|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Chairman Pizer |
| Absent: | Allen |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
None
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of July 19, 2005 Minutes..
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the July 19, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None
Public Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 20, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance to allow additional time to provide the necessary supporting evidence to complete the application.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to September 20, 2005, L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 - 674 4th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 20, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is requesting this item be continued to give the applicant more time to submit plans that comply with the City’s Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance, noting that the current proposal does not meet the maximum area limitation of the Ordinance.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to September 20, 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: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None There was Commission consensus to move forward at this time Item No. 12.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To merge the property.
Director Blumenfeld explained that at the prior meeting, several questions arose with respect to the intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance in connection with this property; advised that the property owner is seeking to develop four lots on a property that is 147 feet wide and straddled by one building; that one of the lots fails to conform to the minimum area requirement of 4,000 square feet and is only 27 feet wide as opposed to 40 feet in width; and stated that the owner submitted plans and was stopped in the building permit process after it was determined the property was subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.20. He noted the Commission had questioned whether it was compelled to merge the lots under the provisions of the Ordinance or simply required to consider lot merger and make a determination based on the Ordinance provisions -- in other words, was the lot merger a mandatory requirement. He stated that Section 16.20.120 is ambiguous; that it seems to suggest an owner may not obtain a building permit or sell or divide a parcel, which falls under the provisions of the Lot Merger Ordinance; that the Commission had questioned if the property falls under the provisions of the Ordinance and cannot be developed, does it follow that a lot merger is the only way to allow development. He advised that this item was continued in order to get the City Attorney’s opinion on these questions; stated that the City Attorney has provided a written opinion, which is attached to the Commission report; and noted that Mr. Gregg Kovacevich is present this evening from the Attorney’s Office to answer any questions the Commission may have.
In summary, Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Attorney’s report indicates the Planning Commission is not compelled to merge the lots but is compelled to consider the merger under the provisions of Section 16.20.050 and -060; and further, that the Commission’s determination on merger should be based on whether the merger achieves the City’s broader land use objectives, the objectives of the General Plan, and the requirements of the Ordinance. He explained that the merger may involve consolidating the property into one large lot or merging the smaller 27-foot lot with the abutting lot to the east, creating a 67-foot wide lot and leaving the two conforming underlying 40-foot wide lots in place. He stated that the Ordinance specifies the minimum standards for conforming lots, which is 40 feet in width and 4,000 square feet minimum area requirement. Director Blumenfeld stated that the options for the Commission to consider include merging the lots into one lot based upon the provisions of Chapter 16.20 if the Commission believes the City’s land use policies are advanced by merging the four lots into one; and, in effect, require the submittal of a subdivision map to re-divide the lot if that’s desired by the applicant so long as it meets the minimum design standards for the lot. He stated the second option is to merge the substandard lot with the adjacent lot to the east, creating one lot that is 67 feet wide and two that are 40 feet in width based on similar Commission findings; or third, not to merge the lots at all.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Albro Lundy, attorney representing the applicant, stated that he had submitted a letter brief with regard to some of the legal issues that were discussed at the last meeting; stated that he concurs with the City Attorney’s written opinion, noting there is no requirement that the lots be merged and that the applicant can have four lots. He stated there exists four legal lots, and advised that the applicant favors the four individual lots at this time – highlighting the expenses paid by the applicant to date for the preliminary approval process within the City.
David Young, co-applicant, stated that he received email from the City saying that these were four legal parcels and that he was able to build on these parcels; explained that he then proceeded through a preliminary design development process, making a couple trips to the City for its approval along the way; and advised that he was given a green light to proceed. He stated that they then began to submit their plans and started working on the drawings; and advised that approximately $57,000 has been spent on the design plans, civil engineering work and City fees for four lots. He stated that this project will provide his mother-in-law with the expected retirement income and that she wants to proceed with this project.
Mr. Kovacevich reiterated the information in the City Attorney’s letter; stated that this is a permissive discretionary process and that the Commission is not compelled to merge these lots in any way; noted that the Commission may merge these four lots into one parcel; or that the Commission can take the one legal, nonconforming parcel and merge it into the adjacent property and end up with three properties. If the Commission chooses the latter option, he indicated the applicant would be permitted to return later to request a lot line adjustment. Mr. Kovacevich advised that the Commission could merge those two parcels tonight; that if the applicant wanted, he would have to come back later with a lot line adjustment application; and that the only thing to be done tonight is to merge or not to merge these lots.
Commissioner Perrotti stated these are four legal lots, the smallest one being approximately 2,700 square feet; pointed out that in some parts of the City, there are smaller lots than that, but stated that in this particular neighborhood, the smallest lots are around 4,000 square feet. He stated that the Commissioners should attempt to maintain a certain amount of consistency in an area; and noted that at this point, he would prefer Option 2, to merge the smallest lot with the one next to it, thereby, creating some consistency in that neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted his preference to merge Lot Nos. 37 and 38, concurring with Commissioner Perrotti’s comments.
Commissioner Kersenboom briefly addressed his preference to maintain consistency in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Perrotti thanked the City Attorney for writing the legal opinion and thanked Mr. Kovacevich for attending this evening’s meeting.
Chairman Pizer applauded everyone involved for clarifying a confusing part of this Ordinance, expressing his desire to amend/clarify the Ordinance in the near future. He questioned if there is a policy to reduce the fees for this applicant as a result of the events leading up to now.
Director Blumenfeld advised that City Council is the only body to make that decision, but stated that it is possible to waive permit fee requirements. He mentioned that no building permits were issued and that no construction had commenced; and noted that the applicant has the ability, if necessary, to file a claim with the City to attempt to recover some of their costs.
Chairman Pizer noted his preference to maintain consistency in this neighborhood and to maintain consistency with the City’s General Plan, stating that Lot Nos. 37 and 38 should be merged.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to merge Lot No. 37 with Lot No. 38, Option No. 2. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is located on the north side of 11th Street between Cypress Avenue and Loma Drive; that the property consists of three attached units containing basements with two stories above and a roof deck; that the units measure between 1,800 square feet and 1,930 square feet; and that the units are considered row dwellings because their entries front on a common side yard. He advised that the building is designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style, with smooth stucco finishes, tile roofing and decorative wrought iron guardrails for all the decks; and mentioned that the applicant had previously submitted a very similar design and floor plan for the adjacent property at 423 11th Street, which is already constructed and occupied. He stated that the plans comply with all requirements with respect to building height, lot coverage, required yards; that all parking is provided in the basement level of each unit with common driveway access from 11th Street; and stated that two guest parking spaces are provided in front of Unit A’s garage and another one located at the end of the common driveway for the rear units. He advised that the entries to all three units are oriented along the westerly side yard; explained that the minimum width of the side yard upon which dwellings front shall not be less than 1.5 times the width of the required side yard; noted that the applicant is proposing, as with the adjacent project, to provide an average side yard along the west side of 6 feet to comply with this increased side yard requirement; and that the Planning Commission has previously approved this average side yard method for this type situation. He noted that each unit contains a deck with over 100 square feet directly accessible to a primary living area; and that the balance of open space is provided on the roof decks. He added that staff is recommending the trees be a minimum 36-inch box size; and stated that one of the conditions requires the applicant to submit a fully detailed landscape plan.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Fran Yearlman, representing the applicant, advised that there will be no loss of onstreet parking as a result of this project; stated there are two guest parking spaces behind the garage of the front unit; noted that a landscaping plan will be provided; and stated that the applicant concurs with all conditions of approval.
Matt Raymond, 1131 Cypress, advised that he lives immediately north of this subject property; stated that he generally supports this project, but noted his concern with the lot elevation. He expressed his belief this lot has been artificially elevated and he questioned where the 30-foot height limit starts. He noted his concern with his neighbor’s house and deck towering his property.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the height ordinance provides some discretion on what datum to use; advised that the Zoning Ordinance allows a determination to be made on where an unaltered grade is; explained that where a wall is protecting a cut condition (which is the condition that was described by the speaker) a property owner is permitted to take a top-of-wall elevation; that if the condition was cut on Cypress, then it’s possible to use a top-of-wall number; however, staff used a bottom-of-wall number on 11th Street. On the Cypress side, he explained that there is a difference in elevation of approximately 2 feet, according to the survey; noted that the height varies from 101.38 on the alley side to 103.47 on the interior of the lot; that the elevation at the other corner point, varies from 108 to 105, a difference of about 3 feet in elevation. He added that in this case, staff used the interior corner point elevation on the lot.
Mr. Raymond stated that the grade has been lifted up on Cypress by 2 to 4 feet .
Director Blumenfeld expressed his belief that the speaker is concerned because he sees the cut condition on the alley relative to property retaining walls and that what was used here was the corner point elevation on the lot, not the alley. Director Blumenfeld suggested that Mr. Raymond meet with staff to review in detail how building height was calculated.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the applicant is within all guidelines.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that he would support this request, pointing out that the applicant has agreed to the conditions, including the 36-inch box trees and fixing the figures on the plan related to guest parking.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman pointed out that what’s unusual here is there is a building that’s built parallel to the slope as opposed to perpendicular to it, as is most of them in this area; and that it creates, especially to the east side of the building, an appearance being somewhat higher. He stated it is clear both Cypress and 11th Streets are retained in that area; and stated this is a comparable project to others the Commission has approved.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE 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: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located on the south side of 9th Street, between Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway; advised that the project consists of two buildings, each having two attached units containing basements with two stories above and a roof deck; that the units are all approximately 2,400 square feet; and that the units are designed with identical floor plans, with the northerly two units and the southerly two units having identical floor plans. He stated that the northerly units, Nos. 1 and 3, each contain 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, and a roof deck; that the southerly units contain 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, and a roof deck; and noted that the buildings are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style, with smooth stucco finishes, tile roofing, and decorative wrought iron rails. He noted that the two buildings are identical in appearance; and in order to be consistent with previous direction from the Commission, staff is recommending that conditions be included to add some distinguishing architectural features. He stated that the project complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to height, lot coverage, and parking requirements; and noted that parking is provided in the basement level of each unit, with one driveway located in the side yard to be shared by the westerly units and one located in the middle of the lot to be shared by the easterly units. He pointed out that the plan is a little incorrect with respect to the required turning radius and that staff is including a condition to modify that error.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project proposes to replace one curb cut with two curb cuts; noted that this does not cause any loss of on-street parking; and advised that staff is including a condition for the final site plan to clearly indicate dimensions of existing and available on-street parking before and after the project. He stated that all required yards are provided, including the minimum 5-foot front yard requirement, which is consistent with existing development on this block; noted that each unit contains a deck with over 200 square feet directly accessible to the primary living areas; that the balance of open space is provided on roof decks; advised that the project meets all the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage areas, landscaping; and added that the landscape plan needs to indicate 36-inch size box trees instead of 24-inch. He clarified that two guest parking spaces are required, one guest space for every two units.
Chairman Pizer questioned how the turning radius is calculated.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the turning radius is the distance between the face of the two garages of each unit, noting the applicant is proposing 25 feet; and advised that this condition can be solved by either widening the garages or increasing the separation between the units. He noted that they are one foot off.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Jeff Dahl, project architect, explained that they will reduce 6 inches off each one of the units on the bottom floor and push them back to allow for a 26-foot wide driveway; advised that this project is similar to many projects he has built in this City; and noted his preference to maintain the identical nature of these two buildings. He stated that he can make some changes if desired by the Commission, such as one building having a Mediterranean look and the other having a French Normandy look and that he could change the veneer, add shutters, change the deck rails, etc.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if any further articulation can be done to the east elevation.
Mr. Dahl stated that a window could be added on that elevation, that he can change the railing going up to the roof deck, and that a stucco treatment could be added on the coping edge.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman noted his support for additional articulation on the east elevation and differentiating the two buildings.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-21/PDP 05-23 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 062448 for a four-unit condominium at 648 9th Street; and to add Item 5C to indicate that the east elevation will receive additional architectural treatment. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
TEXT 04-4 -- Text Amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and uses.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this report is a culmination of the Commission’s work over the last year with respect to the Nonconforming Ordinance; advised that the Commission has reviewed several revisions to the Nonconforming Ordinance which deals with nonconforming buildings and uses; that the Commission has looked at changes which would amend the provisions for nonconforming parking, would increase the allowable expansion for these types of buildings when parking is added; and advised that there has been a clause added to the Ordinance to allow for architectural consistency. He noted that what the Commission has done is allowed more latitude for someone seeking to rehabilitate a building, primarily for nonconforming uses; advised that the revised Ordinance the Commission is considering this evening would allow up to a 50- percent increase in floor area for nonconforming uses; that it would allow up to a 500-square-foot increase in floor area without Planning Commission approval for nonconforming uses when there’s one parking space per unit or when parking is added to an existing building; and that it would eliminate the need to calculate the amount of expansion based on valuation. He advised that staff believes the elimination of these provisions and the streamlining that would result from these proposed changes would help make the Ordinance more understandable to design professionals and the community; and that when removal is required based upon a condition in the field, it won’t subject a project that was based upon a limited amount of removal to further review and delay.
Director Blumenfeld stated that with respect to parking, the draft Ordinance is more generous; advised that currently, if there’s no parking provided, one can expand up to 100 square feet; that if one parking space is provided per unit or new parking is added, one can expand up to 500 square feet without Planning Commission approval; and that if two spaces per unit are provided, up to 100 percent expansion for nonconforming structures is allowed. He noted that if this draft Ordinance is approved, it will be sent to Council for final approval.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Larry Peha noted his support of what is being proposed.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to ADOPT Text Amendment No. 04-4 regarding nonconforming buildings and uses. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
TEXT 05-1 -- Text amendment to Section 17.50.080 regarding prohibited signs. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this March, the City Attorney recommended the Planning Commission approve adoption of a substitution clause in the Sign Ordinance that allows substitution of noncommercial sign copy on commercial signs, this in connection with the need to avoid not abridging First Amendment rights; however, he noted that City Council at that time addressed its concerns with the potential for such noncommercial copy including offensive language or potentially discriminatory messages; and noted that the City Attorney is now recommending an amendment to the text of that sign code to clearly prohibit signs that contain lewd, obscene, or offensive messages. He highlighted the amendments as follows: that it would prohibit “Lewd, obscene or offensive signs containing statements, words, pictures or graphic representations of an obscene or indecent character that are offensive to the public morals and do not have serious literary, artistic, or scientific value.” Also it would prohibit “Signs that display a message or graphic representation that discriminates against persons based on race, gender, age, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by Federal and State laws.” He noted that this, too, will be forwarded to City Council for final approval.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to ADOPT Text Amendment 05-1 -- Text amendment to Section 17.50.080 regarding prohibited signs. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Section III
Hearing(s)
Vice-Chairman Hoffman recused himself from consideration of Agenda Item No. 13 due to the applicant’s representative currently working on a project for him.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property contains two dwelling units with a rear unit attached to the two-car garage; noted that the existing structures are rather old and constructed prior to the 1920’s; advised that the front unit was substantially damaged in 2004 as a result of an accidental fire during a remodeling project; that the two units on the property are nonconforming uses because the lot size is not sufficient under the R2-B standards to qualify for two units; and noted that the structures are also nonconforming to yard requirements, lot coverage, open space, and parking requirements. He advised that Subsection B provides an exception which allows the Planning Commission to approve a complete restoration based on certain guidelines and provided that the rebuilt structure is made as conforming as possible in terms of parking standards and/or Zoning standards, such as setbacks. He highlighted the guidelines the Commission must follow in reviewing these type of cases as follows: 1) the density of the buildings or buildings on site do not exceed 45 units per acre; 2) that the height of the building or buildings do not exceed 20 percent more than permitted by the zone in which it is located; 3) that the basic structural features, setbacks, floor area, room sizes can be duplicated in compliance with current building and safety codes; and 4) that the cause of the destruction is not intentional through arson or other means.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the applicant and the City have both hired consultants to evaluate the structure to determine the extent of damage; stated that both consultants found the damage to be very extensive and concluded that the only feasible way to replace the structure was to completely reconstruct the building, both because of the damage and the fact that the structure has no existing concrete foundations; stated that this, therefore, falls under the greater than the 50-percent damage rule; and that the applicant is therefore requesting approval of an exception pursuant to Section 17.52.070, Subsection B, to allow the complete reconstruction. He reiterated that the project must be made as conforming as possible in terms of parking and Zoning requirements; that to achieve this conformity, the applicant has submitted a new plan to reconstruct the building, which corrects several of the nonconforming conditions; that it corrects the yard requirements with respect to front and side yards; that it corrects the lot coverage nonconformity; however, the property will still remain nonconforming to parking, with only one parking space per unit and no guest parking. He added that it will be nonconforming to open space requirements, as only 206 square feet of open space will be provided rather than the total requirement of 600 square feet; that the property will remain nonconforming to the lot area per dwelling unit standard and maintain its nonconforming use of two units; that the rear unit and the garage will remain nonconforming to the side and rear setback requirements and the garage setback requirements. He stated that the Commission must assess whether these changes to the project are as conforming as possible; noted that staff believes these changes are making the reconstructed unit more conforming; and that given the frontage on The Strand, there is no other reasonable option to provide more parking without significant changes or demolition to the rear unit. He stated that it would be possible to make the property more conforming to open space standards with some design changes, by enlarging the open patio between the two units, and by providing better access to this area and/or providing the minimum dimensions necessary in the front yard on The Strand so part of the front patio can qualify as open space. He added that also given the proposed bridge connection between the two units, it may be possible to enlarge this area to incorporate a balcony or deck area to provide some outdoor open space for the rear dwelling unit.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that if the Commission approves this project, staff would recommend making this property as conforming as possible; that the plans should be revised with respect to open space, providing at least the minimum 300 square feet for the new front unit; to provide at least 100 square feet accessible to the primary living area; and to provide at least 100 square feet of open space for the rear unit. With respect to consistency of the guidelines for Subsection B, he stated the property is less than 45 units per acre, as it contains 36 units per acre; that the building is well below the height limit; and that the basic scale and features of the building will be fairly consistent with the existing building, as the new home will be a moderately sized two-story home containing similarly sized rooms. He pointed out that attached Exhibit A included in the plans submitted by the applicant show the difference in the mass and the building coverage between the proposed dwelling and the existing structure; and he added that because the damage was due to an accident, the project is consistent with the required guidelines of the exception. In addition, he stated that the applicant is proposing the reconstructed dwelling be 483 square feet larger than the structure that was damaged by fire, which increases the square footage of that front unit from 1,034 square feet to 1,517 square feet. He noted that this exceeds the 250-square-foot maximum allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance for properties containing one parking space per unit; and that the applicant, however, is requesting the Commission consider this plan under the terms of the draft changes to the Nonconforming Ordinance, which the Commission just recommended for approval by City Council. He explained that under the terms of the new Ordinance, the project would be allowed up to a 500-square-foot expansion; that under the terms of both the current Ordinance and the proposed Ordinance, the amount of expansion will be less than a 50-percent valuation increase and less than 50 percent of the existing floor area; and, therefore, there is no Planning Commission approval required for the increased valuation or expansion amount as long as the Commission approves the reconstruction of the project as described earlier.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in conclusion, although the nonconforming use will remain, staff believes the applicant is proposing a reasonably scaled project that will allow continued use of the property in a way that is consistent with the use of the property prior to the fire damage and for the last 80-plus years; and with substantially less than 3,000 square feet for each dwelling unit, it is consistent with the revisions to the Nonconforming Ordinance. He added that this project also is consistent with the objectives stated within the revised Nonconforming Ordinance to encourage expansion and remodeling of smaller and moderately sized homes; and mentioned that the approval Resolution does include a statement that the approval is contingent upon City Council’s adoption of the recommended changes to the Nonconforming Ordinance.
Larry Peha, representing the applicant, explained that this structure was substantially damaged by fire during the middle of the remodeling phase; and stated that due to the fire, the structure has to be completely replaced. In doing so, he advised that his clients are requesting an additional 500 square feet to be added. He noted his concern with staff’s recommendation to add more open space; and stated that the Code is subjective when requiring a project to be as close to conformance as possible. He advised that they have made the front yard conforming, made both side yards conforming and brought it into conformance with regard to site coverage – pointing out that they will have to reduce the footprint of the existing building by 94 square feet. He stated that because of this planned reduction, any further reduction in square footage would have a negative impact upon the usable space on the bottom level; and therefore makes it difficult for them to comply with that standard. He stated that his calculations for open space are different than what staff is reflecting, believing staff may have calculated in their figures the large shed, which he had not done in his calculations because the shed has been removed in the new plan. He expressed his belief he has done everything reasonably possible to conform to this ordinance, noting that the applicants are not requesting a large building; and he mentioned that they are adding approximately 200 square feet of open space.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief the applicant has conformed to the guidelines and stated he concurs with the applicant’s concern with adding more open space beyond the additional 200 square feet. He noted his willingness to delete Condition No. 2 in Section 5.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concurrence and stated he is glad to see the applicants are not adding a large structure.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 05-12 -- Reconstruction and expansion of a building damaged more than 50-percent replacement cost on a property containing two dwelling units which are a nonconforming use at 1928 The Strand; and to delete Item No. 2 in Section 5. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: The project was withdrawn.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is withdrawing this application with the belief they will be coming back with a new project at this site that will conform to code.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to ACCEPT the applicant’s request to withdraw this application -- 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. The motion carried as follows:
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: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located on the east side of Owosso Avenue, between Aviation Boulevard and 14th Street; advised that the existing structure was constructed in 1915; noted that the building is nonconforming to parking, as there currently is no parking rather than the two spaces required; that it is nonconforming to front and side yard requirements; and that the nonconforming side yard is 2.6 feet on the north property line rather than 5 feet. He noted that the applicant is proposing to add 566 square feet of area to expand the existing dining room and kitchen on the first floor, to add a bathroom and master suite on the second floor, to push back and expand the existing substandard garage by 46 square feet, to bring the property into conformance with parking so that there now will be one garage parking space and one parking space in front of the garage, totaling two parking spaces. He stated that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 1,295 square feet to 1,861 square feet; and advised that the proposed expansion complies with the 50-percent rule, as it results in only a 42.4-percent increase in valuation. He explained that the only reason this item is coming before the Commission is the existing deficient northerly side yard will be continued to allow for the garage expansion and that otherwise, the proposed first and second floor area expansions comply with the required side yard setback of 5 feet. He noted that the project otherwise complies with all other Planning and Zoning requirements; and mentioned that staff believes the nonconforming parking, the remaining nonconforming parking guest space issue and side yard setback issues are not unusual conditions. He added that the applicant is improving the parking condition. Senior Planner Robertson clarified that the driveway and garage will be deeper.
Peter Gustafson, applicant, stated that the additional space is needed for his growing family.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his delight with the applicant maintaining this older home.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he is happy with the applicants keeping this older home; and stated that adding approximately 500 square feet is minimal.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman pointed out that this is finally an example of where the City is utilizing an example of the Nonconforming Ordinance to facilitate historic preservation
Chairman Pizer highlighted the increased parking spaces.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 05-13 -- Addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence with an extension of an existing nonconforming side yard at 1256 Owosso Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to August 15, 2006.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request to extend the Tentative Map by one year, which will be to August 15, 2006.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 00-15/PDP 00-16 -- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26020 for a two-unit condominium at 852 and 856 Monterey Boulevard, extending it to August 15, 2006. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
A 14 -- Appeal of Director’s decision regarding height interpretation at 620 Gould Avenue.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is an appeal to consider an alternate point for measuring building height; advised that the subject lot is located on the south side of Gould Avenue; and noted that from Ardmore Avenue to Sepulveda Boulevard, the land rises steeply at approximately the midpoint of the block. He mentioned that this R-1 Zone has a height limit of 25 feet and that it can be developed with a single-family home. He stated this lot is not a convex slope, highlighting the profile of the lot based upon the existing corner point elevations; and explained that this is a regularly sloping lot. He advised that the Commission has a couple options for determining where grade shall be taken under the provision of the Zone Code; noted that the Commission can use the corner point elevations for determining the building height; that the Commission can use a point within three horizontal feet, which based upon significant evidence represents an altered grade; and that where there is a large difference in elevation, the Commission can take one-half the difference between the two points for determination or another point at the nearest public way or at a point that represents an altered grade. He advised that in this case, the applicant is looking to use top-of-wall numbers at the southerly part of their property; and that the applicants are basing part of their request on a similar determination made for 636 Gould Avenue. He mentioned that in that case, staff had unfortunately made a plan review error, but fortuitously was able to review the various conditions for determining grade and use an alternative grade. Because Gould is a steeply cut street and because Ardmore is also a cut street, it was determined that the lot was significantly cut in this location as well. He added that this applied to 636 Gould. With respect to 620 Gould, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes the conditions on Ardmore are very similar to the property at 636 Gould; and mentioned that Ardmore is a cut street, noting that staff supplied evidence to that effect in the street profile map on Page 6 of staff report. Looking at that profile map, he pointed out that one notes the street was cut a little over 2 feet in the area of the appellant’s property; that with respect to Gould, the conditions at 620 vary from 636 Gould because while there’s a similar excess right of way at 636 Gould, there’s a much greater difference in elevation.
Director Blumenfeld explained that while staff supports taking a top-of-wall number at the south property points, staff does not feel it’s justified on the north property corner points; however, he advised that the appellant also makes the case that there is another retaining wall on the east side of the property, noting there was a similar condition at 636 Gould. He stated that the properties on Gould Avenue rise significantly as one moves from west to east, between a 4- and 5-foot difference in elevation as one moves east; and noted this condition applies to this property. He stated that this retaining wall may represent a point which is unaltered grade because the retaining wall protects the cut on the easterly portion of the property. He advised that the applicant has now pointed out that this wall is on their property. The Commission may consider using the top-of-wall number which is almost 5 feet higher, since it is the elevation for the southeasterly corner of the applicant’s property.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has listed four options for the Commission to consider: 1) to consider this a regularly sloping lot and consider it measuring only from the corner points; 2) to determine the south retaining wall at the southwesterly corner point representing an altered grade and interpolate grade from the top-of-wall elevation; 3) (the appellant’s request) to determine that an altered grade is at the top of the south retaining wall, similar to No. 2, for the southwesterly corner point, and at the top of the east retaining wall for the southeasterly corner point; and 4) to determine that an altered grade is at the top of the south retaining wall for the southwesterly corner point and ½ the difference between the subject lot and the adjacent lot to the east for the southeasterly corner point. He noted that if the applicant’s request is not approved, their project design would not allow for a second story deck and deletion of two prominent architectural elements.
Bob Ernestus, applicant, passed out photographs he had taken of his property.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant’s photographs show a view looking toward Ardmore; noted that what happens towards Ardmore as the property drops off from the appellant’s, but not for that wall, the grade would have been significantly higher; noted that it was cut at the street and that it was cut as one moves out toward Ardmore; and he stated that the back of the adjoining lot was clearly cut, as was the appellant’s property. He stated that all the properties have been similarly cut; and noted the appellant’s argument that this wall is on their property. Director Blumenfeld noted staff’s belief there might be a good argument to include that easterly wall, particularly in light of the fact that he discovered this week after the report was drafted that this wall entirely sits on the appellant’s property.
Al Loera, applicant’s representative, offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for Option No. 3.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the appellant’s photographs have clarified the top-of-wall issue and noted he would support Option No. 3.
Chairman Pizer added that the retaining wall on the appellant’s property is also a factor in supporting Option No. 3.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Option No. 3, determine that unaltered grade is at the top of the south retaining wall for the southwesterly corner point elevation and at the top of east retaining wall for the southeasterly corner point interpretation at 620 Gould Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Items
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if staff has reviewed City maps to determine if there are any other properties that should be merged.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff has not done a systematic search of the City because of limited resources; and he commented on changes to staff’s review process that will highlight any properties should they come before the City; and he commented on the need to clarify the language in the Ordinance.
Chairman Pizer requested a status report on the Aviation Specific Plan project.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff is putting together a draft work program that will be presented to the Commission at its next meeting; advised that there may be some MTA money that might be available for project study and/or implementation; and commented on plans to incorporate work that has already been undertaken by the subcommittee in regard to this area and to also coordinate any work done by the Public Works Department. He noted that community meetings/workshops will be conducted and reiterated that this task is expected to take approximately 9 to 12 months to complete.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Section IV
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 August 16, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |