|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Chairman Pizer advised that he received two letters: one from the architect of Union Cattle and another letter dated 4-10-05 from the 6th Street Traffic Relief Coalition.
With regard to the letter received by Chairman Pizer and/or the Commission with respect to 6th Street, Director Blumenfeld advised that staff has started to investigate the code enforcement complaint; and stated that once staff completes its investigation, a report will be presented to the Planning Commission.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of March 15, 2005 Minutes..
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE the March 15, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
a. Resolution P.C. 05-17 approving requested Variances to allow an addition to an existing nonconforming single-family residence with no rear yard setback rather than the required 5 feet and a garage setback of 13.6 feet rather than the required 17 feet at Bayview Drive.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Resolution No. P.C. 05-17. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
Agenda Item Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were considered in one motion.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the May 17, 2005 meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the May 17, 2005 meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the May 17, 2005 meeting.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Nos. 6, 7 and 8. There being no request for audience input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE Agenda Item Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to May 17, 2005. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located along the east side of PCH, at the intersection of 6th Street; stated that the property currently contains an adult book store and nonconforming residential uses; and advised that the site is zoned SPA-7 (Specific Plan Area Commercial). He stated that the proposed building is 5,000 gross square feet; noted that 20 parking spaces is being proposed at the exterior parking lot; and advised that the animal hospital is a permitted use by right in the SPA-7 Zone and is defined as an establishment where animals receive medical and surgical treatment. Senior Planner Robertson stated that this classification includes only facilities that are entirely enclosed, soundproofed, and air-conditioned; and noted that the facility will also include grooming of animals. He pointed out that the applicant’s proposed animal hospital will be completely enclosed, consistent with the definition, and will include short-term boarding and care (maximum 30 days). He stated that the building will be located along the western side of the site, with the parking behind the building; that the boarding area for the dogs will be located along the western edge of the building closest to PCH; that it will contain no windows in order to minimize any potential noise impact on the residential properties to the east; and that the applicant has located the outdoor exercise area for the animals along the frontage of PCH.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project is in compliance with the first tier standards of the Specific Plan Area Zone; stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific parking requirement for animal hospitals; and that pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is requesting a determination that the 20 proposed parking spaces is adequate. Senior Planner Robertson stated the applicant is requesting that the parking ratio be based on 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area; that the project is designed to provide 20 parking spaces at that ratio; that the floor area includes approximately 1,800 square feet of public area containing the lobby and exam rooms; and that there will be approximately 2,700 square feet of treatment area that contains the surgery and boarding/care areas and 500 square feet of storage area. He explained that the proposed ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet is also the standard parking ratio for such other uses as general office and general retail, commercial uses; stated that medical offices are required to provide 1 space per 200 square feet; noted that the applicant indicates the proposed use requires much less parking than a medical clinic or medical office, since a large portion of the building is used for surgery and board and care; and that the overall use of the building is much less intense than a medical office.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that staff conducted an internet search to view the parking standards in other communities specifically for animal hospitals; and noted that of the few staff found, they typically indicated the requirements are less than the 1 per 250-square-foot ratio. He advised that staff also conducted a weekday analysis of the current location of the Hermosa Animal Hospital, located at 1078 Aviation, which is comparable in size with the proposed location, and that staff found the parking demand to vary from 11 to 15, with the maximum recorded at 15 at 5:00 P.M. on the weekday. Based on the floor plans which clearly show a high percentage of the building being used for boarding or storage uses, and based on the analysis of other cities and the demand analysis of the current location for the hospital, he stated that staff is recommending the Commission approve the proposed ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if there have been any complaints concerning parking or noise at the two other animal hospital locations.
Director Blumenfeld advised that there are no code enforcement complaints on file with the City.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that the last line on Section 5 of the Resolution, No. 1, should state 250 square feet, not 50 feet.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Richard Stefanie, 831 6th Street, Unit 1, questioned if there will be an entrance/exit onto 6th Street; and addressed his concerns with the very narrow street, limited parking and traffic safety.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that 6th Street is the only entrance and exit, that there is no access from PCH.
Mr. Stefanie stated there is not enough room for the additional traffic on 6th Street.
George Wiley, 831 6th Street, Unit 4, addressed his concern with limited parking and illegally parked vehicles on 6th Street. He asked that staff look at the congestion on 6th Street.
Dr. Steve Liebl, Hermosa Animal Hospital, stated that there are currently two entrances on 6th Street: one for the adult book store facility and one for the residential houses at 816 6th Street.
Fred Kaplain, applicant’s representative, expressed the applicant’s desire to be sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns about parking; and noted his anticipation that the animal hospital will generate the same or less traffic than the adult book store business that currently occupies that corner. Mr. Kaplain stated that there are two driveway exits onto 6th Street from the current/existing development; and advised that the animal hospital will lessen that by one driveway exit. He stated that the traffic onto 6th Street will be kept at a minimum and that they will make sure the clients of the hospital exit safely and solely onto 6th Street.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned whether Caltrans required the exit to be off 6th Street.
Mr. Kaplain advised that they did not specifically speak to Caltrans, but explained it was their understanding that exits onto PCH were no longer desirable and most likely prohibited. He added that there are two driveways onto PCH, one active and one inactive, but that it was their understanding when new developments are proposed, those driveway accesses onto PCH would not be allowed because of traffic safety. In order to further minimize the impact to the neighbors, he explained that the building was designed to sit more toward the front of the property near PCH so that there would be minimal chance of disturbing the neighbors with the hospital activities.
Dr. Liebl advised that the busiest time is usually around 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.; and expressed his concern for the safety of his clients pulling into this site from PCH, believing it is much safer from 6th Street.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if staff received any input from Caltrans.
Addressing Commissioner Perrotti’s inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that because there was no proposal to provide driveway access onto PCH, staff saw no need for Caltrans to comment; explained that the extent of review here is rather limited; that because there is no provision in the Parking Ordinance for this sort of use, this matter would have normally been handled with a building permit because it’s allowed by right; and that the limited review this evening has to do with the parking-related issues. He added that Caltrans would not have weighed in because this wouldn’t be considered discretionary but for this one parking aspect and because there is no driveway access proposed off the highway.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief this proposal is an upgrade to this property and that this business will enhance the neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted that the parking problem on 6th Street is a pre-existing problem in the neighborhood; expressed his belief this business will bring less traffic to the area than the adult book store; and noted his support for the 1-in-250-square-foot parking ratio.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that this development may alleviate some of the traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood because there will be more parking on site.
Chairman Pizer pointed out that the proposed use will be less intense than the adult book store.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE PARK 05-1 -- Parking Plan for a proposed animal hospital to determine the aggregate amount of off-street parking spaces required pursuant to Section 17.44.080 at 536, 544 & 560 Pacific Coast Highway and 816 6th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on the south side of 15th Street, between PCH and Ocean Drive and on a fairly large lot; noted that one of the proposed units is 2,800 square feet and one is 3,000 square feet; advised that the project consists of detached units with basements and two stories above and include roof decks; that both units provide the primary living area on the second floor, with the first floor containing the bedrooms; and noted that the project is designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style, with smooth stucco finish, stone veneer on the exterior on the ground floor level and clay tile roofs. He advised that the project complies with most of the zoning requirements; noted a few corrections that are necessary; stated that the building is designed to comply with the height limit of 30 feet at the critical point elevations; that all required yards are provided; and that the required parking is provided in the basement level for each unit, with the driveway access directly from 15th Street. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the things which need to be corrected relate to the driveway slope, which slightly exceeds the maximum of 12.5 percent, and that the turning radius for the rear garage is slightly deficient; and he noted the applicant can either resolve that by widening the garage or providing distance between the detached units. He noted that the project lot coverage is well below the maximum 65 percent allowed, as it only covers 48 percent; stated that both units provide an ample amount of open space to meet the minimum requirement of 300 square feet; that the project meets the requirements of the condominium ordinance with respect to storage; and that there is ample landscaping provided in the front, side and rear yards.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, pointed out that there is a great deal of detail on the elevations; with respect to the issues raised by staff, the separation between the turnaround and the driveway slope, she noted that these issues can easily be corrected and addressed during the plan check phase – noting that the driveway slope is a minor adjustment on the plan. With regard to the separation and the turnaround, she stated the buildings will have to be moved slightly to accommodate that, but that it is not a material change to the project or layout of the buildings and that it will be corrected. She advised that the applicant concurs with the conditions of approval; and noted her pleasure with the minimal lot coverage being proposed, creating a lot of very useable open space.
Mike Williams, 951 15th Street, stated that his house is the second one above and down from Ocean; noted that each house successively sits back from the other; and addressed his concern with the impact to his view.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the front setback for this project is 17 feet; noted that the required setback is 5 feet; advised that the typical setback on this street ranges between 15 and 18 feet; and stated that the applicant intentionally designed this to be consistent with previous project approvals on this street.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted his delight with the open space being proposed for this project.
Commissioner Perrotti noted the applicant’s willingness to make the necessary modifications.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CON 05-9/PDP 05-10 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62834 for a two-unit condominium at 927 15th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this project is located on the east side of Monterey Boulevard, between 2nd and 4th Streets; stated the Commission approved a similar two-unit project for this site in 2002, but that due to an ownership change, the project was not built; and he noted that, subsequently, new plans have been submitted, which is what the Commission will be considering this evening. He stated that the current proposal involves a two-story development above a basement; noted that the project is a contemporary designed building; and advised that the project complies with all zoning requirements. He added that the project provides driveway access off Monterey Boulevard and Culper Court; that the parking is partly located in the encroachment areas; that the project complies with lot coverage requirements; and that it meets the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance, except that it will need to provide a bit more landscaping.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that this project does meet the standards of condominium development; noted that the landscaping will be further enhanced to satisfy staff’s concerns; and explained that because this is a fairly small lot, which is typical in this neighborhood, the applicant needs to build to the maximum lot coverage to attain reasonably sized units. She noted the applicant’s concurrence with the conditions of approval.
Carol Castillo, 316 Monterey Boulevard, advised that her home is north of this unit; and addressed her concern that this large building will block air and light to her small backyard. She questioned if there will be any type of breezeway.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this project does comply with lot coverage and stated that staff will go over the site plan with Ms. Castillo.
Ms. Castillo noted her concern with the large, plain wall facing her home.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman pointed out that the north elevation needs some articulation.
Ms. Vargo advised that she would be happy to review the plans in more detail with Ms. Castillo.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Addressing the Commission’s concern with the lack of articulation on the north elevation, Director Blumenfeld advised that there are design elements on the south elevation that can be picked up on the north elevation, such as the stone treatment, scoring/ringlets.
Commissioner Perrotti noted the applicant’s concurrence to add more landscaping and the applicant’s willingness to work with staff on the north elevation design.
Chairman Pizer noted his preference to specify in the motion the need for stone and ringlets on the north elevation.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted his disappointment in losing another Craftsman style home.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 05-10/PDP 05-11 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 for a two-unit condominium at 310 Monterey Boulevard; and moved that the applicant shall enchance the north elevation with additional design treatment, including stone treatment and riglets and other designs consistent with the south elevation. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the May 17, 2005 meeting.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no request for audience input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE Item No. 12 to May 17, 2005. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a one-story duplex that was constructed in 1957; noted that the duplex is a nonconforming residential use in a single-family zone; that the duplex is nonconforming to current parking, side yard and rear yard requirements; that the side yard on the east side is 2.67 feet and the west side is 3.08 feet rather than the required 5 feet; and that the rear yard is 3.93 feet rather than the required 5 feet. He noted that the parking provided is 3 spaces rather than 4, plus a guest space; stated that the proposed expansion and remodeling will be done on the front unit of this duplex; and that the rear unit of the duplex will not be part of the proposed project. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is proposing to add 930 square feet of livable floor area, deck addition of 144 square feet on the second floor of the front unit; advised that the project also includes removal of 177 square feet of existing livable space from the front unit and a new garage; that the total living area of the duplex will increase from 1,952 square feet to 2,705 square feet; and that expansion and remodel results in removal of 15 percent of the exterior walls and 50 percent increase in valuation, thus necessitating the Commission’s approval. He advised that the proposed parking will be provided with a new garage, with two tandem parking spaces in the new garage and two tandem exterior parking spaces adjacent to the new garage – noting that, even though the parking will be deficient, the overall parking will be improved with the proposed project. He stated that no on-street parking will be eliminated;advised that useable open space is going to increase from 509 square feet to 548 square feet; noted there is a trellis at grade that will have to be removed in order to accommodate the useable open space requirement at grade; and that staff believes these are minor issues that can be dealt with in the conditions of approval.
Doug Long, project architect, advised that four conforming parking spaces will be provided; and expressed the applicant’s desire to maintain the trellis structure on the front elevation – noting that it’s a 4 x 4, 24 inches on center, on a beam/columns, which is consistent with the architecture. He added that there is a lot of open space.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the definition of open space is that it be open from the ground to sky; that one is allowed to have a trellis if it’s 50 percent open; and that the problem with this trellis is that it basically is a violation of the open space requirement. He added that the problem lies within the Open Space Ordinance, which was amended to allow trellises in the multifamily zones; advised that in the R-1 Zones, there is no provision for it as pertains to open space; added that the intent is not necessarily to have an equitable set of regulations across the board for every use and every building type; that in an R-1 Zone, there are more restrictive requirements; and that in the multifamily zones, there are less restrictive requirements. He added that the multifamily zone allows trellises and is less restrictive relative to open space than the R-1 Zone.
Mr. Long expressed his belief the trellis is more than 50 percent open, that open space has been provided for each dwelling.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff’s calculation reflects the useable open space is 800 square feet; stated that there currently exists 509 square feet and that the applicant proposes 548 square feet; and that staff does not have an at grade calculation. He added that the area under the trellis is not part of the calculation for open space.
Patricia DeMartinez advised that her home is west of the subject property, and she addressed her concerns with limited parking and adequate visibility to traffic.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the deck on the 10th Street side is set back 12.5 feet; that there is a 17-foot garage setback clear from the property line; that it is consistent with the building line, except for the deck above, which is set back approximately 12.5 feet; and stated there is nothing that would obstruct the line of sight along the property line.
Alison Diaz, applicant, introduced herself as the applicant.
Chairman Pizer stated that the Commission received two letters in regard to this matter: one from Sam Foster and one from Kim Foster, both in regard to the parking requirements and parking limitations.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman advised that he spoke with Ms. Foster today to address her concerns; and explained that as a result of rumors in the neighborhood, he was able to clear up some of the misconceptions concerning this project.
Commissioner Perrotti, echoed by Chairman Pizer, highlighted the increase in on-site parking; and expressed his belief this project will benefit the neighborhood by taking some vehicles off the street.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief this project is a benefit to the neighborhood.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE NR 05-2 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming duplex in a R-1 Zone resulting in removal of over 10% of linear feet of existing walls at 1224 10th Street (continued from March 15, 2005 meeting). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the existing dwelling was constructed in approximately 1960; that the dwelling is nonconforming to guest parking requirements, noting that only two parking spaces are provided in tandem; and explained that although there is a long driveway that can accommodate more parking, the code only recognizes two spaces in tandem, not a third. He advised that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition of 1,226 square feet on the basement level, first and second floors and deck additions on the first and second floors, totaling 280 square feet; that the project also involves remodeling 234 square feet of existing livable floor area; and that overall, the expansion will increase the living area of the house from approximately 1,900 square feet to over 3,000 square feet. He advised that the expansion and remodel results in 72.3 percent increase in valuation; stated that the addition is designed to comply with the 25-foot height limit; and that the lot coverage will be increased from 36 percent to 44 percent, which is still well below the 65 percent maximum allowed. With regard to the necessary adjustments, he pointed out that the eastern side yard requirement is 4.25 feet rather than the proposed 3 feet; advised that there’s also a stair in the side yard and a fence along the eastern property line that exceeds the height requirements for stairs and fences; that the driveway slope needs to be altered; and that open space is slightly deficient because the upper floor decks that are being included in the open space calculation do not provide the 10-foot dimension. He added that the nonconforming guest parking condition that will be maintained after completion of the expansion is minor and not unusual given the age of the dwelling, that the amount of expansion is moderate; and, again, that the long driveway does accommodate additional parking spaces not recognized in the code.
Nune Nitsiotis, representing the applicant, stated that the alterations can easily be made; noted that the garage is at 94.5 feet on the survey below; that the existing garage finished floor elevation is at 94.27 feet; and that the adjacent property is at approximately 100.1 – noting there is a grade change of approximately 6 feet. Because of the sloped driveway and the setback of the garage, he stated that the new finished floor is at 91.5 feet; advised that there is a stair that comes up the side of the property, which will lead to the first floor, and that the finished surface on that stair will be at 100.0 elevation. He added that the wall which is adjacent to that finished surface will be about 4 feet above that surface, noting they will not be going any higher than the adjacent grade at that particular point.
Given Mr. Nitsiotis’ comments, Senior Planner Robertson noted that staff will recheck the figures related to the stair and grade.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that code prohibits stairs greater than 4 feet in that yard above natural grade.
Mr. Nitsiotis stated that it can easily be resolved, that they will try to increase one of the decks to a 10-foot dimension to achieve more open space up top.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the applicant’s intent to work with staff on resolving the deficiencies.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned why the City chose to preserve this type of nonconformance.
Chairman Pizer highlighted the limited lot coverage of 44 percent.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE NR 05-3 -- Nonconforming Remodel and Addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 902 15th Place. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the existing one-story building containing a basement garage was constructed in 1960; advised that the dwelling is nonconforming to the current garage setback requirement since it is set back 11 feet 6 inches from the edge of the required sidewalk, which does not exist at this point; noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 17-foot garage setback from the nearest public improvement; and stated that on streets like this where public sidewalks have not been constructed, the setback shall be measured from the planned or required sidewalk. In this case, he advised that the owner will be required to construct the sidewalk as part of the project and because the sidewalk will be constructed 11’6” from the garage, the unit is also considered nonconforming to the guest parking requirement; and noted that this is a relatively small lot, consistent with other lots on the block, and that it contains only 1,900 square feet. He stated that the applicant is proposing to add 730 square feet within a new second story and a 396-square-foot deck; advised that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 1,152 square feet to 1,882 square feet; and that the expansion results in a 65 percent increase in valuation. Senior Planner Roberson stated that the proposal conforms to all other planning and zoning requirements; that the proposed addition complies with the 25-foot height limit; that all required setbacks are provided; and noted that lot coverage is 62.5 percent. He explained that since the lot is less than 2,100 square feet, it qualifies for the small lot exception for open space requirements, which allows the required open space to be provided in the new second story deck. He added that the submitted plans also show the required location and alignment for the new sidewalk, as determined by the Public Works Department, consistent with the sidewalk segments already constructed on the street. He noted staff’s belief that the nonconforming garage setback is not unusual given the age of the dwelling and also the pattern of surrounding development on the street; and that the scope of the project is reasonable, allowing the owner to add a master bedroom and family room on the second floor.
Commissioner Allen questioned if sidewalks will ever be placed on this entire street.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that approximately four of the properties have sidewalks; explained that the homeowners are required to install a sidewalk as part of proposed projects; and added that not only will they have to do sidewalk improvements, they’ll have to widen the street a little bit where their lot is located.
Director Blumenfeld advised that there is a list of streets planned for sidewalks.
Craig Schneider, applicant, advised that he currently parks in front of the garage; stated there is plenty of parking in the neighborhood; pointed out that he is not building to the maximum of what is permitted; and asked if he could delay putting in the sidewalks until such time that the rest of the sidewalks are put in on this street. He explained that there will be 2-foot sidewalks that will go nowhere, dead-ending on both edges of his neighbors’ properties. He pointed out that by putting in a sidewalk at this time, they will be losing one parking spot they currently have. He advised that his neighbors did go to City Council with a request to not place sidewalks on this street and noted that that request was approved by Council. He noted that the entire north side of the street has no sidewalk, that there are only 3 properties on this street which have sidewalks.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that he confirmed with the Public Works Department the requirement for the sidewalk in this case.
Director Blumenfeld explained that it is not in the jurisdiction of the Commission to grant an exception to that ordinance, that the requirement is a Public Works issue.
Chairman Pizer noted his confusion with the requirement for sidewalks without a plan for completion of the neighborhood, highlighting the poor effect of spot cement slabs. He stated there should be a plan to complete all the sidewalks.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to APPROVE NR 05-4 -- Addition and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling with nonconforming garage setback and guest parking resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 841 19th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is a half lot located on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and 33rd Street, with Highland Avenue being the front yard; advised that the lot contains 1,385 square feet; and noted that the existing two-story building containing a basement garage was originally constructed in 1936, and according to City permit records, has undergone several changes and remodels since that time. He advised that the dwelling is nonconforming to several current zoning requirements, including the rear yard setback, deficient side yards on the north and south, garage setback at 3’6” rather than the 17 feet required; advised that the existing garage space has a ceiling clearance of 5 ½ feet rather than the required 7 feet; and noted that there is no guest parking available. With respect to open space, he added that it is slightly deficient to the 300-square-foot requirement; noted that the applicant is proposing to demolish and replace a portion of the existing structure that is located over the garage – noting that the reason for doing this is to bring the garage up from the 5 ½ foot clearance to 8 feet. Senior Planner Robertson explained that doing this requires demolition and replacement of two levels directly above the garage, that the gross new floor area after demolition will be 682 square feet, representing a net increase in floor area of approximately 186 square feet. He added that the remodel and expansion will increase the living area of the house from 1,224 square feet to 1,410 square feet and will calculate as a 72-percent increase in valuation. He noted that the project will correct the nonconforming clearance of the garage by raising the ceiling level; that it will remove the nonconforming north side yard setback at the second floor; and that all existing nonconforming conditions of the building will be corrected. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the proposal conforms to all other Planning and Zoning requirements; reiterated that the new construction will conform to required setbacks; noted that lot coverage will be at 64 percent; and noted that the new roof line complies with the 30-foot height limit. He explained that the nonconforming conditions with respect to yard requirements, open space, and guest parking will remain but will not be increased; that in addition to modernizing and expanding the building, the primary reason for the applicant’s request is to provide a usable garage and provide normal head clearances in the floors above the garage; and reiterated that in order to accomplish this objective, the side of the building over the garage must be completely demolished and reconstructed, which causes the project to exceed the 30-percent demolition threshold and also to exceed the 50-percent increase in valuation. While several of these nonconforming conditions remain, he noted that staff does not find any of them to be severe or unusual or cause any negative impacts on nearby properties and that staff believes the project is reasonable in scope and consistent with the goals and objectives of the nonconforming ordinance.
David Watson, representing the applicant, explained that this project is an interior remodel except for raising the ceiling height so the applicant can park his car in the garage; and noted that the ceiling above the garage will be raised to accomplish a larger area.
Commissioner Allen stated that this will be an improvement to the building.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that this proposal clears up several problems with the dwelling.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE NR 05-5 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling guest parking resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation and a greater than 30% exterior wall removal at 250 33rd Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Chairman Pizer noted that Item No. 17 has been withdrawn.
-
C-38 -- Finding of General Plan consistency for purchase of real property located at 552 11th Place. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To find that the subject purchase is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a request for a finding of General Plan consistency for a proposed real estate purchase by the City at 552 11th Place, noting that on February 15, 2005, City Council authorized the purchase of the subject property; explained that the Planning Commission must make a determination of consistency for a purchase of property with respect to the City’s General Plan; and that the Commission has to make a finding relative to conformity of the location, purpose and extent of the purchase of real property with respect to the City’s General Plan. For the immediate future, the current use will remain. He stated that the City is seeking to acquire the subject property for the purpose of expanding the Civic Center in order to provide new emergency and public service facilities and public parking; noted that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance permits public buildings and government uses in the O-S Zone; and stated that the General Plan and Zoning Map show the property as industrial, however, the current ministorage use that is located in the industrial zone is nonconforming to that zone. Director Blumenfeld stated that the goals and objectives of the General Plan are consistent with the proposed use; advised that the General Plan makes provisions for acquiring additional property for these purposes; stated that this industrial use is located adjacent residential uses and government buildings, and he explained that viewing the City’s goals, policies and objectives, staff recommends the Commission find the sale of the property to be consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Pizer that the City would be purchasing both the parking lot and the building.
It was the consensus of the Commission to find this purchase consistent with the City’s General Plan.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to determine that the purchase of real property located at 552 11th Place 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 advised that staff will bring back to the next meeting the Nonconforming Ordinance; and noted that the Commission will receive hypothetical build-outs and that he will be calling the Commission members over the next month to address any questions prior to the next meeting.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
With regard to the letter received and the code enforcement activity on 6th Street, Commissioner Perrotti questioned whether the residents will receive a letter explaining the status and response to the letter submitted to the City.
Director Blumenfeld advised that when staff received the letter, the Code Enforcement Officer called the complainant to advise them that staff would investigate the complaint and follow up with them on the status of that investigation.
As part of the General Plan consideration, Chairman Pizer noted his interest in work commencing on the plans for Aviation.
In response to Chairman Pizer’s comment, Commissioner Perrotti advised that he will provide a status report on that project.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 8:53 P.M.
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 May 17, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |