|
|
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
Commissioner Perrotti announced that on Sunday, December 18, 2005, 3:00 P.M., the Nualani’s Polynesia, a local hula dancing club, will be presenting Christmas in Polynesia at the Hermosa Beach Playhouse.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of October 18, 2005 Minutes.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the October 18, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 05-60 denying a Zone Change from C-3 (General Commercial) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) at 1255 Prospect Avenue.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 05-60. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: None (Item No. 13 was considered out of Agenda order.)
-
HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the December 7, 2005 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant needs more time to submit plans in order to comply with the height requirements and the other development standards.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice-Chair Hoffman, to CONTINUE to December 7, 2005, NR 05-14 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 126 34th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Public Hearing(s)
-
L-5 -- Legal determination for two dwelling units at 66 11th Street. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this property contains 2 separate two-story structures that were originally constructed in 1910 and both historically used commercially and residentially; stated that the rear building contains 3 small dwelling units, which are consistent with the City’s permit records; and noted that the building fronting on 11th Street contains 6 dwelling units, based on the City’s permit records, with 3 units on each floor. He noted that according to the applicant, the front building has contained 8 units since the 1940’s, or earlier, with 4 units on each floor. He advised that the 1957 Sanborn Map shows 6 units in the front building; noted that the property is currently zoned C-2, which would not permit any residential dwellings; and, therefore, the current use, whether it’s 9 or 11 units, is nonconforming. He added that the applicant is seeking a legal determination for 11 units. He stated that the current minimum size for a dwelling unit is 600 square feet for a 1-bedroom unit; and noted that dating back to the 1940’s, the zoning designation was commercial, but at that time and up until 1956, multi-family residential uses were also allowed in the C Zone.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is currently remodeling the existing front building, upgrading it structurally, along with plumbing and electrical; noted that staff inspected the property in connection with this remodel on September 21, 2005, when the building was stripped to framing, and that staff found evidence of what was once originally one unit now appearing to be two on the floor west of the hallway in the front building; and that the front building had been partitioned sometime in the past to add an additional unit. He noted that evidence was also seen in comparing the newer type of construction in the western unit with the older framing lumber in the eastern unit, which appeared to be 2 units on each floor from the original construction and the small size of the kitchens in the westerly rear units; and stated that this inspection showed these units which are in dispute were likely created by a partition that was not part of the original construction – noting that it’s not clear how recent this partitioning occurred.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Zoning Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to make a legal determination at the request of the property owner when it can be shown that the dwelling unit in question was constructed prior to January 1959 in accordance with then applicable laws and that the use of the dwelling has been continuous; and stated that the Planning Commission may also validate that conditions are legally nonconforming for a building constructed after 1959 based on the evidence presented – pointing out that the applicant has presented his own evidence. He noted that staff was able to determine some of the permit history from the permit records on file, the Sanborn Maps, and from some legal records on file; and he summarized this research as noted in staff report (of record).
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant purchased this property in 2005 with the understanding it contained 11 units – pointing out that documentation has been provided by the applicant supporting this assertion; advised that the applicant is in the process of modernizing and upgrading the building; stated that the applicant has provided letters from the former owner, Thelma Greenwald, who states that when she purchased the property in 1951, it was 11 units; and that these units were used in conjunction with the Sea Sprite Motel for overflow – pointing out that it is not clear if the units were being used for short-term transient tenancy in connection with the motel or rented as apartments or both. He stated that the former property manager of the building indicates that it was 11 units and that it was 11 units when the owners purchased the property in 1995; however, he noted that the Residential Building Report (RBR) in 1999 indicates there were 9 units – pointing out, though, that this document was not signed. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has reconstructed the use of these structures, which is enclosed as a narrative attached to staff report; and in summary, he stated that since the City’s permit records show 9 units and the recent use of the building has been 11 units, the question is when were the two additional units created, was it after 1995 or did it occur prior to 1951. He stated that staff’s best guess is this occurred sometime after the 50’s or 60’s and that it was done without permits; added that if this were done after 1956, both the number of units and the parking would not have been in conformance with the code at the time; and prior to that time, there would be no specific density restrictions or parking regulations.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the consequences of making these two units legal are that the City would be authorizing the continued use of these two small units with their own kitchens, separate doorways, and access hallways; that, in contrast, if it is not declared legal, the front and the rear units would have to be connected and rented as one single unit; and noted that if the Commission believes the evidence demonstrates the Commission can make a legal determination, staff will return with a resolution at the next Commission meeting.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Brian Burrescia, applicant, presented a floor plan of this building, believing it is from 1910-1912; highlighted the fact that there are several pieces of contradictory evidence in the property records; and he attempted to piece together the history of this property, noting that the paperwork drifts between 9 and 11 units. He distributed to the Commission an old photograph depicting this building, its floor plan, and the surrounding neighborhood; stated that the floor plan from approximately 1912 indicates there were two bathrooms at the end of the hallway; that there were four identical units, formerly called Andrew’s Apartments as reflected in the Hermosa Review from 1924; and he highlighted in the photograph where the Southern California Gas Company built a block wall right next to the west of this building in 1924, thereby making the west four units undesirable – pointing out that the east four units were open to a parking lot, as shown in the old photograph. He stated that in 1930, the City permitted a 2-car garage, which is at the back of the building, with a unit above, thus creating the ninth unit; explained that sometime during the war, he found evidence that the chimney which was blocked off and plastered over and that the remodeling of the last unit commenced at that time.
Mr. Burrescia stated that he talked to Mr. Stan Dunn who lived in this neighborhood years ago and that Mr. Dunn indicated the government was encouraging cities to find housing for the returning war veterans – highlighting the numerous plumbing and remodeling permits all dated from 1945 to 1947; and he expressed his belief that at this time, the garage was converted into two units. He added that the number of units fluctuated on the west side, as depicted in the photographs; advised that none of the inspection reports are signed and that some have question marks on them; and stated that the paperwork indicates most of the construction was done at the end of WWII. He added that there was no plumbing in the building until 1930; and noted that those familiar with this property indicate it has been used as 11 units for many years.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom commented on the inconsistency with the records; highlighted the fact that this property has been operated with 11 units for many years; and noted his support for the applicant improving this site. He stated that he is in support of the applicant’s request, considering all the documentation provided.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted some of the inconsistency in the City’s records; and stated that he will support the applicant’s request, placing most of the weight of his decision on Mrs. Greenwald’s letter, who is an impartial witness to the history of this site.
Commissioner Allen stated that he also has put a lot of weight on Mrs. Greenwald’s letter and stated that the applicant has been straightforward with his knowledge of this property’s history.
Chairman Pizer stated that he is aware there was a lot of activity to find housing for the returning veterans in this time period and that he would support the request also because of Mrs. Greenwald’s letter confirming the 11 units. He added that this project will be of benefit to the City.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to DETERMINE there are 11 legal, nonconforming units at 66 11th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Hoffman (Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from consideration of Item No. 7 because of its close proximity to his business.)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property contains 3 structures: a two-story building in the front and a 1- and 2-story building in the back; noted that the property is 4,600 square feet and is zoned R-2; that the building fronting on 4th Street (668A and 670) contains two dwelling units approximately 550 square feet each and constructed sometime in 1960-61; and advised that these units are built above a 4-car garage which also contains a store room and a rumpus room with a bath. He noted that the area in dispute with this building (668A, the rumpus room) does not have a kitchen, but is being occupied as a separate rental; and that the use as a separate rental is inconsistent with an affidavit filed February 10, 1961, which specifically allowed a rumpus room with a shower and lavatory but no separate rental. He stated that the two buildings at the rear of the lot (672 and 674) were built in 1924 and contain an approximate 380-square-foot unit in the 1-story building on the west and a 280-square-foot unit on the second floor of the building to the east, and a small storage room and bathroom of approximately 200 square feet on the first floor of the 2-story building (installed by permit in 1951). He explained that this first floor area is the area in dispute on the rear part of the lot (674A); and that it also contains a kitchen and is being used as a separate rental. He noted that the 1957 Sanborn Map shows the buildings at the rear of the lot to be one 2-story and one 1-story single dwelling unit; and that a handwritten note on the map at the front of the lot indicates that 668 and 670 are a duplex. He stated that the file also contains an affidavit filed by a prior owner in February 1961, allowing the owners to add a rumpus room with a shower and lavatory at the 668 building; and that the affidavit specifies the installation will solely be used for accessory uses and not for an additional dwelling unit. He added that a note in the file from 1971 indicates the rumpus room was being used as a sleeping room; that the case was settled when the City received an affidavit from the current owner, Mrs. Parker, on June 24, 1971; and that again, the same condition was found in that unit in November 1972 and it was remedied by the removal of some plumbing and gas lines in December of 1972.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the origins of the disputed unit in the rear building are not as well documented; noted there is a reference to a storage room with a bathroom below the legal unit in 1951, but that specific dates as to when the kitchen was installed and how long it has been used as a dwelling is absent from the record; and that there is no record of any code enforcement action regarding this unit. He stated that according to the current zoning requirements, only two dwelling units would be allowed on this property, and therefore, the current use, whether 4, 5 or 6 units, is nonconforming.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff inspected the property on November 2004 and found that Unit 668A contained a single room used as both the bed and living room with a small bathroom connected by a doorway; that the room contained a small mini-refrigerator with a microwave oven on top; and that there was no wet bar or kitchen counter. He advised that Unit 674A in the rear part of the lot contained a small living/bedroom, a small kitchen which contained a small countertop cabinet unit with a sink and waste grinder, a full sized refrigerator, and a four-burner gas stove; and mentioned that one must proceed through this kitchen to a small bathroom.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to validate current conditions which otherwise violate zoning or current building and safety requirements when the City records and actual property use conflict, that the Commission may validate these conditions are legally nonconforming based on the evidence. He noted that the applicant has provided several documents, such as floor plans (which are not complete), a statement of their history of ownership/rental of this property, an assortment of private insurance, rental and tax documents, as well as a 1969 letter from the City which referred to the three units in the rear of the property at 674. He stated that the Parkers purchased this property in 1965 with the understanding that it contained 6 rental units, basing this information on various purchase and escrow documents; that in 1969, the Parkers obtained a building permit for electrical work on the rear units; and that the City did not dispute it was 3 units at that time. He added that the letter of permit at that time made no reference to the front units. In 1971, after a fire, he advised that the City conducted an inspection of the front building, which is what caused the notification to the Parkers of the illegal unit and the use of the rumpus room being used illegally as compared to what the recorded affidavit indicated by the prior owners. Based on the record, he indicated that staff cannot make a finding to support 668A as a legal, separate unit; and pointed out that not only was it never permitted, the Parkers have not kept it in continuous use as a separate rental. He stated that the 1961 affidavit prohibits it from being used as a separate rental. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the consequences of making this unit legal would be that the City would be authorizing the continued use of a rumpus room with no kitchen as a legal unit despite the 1961 affidavit; and stated that staff is also recommending if this is not declared legal, the owner shall be required to remove the bathroom and disconnect all plumbing to prevent any further code enforcement problem and illegal use.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the record is not nearly as clear regarding the other disputed unit, 674A, which was permitted as a separate storage room and bathroom with separate access; noted that at some unknown time later, a kitchen was added to make this a habitable unit; and advised that the private records of the Parkers, which are somewhat corroborated by the 1969 inspections done by the City, indicate that it has perhaps been in continuous use as a separate unit and, therefore, it may meet the criteria for a legal determination. In conclusion, he noted that staff believes it may be appropriate to consider granting a determination that the fifth unit, 674A, is a legal dwelling, but that staff is recommending the Commission reaffirm the use of the 668A be limited to a rumpus room pursuant to the 1961 affidavit.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Marjorie Parker, applicant, stated that she purchased this property as 6 units, noting that all the escrow papers indicate this is a 6-unit property; and that the affidavit was never revealed to them as new buyers. She stated that she has rented the units as it was originally sold to her, noting that she has made some aesthetic improvements. She noted that the rear units were built before WWI. She added that in the late 1960’s, Mr. Dempsey, the City’s building inspector, oversaw the upgrading of this property, pulling permits, and that no inspector had ever voiced any concern with the renting of the front building. She noted that it was only until there was a fire that the City apprised her of a problem with the number of units for rent. Mrs. Parker stated that she is willing to not rent Unit 668A.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted Mrs. Parker’s willingness to stop renting Unit 668A and stated he would support staff’s recommendation.
Highlighting the various documents presented, it was the consensus of the Commission to find that Unit 668A is not a legal unit and that 674A is a legal unit.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to DETERMINE that Unit 674A is a legal, nonconforming unit and that Unit 668A is not a legal unit and is to be limited to a rumpus room, 668 - 674 4th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the restaurant is located at the corner of Pier and Hermosa Avenues; explained that the Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit (CUP) in 1995 for on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with another restaurant use; advised that the CUP does not include live entertainment; that the current use allows hours of operation between 8:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M.; and noted that the applicant is proposing slight alterations to the interior floor plan in connection with the proposed amendment, such as replacing the standard dining table with a small countertop bar near the entry. He advised that the restaurant contains a relatively small seating area and that it does not lend itself to live entertainment or dancing; and stated that no specific changes in the Conditions of Approval or the hours of operation are requested. He mentioned that there were no violations with Italy’s Little Kitchen. Director Blumenfeld advised that City Council recently imposed more restrictive closing hours of midnight for a similar request, Mediterraneo Restaurant, when it requested on-sale general alcohol; and that the Commission recently denied that requested amendment to change the closing time to 2:00 A.M. He noted that the applicant (Mediterraneo) has appealed that decision to City Council and that it is scheduled to be heard in February 2006. He highlighted similar requests and approved closing hours for similar businesses in the City, as noted in staff report. He stated that given the proposed minor alterations and the relatively small size of the restaurant, staff is recommending approval of this request for on-sale general alcohol and no change in the hours of operation.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Zane Koss, applicant/owner, stated that he has been in business in Hermosa Beach for 8 years; commented on the history of his family’s business in this area; and explained that when he first opened this business, his restaurant was one of three Italian restaurants in this area – noting that his restaurant provides a higher end concept, upscale family restaurant for this area. He explained that because this area has changed over the years, he is now at a disadvantage; noted there are over 8 Italian restaurants in the area; and that because there are very few commercial offices and retail spaces in this area, it is difficult to have a lunch business; and that with the limited parking structures, no shuttle services, parking has become increasingly more difficult at night and fewer families are coming to the Promenade because the bars are filling up with a younger crowd. He urged the City to encourage family oriented businesses to succeed; and he mentioned that his customers have requested a full liquor menu, noting that ABC has granted his license. He asked that the hours of operation be maintained in order to remain competitive in this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti commended the applicant on the restaurant’s food; noted his support for the general alcohol request; and he noted that he would prefer to see a 1:00 A.M. closing hour, commenting on the long-range perspective of granting a CUP. He noted that while this establishment is run very well, the restaurant could change ownership in the future; and stated that this creates concern with the possibility of another establishment with general alcohol and a 2:00 A.M. closing hour. He highlighted the later dining habits of today’s customers.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that taking out seating and putting in a bar top can potentially change the operation of this restaurant whether intended or not; stated that it’s likely this sort of bar operation will become the dominant part of the very late night hour, questioning how many people are looking for a fine dining experience at 1:00 A.M.; and he suggested a closing hour of midnight.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for the general alcohol and for the midnight closing.
Commissioner Kersenboom echoed the Commission’s comments, noting he would support a 1:00 A.M. closing.
Chairman Pizer echoed those same comments, noting he would support a midnight closing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CUP 05-12 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 1150 Hermosa Avenue, Italy’s Little Kitchen, and to require a midnight closing. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer NOES: Kersenboom, Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the property is located between 2nd and 3rd Streets, west of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and adjacent to a City parking lot; and noted that this site was formerly used as a storage parking lot for the Vasek Polak automobile dealership and that it is now the new Sav-On drug store on the southwest corner of 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that the site is currently vacant; advised that the project involves a moderately sized office building which contains approximately 6,500 square feet and two stories above a ground level parking area; that it’s divided into 16 condominium units which range from 380 to 430 square feet and that it contains the required 26 parking spaces. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the building is designed with a maximum height of 34.5 feet, which is above the first tier height of 30 feet but below the second tier maximum height of 35 feet; stated that the central tower, which houses the elevator and central stairs for the building, is the only part of the building that exceeds the first tier height limit of 30 feet; otherwise, the majority of the building is below the 30-foot height limit. He noted that the building bulk, building size, building setback, and landscaping complies with the requirements; and noted that the building will be compatible with neighboring properties.
With respect to traffic and parking, Senior Planner Robertson stated that vehicle access to the site will be from both 2nd and 3rd Streets; that the existing driveway curb cuts will be slightly widened; noted that the parking will be shared by all users of the building; and stated that the project is in compliance with the Congestion Management Plan. He noted that the project is expected to generate a net increase of 10 vehicle trips during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours and a net increase of 72 vehicle trips on a typical weekday, based on the building occupancy; and advised that the traffic study concluded the development and full occupancy of the project will not result in any significant traffic impacts for the nearby intersections or transportation impacts on the Congestion Management Plan road network. He added that the City’s consultant traffic engineer has reviewed the traffic analysis and has found the project to have traffic impacts below any significant thresholds and that the traffic engineer recommends approval of the traffic analysis. He explained that the peak use of the project, because of its office use, will typically be during the daytime and weekdays when the supply of public on-street parking is at its highest availability.
As noted in staff report, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project conforms to the Precise Development Plan standards for the zone as well as the CUP standards and Commercial Condominium standards. He noted that the condominium units will vary in size from 380 to 430 square feet; explained that the units will most likely be sold separately/individually; and stated that approval of the Condominium Tract Map will make condominium sales an option for the developer, but it does not require or guarantee that each individual condo unit will be sold to separate proprietors. He noted that staff is recommending approval of the project subject to typical, standard conditions of approval and that staff is recommending four additional conditions: 1) all available parking shall be shared amongst the occupants of the buildings on site and owned in common, which shall be clearly set forth in project CC&R’s, and no parking spaces shall be assigned for exclusive use by any owner, occupant, or tenant. 2) decorative paving surfaces for the entries into the parking area; 3) any changes to the interior layout of the building require Planning Commission approval; and 4) provision of a decorative block wall along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential properties.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that elevator shafts are allowed to pierce the height limit; stated that the elevator is an ADA requirement for this building; and that for this C-3 Zone, it will mostly likely include general office uses as well as retail uses.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, highlighted the architecture of the building, noting the varying terracing of the floors; stated he will make an adjustment on the plan, to construct a solid wall on the facade to meet fire code; and highlighted the generous amount of landscaping along 2nd and 3rd Streets. Mr. Tomaro stated that there is great interest in these units and asked that because the units are relatively small, that they not have to come back before the Commission for interior modification, such as putting in a door between two units if two units are combined. He noted his anticipation in combining 2 to 3 units. He stated that the block wall will be amended on the west side.
Jim Nesbit, 705 2nd Street, stated that this site has created a barrier from the commercial area and the homes nearby; expressed his belief that nothing was to be built on this vacant lot; and stated that there is inadequate parking for this project. He noted his concerns with the lack of parking currently in this area and the high volume of traffic; and expressed his belief the parking will become worse with this project. He stated the proposed use is inappropriate for this area; and he stated it should not be permitted.
Hector Hernandez, 717 2nd Street, expressed his belief this project will have a negative impact upon the parking and traffic in this area; noted his opposition to this project; and urged the Planning Commission to deny the request.
Christie Root, 715 2nd Street, asked that this project not be approved; stated that people are illegally using the Sav-On parking lot for personal use; and she noted her concern for the safety of pedestrians and vehicle traffic in this area.
John Barry, co-owner of 217 to 229 Pacific Coast Highway, noted his family’s support of the proposed project, stating that something must be done with this vacant property; expressed his belief that a thorough examination has been made of the traffic study; and stated that this project is a compatible business from the side of the retail properties, creating a clear zone that is retail, then office use and then residential.
Larry Daniels, 415 24th Place, leasing agent for the building, expressed his belief this office building will have more than enough parking for its tenants; stated that most of the interest in this building has been from sole practitioners, such as attorneys, accountants, single brokers; explained that the units will be small, comfortably accommodating one to two people; and noted his support for parking in common.
Michael Root, 715 2nd Street, expressed his concern with inadequate parking, believing the parking problems will only be exacerbated by this project.
Brian Lindquist, bicycle store owner at 219 PCH, immediately adjacent to the lot; stated that parking is grossly inadequate in this area, with people constantly parking illegally; stated that only 24 regular parking spaces are being provided because of the requirement to provide two handicapped spaces; and expressed his belief that 24 spaces are not enough to accommodate 16 businesses. He stated that this property should be developed, but that the proposed density is too high. He noted his concern for the safety of the pedestrians and vehicular traffic in this area.
Mr. Tomaro explained that they have purposely made these units small, wanting the ability to expand into an adjoining space if there is a need; mentioned that each unit will have its own bathroom; stated that the most up to date traffic counts were considered in the traffic analysis; and stated that this project fully complies with the parking requirements for this type use. He explained that the traffic being generated here is being generated during the hours of typical off use when people are driving to work or leaving; and that as people are coming home, these office people will be going out of the area, which would mitigate some of the traffic issues. He added that people who typically use these offices don’t necessarily conduct business in these offices all the time, that they may be out in the field meeting with clients; and noted that they have tried to develop this project to minimize the impact.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated that while he sympathizes with the residents on the parking problems, he believes this project is designed well and that he does not believe there will be any overflow parking into the neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman commented on this attractive building, noting it is the kind of development the City needs; expressed his belief this is an appropriate building for this location in terms of design; and stated that the applicant has made a conscientious effort to make this building fit well on this site. He stated that there should be no impact upon traffic, but that there might be an impact upon parking. He pointed out that this lot is not going to remain vacant and that this is the best use for this site. He noted his support for the Commission to review any change to the interior layout of the building.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could require general office use only.
Commissioner Perrotti commended the architect for the project design; highlighted the traffic and parking problems in the City; and noted that this project will be a buffer between the residential and highway. He noted his support to restrict the use to general office.
Commissioner Kersenboom echoed the Commissioners’ comments; stated this is a well planned project; and expressed his belief the small units will not generate a lot of traffic.
Chairman Pizer commended the architect on the project design and noted his support to limit the use to general office.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-25/PDP 05-27 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 064484 for a 6,500-square-foot commercial office building with two stories above surface level parking, containing sixteen commercial condominium units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 727 2nd Street; and to include the four additional conditions as reflected above. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the requested Variance for the garage and parking setback only.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this area is zoned R-1, low density residential; noted that the lot is very unusual in that it’s a shallow lot with 100 feet of frontage on the street and a depth of only 33 feet; and advised that the lot is currently developed with two detached dwellings, each containing a one-car garage. He noted that the applicant is requesting these two Variances in order to allow the construction of a new two-story home, with a basement containing 3 bedrooms, a basement game room, and 3.5 bathrooms and a roof deck. In order to meet this objective, he advised that the applicant is requesting two Variances. He noted that the first Variance is for the parking setback requirement; stated that the proposed setback from where the planned sidewalk will be located is approximately 8 feet rather than the required 17 feet, pursuant to the Zone Code; and that given the lot depth is only 33 feet, it is not possible to provide a front-loading 20-foot deep garage and a 17-foot parking setback on this lot. To make up for the lack of guest parking, he noted that the plans provide for a guest space to the side of the proposed garage.
With regard to the second Variance, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing a 5- to 6-foot wall height around the perimeter of the courtyard area; that the wall is proposed to extend to the front property line and encroach into the front setback area; stated that the Zone Code limits the height of fences/walls in the front yard to 42 inches (3.5 feet); and explained that in order to grant these requested Variances, there are four required findings that must be made:
- There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved;
- The Variance(s) are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
- The granting of the Variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
- The Variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant’s reason for requesting the parking setback is because the subject lot is very shallow in depth, essentially half the typical depth of lots in the area; explained that this small depth makes it impossible to provide a front-loading garage in compliance with the 17-foot setback, and thus limits the potential for building a home consistent with existing and new homes on the street and in the area. He added that if the applicant were required to provide a driveway and a side-loaded garage, the combination of the garage interior dimension and the required turning radius would take up half the lot, leaving approximately 48 feet at the ground floor level for the home; also, since the ground level open space is required in the R-1 Zone, he noted that this type of design with a side-loading garage would substantially limit the amount of floor area that could possibly be built on the first floor. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the reason for the Variance to the wall height is a little less clear; and explained that the applicant wants the wall off the courtyard area and to include the front setback area in this walled off courtyard.
With respect to the first required finding, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the lot is unusually wide and shallow and is the only lot in this R-1 zoned area with such a configuration that is not a corner lot; noted that the lot size and dimensions force a complying garage to be loaded from the side, requiring a wide driveway and turning area that would substantially limit the amount of buildable area on the ground floor; and that with respect to Finding No. 1, he stated there does not seem to be as clear a connection with the Variance for the wall height, since the courtyard is permitted to have a 6-foot wall at the 5-foot setback line.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Variance from the parking setback is arguably necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the area, to construct a typical garage that is loaded from the street and to construct a reasonably sized dwelling with a reasonable floor plan that includes some ground floor habitable space; however, he noted that the Variance from the fence/wall height requirement does not appear necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right.
With respect to Finding No. 3, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Variance from the parking setback, if granted, would not be materially detrimental to neighboring properties, as it simply would allow a fairly typical garage to be constructed, accessed from the front, which is not unusual for this street; and that the Variance from the wall height may have a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties with respect to the appearance of the property.
With respect to Finding No. 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the construction of a single-family home is consistent with a low-density General Plan designation.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in order for the applicant to achieve some parity with neighboring properties, staff does believe the findings can be made to support a Variance specific to the parking and garage setback, but staff does not believe findings can be made for relief from the front yard wall height given that the location of the wall can be modified to satisfy the Zoning Code requirements without compromising the courtyard design/function.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Nagy Bakhoum, project architect, stated that the lot is very unusual in the City, noting that most sites run perpendicular to the streets rather than parallel, unless it’s on a corner; stated that this lot is essentially trapped, and as a result, the owners end up with 100 linear feet of the property on the street, making it unusually wide and shallow. He explained that this results in the front yard setback occupying 15 percent of the entire lot area – pointing out that the average in the City is 7.5 percent; and he stated that the applicant is trying to capture a portion of that 100 linear feet, limiting it to approximately 33 percent of the frontage, and to take a wall that is in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 feet in order to create a more enhanced courtyard. He stated that this would allow the applicants enough height to accommodate the spa that’s in the courtyard, which must have a 5-foot surround. He explained that if they were to take that wall and push it back, it would take away the enjoyment, about 5 percent of the front yard, which they capture by putting the wall in this location; and stated this would be used more as a private yard. He noted that the General Plan does not specifically address this issue, that it only speaks to the average 7.5 percent of front yard setbacks; and expressed his belief this lot is penalized by the General Plan with the site orientation. He expressed his belief the findings can be made due to the unique orientation of the lot, the substantial loss of the enjoyment of the lot, where the owner is being penalized by the General Plan in this scenario by 7.5 percent of their total property; and he stated that ultimately, a greater visual impact would be observed if they did run a 42-inch high wall across the entire length of the property rather than limiting the amount of wall by placing it in just a small portion of the courtyard of the home. He noted that the applicant would be amenable to pushing this setback a little bit and buffering it with some landscaping. He reiterated that the other neighboring properties have the utilization of the majority of their front yards, only losing about 7.5 percent; but that in this case, the applicant is losing 15 percent of their property to the front yard setback. He suggested limiting the wall’s impact, limiting its length and providing an approximate 10-foot front yard setback, with the balance to be used in the courtyard.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that because of this property’s unique orientation, he would support the applicant’s request.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he would support staff’s recommendation; and stated he cannot make the findings for the wall.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman stated that he can make the finding for the parking and garage; stated that he could not make the findings for the wall Variance because it is driven by design, not by inherent site conditions.
Commissioner Allen stated that he can make the findings for the parking/garage but not for the wall.
Chairman Pizer echoed the Commission’s statements.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE staff recommendation for VAR 05-4 -- Variance for an eight-foot garage and parking setback rather than seventeen feet at 1806 and 1820 Hillcrest Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Kersenboom ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue; noted that the property is currently developed with a small one-story multi-tenant commercial building; advised that the applicant is proposing to install 3 paneled antennas within a modified light pole to be placed in the existing landscaped area on the northwest property corner, which is the northeast intersection of Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue; and to install 6 equipment cabinets and 2 GPS antennas surrounded by a screened wall. He noted that the proposed modified light post will have a 22-inch diameter that will conceal the proposed antennas; and stated that the antennas are needed to service the eastern portion of the City and provide coverage along Aviation Boulevard. He noted that the proposed use is consistent with the permitted uses in the C-3 Zone; and that the project is consistent with the height requirement, except that the project shows the light pole at approximately 11 inches over height, which can be corrected as a condition of approval. Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed facility complies with the setback requirements in the C-3 Zone and the requirements with respect to screening, noting that the proposed paneled antennas will be completely screened with a modified light pole and the equipment cabinets on the rooftop will be completely screened behind a screen wall. He stated that because the proposed facility is co-located, it conforms to the screening and site guidelines and mentioned that it exceeds the setback requirements for the zone and is consistent with the zone and the planned use for the property. He added that this proposed use is located in a highly visible area of the Aviation Boulevard corridor, which is currently being studied; and suggested that the pole be moved further to the east, a bit deeper into the lot to make it less obtrusive on Aviation Boulevard. He mentioned that the code does not allow monopoles, but that it is possible to incorporate the use as a light standard to meet the intent of the code.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that the lighting not negatively impact the residents.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Danielle Brandenberg, representing Cingular Wireless, stated that it would be possible to alter the location of this pole on the property to make it less prominent; and she asked that should the City require the movement of this pole once the Aviation Corridor Study is complete, that it be located in an area nearby that has the ability to provide coverage – noting that coverage is not adequate in this area and that the facility is a necessity. She added that the illumination will be shielded to force the light in a downward direction.
Anthony Ramsar, 2304 Vanderbilt Lane, Redondo Beach, asked that the Commission consider the aesthetics of this proposal in relationship to the main corridor.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the pole be moved back in the planter area, more towards the north.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman suggested moving the pole to the opposite end of the flower bed, moving it from the north end of the planter to the south end of the planter.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could consider changing the resolution to reflect that the proposed use conform to any future planning in the project area; and that in the event the location of the facility conflicts with future plans for the area, that the CUP shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE CUP 05-11 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility to co-locate with existing business at 1102 Aviation Boulevard; and to add the following language: The project shall be located to the south, subject to the approval of the Director, and conform to current and future plans for the project area. In the event the location conflicts with such plans, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
TEXT 05-2 -- Text Amendment regarding outdoor display of retail merchandise on Pier Plaza. (PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
Director Blumenfeld stated on that May 10, 2005, City Council reviewed the current outdoor dining regulations and directed staff to return with a resolution reflecting Council’s changes for retail sales on Pier Plaza; that on August 9, 2005, Council approved the proposed changes adopting these standards for design and operation of outdoor retail display areas on Pier Plaza; and he noted that the retail sales/display standards have been prepared and are attached to the Commission’s report for review. He noted that the Ordinance amends the encroachment regulations for outdoor sales regulations – noting that currently, permanent outdoor sales and displays are prohibited in the Zone Code, only permitting temporary outdoor merchandise displays. He noted that the proposed changes are meant to allow for these displays on Pier Plaza. He explained that the Zone Code regulates commercial area use parking by gross floor area; that if more than 333 square feet of the encroachment area is utilized by retail business, then it’s subject to parking requirements and in-lieu fees; and noted staff is proposing that the use for any encroachment area along Pier Plaza not result in additional parking for the business. He added that the retail businesses will now be required to obtain an encroachment permit and insurance; that they would be charged a reduced encroachment lease rate in order to provide an incentive for retail businesses along the Plaza; advised that the business owners must currently submit an encroachment permit fee of $370 and a lease permit of $2 a square foot; and that the retail businesses are proposed to be charged 50 cents a square foot for sales display area in contrast to the dining area display. He noted there are retail display standards attached to staff report.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the design standards provided essentially mirror the standards for outdoor dining regulations, suggesting that they should have been tailored more for retail use.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman echoed Commissioner Perrotti’s suggestion, stating that the outdoor retail shouldn’t simply be thought of as an extension of a store out onto the Plaza and almost creating a semi-permanent addition to the retail space; and suggested that the merchandizing and displays be subject to some kind of review, desiring a slight elevation in the caliber of displays on Pier Plaza. He suggested that it possibly be subject to review by the Public Works Commission or Director.
Discussion ensued on what type of apparatus to use as a standard for consistent appearance.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the encroachment permit can be written to limit the encroachment area to permit less than one required parking space so as not to require a Parking Plan.
Chairman Pizer suggested that limit of outdoor display area for each business be delineated and noted his desire to see a tidy and more businesslike appearance on the Plaza displays.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the businesses should be permitted to come out as far as the outdoor dining areas.
Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Commission so directs, staff will take photographs of other shopping center displays to provide additional background regarding this proposed amendment.
There was consensus to continue Item No. 12 in order to gather additional information.
-
STAFF ITEMS
Senior Planner Robertson informed the Commission that staff is proceeding in accordance with the estimated timing of tasks for the Aviation Boulevard Study; advised that staff has now completed a detailed ownership list of all the property owners along the corridor; that parcel maps have been created; and that staff anticipates completing the background research, the mapping, the data collection, and hopefully present this information at the next meeting for discussion/review.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that people have approached him with interest in seeing some live-work provisions along the corridor.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti asked for a status report on the proposed traffic signal on 16th Street, near the Pavilion.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the property owner is continuing to work with Caltrans to get the traffic light installed; and stated that the main issue holding up the project is the location of the cabinet and the controller. He noted that he will get another update from the Public Works Director for the next meeting.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his concern for the safety of pedestrians crossing the highway at this area.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned what can be done to obtain more consistency with City records among the various City departments.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City is working on computerizing the very old, historical records, but stated that because of limited staffing and the number of old records, this process has been slow. He stated that the departments do use the same information, but that some problems do arise when very old data is used. He mentioned that some applicants refer to their business license records for evidence in legal determinations, but explained that that information is not an entitlement because the City does not use the applicant’s business license information as a standard for review but uses building records. He noted that as more of the old data is put into the computer, there will be fewer inconsistencies.
Vice-Chairman Hoffman questioned if the Commission can control projects from putting up parking structure gates and charge for parking, noting that these gated structures can impact street parking – highlighting this evening’s Item No. 9.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City typically does not regulate the price for parking but explained that the Commission does have the ability to regulate parking with respect to parking efficiency/operations. He stated that it would be reasonable to refer a matter back to the Commission if a gate were installed thereby limit parking availability. He stated that he will research this matter further for the Commission.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 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 November 15, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |