|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 01-19-99
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 1998, 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 Ketz 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
Director Blumenfeld requested confirmation by minute order from the Commission of Item 7 of Public Hearings, CON 98-15/PDP 98-20 from the October 20, 1998 Meeting. The minutes reflected that the roof tower and terrace be eliminated from the rear unit. The Commission confirmed by minute order that the elimination should be on the front unit, not the rear.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Planning Commission action minutes that are normally prepared and issued to Council will not be considered until the Council Meeting on December 8, 1998 , due to the holiday schedule. The action minutes can be reviewed on Monday, December 7, 1998.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, 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. CON 98-21/PDP 98-26--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25177 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1036 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 20 AND NOVEMBER 17, 1998 MEETINGS).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated the revised plans comply with all of the Zoning Ordinances and Planning Commission policies. Staff has added their standard Conditions to the Resolution of Approval.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about a shelf that is sticking out in the required side yard setback and it wasn't clear on the plans where this is located. Director Blumenfeld said it is at the second floor level. The Zoning Ordinance permits architectural projections if they are limited and are not part of the gross floor area.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the three quarter bath in the basement says shower, but it shows bathtub. Director Blumenfeld stated this could be modified to be made a shower enclosure.
Chairman Tucker is concerned with the utilities since the lot is split. The electrical is in the back and the sewer is in the front. Director Blumenfeld stated a reciprocal easement could be considered between owners.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated the shelf is very similar to a bay window and would have an elevation that is raised above and wouldn't be floor area. Also, changing the tub to a shower is not a problem. The door on the back is desirable because it goes out to a patio. The door on the side yard can be removed but they would like to keep the double doors off of the bonus room to the patio.
Chairman Tucker said the only way to get to the back yard is by going up the circular staircase, across the front porch and then back down the other set of stairs. Ms. Vargo stated that is why the opening from the bonus room is desirable so the back yard is more accessible.
Peter Ellis at 1039 Sunset lives in the back house. He is concerned about the shelf protrusion coming out too far so light can be preserved.
Verne Sax of 200 Pier Avenue stated the sewer easement is shown on the plan, coming through the back wall and down the southerly side yard. The owner of that utility will be responsible for paying for that utility to be moved. The shelf can be removed if it is a problem. The 1 foot projection into the side yard articulates the building and he would not want to lose this. He also agreed to modify the three quarter bath from a tub to a shower. The side door is for a dog access and the rear door is access to the bonus room to a private patio.
Commissioner Schwartz was concerned about the planting area between the driveways. She would like to see something three dimensional. Mr. Sax stated the idea was to separate the driveways without projecting into the area of the driveways.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker is concerned with the chimney being too massive.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the Resolution with the following specifications: That the three quarter bath be shown as only a shower, the shelf area on the second floor be solid up to 30 inches above the finished floor at a minimum and that the door into the side yard be eliminated.
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.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 19, 1999 Meeting.
City Planner Schubach stated they are asking for a continuance since there were too many zoning issues that needed to be dealt with.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti noticed that the bathroom in the basement is a full bath. Mr. Schubach stated they will make sure this becomes a three quarter bath.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to CONTINUE this item to the January 19, 1999 Meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
9. PARK 98-3--PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE AVAILABLE FLOOR AREA FOR DINING WITHOUT ADDING PARKING AT 117 PIER AVENUE, SEAFOOD GROTTO. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant is requesting that the Commission consider allowing reconfiguration of the dining area without providing any additional parking. The request is to modify the seating plan and to make changes to the floor plan layout to provide dining for 12 customers in a portion of the former "retail" area. This would require converting some of the storage area located at the rear of the building. The applicant is proposing to remove the bar stools and reconfigure other tables in the front area resulting in a net decrease in the occupant load by 12 seats. Also, the applicant is requesting that the portion of the front that was used for seating be turned over to the seafood market to be considered their retail footage.
It is not possible to substitute restaurant use for the retail portion without the applicant providing the full complement of parking in lieu. The parking calculation is based on gross floor area and a mechanism would need to be set up to identify the retail area and whatever seating area that must be decreased The changes for the use must balance with the parking requirement.
Because of the nature of this change, staff is requesting Commission direction. Staff doesn't feel this is a minor modification and the Commission had some specific instructions with the retail area and its maintenance.
Commissioner Schwartz asked what staff is looking for in terms of the demarcation? Director Blumenfeld stated there are some existing low walls at 36 inches height designed around part of the seating area, and it may be possible to demarcate the areas with the extension of these walls and maintain the design. Something similar could be done in the area that the applicant wants to occupy at the rear of the business.
Commissioner Pizer asked what is considered retail for this type of restaurant? Director Blumenfeld stated it would be something that is not consumed on site, including shirts and hats with the business name and logo or seafood items to be prepared and consumed off-site.
Director Blumenfeld stated beyond whatever the Commission approves, the Coastal Commission also needs to approve the parking if there is an intensification of use.
Commissioner Pizer asked if there is any limitation to the balance of retail and restaurant use as long as the applicant pays the in lieu parking? The applicant could chose to request that the Commission accept an in lieu fee for the parking.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Donald Gnanakone of 117 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated they are not increasing the capacity of the restaurant. They are decreasing the front seating by 12 and they want to add 12 in the rear. They have already removed the stools. The total capacity is still 48. The booths are occupied by couples and sometimes singles and the tables are occupied by singles. With about 28 or 29, sometimes all the tables are occupied and this is why they are making this request. They are already using 108 square feet for retail. They would also like to have another area for retail selling shirts, caps, etc. The parking will not be increased and is allocated to the premise.
Commissioner Pizer asked if the new seating arrangement will increase the floor area by 120 square feet? Mr. Gnanakone stated it will be balanced. They will not be using the stool area and there will be a reduction in tables in the front.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti doesn't think there will be an increase in the parking demand with the arrangement of the way it is proposed.
Commissioner Ketz feels this isn't an intensification of use and the retail sales area in the front is a much better location.
Chairman Tucker stated he met with Director Blumenfeld and presented some ideas to reconfigure the floor plan.
Commissioner Schwartz stated staff needs to work with the applicant to come up with a plan that can be demarcated so the Commission can figure out what is retail and restaurant space.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Ketz that staff work with the applicant showing the 250 square feet of retail designated on the plan. Passed 5-0.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
The Commission took a 5 minute break at 8:20 pm.
10. CON 98-25/PDP 98-30--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25320 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1619 & 1625 PROSPECT AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated staff is recommending approval of the two-unit condominium as it meets all zoning standards relative to lot coverage open space and landscaping and is proposed for a large lot with just two units. The only issue of concern was a 17 foot wide clearance in the driveway between the support posts and staff has added a condition to deal with the matter in the Conditions of Approval.
Chairman Tucker asked about the trash area in the side area? Director Blumenfeld feels there would be room to put the trash area in the garage. Chairman Tuckers also would like a yard drain with a sump pump to prevent runoff from this project into the people below.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo at 5147 Rosecrans, Hawthorne is representing the applicant. The parcel is very large at over 6,000 square feet and there are only two dwelling units proposed. They are single family, detached condominium units with significant rear yards. The Code requirement for open space is 300 square feet per unit. There is one unit with 900 square feet and the other with almost 1300 square feet of open space. There is ample landscaping and is at the 30 foot height limit. There is plenty of architectural detail.
Lee Grant of 1011 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated this project abuts the rear of their property. He is concerned about the loss of trees in the back which are on the property of the proposed project. The trees offer greenery, shade and privacy. The project will also tower over their property. He would like the privacy and aesthetic issue considered. He is suggesting that the trees and shrubs that currently exist within the 5 foot setback be required to remain and be maintained. He would also like the existing mature Olive Tree which is 40 feet in height with a trunk circumference of 18 inches be allowed to remain if possible or have it replaced with a similar tree. He will be facing a massive stucco wall from the project and trees and shrubs could help disguise this. There will also be a concrete block wall built along the project property line and there is currently an existing wood fence. He would like to have the new wall be incorporated or use the same kind of wood design fence that is existing. Also, he would like to have the wiring that is attached to the top of the existing fence be removed. The trash cans should be moved between the two patio units to insure that any odor, noise or critter infestation be concentrated away from the properties on 16th Street.
John Duran at 1019 16th Street lives directly across from the proposed trash area. He is concerned about this and also agrees with Lee Grant's proposals.
Dierdra Grant at 1011 16th Street is also concerned with the elevation of the project which is 3 feet higher than their property. That are several windows directly facing down on their property and invade their privacy.
REBUTTAL
Ms. Vargo stated there is one 12 inch tree which will probably be in the backyard of the unit and can be saved. There is a 20 foot tree and an 18 foot tree which will be in the building footprint and can't be saved.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there are two trees on the site plan that are shown as being saved. Ms. Vargo stated she was just discussing the ones on the side. Landscaping can be put in for screening but they wouldn't want it to hinder light and air circulation. Also, the fencing request would not be a problem to meet.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the project as proposed is OK except for a few modifications. He lives in that area and said there are a lot of skunks and possums roaming around and the trash area should be moved into the garage. There should be a Resolution to save as many trees as possible and add some screening landscaping back in the rear of the property.
Commissioner Ketz agrees. She was glad to see two different elevations on these two homes.
Commissioner Pizer feels it is a nice project with adequate setbacks. The trash can be moved into the garage. The height is legal and there is much more setback than what most projects have in the backyard.
Commissioner Schwartz agrees and also feels it is a nice looking project. She is concerned about the side door in the basement which might encourage bootlegging for that entire ground floor. Chairman Tucker stated their policy has been to eliminate that side door.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the proposed Resolution with the following modifications: The trash area be moved from the side yard to the garage, there be a Condition that as many existing trees be saved as possible, there be some additional landscaping put in the rear of the properties for screening, there be a Condition for a sump pump or catch basin if it is needed, language concerning the hold harmless that the City will not be responsible if there is flooding, and the side door be removed in the basement. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
11. PDP 97-13/PARK 97-4--PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 TO ELIMINATE CONDITION NO. 7 AND CONDITION NO. 10 RELATING TO CONVEX MIRROR AND SPEED BUMP AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, STARBUCKS COFFEE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Planning Commission originally approved this project in September 1997 and included two Conditions in the Conditions of Approval. The installation of a speed bump and a convex mirror as traffic mitigations for the proposed drive-thru. In November 1997, staff requested that the Commission reconsider the requirement to install the speed bump at the exit of the drive-thru. Subsequently in March 1998, the Commission was asked by staff to reconsider the installation of not only the speed bump but the convex mirror because staff felt it didn't improve traffic safety. Staff believes the Conditions don't serve the intended purposes. The City's traffic engineer recommended elimination of the speed bump and suggested installing a convex mirror and a traffic sign at the window. At the time the owner installed the convex mirror, it was found that it wasn't possible to actually install it far enough from the drive-thru window to give a clear line of sight around the corner. It would pose a hazard for truck traffic in the parking area.
Staff is recommending that the Commission amend Resolution 9751 to eliminate Conditions 7 and 10.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if staff or Traffic looked at the idea of having the dots as a warning device to slow the traffic? Director Blumenfeld stated yes and at the time the traffic engineer suggested that might have been a suitable alternative and also suggested a sign at the drive-thru.
Commissioner Schwartz stated it seems to be a popular drive-thru.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Ketz to APPROVE said request. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
HEARINGS
12. NR 98-12--NONCONFORMING REMODEL FOR A 250 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE DUPLEX WITH ONLY ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT AT 132 LONGFELLOW AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated staff is recommending approval with Conditions. As proposed the project would result in excessive lot coverage and reduction in open space. But with some adjustments to the amount of square footage being proposed, the applicant can resolve their problems and have a smaller development with the adequate open space and still have an additional expansion to the existing development.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if staff has talked with the property owner regarding the changes? Mr. Schubach stated no and the applicant hasn't contacted them.
Chairman Tucker asked about a trash area? Mr. Schubach stated being nonconforming existing, the applicant is allowed not to have one. They are required to have it screened by the Municipal Code and the cans have to be put away after the trash collector has come by.
Efrain Escallante of 1852 Lomita Boulevard is representing the applicant. He will be happy to answer questions.
Commissioner Perrotti stated staff mentioned that the additional floor area and deck did not comply with the current zoning standards. Would there be any problems with reducing the deck? The applicant stated he would like to see the deck the way it has been done because the open area remained the same way it was and the area that they are adding is only 236 square feet.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Chris Caras, 719 Yarmath Road, Palos Verdes Estates stated the project actually is not going to impact any view or light problems because it abuts to a commercial piece of property that is much higher than the proposed addition. The addition of approximately 236 square feet merely adds 1 bathroom and enlarges the existing bedroom, making it more workable. They would request that the Commission waive the area lot coverage due to the circumstances that this building abuts to a blank tall wall of the market. The footprint on the property has not changed at all and the existing deck is extended out over the garage area, and part of the existing deck area is used for the conversion to the bedroom and the extra bathroom. By reducing the size will probably make that bedroom rather small. The plan does show 456 square feet of patio area that could be reduced without creating a problem.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ketz stated the whole point of nonconforming use is that when it reaches the end of its useful life it should redevelop and become conforming. Allowing an expansion nonconforming use expands the nonconformity for another twenty years. This does not meet the parking requirements and only has 1 space per unit. Also, it will exceed lot coverage and doesn't have setbacks. She can't see allowing this to happen.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he is not in agreement with the applicant's request to waive the lot coverage. He agrees with the Conditions in the Resolution and staff's recommendations to have the expanded deck modified and that there would be the legal lot coverage and open space.
Commissioners Schwartz and Pizer and Chairman Tucker agreed.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE said request subject to compliance with the lot coverage. AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: Ketz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
13. NR 98-13--NONCONFORMING REMODEL FOR EXPANSION OF 250 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DUPLEX WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED PARKING AT 733 30TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a legal nonconforming use because it is located in the R-1 Zone which only allows one unit per lot. The building is also nonconforming to parking because it provides 1 space per unit rather than 2, and the garage qualifies as only one space, and only one additional parking space can be provided in tandem behind the garage.
In addition, there is an illegal 6-foot high fence which would have to be reduced in height as part of the project. It was never legally permitted and a maximum 42 inch high fence is required in the front yard and a Condition has been established in the Conditions of Approval relative to this.
The applicant is proposing to expand the front unit of the duplex by adding a bedroom, laundry room and expanding the living room area. The proposed project basically will comply with all the zoning requirements. The garage parking qualifies only as one parking space because the driveway leading to the garage will only accommodate one additional parking space. While you could park several cars in the driveway, under the Zoning Ordinance you can only park two in tandem.
Overall, the project complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, given the existing lot size and age of the structure and the condition of the existing structure, staff believes also that there is ample on site parking and staff recommends approval.
Chairman Tucker would like to get the fence down before construction starts or occupancy happens. Director Blumenfeld stated the Condition under Section 5 could be amended that refers to the existing fence.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Lechter of 733 30th Street presented pictures to the Commission. She is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the project proposing an addition of 250 square feet and to not tie this same project to the existing fence mentioned on page 4, section 5.2. This fence was built without a permit since 1980 and has been there until now, not disturbing anyone. With the flowers hanging on it, it makes a beautiful view for the employees and customers of the Vasek Polak BMW Dealership. For the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code book, page 17-46 4 paragraph F is attached to her letter. It is necessary to have a fence at her property because there is a commercial use across from her house where there is traffic of cars, employees and customers of the BMW Dealership all day and everyday of the week mitigating potential noise and visual of the non-residential use on a residential use. She is planning to submit a proposal for a permit for the same fence as soon as possible.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer asked if this is approved with the Conditions regarding the fence, the applicant could still apply to get a permit for a fence on the property as another item? Director Blumenfeld stated they can't issue a building permit for the fence if it is over height. The applicant would have to also apply for a Variance. It would have to be re-noticed and the application fee would change.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if they could continue this item so the applicant could add this issue to the package and be on the calendar for next time? Director Blumenfeld stated it could be continued but is not sure the owner would want to due to timing issues.
Chairman Tucker stated if the fence was cut down to 42 inches and the hedge was left, then it could be approved.
Elizabeth Lechter stated the fence requirements were not mentioned to her and that is why she came this evening with the letter. She would like to get a permit for the fence and she cannot delay the construction because she is living in the back unit in one bedroom with her daughter. She would be willing to reduce the height of the fence later if it is needed.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the nonconforming remodel of the Resolution as written by staff with the modification that on paragraph 2 that the language be added that staff recommended after the words "site plan and either reduced in height or removed prior to issuance of Building Permit" as an enforcement. AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: Ketz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
14. NR 98-14--EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO A NONCONFORMING BUILDING, RESULTING IN A GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 1850 MANHATTAN AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated there is the amount of parking necessary of more than the restricted 250 square feet and the applicant has proposed going over 50% which requires Planning Commission approval of the evaluation of the existing improvements on the property. There is also a greater than 30% of exterior wall removal. However, staff has added typical Conditions of Approval to this project. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Perrotti asked what will happen if this is approved tonight with the existing plans that are proposed and then during the inspection, additional walls have to come down. Mr. Schubach stated it would have to come back to the Commission for further review and approval.
Chairman Tucker stated when an old home is remodeled, there will not be a lot left because of the structural Codes today. The house will be gutted and they will start over.
Commissioner Ketz asked if the building inspectors catch how much percentage of linear feet is taken out? Mr. Schubach stated staff looks at it as it is proposed in the plans. There is suppose to be an engineering report that indicates how much is actually going to be removed prior to getting building permits. There can only be so much expansion from 1989 onward. Anything before 1989 is "Grandfathered" in. This is all on file.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Louis Tomaro, the architect for the applicant stated the project is an existing two unit which needs to be taken into account because it is partially the reason for the considerable remodel. There are two kitchens and the entire house interior has to be remodeled to get it to be a single family house. There is a nonconforming side yard on the south side which is encroaching approximately 6 inches. The nonconforming north side abutting 19th Street is open to a public right-of-way and the encroachment is not as severe. They have proposed a large parking area below the structure which adds to the 50% with a considerable amount of storage area. This was a request of the owners to try to get parking off the street and to provide as much storage area as possible. As they got into the project, it was determined that they had to reconfigure a little bit more of the house than was anticipated to get it to work as a single family. The existing building is not changing that much. The physical structure is fairly intact and their intention is to keep as much as they possibly can of the parameter walls.
Commissioner Ketz asked the applicant if they considered in their design removing the wall that is nonconforming in moving it back? Mr. Tomaro stated they tried to maintain the exterior walls. They are adding some square footage in the existing court yard that exists in the house and removing interior nonbearing walls.
Commissioner Ketz asked the applicant why they are putting the garage on Manhattan Avenue? Mr. Tomaro stated part of the charm of the property is that it is large with a nice back yard. The designs turns the garage to living space which could benefit from the back yard. There is a very large under floor area that currently exists under the house and is dead space and would be a good place to put the garage with easier accessibility. If the garage faced 19th Street, it would infringe on the back yard area. The front door is on 19th Street but the actual front appearance of the house is on Manhattan Avenue.
Looking at the first floor plan on sheet A3, Chairman Tucker stated it looks like the whole floor is going to be all new stud wall. Mr. Tomaro stated they are showing the area that the City is requiring them to be qualified as remodel area. When they started with the project, they were trying to salvage as much as the house they possibly could. Chairman Tucker is concerned there will be a point where they will have to stop the project and then bring everything into conformance. In the southwest corner, is there another wall being built to beef up the wall that is there? Mr. Tomaro stated they are moving the wall end of the house there to meet the setback requirements because they are putting a new foundation underneath that part of it.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the owner is aware of the issues and concerns and she is comfortable at this level of approving the expansion and remodel.
Commissioner Pizer feels it is a good project from the viewpoint of reduced density from duplex to single and there is a large parking area and open space. There is a risk and the Commission has to assume that the owner, architect and the builder know what they're doing.
Commissioner Perrotti agreed. Some of the nonconformities will exist in the after condition, especially along 19th Street. They are demolishing the second kitchen which was nonconforming and the project is bringing some of the nonconformities back to legal. They could also demolish the whole thing and build two units since it is still R-2. He agrees with the Resolution.
Commissioner Ketz feels it is a stretch saying the project is a remodel. It is a major construction and the whole appearance is being changed. There will be almost a rear yard on Manhattan Avenue with no front door there with a garage. She can't support this project.
Chairman Tucker agreed with the project being more than a remodel. He feels there will be problems. He would like to see added in the Resolution a hold harmless agreement that there will be a sump pump needed in the garage since it is below the street level. He will support the project.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to ADOPT the Resolution as proposed with the addition of the hold harmless and requirement for a sump pump in the garage area. AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: Ketz ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
15. LLA 98-2--LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 927 8TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated this lot line adjustment is a benefit to the applicant as well as the City. By changing three legal "Grandfathered" in lots, two of which are only 20 feet wide and one 40 feet, this lot line adjustment would create two 40 foot wide lots which would be a much more adequate development. In this case, they can be built as two single family residences. There is a 20 foot parcel to the east and a 20 foot parcel to the west of the 40 foot parcel in the middle. Staff is recommending approval.
Comm. Schwartz asked if these three lots are owned by one owner? Mr. Schubach stated yes.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo stated these lots on the block were 40 feet wide and prior to the Subdivision Map Act when you could transfer property by a deed cut, the 20 foot parcels on either side of the 40 foot lot were separated. They are legal nonconforming lots. In the middle there is a single family home and a detached garage which will be demolished. What will be created are two 40 foot wide single family lots where there could be a single family home on each one of them.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the proposed Lot Line Adjustment. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
16. S-4(r)-REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW A MURAL SIGN AS AN EXCEPTION TO SIGN REQUIREMENTS AT 1242 HERMOSA AVENUE, FERNANDO'S.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated the owner of the business is proposing to replace an existing mural sign with a business identification sign which would be located on a west facing portion building of the store front. The Zoning Ordinance defines a mural as something that has pictorial representation but doesn't identify goods or services that are being offered. The owner is requesting consideration of this sign as a mural sign. It contains the business name but it is integrated into part of the mural. The area that is covered by the mural is in excess of what would be allowed as an identification sign and would have to be approved in this manner in order for it to be an allowable sign.
Commissioner Perrotti stated if it was considered a business identification sign, how large could it be? Director Blumenfeld stated it is 2 square feet per building front footage. What would be allowed would be considerably smaller.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Fernando Adames at 1242 Hermosa Avenue will answer any questions.
Chairman Tucker thanked him for applying for a permit this time.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the name of the establishment is in the mural, would it then be a business identification sign? Director Blumenfeld stated yes, it is identifying the business. A mural is meant to be pictorial. The applicant needs to separate the two. "Fernando's" needs to be put on the sign some other way, not in the mural.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to DIRECT staff in that the name of the business cannot be part of the mural and must be separate from the mural. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
17. STAFF ITEMS
City Planner Schubach stated there is a request to obtain an interpretation as to an exterior door that the applicant would like to install in a condominium project. Initially, the Planning Commission had said that the door was not allowed at the basement level and the proposed door is actually halfway up the staircase and then there are steps leading from the door down back into the yard. Staff felt there was no way of accessing the backyard in any easy manner because of the fencing being put in and some landscape raised planter boxes along the side yards. Staff is looking for direction.
Director Blumenfeld stated there wasn't a fence shown on the original plans but it is allowed by right at 6 feet.
Chairman Tucker stated what they saw originally is not what they are seeing tonight and that's why they originally said no doors.
MOTION by Chairman Tucker for clarification of the door. AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ketz
18. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chairman Tucker wished the citizens of Hermosa Beach and the commissioners a happy holiday and prosperous new year.
MOTION by Chairman Tucker to ADJOURN the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|