|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer |
| Absent: | Perrotti |
| Also Present: |
Ken Robertson, Acting Community Development Director Richard Denniston, Associate Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, addressed his concern with the lack of City Council policy concerning alcohol serving businesses, stating the Commission should request a policy statement from Council to guide its future deliberations of these businesses. He asked staff to include in its CUP reports for alcohol serving businesses the present occupancy rates and the new occupancy rates. He addressed his disappointment with City Council’s completely changing the Planning Commission’s decision for Club 705.
Jim Lissner, resident, requested the interviews for appointment to the Planning Commission be televised live.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of April 17, 2007 Minutes.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE the April 17, 2007, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Acting Director Robertson stated the proposed project is a 3-story building above a basement parking level, divided into 21 office condominium units; noted there is a parking plan to pay parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site; noted the Commission continued this hearing from the last meeting, asking the applicant to consider further revisions; and stated the Commission was concerned with the amount of in-lieu parking and the large size of the project for this site. He noted the applicant has submitted a revised plan, only partially addressing the parking concerns by providing one more parking space; stated the applicant has not made any reduction in the size of the project; and advised that the latest version of the project proposes a garage with alley access only, but revising the garage to provide 11 parking spaces. He stated the latest revision again addresses the primary concern by the Planning Commission to enhance the pedestrian environment by creating an uninterrupted street frontage rather than a curb cut along Hermosa Avenue. He noted the net office square footage results in a total parking requirement of 28 spaces, being deficient in 17 parking spaces that would require in-lieu parking fees. With respect to the request to reduce building size, he noted in order to substantially provide all the parking on site with alley access, the building would have to be reduced by half, approximately 4,000 square feet; and noted the applicant has indicated they are not comfortable with any reduction in size, claiming the project would be economically infeasible based on the high land and development costs.
Acting Director Robertson stated the project size, FAR, is consistent with a similar project recently approved by the Planning Commission at 1429 Hermosa Avenue; explained that based on this latest revision, the Commission must balance the potential outcome of no property redevelopment against the desire to ensure the project supports the pedestrian environment; pointed out it’s clear the proposed office use is consistent with the goals for attracting new daytime uses in the Downtown area to balance the existing predominance of nightlife; however, if the project is deemed infeasible with a reduced building size, it may result in no property redevelopment, and this outcome may be inconsistent with the City’s Downtown revitalization goals. He noted the applicant is requesting the Commission make a final disposition on this proposal this evening and that it not be continued again for redesign. He noted that staff is giving the Commission three alternatives to consider:
- Option 1) to approve the revised submittal;
- Option 2) to approve the plan that was originally submitted that has both access off Hermosa Avenue and off the alley and provides 19 parking spaces; and
- Option 3) to deny the project.
Acting Director Robertson clarified that the latest version provides 11 onsite parking spaces, changing the in lieu to 17 spaces.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, noted his further attempts to redesign this project to capture as many onsite parking spaces as possible; he noted they can provide 14 onsite spaces off the alley with a series of two ramps going downward, noting the challenging lot width to get more spaces; and stated the other option is to provide 11 spaces off the alley. He stated the front façade would look the same whether there are 11 spaces off the alley or 19 spaces off Hermosa Avenue, pointing out the developer’s desire for the Commission to entertain the proposed 19 onsite spaces with access off Hermosa Avenue and the alley. He highlighted the recent approval of a similar project on 14th Street, with an FAR at 1.69, noting he is proposing an FAR of 1.62 with the 19 onsite parking spaces. He pointed out that as the lots get closer to the beach, it’s more expensive for the land and that it is necessary to obtain more square footage on a lot to balance the land costs. He added the proposed use is a good use for this site and that the daytime parking in the area will be adequate to support business during the daytime when parking is more plentiful.
Commissioner Pizer asked if a parking study had been done or is the applicant using the 1429 14th Street project as a reference.
Mr. Tomaro stated they are using the data from the 14th Street project.
Commissioner Pizer asked how far away this project is from the public parking lot compared to the recently approved project on 14th Street.
Mr. Tomaro stated that parking is within a couple blocks of both projects.
Jay Hart, resident, stated he lives behind this project; encouraged the Commission to allow the applicant to put the original plan into play; stated there is already a curb easement built in on the front of this building; stated that by forcing all the traffic into the alley area will create increased problems, noting there already exists problems with traffic in this alley and parking in the area; and noted his concern with reduced parking and the spillover into the residential area. He noted his support for the original plan.
Howard Longacre, resident, stated the in-lieu parking fees should be raised once again; expressed his belief applicants are being allowed to develop projects that can’t support the required parking; and addressed his concern with the impact to public property in this community. He stated that an SPA should be put in place to level out density, requiring the businesses to trade parking rights; and he stated this project is too intensive for this site.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief an office use on this site will not create a late night parking problem for this area; and stated that Option 1 (approve the revised submittal) is best for the future of the Downtown area, providing 11 onsite parking spaces and 17 in-lieu spaces; and he stated that he would prefer to see in-lieu parking spaces rather than see a curb cut on Hermosa Avenue. He stated the FAR for this project is similar with the recently approved project on 14th Street.
Commissioner Hoffman pointed out the Commission had suggested at the last meeting the size of the project was too large for this site, noting that this evening’s proposal increases the size of the project; reiterated having a curb cut on Hermosa Avenue is a poor urban design principle and is not something he would advocate for the Downtown pedestrian area; but pointed out the need to weigh a desirable use at this site as opposed to a nighttime use, believing the daytime office use is the preferred alternative than what can be developed on this site; and stated that weighing the alternatives, he would now lean towards supporting Option 2, (approve the plan that was originally submitted that has both access off Hermosa Avenue and off the alley, providing 19 onsite parking spaces and 7 in lieu).
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom stated that because of the high expense of property in this area, he would lean more towards supporting Option 2 (approve the plan that was originally submitted that has both access off Hermosa Avenue and off the alley, providing 19 onsite parking spaces and 7 in lieu), noting his desire to see more onsite parking.
Chairman Allen noted his concern that a garage door off Hermosa Avenue may one day not operate properly; and stated he would support Option 1 (approve the revised submittal, providing 11 onsite parking spaces and 17 in-lieu spaces).
Commissioner Hoffman stated it’s a tradeoff between a driveway and having a building that has 10 to 11 onsite parking spaces for 21 units, noting his intent to get as close to the required onsite parking as reasonable.
Commissioner Pizer pointed out this is an office application, not an intensive use; noted there will be a parking structure in the near future; and stated he sees no major impact to approving Option 1.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE Option No. 2; that automatic gates be part of the proposal; and that the architect work with City staff to ensure this project is as pedestrian friendly as possible on grade level. The motion failed as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom NOES: Pizer, Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Option No. 1. The motion failed as follows:
AYES: Pizer, Allen NOES: Hoffman, Kersenboom ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti Acting Director Robertson suggested asking the applicant whether he would support a continuance.
Sid Croft, attorney for the applicant, stated this is a good use for this site; pointed out that the applicant has been very cooperative in making changes to the plans; and stated that because of economics, this project cannot substantially be reduced in size and that there are no other options to present.
Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to CONTINUE this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that the proposed project consists of two attached units off Monterey Boulevard and one free-standing unit adjacent to Sunset Drive; advised that all three units contain 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; noted that the garages are located at the basement level with 2 stories above and roof decks; that the building is designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style with smooth stucco finishes and tile roof; stated that the building design complies with the 30-foot maximum height limit for the R-3 zone; however, he noted that the lot coverage will have to be adjusted to meet the height requirement and that 36-inch box trees will need to be included. He noted the parking spaces are provided in the basement level with driveway access from Monterey Boulevard for Units A and B and through the Sunset Drive alley for Unit C; noted that 4 guest parking spaces are located in front of Units A and B; additionally, one guest parking space is located in front of Unit C accessed through the alley; and noted that one on-street parking space will be lost as a result of the curb cut for Unit A. He stated the proposed guest parking space in front of Unit A compensates for the loss of one on-street parking space. He added that each unit contains a deck with over 100 square feet of open space directly accessible to the primary living area and 100 square feet of open space provided on roof decks; that the common patio located between the buildings provides 330 square feet of open space area and contributes 110 square feet to each unit to meet the open space requirement of 300 square feet; that the storage areas are provided on the ground floor and comply with the requirements of the 200 cubic feet of storage for each unit; that the plan provides for substantial landscaping along the side yard area facing 11th Street and in the common patio area; and he noted that the sound transmission class is not specified on the plan, noting that staff believes these issues can be addressed in the conditions of approval. He noted that the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the General Plan and that staff believes the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, clarified there will be an on-street public parking space lost on Monterey Boulevard, however, a new space will be created on 11th Street to replace that loss; advised that this project provides 11 on-site parking places; and noted that all the conditions are acceptable to the applicant. She briefly highlighted the project design.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted this is a fully conforming project which is consistent with the character of this evolving neighborhood.
Commissioner Pizer stated the minor issues addressed by staff can be easily resolved.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVECON 07-5 / PDP 07-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 69065 for a three-unit residential condominium at 1084 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Acting Director Robertson stated that since the expansion involves more usable square footage for customers, a Parking Plan is necessary; stated that the modifications are to the interior only and are at the mezzanine level; explained that in order to add 170 square feet of customer area at the mezzanine level, it involves converting a large portion of the existing, approved mezzanine to a dining and lounge area for customers, resulting in approximately 400 square feet of new dining/lounge area; and advised that the mezzanine was previously approved for an employee lounge, changing room and storage area only and was recognized by minute order by the Planning Commission in January 2005. He stated the mezzanine is accessed through an interior stair from the ground level but also has a direct emergency exit onto the alley, which is situated at a higher grade than Hermosa Avenue. He noted that the applicant indicates the separate upstairs dining and lounge area will only be used for special events or banquets and that security personnel will be stationed at the back door/emergency exit. He noted that this area is already structurally sound for this expansion and could be considered a conversion, but explained that staff is calling this an expansion because it is new floor area for customer use. He stated this will require opening the existing wall, painting and installation of floor covering and the construction of new railing which will partially open to the floor below. He advised that The Shore has been in operation since early 2006; that an occupant load and seating plan was approved in 2006 which shows the upstairs mezzanine as a storage and employee lounge.
Acting Director Robertson advised that The Shore was cited for over-crowding by the Fire Department in early 2006, exceeding the occupant load of 174, with a crowd of over 300 patrons; stated at that time the fixed bench seating was temporarily removed, which was the basis of the occupant load plan; however, since that time, the business has been operating without any over-crowding violations, although he pointed out it has been the subject of noise complaints. He noted the expansion does require the use of parking in-lieu fees. He advised that the Commission has received a supplemental highlighting some of the concerns from the Police Chief with regard to this proposal; advised that the Police Chief is concerned with the existing problems in that alley off Palm Drive related to a nearby business, believing this proposal could exacerbate those problems; and that he was also concerned with the remoteness of this lounge area and its possible use for bottle service, believing there should be greater supervision because of its remote location from the main floor of the restaurant. He noted that staff will come back with a resolution based on Planning Commission direction.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Michael Sribney, part owner of The Shore and resident, requested the Commission’s approval to the utilization of the existing upstairs area for special events; noted this will not require any major construction; pointed out this business has been attracting upscale clientele who have participated in numerous events at this establishment, such as wine and food tastings, special banquets, catering events, business functions; and advised that it is more advantageous to have a private area to conduct these special events. He highlighted other businesses in the City and nearby South Bay area that have special locations that can be used for special events.
Commissioner Pizer questioned whether the owners are familiar with the police report that cited this establishment for the over-serving of alcohol to a patron who ended up causing some problems; and asked what time the owners plan to close the mezzanine for business.
Mr. Sribney stated he is not familiar with that police report; and noted the closing would correspond to the basic hours of the business, stating he does not want to limit the hours to midnight. He pointed out that he will have to pay $57,800 for parking in-lieu fees for the 170 square feet.
Steve Jones, project architect, explained this is mainly an operational consideration with some minor remodeling that will be done; and stated that a non-bearing wall will be taken down and the entire space will become one open space of approximately 400 square feet. He pointed out the rear door is currently an exit only door with a panic bar attached; and stated that if someone were to go out that door, they would not be able to open the door from outside, that this door is meant to be closed the entire time the business is open, short of receiving deliveries. He added there are no windows or other openings on the back and that sound exposure to that side of the property is minimal.
Commissioner Pizer asked where the existing storage, employee lounge and changing area will now be located.
Mr. Jones stated there is ample room on the other side of the stairway to accommodate those spaces.
Tom Kerney, Founder of the Hermosa Shores Film Festival, noted his support for this proposal, stating The Shore has allowed the use of their facility for meetings and other community events.
Bob Masudian, Palm Avenue resident, noted his support for the applicant’s proposal.
Paul Dupray, 14th Street resident, noted his support for the applicant’s proposal.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief the upstairs area will be intensively used most of the time; stated that the handicap access on the upper floor should be controlled for noise when the door is being opened; and he noted that while the crowd does seem to be upscale, it still is noisy and that fights do take place at this facility. He noted the limited supply of in-lieu parking spaces and suggested these parking spaces only be used for office or retail projects; and he suggested shorter operating hours during the week and later hours on the weekend, following the same hours as Manhattan Beach so those patrons from Manhattan Beach don’t come into Hermosa Beach when those bars close. He asked the Commission to control the hours of operation and not to allow the mezzanine to be any larger than it currently is.
Adam Krieger, South Bay resident, expressed his belief upscale restaurants need a private area to successfully conduct special events.
Rainer Beck, one of the owners of The Shore, stated there is over-whelming support of the businesses in the area with the exception of one, noting they are currently in litigation with that business; stated that they have not been cited for noise; advised they recently voluntarily spent $20,000 to sound-proof the outside facade; pointed out that only business establishments are located behind this building, which are not open in the evening, stating that noise should not be an issue; and noted that a security person will be situated at the back door at all times.
Robert Grossman, resident, noted his strong opposition to the expansion of the bar due to the high amount of public intoxication in this community and its tarnishing effect upon Hermosa Beach.
Howard Longacre, resident, noted his confusion with the City requiring only two parking spaces for 400 square feet with an increase in occupancy of approximately 40 people; and addressed his concern with the poor condition of the City’s streets; and reiterated that the City is spending too much money to police the Downtown area. He stated this area should not be permitted to operate after midnight.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his support of a lounge area; stated that emergency hardware should be placed on the rear door; and stated the new area should close at midnight.
Chairman Allen stated that with this intensification of use, the applicant should compromise and agree to close the entire business at midnight.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted his concurrence with Commissioner Hoffman’s comments.
Commissioner Pizer stated that he would think this new area would be used as much as possible because of the investment in the business; and stated a midnight closing hour for the new area is appropriate.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 06-7 / PDP 06-3 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment for a 170-square-foot expansion and interior alterations to an existing restaurant with on-sale alcohol and live entertainment with a midnight closing of the new area, with patrons exiting the new area inside the facility; and a Parking Plan to pay in-lieu fees rather than providing the required additional parking at 1320 Hermosa Avenue, The Shore.
Commissioner Hoffman offered a friendly amendment for the applicant to work with staff to resolve the ADA compliance issues and ensure that the rear exit has emergency exit hardware only.
The makers of the motion concurred with the friendly amendment.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Allen recessed the meeting at 8:37 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:46 P.M.
Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from Agenda Item Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12, stating he has a minor financial involvement in a property in this area.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Acting Director Robertson summarized the lot merger ordinance and procedure, noting that approximately 25 of these will come before the Planning Commission over the next six months. He highlighted Chapter 16.20 of the Municipal Code regarding merger of parcels, which was recently revised by City Council; stated that pursuant to this section, staff has begun the process of notification and scheduling hearings to make determinations on approximately 25 potential lot mergers, with the first group of 4 being heard this evening; stated that when two or more lots are merged, they become a single parcel to be developed, sold, leased or financed together; and noted that lots may be merged only if the following 4 conditions are met:
- the same owner holds two or more contiguous/adjacent parcels of land;
- at least one of the parcels does not conform to minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square feet;
- the property is zoned R-1;
- the main structure is partially sited on the contiguous lots.
Acting Director Robertson stated when this condition is found – noting that staff has identified 25 lots that meet this criteria, lots which were left over from the merger program in the late ‘80s – staff notifies the property owners of this condition; and that the Planning Commission then holds a public hearing to determine whether to merge the lots based on the above 4 criteria and on the following criteria related to neighborhood compatibility:
- If the substandard lots under consideration for merger are similar or greater in size and width to more than 80 percent of the parcels fronting on the same block, inclusive of the subject parcel, then the lots shall not be merged unless the integrity of the neighborhood will be harmed;
- If the lots under consideration consist of not more than two parcels with a combined square footage of at least 7,000 square feet, then the contiguous parcels shall not be merged unless the integrity of the neighborhood will be harmed;
- Where the subject parcels are located on a block with 5 parcels or less, the 80-percent analysis above will be applied on a neighborhood rather than a block basis.
Acting Director Robertson advised that this will be the basis for the evaluation for the 4 properties this evening; and he explained that if one of these properties is not merged, staff would file a notice, a Release of Merger, officially recording the property with the County and permanently releasing the property from the merger requirements of this ordinance.
Acting Director Robertson stated that 628 Prospect Avenue is comprised of two lots from the original subdivision identified as Lots 6 and 7, Block 139; that it is currently one large parcel containing 6,370 square feet comprised of these two substandard lots; that each lot is 25 feet wide with varying depths with lot sizes of 3,130 square feet and 3,240 square feet; noted this property contains two dwelling units, aligned one in front of another, which are each sited on both lots; advised that these were approved as a planned unit development for two units in 1977; and explained that the City Attorney has reviewed this prior approval and determined the property is still subject to the terms of the Lot Merger Ordinance despite the planned unit development for two units on the property. He stated this property meets the criteria to be considered for merger, as the lots are clearly less than the minimum lot size, and they meet the rule that the main structures are sited on both contiguous lots; and advised that the subject property is one of only 3 parcels on this block facing Prospect Avenue, noting the property across Prospect Avenue is in a different zone. He stated the substandard lots are greater and similar in size and width to only one of the 3 lots on the block, and therefore, the 80-percent analysis must go beyond the limits of the block and consider the entire neighborhood. He noted that the ordinance specifically defines “neighborhood” for the purposes of lot merger as a grouping of similar uses within the same zoning district bounded by topographical or other physical features, arterials or other collector streets or other characteristics that give it a separate and distinct identity; that in this case, staff looked beyond the subject block and considered the neighborhood; and given this district east of Prospect Avenue does not have an easily defined neighborhood boundary, he noted that staff looked at three different geographical areas and made the following findings:
1) that the lots being considered for merger are similar or greater in size and width to only 2 of the 7 parcels fronting on Prospect Avenue between 6th and 8th Streets, only 28.5 percent, which indicates that merging the lots would be consistent within the immediate neighborhood of lots fronting on Prospect Avenue; that looking further down the street on Prospect Avenue, the lots are similar or greater in size and width to 23 of the 35 parcels between 3rd and 10th Streets, equating to 66 percent; and showing even on a larger neighborhood area, while not as compelling, the lots do meet the criteria for merger since 66 percent is less than 80 percent; and noted that staff also looked at a broader neighborhood bounded by Prospect Avenue on the west and south, 10th Street on the north and the east City boundary, and found that those lots are similar or greater than 162 of 292 parcels, or 55 percent.
In conclusion, Acting Director Robertson stated the Commission in this case has the authority to merge the lots based on the evaluation of the neighborhood as indicated; however, the Commission is not compelled to merge the lots; but given the high percentage of larger lots in the immediate neighborhood, he noted staff’s belief that merging these lots meets the intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance and that merging the lots will protect the integrity of the neighborhood.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no audience input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Allen, to MERGE 628 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Acting Director Robertson stated this property is adjacent to the property at 628 Prospect Avenue; that it consists of two lots from the original subdivision, each of which is 25 feet wide; that they measure 2,898 square feet and 3,012 square feet; that this property contains a single-family residence which straddles between the lot lines; he stated the same findings were made for this project given it’s adjacent to 628 Prospect Avenue; noted staff is recommending these lots be merged as well; and he added the figures/numbers are the same as in the previous project.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no audience input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Allen, to MERGE 636 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the property is one large 5,000-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that each lot has a width of 25 feet and a depth of 100 feet; that the lots are less than the minimum lot size and they meet the rule that the main structures are sited on both contiguous lots, and therefore, are subject to the lot merger. He noted there are 16 parcels that front on 7th Place between Prospect Avenue and the Hollowell Avenue intercept; that of these 16 parcels, 10 are similar in size and width; and therefore, the subject lots are greater or similar to only 62.5 percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance. He noted, however, of the 11 lots north of 7th Place, 10 or 91 percent are similar in size and width; conversely, 2 of the 5 lots that are south of and front 7th Place are half lots, and the remaining lots are through lots with 35- to 40-foot wide widths and 139-foot depths; and that given the high percentage of similar lots on the north side of 7th Place, merger of the lots may be inconsistent with the character of the north side of the block.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Ann Larson, representing the property owner, stated the lots meet the technical requirements for lot merger, but requested the Commission consider the other provision in the ordinance that the lots should only be merged if it is deemed to be necessary to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood; and with the aid of a photograph, she illustrated the difference between the north side of 7th Place and the south side of 7th Place. She noted that all the lots on the north side are all 25-by-100-foot lots; pointed out that if the subject property is merged, there would only one 50-by-100-foot lot on this block; stated that on the south side of 7th Place, those lots are all through lots with the exception of 2 half lots that front on 7th Place; that they’re all the rear portions of those lots with fences and large structures, 10 to 15 feet wider, 40 feet deeper and not similar at all; and she stated that merging this lot would be inconsistent with this neighborhood. She noted that by merging these lots, the house that could be built on that property would be huge and inconsistent with this neighborhood. She noted the subject property is already developed with a duplex and the density will not be reduced by merging these lots; and she requested this property be released from the merger.
Bruce Tuttle, subject property owner, stated that merging this lot would make it inconsistent with the rest of this street.
Christopher Reid, 7th Place resident, noted his opposition to merging this lot, noting all the lots on this side of the block are 25-foot lots.
Rob Stroyke, resident, expressed his belief this property should not be merged.
Howard Longacre, resident, expressed his belief this property should not be merged, stating that a larger home would not be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Allen, to RELEASE 1161 7th Place from the Lot Merger Ordinance. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Denniston stated this is a 5,000-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots, 25 by 100 feet; stated there are 27 parcels up front on 7th Place between Reynolds Lane and Hollowell Avenue intercept; that of these 27 parcels, 17 are similar in size and width; therefore, the subject lots are greater or similar, only 62.9 percent; however, of the 18 lots north of 7th Place, 17 or 94.4 percent are similar in size and width; and stated that given the high percentage of similar lots on the north side of 7th Place, merger of the lots may be inconsistent with the character of the north side of the block.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no audience input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to RELEASE 1245 7th Place from the Lot Merger Ordinance. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Acting Director Robertson stated the subject of this amendment is a PDP and CUP which contains 3 residential condominium units above 3 commercial condominiums on the ground floor; advised that this was approved in April 2004 by the Planning Commission; that the conditions of approval of this project relating to the architectural appearance include Condition No. 1, which required that the development be in conformance with submitted plans; and that Condition No. 4 requires architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations, site and floor plans. He noted the owner recently requested a final planning approval of the subject property and when inspected in March 2007, several items related to the architectural appearance were found that were not consistent with the plans that were approved by the Planning Commission, which are listed in the attached supplemental. He noted at this point, the applicant has decided not to modify the building back to the original approval and, instead, is requesting an amendment to the PDP with respect to the changes in architectural features; and noted that the architect has submitted revised exterior elevations and revised renderings to show the proposed modifications as compared with the original floor plans. He noted that most prominently on the west and south elevations, the metal guardrail is proposed instead of green tinted glass guardrail with stainless steel top rail and architectural stainless steel support along the balcony on the entire west and south elevations; stated the modification proposes an aluminum storefront with clear glazing all the way up to the balcony above; and that instead of the green tinted glass and instead of a stucco sign panel at the top, the revised plans show windows and doors with aluminum finishes rather than wood finishes and sliding doors at the residential decks rather than nano-doors with horizontal aluminum dividers that match the horizontal elements on the lower floor windows. He stated that on the east elevation, which faces the residential properties to the east, the revised plans show windows instead of French doors with balconies at 4 locations and metal guardrails instead of the glass guardrail detail that was also part of the other elevations. He stated the applicant is proposing some enhancements to the project’s current appearance as built to address some of the issues identified in the correction letter; stated they are willing to install the steel canopies pursuant to the original plan; advised there is a proposed projecting aluminum sign can above the storefronts in lieu of the stucco panel that was part of the original plan; and that they are proposing one horizontal element in the sliding glass door at the residential decks, false metal guardrails below the windows on the east elevation in lieu of the balconies, and the painting of a second color on the front façade between the commercial storefronts, which is consistent with the original rendering.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Albro Lundy, representing the applicant, stated his firm represented both the owners and developers of this project when it was the first mixed project in Hermosa Beach; explained that there was some miscommunication in terms of what originally was done by the first owners of the property and the second owners, the developers, who purchased and built the property after it was approved; explained this was not a situation where the second owners knew exactly what they were supposed to build and went forward and built something differently; that they went according to the plans they understood, made some modifications and changes; and that they didn’t realize this would require review by the Commission. He noted his hope the Commission believes the modifications/changes are architecturally appealing and that the Commission approves the project as built. He noted the project has been sold and stated they want to move in but can’t until they receive the CUP, noting there is a sense of urgency in getting the Commission to approve the changes. He noted that some things would be very expensive to change, such as the windows.
Commissioner Pizer noted his understanding the rails in the rear above the garages now serve no functional purpose.
Mr. Lundy indicated Commissioner Pizer’s understanding is correct; he explained the residents behind the project had come in years ago and wanted additional detail there; and that what they did was modify this area to break up the massing to comply with the neighbors’ request and that those are only there for aesthetic purposes.
Lee Oakes, project architect, stated his firm designed the original building; and noted they were not involved in a lot of the changes that occurred during the course of construction; however, they have gone back to meet with the owners to look at the project again with a fresh view. He explained that some sort of articulation on the back of the building was requested, which are now only there for aesthetic purposes; that the horizontal treatment/bar on the front of the building provides a vertical look to that area; and he asked the Commission to approve the building in this new state, believing it has a pleasing look.
Gary Richardson stated he is the realtor hired to market this property; expressed his belief this property has been well received by the community; advised that the building was sold out in less than 2 weeks, noting that several of the owners are Hermosa Beach residents; and mentioned that in the 2 weekends of open house, they had in excess of 150 to 200 people look at the building, with the majority of the visitors supporting the concept.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support of the changes, believing they are an improvement.
Chairman Allen stated he prefers the changes.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief the eastern elevation isn’t a trivial matter, noting it is the buffer to the neighbors; he noted the Commission would never have approved this elevation if this was brought before this body today; and noted his disappointment with how it has ended up on that elevation in particular.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Allen, to APPROVE PDP 07-6 -- Precise Development Plan amendment to modify the architectural finishes and features of a residential commercial mixed use project at 30 - 44 Hermosa Avenue and 101 Lyndon Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti Acting Director Robertson advised that staff will come back with a resolution that specifically addresses the revisions.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the applicant is requesting an extension of the map, as construction of the project is near completion; and he noted the extension of the map will allow additional time for the County engineer to review the final parcel map. He noted a tentative map may be extended up to 5 years from its original expiration date.
There was no audience input.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-11 / PDP 05-12 -- Request for a one-year extension of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 63002 for a two-unit condominium at 42 15th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Acting Director Robertson stated the Planning Commission is required to review on an annual basis proposed Public Works projects for conformity with the City’s General Plan, noting that the Planning Commissioners have been provided a list of capital improvement projects for FY 2007-2008; and he stated the scope of the Commission’s review is limited to conformity with the General Plan. He advised that the CIP includes streets, sewer and drainage improvements and several special projects, such as reconstruction/improvement to the City yard, beach restroom rehabilitation, Clark building refurbishment, Community Center upgrades under Phase IV of the multiphase projects, Fire Department building improvements, trash enclosure at Lot A, Civic Center Master Plan Predevelopment studies, etc. He advised that these projects have been reviewed for conformity with the General Plan and are consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.
Howard Longacre, resident, noted his concern with the limited amount of funding for the City’s streets, stating that much more should go to fix the poor condition of the streets.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff that the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is in conformance with the City’s General Plan. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Perrotti -
Acting Director Robertson stated this is a memorandum the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare to forward to City Council with respect to Building Code amendments for solar panel hot water and photovoltaic stubouts; and he noted that staff will attach this memo to a City Council report this summer when updates to the Building Code go before City Council for review.
It was the consensus of the Commission to forward the letter to City Council.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:33 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 May 15, 2007.
| Kent Allen, Chairman | Ken Robertson, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |