building(s) and the setbacks; and stated that if a sump pump is needed, it will be addressed during the plan check phase.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti noted that the applicant has agreed to correct any deficiencies found by staff and noted that the proposal does not maximize lot coverage.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CON 05-7/PDP 05-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061986 for a two-unit condominium at 511 25th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To postpone the public hearing for the project to be properly evaluated and noticed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Refer to the motion on Page 2.)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on Bayview Drive, which is considered the front in this situation, a through lot; stated that the rear yard abuts Monterey Boulevard, which is where the garage is located; noted that the property is currently developed with a one-story single-family dwelling and a detached 2-car garage with access from Monterey Boulevard on the rear; and stated that the property is currently nonconforming because of this garage with respect to rear and side yard requirements and that the garage is substandard to current parking space size requirements. To address these issues, he noted that the applicants are proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and to construct a new garage with a second-story addition above and a first story addition to connect the new second story addition to the existing dwelling. He noted that the project involves a new garage of 462 square feet, an addition of 462 square feet of livable space above the garage, and 145 square feet on the first floor; and advised that there’s no remodeling proposed to the existing dwelling. As a result, he indicated the proposed expansion increases the overall living area of the house from 1,371 square feet to 1,978 square feet. He stated that a problem arises because the proposed garage in its new location is going to be on the rear property line, which requires a variance from the required 5-foot setback; and noted that the garage setback does not meet the 17-foot setback requirement from the sidewalk, requiring a variance from the garage setback requirement.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that other than this variance, the project does comply with all zoning requirements; and that the project represents a 41-percent increase in valuation, with approximately 6 percent removal of existing exterior walls. He noted the reason the applicant is requesting this variance is to make the dwelling more livable as a single-family dwelling to suit the needs of their family, with a new den and half bathroom on the first story and two bedrooms and a bath on the second story, including a laundry alcove; and advised that the applicants wish to construct this addition while removing as little of the existing structure as possible because they want to preserve the historical Craftsman style features of the main part of the dwelling, which was constructed around 1916.
Senior Planner Robertson commented on meeting the four primary 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.
Senior Planner Robertson reiterated that the applicant is making this request because of their desire to maintain as much of the existing structure as possible; and because of the way this structure is configured on the site now, this condition limits design of options available to the applicants while maintaining this structure. With respect to the findings, he advised that staff struggled mostly with Finding No. 1 in terms of trying to find in favor of the applicant; and noted that the applicants claim there is an unusual grade condition on the property, where their backyard has a 4-foot retaining wall, whereas neighboring backyards do not have retaining walls and are otherwise flat as they abut Monterey Boulevard. Based on the survey, he indicated there is a slight convex slope condition on the lot, but there is not enough to determine if this grade condition is significantly different than that of adjacent properties; however, he noted that it is clear from the survey the retaining wall on the rear yard is about 3-foot tall, but it does appear as though it continues into the adjacent property to the south, noting it’s difficult to make this finding that there is something unique and extraordinary about this property relative to the adjacent property.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicants wish to exercise their property right possessed by others in the neighborhood to construct a single-family home that is commensurate with others; and that in this case, it is actually smaller than some of the neighboring homes. He stated the applicants argue that the variance to the rear is necessary for this dwelling to reach the size that the applicants find comfortable without also being forced to significantly reconfigure the existing structure; noted the applicants contend that the majority of properties on their block have structures that are built on the rear property line – noting this was confirmed based on a visual inspection of 13 properties on the west side of Monterey Boulevard, between 19th Street and Circle Court; and that staff did find 11 of the properties, including the subject property, had structures which were built on or over the rear property line. Of these 11 nonconforming properties, he advised that 3 of those also had two-story structures built on or over the property line; and stated that making this finding is possible given that the applicant, if applied a setback standard, would be denied a right that others in the vicinity are enjoying.
With respect to Finding No. 3, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project will not likely be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone since the project complies with all requirements of the zoning code and does not involve a major expansion; noted that the right of way width of Monterey Boulevard is very large, so there is a good distance between the property line and the street; and stated that the project is not unusually large or out of scale with other new projects in the neighborhood and is therefore consistent with the General Plan, which involves Finding No. 4.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that in the survey information, the retaining wall appears to be continuing into the next yard and questioned what obligation does the applicant or City have in getting information beyond the outward appearance of the neighborhood.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that if it’s not clear to the naked eye, not easily seen by the general public, then the burden is on the applicant to provide that information.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the burden is upon the applicant to provide that evidence for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Director Blumenfeld explained that the whole point of a Variance is not to create a special privilege, but to create a level playing field, to create parity with the surrounding properties.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Corinne Heyning, applicant, stated that the property owner immediately to the south of her property, 1958 Bayview, indicated the back of his garage is the retaining wall, but noted that his retaining wall in the front is also not as high as hers. She advised that all of the houses to the north have no retaining walls which can be visually seen by looking at the property from Monterey Boulevard. Ms. Heyning explained that her property is sort of on the apex of the hill; that this property experienced a cut both in front and back; and that the house was sited in approximately 1916 in the middle of that cut. She noted that they did look at trying to underground the garage so that they could have a flat one-story dwelling, but advised that the grade and the space available wasn’t sufficient. She explained that they currently have approximately 8 feet from the back of the garage to the bedroom; and that when they move the garage in on the side lot line, if they were to also bring it in 5 feet, they would actually abut the existing house and couldn’t access the rear yard unless they opened up one of the bedrooms and put in a door, believing that this results in an exceptional condition. She added that the neighbor adjacent to them has their garage and a dwelling above the garage on the lot line; and that the house two doors to the north is another neighbor who has a one-car garage, with one car parking space in front at 13 feet and a dwelling unit above each other. She noted that there is another property several doors down that’s also two stories on the garage lot line; and expressed her belief that there is another house on the corner of Circle Drive and Monterey Boulevard that was newly constructed without a garage and a two-story dwelling on the lot line, thus bringing the number to four which have this condition.
Ms. Heyning pointed out that this is an old house; that they are trying to preserve part of Hermosa’s history and attempting to maintain as much of the historical features of the house as much as possible; and stated that without this variance, she does not know if they will be able to construct a house that her family can live in comfortably. She pointed out that they are not looking to maximize the size.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer questioned if the 11 nonconforming properties were granted variances.
Director Blumenfeld stated that it’s very unlikely these 11 properties were granted variances, that they are most likely all nonconforming properties that were built under the old standards.
Commissioner Hoffman mentioned that he had visited this site and met with the applicants; stated that the only finding in question is Finding No. 1, whether an unusual condition exists on site; advised that he looked at the case law in California regarding this issue and noted it did not say that it has to be unique in the sense it’s the only property in the zone which has the condition, rather, it says unique to other properties. He noted that the question he posed earlier regarding whether the wall continues into that next yard may or may not be relevant here; and given that precedence in the existing code, he stated his interpretation is that this is a property that is unusual in the sense the site itself is at the crest of the dune; that it’s clear the property has been cut at the front and back and retained at the front and back, even though the retaining wall is not necessarily a very high one; and concluded that he could make Finding No. 1 and grant this variance.
Vice-Chairman Pizer and Commissioner Allen concurred with Commissioner Hoffman’s comments, supporting Finding No. 1.
Chairman Perrotti stated that the first finding is the most difficult one; recalled staff’s comment this evening that a variance isn’t giving someone a benefit or something special, but instead, bringing the property in line with others in the neighborhood; and he concurred with Commissioner Hoffman’s comment that it is apparent this was the highest property in this area and that there was a cut; and noted his support for a variance.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE VAR 05-2 -- Variance to allow an addition with no rear yard setback rather than the required 5 feet at 2010 Bayview Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request and confirm convex slope determination.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on the west side of Monterey Boulevard between Pier Avenue and 16th Street and located in the R-3 Zone; stated that the project consists of two attached units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit has 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms and a roof deck; and noted that the building is designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style. He stated that the project complies with the requirements for setbacks, yards, open space; however, he indicated the lot coverage calculated to be a little over 65 percent. Senior Planner Robertson noted that the required parking is provided in the ground floor garages for each unit, each with separate access from the alley, one from Bayview Drive and the other from Monterey Boulevard; and stated that guest parking is provided for each unit in the driveway in front of the garages. He added that the proposed widening of the driveway on Monterey Boulevard results in the loss of one on-street parking space, which is compensated for with two additional guest parking spaces. In addition, he advised that the applicant is requesting consideration that the property be considered a convex slope relative to the height measurement; noted that the applicant is proposing alternative points for measuring height rather than using the westerly corner points; and explained that the confirmation of this convex condition would allow the building to be constructed as shown with two stories above the basement with a flat roof line from the back of the lot to the top of the bank on existing grade, noting the survey elevations of 105.47 and 104.65 along the north and south property lines. He referred to the topographic profile which confirms there is a convex condition, and therefore, stated staff does find the applicant’s request is reasonable given the existing condition of the slope, as the abrupt change from a relatively flat to steeply sloping terrain down to the alley appears to represent a convex slope condition following the natural topography in the area. He added that the Planning Commission has previously approved a similar convex slope determination request for another two-unit condominium project located at 1449 Monterey Boulevard, which is three lots north of this subject property.
Vice-Chairman Pizer asked for input on the front unit guest parking space being located in the right of way.
In response, Senior Planner Robertson advised that that is permitted by the City’s code; noted the building has to comply with the 5-foot setback requirement, but they can use the excess right of way for their guest parking as long as they have the 17 feet to the sidewalk.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Jerry Compton, project architect, expressed his belief that the convex slope condition is very obvious; advised that this project is sandwiched between two very large projects; explained that the design of this project is interesting in that he normally encourages his clients into detaching the units; but because the condominium project to the south has most of its entries along the north side of the building, with various sorts of access ways on that side, it was the applicants intent to be sensitive to those entrances, allowing their neighbors more light and ventilation by providing a longer cutout in these two buildings along that side; and expressed his belief this condition worked to the advantage of this applicant. He added that because of the change in grade, he was able to provide the back unit a complete view over the top of the front unit, indicating this is somewhat rare/unusual. He added that it will be a simple fix to reduce the lot coverage by pulling back the trash enclosure area.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer and Commissioner Allen noted their concurrence with the convex slope condition.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the side elevations lack interest.
Chairman Perrotti encouraged the architect to work with staff on improving the side elevations; and noted his agreement with the convex slope condition.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE this site as a convex slope condition.
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 05-8/PDP 05-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 062441 for a two-unit condominium at 1427 Monterey Boulevard, and to add Condition 1C, requiring additional architectural treatment and color on the side elevations. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Perrotti commented on having the topographical profile exhibits when determining convex slope conditions; advised that he discussed with staff today this essential information; and noted that because staff is spending a lot of time preparing these topographical profiles, he would suggest that the applicants be required to provide the topographical profile in the application process.
The Commission concurred and directed staff by Minute Order to require the applicants to provide the topographical profiles.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to April 19, 2005 meeting. (Refer to the motion on Page 2.)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment.
Director Blumenfeld explained that Text Amendment 05-1 was recommended by the City Attorney to make it consistent with case law regarding freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution; and noted that staff is recommending an amendment to Section 17.50.010, which is the City’s Sign Code, to add a substitution clause that would allow the substitution of non-commercial sign copy on commercial signs. He noted that the City is not generally permitted to regulate signs on the basis of what the sign says, only on the physical sign and location; and stated that this amendment will not result in an increase in the size of signage, of sign area, or any other related physical standard. He advised that Sub-Section D would read as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any noncommercial copy may be substituted for any commercial copy on any sign permitted by this Code. If noncommercial sign copy is substituted, the resulting sign will continue to be treated as the original commercial sign under this Code and will not be deemed or treated as an off-premises sign. The content of any noncommercial copy on any sign otherwise permitted by this Code may be changed without complying with any provisions of this Code normally required for sign copy or design approval.”
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE TEXT 05-1 -- Text amendment to allow sign owners to substitute non-commercial speech on a commercial sign. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to April 19, 2005 meeting. (Refer to the motion on Page 2.)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from this matter, indicating that the applicant’s representative is currently working on a project for him.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff’s recommendation is for the Planning Commission to direct staff by Minute Order on the following options: 1) determine that the lot is a regularly sloping lot and interpolate the grade from the corner points only; 2) determine the property to be a convex sloping lot and interpolate from intermediate points on the top of the slope, as proposed by the applicant; or 3) to possibly base the height measurement on top of wall numbers within 3 feet of the property corners on the low end of lot to best represent an altered grade. He noted the reason staff is proposing an additional alternative is that it’s clearly a cut slope condition. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant is proposing alternative points at the top of the bank as the basis for measuring height rather than the northerly corner points; stated that this will allow the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling on the flat portion of the lot; explained that if a standard straight-line interpolation from the corner points were used, the construction of a two-story dwelling would require lowering the building into the grade; and he expressed staff’s belief that the applicant’s request is reasonable given the existing condition of the lot and the surrounding terrain. He highlighted the attached photos and the attached topographical profile, which all show that this lot, like others on the block, slopes fairly steeply up from the street and is relatively flat in the back portion of the lot.
Larry Peha stated that this is an R-3 lot; noted that the applicant could put one unit on this lot with a 30-foot height limit; that they can’t get a two-story house on a 30-foot height limit on this lot if they took a straight-line interpolation; and indicated that the photos clearly show how the lot goes out and gets cut off at the sidewalk.
Vice-Chairman Pizer and Commissioner Allen noted their support for Option No. 2, determining the property to be a convex sloping lot and interpolating from intermediate points on the top of the slope, as proposed by the applicant.
Chairman Perrotti noted his support of a convex slope, either with Option No. 2 or using the top of the wall numbers within 3 feet of the property corners.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE A-14 -- Appeal of Director’s decision regarding the grade used for height measurement at 3317 Palm Drive, supporting Option No. 2, determining the property to be a convex sloping lot and interpolating from intermediate points on the top of the slope. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a similar request and recommendation, that by Minute Order the Planning Commission is to direct staff on the following alternatives: 1) determine that the lot is a regularly sloping lot and interpolate the grade from the corner points only; 2) determine the property to be a convex sloping lot and interpolate from intermediate points on the top of the slope, as proposed by the applicant; or 3) to possibly take another point within 3 horizontal feet that represents an altered grade, all of which is provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that a topographic profile had been provided; that this case, the lot appears to be regularly sloping but for the portion closest to the low points of the lot; noted that if one uses a straight-line interpolation method from the corner points, though, it would not be possible to construct a project without building the project lower into the grade -- in other words, the project would have to be lowered significantly. He pointed out that in the photos, there are a series of retaining walls protecting the cut; he noted that it’s possible to identify in the survey the top of wall numbers, noting that their top of wall numbers along 2nd Street show about a 3-foot difference in elevation from a retaining wall – mentioning that the Commission might want to consider that with the notion if they were to remove that retaining wall, the unaltered grade would be significantly higher at the property corner point.
Dave Thriff, project architect, noted the applicant’s desire to build a single room addition on the back of the house; stated that if they interpolate the slope from the low point to the high point, there are portions of the maximum height that are 8 to 10 feet lower than the 25-foot height limit; and stated that what they will be proposing in the future is some sort of addition in the backyard, which is almost flat; and that they are asking for a determination from that rear yard portion of a future structure.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Pizer that the closest top of wall number offsite is elevation 103; and explained that what the code provides is either using the corner point elevations, which is the standard method, with interpolation from corner to corner; determining that there’s a convex slope if arches upward; taking a point that represents unaltered grade, based upon significant evidence; or a point within three horizontal feet from the corner point, which represents unaltered grade, based upon significant evidence.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated this is a convex slope.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that in his assessment of the points that are noted on the survey, the highest point on both property lines is in the middle of the lot, so that it arches upward, even though it’s modest; and noted that this falls within the code definition and is therefore a convex lot.
Commissioner Allen noted his concurrence.
Looking at the property profile, Chairman Perrotti stated that the lines, especially the east property line, one can see a knoll and on the west, one can see a bulge at the top; and stated that he therefore could support the finding for a convex slope.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to direct staff to use the determination that this is a convex slope in calculating the height for 551 2nd Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
C-37 -- Finding of General Plan consistency for sale of surplus City property on 14th Street.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To find that the subject sale is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the City is considering selling surplus property located on 14th Street behind Beach Market; that City Council authorized the solicitation of bids on January 25, 2005; and stated that the City must make a finding of the proposed sale with respect to conformity to the General Plan, which is the reason this item is before the Planning Commission. He stated there are minimum conditions imposed upon the sale and use, which are listed in staff report; advised that the City received one bid which conforms to the minimum requirements; that the City received a cash deposit; and at this point, he noted the issue is whether or not this proposed commercial use, which is likely a hotel, would conform to the requirements of the General Plan. He noted staff concurrence that the proposed sale is in conformance with the City’s General Plan.
The Commission noted its concurrence with staff.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, that the subject sale is consistent with the City’s General Plan. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Director Blumenfeld noted the new rotation of Chair and Vice-Chair would run from April through December 2005.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff has prepared some hypothetical build-out worksheets on the nonconforming ordinance, pursuant to the Commission’s direction; stated that these worksheets will be forwarded to the Commissioners; and asked that the Commission review this information and be prepared to discuss this matter at the next Planning Commission meeting.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Hoffman asked that the January 2005 minutes also reflect he recused himself from Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 13 because the applicants’ representative was working for him at the time.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:07 P.M.
HEARING(S)
STAFF ITEMS
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15, 2005.
| Sam Perrotti, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |