|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Allen |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of January 16, 2007 Minutes .
With regard to Item No. 13a, draft sustainability guidelines for residential development, Commissioner Hoffman noted the point he was attempting to make is that Hermosa Beach could not unilaterally enact sustainable guidelines for materials that are not widely available.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVEthe January 16, 2007, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 07-2 to deny the proposed Variance to allow a 2.7-foot side yard setback and a 4.7-foot garage setback at 1144 2nd Street.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom asked staff to correct the spelling of his name on the resolution.
There was unanimous approval to adopt Resolution P.C. 07-2.
-
Resolution P.C. 07-3 denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a massage therapy business at 1093 ½ Aviation Boulevard.
There was unanimous approval to adopt Resolution P.C. 07-3.
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend amending the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances pertaining to the Lot Merger Ordinance.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is the second of a two-part hearing; noted the proposal is a change to Chapter 16.20 of the Municipal Code to amend the conditions relative to lot merger; advised that on August 8, 2006, City Council directed staff to revisit the Lot Merger Ordinance and to make revisions with respect to several items; advised that the items discussed in detail at the last hearing generally involved focusing on R-1 properties, a modification to the 80-percent rule that is the current standard specifying when lots are to be merged, to provide neighborhood consistency guidelines, establishment of new public hearing procedures, change the definition for “block” as it relates to the 80-percent rule, and allowing for Commission and City Council discretion on lots that are close to the 4,000-square-foot minimum lot size when two or more lots are merged. He advised that the Commission reviewed those proposed changes; and that the hearing this evening is to provide the community an opportunity to provide additional input. He pointed out that staff met with two community members who were helpful in providing input, noting that some of their comments had been incorporated in the draft before the Commission. He noted there will be a subsequent hearing at the next City Council meeting. He noted this is exclusively a change to the code with respect to the text for lot merger; that the individual lot mergers would be subject to their own review; and that if an owner requested, they would have their own hearing and provide their testimony during a separate hearing that applies exclusively to their lot.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Allen that those property owners would not have to pay for their individual hearings; and advised that all the affected owners have received notice twice, once for the first hearing and once for this evening’s hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted the two lots he is concerned about are the ones that belong to the Hermosa Beach School District and the church; and questioned if those owners would have to come back with a subdivision plan if they were to decide to sell that property.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Hoffman that there is enough property on those lots that they would have to come back with a new plan to divide those properties; noted that staff spoke with the representative from the Hermosa Beach School District who had concerns and disagree that the City has jurisdiction over the school district property; stated that the City Attorney will review the matter with the District’s attorney.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Eric Lawrence, resident on Longfellow, noted he is one of the affected property owners; addressed his concern that he did not have an opportunity to meet with staff as did the other two residents Director Blumenfeld had mentioned, noting his preference that everyone have that same opportunity to meet with staff.
Commissioner Perrotti mentioned this is the third hearing on this matter.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this item was considered by City Council last August; that at that time, there was community input during that hearing; advised that two community members had expressed interest in working with staff on some of the ordinance issues; and that staff welcomed their input and met with them on two occasions.
Mr. Lawrence stated he did not receive any notice at that time and reiterated his concern he did not have an opportunity to provide that same level of input.
Chairman Allen pointed out that those two community members voluntarily expressed an interest in working with staff on this issue and noted that anybody else could have volunteered, whether or not their properties are affected.
Mr. Lawrence stated he could not volunteer if he did not know about that meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that at that hearing, it was made very clear the City wanted to get public input; and reiterated that the two property owners offered to become involved. Director Blumenfeld added that this evening’s hearing has been properly noticed and that the two other hearings had been properly noticed; stated that the point of this evening’s meeting is to again take public testimony; and he concluded that the public has had tremendous opportunity to provide public input during the public hearing process. He reiterated there is no other notification staff could have utilized, that every meeting was properly noticed.
Mr. Lawrence asked that his property on Longfellow be removed from the list; stated there are 17 lots on the 200 block of Longfellow, with 32 units on those 17 lots; advised that he has a lot and a half with a duplex on that lot; and expressed his belief it would not be fair to require him to merge his lots and only allow one unit if he were to reconstruct. He stated he purchased this as two lots; stated that the 200 and 300 blocks are mainly duplexes with split lots; that his property backs up to a walk street; and stated the City incorrectly put him in with the zoning for the walk street instead of being on the drive street of Longfellow. Mr. Lawrence questioned the process for getting to this point; expressed his belief his lot fits neighborhood consistency; advised that his house is built on the property line; and asked that his property be removed from the list.
Chairman Allen stated that Mr. Lawrence’s lot and this map are not part of the text amendment; that his property is on a list of lots to be merged; that he will have an opportunity to separately speak about that; and explained that this evening’s meeting is to discuss the proposed text amendment for the lot merger.
Jim McFarland, resident, read into the record his wife’s statement regarding the adoption of the text amendment for lot mergers, specifically her home at 1504 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa: “As the owner of the above-referenced Hermosa Beach property, I strenuously object to any ordinance, regulation, amendment or other action that would result in merging the two sizeable lots of which the property consists. One reason I purchased the property back in 1974 was the possibility I could help fund my retirement by making economic use of the fact I had purchased more than one lot. Now 33 years later, the City proposed to take away from me this potentially important source of retirement income. Such a taking of property would not even be justified by the City’s notion of minimum acceptable parcel size, which is apparently 4,000 square feet. This standard means that if two contiguous lots under one ownership do not total 8,000 square feet, then at least one of them does not deserve to stand alone. I’m not sure just where this aesthetic standard comes from or whether a reasonable person might not consider it an approximate concept of parcel beauty. What if the combination of lots fall just a little short, say 7,900 square feet, does this small variation from the standard condemn one of the lots to aesthetic unacceptability? According to City records, my property has 7,920 square feet. That’s only one percent off the standard. In my opinion, the combination of my two lots substantially meets the standard for all reasonable intents and purposes. I strongly urge the City Planning Commission and City Council to reject this proposal, this proposed unreasonable merging of parcels. Very truly, Sophia Barbara Janice McFarland.”
Chairman Allen explained that the proposed text amendment benefits her property and that the owner of this lot is going to have a chance to do something they currently don’t have.
Director Blumenfeld explained there is a provision proposed in the text amendment to deal with large lots, lots that approximate the 8,000 square feet that one would normally have by combining two 4,000 square foot lots, and noted that staff recommended to the Commission and City Council that when two lots are combined and they comprise at least 7,000 square feet in gross area, that such lots be considered exempt from merger requirements.
Chairman Allen pointed out that as it stands today, this property owner can only build one house on that lot; that if this text amendment passes, they have the opportunity to build two houses; and added that everyone will have another opportunity to address this issue at the City Council meeting and then another opportunity to discuss each specific lot in a separate public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Commission would also have the opportunity to consider whether or not the two lots were consistent from a neighborhood compatibility standpoint, which is the other measure for consideration regarding lot mergers; and explained that currently, if the property is held under one ownership, if there is a building straddling a common property line, if the lots in question are less than 4,000 square feet and not more than 80 percent of the lots on the same block have already been split and developed separately, the lots are subject to merger.
Mr. McFarland noted concern with taking away potential economic benefit, questioning if the proposal is considered taking of property without just compensation.
Mark Anello, 530 24th Street, noted his property is on the list for lot merger; and questioned if he would be permitted to correct the portion of the building that qualifies his property for this merger, noting part of the building is straddling a common property line.
Director Blumenfeld explained the law prohibits demolitions that are meant to circumvent the lot merger requirements.
Mr. Anello explained that his property has a small breezeway which connects the main structure to the garage that crosses the lot line; and stated the homeowner should be given an opportunity to correct this situation, if possible, and that pertinent language should be included in the text amendment to allow for a correction.
Director Blumenfeld explained that if this item came up for hearing, the Commission would look at this issue separately and decide on its merits; pointed out the Code refers to the main structure straddling the property line; reiterated that this issue could be addressed during the property hearing. He stated that to provide the opportunity to demolish a structure without the Commission overview would defeat the ordinance; and reiterated that the Commission has the authority to look at these particular issues and make a determination on a case-by-case basis.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer commended staff for its writing of the amendment and noticing of these meetings.
Commissioner Hoffman further addressed the Commission’s consideration of these matters on a case-by-case basis; expressed his belief there are some lots on the list that are not appropriate to merge; noted this Commission has been charged with the duty to maintain the small beach town character of the City, stating there will be some reluctance to merge lots that approach the minimum size and result in the construction of homes that are out of character with the community.
Chairman Allen stated that merging these lots will help with neighborhood consistency; and commended staff for a well written report and presentation this evening.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom expressed his belief this will better serve the community and the Commission than the current law.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that staff has done a good job in revising the code; noted that the prior code was convoluted and that the Commission struggled with past hearings in trying to interpret what the code meant; advised that at the last meeting, some Commissioners expressed concern with noticing; that staff revised the notice to bring it more into line with a standard notice; stated this change is comprehensive; and stated that each property owner affected will have a separate chance to make their case before the Commission.
Chairman Allen reiterated that if one’s lot is on this list, there will be more opportunities to address their concerns.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE TEXT 06-3 -- Text Amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance regarding lot mergers. 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 this is a request for approval of the Precise Development Plan (PDP), Conditional Use Permit for outdoor dining, a Parking Plan to accept in-lieu parking fees, and a Private Text Amendment that would allow accepting up to 100 percent of those fees for the project. He noted the project involves Sharkeez restaurant, which was severely damaged by fire in May 2006; explained that partly as a consequence of that calamity, the City amended the non-conforming ordinance to allow reconstruction of damaged buildings that have been severely damaged without full code compliance; and that the purpose of this evening’s hearing is to review the discretionary permits to reconstruct the building. He pointed out that the hearing has been properly noticed, with a published notice, onsite posting by the owner, a mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site; and noted the text amendment does not require a separate notice. He noted the owner is allowed to reconstruct in the original building footprint without full code compliance, but any part of the expansion or any addition to a building is required to be fully code compliant.
Director Blumenfeld stated the owner is proposing a 2,000-square-foot addition; that the project is subject to discretionary review with respect to these permits; that the existing building is 3,646 square feet; that the proposed project is over 5,600 square feet, with 433 square feet of outdoor patio area; noted that area and the open dining area requires a Conditional Use Permit; and that because the building includes this expansion, it’s subject to parking requirements under the current code, noting that 20 parking spaces are required under the current code. He advised that the project involves the development of a new building; that the existing building will be demolished; noted that the first floor level contains a kitchen, bar area with fixed and moveable seating, a dining area, and dance area; mentioned there is no permit for live entertainment, but noted a disc jockey station is shown on the plans, which must be removed; and stated the owner needs to process a CUP for that aspect of the business to allow live entertainment.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the second floor of the establishment includes stair and elevator access, new ADA compliant bathrooms, lounge/banquet seating area, and a retractable skylight above; that based upon a very preliminary review of the plans, the business can accommodate up to 260 patrons; advised that the building plans show roof top equipment; that there is a 5-percent allowance for rooftop equipment that exceeds the height limit; and that the plans currently show approximately 7 percent, so the plans must be modified to comply with that section of the code. He stated that other than these issues, the project is fully compliant with the development requirements in the C-2 Zone.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the project requires a PDP because it involves more than 1,500 square feet of new construction; and stated the Planning Commission has the authority to review the use and the overall design of the project with respect to compliance with zoning standards and with environmental effects dealing with noise, parking, traffic, neighborhood compatibility.
Director Blumenfeld stated that in order to approve the project, the Commission has to find the proposed use is consistent with the operation of a business as a restaurant and that it will not adversely affect nearby properties; and he advised that the Commission and City Council have been trying to limit noise from Downtown businesses, noting the Commission might want to focus on these issues in reviewing the application. He advised that Police Chief Savelli submitted a letter with respect to reconstruction of the property and noise issues, which is Supplemental Item No. 7 on the dais. He advised that the project is non-conforming to parking and is subject to a Parking Plan; and that because there is a deficiency of 20 parking spaces at the current in-lieu parking rate of $28,900 per space, the applicant would need to remit a total payment of $578,500 for in-lieu parking fees to accommodate the proposed expansion of the business. He advised the in-lieu fees are deposited into the City’s parking fund account and will be used to construct parking; noted the City has up to 100 in-lieu parking spaces that can be accommodated under the in-lieu program; and that in accepting the in-lieu parking, the Commission has to ensure the current parking deficiency won’t unduly impact area parking. He noted the City has accepted 52 in-lieu parking spaces in compliance with the Coastal Land Use plan and that 44 spaces remain under the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan.
With regard to the Conditional Use Permit, Director Blumenfeld noted that the applicant has an approved CUP for on-sale alcohol that was approved in 1968; advised that the City Attorney has reviewed the CUP, which was amended in 1969 with a change in ownership, and has concluded that that CUP is in effect for the property; that the CUP application pertains exclusively to the outdoor dining component of the business; the Commission can consider mitigation measures to deal with noise or any other issue it feels needs to be addressed with respect to the outdoor dining application.
With respect to the proposed text amendment, Director Blumenfeld stated the City’s Parking Ordinance requires that a minimum of 25 percent of the in-lieu parking be provided on site, when there is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1:1; but the applicant is requesting the Commission consider a text amendment allowing 100 percent of the parking to be provided in-lieu; and he noted there is merit to this proposed text amendment change since both the Commission and City Council have expressed concern about this requirement as it pertains to Pier Plaza, which is a pedestrian plaza; and noted onsite parking in this location defeats the purpose of that plaza as a pedestrian space; therefore, the Commission may want to consider approval of this text amendment and the proposed project with the proviso that the amendment be adopted both by the City Council and the Coastal Commission.
Chairman Allen noted that Mr. Howard Longacre submitted a letter in regard to the text amendment portion, questioning if it had been properly noticed.
Director Blumenfeld stated that as required under state and city law, staff provided three types of notice: onsite posting by the owner, notice to every property owner within 300 feet of the subject site, and published notice in a general circulation newspaper. He stated the project notice pertains to the specific development permits under consideration this evening and it also referenced the proposed text amendment.
Responding to Commissioner Perrotti’s inquiry regarding occupancy load, Director Blumenfeld advised that the original occupant load posting was 187; and the outdoor patio permitted 46.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that in prior projects, the Commission has considered in-lieu parking specifically in connection with a shared parking analysis where the applicant had a multi-tenant building and wanted parking considered for the various uses over time; that in this case, this is a single tenant use and the issue with respect to parking pertains to area wide parking; that the area wide parking issue is the city’s obligation to study; advised that the City has verified with the Coastal Commission it has not exceeded its 100 parking space allocation allowed under its Coastal Land Use Plan to accommodate the project parking.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the applicant intends to place televisions and speakers in the outdoor dining area.
Director Blumenfeld stated the plans do “not” show speakers in the patio area; noted the business will have amplified music, as it currently is allowed; noted there is an outdoor dining area that is open at least on one side, which constitutes outdoor dining under the Zoning Ordinance; stated there may be some need to regulate that aspect of the business; but noted within the encroachment area, there is no proposed change.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the first floor bar will be larger than the existing.
Director Blumenfeld stated the bar will be larger than the original.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Hoffman that there is an existing CUP that runs with the land; advised that the applicant has processed a new CUP for outdoor dining and a PDP and Parking Plan. He noted the existing CUP approved in 1968 remains.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned if the skylight will be open when the heating/air system is operating, noting his concern it not be environmentally wasteful.
Commissioner Pizer pointed out the Commission is not reviewing the applicant’s CUP; that the applicant has the right to rebuild the old building and operate the business with no discretionary review; stated that because the building will conform with current building standards and be larger in scope, a PDP has to be processed; and that some of the conditions will, in effect, modify or better define the CUP. He reminded everyone this is a unique situation that was brought about by fire.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Ron Newman, applicant, stated that 9 months ago, their building burned down; noted that their consultants indicate the building was not burned down more than 50 percent, but that the City’s consultants indicate it was burned down more than 50 percent; explained that during this process, it was concluded the City’s code in this area is more restrictive than any other code in other cities; and, therefore, the code was altered to address the parking situation and code compliance when a calamity occurs. With the aid of a power point presentation, he highlighted the improvements being proposed, such as the ADA upgrades, extra food storage areas upstairs, and floor plans and elevations. He noted that if they were to have rebuilt this building and left the food storage downstairs and the ADA restrooms, there would not have been any seating area. Because of the necessary upgrades, he noted it was necessary to have two floors for this project to be economically viable, allowing for additional seating upstairs. He expressed his belief this new building will be an asset to the City, and he mentioned the restaurant business did a million dollars worth of business last year, not counting the bar tabs.
Mr. Newman stated the building will be designed in a Spanish Colonial style; that the upstairs double paned windows will be waist high with guardrails for safety purposes; noted the storefront below has two outdoor seating areas, a double patio enclosure; and noted the back of the building is simple/clean, with earth tone colors, smooth coat cement, stone veneers, stone pillars, walnut wood on the windows, Spanish lighting fixtures, and a Spanish style wrought iron fence. He stated the new bar will be shorter than the prior 30-foot bar; advised that the kitchen is now longer; that the entire building will have indoor fire sprinklers; and noted the elevator is located at the back, and that there are two stairways (front and back). He stated that on the second floor in the back is the food storage area, ADA elevator, stairway, the large bathrooms, handicapped seating upstairs and downstairs; 3 pouring stations at the first floor bar and 1 pouring station at the second floor bar; noted there is no dance area upstairs, that it’s all lowered lounge seating for people to eat, drink, and set up for special events, such as banquets or parties. He noted the skylight can be closed at any time; stated when it’s open, they will not have the air conditioning or heat on; and stated all the roof equipment is hidden from view.
John Staley, project architect, stated they were able to reduce part of the stairwell on the top floor to accommodate the reduced bulk in that area; and explained that with good insulation, the skylight system will be adequately and efficiently controlled with temperature sensor devices. He stated that it will be necessary to maintain a certain temperature downstairs for the kitchen equipment and that the air conditioning will be on the majority of the time on the first floor.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if that sensor system is currently part of the design.
Mr. Staley stated these systems can be automatically/thermostatically controlled to shut down the AC/heating units when the skylight is open; advised that the building construction type is an A-3 occupancy, believing it was an A-3 before, which allows for 300 occupants. He stated there will be an indoor fire sprinkler system and noted this new building will have non-combustible masonry walls.
Mr. Newman expressed his belief his will end up with a nicer building than if he were to rebuild the old one.
Commissioner Perrotti asked Mr. Newman if he plans to put televisions or speakers in the outside dining area.
Mr. Newman stated there will be no televisions or speakers in the outside patio; and stated the outer-most patio windows will be closed in the evening to reduce noise outside.
Barbara Elman, Loma Drive resident, asked staff for a clarification on what the original footprint of a building means; and she commented on her concerns with providing adequate parking.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that if the applicant had chosen to rebuild an exact replica of the existing footprint, there wouldn’t be any need for this discretionary hearing; and highlighted the lack of options for those properties on Pier Plaza to provide 25 percent of the parking on site.
Director Blumenfeld stated the in-lieu parking fee was recently increased to $28,900 and noted the expansion is subject to that increase.
Commissioner Perrotti added the applicant wouldn’t be able to build a replica of his old building because there have been changes in the Building Code and ADA requirements.
Director Blumenfeld stated the ADA accessible bathrooms and the access to provide them on the upper floor is driven entirely by new code requirements; and advised that approximately a third of that upper floor is taken up by the bathrooms, the stairs, the elevator access and storage and is not part of the customer service area. He stated those areas include an occupant load, but it basically pertains to employees, and the users in the bathrooms.
Michael Divirgilio, resident, expressed his belief the notice was unclear and inconsistent from the noticed item to the staff agenda item and staff report; noted his concern that staff is also talking about a text amendment item that is similarly posted for next week’s City Council meeting on a similar item for the rest of Pier Plaza; and questioned if the Commission will possibly be approving a text amendment that City Council on a separate issue will confront next week and possibly oppose. He highlighted the increasing complaints by the residents concerning alcohol sales and those already strained impacts on the community, the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments; and questioned if anyone is watching out for the cumulative impacts of alcohol-related businesses in the City. He urged the City to consider the entire community when making decisions related to alcohol sales.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief the City’s General Plan is being ignored in this instance; noted that Sharkeez was not on the CUP review list even though it had been open for five months last year, stating he would have liked to have seen where Sharkeez ranked in the calls for Police/Fire Department service; and he pointed out that Mediterraneo ranks very low on that list, the lowest of any other similar type business on the Plaza. He noted that Mediterraneo has a midnight closure; and questioned why Sharkeez should be given this privilege when it is part of the problem in the Plaza. He stated the concentration of bars and their aggregate size is problematic for the community, negatively impacting the quality of life in the community; and he asked that the City not set a precedent that will allow all Pier Plaza bars to expand. He stated that while Mr. Newman is entitled to go up to a second story, that area should be set aside for office use, which would fit the General Plan.
Jill Hollingsworth, resident, noted her main concern is the parking and stated that businesses should provide their fair share of parking and not be given any exceptions.
Morty Benjamin, resident, stated that this City does not need a large bar, that it has too many bars in this community; and suggested it be decreased by half its proposal.
Ann Sullivan, 18th Street resident, stated there is a terrible parking problem on the walk street; noted that people visiting the bars park all the way down Hermosa Avenue; and addressed her displeasure with the loud and unruly noise/behavior that occurs every Saturday around 2:00 A.M. She expressed her belief the City has been very fair to Sharkeez by changing the ordinance so they can rebuild, but that they should not be allowed to go beyond what they had prior to the fire.
Dave Peterson, resident, asked the City to weigh the needs of the residents with the impacts these businesses have upon the community; addressed his concern with approving an extra 2,000 square feet of full CUP 2:00 A.M. liquor service for the life of this site; and stated that because Mediterraneo was recently denied from going from a midnight to a 2:00 A.M. closing hour, there should be consistency with that midnight hour. He noted his displeasure with the impact Sharkeez has had on the community.
Sandy Seamen, resident, expressed his belief this is a move in the opposite direction, noting that the City has recently been scaling things down; he mentioned there were 21 arrests for drunk driving in the Downtown area last Saturday evening; and stated the increased size will bring more people to this bar and further impact the community. He expressed his belief that more parking is necessary.
Lisa Newman, applicant, stated that they are not trying to promote a big party scene, that they are being more proactive in turning away customers who have had too much to drink; and stated they are simply asking to build a better business.
Alan Stressor, resident, noted his desire to see the Downtown area be a place where he can take his family and friends to without being disturbed by the rude and unruly individuals who have had too much to drink.
Kelly Kovak, resident, asked the City to consider the impact this increase will have upon the community, the Police and Fire Department and code enforcement services.
Stuart Silbar, resident, expressed his belief that every business has the right to try and increase its business and profits.
Greg Newman, applicant, noted it is common for people who are reconstructing to always maximize their property by adding more space, whether it be a home or a business.
Mr. Newman stated he understands the concerns of the residents, but urged the public to use fact/truth when speaking publicly about Sharkeez; noted that most of the time, the Plaza area does not get busy until 11:00 P.M.; stated the average age in Hermosa Beach is 37 and that everyone has a right to go out in the evening and socialize as long as they are not disturbing the residents. He stated that Sharkeez is one of the best run operations on the Plaza; that is has a good reputation; expressed his belief adding another 50 to 60 people upstairs is not going to have a huge impact; and he urged support of his proposal.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the vision for developing Pier Plaza was a mix of retail and restaurants, not bars/sports bars; stated the problems have slowly been improving in this area; noted the public at large expects a certain amount of noise in the late evenings, but that the residents/visitors should expect to experience a peaceful and enjoyable time on Saturday/Sunday afternoons. He stated the entire outdoor dining concept has to be cleaned up. He stated if the Commission approves the in-lieu parking, it will have an effect on parking demand, but stated he does not think it will be a significant adverse impact on parking and won’t affect the beach-going public. He noted his hope the City will soon start to address the plans and location for a parking structure with the use of those in-lieu fees, determining if there is consensus in the community for a parking structure and its location. He suggested restricting one level of that structure to be used by the residents. With an approximate 30- to 35-percent increase in occupancy, he stated this will have an effect on the Plaza; that to mitigate those problems, he suggested the second floor area designated as a lounge/banquet area be closed at midnight; that the skylight be closed at 10:00 P.M.; that the second floor bar be a service bar, not a full bar; and that the televisions/speakers not be permitted in the outdoor areas. He noted there had to be a certain amount of increase in size because the bathrooms and service areas had to be increased and that a midnight closing of that area would be a good compromise.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted his concurrence with Commissioner Perrotti’s comments, with the exception of allowing a full bar upstairs.
Chairman Allen noted his interest in balancing the needs of the residents with the rights of the business owners; suggested that Item 9 include a condition to allow the Police Department to use the security videos when necessary; noted his agreement with providing a banquet room for use by the community; stated the upstairs bar should not be full service; and noted his support for the midnight closing of the upstairs, decreasing the service bar size and restriction of no outside televisions or speakers.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned how the residents would come up with a parking solution on Pier Plaza and have any kind of successful development in that area, believing there is no reasonable alternative; noted that the parking issue will need to be approved by the Coastal Commission; noted his concurrence with closing the patio at midnight; and stated the skylight and upstairs windows should be closed a half hour after sunset.
Commissioner Pizer stated that more enforcement of the law in Pier Plaza is necessary; stated he would support a service bar upstairs rather than a full bar; and that the skylight should be closed at midnight. He stated this restaurant has a pretty good operating record; and stated they have done a decent job in designing and upgrading the building.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE Text Amendment to Section 17.44.040, to exempt Pier Plaza building sites from providing a percentage of parking spaces on site when in-lieu parking fees are paid. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Hoffman stated the HVAC system should somehow be turned off when the skylight is open; that the skylight and front upstairs windows to be closed at 10:00 P.M.; and that the skylight have sensors to close it when the heat/air units are in operation.
The Commission discussed allowing the upstairs lounge to include a full bar area to be closed at midnight; for the upstairs bathroom to remain open for the patrons; that the outside/exterior patio service area to be closed at midnight; and that no televisions or speakers be permitted in the outside areas.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his preference for the upstairs bar to be a service bar only.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to DIRECT staff to revise the draft resolution to incorporate the following changes: the skylight to close at 10:00 P.M.; upstairs door/windows closed at 10:00 P.M.; midnight close in the service area upstairs, excluding the bathrooms; midnight close of the outdoor dining doors at first floor level; no televisions or speakers in the outdoor dining area; HVAC on the second floor off when the skylight is open; Police Department to be able to have access to the security videos; and full service bar upstairs to be closed at midnight. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Allen recessed the meeting at 9:47 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised there are three parts to this request: a Precise Development Plan to construct a new 9,500-square-foot 3-story commercial office building with a basement and first floor parking; a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a commercial condominium to divide the building up into 21 office condominium units; and the Parking Plan to base the parking requirements on net floor area of the offices and also to pay parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site. He stated the property is located at 906 and 910 Hermosa Avenue; that it is zoned C-2, restricted commercial; that the lot size is a little less than 6,000 square feet; that the proposed office condominium units total 8,893 square feet of net floor area; and that the site is located between Hermosa Avenue and the alley to the rear of Palm Drive, which does have a slight grade differential of approximately 4 to 5 feet. He noted the site is currently occupied by a dry cleaner business and an enclosed one-story private parking structure; that the parking structure is currently used by the dry cleaner business; and that under prior ownership, the parking was used for occupants of the Sea Sprite motel/apartments.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project involves the demolition of all the existing improvements and the construction of a 3-story building with basement level parking in order to maximize the development of a relatively small site; noted that the building contains two levels of parking with basement level access from the lower grade at Hermosa Avenue and the first floor level parking access from the alley; that the office uses include two office suites on the first level and the remaining 19 suites on the second and third floors; and that each office suite is proposed for condominium ownership to be marketed to sole proprietors and other small businesses. He stated the plans include suites ranging in size from 300 to 549 square feet; that the plans include a small common lobby area and common outdoor seating areas on the second and third floors; and that the two parking levels contain a total of 19 parking spaces with two separate points of entry, 9 accessed from the basement level at Hermosa Avenue and 10 accessed from the alley. He noted a PDP is required because of the new construction; that the review requirements relative to a PDP include conformance with minimum standards of the zone and a general review of the project relating to compatibility with surrounding uses; stated the project meets the basic requirements of the C-2 zone with respect to building height; that while the project meets the basic requirements of the zone, it essentially covers the entire property and is built to the maximum height allowed, which results in limited options for much architectural relief.
Senior Planner Robertson noted the building includes a 3-foot setback at the ground level for landscaping; that this 3-foot setback allows balconies on the upper levels; and that the building has an open courtyard design at the second and third levels, which breaks up the upper floor mass and provides some open air seating for occupants of the offices. He noted that the building will abut adjacent buildings on both sides, which are also built to the side property lines; that the building will project slightly above the adjacent buildings and will also be visible from the north and south elevations; that the building profile will be substantially higher than the existing one-story buildings on site; and stated that overall, given the limitations of this site and the desire to maximize the building floor area, the architect has created a fairly attractive design using a variety of exterior finishes and minor variations in the façade. He stated that additional setbacks and architectural relief are provided on the north and south sides of the building where those portions of the building will be visible from the front of the property; and that while the building will present a much larger scale than most of the existing buildings along this section of Hermosa Avenue, the project should be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the landscape plans are conceptual at this time and show the use of palm trees in the small planter area along the sidewalk; that the plan does not show any street trees consistent with public improvements planned for Hermosa Avenue; and that if the project is approved, staff would recommend conditions to include the requirement for more details relative to landscaping on site and along the sidewalk area.
With respect to the parking plan, Senior Planner Robertson stated the applicant is also requesting consideration of reduced parking requirements, both based on the net office area rather than gross floor area and utilization of the City’s parking in-lieu fee program; and noted the in-lieu parking fee program has been established in the Downtown area specifically to encourage redevelopment of small sites like this where it is currently not feasible to provide all required onsite parking and also to plan for future parking in the Downtown district. He stated that based on the current ratio for the Downtown district for offices of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office, the proposed building requires 27 parking spaces; that this parking calculation is based on gross floor area with the exclusion; that the applicant is requesting the exclusion from the common lobby areas from the parking calculation; and stated that since the project has more than a 1:1 floor area ratio, the applicant may request to pay in-lieu fees for 75 percent of the required spaces. He noted that in this case, the applicant is proposing to pay for the deficiency of 8 spaces, which results in a payment of $231,200 based on the $28,900 in-lieu fee per parking space; and as stated in the previous application, he noted the City has an existing commitment of 55 in-lieu spaces, leaving a balance of 45 spaces at this time.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in accepting the in-lieu fee parking, the Commission must find the parking deficiency will not unduly impact area parking; stated the Commission recently approved the use of in-lieu parking fees for the proposed office building at 1429 Hermosa Avenue; and in that case, it was demonstrated the peak use of the building coincided with times of the week where substantial public parking was available on the street and in the parking structure and also that there was otherwise enough parking onsite to satisfy demand during the peak demand periods. He noted in this case, the project is 100 percent office uses, so the use of the building should also coincide with daytime periods throughout the week when public parking is usually available; and mentioned the Coastal Commission approval is pending for 1429 Hermosa Avenue and that it will also be required for this proposal.
With respect to the traffic issues, Senior Planner Robertson advised that the project is expected to generate an additional 20 vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 19 during the P.M. peak hours and 144 daily vehicle trips; advised that the applicant has prepared a traffic impact analysis, which evaluates the impacts of these trips on 7 local intersections; and that this report concludes the project generated traffic will not have a significant impact on the level of service of these nearby intersections. He stated this has been confirmed by the City’s traffic engineer’s review of the report. He noted the access from Hermosa Avenue will require relocation of the existing curb cut and realignment of existing on-street parking; and that with realignment, the project should not cause any reduction in the number of on-street metered spaces.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff is recommending approval of the project, but subject to specific conditions included in the attached resolution; noted the specific conditions for this project include the payment of in-lieu parking fees for the 8 spaces; that all available parking shall be free for customers and employees and shared amongst all occupants of the building to maximize use of the parking; that a parking operations plan shall be submitted for approval, addressing validation, use, signage, operation and security; to limit the use of the office condominiums for general office use and strictly prohibit residential use; to add street trees, decorative paving surfaces for the pedestrian entry and entries into the parking areas; and that on-street parking be reconfigured so no on-street metered parking is lost.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for clarification on the rationale in the code to include the common lobby and storage areas in gross floor area.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the code specifically allows the exclusion of common stairways and other common areas like that, but does not specifically include the exclusion of common lobbies; and stated that normally, the code would require the lobby area be included in the parking requirement, but part of this parking plan application is to request it be excluded from the calculations.
Director Blumenfeld noted the Commission has made a similar determination on other projects where it was clear the common area didn’t contribute to the actual parking demand of the building, that it was truly a common area and did not add to the number of users in the building or increase the parking demand.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the parking structure has to be built in the Downtown district.
Director Blumenfeld indicated no; explained that the Coastal Commission feels there is a nexus with a beach-goer parking issue, but other than that, it’s the City can exercise its discretion on where to place the parking structure in the Coastal Zone.
Chairman Allen asked how long a project can hold onto those in-lieu spaces.
Director Blumenfeld stated the in-lieu runs with the operating permit or the PDP; and if they do not put the permit into effect, they lose the in-lieu parking.
Commissioner Hoffman noted the plans indicate the driveway has a 10-percent grade transitioning to a 19-percent grade. He noted if this parking has a gate, it is not free and available to those wishing to use it.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that staff has asked the applicant to provide a parking operations plan; noted the intent is not to make it free and available to anyone, but free and available to the tenants; and stated there are specific provisions in the code that allow a transition from 10 percent to 20 percent and back to 10 percent as long as there are 8-foot intervals.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, with the aid of a power point presentation, highlighted the hatched area on the floor plan; stated this hatched area is all outside space, the common area, some of it partially covered; noted their intention to create small offices that local residents could use and have easy access to those outside spaces; stated the courtyard is open to the mid level off Hermosa Avenue and then open to the level above Palm Drive; that this creates an open courtyard looking down into it from the very top level; and he highlighted the outside courtyard area. He stated the parking is underground, with parking off Palm Drive; noted there are two separate entrances; explained they tried to articulate their building where they could to create some void spaces and more of an open feel; noted they stepped the building in wherever they could to articulate it; that they pulled in the decks along the upper level to try for more articulation; and noted there are multi-levels on the front façade with some planters and that the same thing exists on the south side. He stated the upper level of the deck wraps around to create some articulation; noted the back is stepped in to break up the back façade as seen from the alley; and stated the building has exposed wooden eaves underside, softening it with more wooden elements. He stated this is a tight lot; that the lot is stuck between two large wall masses; and expressed his belief they’ve done a good job of breaking up the different facades wherever they could. He noted the office spaces are small; that it is their intent the buyers will walk to this area and that it won’t have an impact to the traffic; he advised that the lobby space is the access to the circulation, measuring approximately 10 by 12, and is the place where people will enter onto the stairwell or the elevator – pointing out it’s not a true lobby, just an entry space. He stated that because it is not a formal lobby area, it should not be counted as part of the real office space.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted that one of the neighbors seems to be concerned with a restaurant use at this site and the noise from such establishment and its impact to the residents.
Mr. Tomaro pointed out this is not a residential project, it’s an office/commercial condominium project, not for residential use.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if double paned windows will be used to reduce noise.
Mr. Tomaro stated for energy compliance, dual glazed windows will be installed; noted this office will be mostly be used during the day; and that as far as concerns with restaurant noise, he stated the majority of use in this building will take place from 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Commissioner Pizer stated that from the 3-D images, the plans for the building are nice.
Patty Egerer, resident, questioned if any roof equipment will be visible to those living up hill; and noted her desire to retain a village feel for this area.
Mr. Tomaro stated there will be no roof equipment; noted the mechanical equipment for heating and cooling will be package units outside in the deck area with a manifold system that goes into the each condominium, a small 18 x 24 inch tall unit that will sit outside each unit.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted this building is located in the pedestrian zone of the Downtown area; noted his opposition to the expanse of hardscape at the pedestrian level, with the cement driveways and walkways; and stated they are missing an opportunity to provide a pedestrian friendly streetscape that is consistent with the Downtown area. He stated it should be possible to have the parking from Palm Drive at the rear, believing there may need to be a reduction in the number of units.
Commissioner Pizer noted he would like to see a pedestrian friendly streetscape, but questioned how the parking could be accomplished for this building.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he is in favor of the office building concept, whether it’s a regular office building/condo concept, noting an office/condo concept has additional safeguards in that there is a homeowner’s association/board of directors to make sure there are no problems in the building. He noted his support for not including the lobby area in the gross floor area, believing it will not increase the parking requirements; stated he would support the parking in-lieu fees because the parking shortfall will happen during the day and that there is enough street parking in the day to compensate for that shortfall. He noted some concurrence with Commissioner Hoffman, but noted some reluctance on requiring a redesign of this project. He stated he’d like to see more landscaping.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom stated he likes the plans for the building, but stated Commissioner Hoffman has a point, even though just down the street there is a driveway right off the street that was approved. He questioned how this can be parked from the rear.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Kersenboom that the driveway is 20 feet wide.
Mr. Tomaro stated he would have preferred the access off Palm Drive to allow for more store front, believing the building would have more value; explained that they tried a number of different ways to access down to the parking, noting they’d need 65 feet of ramping to do that and that there is no way to ramp down from Palm Drive and get more than one layer of parking, 10 spots. He stated that because of the huge concerns with limited parking in this City, they believed that providing more parking was more critical; explained that the landscape is a five-foot planter; that the setback is right at that planter, which also allows a line of site for those exiting the property; and he stated that there is roughly 65 feet of frontage, with the two walkways being 5 feet each.
Commissioner Hoffman stated there is approximately 30 to 35 feet of cement across the front of the building, half of the front being hardscape.
Mr. Tomaro stated those surfaces would be a tiled and decorated.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noting that they’d lose 10 parking spots if accessed from the back.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the project can be redesigned, pointing out the Commission is dealing with a vacant lot; noted that in the Downtown area, good urban planning is expected with the buildings having a façade that’s on the property line at the street; pointed out the Planning Commission has been pretty consistent with those plans for the Downtown area; and stated the row of planters and driveway are not consistent with the plans for the Downtown commercial area. He expressed his belief this is not a good design for this site.
Mr. Tomaro stated he could redesign the walkways, moving those forward all the way to the street.
Director Blumenfeld asked the Commission if the design would be acceptable if the driveway area was handled more as an auto court with special paving; he explained that it is difficult to get adequate parking on this site; noted the proposed use is favorable; and questioned how the City should deal with some of these smaller parcels.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom questioned whether this site can be adequately parked and stated the Commission may be passing up an opportunity to have something on this site versus an empty lot if the Commission were to deny this project.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that how much parking can fit is predicated upon how much square footage this building has; noted that if the building is reduced by 3,000 square feet, they wouldn’t have to pay any in-lieu fees; stated the Commission should not be obligated to figure out how to park this building with this particular footprint; and reiterated that this is still in the planning phase and that the plans can be altered. He noted he disagrees with the statement this is a remnant lot, stating it’s two lots in the middle of the commercial Downtown area.
Commissioner Pizer stated that is an important concept to consider for the Downtown area, questioning what Downtown is going to look like in the next 20-30 years; and noted if the Commission is to go in this direction, concerned with the storefronts, the architects and applicants will need to be informed of the concept for no on-street driveways in the commercial Downtown area, noting it has not been previously discussed.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that is not an unknown concept in Planning.
Commissioner Pizer asked if the Commission has approved any new projects with driveways off the main street.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission approved 200 and 400 Pier Avenue, with driveways off side streets and approved 1429 Hermosa Avenue, with driveway access off the side street.
Commissioner Hoffman stated this is a through lot and given that, there is an alternative to how it would be parked.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom mentioned that walking down this street, one does not expect to have a car exit out from the building front.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, toDENY CON 07-1/PDP 07-1/PARK 07-1 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68380 for a commercial office building, containing approximately 9,500 square feet, with three stories above basement parking, divided into 21 office condominium units, and a Parking Plan to pay parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 906 and 910 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Perrotti mentioned he would have preferred to move to continue this matter so the applicant could redesign the project and bring it back without having to pay another application fee.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to RECONSIDER the above-mentioned vote on CON 07-1/PDP 07-1/PARK 07-1 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 68380 for a commercial office building, containing approximately 9,500 square feet, with three stories above basement parking, divided into 21 office condominium units, and a Parking Plan to pay parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 906 and 910 Hermosa Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld stated he would get the City Attorney’s advice on what can be done, if anything, to reconsider this matter to allow the applicant to redesign his project without having to pay another application fee. He stated in the meantime, staff can meet with the applicant to discuss an alternate solution; and noted that staff will need to bring back a resolution of denial at the next Planning Commission meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the March 20, 2007 meeting as requested by the applicant.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the applicant has requested this variance application be continued to the next meeting in order to resolve some open space issues that were not included in the variance notice; and to continue this matter to the next meeting.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUEto the next meeting VAR 07-2 -- Variance to allow an existing driveway used for parallel parking located in front of a one-car garage to be considered a second parking space in order to allow an addition of 884 square feet to the existing dwelling, rather than the 500-square-foot addition otherwise allowed for sites with only one parking space at 429 Gould Avenue. 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.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that originally, this 4,000-square-foot lot was zoned M-1 and rezoned to R-1 in 1986 as part of a General Plan amendment; advised that the lot is developed with a two-story concrete block constructed dwelling which has several nonconformities, including 66 percent lot coverage as opposed to 65 percent, deficient open space, non-conforming side and rear yard setbacks. He noted the applicant is proposing to add a 1,074-square-foot second story addition, which will include a master bedroom, den, master bath; that also being proposed is a 621-square-foot rooftop deck; and noted that the proposed second story addition meets all applicable R-1 development standards. He stated that in 2001, the same proposal was approved under the provisions of the zoning ordinance in effect at that time; that the code allowed for a maximum of 50 percent of the current replacement cost of the existing building by right; and that due to unforeseen financial constraints, the applicant was not able to complete the approved project. He noted the applicant is requesting a variance for a 50-percent increase in floor area that would have been permitted under the superseded non-conforming ordinance; and explained that four findings must be made to grant a variance:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) 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; 3) 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 4) The variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
Associate Planner Denniston stated it is arguable that exceptional or extraordinary conditions exist both related to the historical use and the physical conditions of the property because it is currently developed with a concrete block structure as compared with traditional wood framed constructed homes in the neighborhood; and also, instead of completely demolishing the structure in order to construct the residence, the applicant has considered the existing architectural integrity to transform the previously industrial use structure into a functional residence.
Associate Planner Denniston noted the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or to achieve parity with other properties in the same vicinity since a 542-square-foot addition to the home up to 3,000 square feet as permitted under the current Non-Conforming Ordinance could be constructed by right under the current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regarding expansions of non-conforming structures; however, considering the constraints of the existing concrete block construction, it is impossible to remodel the existing portions of the building and bring the structure up to code, making the only possibility to build a larger home over 3,000 square feet by complete demolition and rebuild, which is extremely cost-prohibitive; therefore, given the unique circumstances, he noted the 3,000-square-foot cap precludes the opportunity for expanding the residence that otherwise would be possible for lots of similar size and may be arguable that a variance from the cap is necessary for the owner to enjoy a substantial property right to build what otherwise would be considered an originally sized residence and to achieve parity with other properties that are not constrained by these unusual existing conditions.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the addition will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity because it will not be readily visible; and stated the applicant is proposing to put the second story addition completely to the rear of the property, therefore preserving the architectural integrity of the front façade. He added that the single-family home in this location is consistent with the policies/goals of the General Plan.
Associate Planner Denniston noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the original plan was for the exact same square footage and proposal; and that the applicant did complete part of the proposal that included a 67.5-square-foot addition to the front by enclosing an existing balcony.
Lawrence Manning, applicant, stated that prior to his purchase of this building, it was a dilapidated and older warehouse building; and advised that he has made it an architecturally pleasing and beautiful 21st century piece of architecture. He stated this proposal will help make this building better fit with the character of the surrounding area; stated the older part of the building has not been renovated; noted that renovation was held back because of the need to go up to the second story; that the back end would be modernized in the upstairs area; and he urged the Commission to approve the plans for this unique building.
Betty Mallorca, applicant, highlighted the two letters of support from their neighbors.
Mr. Manning read into the record two letters of support from his neighbors, one from Carl Snider, 106 Hill Street,
“To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my support of my next door neighbor’s proposed addition to their house at 136 Hill Street. I have briefly reviewed the plans, and it appears to be an improvement to the neighborhood.”
From 120 Hill Street, “Dear Members of the Planning Committee, my wife Lorie and I are the property owners at 120 Hill Street, one house away from 136 Hill Street. We have no issues with the Committee granting a variance to allow Betty and Lawrence to complete their remodel at 136 Hill Street. Please grant them the variance and allow them to complete the work. Sincerely.”
Frank Ovietto, Herondo Street resident, stated he lives across the street from the subject property and noted his approval of their proposal, stating their improvements have made the beautiful façade consistent with the neighborhood; and he noted his desire to see them complete this project.
Stuart Silbar, neighbor, stated this building was an eyesore for many years and noted the applicants have created a beautiful frontage; and expressed his support for their plans to improve this property. He noted the owners of the house on the other side of this lot are building a 4,000-square-foot home, noting this applicant only wants to add 800 square feet to a 3,000-square-foot building.
Rob Razardi, 167 Ardmore, noted his property backs up to the subject property; stated there is a 5-foot tall railing and a plain cinder block wall with zero setback that is approximately 12 feet above the grade line; noted his concern with any plans to increase the height of that wall, further reducing the natural sunlight and air to his property; and stated a commercial photography business operates out of this building and therefore is not a pure R-1 property. He stated that Mr. Stuart’s house next door is set substantially back and that the proposal is out of line with everything else; noted he does not want to see any development going straight up; and stated if the building was set back several feet, that would be helpful.
Michelle Higara, 501 Herondo Street, stated she lives across the street from the applicants; noted the new house being built next door to the subject property was currently the same height as its proposed height; and that this project is going to be in line and in character with the existing house that’s already there. She stated this is a unique situation and that the variance should be granted.
Lee Colangelo, project designer, explained that the setback on the east structure will be 4 feet back from Mr. Razardi’s yard; noted they are proposing a small 2-foot glass wall on top of the block wall for some natural lighting to get down into the first floor area because there is no natural light currently in the first floor area; and noted that on the new second story structure, all the setbacks are brought back 4 feet at the rear and 4 feet on both sides.
Commissioner Perrotti noted the construction they had approved complies with all the requirements concerning the setbacks; and stated the original building was zoned with minimal setbacks. He asked if the new construction complies with all requirements.
Director Blumenfeld noted there is a zoning analysis at the back of staff report; stated all new work will comply with the current codes.
Mr. Colangelo noted for Commissioner Hoffman that he will double check his scale, but that he believes there is a 3-foot setback, stating that a 3-foot setback on the rear property line is required for a second story.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there are a number of unique circumstances with this property and that he could make the four findings to support a Variance. He highlighted the prior M-1 zoning designation and the sequence of events to have their plans approved; and he noted it conforms with the non-conforming remodel, which code was afterwards changed by the City.
The Commission concurred with Commissioner Perrotti’s input.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE VAR 07-3 -- Variance to allow for the expansion of an existing nonconforming single-family residence, for a total floor area of 3,837 square feet, as opposed to the maximum 3,000 square feet as permitted by the Nonconforming Ordinance at 136 Hill Street. 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 subject project is complete but staff has not been able to issue a Certificate of Occupancy because the driveway slope currently exceeds the 12.5-percent requirement; and stated that the owner originally constructed the driveway slope at approximately 16 percent and has since tried to correct the condition to approximately 13.5 percent, noting there is still a one-percent variance from the current code requirement. He noted the driveway slope is a function of the rise and run; that the driveway rise is basically the difference in elevation from the low side of the driveway to the high side; and that the run is the horizontal length of the driveway, all those being the variables for slope. He noted that in this case, the owner believes they have a compelling issue here with respect to parity with the surrounding properties; and advised that in order to grant a variance, the Commission must make the following four findings:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) 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; 3) 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 4) The variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
With respect to Finding No.1, Director Blumenfeld advised that the subject property is unique because it is adjacent to a narrow driveway entrance at South Park, at the terminus to Loma Drive; that this area was not fully improved at the time the plans were prepared; that the area immediately southwest of the subject site currently doesn’t have sidewalks, gutters, and full public improvements; and that there are arguably exceptional circumstances related to the physical conditions of the property, noting it’s uniquely located at the terminus of the street without standard public improvements. He stated the applicant argues the lack of such improvements which help fix the elevation at the top of the driveway have exacerbated planning for this site and created an unusual hardship to provide a code complying driveway slope given the new elevation requirements to accommodate street drainage, which have been enacted over the last year by Public Works. He added that prior to that time, the issue of the flow line to the back of walk was not uniformly applied as it is today, so there are arguably different circumstances that have been established by Public Works policy with respect to street drainage. He noted this new elevation has added 8 inches of elevation over the top of the driveway grade from the project that was originally reviewed and approved; and he emphasized the plan shows a 12.5 percent slope, but is out of compliance as a consequence of the requirement from Public Works.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has tried to construct a building that is consistent with the surrounding properties, but other properties in the area haven’t necessarily had to comply with this additional burden of the drainage issue with respect to the back of walk; and that the applicant argues, therefore, this is not in parity with other properties in the same vicinity and zone, given this current street drainage requirement applicable to this property. He noted further that the applicant argues without the Variance to help correct the problem that resulted from this new public improvement elevation related to new drainage requirements, they will have to demolish the entire building garage face, re-frame the garage opening to accommodate new head room, raise the slab elevation, and stated this arguably creates an unusual hardship which results from, first, the unique conditions of the site at the terminus of this not fully improved street and, secondly, the unusual circumstances related to the project approval.
With respect to Finding No. 3, Director Blumenfeld advised that the Variance only involves a relatively minor increase in the driveway slope, noting the applicant has already reconstructed it to approximately 13.5 percent, so the effect is negligible; that it won’t impact pedestrian vision clearance as they back out of the driveway; and arguably it won’t affect the issue with a car bottoming out on the driveway. He noted that other nearby cities allow a 15-percent driveway slope, so there won’t be a material effect to property improvements in the area and won’t conflict with the General Plan. He mentioned that depending on the disposition of this Variance, staff would suggest the Commission direct staff to deal with this slope issue as a text amendment.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Steve Kaplan, representing the applicant, urged the Commission to grant the Variance.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer noted he could make all four findings.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that staff has adequately laid out a good case to support a Variance.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he can make all four findings, noting there are some unique circumstances here with Public Works changing the requirements; and he directed staff to make that amendment to allow for a 15-percent driveway slope.
The Commission concurred with that direction.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, toAPPROVE VAR 07-4 -- Variance to allow a driveway slope to exceed the maximum of 12.5 percent for garage access to a recently completed new single-family dwelling at 517 Loma Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To receive subject status report.
Director Blumenfeld noted that the Commission directed staff to address the proposed text amendment, which staff has done; and advised that staff would like to move forward now with the environmental review and go forward with the proposed zone change and General Plan amendment.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if any other city designates City Hall land as open space.
Director Blumenfeld indicated no.
With regard to Sub-area 1, the Public Works yard, and Sub-Area No. 2, the Community Services building, Commissioner Hoffman questioned why staff is suggesting parking in the required setback, noting it would be more attractive not to allow parking in those periphery areas.
Director Blumenfeld explained it was a function of the smaller sites; that it also reflects some of the current conditions where there is a parking lot at the rear of the property; noted that staff can re-address that parking setback issue if the Commission desires. He noted there is some required Coastal area parking, but on the public right-of-way and is not the same issue.
Commissioner Pizer asked when the public storage area will be applicable for this zone.
Director Blumenfeld indicated it’s part of the same property, that it is zoned Industrial; stated it would be incorporated in the proposed zone change; and that it would be part of the Civic Center rezoning. He advised that staff will finish up the environmental review and go forward with the General Plan amendment and zone change.
The Commission supported staff’s recommendation to receive and file the report.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson noted this lot located on the east side of Manhattan Avenue in the R-1 zone with a height limit of 25 feet; that the lot, like others along this block, slopes up substantially from the street at the front of the lot and then flattens out for the majority of the lot thereafter; noted that the overall elevation change from the front of the lot to the rear is as much as 12 feet; that the grade used for height measurement is based on the surveyed elevation points at the property corners; and that this method allows for consideration of other points along the property line for lots that are considered convex. He noted that in these situations, the grade of the lot may be determined on alternate points along the property line in addition to the property corner points; and in these cases, the final determination is referred to the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant is requesting consideration of alternate points on both the north and south property lines where the survey and topographic profile show this convex condition towards the westerly portion of the property; noted that no other newly constructed homes on the block have requested this same convex interpretation; explained that in looking at the topographic profile, it appears to be a reasonable request in this case on both the south and north property lines; and that from looking at the site conditions, this same condition appears to exist on neighboring properties to the south, although it is less clear for the property to the north, which has been cut to allow for a driveway.
Kristen Kienapfel, project architect, advised that the lot has a severe slope at the front portion of the lot; noted that early in the planning phase, they had a meeting with staff, who endorsed the application at that time for a convex height determination on the lot; stated the applicant is planning to build a single-family two-story residence with a basement; that this determination with a convex height determination will help them to avoid massive excavations onsite and soils export; and that the building height envelop will be 25 feet, noting this is a unique lot.
Commissioner Perrotti moved to find this site a convex slope. There was unanimous approval by the Commission.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Draft sustainability guidelines for residential development (continued from January 16, 2007 meeting).
Director Blumenfeld noted that staff is requesting another meeting to get the sustainability guideline cost comparisons down and that they will present those at the next Commission meeting.
-
Aviation Corridor Study.
Director Blumenfeld noted staff conducted a meeting on February 1, 2007; that the public workshop was conducted at the Ocean Diner; mentioned there was not a huge turnout, but that there was some very good input; advised that staff would like to conduct two more meetings, possibly in that area again, to get more merchant interest; and noted a summary of the meeting participants is located on the back of the enclosed memo. He advised that staff sent notices to all businesses on Aviation for this meeting; that staff sent notices to everyone in the commercial corridor for the prior meeting; and that staff noticed everyone for 3 blocks to the east and west of the corridor.
Commissioner Hoffman mentioned that he and Commissioner Perrotti attended the last meeting and stated the input was good, commending staff for an excellent job. He asked if the vacant lot adjacent to the church is privately owned.
Director Blumenfeld stated it is privately owned by a local developer; that it had previously been proposed for office development a few years ago; and that it is now back for resubmittal.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if there will be a future meeting on the Aviation Corridor study.
Director Blumenfeld stated his proposal to do one in April and possibly one in May. He noted the mailers have been well received; and noted staff’s desire to get some of the businesses involved in the notification process.
Chairman Allen suggested that staff place the notice on the City’s website, noting that more and more people are visiting the City’s website.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti asked if staff is going to bring back to the Commission the guidelines for residential development.
Director Blumenfeld mentioned that the Commission directed staff to work out some of the cost issues; and advised that staff will try to price whatever they can and show the Commission a comparison with the standard building component versus a high efficiency one or sustainable one.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARING(S)
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 February 20, 2007.
| Kent Allen, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |