|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 02-16-99
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 19, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tucker at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Pizer led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Pizer, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Ketz stated that she abstained on the motion of the December 3, 1998 Consent Calendar, as she was not present for the October 20, 1998 Meeting. Also Resolution 98-71, 1.a, should read "Trash areas shall be moved away from the side yard and placed in the garage."
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. VAR 98-9--VARIANCE TO 25' BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE R-1 ZONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING AT 912 9TH STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Variance is an "after the fact" Variance which resulted from a staff error in reviewing the original plan submittal. He noted that last year there was a transition made in the method of conducting plan check and the responsibility of conducting zone check was removed from the Building Division and transferred to the Planning Division due to the volume of building activity. Unfortunately, there were several projects that were never zone checked which were already being processed by the Building Division, including this project, which was eventually permitted without a proper zone check. The plans submitted by the applicant showed a building height in excess of that allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
City staff have been working with the applicant to correct the over-height roof and to bring the project into conformance with the height limit. The project architect has completed revised plans, and the City has approved the revision to lower the roof to comply with the height limit. The cost estimate for the new work is $4,150. Due to the City's plan check error, the City has refunded the permit and plan check fees, which amounts to $2,290.
The owner has explored a more costly revision requiring removal of the entire roof and has filed a claim to recover the cost. If the building were reworked with a different ridge orientation, it would create potentially different view obstruction issues, and be significantly more costly to reconstruct. The owner proceeded in good faith and got a building permit, however the requirement for a Variance simply resulted from staff's error. A staff error is not grounds for a Variance. A Variance can only be granted by making all four required findings.
Director Blumenfeld presented a discussion of height calculation and the four findings. If the first finding noted in the report cannot be made, it will not be productive to review the remainder of the findings, as a Variance cannot be granted.
Director Blumenfeld stated staff calculated grade by taking a datum at the most critical point (the lowest point at the building addition) at the finished grade beneath the retaining wall. This property has a unique condition where a retaining wall bisects the lot and protects a cut. The retained portion of the lot may represent "natural, unaltered grade" pursuant to the definition of "grade" in the Zoning Ordinance. This grade is approximately 3'-4" higher than the elevation at the corner point used in staff's calculation. If this elevation represents unaltered grade, it may be grounds to make the first Variance finding that there are "exception circumstances applicable to the property involved" (i.e., the retaining wall bisects the lot and creates a unique retaining condition on the lot. He also reviewed the other Variance findings.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Shane McColgan of 912 Ninth Street, stated he met with Director Blumenfeld and Mike Jenkins, City Attorney, and discussed their situation. He has completed the project structurally including shingles, skylights, electricity, etc., and it is unfortunate the project has gone this far. He felt pressured into complying but he will comply but not with the reconstruction the way Director Blumenfeld and Mr. McColgan's architect had come up with the first set of drawings. They can go north to south with the ridge, but will make it higher with more of an obstruction. If the project is denied or approved with a Variance, he feels it will not set a precedence for someone else in the future. He went for a Variance because he was not happy with the way the City wanted the roof reconstructed.
Commissioner Ketz asked if the architect calculated the building height? Mr. McColgan stated he believed he did and the plans were submitted, and the project was built according to the plans. If there was a mistake, then the City should have caught it.
Joseph Di Monda of Manhattan Beach stated the City has a Height Ordinance that none of the other registered professionals can figure out how staff makes work. He would like to know what are the calculations and formulas that are being used. The height limit needs to be reworked, especially the way it is interpreted by staff.
Roberta Moore of 930 9th Street stated the added 2.5 feet effects her view but not significantly, and she has no objection to the Variance. There are six steps up from the applicant's property to her property. From her second floor window, she can see over 918 9th Street. The applicant's house had an addition put on approximately seven years ago, and looks like it couldn't possibly be under 25 feet. For measurement at that time, it was 25 feet above the highest point on the property. Since then, the City has adopted an effort to find some sort of an average from high points to low points. However, the existing addition, not the applicant's new one, would be legal nonconforming. If this were true, how could it have gone into plan check without asking for a Variance because it is already nonconforming. Nobody comes out and looks, and it is not clear what is the height limit.
Robert Graham of 918 9th Street lives next door to the east of the applicant. The addition added to 912 9th Street completely blocked their view of the ocean forever. They have a solid wall with the exception of one window which was permitted. The project has no further obstruction on any part of the people living to the east. Mr. and Mrs. Graham wished the Commission would consider strenuously letting the Variance pass and go forward. It doesn't matter to the neighbors in the area because they have already lost the view.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld stated the method for calculating height was approved in 1994, and it was established based on surveyed corner point elevations. Using the corner points was considered important by the City Council and Planning Commission at the time because the grade on adjacent properties cannot be altered. The method used for calculating height is available as a handout, and staff is considering making the simple Excel Formula available to the public on diskette. It is simple to calculate building height and staff is available for assistance. Director Blumenfeld indicated he would review the calculation method relative to the project.
Commissioner Pizer believes the southwest corner needs to be higher than is specified. He questions the original datum. The finished grade above the retained area seems to represent the unaltered condition but requested further clarification.
Director Blumenfeld reviewed the alternative datum and explained the calculation method as taking the difference in elevation from the retained condition (top of wall) elevation to the south/west corner point, establishing the slope per foot and multiplying the per foot slope by the distance to the critical point corresponding to the highest part of the structure. This adds about 2.8 to the elevation staff originally used, and this would make up the difference to permit the over height condition to exist.
Commissioner Ketz asked if this method were used, would the project need a Variance? Director Blumenfeld stated he discussed this with the City Attorney and felt it was important to go through with the Variance process because of the stage of the project (beyond plan review) and because it was important to make it clear that it was a condition unique to this property.
Commissioner Schwartz stated regarding the addition done seven years ago, there have been changes in how the Zoning Code allows how height is looked at. Also, there are no view ordinances and this is a risk taken when property with a view is purchased. She is saddened to see Community Development taking the blame for all the complaints. Also, it is the City's or local government's right to not allow a building permit to go through even after a project is fully constructed.
Commissioner Perrotti feels just because the City made an error does not mean the Commission should automatically approve the Variance. The discussion of the variations in the grade is what the Commission has to make their determination and findings on, even though the City made an error. Reading over all the measurements and calculations, this is a unique piece of property with circumstances that the Commission can find the existing structure is within the proper height.
Chairman Tucker agreed. He stated the height calculation is very easy. The computer calculates it accurately. He feels a Variance is not necessary.
Commissioner Ketz agreed.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Ketz to ADOPT the Approval Draft Resolution and APPROVE the four findings as discussed in the staff report.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
8. CON 98-26/PDP 98-31--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25321 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 141-143 MANHATTAN AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 1998 MEETING).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated this project was continued because staff found that there were too many non-conformities with the current zoning standards. Since then, the new plans have been submitted and reviewed and are in much more compliance than previously. There is an interpretation needed regarding lot coverage, and the finished grade deck which is 5.5 feet above natural/existing grade that will be used as yards for each unit needs to be approved as acceptable without being counted toward lot coverage, otherwise it will be over the maximum of 65%.
Commissioner Perrotti feels a patio and deck are not the same and should be shown as different.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Monty Williams of 310 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, is the applicant and stated the main issue is the area between the two buildings. He has filled the area with dirt and made access to become usable yards which is considered landscaped. If it is graveled, it may become a storage area rather than a usable yard. He has done six projects with the same condition.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the deck/patio area can be accessed directly from both of the units? Mr. Williams stated yes and the grade elevation will be taken all the way up to the top of the first floor. When coming out of the unit, there will be a concrete slab and then a couple steps down to the yard. There is a step up in between the buildings once you get past the sideyard setbacks. The distance will be kept the same as the next door neighbor's property on the north side of the project. Also, the project will only be going 6 inches into the sideyards, keeping it 30 inches from the property line, as required.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti feels the proposed Resolution covers the items that were considered deficient previously, and the project has complied with these deficiencies. He looks at the patio/deck issue as a patio and wouldn't be included as lot coverage.
Commissioner Schwartz agreed as long as there is no attempt to put in storage underground. She would like to see more banding continue around to the other elevations. She addressed the letter from A. Colarrta who was concerned about the removal of street parking along the front. City Planner Schubach stated there is no way of losing at least one spot but there will be added three guest spaces.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the project as submitted with the addition of some articulation and detailing to be continued around the other faces of the units.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
9. CON 98-15/PDP 98-20 - REFER BACK FROM CITY COUNCIL OF AN APPEAL TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25226 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the owner of the project had some problems with the Conditions of Approval and appealed the project to Council. The Council affirmed the Commission's decision except for the elimination of a roof tower. It was then requested to be referred back to the Commission for final disposition. The owner made some changes to the plans including opening up the required guest space, adding a new deck at the front of the building to provide additional open space, not eliminating the roof tower and added some detailing and articulation to the north elevation.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Jerry Compton of JWC Architects has worked with the designer who has a modified perspective drawing, and there have been substantial modifications made to the building. He pointed out that the project has a large front yard setback at 9 feet on one side and 17.6 feet on the other side. He reviewed the site plan and revisions with the Commission.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz appreciates the creativity with which the Commission's concerns were addressed, but still feels the building is too large.
Commissioner Pizer feels the improvements are done well and the building will look much better. Also, the owner is entitled to the disproportionate building.
Commissioner Perrotti is concerned about the guest parking and suggested when staff reviews the Commission's revisions to guest parking, that it be made clearer in the Code concerning condominiums that guest parking is common area and not part of the unit.
Chairman Tucker feels the project is too bulky and is not in conformity with the neighborhood.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution as written.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
10. CUP 98-9 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ON-SALE ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND TO ADD A DANCING AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 1100 THE STRAND, SCOTTY'S. Staff Recommended Action: To continue to February 16, 1999 meeting for the applicant to submit revised plans.
City Planner Schubach stated staff is recommending to continue this item as a result of the plans that were submitted lacking enough information for staff to make a recommendation.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to CONTINUE this item to the February 16, 1999 Meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
This Commission took a 10-minute break at 8:40 p.m.
The Commission reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
11. CUP 98-10 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1200 HERMOSA AVENUE, CLUB SUSHI. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated dancing is allowed but the floor area itself can be regulated or approved by the Commission. The proposal is similar to other CUP's that have been granted to restaurant establishments along Pier Avenue. Staff added standard of conditions such as keeping the windows and doors shut while entertainment is being conducted, acoustical analysis and windows that restrict noise.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Jim Lissner, Hermosa Beach, opposes this addition. Live entertainment and dancing will be added to this establishment. He is concerned about restaurants turning into nightclubs. The nightclubs in the area have produced major incidences of violence.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz asked what the mezzanine is used for? Director Blumenfeld stated it is existing dining area. The occupant load was calculated, including the proposed stage area, and there will be a net increase of one to two occupants.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the applicant used the same plans that were submitted when the club was in the proposal stage, and the mezzanine was added at that time. He doesn't have a problem with a restaurant also having live entertainment or dancing. He would like to see the dancing area for the project moved from the front door to further back in the restaurant in front of the stage area.
Chairman Tucker re-opened the public hearing.
Gregory Alan, 1200 Hermosa Avenue is the proprietor of Club Sushi. Club Sushi is an upscale restaurant and is managed very professionally. It is always improving and if the CUP is approved, it would allow their dining concept to expand and remain competitive with the neighboring businesses and stay supportive of the Downtown Hermosa area. The music will not be loud and all the windows are double paned, are kept lock and there is full air conditioning. He also agreed that the dance floor could be moved back toward the stage area.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer feels the live entertainment will not change the public disturbances because it is the same basic use as before. There will just be live entertainment instead of recorded music. It has always been a meeting place, loud and full. He agrees with moving the dance floor back.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Ketz to ADOPT the Resolution as proposed with the additional modification that the dance floor be relocated closer to the stage area where it would be safer. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
12. PDP 98-32/PARK 98-4/VAR 98-8 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER "THE HERMOSA PAVILION," PARKING PLAN FOR SHARED PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE A HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING THEATER AND RETAIL USES; VARIANCE TO THE 35' HEIGHT LIMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UPPER FLOOR OPEN DECK AREAS; AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the project was originally approved as Hermosa Pavilion containing the AMC theatre and some smaller retail uses and has been largely vacant because of the project design and parking which was difficult to use. The property was purchased and a new major tenant, 24 Hour Fitness, would occupy close to half of the gross floor area. The remaining floor area would be occupied as it currently is by AMC, and restaurant/retail uses would make up the balance of the project.
The entitlement originally approved was for 72,860 SF and by enclosing the floor area above, the gross floor area is increased by about 26,290 SF with the total being 99,150 SF. There will be an increased parking demand that needs to be addressed. The applicant has prepared a parking study for the proposed project and based upon their recommendation, a shared parking analysis and tandem and valet parking has been proposed to deal with the peak periods such as early evenings on Fridays and Saturdays. The parking is proposed to be increased by 52 spaces by tandem parking on three floors on the first, second and third levels. Staff is also proposing that the parking conditions be monitored after six months.
The project variance is related to the building height. When the building was built in the mid-80's, there was a different height requirement in place. Director Blumenfeld discussed the findings. If all four findings are made, the Variance for height can be granted.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Gary Wiggle of Keisker & Wiggle Architects stated the valet will drop off in the front and pick up in the rear. He went through the plans with the Commission explaining the layout and location of the uses and the equipment.
Commissioner Ketz asked if the parking will be paid or free? Mr. Wiggle stated it will be validated which keeps the parking for the patrons at the center.
Chairman Tucker asked if the railing on the southwest corner will be as high as the structure. Mr. Wiggle stated they are using the same roof which slopes toward the ocean and are just extending the structure out. The enclosed space will be no higher than the enclosed space there presently.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the landscaping in the front. Mr. Wiggle stated there are two palm trees in the front and the landscaping will be enhanced in the entry, and they are skylighting the center area. There hasn't been a landscape plan submitted.
Chairman Tucker was concerned about there being enough room for another car next to the valet service. There needs to be two lanes. Mr. Wiggle stated they are making it as wide as they physically can with two of the columns dropping to the ground just inside the curb line presently. Because they are raising this to the plaza level, they will get the maximum width.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the parking calculations. Mr. Wiggle stated the original approval of the building included a substantial amount of restaurant with a higher parking rate than just retail. When the parking study was done, other clubs were observed that 24 Hour Fitness operates and got their actual parking counts in numbers and in time. This became the table where the shared parking comes into use. When the theatre has their demand, then the retail was added to fill in the difference. The idea is to utilize all of the parking.
Kevin McGuire, representing 24 Hour Fitness, stated they have a fair amount of experience with movie theatres. 24 Hour Fitness' peak months are January, February and March and their slowest months are June, July, August and December. The theatres' busiest months of the year are the summer months and then December. 24 Hour Fitness is peaking Monday night at 6:35 p.m., and the movie theatres are peaking Saturday night at 9:00 p.m. It's not just the days of the week but also the months of the year that are looked at. Also, Hermosa Beach is an active community with people walking or biking in to the facility. This facility will be convenient for the patrons, and it is expected to be successful.
Gene Shook, owner of the property, stated the fee is currently set at 50 cents for the first two hours for the 24 Hour Fitness patrons and 50 cents for the third hour. AMC theatres have the first three hours free with a validation. It hasn't been determined what the valet parking charge will be as of yet. They would like their parking only used by the 24 Hour Fitness and AMC theatre patrons.
There will be an entrance to go in and out of valet and another entrance to go in and out for the normal parking. When the facility is fully operational, there will be attendants in the front and in the parking structure, and this will aid the patrons going in and out easier.
Susan Mattel of Raymond Street, lives across the street from the Hermosa Pavilion and opposes the project. She feels it will hinder her view. Chairman Tucker stated the height presently will not be any taller. Ms. Mattel is concerned about glass on the front of the facility since she will loose her privacy.
Jim Lissner, Hermosa Beach, stated this will be a 24-hour facility and will be serving patrons from other towns, creating traffic. It will be a premiere facility having basketball and swimming. There will be no valet parking in the late hours, and there will be light emitting from the top of the building at night which will interfere with views. Also, noise will be created and will be disturbing late at night. Mr. Lissner also is concerned about the noise from the exercise facility. Traffic could be a problem on departure since cars will be going down Ardmore and the traffic needs to be confined on Pacific Coast Highway.
Chairman Tucker stated the basketball and pool area will be in the delivery area and won't be heard.
Kevin McGuire stated the last aerobic class will be 9:00 p.m. and nothing past 10:00 p.m. There will be a nominal amount of patrons late at night with minimal impact.
Gene Shook stated there will be far less noise and disturbance, since the facility will be enclosed with glass and walls. Outside dining will be opened into their own courtyard, not outside.
Commissioner Pizer asked if signalization may be required on 16th Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Director Blumenfeld stated Cal Trans would have to approve it.
Steve Lidel, Hermosa Beach, feels the stop light on 16th Street would be important. He feels good about the project and everyone in the community can benefit from it.
Carey Bicklemeyer of 841 13 Street, looks right over the current facility looking to the north and it has been a real eyesore for the community. He feels this project will be beneficial and asks the Commission to approve it.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ketz feels it will be a great project and good use for the building. She has a problem with the paid parking and feels it may become a traffic problem trying to get out of the facility. She doesn't think non-patrons will be parking there.
Commissioner Perrotti is also concerned about the parking but doesn't feel the validation system will inhibit people from parking in the facility. It has always been difficult to get in and out of the building and hopes with the redesign of the building will create more accessibility for parking. The 24 Hour Fitness will be a good use for the building and is not concerned with the noise. He doesn't feel there will be many people using the facility after midnight. He is in favor of approving the Variance and agreeing with the findings as described in the staff report.
Commissioner Schwartz agrees. She would like to see a condition for hours of the aerobics or loud music. She agrees with the parking being revisited in six months. Also, she would like to see the landscaping as proposed on the rendering.
Commissioner Pizer feels it is a great project. If the windows are laminated or double glazed, then the noise abatement would be solved.
The Commission would like to see an investigation on applying for a signal on 16th Street, and this could be a condition as part of the parking operation plan.
Chairman Tucker has a problem with the exiting onto 16th Street both ways since it would flow down on Ardmore. Perhaps signage could be used to control the traffic. The aerobic center shouldn't cause a sound problem due to the location and glass being used.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the Resolution concerning the expansion and remodel of the Hermosa Pavilion with the modification of paragraph 3 that a parking and traffic operation plan shall be submitted and approved by the City and at the end of the sentence stating "egress to and from the structure" add "including an investigation of the signalization of 16th Street and Pacific Coast Highway."
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to ADOPT the findings for the Variance as described in the staff report.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
13. CON 98-27/PDP 98-33 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM TO CONSTRUCT A ROOF DECK ABOVE THE REAR UNIT AT 618 1ST STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated the architecture and design of the project blends very well with the existing condominium. It has the right setbacks and does not exceed the maximum height.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Gary Fromm of Manhattan Beach, is the previous owner and builder of the property. He is representing the new owners. The architecture is identical to what was already built and the wood stairs and railings being used will be compatible with what is already present. Height isn't an issue because the ridge of the roof is the critical point of the building and they are well below this. They have the data from the original survey.
Also, a spiral stair coming off of the original deck has been investigated, but engineering wouldn't allow it due to lack of support. The floor plan is a reverse floor plan with the kitchen at the top level and the stair would come off the side of this out the back of the building and go up to the deck. It is ground supported at the doorway level with four posts, and then at the deck level it is supported off the building with cantilever beams. The deck is on the west side of the building and the back south side is a commercial wall with no impact.
Commissioner Schwartz would like to see the support for the stair treated architecturally. The applicant stated it is in the back of the house and not seen by anyone.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated except for the modification of the roof deck, everything else is in compliance.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to ACCEPT staff's recommendation.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
14. VAR 98-7 - VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING DWELLING WITH A 14' TURNING RADIUS ON THE ALLEY RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20' AT 345 30TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Schwartz left the dais, as she will be acting as a private citizen and not the role of a Commissioner and Commissioner Ketz left the dais, as she lives within a 300 foot radius.
Director Blumenfeld stated the building is currently nonconforming to the turning radius because there is 14 feet currently provided rather than the 20 feet that would be required given the existing building condition. The front yard requirement includes an encroachment over the property line, rather than a 7 foot setback, and the east side yard is 2.8 feet rather than 3 feet. The amount of improvement is less than the 50% valuation that would normally take this before Commission as a nonconforming remodel.
Four findings need to be met to grant a Variance. The applicant is making the request because of the substandard turning area from the far side of the alley. They argue that adequate turning area is available given the garage parking immediately across from their parking area. Their neighbor's garage makes the turning radius possible and will be available.
The project is not over sized for the vicinity or zone and complies with most other zoning standards. To make the garage conforming to parking and turning radius requirements would require substantial removal and relocation of the existing retaining walls which support the building, and require pushing back the retaining wall to a distance to allow this conformity to be eliminated several feet. This would require substantial and costly alteration to the foundations and the retaining walls and to other parts of the structure relative to the new addition, and supports variance findings 2, 3, and 4.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Steven Drucker of 345 30th Street, is representing the applicant. He thanked the Commission for reviewing the plans. The plans are in conformance with height, lot coverage, setbacks, open space and all other conditions required by local and state code and zoning. They are not making any changes to the building envelope on the ground floor or the garage with the exception of changing the windows and replacing the siding. They discovered they had an issue requiring a Variance only when they submitted the drawings to the City for preliminary review and discovered that the turning radius was not adequate. The Variance was triggered only because the specific wording of the Zoning Code does not accommodate for previously existing conditions and require the 20 foot radius regardless of the age and condition of the structure. Driving down the alley, many of the houses on the street would be nonconforming to the new standard which would require a 9 foot setback.
There is a possibility of making the stalls wider but the house width is limited by the lot. Extending beneath the house would involve excavation and removing the basic main bearing structure for the center of the house. They are asking for a Variance to be granted because they believe the project meets the four conditions.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker doesn't have a problem with the current turning radius.
Director Blumenfeld stated the majority of the driveways in the area are not conforming and only the newer buildings conform.
Commissioner Perrotti stated it is a unique situation with two blocks in the City that have the same conditions. Although the turning radius is nonconforming, because of the physical situation with the adjacent driveway on the other side of the alley, there is enough turning radius. He feels the findings can be met.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Variance as stated.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ketz and Schwartz
HEARINGS
15. NR 98-15--NONCONFORMING REMODEL AND EXPANSION, ADDING SECOND FLOOR, EXCEEDING 50% OF EXISTING VALUATION AT 425 29TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Ketz returned to the dais at 10:50 p.m.
City Planner Schubach stated there are some modifications that will be necessary to be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of lot coverage, maximum valuation, eaves and setbacks, but staff has added these conditions to the Resolution. There shouldn't be any difficulty meeting these requirements. The windows at the first floor will need be recessed.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Carl Swanberg of 425 29th Street, stated on the west side of the property they are within 2.5 inches short to being 3 feet on the side yard. Otherwise, they would be conforming. He would like to discuss items 1a-1h. Mr. Schubach stated all these items will be taken care of in plan check.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE said request. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schwartz
16. A-14 - APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY ADDING LIVING AREA WITH EXTERIOR ACCESS ONLY AT 232 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Schwartz returned to the dais. Director Blumenfeld stated the appellant submitted a plan for remodeling and adding to his existing structure. The plans included demolition to an existing one-car garage and elimination of a second kitchen in the main dwelling unit. The plan proposes a new two-car garage with a "library and bedroom" above the area with a total of 338 square feet. The applicant indicates that this will be his home office. While the addition is attached to the main building, it does not include interior access to the main dwelling.
The Zoning Ordinance is unambiguous about this issue and states "all rooms comprising a dwelling unit shall have interior access through an interior doorway not containing a deadbolt lock to other parts of the dwelling unit." If there is exterior access, the Zoning Ordinance would not permit this since this would be considered to be a separate dwelling unit.
The appellant is requesting a more favorable interpretation rather than staff's interpretation. Because the site is zoned R-3 and would otherwise allow two units, the applicant questions whether the definition of the dwelling unit necessarily applies to these circumstances. He notes that the project will actually reduce the existing nonconformities because there will be the removal of the kitchen and an additional second parking space and only a limited amount of additional living space will be provided.
The Code does not give City staff the flexibility to apply a different definition of a dwelling unit for these circumstances or because the dwelling unit is located in the R-3 zone.
While the R-3 zoning would allow two units to comply with the Code, the second unit would have to contain a kitchen and two parking spaces required. If the argument is that nonconformity of number of units with respect to parking is being maintained, the maximum addition with one parking space per unit is 250 square feet. The project would need to be reduced in size or additional parking would have to be provided in order for this to qualify for an additional unit.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Joel Smith of 232 Monterey Boulevard stated the house was built in 1914 and one of the few remaining beach houses left in the area. It was added onto with a mother-in-law apartment in 1948 and declared illegal two family in the 1970's. When he purchased the house in 1984, it was purchased as a two family. It has been a single family residence since 1986 and he would like to maintain it as a single family residence. He is in the process of remodeling and everything he has done to the house so far has made it structurally more sound with upgrades. He would like to have an office space separate from the main dwelling. The plans could be modified and have interior access but people visiting him in his office would have to enter through a family room. He would lose the ocean facing windows and light. Being utilized as a bootleg makes no sense because that could be done now without a remodel.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer asked if the additional unit could have exterior access and interior access. Director Blumenfeld stated two means of access could be provided, but the Zoning Ordinance states that interior access must be provided, but there could also be exterior access.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the Code is fairly explicit in that it states to have a dwelling unit, there must be interior access.
Chairman Tucker and Commissioner Perrotti agreed.
Commissioner Ketz would like to see the house maintained, but it is unusual to have a bedroom that just accessed the outside.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to UPHOLD the Community Development Director's decision denying the living area with exterior access only.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
17. STAFF ITEMS
Chairman Tucker stated a mural for downtown business isn't what the Commission approved. Also, on the Sandcastle Plaza project, the direction of the Commission was to remove all the garages. Not all of them have been removed. Director Blumenfeld will check into this. Also, Chairman Tucker stated the Sangria restaurant has a new awning that was not approved. Director Blumenfeld stated for the patio area, there was only a trellis structure and no awning. The addition of the tarp/awning was not approved and the building inspector advised the owner that the owner needs to correct the condition, including submitting information on whether it is fire retardant and appropriate for commercial use.
18. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Chairman Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|