|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Mr. Peha asked that the Commission consider Agenda Item No. 17 this evening, even though the agenda recommends a continuance to August (NR 05-12 -- Reconstruction of a building damaged more than 50-percent replacement cost and remodel to a nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation at 1928 The Strand).
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of the June 21, 2005 Minutes..
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the June 21, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None
Public Hearing(s)
Chairman Pizer recommended first considering the items for continuance – Nos. 7, 12, 15, and 17. No objection was noted.
Item No. 7 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 16, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending this matter be continued because the applicant has to study some alternative configurations for the facility.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, to CONTINUE to August 16, 2005, CUP 05-4 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the City parking structure at 1301 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Item No. 12 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 16, 2005 meeting for proper notice.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending this matter be continued in order to prepare a proper hearing notice, stating the matter was noticed for two units instead of three.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to August 16, 2005, CON 05-20/PDP 05-22 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063311 for a three-unit condominium at 427 11th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Item No. 15 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 16, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant needs additional time to sort through the project plans and therefore is requesting a continuance.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to August 16, 2005, NR 05-10 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 1532 Prospect Avenue (continued from June 21, 2005 meeting). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Item No. 17 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 16, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff had originally recommended this matter be continued; explained there are two parts to this project: one, the reconstruction of the nonconforming use, which was heavily damaged by fire; and the second pertaining to the redevelopment of the property with respect to exceeding the requirements under the Nonconforming Ordinance for expansion. Because of the lengthy time it has taken to get this far, he noted the applicant’s representative has requested the Commission hear the first part of this case this evening.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Larry Peha, representing the applicant, provided a brief history of this project; and explained that this building was being remodeled and under construction when a smoldering piece of pipe resulted in a fire which substantially damaged this building. He added that the City has looked at this structure and that everyone agrees it is not able to be fixed and that the structure will have to be physically replaced. He noted this project is nonconforming with regard to use because there are two units on this property; that it’s also nonconforming with regard to side yard setbacks, site coverage, etc. He explained that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing 1,000-square-foot structure with a structure that will be a little over 1,500 square feet, noting their desire not to replace it with a large structure. He stated that the applicant would like to keep the unit at the rear. He expressed his belief the code section with regard to damaged structures should include the word “use”; noted the City is also in agreement with that inclusion; and that the applicant should be entitled to replace the structure. He stated that the other issue deals with the additional 500 square feet, noting that if the Commission agrees to replace this structure, the applicant would then be coming back before the Commission to address this additional square footage.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out there is minimal staff report this evening because it was recommended to be continued and that the Commission is not prepared to address this matter.
Chairman Pizer echoed those comments.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Attorney advised that the omission of the word “use” from the title of this provision is simply an oversight, because there are other references in the code for reconstruction of nonconforming uses.
Chairman Pizer expressed his belief the applicant should use this letter for guidance, even if the Commission is not ready to make a decision tonight; and added that the Commission usually goes along with City Attorney opinion.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant requests to continue this matter to the next meeting when the Commission can hear it following final review of the text amendment pertaining to this provision, and so the application will remain in effect.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to August 16, 2005, NR 05-12 -- Reconstruction of a building damaged more than 50-percent replacement cost and remodel to a nonconforming single-family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation at 1928 The Strand. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vice-Chairman Hoffman asked that the Commission be provided a copy of the standard worksheet for the nonconforming project when it is heard next month.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this project is located on the south side of 14th Street between Hermosa Avenue and the beach, abutting 15th Court; noted that the project site consists of 5 existing lots that have been assembled, 4 of the existing lots containing nonconforming residential uses and one lot containing a public metered parking area; and stated that the site is located immediately adjacent to the Beach House Hotel. He explained that this project involves the construction of a 3-story commercial building with a mix of hotel, office and retail use; stated that the basement condition will accommodate 27 parking spaces; and that additional parking is provided at the ground level for 12 cars, which is directly accessed from 14th Court. He advised that the retail uses are located on the ground floor, encompassing 5,661 square feet; that the office space is provided on the second floor level, with 2,000 square feet; and that the hotel is located on the second and third floors, with approximately 14,000 square feet. Director Blumenfeld stated that the hotel will provide 29 rooms; and that the rooms will range in size from 240 to 280 square feet. He added that this project meets all the requirements under the Precise Development Plan; that it conforms to the minimum standards of the zone and general zoning requirements and is compatible with the surrounding uses; that the project is consistent with the requirements in the C-2 Zone; that it complies with the 30-foot height limit; and that the proposed mix of uses is consistent with the requirements in the General Plan and, in particular, in the Downtown area. He expressed his belief this project provides an attractive use and is a good transitional use between the activity on Pier Plaza and the abutting residential.
Director Blumenfeld advised that in March 2005, the City Council authorized the sale of one lot, which comprises the 5 that have been assembled for this project, because Council believed the project was consistent with the revitalization goals for the Downtown area; and added that the Planning Commission also confirmed at its March 15, 2005, meeting that the proposed sale was consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. He noted that the project has an open courtyard design and pedestrian-related features; and that overall, staff believes this project is a positive project and reflects the best of what the City wants to see as part of the Downtown revitalization efforts.
With respect to the parking plan, Director Blumenfeld stated that the current parking ratio for the Downtown district is 3 per 1,000 for the retail and office space; one space per room for the hotel portion of the project; and that this results in a total parking requirement of 52 spaces. He stated that 75 percent of the project parking is provided on site and that 25 percent is proposed as in-lieu parking, consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which allows in-lieu parking up to that number for any project greater than a 1:1 floor area ratio.
With respect to traffic, Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant submitted a traffic analysis; and noted the project is expected to generate a net increase of 23 vehicle trips in the a.m. peak and 36 in the p.m. peak, for a net total increase of 551 vehicle trips per day. He added that the City’s traffic engineer reviewed the report and that he concurs with the project findings, that the project will not cause any significant impacts on the intersections and that no traffic mitigation measures are recommended.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending approval subject to the following conditions: that all available parking be shared among the occupants in the building rather than having it assigned; that should the hotel operator and the building owner decide they want to pursue assignment of parking, it should only be done upon approval of a Parking Management Plan which uses valet parking or some other method to manage parking rather than simply assigning the spaces; that a minimum of 6 street trees, with tree grates, be planted on 14th Street as part of the streetscape improvements recommended by the Public Works Department; that decorative paving surfaces be provided at the pedestrian entries to this project; that the spa and conference room, which are part of the hotel facility, be limited to use by hotel patrons; that on-street parking and parking metered locations be reconfigured and done to maximize the number of on-street parking spaces; and that the in-lieu parking fees be deposited in the Parking Improvement Fund prior to occupancy of the building.
Responding to Commissioner Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the number of in-lieu parking spaces remaining in the fund, Director Blumenfeld explained that the City’s in-lieu parking fund is tied to projects that have been approved by the Coastal Commission; noted that the Coastal Commission in the City’s Land Use Plan and Coastal Plan allocates a maximum of 100 in-lieu parking spaces; and stated that approximately 21 in-lieu parking spaces have been allocated over the last 10 years, leaving 79 available. After all 100 in-lieu parking spaces have been used, he advised that the City will be compelled under its Coastal program to construct public parking. He noted that these funds are maintained in the Vehicle Parking District Fund.
Addressing Commissioner Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the hours of valet service, Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission can make the hours for valet service a condition of approval to be included in this Parking Management Plan.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned what the arrangement is for parking and valet service at the Beach House Hotel.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the Beach House Hotel has a dedicated space at the lower level of the City’s parking structure for 100 cars, which was part of an agreement to develop that site.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the Public Works Department has been encouraging landscaping consistency for the Downtown area, planting queen palms along 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue; and expressed his belief that the same planting will be required along 14th Street. He added that the Public Works Department has oversight on all issues related to the public right of way, but that the Commission can make its recommendation for landscaping consistency.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the City has any plans to improve the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue, noting that it’s currently rated a D and that in 2007, it’s projected to be an E.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the City may have to improve that intersection as part of its Congestion Management Plan; but explained that the question is whether those conditions are due to the City’s development or regional circulation along this major corridor.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Hoffman that there is no 24-hour parking in the City’s parking structure; stated that the lot closes at 2:00 a.m.; and that it is incumbent upon the parking operator to make sure the structure is vacant at that time.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, stated that the owner/developer has been diligent in acquiring these 5 concurrent lots; advised that the owner/developer is experienced in operating a spa/hotel; and noted that she will personally manage this project. Mr. Tomaro stated that the project has created a pedestrian friendly environment and that it utilizes a European courtyard theme; advised that the ground level has a large courtyard; that the upper spaces look down into this courtyard area; explained that they have used additional setbacks on 14th Street to create an open environment; noted that the 2-story buildings cascade up to a 3-story building next to the Beach House Hotel, which is consistent with the scale of the Beach House Hotel; and that it smoothly transitions down with outside terraces, setbacks and outside open spaces. He advised that the project involves subterranean parking, approximately 39 spaces; noted that the ground level is retail use, with a courtyard for pedestrian traffic to meander through the pathways; that the mid level is office and hotel use; and that the top level is hotel and spa use. He stated the spa will be exclusively used by hotel guests, with no outside access to the spa. He added that the 29-room hotels are fairly consistent, with a few larger rooms; and stated that some of these rooms open onto the courtyards. Mr. Tomaro stated the 12 parking spaces are accessible off the alley, believing this would be more convenient for egress/ingress; and advised that because of restriping, two additional parking spaces will be provided along 14th Street, thereby getting rid of the previously anticipated curb cut.
Norma Navarro, applicant, advised that valet will be available 24 hours a day; noted her support for the planting of queen palms; stated that decorative paving will be provided at the pedestrian entrances and parking areas; confirmed that the spa, hotel and conference areas will be solely used by hotel patrons; and noted her concurrence with the reconfiguration of parking to maximize on-street parking.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman requested input on the proposed signage.
Mr. Tomaro explained that very little signage is anticipated; stated that a number of awnings will provide room for signage; that the signage at the front of the building will be low profile and that the signage will be incorporated into the architecture when possible. He stated the primary signage for the hotel would most likely exist off the main entrance, which is set back.
Ms. Navarro noted her desire for minimal signage.
Commissioner Kersenboom asked for clarification on the designated area for valet service, noting his concern that the City streets not be impacted by this activity.
Ms. Navarro stated there will be one specific loading area; commented on the provision of two on-street parking spaces; and noted that the loading area will have a small sign which directs patrons upstairs to the check-in area and directed to the valet in the back.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that a Parking Management Plan should include the provisions of this valet service, such as the location of the valet and how it will operate; and noted that Condition 8 requires a detailed, comprehensive sign plan or program that would indicate all signing for the entire project. He added that the sign program could be considered by the Commission.
Ms. Navarro assured the Commission she is not interested in installing large signage.
Mr. Tomaro stated signage will be located on the awnings, on the arched openings, and that small window signage may be used.
Chairman Pizer questioned if there is more room for parking in the basement area.
Mr. Tomaro advised that they have maximized parking in the basement, highlighting the fact that the water table depth is approximately 9 to 10 feet; and noted that the only way to get additional parking is to do tandem parking.
Nancy Rathborne, 15th Street resident, requested, and received, input concerning the number of in-lieu parking spaces remaining; addressed her concern with the limited parking in the area and with the speeding traffic in this area; and she asked where the valets will park the vehicles.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the valet will be parking cars in the subterranean garage. He mentioned that the level of service only addresses the volume of traffic, not the speed of traffic. He stated that additional cars can be parked in the garage if tandem parking is utilized by the valet service, reiterating the need for a Management Parking Plan.
Commissioner Allen stated he has observed the traffic in this area getting slower as it approaches the hotels.
Daniel Marinelli, 2630 The Strand, member of the Public Works Commission, requested additional input on the anticipated daily traffic increase between Hermosa Avenue and 14th Street.
Director Blumenfeld stated that according to the study, there is a total increase of 550 cars; and noted it does not affect the level of service at the intersections, that they all remain at Level of Service A.
Mr. Peha stated that he likes this project, but noted his concern with parking. He noted that this project is not only short on the in-lieu parking, but that it also takes away 7 additional on-street parking spaces; and asked the Commission to take this into consideration. He stated that typically, when parking is taken from the street, applicants have to replace that on site; and noted this has not been done with this project. He noted it is not clear how their parking will work, where the valet greeting will take place and where the loading zone will be placed, questioning if this is going to be on the street. He questioned how the spa usage will be enforced and pointed out that typically, conference rooms are not just utilized by the people staying in the hotel, but also by people who are visiting the hotel patrons; and he urged the City to thoroughly study the parking components of this project.
John McLaughlin, 14th Street, stated that he lives across the street from this project and noted his concern with limited parking in this area.
Renee Wright, 21st Street, noted her concerns with limited parking and the possibility of the valet service or loading zone negatively impacting the flow of traffic on 14th Street.
Carla Merriman, Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, expressed her belief this project will benefit the City; she asked the City to begin to examine building a multi-level parking structure; and suggested that consideration be given to the parking lot at the back of the Underground on 14th Street, which is currently a City-metered lot.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the City has conducted a study of that area; noted that 29 parking spaces could be placed on that site; explained that the cost to build a structure of that kind increases dramatically because it’s less efficient to build; and he mentioned, though, that it could be loaded from Manhattan Avenue and from Palm Drive. He reiterated staff’s recommendation to look at a Parking Management Plan and a valet service as a separate step in this approval process; and that if there is desire for a loading area, for the applicant to indicate what that impact is, if it’s going to negatively impact on-street parking, and if so, how it will affect that. He pointed out that staff does not know the answers to those questions at this time, which is why staff is recommending that as part of the approval process. He expressed his belief the impact with cueing should be dramatically less than what occurs with the Beach House Hotel.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if another parking space will be lost if it is decided the loading area is on 14th Street.
Director Blumenfeld stated it could, but pointed out that the applicant’s architect has indicated two additional parking spaces are being provided as a result of the new configuration; and noted that they are deficient 5 spaces now instead of 7.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that instead of giving up the parking on the front, that they relocate some of the handicapped zones and have two spaces in the back where vehicles can pull in, unload, and taken away by the valets. He expressed his belief this project will be a great addition to the City.
Director Blumenfeld noted the other issue pertains to the timing, and stated the Commission should consider having the Parking Management Plan subject to Commission approval rather than staff approval.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief full-time valet parking is essential for this project and noted his support for the Commission’s review of the Parking Management Plan when it’s available. He expressed his belief this project will be a good addition to the City.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief this is a good opportunity for the City to redevelop this area; and noted his concurrence with reviewing the Parking Management Plan.
Commissioner Allen stated this is a beautiful project and noted his support for the Parking Management Plan coming back to the Commission for review.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Pizer that he believes all the properties have been assembled at this point; and that the owner will have to go through the merger process for all the lots as one of the conditions of approval. He advised that the owners have closed escrow on the City’s lot.
Chairman Pizer expressed his belief this project will be an asset to the future of the City.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE PARK 05-2/PDP 05-13 -- Precise Development Plan for a three-story mixed-use commercial building containing a 29-room hotel and spa, and approximately 9,200 square feet of retail and office uses; a Parking Plan to allow payment of parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 48-76 14th Street; to amend Section 3, Item 5 relating to parking, No. 1, to substitute the Planning Commission for the Community Development Director in terms of the approval of the Parking Plan; that the second sentence should end after it says “short-term visitors”; and that the third sentence should be a limited number and assigned to Item 5. (This motion ultimately carried.)
By way of a friendly amendment, Commissioner Perrotti requested adding to Condition 3A six street trees to be consistent with the trees that are on Hermosa Avenue.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that because the Public Works Department has jurisdiction over the placement of street trees in the right of way, he would not accept that friendly amendment.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Public Works Department has indicated an interest in trying to use queen palms in this area, but stated this ultimately is a Public Works Department issue.
Commissioner Perrotti seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Pizer recessed the meeting at 8:19 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:25 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Roberson stated that the subject site is located on the west side of Loma Drive between 10th and 11th Streets; noted that the project consists of two attached units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit has 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths and a roof deck; that the buildings are designed in a contemporary style; and that the project complies with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height, lot coverage, required yards and required parking. He stated that each unit has a dedicated parking space in front of their respective garages, as the project has two access points from Loma Drive and Sunset Drive; noted there is sufficient open space for both units; that each unit contains two decks at the primary living level, with a total of 200 square feet accessible to these primary areas, with the balance of open space on the roof decks. He added that the plan provides for landscaping at the front yard and north side yards and that it includes two 36-inch box trees and storage areas.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, stated that this project complies with the City’s codes and noted her acceptance of the conditions.
Ollie Anders, 1040 Sunset Drive, stated that he owns the 3-unit apartment building next door which shares a side yard with this project; expressed his belief the property line is 2 feet away from his building, noting this would be a tight squeeze with a fence; and addressed his concern with the sewer system and the removal of the trees, pointing out that the tree roots have created sewer problems.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the side yard setback is 4 feet along his property.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned if a new wall will be erected between these two properties.
Director Blumenfeld stated that there isn’t a requirement for the owner to put in a property line wall, but that there isn’t a prohibition against this owner fully utilizing their property, and stated that it would be a civil matter if the neighbor were to object.
Chairman Pizer re-opened the public hearing.
Aram Bedoyan, project architect, stated they will most likely erect a property line fence or guardrail and noted that the owner will work with the adjacent neighbor on that design and placement.
Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out this project meets all standards for development.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman asked that additional articulation be provided on the northern elevation.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom to APPROVE CON 05-16/PDP 05-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063046 for a two-unit condominium at 1044 Sunset Drive.
By way of a friendly amendment, Vice-Chairman Hoffman asked that a condition be added to direct the project architect to work with staff in adding additional articulation to the northern elevation.
Commissioner Kersenboom accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Hoffman. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject site is located on the east side of Bard Street, north of its intersection with 8th Street; noted that this project is one of three on three contiguous lots at 836, 842 and 844 Bard Street currently being developed with duplexes that share a parking lot to the rear; and advised that this proposal is for the middle project of the three. He advised that the applicant plans to develop each of these three properties with two-unit condominium projects which have identical floor plans and architectural designs; and he mentioned that the Planning Commission approved the project at 836 Bard Street last month. He advised that this project consists of two 2-story detached units, with the front unit containing a basement, a roof deck above and the rear unit containing a basement with three stories above. He stated that in addition, the rear unit includes a recreation room in the basement level below the garage level and a second living room area at the garage level; and mentioned that the buildings are designed in a contemporary style. He advised that the project complies with the parking requirements, lot coverage, yard requirements; and stated there are some corrections necessary with respect to the driveway slope and open space – noting the open space is slightly deficient by 5 square feet. He stated he believes these minor issues can be corrected with the conditions of approval. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the building elevations and the exterior materials are identical to those approved for the adjacent projects; and noted there are some slight differences with 836 and 842.
Senior Planner Robertson stated there is another part to this approval with respect to confirming there is a convex slope related to the way the applicant has calculated building height; noted that the applicant is requesting consideration as a convex sloped lot and is proposing alternative points for measuring height rather than the corner points; advised that the Commission granted this same request for the adjacent property at 836 Bard Street based on the terrain, which is relatively flat for the top third of the lot, then changes to a gradual slope in the middle portion of the lot, and changes to a steep slope at the lower portion, all which is supported by the survey information and the topographic profile.
Chairman Pizer questioned if staff has discussed with the applicant the driveway slope in the front yard of 14.7 percent.
Senior Planner Robertson noted staff has discussed this issue with the applicant and that they believe this can be corrected.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
David Watson, project architect, stated he is aware of the sloped situation with the second driveway and stated it can be mitigated pretty easily with adjusting the second floor height with the overhang; and he stated that because there are two elevations that front streets, they have gone to great lengths to provide aesthetically pleasing elevations off Bard Street and Valley Drive.
Commissioner Perrotti asked the applicant what other things besides paint can be done to differentiate these three condominiums.
Mr. Watson stated they can adjust some of the windows, provide different color schemes, push and pull a little on the balconies. He mentioned there is a slight differentiation between 842 and 848 as far as what they had to do with building heights and the door of the third floor.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested the use of different rock or siding.
Mr. Watson stated they could incorporate different type of stone for each building and that they can look at incorporating different types of materials for the railings.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom asked that the Commission review a rendering of how these three projects will be differentiated.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested that this differentiation be included as a condition.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned if there is anything that can be done to break up the expansive 18 feet of uninterrupted driveway between the two buildings.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that possibly a trellis off the side of each building be erected to take up some of that gap.
Director Blumenfeld stated that one can partially encroach in a side yard but not in the front. He mentioned that decorative concrete is being proposed.
In response to Chairman Pizer, Director Blumenfeld stated that Condition No. 5 refers to architectural treatment; noted that the Planning Commission could amend that condition to say that the architect shall supply a rendering that depicts the changes to the three project building facades, to differentiate them, and that this be subject to Commission approval; and stated that the Commission could make this subject to staff approval.
The public hearing was re-opened.
Mr. Watson stated he would provide those renderings to reflect the differentiation on the three projects.
The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Pizer suggested that the condition refer to this differentiation for all three properties, to direct the applicant to return with a design for all three properties.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will work with the applicant and make sure the properties are differentiated.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for staff reviewing the renderings.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 05-17/PDP 05-19 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62913 for a two-unit condominium at 842 Bard Street; and that 5B be added, “Architectural treatment shall be improved subject to staff review and approval.” The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the same sloped condition of the driveway needs to corrected, but added this is otherwise the same project.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Mr. Watson he reiterated that the aesthetics will be mixed up a bit on all three projects.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the pubic hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 05-5 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to alter the floor plan to allow a dance floor for an existing restaurant with on sale alcohol at 53 Pier Avenue, Fat Face Fenners Fishack; and that an exit discharge plan and an acoustical study be provided before the CUP takes effect. The MOTION carried as followsby Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-18/PDP 05-20 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62914 for a two-unit condominium at 848 Bard Street; and that 5B be added, “Architectural treatment shall be improved subject to staff review and approval.” The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at the corner of 2nd Street, the former site of the 2nd Street Café; advised that this area is zoned C-1, allowing residential uses above ground floor commercial uses; and stated that condominium developments are allowed in the C-1 Zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit and approval of a Precise Development Plan. In this case, he advised that the project plans propose a 3-story building with 2 floors of residential and a roof deck above the ground floor commercial space which also contains a mezzanine; noted that the residence is located partially above the commercial area and behind the mezzanine area and partially above the parking area; that it contains 4 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; and that the aggregate parking required for the project is 6 spaces, all being provided on the ground level with access from 2nd Street and the alley. He advised that the project complies with design and development standards for mixed use development in the C-1 Zone; stated that the project complies with the 30-foot height limit in the C-1 Zone; that the project complies with the mixed use development standards, which also have the requirement for a 30-foot minimum average depth for the commercial level – noting in this case, that 30-foot depth is provided for the ground commercial area by averaging the depth of the mezzanine level with the ground floor level.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the mixed use standards require the ground floor area be primarily commercial; that in this case, it comprises 78 percent of the ground floor; and noted that the ground floor frontage is exclusively used for commercial purposes, with the exception of the entry foyer for the residential unit. He stated also pursuant to the mixed use standards of the C-1 Zone is that the residential portion of the project is required to comply with the R-3 development standards; that in this case, the residential portion is consistent with the density, height and open space requirements of the R-3 Zone, again a 30-foot height limit; noted that the open space is provided on decks, with over 300 square feet for the one residential unit, with a minimum 100 square feet adjacent to the primary living space. He mentioned that the required front yard setback at the second and third levels is 5 feet and complies with the R-3 standards; stated that the side yard setbacks of 3 feet are provided on the residential levels; and that the rear yard setback on the alley of 1 foot is provided on the residential levels. He stated that also pursuant to the mixed use development standards, the residential project is consistent with the requirement that the residential use be limited to less than 25 percent of the first floor area, which is the flip side of the requirement for the commercial, and in this case, the residential accounts for 21 percent of the floor area of the ground floor, again, for the purpose of providing the entry into the residential unit. He stated that the front setback of the residential portion complies with the 5-foot minimum and a portion of this front setback area on the third level is used for the required open space; and noted this exception is allowed pursuant to the mixed use standards.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that separate, secured entrances are provided to the residential unit from both the parking area and from the sidewalk; and advised that the only thing missing from the plans is a 36-inch street tree required per dwelling, which is being recommended as a condition of approval. He advised that the parking is provided in compliance with the aggregate requirements for the commercial and residential uses; noted that the residential portion of parking is provided with a two-car garage accessed off the alley with a parallel guest space at the front of the garage, and the parking for the commercial space is provided in an open garage at the ground floor with access off 2nd Street for two of the spaces and off the alley for the third space.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that with respect to the requirements for a Precise Development Plan approval, the PDP review requirements are in conformance with minimum standards of the zone and general review of the project relating to compatibility with surrounding uses. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project plans show a substantial improvement and will revitalize an underutilized and unsightly location; further, the architectural features and appearance of the building appear to be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses; that the overall impact on traffic and local parking will be substantially less than the previous use, since no parking was provided on site for the restaurant use, which was nonconforming with parking; and that traffic impacts of the previous use would have been more intense than the proposed uses.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that the 36-inch tree will be planted on Hermosa Avenue.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Hoffman that there will be no loss of on-street parking.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Patrick Killen, project architect, advised that the neighboring property owner was not interested in merging his property in with this project; advised they met with Public Works to confirm that moving the spaces around on 2nd Street was acceptable; noted that his architectural firm plans on relocating to this site; and that this site was designed with their own uses in mind. He advised that the condominium space above is roughly a full third story and a partial second story and because they are not raising grade around the building to defeat the two-story-plus-basement rule, they are actually providing two staircases in the residential unit. He stated that although this is a very modern design, they attempted to mix the materials as well as modulate the building so that it has undulation on all four sides; advised that the balconies on the west elevation of the building are for the residential unit; and that they used that setback area in the front to set the residential unit back and provide a balcony space that looks to the east. He noted on the south side, they are using that to gain some light wells as they articulate the side of the building, stating it is not a flat façade.
Chairman Pizer requested input on the use of the external metal.
Mr. Killen stated for Chairman Pizer that the exterior metal is called Zinc-alum; noted that it’s rolled zinc and aluminum and is long-lasting; explained that it will not rust at the beach as long as it is not in contact with another ferrous material; advised that this material is currently on their 11th Street building; and that they’ve successfully used this material at many beachfront properties over the years. He advised that this material has been successfully tested for 15 years on the Florida coast; and he added that this material is on two houses located on The Strand dating back to the 1990’s. He stated the material is typically put together with stainless steel fasteners. He requested that they be permitted to open the office at 7:00 A.M. rather than 8:00 A.M.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could add retail uses in the resolution, which would exempt the office related use that Mr. Killen is requesting.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated this is a nice project.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that the key to this mixed use idea is one of creativity; expressed his belief this project will not only be an architectural landmark, but that it may prove to be a landmark case for the City in how it develops mixed use and whether the City wants to continue to do these projects.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his hope the City will give mixed use an opportunity to succeed; expressed his belief this live-work development will be successful; and noted this proposed development complies with all the development standards. He stated this project should have a positive effect upon this area of the City.
Commissioner Kersenboom commended the architect on this project.
Chairman Pizer stated this project is creatively designed and that it is ideal for this City.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-19/PDP 05-21 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 062415 for a mixed use condominium project consisting of one commercial unit and one residential unit at 20 2nd Street; to incluce a modification to Paragraph 3, Page 7, reflecting “retail” instead of commercial uses. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
TEXT 04-4 -- Draft Text Amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and uses, Phase II.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of a portion of said text amendment.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff is working to complete the review of Chapter 17.52 of the Zone Code relating to nonconforming uses; making it less restrictive to help preserve older structures, or in the case heard earlier, to allow reconstruction. He advised that staff is suggesting an increase in the amount of the remodel and expansion. Currently, nonconforming uses are limited to 50 percent increase in valuation of the building containing the nonconforming use with no opportunity to exceed that 50 percent. He stated that the remodel/expansion of residential properties must provide at least two parking spaces per unit; that for commercial property, parking must be provided for the expansion only and replacement cost calculated based on International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) calculations. With respect to nonconforming uses, he advised that staff is suggesting allowing up to 50 percent increase in floor area for nonconforming uses and disregarding the remodel of interiors based on footage, not on valuation and not requiring Planning Commission approval. Currently, he noted that up to 50 percent expansion/remodel valuation and calculation includes building interiors. He stated that based on input at the previous Commission meeting regarding nonconforming buildings, staff is suggesting allowing this 50-percent increase up to a 3,000-square-foot maximum per dwelling unit; that staff is also suggesting allowing up to 500 square feet of addition or increase in floor area without Planning Commission approval for nonconforming uses when there is one parking space per unit or when the parking is added to an existing building with no parking – pointing out that this pertains to the fire damaged project discussed earlier this evening.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is also suggesting disregarding the interior remodeling decks and garages or other accessory structures from allowable footage; stated that currently, a 250-square-foot expansion is allowed with one parking space per unit; and again, advised that staff is talking about calculating the amount of expansion based on footage only and eliminating the confusing reference to that valuation.
With respect to the structural removal allowed under this ordinance, Director Blumenfeld suggested that staff try to avoid the confusion by recommending or eliminating the percentage removal limitation entirely; and instead, that staff is suggesting the code be amended to indicate any existing nonconforming portion of the structure cannot be completely removed and that the existing floor system must be retained. He stated this would permit removal of studs and other structural framing as necessary in the construction process if, for example, there were dry rot or some other kind of damage without violating the ordinance; and that it would permit partial removal of damaged studs.
With respect to requirements for nonconforming buildings to parking, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is suggesting if there is no parking or less than one per unit, the 100-square-foot expansion be retained; that if there is one space per unit or new parking is added, that 500 square feet of expansion is allowed with no Planning Commission approval – pointing out that currently, only a 250-square-foot expansion is allowed and no credit is given for added parking. He suggested that if two spaces per unit are provided, but there is still insufficient guest parking, that 100 percent expansion nonconforming up to the nonconforming structure be permitted and that 50 percent expansion be permitted for nonconforming uses. He recommended changes to incorporate some of the references in the parking section in the nonconforming ordinance just to make things less confusing; and advised that a draft ordinance will be put together for the next meeting for Commission consideration that would incorporate both phases examined.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Cindy Vix, owner the house at 1928 The Strand, noted her support for these changes, stating it will help in reconstructing her fire damaged home. She stated she has no desire to build a large home.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Pizer that this code affects the property because it does not meet the current parking requirements, but the new requirement will allow a 500-square-foot expansion.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen questioned how code amendments are advertised.
Director Blumenfeld advised that legal advertisements and public hearing notices go out; stated that the City conducts quarterly community construction meetings, wherein design professionals and contractors are invited to attend; that the City has a quarterly newsletter advising of any new text amendments or changes to any of the codes; and stated that these changes should also be included on the City’s web site.
Chairman Pizer proposed that an Item E be added to Chapter 17.52.010, “All maintenance, renovation and expansion shall use exterior architectural consistency.”
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that is not a goal of the nonconforming ordinance.
Director Blumenfeld indicated it could be written as a goal by simply saying “to encourage renovation, maintenance and expansion to incorporate architectural consistency.”
Vice-Chairman Hoffman pointed out that this matter is not related to historic preservation.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will find a place for this architectural consistency language in the draft ordinance.
There was consensus to approve this draft text amendment by Minute Order.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To determine that the property shall be merged into one parcel.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is currently one large parcel which contains 14,700 square feet; that it’s comprised of four legal lots from the original subdivision, Lots 35, 36, 37, and 38; advised that three of these lots are 40 by 100 feet, but noted the owner’s portion of Lot 38 has been reduced to 27 feet in width by 100 feet; and noted that the property currently contains a single dwelling that is sited across all four contiguous lots. He stated that pursuant to Chapter 16.20 of the Municipal Code that deals with the merger of parcels, the City has begun the process to determine whether these four lots that comprise the subject property will be merged – pointing out that that section of the code gives that responsibility to the Planning Commission whether the property shall be merged. He explained that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to merge lots if the same owner holds two or more contiguous parcels of land and where certain criteria exists; noted that in this case, the subject property meets the criteria for merger since one of the contiguous lots, the portion of Lot 38, contains less than 4,000 square feet and also because the existing structure is sited on all four lots; and that, therefore, by following the provisions in the code, the City has started this process.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the City mailed a Notice of Intention to Determine Status to the property owner on June 13, 2005; that the Notice of Intention was recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office; and stated that prior to this determination the City made that these lots may be merged, the applicant had submitted a plan and paid plan check fees to develop the property with four separate, single-family structures.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the City established the process for merging substandard lots in 1986 in an effort to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and to maintain current densities and was adopted in accordance with state legislation; and by 1990, the City merged nearly 700 parcels pursuant to these provisions, including several on the subject block where this property is located, in a citywide effort to merge all lots that met the criteria established by these provisions. He advised that the City only accepted the application for this property to develop four single-family homes after checking the City’s records and determining these lots were not merged in the late 1980’s; however, upon further review by the City Attorney, it was determined that these lots should have been considered for merger in the 1980s, when this effort was undertaken throughout the City; and he added that these lots not being included in the merger activities was an oversight. He stated that now, given that the owner wants to develop the lots separately, the City may consider the lots for merger. As part of this process, he advised that the applicant can request a hearing, which is what the applicant has requested in order to be given the opportunity to present evidence that the lots do not meet the requirements for merger; and advised that at this point, the applicant has not submitted any evidence but has only requested this hearing. Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff is recommending the lots be merged into one parcel pursuant to code because this does meet all the criteria for merger.
With respect to the other alternative to possibly re-divide this property into three lots or some other number of lots, Senior Planner Robertson noted staff is not aware at this time if the owner is interested in pursuing that option; and if that ultimately is an option, he stated it will have to be noticed and heard at a later date specific to that request. Also with respect to that option of re-dividing the property, he stated that staff needs to sort out with the City Attorney if it will require a subdivision application or some other method of re-division; and that more importantly, if a prevailing lot size criteria required for such re-subdivision after merger has to be applied to this property, which could have an effect on how many number of lots this could be divided into.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this evening, the Commission is to consider the merger only; and staff is recommending that if the applicant is interested in pursuing an alternative to re-subdivide this property, that this be continued to a future hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that in reading Section 16.20.020, he does not see how these lots can be separated because the existing structure covers all four lots.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the provision involving contiguous parcels says that one is prohibited from separately selling or separating two or more contiguous lots by the same person or legal entity that has an existing structure or improvement straddling them; and noted that the remedy there is to merge the lots and then the owner may submit an application to subdivide the property. He reiterated that the second part of this needs to be sorted out with the City Attorney.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned if there exists any information why this lot was excluded from the merger process in the ’80s, when 38 lots in that same block were merged.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff was not able to determine why this lot was not merged with the rest.
Albro Lundy, attorney representing the applicant, asked that the Commission consider the fact that the law doesn’t require the Commission to merge this parcel; explained that the family held these pieces of property for their nest egg; stated the applicant used to own 8 pieces of property -- the four behind each one of those lots, which is 40 by 100; and stated that what is being proposed is not exceptional. He explained that the only reason the small portion isn’t conforming is the Busby’s in the past were approached by one of their neighbors to purchase a portion of their property so they could but on an addition; advised that the Busbys consented to that sale; and he added that they probably would not have consented to that sale if they had known it would set them up for a merger. He reiterated that this property does not have to be merged, only that it may be merged; and he advised that the applicant is opposed to a merger. He explained that equitable estoppel means that once you’ve relied upon someone’s actions, those actions then allow you to continue with your reliance; in this situation, he advised that the family went before the City and was told they had four legal lots, that they could build on four legal lots; that the family then put in over $10,000 in terms of City permit fees on four lots and that they’ve also spent close to $50,000 in terms of the development of these four lots; and he stated that they have now got their reliance and essentially an issue of estoppel in terms of the reliance upon what the City had told the applicants to do. He stated that from his perspective, the Commission doesn’t need to order a merger.
Commissioner Perrotti asked the applicant how they understand the language in Section 16.20.020, then, with the existing home straddling the four lots.
Mr. Lundy stated that would be with regard to the merger itself, not the subdivision; expressed his belief the City put that language in there is because the home straddles the piece of property; stated that if this particular provision wasn’t in the code, all the applicant would have to do is sell it and there wouldn’t be an issue of merger because then there wouldn’t be a contiguous piece of property that could be merged. He stated this provision essentially says that once there is a suggestion of merger, the applicant can’t sell a piece of property to eliminate the question of merger because the City then will not give the owner a demolition permit. He stated it doesn’t say with four separate lots, the applicant can’t get a demolition permit and can’t go forward and build -- noting their City permits indicated they could.
Dorothy Busby, applicant, stated that she has lived at this address for over 40 years with the idea that when she and her husband became seniors, they would be able to keep the lot facing Power Street in order to build a smaller house and to sell the other lots to give them the income they needed to sustain them through their retirement years.
Beverly Busby, Manhattan Beach, stated that the Busbys have deep roots in this City; advised that they purchased this home in 1958; noted that they were both very active within the community – pointing out that Mrs. Dorothy Busby continues to spend countless hours in raising money for nonprofit organizations. She advised that Mrs. Busby is 81 years old; that she is the caregiver of her eldest son; and that she needs this source of income for living expenses and to pay off her second mortgage. She stated the current house is too large for Mrs. Busby and that she needs a smaller house that is designed to give her ease of movement and mobility; and noted she does not want to leave this neighborhood. She added that Mrs. Busby is not interested in having a large house with a large yard to maintain. She advised that Dorothy Busby is interested in selling this property to her son’s company, Young Construction; stated that Young Construction is a reputable firm known for its high quality product; and she urged the City not to merge these parcels.
Betty Ryan, 588 20st Street, expressed her opposition to the City merging these parcels; and stated that the lots merged in the 1980’s were much smaller lots that were 25-foot wide and had a house straddling two 25-foot lots – pointing out this is not the same configuration.
Bill Wolf, project architect, stated that the renderings depict four custom homes on these parcels; advised that the applicant has chosen a quality contractor who will provide a high quality product; and commented on the various components of the project design, stating it will fit well within this neighborhood. He added that these homes will be open to the neighborhood and not walled off with fences and walls; and stated the design meets the criteria for this City.
Rosaleen Murphy, 554 21st Street, expressed her belief it was the prior owner of her home that purchased 13 feet of property from the Busbys in the mid-60’s; stated there was a merger that took place; and that it was recorded, a copy of which she can provide. She stated her property is contiguous to one of these four lots in question; and she noted her opposition to allowing small lots in this neighborhood and asked that the City go by its code. She asked if someone can legally build on a 27-foot wide lot in this neighborhood.
Larry Highler, 580 21st Street, noted his opposition to building a home on a 27-foot wide lot in this neighborhood; and stated he would support dividing this property into three equal lots.
Michael Togut, 2012 Power Street, expressed his concern that adding more homes in this neighborhood will create a traffic hazard for those children walking to and from the nearby grade school.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his confusion with the prohibition to separately sell or separate two or more contiguous lots and the 1964 tract map indicating this property as four legal lots.
Director Blumenfeld stated apparently, this lot was lawfully created at one time; that there are four underlying lots with one building straddling all lots in question; and explained what the code provision says is that one is prohibited to separately sell off or separate two or more of these contiguous lots if there is an existing structure or improvement straddling them.
Chairman Pizer questioned if the applicant can obtain a demolition permit for this one building.
Director Blumenfeld stated the City would not issue a demolition permit because of the requirements of Chapter 16.20.120. Director Blumenfeld highlighted the language in Section 16.20.050, Notice of Intention to Determine Status, and stated that the City is following those provisions to the letter relative to this Notice of Intent to Merge because the City now has knowledge that this condition exists and that the City must take action once this condition is known. With respect to Chapter 16.20.120, he stated that the applicant’s attorney maintains the City is estopped from enforcing this regulation, but indicated the City Attorney has said that the City is not estopped from enforcing its own Zoning Ordinance. He stated that what is clear is that the Planning Commission has the option to merge; noted that staff is questioning what the ultimate size of this lot ought to be because there appears to be some variation between the provisions of the Merger Ordinance and the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and reiterated that staff will seek clarification in this regard from the City Attorney. He added that the division of land should be considered separately.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned what are the applicant’s options if the Commission did merge the lots.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner’s next step would be to divide the land; that they would have to either process a new subdivision map or make this change as part of this application; but that there would be a subsequent decision by the Commission relative to the division of land. He clarified that staff recommends creating one parcel; and that it is then up to the owner to come in and divide the land, pursuant to the current requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Commissioner Kersenboom asked if the Commission did merge the lots, what would it cost for the applicant to come in and pursue it further; and questioned what how large the lot could be.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff needs to determine whether this application, the division of land can be handled under the Merger Ordinance; if so, the applicant could handle it under this application; and stated it is not clear at this point if there has to be a separate subdivision. Director Blumenfeld advised that the Subdivision Ordinance sets out a minimum lot size width of 40 feet and no less than 4,000 square feet in this zone; that under the law, the applicant could not subdivide anything less than that; and he added there is a possibility the applicant could have three 49-foot lots. He reiterated that staff has no choice but to proceed with the provisions of the merger per Section 16.20.050.
Chairman Pizer questioned if the Commission is supposed to evaluate the law and make a determination in this regard.
Director Blumenfeld stated it is the Commission’s role to make a determination whether these contiguous parcels should be subject to the merger requirements; and noted the Commission must determine whether the property is consistent with these requirements.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned whether staff knows how many lots were involuntarily merged in the past.
Director Blumenfeld expressed his belief there were some lots that were involuntarily merged, but that he does not have that figure available this evening.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman pointed out that nowhere does it indicate this is a mandatory procedure, noting that it says “may be merged.”
Director Blumenfeld stated there is a mandatory Planning Commission review provision under the Notice of Intention to Determine.
Chairman Pizer asked if parcels had been involuntarily merged in the past. The public hearing was re-opened.
Mr. Highler stated that this was a mandatory merge process and that almost all property owners were opposed to this merger; advised that he owned two lots, one being 40 feet in width and the other being 10 feet in width; and that he wound up with one 50-foot wide lot after the merger.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that merging a 10-foot wide strip of land is understandable.
Responding to the Commission’s comments, Director Blumenfeld reiterated that the Commission may make a determination as to whether to merge; but stated that the provision indicates the owner is prohibited from selling or separating these lots; and that the City is prohibited from issuing demolition permits or construction permits to redevelop such lots.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that this essentially results in having three houses or one.
Mr. Lundy reiterated that the Commission does not have to merge this lot; he expressed his belief if the Commission chooses to say no to merging these lots, the City can go forward and give the applicant their permits; and that the applicant can then develop these four legal lots.
Director Blumenfeld stated there is ambiguity in the merger provisions and reiterated that he needs further clarification from the City Attorney on that issue. He suggested that this entire matter be continued to allow staff to obtain clarification from the City Attorney.
Commissioner Kersenboom requested that the City Attorney be present to answer questions at the next Commission meeting.
Renee Wright, 576 21st Street, expressed her opposition to allowing small lots in this neighborhood and increasing the density.
Chairman Pizer closed the hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support of Director Blumenfeld’s suggestion to continue this item for clarification from the City Attorney.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE this matter to allow staff to work with the City Attorney in clarifying the interpretation of the code. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vice-Chairman Hoffman asked that staff find out if the City ever forced legally conforming lots to be merged.
Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on the west side of Hollowell Avenue, between Prospect Avenue and 3rd Street; stated that the existing structure was constructed in 1961; that the building is nonconforming to garage setback requirements, having 10 feet rather than 17 feet; that it provides only one parking space rather than the two required spaces; that it provides no guest parking; and that it’s nonconforming to side yard requirements on the north and south elevations. He noted that the applicant is proposing to add 626 square feet, to add a family room on the first floor and a master bedroom on the second floor; stated that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 1,225 square feet to 1,851 square feet, which calculates to 52.9 percent increase in valuation; and he noted that the expansion otherwise conforms to planning and zoning requirements with respect to open space, lot coverage and the height limit. He advised that the applicant also proposes to move the existing garage entrance 18 feet from the front property line in order to provide two parking spaces, one interior and one exterior; and that while the dwelling will still be nonconforming to guest parking, the number of standard parking spaces will increase from one to two. He added that the dwelling was built slightly askew of the property lines and that in order to continue the existing exterior wall, the dwelling along the north side yard setback must be reduced from 2.7 to 2.6 feet. He stated the Commission is permitted to grant a continuation of nonconforming side yards in situations like this.
Julie Weber, project designer, noted for Vice-Chairman Hoffman that moving the door in on the garage is an adequate solution that will be pleasing to the eye.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated this is an innovative solution, but stated he hopes it will be appealing.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the increase of one parking space.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 05-11 -- Nonconforming Remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 319 Hollowell Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
Staff Items
a. Planning Division Work Program Fiscal Year 2005-06.(PDF File).
Director Blumenfeld noted that every year, the Commission adopts an annual work program; and he indicated the Commission previously expressed interest in preparing an Aviation Boulevard Specific Plan. He expressed his belief this project will take 9 to 12 months to complete and that it can be accomplished with the current level of staffing and current workload.
It was the consensus of the Commission to work on the Aviation Boulevard Specific Plan.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti stated he had heard some of the establishments in the Downtown area were cited for over-crowding over the July 4th holiday and asked if this is true.
Director Blumenfeld stated that 6 businesses were cited exclusively for occupancy load violations; and he noted for Commissioner Perrotti that he believes the fine is $250, but that he will have to check and report back to the Planning Commission for the next meeting.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested that maybe the fine should be increased to discourage this activity.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman highlighted the earlier suggestion to pursue development of the lot at 14th and Manhattan, stating it is an eyesore and is underutilized; and noted this may be a logical location for a multi-level parking structure.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a study had been prepared for a parking structure on that site; and stated he will make that study available to the Commission; and if so desired, the Commission can make a recommendation to Council on that basis.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Hoffman that a new tenant is occupying The Big Yellow House building as is.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 P.M.
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 July 19, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |