|
|
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; and he encouraged everyone to attend.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of November 15, 2005 Minutes .
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the November 15, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None With regard to Item No. 5A, Vice-Chair Hoffman stated that because he recused himself from deliberations regarding Resolution No. P.C. 05-66, the vote on the attached Resolution should reflect his absence, not an abstention.
-
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 05-66 validating the legality of two additional units, for a total of eleven dwelling units on the property, with eight in the front building and three in the rear building, at 66 11th Street.
-
Resolution P.C. 05-67 validating the legality of one additional unit, for a total of five units on the property, with two in the front building at 668 and 670 4th Street and three in the rear buildings, 672, 674, and 674A 4th Street.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Resolution Nos. P.C. 05-66, as amended, and P.C. 05-67. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this property is a small 30 x 70 foot lot located in the Shakespeare tract; advised that a variance had been granted in October 2004, after which construction had commenced; explained that it was subsequently discovered the builder had demolished more than what had been permitted under the approved variance; and that the project was stopped following the City Attorney’s review of this issue – pointing out that the excess demolition does not materially affect the design of the project. He noted that this matter is before the Planning Commission this evening because the project exceeds the maximum allowable valuation that was approved in the original variance; and advised that the calculated valuation in the approved plans was approved at 148 percent and that it increased to 214 percent under this new condition. He noted that the owner subsequently submitted a revised demolition plan that showed all of the building to be removed, with the exception of the front portion of the building; and that the project architect did not indicate there was a change on the plan relative to the proposed demolition. Director Blumenfeld explained that the approved demolition of the project was made by staff, which was an error, but pointed out that that error does not relieve the property owner from compliance with the original variance. From the owner’s perspective, he stated that the demolition does not materially affect the project, that the project will be built as originally approved; and further explained that the variance is related to the property and not necessarily to the building that’s largely been demolished at this point. He pointed out that the newly revised Nonconforming Ordinance does not include a valuation calculation nor does it count the amount of wall removal, although the foundation and floor systems may not be entirely removed.
Director Blumenfeld stated that in October 2004, City Council supported this project (excluding the amount of extra demolition) believing there were extraordinary physical circumstances that existed with this subject lot -- citing its small lot condition, location along a walk street, and the only garage access off a narrow 10-foot wide alley at the rear of the property, thus creating an unusual hardship in providing directly accessible open space to the primary living area with a conventional floor plan. He stated that in order to grant a variance, the Commission must make the following four mandatory findings:
- 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.
With regard to City Council’s determination on Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner desires to exercise a property right possessed by others in the neighborhood to construct a single-family home to meet current standards of livability at a reasonable size of 2,224 square feet; because the small lot is located along a walk street, which effectively provides an open space amenity used by this property and others in the same vicinity and zone, the primary living area is located on the ground floor; however, he noted that Council believes providing additional open space and reducing the lot coverage is a hardship because to do so forces the owner to significantly reduce the building footprint, particularly while providing code compliant parking. He stated that the variance for maximum valuation is needed to allow the development that is comparable in size, at 2,224 square feet, to other dwellings in the neighborhood.
With regard to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Director Blumenfeld noted Council’s belief that the project will not likely be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone; that the project otherwise complies with all other zoning requirements and is consistent with other development in the area; and that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
In response to Commissioner Perrotti’s request for clarification, Director Blumenfeld stated that the building program has not changed from the 2004 building plan, that the building footprint is the same; noted that the one nonconforming wall which relates to the front yard setback is still standing; and that the only difference is the amount of demolition, not the final product. He mentioned that a revised Resolution had been provided to the Commission this evening.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Tom Zondiros, applicant, stated that this house is currently the second smallest house under construction in the City; and noted that it would be a tremendous negative impact to his family if the house could not be built as planned. He expressed his belief this project will enhance the community.
Phil Hedrick, 237 31st Street, stated that he has a similar lot and that he plans to undertake a similar project. He requested and received clarification on valuation calculations; and questioned how his project will be impacted by the new ordinance.
Director Blumenfeld invited Mr. Hedrick to visit the Community Development Department to review and discuss his future plans for his property.
Mark Wynn, 221 31st Street, noted his support for the requested variance.
John Crestridge, 440 30th Street, noted his support for the project, stating it will enhance the neighborhood.
Lawrence Yoo, 224 31st Street, noted his support for the project, believing this project will enhance the property values in this area.
Chairman Pizer noted that the Commission received a letter from Carrie Sutton Cook indicating her support of this project. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for this project, having the same footprint as originally requested.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he is able to make the findings to grant a variance, believing this is an unusual lot which restricts the owner’s planning.
Vice-Chair Hoffman pointed out that City Council had ruled on this and determined there were adequate findings for a variance.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE VAR 05-5 -- Variances to lot coverage and open space requirements and maximum allowable valuation increase for a nonconforming structure in order to allow an addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling, resulting in 70.9 percent lot coverage rather than the maximum 65 percent, a 214 percent valuation increase rather than the maximum 100 percent, and providing no open space directly adjacent and accessible to a primary living area at 311 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Pizer ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 17, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld noted the request to continue this item to the January meeting, permitting additional time for the applicant to consider alternative ways to accommodate his proposed project.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to January 2006 CUP 05-13 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow an auto repair and parts installation business at 843 Pacific Coast Highway, Exclusive Automotive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the Commission’s discussion and direction from the last meeting regarding this text amendment, looking at alternate methods for display of merchandise, including vending carts as opposed to simply allowing racks of clothing on the Plaza. He added that if the Zone Code is amended, there will be no further parking demand as long as the display areas stay within 166 square feet of the encroachment space on Pier Plaza. He mentioned that one of the objectives in using these types of vending cart spaces is they limit the area and provide a way to ensure not more than 166 square feet of display area will be necessary. Director Blumenfeld clarified that the Public Works Commission is the decision making body with respect to encroachment issues on these properties.
Commissioner Allen questioned if these retail establishments would be permitted to erect the same type of fence barriers used by the existing restaurants on the Plaza.
Director Blumenfeld indicated that that would be possible; explained that the outdoor dining encroaching on the Plaza occupies a bit more than 166 square feet and that the City had agreed to remit the extra in-lieu parking fees as part of an overall Downtown revitalization program; and advised that if more than the 166 square feet is sought by a business, it will either have to participate in the in-lieu parking program or request that the City underwrite that cost. He clarified that if the vending cart proposal is used, then the footprint of the cart would be the amount of commercial area to consider for parking purposes.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that staff did not know the cost of the vending carts.
Commissioner Perrotti indicated his concern for the mobility of the carts, whether they can be moved inside during non-business hours; stated that the cost of the carts should be determined; and suggested that the Public Works Commission seek that information if this matter is to go forward.
Chairman Pizer questioned if the Plaza retailers were notified of this meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that only the standard public hearing notice had been published.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hedrick questioned if food items would be permitted to be sold from these carts.
Director Blumenfeld clarified that this is specifically for retail use, and indicated that a business would be able to display the items it customarily sells in its retail shop.
There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated he is inclined to approve the text amendment, noting that the carts look better than the clothing racks.
Vice-Chair Hoffman noted his preference for the merchants to make the decision on what would be best suited for their own business needs.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the retail merchants should be encouraged to improve the look of their displays; but noted at this point in time, not knowing the cost and mobility of these vending carts, he is not inclined to require the use of these carts.
Chairman Pizer stated that these displays should be tasteful; and noted his preference for feedback from the merchants before a final decision is made. He said that he would like to see more ideas, expressing his belief there is nothing in the text amendment to encourage tasteful displays on Pier Plaza.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that the text amendment should include verbiage to encourage the retail businesses to upgrade or enhance their outdoor areas, but noted this matter should be forwarded to the Public Works Commission for further research and consideration.
Vice-Chair Hoffman stated that he is confident with the Downtown merchants’ ability to do a good job in providing more aesthetically pleasing outdoor displays.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested adding more language under Design Standards, encouraging pleasing outdoor displays.
Director Blumenfeld advised that City Council has considered and approved the design regulations for the Plaza area; and stated that if the Planning Commission has concerns regarding those regulations, the Commission may express those to Council. He stated that this issue is whether to amend the Zoning Ordinance and adopt this Resolution; and that if the Planning Commission adopts this Resolution, it will put these regulations into effect and permit this activity to occur consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated that by taking no additional action this evening, the 166-square-foot rule would be maintained; and that additional parking demands would need to be considered if a business exceeds the 166-square-foot rule.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE TEXT 05-2 -- Text Amendment regarding outdoor display of retail merchandise on Pier Plaza. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARING(S)
Due to the close proximity of this property to his home, Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from consideration of Item No. 9.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To not merge the lots.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is currently one large parcel containing 8,380 square feet and comprised of three lots from the original subdivision; noted that each lot is 25 feet wide with varying depths and lot sizes ranging from 2,590 square feet to a little over 3,000 square feet; noted that the property currently contains a single dwelling unit sited on all three contiguous lots; and advised that the City has begun the process to determine whether these three lots which comprise the property will be merged. He explained that this part of the Ordinance allows lots to be merged if the same owner holds two or more contiguous parcels of land and where at least one of the contiguous parcels or units of land held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size and, also, if the main structure is partially sited on the contiguous parcel and not more than 80 percent of the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed separately. Senior Planner Robertson noted that staff determined the subject property meets the above criteria for merger, as each one of these contiguous lots contains less than 4,000 square feet, and the existing structure is sited on all three lots. He added that while two of the three lots on the block under consideration have already been split into 25-foot wide lots, this calculates at 66 percent, so it does comply with the standards of not more than 80 percent having been split and developed separately. He stated that, therefore, the City has mailed a Notice of Intent to Determine Status to the property owner and that a notice has been recorded with the L.A. County Recorder. He provided some background information on lot mergers that have historically occurred in the City. Senior Planner Robertson stated that at this point, the applicant has not provided any specific evidence that the property does not meet the requirements for merger.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that in applying the 80 percent rule on blocks such as this requires making some assumptions as to what is considered facing a common street, what is considered a split lot, and what lots contribute to the 80 percent calculation. He added that when the area for consideration includes so few lots based on the explicit definition of block, it does not seem to be an effective method for meeting the intent of the Merger Ordinance, which is to merge lots to maintain neighborhood character; and noted that, therefore, to determine whether merging these lots is the appropriate decision, staff has also looked beyond just the subject block and made the following findings:
- Between 8th and 10th Streets, 5 of the 7 parcels fronting on Prospect Avenue have already been split (71 percent).
- Between 3rd and 10th Streets fronting Prospect Avenue, there are now 26 parcels comprised of original 25-foot wide lots that are either split or combined lots from the original subdivision. Nineteen of these 26 parcels have already been split and developed as 25-foot wide or similar width lots (73 percent).
- Seven of these 19 parcels that have been split and developed separately have been developed since 1995.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Commission has the authority to merge these lots if it desires the property to be one larger parcel of 8,380 square feet or, alternatively, if it desires to have the owner process a parcel map to subdivide the property into two lots of over 4,000 square feet; and added that the Commission is not compelled to merge the lots. He stated that while staff has found the lots to meet the criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance, the subject block only meets the 80-percent rule because of the small number of lots in the block; and also, the block would not meet the 80-percent rule if a method of calculation were used that excluded the subject property. In looking beyond the limits of the subject block, at past lot splits and the general character of the lots that do front on Prospect Avenue, the development of this property with three homes on 25-foot wide lots would not be out of character with the established pattern of development along Prospect Avenue (as 73 percent of the parcels between 3rd and 10th Streets have been split into similar narrow lots). He noted that because of the ambiguity of the Merger Ordinance and the history of lot splits in this area, staff believes merging these lots does not meet the intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance and is recommending the Commission consider releasing the lots from the requirement for merger. He mentioned that staff would return with a resolution based on the Commission’s direction this evening.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that this issue will come before City Council for consideration and direction because of this ambiguity in the Ordinance. In the meantime, he advised that staff will take care of these matters on a case-by-case basis.
Rob Stroyke, 2420 Hermosa Avenue, stated that the property owners received the following letter from City staff prior to purchasing this property: ”Subject: Status of lots located at 838 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach. Mr. Iverson, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that the three lots under one ownership and known as one address, 838 Prospect Avenue, are tied together by ownership only. These lots were never formally merged by the city of Hermosa Beach and thus can be sold to different owners and developed individually.” He stated that the applicants relied upon this letter to buy the property and expressed his belief it is not appropriate to now merge the property. He noted that precedence has been established because the City has split lots on Prospect Avenue and reiterated it is unfair to the owners to allow a merger. He expressed his belief a merger will negatively affect the value of the property.
Commissioner Allen questioned if this particular case was reviewed by the City’s legal team.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Attorney has given legal advice about the merger law; advised that the City has made it clear staff had been operating under the assumption for many years that the Lot Merger program operating in the 80’s was a comprehensive Citywide program and that at the conclusion of this study, staff had assumed all the lots which were under consideration for merger had either been merged or were determined not to qualify for merger. The letter referred to by the speaker was drafted on the basis of this assumption. Subsequently, though, he indicated that this year, the City Attorney provided an opinion that if a lot qualified under the Merger Ordinance, it ought to be considered and that the matter ought to be referred to the Commission for consideration, which is why this issue is before the Commission this evening. He stated that the City Attorney has looked at this issue, but not this letter, and that the attorney is aware of the ramifications for causing lots to be merged.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that reading the information provided in the staff report, there are inconsistencies; stated the one thing that is readily apparent is that since 1995, 11 lots have been split in this area along Prospect Avenue, some of them fairly recently; and stated that with this history of lot splits in that area, he would be inclined to not go with the merger and to allow three separate lots.
Vice-Chair Hoffman stated that the character in the neighborhood is increasingly 25-foot lots, with the exception almost always being on the corner lots; and stated there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason why this lot, given its depth, should be merged.
Commissioner Allen noted his concurrence with Vice-Chair Hoffman’s comments.
Chairman Pizer stated that this is not out of character with the neighborhood; and stated that the 80-percent rule is confusing and needs to be reviewed and clarified.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chair Hoffman, to APPROVE staff recommendation to release the subject lots from the merger requirement, allowing the development of the three existing lots at 838 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom (Item No. 10 was considered out of Agenda order.)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 17, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant needs additional time to submit plans to comply with the maximum height allowed.
Chairman Pizer opened the public hearing. There being no further input, Chairman Pizer closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to January 2006 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 -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, between 33rd and 34th Streets; noted that the lot is zoned R-3 and has a height limit of 30 feet; and explained that the lot, similar to others on the east side of this block, steeply slopes up from the street at the front of the lot and then is relatively flat for the majority of the lot thereafter. He advised that in March 2004, the Planning Commission approved a similar request for a convex slope determination on the property adjacent and to the north, at 3317 Palm Drive; advised that the grade used for the height measurement is based on surveyed elevation points at the property corners; and noted that the method for determining building height also allows consideration of other points for lots with convex contours. In these situations, he indicated that the grade of a lot may be based on alternate points along the property line in addition to the corner points; and that in the cases where the datum for height measurement is disputed, he noted that the final determination of the grade may be referred to the Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is requesting consideration as a convex lot, similar to the adjacent properties, and is proposing alternative points at the top of the bank as a basis for measuring height rather than the westerly corner point; noted that the applicant’s request appears to be reasonable given the condition of the lot and the surrounding terrain; and pointed out that the attached photographs of the property and surroundings indicate the grade of the lot, similar to others on the block, does steeply slope up from the street and then flattens out at the back portion of the lot. He mentioned that staff does not quite agree with the applicant’s assertion in the profile that they’re trying to go back to some grade that was established before the street was cut.
Ron Newman, 3311 Palm, requested that his property be permitted to be at the same level as his adjacent two neighbors.
Sonia Rodriguez, project designer for the prior owner (property recently sold), advised that both adjacent properties have a higher grade; and stated that the materials submitted indicate this lot was cut to accommodate the driveway, but that the original grade is what the adjacent neighbors have, which is why they have the retaining wall.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for having consistent grading with the neighbors.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that following his review of the typographic profile and the photos, he believes this is a convex sloping lot; and noted that the Commission previously approved a convex sloping lot condition at 3317 Palm and that the Commission should be consistent in its determinations regarding these issues.
Vice-Chair Hoffman stated that the profiles indicate this is a convex slope.
Commissioner Allen noted his concurrence.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to DETERMINE 3311 Palm Drive is a convex sloping lot. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Memorandum regarding rotation of Planning Commission chairmanship.
Director Blumenfeld advised that pursuant to Commission direction, the Chair and Vice-Chair positions will rotate starting with the next meeting; stated that the positions will run from January through September 2006; and noted that the new Chair will be Peter Hoffman and the new Vice-Chair will be Kent Allen.
-
Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will be working on two text amendments over the first quarter of this year. He also stated that at the January meeting Downtown CUP’s will be reviewed; that staff will be bringing to the Commission for review the Hermosa Pavilion parking structure; and advised that this structure opened this summer and that there were some complaints with respect to the operation of the facility because of alleged spill-over parking in the neighborhood.
-
Community Development Department Activity Report of October, 2005.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the volume of permit activity is up approximately 45 percent and that the valuation has doubled from the year to date figure.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that he has no information on proposed new parking requirements on Pacific Coast Highway.
With regard to the text amendment for the nonconforming remodels, Commissioner Perrotti requested that the Commission receive the modifications adopted by City Council.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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 December 7, 2005.
| Ron Pizer, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |