|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Hoffman |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, stated that he discussed with City Council the inadequacy of the parking in-lieu fees in the City, especially for new projects; and advised that City Council will be raising those fees for all projects not yet approved and revising some of the qualifications. He stated that the parking shortages in this city are not because of the lack of parking garages, that building parking garages will never be a good solution; and he urged the Commission to require developers to provide the necessary parking.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of April 18, 2006 Minutes .
Mr. Longacre requested that the Minutes be revised as follows: strike “expressed his belief additional parking garages are needed in the Downtown area and questioned if any plans are under way for these facilities”; to replace that with “in preparation for a follow-up statement, expressed his belief that there was insufficient parking in the Downtown and questioned Chairman Hoffman if any plans were under way to construct any new parking garages”; to strike “…and to address the need for more parking” and replace it with “which are qualifying their parking requirements by purchasing in lieu parking spaces the City does not have to sell.”
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, toAPPROVE the April 18, 2006, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kersenboom ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
P.C. Resolution 06-16modifying conditions of approval of a previously approved Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for an expansion and remodel to an existing commercial building and shared parking to accommodate a new allocation of uses within the “Hermosa Pavilion” including a new health and fitness facility, offices, retail and restaurant uses at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway AKA 1605 Pacific Coast Highway.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission required the property owner to provide two hours of free parking as an amendment to the original resolution; stated that has been included as a new condition in Section 5, with a new condition to read, “Two hours of free validated parking shall be provided for patrons of the businesses and offices within the Hermosa Pavilion.”
Commissioner Perrotti stated that during the previous hearing, there was discussion concerning the signage and notification about the free parking program, and noted that was to be in the motion, and asked that it be added in the condition.
It was the consensus of the Commission that signage was to be included in the resolution.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to add condition wording to the resolution that there be adequate signage notifying the patrons of the free parking program, based on the prior Planning Commission discussion and the minutes of that last meeting; and to accept the motion as amended.
Director Blumenfeld inquired whether the desire of the Commission is to attach the additional wording to the new section that refers to the two hours of free validated parking, “Two hours of free validated parking shall be provided for patrons of the businesses and offices with the Hermosa Pavilion and adequate signage to promote that new requirement.”
Commissioner Perrotti stated that would be an appropriate place for the additional language.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kersenboom ABSENT: None
-
-
L-5 -- Legal Determination for two dwelling units at 2108 Loma Drive.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To determine that the property contains one legal dwelling unit.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant had submitted a request today for a continuance on this matter; that staff is recommending this matter be continued to the next meeting; and noted for the Commission that this code enforcement action is complaint driven.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Dow Hayes, applicant, advised that he needs additional time to properly prepare for discussion of this matter.
Gerome Stephans, resident, stated that he lives next door; noted his intent to work with the applicant on this issue; and stated he would be opposed to an illegal unit on this R-1 property.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUEM to the next meeting L-5 -- Legal Determination for two dwelling units at 2108 Loma Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
TEXT 05-3 -- Text amendment regarding small lot exception.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend amendment to the R-1 small lot exception standards to: 1) Allow the required front yard to contribute to the opens space requirement; and 2) Increase lot coverage from 65% to 70%.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this was a text amendment initiated by City Council; noted Council had been concerned about a significant number of variance applications related to small lots, particularly in the Shakespeare Tract; noted that the Shakespeare Tract is zoned R-1; and that many of these variance requests pertain to R-1 zoned small lots. He commented on the City’s small lot ordinance which provides some exception and relief to small lots; noted that the distribution of small lots primarily occurs in the Shakespeare Tract, but such lots occur throughout the City; he advised there are approximately 440 small lots in the City; stated that any lot that is 2,100 square feet or less is considered a small lot; and noted there is also the opportunity to be deemed a small lot if the property is within 10 percent of 2,100 square feet, so up to 2,310 square feet. Director Blumenfeld advised that the code was amended in 1988 to allow a small lot exception, allowing a break in open space; noted that this exception provides some relief, but that those residents who want to build a larger home on a small lot with a conventional floor plan discover they cannot and this results in a significant number of variance applications.
With regard to a conventional plan, Director Blumenfeld explained that the bedrooms are typically located on the upper floor, the living room and dining room and kitchen areas on the first floor, which gives one an opportunity to connect those primary living areas with outdoor living space. With non-conventional plans, Director Blumenfeld explained that the bedrooms are located on the first floor and the primary living area above; he advised that there is an opportunity to get better efficiency with a non-conventional plan; and that depending on how one accesses the property, either from an alley or street or from an alley with a walk street, that also has bearing on how much developable area is available on a property. He stated that with a conventional floor plan, where parking is loaded off an alley, one can develop over 1,860 square feet because a significant amount of the area is taken up by parking (garage and guest parking) and open space, where one has to provide the minimum required open space at grade and the rest can be provided on decks above. If using a non-conventional plan, he noted that one can increase the amount of developable area by 1,920 square feet because the open space is more efficiently located with the primary living area on the floor above (on decks), giving a better opportunity at grade to maximize development.
Director Blumenfeld stated that depending on the plan, one can get better efficiency if one the garage is adjacent to a vehicular street rather than an alley; and that one can build a slightly larger project and get up to approximately 2,000 square feet in this manner.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff also looked at the frequency of variance applications and highlighted the information on a table on Page 4 of staff report; noted in this table there is a significant number of variances for remodeling related to lot coverage, open space, front/rear/side yard setbacks; he explained that staff felt it was not a good idea to make changes with respect to the front or side setbacks because of the potential impact to the abutting property; and staff’s recommendation, is to consider lot coverage and open space to provide added development area. He advised that one of staff’s recommendations is to allow the front yard to count for open space; mentioned that this same provision is provided along Strand properties; and stated that it would contribute an additional 180 square feet of open space to the ground floor or over two floors, approximately 360 square feet. He noted that another option is to increase lot coverage to 70 percent; that if the City did this, that would contribute an additional 105 square feet of open space; and in total, he noted that these measures provide an additional bedroom, or larger master suite on the second floor with a conventional plan, or allow the addition of a den or family room with a non-conventional plan. He stated that each of these recommendations is reasonable in that they would not create a hardship for the adjacent properties.
Chairman Hoffman questioned if these specific ideas relating to the open space and lot coverage were Council’s suggestion or staff’s.
Director Blumenfeld advised that staff presented these recommendations to the City Council; and Council wanted specific issues addressed, relating to parking access and the look of the property; and desired the Commission’s input, noting that there was some concern with regard to visual impact relative to combining the open space and front yard setback.
Chairman Hoffman questioned what this amendment would do for a 30 x 45 foot lot, what benefit or loss would that result in; and explained that if one puts a 17-foot setback at the front of a garage on a 45-foot deep property, he is not sure it’s going to have any impact.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is primarily looking at the code amendment for the Shakespeare Tract; and stated that staff could examine half lots too. He agreed that if one has a very shallow lot, some of these recommendations may not be effective.
Chairman Hoffman stated if this were to be adopted, it could bump out the front wall beyond the adjacent neighbors in many cases depending on the size of the lot and that this may affect some view corridors.
Director Blumenfeld reiterated that at least one Council Member had a concern with the implication to the aesthetics in the front yard, and that while this would help some homeowners, it may have an impact on some of the adjacent properties.
Commissioner Pizer questioned the possibility of notifying all property owners who own these small lots and noted his desire for adequate public notification and input.
Director Blumenfeld stated there are over 400 small lots and that this would be a significant area to notice.
Commissioner Pizer suggested noticing at least in the paper so that this issue is noticed a little more widely.
Commissioner Kersenboom questioned over what length of time these 20 variances were requested/approved.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the 20 variances have been issued over the last 15 to 20 years.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the Commission consider keeping this as a variance for these lots, pointing out his concern that each lot has its own peculiarities.
Director Blumenfeld noted that Council is hoping there can be a solution to the number of variances by amending the Code.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Allen agreed with providing more public notification regarding this issue.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff will be able to provide additional notice, possibly do a mailing.
Chairman Hoffman suggested advertising this issue in the Beach Reporter or Easy Reader; and noted his preference to explore this item a bit more on its implications for a 30 x 45 foot lot, for example.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to the next meeting text amendment regarding small lot exception; to direct staff to look into the implications this would have upon a half lot; and to provide additional public notification. 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.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted that because of the close proximity to his house, he would recuse himself from consideration of this matter.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject lot is located on the north side of 7th Street, east of Prospect Avenue; stated that this lot, like others along the north side of this block which are located at the crest of the hill, are on an east to west downward incline, sloping from side to side more dramatically than they do from front to back; advised that this property contains a retaining wall along the sidewalk while sloping gently from the street frontage for the front third of the lot and levels out towards the rear of the lot; and mentioned that the property also contains another retaining wall on the rear of the property, so that the rear 7 feet of the lot is stepped up about 4 feet higher than the majority of the back yard. He advised that the method for determining building height, the grade used for the height measurement, is based on the surveyed elevation points at the property corners; however, the method for determining building height allows consideration of other points when there is significant variation between adjacent grades at the corners and also allows for consideration of other points along the property line for lots with convex contours. He noted that in these situations, the corner point elevation can be an alternate point within 3 feet that best represents an altered grade or in the absence of supporting evidence, one-half the difference between the adjacent grades. He added that the grade of the lot may be based on alternate points along the property line and convex slope conditions; and advised that in cases where this measurement is disputed, the final determination is referred to the Planning Commission. He noted that the applicant is requesting consideration of an alternate point at the southwest property corner, at the top of the retaining wall, because at the sidewalk level, at the bottom of the retaining wall, it is only inches away from the property corner; and noted they are also requesting that the northwest corner of the property at the top of the retaining planter wall be used and also requesting an intermediate point on the top of the convex slope, which is along the easterly property line. He advised that no other properties on this block have requested convex slope or alternative corner point determinations.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the dwelling immediately to the west was constructed in 2000 and the building height was calculated with a standard straight line interpolation of the corner points; and noted that staff believes the applicant’s request is reasonable with respect to the southwest corner point given that the existing retaining wall is an apparent cut condition of the lot along the street and also because this is borne out by other properties that also front on this side of the street. He noted that the attached photos of the property and surroundings indicate the retaining wall is common along this section of the block representing a likely cut condition. He noted that at the northwest corner, however, it is not as apparent since the applicant desires to use the top of the retaining wall that protects the planter area; given that the grades varies between the corner points, the planter level and adjacent property to the north and west, there is no common reference point or supporting evidence to support which best represents an altered grade; therefore, staff recommends that at the northwest corner, they use the one-half difference principle. He stated that although staff believes a convex condition exists on the property, it is not very pronounced; that the topographic profile indicates it really only exists along the east property line; and, therefore, staff recommends recognition of a convex condition only along the east property line. He stated this property, like others on this section of the block, slope up in the front third of the lot before leveling off in the rear portion of the lot, so this condition appears to be convex, again, only along the easterly property line. In summary, he stated staff believes that at the southwest corner, the top of the retaining wall best represents an altered grade and at the northwest corner, the elevation should be based on one-half the difference between adjacent grades and that the convex condition only exists along the easterly property line.
Austin Peters, representing the owner, explained that he has a different understanding of how to interpolate the measuring points; he highlighted the different steps in the elevations at the rear of the property; and he suggested an interpolation of taking all three of the elevations and averaging/dividing those by three; and stated that it’s the top elevation that is closest to the property line and would more accurately represent the natural pre-graded topography. He noted his understanding of the survey that the top of the wall would be at a higher elevation; and that the actual grade would be at the 118 due to the consistency of the 117.02 at the other end of the property.
Senior Planner Robertson clarified that at the northwest corner, the corner point is at 109 and the top of the planter wall is at 113; and noted he does not see a third point on the survey. Mr. Peters referred to the third point on the other side of the wall, north of the subject property; stated the 109 is the grade below the retaining wall; and he suggested that they use the elevation that is actually at the grade. Further discussion ensued with regard to various measurements to consider. Vice-Chairman Allen asked Mr. Peters to advise which area he wants Elevation No. 3 to be included. Mr. Peters stated at 118. Vice-Chairman Allen noted his understanding that staff indicated in their analysis that the west property line was not leaning towards convex and that the east side was leaning towards convex; and that their recommendation is to consider the east line and take the Points 109 and 113 and interpolate those with the half method. Senior Planner Robertson indicated that understanding is correct; and added that staff is giving them the benefit on the front of the property, the top of the retaining wall. He noted for Commissioner Pizer that the 118 is at the top of the wall at the back of the property, and that it is not known if this is a retaining wall or partial retaining wall. Director Blumenfeld added that if the wall was a retaining wall and it was protecting a cut, not a fill, then it could be considered unaltered grade. Chairman Hoffman stated that the survey suggests the retaining wall is located on the property to the rear. Director Blumenfeld advised that the Commission may consider a point within 3 horizontal feet that represents an altered grade, but that staff is recommending splitting the difference, as noted in the report. Looking at Picture No. 3, Vice-Chairman Allen stated that the neighboring property to the west, that lattice fence suggests to him the natural grade, at least at the southeast corner of that lot, is pretty much consistent with the 113 elevation. Taking into consideration the photographs, staff report, the topographical map and the slope, Commissioner Perrotti stated he would concur with staff recommendation No. 2. Vice-Chairman Allen noted his support for staff recommendation No. 2, but questioned if the applicant would be interested in continuing this matter for another month to gather additional information to support their request.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONCUR with Staff Recommendation No. 2, use alternate points that best represent unaltered grade and base the height measurement from the following points: the top of the retaining wall in the front yard at the southwest property corner; half the difference between the corner point elevation and the adjacent retaining wall at the northwest corner; and the actual corner points and an intermediate point on the top of the slope along the east property line. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To confirm previous Planning Commission approval for a convex slope determination.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this item is a convex slope determination that the Commission made relative to this property in March 2000; since that time, the property has been sold and a new project is being proposed on this site; noted that given the change in project design, staff is seeking confirmation of this Commission’s earlier decision that they are still supporting a convex sloping condition on this site; and he noted that staff distributed a property profile which demonstrates that along the north and south property profiles, there is a convex sloping condition.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that nothing has changed on this site since the Commission’s approval and that he would support that prior determination.
Sonia Rodriguez, project designer, requested the Commission’s prior decision.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONFIRM the Planning Commission’s prior decision on A-14 -- Appeal of Director’s Decision regarding the grade used for the height measured on a convex sloping lot at 3317 Palm Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Director Blumenfeld advised that each year, the Planning Commission is required to confirm whether the City’s CIP is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan; advised that the CIP includes various programs which are streetscape related, sewer, drainage, etc.; advised that it also includes several special projects, such as reconstruction of Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to PCH, park improvements, improvements to the Public Works yard, the creation of a master plan for the City yard, rehabilitation of the fire station, and refurbishment of the Clark building. He noted that staff has reviewed the CIP and found that it is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, specifically with respect to certain land use recommendations; and that staff is recommending the Commission find consistency of the CIP with the City’s General Plan.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that the design of Pier Avenue should be part of the Planning Commission’s function, noting it is a major part of this city.
With respect to the Pier Avenue project, Chairman Hoffman questioned if staff has a sense of what the net impact will be on parking on Pier Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld advised that they have yet to complete the plans; that the intent is to test the idea of eliminating one of the traveling lanes; that they’re going to test this idea by precluding traveling in that lane with temporary barricades and painted lanes; that they’ll also study the net impact on parking; and mentioned there’s been one public meeting with very strong merchant/business interest in this project. He explained that this plan included construction documents; noted that the details were never provided in RUDAT; that it included lower Pier Avenue where there was funding; that for upper Pier Avenue, staff will have to produce construction documents; and stated that the City will be implementing that plan, the concept of the plan. He explained that the other part of the intent of this CIP project is to test some of the ideas about widening the sidewalk, bus pads, eliminating the traveling lane; noted this is one of the things Public Works will be looking at; and that this will be implementing the original goals of RUDAT and the original public improvement plan that happened on lower Pier Avenue, that this is carrying the concept over to upper Pier Avenue.
Commissioner Pizer stated that because the City and the Planning Commission spent a lot of time on the plans for Downtown, this City should utilize these studies in the CIP.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is implementation of that plan; explained there was not a lot of specificity in the concept of the plan that was prepared, but there were recommendations for the type and location of landscaping, the elimination of the traveling lanes to get a wider sidewalk; and reiterated that those concepts are being carried forward.
Commissioner Pizer stated that the lights at 5th and Strand should be funded for the benefit of public safety.
Director Blumenfeld expressed his belief this lighting concern is better forwarded to the Public Works Department for consideration rather than placed in the CIP.
Commissioner Pizer asked that his concern be forwarded.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to find that the CIP is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, with some question regarding the impact of parking on the proposed Pier Avenue project.
-
Aviation Corridor Specific Plan Status Report (PDF File).
Senior Planner Robertson reported that staff is proceeding along with this study and that they ready for the next step; noted that all the data collection has been completed; and that they are nearing the completion of all the mapping, some of which are on display this evening. He walked the Commission through some of the maps; noted that the first one shows a land use map on the top, which indicates all the different land uses in the area, shows that the corridor is truly a mixed use area; and he advised that the second one shows the different building heights in the area and shows there is potentially a lot more development if there were more reinvestment in the area for 2- or 3-story buildings because the height limit would allow up to 35 feet. He noted that the other map reflects where the zoning is inconsistent with land uses; he noted that the other map deals with circulation issues, such as right-of-way widths, the street and sidewalk widths, traffic counts, and parking information – noting there is limited public parking supply to support the existing commercial development; and that the other map shows the various ages of the buildings. He mentioned that staff will overlay other data on some of the maps to indicate where some problems and opportunities exist for potential redevelopment or sharing of parking, etc.; that at this point, staff believes the next step is to go ahead and use the data and maps as a frame of reference for discussions in the kick-off workshop; and mentioned staff is looking to schedule a public workshop. Commissioner Pizer suggested that the meetings not take place during the summer, when people are likely to be on vacation. Director Blumenfeld advised that it is possible to conduct these meetings in the commercial corridor; and that a lot of businesses have expressed interest in the plan and that those businesses might be willing to host some of the meetings. He added that staff would like to perform a summary of this map showing some analytical work that shows what some of the outcome is of this background data, for example, pedestrian opportunities that the City may be able to capitalize on, parking opportunities, etc., and to present that information to the community as part of this background work. Chairman Hoffman suggested that staff have available some alternatives to consider during the public meetings, have it as a background to address some of these issues. Commissioner Pizer commended staff for the information and presentation on the charting. Commissioner Perrotti thanked staff for working on this project and questioned who will be invited to the workshops. Director Blumenfeld noted there is a list of stakeholders and that staff has a good database of property ownership in the corridor and the various uses to draw on to do invitations and connect with those interested. Commissioner Perrotti suggested that the residents also be invited to attend. Director Blumenfeld stated that an advertised notice may be a bit difficult, but suggested that staff may be able to post notices in some of the businesses around the neighborhood. Chairman Hoffman suggested that this project continue to move along even given the upcoming summer season. Director Blumenfeld stated that he will contact some of the businesses to determine their preference for these public meetings; stated that the map work will be more finalized with summary maps describing some of the analytical work; and noted that a copy will be provided City Council. It was the consensus of the Commission to attempt an evening meeting at first and to keep this project moving regardless of the approaching summer season.
-
-
Addressing Commissioner Pizer’s comment on the decreasing number of permits, Director Blumenfeld explained there are a lot of properties coming out of the planning stage and into the building stage; noted there appear to be fewer residential/condo applications, but that there are some major commercial projects in planning.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for a status on the demolition of 200 Pier Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld commented on the process for mandatory building material recycling for projects over $100,000, which takes some time to complete; and noted that the project was stalled because of financing problems which have now been sorted out. He stated that work has once again commenced on this site.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARINGS
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
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 May 16, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |