|
|
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 |
Oral / Written Communications
Commissioner Perrotti mentioned that a resident of Hermosa Beach passed away recently, Mr. Francis Nolan; advised that he lived on 6th Street for many years and had lived in Hermosa Beach since the late ‘50s; that he was 82 years old; noted that in his earlier years, he was active in the Hermosa Beach Little League and the Youth Soccer League; and requested that this evening’s meeting be adjourned in his memory.
Chairman Hoffman advised that the Parking Plan for the Pavilion development will be continued to the February 21st meeting because of further data collection required before it can be presented to the Planning Commission.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of December 7, 2005 Minutes .
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the December 7, 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. 05-71approving a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility to collocate with existing businesses at 1102 Aviation Boulevard.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE Resolution No. P.C. 05-71. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Without objection, Chairman Hoffman considered Agenda Item No. 15a as the next order of business.
-
15a. Status update: Aviation Specific Plan.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff has commenced putting together the specific plan database and introduced two staff members working on this project.
Logan Haug stated that staff had comprised a list of all the businesses in between PCH and Harper Street; noted inconsistencies between the General Plan and the Zoning Map regarding land uses; and mentioned that staff collected this various data on a lot by lot basis.
Julie Needham advised that staff’s field work included data collection on the current business types, residential uses, vacancies along any businesses, a number of off-street parking spaces, building heights, setbacks, and noted any deferred maintenance; advised that staff was also approached by several business owners who addressed some of their complaints, most common being the speed of traffic along Aviation and the problems with sufficient on-street parking; and stated that this raw data sheet was reviewed with other Department staff which resulted in the creation of the 10 categories that are reflected on the newly created map, differentiating between different commercial uses, such as stores, offices, mixed uses, auto related.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the next steps will be to continue with the land use mapping noted in the work program; stated that staff will be coming back before the Planning Commission periodically to review progress.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to March 21, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant needs to address some Building Code issues related to the proposed reconfiguration of this property before it can proceed to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to March 21, 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 approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this project previously on January 21, 2003; advised that at that time, the Planning Commission approved a PDP and Parking Plan for this proposed multi-use manufacturing building; and noted that the applicant never implemented the plan because it was deemed to be too costly because of the construction method and, subsequently, the discretionary approval expired. He noted that this new project is identical to the prior project; added that both projects are the result of an initial code enforcement action on the property, noting that the property had been illegally used for outdoor storage in this zone, which is not allowed; explained that as part of the resolution of the code enforcement violations, the owner has proposed to build the building wherein they would use a portion of the building for storage of construction material; and that the building will look similar to an office building, will function similar an office building in the sense it will be enclosed and contain those service/manufacturing oriented uses that are allowed in the M-1 Zone.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed project is 8,289 square feet; two stories above the basement parking level which also includes a storage area for the owner’s primary use; and mentioned that the applicant proposes to operate the storage facility to house concrete and block material and store dirt/sand in the basement space. He noted that the other spaces are going to be designed for the needs of small manufacturing uses, warehousing and also artists and architectural studios; and stated that because of the flexible nature of the plan, staff is recommending if the Planning Commission approves this project, that the Planning Commission limit the type of tenants who can occupy the building to eliminate potential for general office use, which is not allowed in this zone. He explained that the dirt/sand storage for this use will be located below grade; and because of the movement of dirt/sand with skip loaders and other noisy machinery, there will be some mitigation to limit those noise-related impacts to the enclosed building.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this project needs a Parking Plan because it includes tandem parking; advised there are 12 parking spaces proposed for the basement in addition to the storage materials being located in the building; stated the first floor will contain 23 parking spaces and 10 tandem parking spaces, some directly accessible to Cypress Avenue. He stated the Planning Commission has the authority to grant a Parking Plan, since there are mitigating factors to support the use of tandem parking; explained that the tandem parking spaces will be arranged in four-car garages dedicated to direct stair access to five of the individual tenants on the second floor; and noted staff’s belief this tandem parking can easily be managed. Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and with the approval of the discretionary permit for the Parking Plan, the PDP and with the requirements of the zone. He indicated that staff is also recommending the Planning Commission impose a 120-day deadline for the submittal of final construction documents for the project from the date of Planning Commission approval in order to make sure the project is implemented in a timely manner.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Howard Crabtree, Studio 912 Architecture, representing the applicant, explained this project is roughly the same project this Commission approved nearly three years ago, with the exception of the construction type, noting it was slightly redesigned and simplified. He added that the building materials and type of construction has changed to make it easier to build.
Mr. Crabtree noted for Commissioner Allen that he is not opposed to the 120-day deadline for submittal of final construction documents.
Chairman Hoffman questioned if the applicant’s representative believes this building will house a feasible environment for other businesses to occupy space in this building.
Mr. Crabtree explained that the owner plans to rent the spaces to various construction companies in the industry; and stated that any dirt/sand and noise generated by that construction activity will be contained.
Norman Brewer, 614 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, advised that his property backs up to this site; noted his support for this new building, believing it will increase the property values in this area; but indicated that the hillside is sandy and addressed the concern for the safety of his property and his neighbors’ properties.
Director Blumenfeld advised there is a 10-foot setback to the property line adjacent to Mr. Brewer’s property; as noted in the Building Code, it’s incumbent upon the owner and the project design professionals to protect the adjacent properties; and explained that the project owner will likely have to shore for any deep excavation to protect the neighboring properties. He added if there is damage to the adjacent property, the property owner must post bond in an amount to cover the cost of repairs.
Barbara Elman, 530 Loma Drive, advised that her home overlooks this site; noted her support for a new building on this site; but addressed her concern with relying on tandem parking, believing that people don’t seem to use tandem parking unless it’s the last resort; and noted her concern for the lack of on-street parking spaces. She noted her disappointment with the City allowing tandem parking in a congested area.
Mr. Crabtree stated that the adjacent properties will be protected; noted there is 10 feet from where their basement starts to the property line, allowing for plenty room to provide the shoring which will be necessary; and advised that any problems will be remedied to the neighbors’ satisfaction. Because of the proposed use, Mr. Crabtree expressed his belief the tandem parking will be adequate for the individual light manufacturing uses in this building.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief this contractor/property owner is very knowledgeable in this field and will build a quality building; and that he believes the tandem parking will not become an issue for this property.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that because this will be a manufacturing use, he does not believe it will have a lot of customer traffic and that the tandem parking will be effective; and stated that since the owner of the building will be located on site, there will be better control over the tandem parking than if there was an absent property owner. He stated he was supportive of this project when it came before the Planning Commission in 2003.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief the tandem parking will be effective because of this use.
Chairman Hoffman noted for the neighbors there are provisions to require any damage to adjacent properties be repaired by this owner; expressed his belief the tandem parking will be manageable given the uses of this building; and stated that his only reservation is that this not be used as an office site, expecting code enforcement to vigorously enforce the appropriate uses of this building.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE PDP 05-28/PARK 05-3 -- Precise Development Plan for construction of a new 8,200-square-foot multi-use manufacturing building and Parking Plan to allow ten tandem parking spaces and three parking spaces backing directly onto Cypress Avenue at 601 Cypress Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission approved the original CUP for a residential planned development and a Subdivision Tract Map for this 2-unit planned unit development (PUD) project; explained that PUD’s were common in the 1970’s; and that a PUD is a common interest subdivision, like a condominium, however, the lots within the PUD are separately owned as opposed to the units themselves. He stated the proposal is to allow 607 square feet of expansion on this existing 2-unit development and a new 304-square-foot deck on the second floor; that the applicant is proposing to expand the first and second floor of the rear unit, so only the rear unit is affected; advised that the expansion results in 607 square feet of habitable space and 304 square feet of deck space; and that with the addition, the rear unit provides 2,263 square feet of habitable space. He explained that two dwelling units per lot are allowed in the R-1A Zone (in which this project is located) if the lot exceeds 6,700 square feet; stated the proposed addition complies with all zoning requirements, including height, open space and lot coverage; noted that lot coverage will increase with this proposed addition from 32 to 39 percent, well below the 65-percent maximum; and stated that building height is approximately 20 feet and complies with the 25-foot height limit. He noted there is a roof plan which will need to identify critical point, a minor consideration which will be reflected in the condition of approvals; stated that a new parcel map will be necessary since the existing parcel map boundaries that were defined in the ’73 tract map were aligned with the perimeter of the two buildings with the remaining property defined as common area; and that the new map which will have to be processed will have to reduce the common area in a driveway and split the remaining property, including a garage area, which is currently owned in common. He stated that while the proposed additions extend the footprint, they don’t materially affect or modify the architecture of the building and that the overall quality and type of material are unaffected.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, advised that the owner of the rear home is seeking to add a minor addition to their dwelling unit where the dwelling units are detached from the garage they own in common; explained that the addition will attach the rear unit to the garage, and a portion of the second floor of that unit will overlap a portion of the garage; and that a deck will be provided off to the rear, increasing in the footprint of the building. She stated that this proposal, in essence, is enlarging the privately owned lots of No. 1 and 2 and reducing the common area space. She noted that the other property owner is in agreement with this proposal.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the number of changes in this application is insignificant, that it seems to be more of a legal issue to change the land description; and noted that the resolution adequately covers any conditions.
Commissioner Pizer noted the lot coverage is going from 32 to 39 percent.
Commissioner Allen stated that this cleans up the look of the lot and allows the owners to have more enjoyment of their property.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 05-14 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment and Parcel Map No. 65480 to allow a 600-square-foot expansion to an existing two-unit planned unit development at 519 and 523 25th Street. 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 or addition to permitted use list.
Director Blumenfeld stated there are two possible recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider relative to this project: either process a text amendment for the proposed text change or simply continue to consider this proposed use as a permitted use by right in this zone as it has been previously. He advised that this text amendment is to consider large day spas as allowable uses within the C-3 Zone; noted that large day spas, which are greater than 3,000 square feet, are becoming a more frequent use in this City, noting there are currently three in Hermosa Beach; that currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify or regulate large day spa uses; that it does regulate some of the uses which are allowed, such as smaller beauty shops or massage therapy businesses; and stated that in this case, there are very large facilities which tend to fall outside the parameters of those other two use categories. He stated that the question for the Planning Commission to consider is whether there’s a potential adverse impact created by these uses; noted the only real possible impact staff can see with respect to the neighborhood would be adverse traffic and circulation issues; and that within the C-2, C-3 Zones, these uses are parked at a retail parking rate. He mentioned that staff surveyed some surrounding cities and found the parking ratios at 1 per 250. He noted that alternately, staff could simply add this use to the permitted use list, a use allowed within the C-2, C-3 Zone and still, the massage portion of the business would be regulated so long as it was more than 25 percent of the floor area.
Commissioner Pizer questioned the reasons for having a CUP for this type business.
Director Blumenfeld stated the only possible justification would be to try to regulate the use, dealing with operational issues and development standards, thus giving the Commission more regulatory control over business operations and the operation of the facility with respect to parking.
Commissioner Pizer noted that adding it to the list would define in the City’s Code what a spa is.
Director Blumenfeld noted that, if it was added under the permitted use list, staff would recommend adding a definition under Section 17.04.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom supported the adoption of the text amendment.
Commissioner Allen noted his support to add it to the list of permitted uses.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for making it a permitted use by right and specifically listing and defining this use as a permitted use.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that requiring a conditional use permit is not that large of a burden, especially when parking is in such huge demand in this City and noted his support of giving the City some control over the use and additional opportunity for public comment.
Chairman Hoffman noted his support for the amendment.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to REQUIRE a large day spa to have a conditional use permit, approving Text Amendment 06-1, allowing large spa facilities in the C-2 and C-3 Zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Director Blumenfeld asked that the Commission consider adopting the attached resolution.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to ADOPT the proposed resolution, approving a text amendment to allow large spa facilities in the C-2 and C-3 Zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to find this is a convex sloping lot. 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 this property is located on the east side of Monterey Boulevard, a through lot with frontage on both Monterey Boulevard and Loma Drive; noted that for this segment of Loma Drive, it is considered a street because it has a 30-foot right-of-way, even though it was only improved as a 20-foot wide travel lane, similar to an alley; and added that Monterey Boulevard is considered the front of the property. He stated the lot size is relatively small and similar to six other adjacent lots on the block which have an 80-foot depth; that these lots are located between 2022 and 2104 Monterey Boulevard, these lots being smaller than the more typically sized lots both north and south of these lots; advised that the lot is currently developed with a single-family home, with a one-car garage off Loma Drive; and noted this property is currently nonconforming to parking, garage setback, and front and side yard requirements. He stated the applicant is requesting these variances to allow the addition of a second story and a new two-car garage in order to increase the two-bedroom house from 1,295 square feet to 2,394 square feet with four bedrooms and a family room; stated the project is consistent with the newly adopted provisions of the Nonconforming Ordinance in that it is less than 100 percent increase in floor area, however, these specific variances are necessary.
Senior Planner Robertson noted the variances requested include a parking setback; stated the proposed setback from Loma Drive is 3 feet rather than the required 17 feet; and given that Loma Drive appears to be more similar to an alley than a street, he noted the applicant is proposing what would normally be allowed on an alley in order to provide the 2-car garage and in order to bring the property into compliance with the parking requirements. He added if they were required to provide a full 17-foot setback, it would require removing substantially more of the existing first floor and significantly changing the floor plan. He stated the other variance is for open space; that the applicant is proposing to provide a 200-square-foot area in the rear yard adjacent to the garage; explained that this is being proposed for dual purposes -- open space and guest parking; that they are proposing a combination of turf/block; and that staff is considering this, however, as the open space since the guest parking is not required for this expansion because it’s less than 100 percent. He stated the open space variance is needed for the applicant to provide the 200 square feet on the ground rather than the 300 square feet; and that the applicant is doing this to provide floor area on the ground floor with minimum demolition to the existing house, connected with their ability to provide a 2-car garage.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the third variance is the bay window encroachment; that currently, there is a bay window which encroaches into the front yard; that the only difference with the proposed bay window is it would be modified to a rectangular shape, which slightly increases the nonconforming condition, necessitating the variance; and he pointed out that in order to grant these variances, the Commission must make the following four findings:
- Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
- Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located on the east side of Monterey Boulevard, a through lot with frontage on both Monterey Boulevard and Loma Drive; noted that for this segment of Loma Drive, it is considered a street because it has a 30-foot right-of-way, even though it was only improved as a 20-foot wide travel lane, similar to an alley; and added that Monterey Boulevard is considered the front of the property. He stated the lot size is relatively small and similar to six other adjacent lots on the block which have an 80-foot depth; that these lots are located between 2022 and 2104 Monterey Boulevard, these lots being smaller than the more typically sized lots both north and south of these lots; advised that the lot is currently developed with a single-family home, with a one-car garage off Loma Drive; and noted this property is currently nonconforming to parking, garage setback, and front and side yard requirements. He stated the applicant is requesting these variances to allow the addition of a second story and a new two-car garage in order to increase the two-bedroom house from 1,295 square feet to 2,394 square feet with four bedrooms and a family room; stated the project is consistent with the newly adopted provisions of the Nonconforming Ordinance in that it is less than 100 percent increase in floor area, however, these specific variances are necessary.
- Senior Planner Robertson noted the variances requested include a parking setback; stated the proposed setback from Loma Drive is 3 feet rather than the required 17 feet; and given that Loma Drive appears to be more similar to an alley than a street, he noted the applicant is proposing what would normally be allowed on an alley in order to provide the 2-car garage and in order to bring the property into compliance with the parking requirements. He added if they were required to provide a full 17-foot setback, it would require removing substantially more of the existing first floor and significantly changing the floor plan. He stated the other variance is for open space; that the applicant is proposing to provide a 200-square-foot area in the rear yard adjacent to the garage; explained that this is being proposed for dual purposes -- open space and guest parking; that they are proposing a combination of turf/block; and that staff is considering this, however, as the open space since the guest parking is not required for this expansion because it’s less than 100 percent. He stated the open space variance is needed for the applicant to provide the 200 square feet on the ground rather than the 300 square feet; and that the applicant is doing this to provide floor area on the ground floor with minimum demolition to the existing house, connected with their ability to provide a 2-car garage.
- Senior Planner Robertson stated the third variance is the bay window encroachment; that currently, there is a bay window which encroaches into the front yard; that the only difference with the proposed bay window is it would be modified to a rectangular shape, which slightly increases the nonconforming condition, necessitating the variance; and he pointed out that in order to grant these variances, the Commission must make the following four findings:
Senior Planner Robertson stated in reviewing this project relative to these findings, staff has found that the lot is one of seven lots on this block which could be characterized as somewhat unique with respect to lot depth and size; that it is unique with respect to the situation with the portion of the block of Loma Drive being a street for determining the garage setback; that Loma Drive varies in width on this block, each end of the block being 20 feet wide, and that where this property is located, it is 30 feet wide; and that the house sits significantly above the grade of Monterey Boulevard, since the property slopes up from the street in the encroachment area. He expressed staff’s belief the combination of these factors do create a hardship and make it difficult to provide a complying garage while adding a second story without significantly compromising the floor plan and the size of the house. He added that another option would be to construct a brand new home in compliance with the codes, but that in this case, a new house would also be subject to some of the same difficulties that would impact its overall square footage. He noted that staff surveyed the through lots on this block and found that the predominant majority, 25 out of 32, have their garage access on Loma Drive and only 3 of these have garages that are set back 17 feet, the majority appear to be 3 feet or less; and that there appears to be exceptional and extraordinary circumstances for this property.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the variance for the parking setback and open space is arguably necessary for the enjoyment of the property right possessed by other property owners nearby, constructing a typical 2-car garage that is loaded from Loma Drive; and that most of the properties currently in these through lot conditions do have a garage off the Loma Drive side, and the garages are close to the rear property line. He added that the variance for the open space requirement may also be necessary to enjoy a property right to build this 2-car garage without also having to demolish some other portion of the existing structure. He expressed staff’s belief the variance to modify the bay window is only necessary for aesthetic purposes and that this variance does not seem to meet the standard of a substantial property right.
With respect to Finding No. 3, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the variances do not appear to be materially detrimental to neighboring properties.
With respect to Finding No. 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the construction of single-family homes in this location is consistent with the General Plan.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in order for the applicant to achieve parity with the neighboring properties, staff believes findings can be made to support a variance specific to the garage and rear yard setbacks; and although less compelling, findings can also be made to support a variance for the open space requirements. He noted staff does not believe the findings can be made for the proposed modification to the nonconforming bay window.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the City has considered vacating 5 feet on either side of the street legally described and then repaving it.
Director Blumenfeld stated the City has considered it; explained that the problem is some projects have been built conforming to the current lot configuration; that if one vacates, then that creates an anomaly created with the structures that were built to conform to the new regulations.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Dustin Gregg, project designer, stated this property owner is trying to achieve the same setback as the majority of the residents on Loma Drive.
Saul Minkus, applicant, stated he has lived in this small home for over 30 years; and noted that the reason to square off the bay window is to have nice curb appeal and to be consistent with the architectural design of the home. He stated this bay window has been in place for over 60 years and noted his preference to maintain the aesthetics of this Craftsman style home.
Mr. Gregg stated that currently, the bay window is 2 feet forward from the front of the house and stated that its corners can be cut back.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for the requested variances and stated that he can make all findings.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted that this bay window has been in place for many years; that it is consistent with the architecture of this house; and stated that he can make all findings to support the variances.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that this lot is unique enough to support the findings for the variances.
Commissioner Pizer echoed that support.
Chairman Hoffman noted his support for the findings, but stated that he cannot make a finding for the bay window because an aesthetic design element is not a substantial property right.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the question for the Commission to consider is whether the project should be allowed to vary from the standards of encroachment into that required yard; and that unless the Commission can make findings to do so, it cannot approve that component.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE VAR 05-6 -- Variances from the garage setback, open space, and front yard requirements to allow a second story addition and a new two-car garage with a 3-foot garage setback rather than 17 feet from the street (Loma Drive), 200 square feet of ground level open space rather than 300 square feet, and a bay window encroaching into the front yard at 2056 Monterey Boulevard, making findings for all variances requested in this proposal.
Commissioner Allen stated that the finding for the bay window is a substantial property right enjoyed by others in this area.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request and confirm that the property has a convex slope relative to height determination.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is also requesting confirmation that the property has a convex slope relative to height determination, so there are two parts to this request; advised that the property contains a two-story building which was constructed in 1955; that the dwelling is nonconforming to guest parking, to lot coverage, to driveway slope, garage setback, eaves setbacks, side and rear yard setbacks; noted that the project is being considered under the provisions of the Nonconforming Ordinance which were in effect in 2005 because there was a complete application submitted prior to the effective date of the new ordinance; and explained that the City Council has exempted such projects from consideration under the new terms of the ordinance. Planner Robertson advised that the total living area of the dwelling will increase from 2,205 square feet to 3,575 square feet; and that the expansion and remodel will result in the removal of 9.9 percent of the existing interior walls and a 69.5 percent increase in valuation. He stated the proposal generally conforms to planning and zoning requirements; noted that open space is provided on an existing second story deck and on a new roof deck, for a total of 360 square feet; however, he noted there are several corrections: the proposed balcony encroachments into the front setback are not allowed given that the front setback of 2 feet includes the use of any architectural encroachments; and also, the proposed addition of a bathroom on the first floor separates a portion of the existing living space from the rest of the dwelling, creating accessory living quarters that are not allowed without the issuance of a CUP. He advised that the plans are missing some accurate critical height information and contain other erroneous information, believing these things can be resolved with conditions of approval. The Building Department has reviewed the project and has noted there are some further corrections related to the fact this is a 3-story building and therefore it is necessary for two means of egress are provided from the roof deck; that a sprinkler system is provided within the dwelling; and that all new openings along the side yards meet the minimum required by the Building Code. He added that staff believes these Building Code issues won’t drastically change the design of the project and can also be addressed as conditions of approval.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that with respect to the convex slope determination, the applicant is proposing alternative points for measuring height rather than the northerly and southerly corner points; advised that the subject property rises sharply from both the front and back for a short distance and is relatively flat for the majority of the middle of the lot; that based on a physical inspection of the subject and neighboring properties, he stated the applicant’s request appears reasonable given that the existing condition of the slope does appear to be a convex condition from both the street and alley sides, both for this property and the properties on the same block; and that the convex slope condition does seem to follow the natural topography of the area. Without this convex sloped determination, he advised that the proposed project would be 2.36 feet over the maximum height limit at the critical point; also, the proposed concrete entry stairs in the east side yard would be over height, 8.5 feet above grade rather than the maximum height of 4 feet above grade without the convex slope determination. No other convex sloped determinations have been made for other properties on this same block.
Taking all the modifications into consideration, Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that staff has added enough conditions in the resolution to cover the nonconformities; with respect to the convex slope, he added there is enough information presented to make the determination that this is a convex slope.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE 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 MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to find this is a convex sloping lot. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project involves an existing two-story building that was constructed in 1937; advised that the dwelling is nonconforming to the front, side yard setbacks, garage setback, turning area, eaves setback, and a fence height requirement; and noted that this project is being considered under the provisions of the Nonconforming Ordinance that went into effect last year because the applicant had an application in the pipeline prior to the effective date of those code changes. He stated that the applicant is proposing to add 1,078 square feet on the first and second story and a new attached two-car garage; advised that the total living area of the dwelling will increase from 2,151 square feet to 3,229 square feet; that the expansion and remodel results in 21.8 percent of the existing exterior walls and calculates as a 65-percent increase in valuation; that the project also will correct the nonconforming garage and side yard setbacks and correct the nonconforming turning area; that the project conforms to planning and zoning requirements and all required setbacks are provided; that lot coverage is 63.4 percent; and that open space is provided on grade adjacent to the new family room, and then a new roof deck, for a total of 343 square feet of usable open space. He stated that this project complies with the 30-foot height limit, however, the roof plan does not accurately show the exact location of the critical height points; but noted staff’s belief this issue can be resolved with the conditions of approval. He stated that based on a visual inspection by staff of the nonconformities that will remain (the front setback, the eaves encroachment and the permanent fence height), these are not unusual given the age of the subject dwelling and the age and pattern of surrounding development; and that staff believes the scope of the project is reasonable, allowing the owner to add a family room on the first floor and two bedrooms.
Victor Carone, project architect, stated he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that the resolution adequately covers the project.
Chairman Hoffman commended the architect for retaining the character and style of the existing building while making these changes; and noted that this change is correcting the parking condition.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE NR 06-1 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 219 2nd Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To release the subject lots from the merger requirement, allowing the development of the two existing lots.
Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from this matter because of its close proximity to his home.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the property is currently one parcel containing 6,000 square feet; that it is comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that these lots are 25 feet wide with varying depths and lot sizes of 2,944 square feet and 3,056 square feet; explained that the property contains a single dwelling unit that is sited on the two contiguous lots; and noted staff determined that the subject property meets the criteria for Commission consideration, as each one of the contiguous lots contains less than 4,000 square feet and the existing structure is sited on the two lots. He stated that since only one of the three lots on the block under consideration has already been split into 25-foot wide lots, which calculates to be 33 percent, so not more than 80 percent have been split and developed separately. He explained that the city completed a citywide lot merger program in 1989 and thereafter staff stopped referring such lots to Planning Commission for lot merger consideration based upon the assumption that the program had addressed all substandard lots when it was completed in 1989. Therefore staff accepted the subject plans for constructing two homes on the subject property; however, since staff accepted these plans, the City Attorney has advised that any lots which meet the merger criteria that were not merged in the period between 1987 and 1990 should still be considered for merger pursuant to Chapter 16.20 when a parcel meets the criteria. He stated that the Planning Commission recently considered a similar case for the merger of three contiguous lots at 838 Prospect and that the Commission decided to release these lots from the merger requirements. He advised that in a prior communication regarding these compulsory merger of lots, the City Attorney indicated that the Commission is not compelled to merge the lots, but that they must consider the merger based on evidence related to the ordinance and also related to neighborhood compatibility; stated that the applicant has requested a hearing to be given the opportunity to present evidence that his lots do not meet the requirements for merger; and noted that the applicant has submitted his request for hearing, correctly noting that his project plans for two homes are ready to be permitted.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in reviewing the property, staff determined the lots may be consistent with the rule that requires that not more than 80 percent of the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed separately; noted that this rule is somewhat ambiguous and difficult to interpret for blocks that do not contain a uniform pattern and is basically intended to relieve the requirement for merger on blocks that already have an established character of split lots; advised that the lots facing Prospect Avenue between 7th and 8th Streets only consist of three lots; that since only one of these three lots, the one at 720 Prospect Avenue, has been split into 25-foot wide lots, this calculates as one out of three lots, or 33 percent; and stated the difficulty with applying this 80-percent rule is that it is not clear whether the affected lot, or in this case, the lot at the corner should be included in this calculation; so therefore, the subject parcel is not included. He stated that 50 percent of the other lots have been split; and added that if neither the affected lot nor the lot at the corner that is in dispute is not included, then only the 25-foot wide lot at 720 would be included in the calculation. He stated that when the area for consideration includes so few lots based on the explicit definition of block, this method of calculating is not an effective method for meeting the intent of the merger ordinance, which is to merge lots to maintain neighborhood character. Therefore, he noted staff’s belief that it is helpful to look beyond the subject block, as was done for the property at 838 Prospect; that in doing so, staff found between 3rd Street and 10th Street along Prospect Avenue there are 28 parcels comprised of the original 25-foot wide lots that are either split or combined lots from the original subdivision that front on Prospect with the R-1 Zone; noted that 22 of these 28 parcels have already been split into 25-foot wide lots, which calculates to be 78 percent; stated that this calculation includes the 3 lots at 838 Prospect, which are likely to be split and developed separately in the near future; and that 10 of these 22 parcels that have been split or that will soon be split have been developed or split since 1995.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Commission has the authority to merge the lots if it desires the property to be one parcel of 6,000 square feet; however, the Commission is not compelled to do so; while staff has found the lots meet the general criteria of Chapter 16.20, he noted that the subject lot only meets the 80-percent rule because of the small number of lots on the subject block; so that in looking beyond the limits of the block, the past lot splits, the character of the lots that do front on Prospect Avenue, the development of this property with two homes on 25-foot wide lots would not be out of character with the established pattern of development along the east side of Prospect Avenue; therefore, because of the ambiguity of the Merger Ordinance and the history of lot splits in this area, he noted staff’s belief that merging these lots does not necessarily meet the intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance and that staff recommends releasing these lots from the requirement for merger.
Albro Lundy, representing the applicant, stated that he agrees with staff recommendation at this point in time, noting this lot should not be merged; stated there are a great number of 25-foot wide lots in this area; and noted that these are two legal lots with two residents living in these homes.
Greg Eberhart, 1126 8th Street, stated that he gathered 76 signatures from the residents within a one-block radius of the subject property noting unanimous support to merge these lots and wishing to preserve the character of this neighborhood; expressed the residents’ concern that additional housing will impact the traffic in the area; and questioned why these lots were not merged according to the Ordinance when the program was in place years ago. He mentioned that the signatures were gathered from the residents living on 7th and 8th Streets, some residents to the west and also one block along Prospect Avenue.
Jeff Price, 1202 7th Street, stated that this property should be merged, noting that this area is already congested.
Charles Wilmont, 1205 7th Street, expressed his belief this property should be merged, believing this proposal violates the character of the neighborhood; he highlighted the growing traffic problems, stating that additional houses places a burden on schools, social systems, and public utilities; and he urged the Commission to merge these properties.
Sandra Essex, 1051 8th Street, noted her disappointment with seeing an increasing number of 25-foot wide lots with tall/thin houses placed on these lots; and expressed her belief another tall/thin house will be inconsistent with this area.
Jonathan Stamper, 1278 8th Street, noted his concurrence with the previous speakers’ comments, giving his support to merge these lots.
Donald Santoianni, 1125 8th Street, stated that he is concerned with the increasing density in this neighborhood and that he is in favor of merging these lots.
Langley Kersenboom, 1158 8th Street, noted his opposition to merging these lots; briefly addressed the growing number of tall/thin houses built on 25-foot wide lots; and noted his support for merging these lots. He questioned how these lots have remained untouched from the Merger Ordinance.
Doris Eberhart, 1126 8th Street, noted her concern with the limited parking in this area.
Charles Heidman, applicant, stated that he will live in one of the new houses and sell the other house; stated there are two houses on these lots; and advised that he has gone through the plan check phase and done all the necessary work to get his permits. He stated that there are two-car garages for each development and two additional spaces on site for parking; and expressed his belief that the area up and down 7th and 8th Streets and up and down Prospect have a majority of houses sitting on 25-foot wide lots, noting that even the lot next door is a 25-foot wide lot.
Tim Lovkin, 1146 8th Street, stated that the 25-foot wide lots are not the majority of properties on Prospect Avenue; and stated that these properties should be merged.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if the applicant’s application has gone through plan check.
Director Blumenfeld explained that in the 1980’s, the City had a lot merger program wherein the City looked at 1,100 lots and merged over 500 lots; that at the conclusion of this program, a list of merged lots was presented to the Planning Commission for confirmation; since that time, staff has operated with the notion that the lot merger program was completed and that, in fact, all lots that were subject to merger had been merged; and that any of the lots not merged were deemed to be developable. He added that at the conclusion of this program, staff stopped the referrals to the Planning Commission; explained that subsequently, last summer an owner proposed to build on four substandard lots; that staff reviewed the matter and just as it had the prior 17 years, the lots proposed to be developed were considered to be exempt from merger requirements. In the prior and current case however, the city attorney advised that since the merger ordinance had not been repealed, it is still in effect. The owners who had submitted plans were stopped in the plan check process until the status of their lots was considered by Commission, per the Merger Ordinance. All similar projects in plan check were then reviewed to determine if they were subject to the Ordinance. He advised that at this point staff is following the recent advice of the City Attorney. He pointed out that this varies from the practice the City had been following for the last 17 years; and stated that the City Attorney’s advice is not that all lots which are subject to review must be merged, just that they must be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. He added that no permits have been issued to the applicant.
Commissioner Allen noted that a similar situation was presented to the Commission last month; and stated there are a lot of tall/thin houses on Prospect Avenue.
Commissioner Pizer questioned what/who defines neighborhood character; noted that the project the Commission considered last month was only a block away from this site; and noted this is a difficult decision because he must weigh the property owner’s rights while being sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that these are two legal lots; stated that the character on Prospect Avenue is pretty mixed with larger lots and smaller lots; noted that the City has had 10 lot splits since 1995, 4 in 2002; and expressed his desire to be consistent in these actions. He expressed his belief these lots are consistent within the area; and noted his belief this does not meet the intent for a merger.
Chairman Hoffman stated that his understanding with the history and intent of the Ordinance was to merge substandard lots, lots that were smaller than 25 feet; stated it’s clearly visible in this area there are a large number of 25-by-100 foot lots and that this lot is not a substandard lot in this area, that it’s two legal lots. He noted that some of the people who signed the petition live on 25-foot wide lots; and he noted his concurrence with Commissioner Perrotti that there is nothing compelling to suggest this is a substandard lot. He added that the majority of the 17 lots on 7th and 8th Streets from Prospect are 25 feet wide; and he explained that there has been no resolution by the City to preserve architecturally significant homes in Hermosa Beach at this time.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, not to merge the two lots at 726 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is looking for Commission direction relative to review of conformance with the CUP requirements for the businesses on Pier Plaza; and that staff’s recommendation is to give direction relative to four options: the first is to receive and file the report and have the process continue for enforcement that occurs through the Police and Fire Departments and Community Development; that the second option is to conduct further investigations with the code enforcement officer and report back with a status report for the businesses, similar to what had been done approximately one year ago; that the third option is to schedule informal hearings with the Planning Commission for businesses that have had multiple code violations; and that the fourth option is to schedule CUP revocation hearings, which is the most drastic measure. He noted that a copy of the requested citations and reports are attached to staff report. He stated that if the Planning Commission chooses to follow the last option, the revocation, the City Attorney has advised previously that a CUP conveys a property right to the business and that the Commission would have to carefully weigh revocation or modification of a permit; that if the Commission wished to schedule subsequent hearings, staff would invite the businesses and they would be notified of the meeting. He noted that most of the problems observed have pertained to noise and loud music and noted there were three incidents of over-crowding by one particular business.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that over-crowding, vandalism, and fights are a higher priority than noise; and questioned if things are improving on Pier Plaza, asking the Fire and Police Departments to relay that type information.
Commissioner Pizer highlighted the three over-crowding citations at Blue 32.
Chairman Hoffman stated that the report is clear and concise.
Director Blumenfeld stated that he will find out what changes, if any, can be made to the penalty provisions for over-crowding citations.
Commissioner Pizer stated that by looking at the report distributed to the Commission, he cannot adequately grasp the feeling of what is going on in the Plaza area, requesting that the report include the number of warnings given to businesses and to include other issues, such as disturbances, fights, vandalism. He noted his desire to hear if the problems are improving.
Commissioner Perrotti concurred with Commissioner Pizer’s comments, and suggested a brief report from a Police Department representative on whether things are improving on Pier Plaza.
Chairman Hoffman noted support for Option No. 2, to conduct further investigations and report back to the Planning Commission with a status report; and noted his support for the request to invite Police and Fire Department representatives to speak before the Planning Commission on these issues.
With regard to Option No. 2, Commissioner Perrotti suggested including both code enforcement officer and police officer.
It was the consensus of the Commission to choose Option Nos. 1 and 2.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Memorandum regarding lot coverage interpretation at 19 4th Court
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant in this case wants to replace an existing non-cantilevered second story deck with a new extended deck; noted that a portion of this deck cantilevers beyond the underlying support posts; advised that the applicant also proposes to replace an existing stairway leading from the second story deck to a roof deck with a new open stairway roughly in the same location, noting this stairway is also within the cantilevered area; and he noted that staff is seeking input from the Commission, whether the area where the stairway is located is considered lot coverage. He advised that previously, through an ordinance amendment, City Council had decided that one can stack a balcony on top of another balcony and it’s not considered lot coverage; and so the outstanding question is whether, if one has an open stair connecting the two balconies, does that suddenly become lot coverage. He noted staff’s belief that this should also be excluded from lot coverage.
Director Blumenfeld added that the intent is to get confirmation from the Commission that if stairs also are exempt from the coverage issue.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the stairway is considered an accessory structure.
Director Blumenfeld stated the stairs are part of the structure, similar to the way a deck is part of a structure.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the open stairs are equivalent to a deck relative to lot coverage.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the increasing level of permitting for the fiscal year to date compared to the last fiscal year to date for the month of November; and noted that the volume of permitting is up by approximately 40 percent and the permit valuation number is up by approximately 80 percent over the prior year.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti noted that the City Council minutes provided in the agenda packet are missing the odd numbered pages.
Commissioner Pizer suggested scheduling an informal joint workshop with the Planning, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Commissions to discuss issues in common.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for a joint workshop, but asked that the scheduling not conflict with other events taking place in the City.
Chairman Hoffman asked that if the workshop takes place, that a more defined subject list be developed.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will put together some potential meeting dates.
Chairman Hoffman thanked Ron Pizer for his service this past year as Chair of the Planning Commission.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. in the memory of Mr. Francis Nolan.
HEARING(S)
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:15 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:30 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 January 17, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |