|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 11-17-98
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1998, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tucker at 7:10 p.m.
Commissioner Perrotti led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the resolutions.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
Jim Lissner at 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, CA wished to pull the minutes. He requested that the CUP98-7 hours be clarified and noted that the CUP is giving 2 am hours on page 5 regarding the CUP. He would also like clarification on why Chairman Tucker voted against the motion. Also on page 5, first paragraph he would like the word "rebel" to be replaced with "rebelers."
Chairman Tucker stated he voted against the motion because he wanted to see a better utilization of the back room. He felt the usage as being a storeroom isn't what they intended. The minutes will be clarified with more detail.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the minutes with modifications as discussed.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Jim Lissner at 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, CA wished to express his concern about the item that slipped past the Council a week ago about having alcohol events for any citizen who wants to apply for one on the beach, any of the parks or any of the public spaces. It is coming back to the City Council a week from today for final vote and Mr. Lissner hopes the Commission will express their concerns.
HEARINGS
The following item was requested to be heard first on the Agenda.
18. CON 96-5/PDP 96-6--REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #24249 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDO CONVERSION AT 1723-1725 GOLDEN AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request for one year extension.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a request to extend the existing map by one year to October 29, 1999. This can be done by minute order.
The Commission SO ORDERED BY MINUTE ORDER .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. CON 98-15/PDP 98-20--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25226 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 18 AND SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 MEETINGS).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission previously asked the applicant to revise their project plans to deal with the bulkiness of the project, to add additional parking (1 guest space), to deal with the lot coverage which exceeded the maximum allowed, to deal with the accessibility of the open space and to separate the access that was provided at the basement area. The applicant has worked with staff and has made these changes.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned whether guest parking can be closed off in a garage. Director Blumenfeld questioned whether the guest parking space can be closed off.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Rosecrans, Hawthorne is representing the applicant. She stated the parking is very tight for the guest parking and it is open because of the width. With a wall, there wouldn't be sufficient width for 3 parking stalls. There is a door to make it private. She showed the Commission the renderings of before and after, showing the extent of the changes. All of the concerns have been met.
Commissioner Schwartz would like to make sure that a bar area that is being proposed will not result in the project becoming a bootleg unit. Ms. Vargo stated they will do to the best of their ability to prevent a potential for a bootleg.
Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant has eliminated the accessibility of the unit at the basement level. He stated there is limited authority under the Zoning Ordinance to regulate potential for bootleg units. He stated that several development standards relative to R-2 and R-3 development are under consideration and that perhaps these issues can be addressed in revised development standards.
Asenka Nitzow, 602 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach is the applicant and is living next door to the project. They have a lot of items and require more storage.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated there has been improvement in the project but it still looks very massive. She is concerned about the parking and would like to bring in the wall and leave the guest parking unenclosed. She doesn't see any reason to give flexibility in the definition of accessibility for open space since the units are huge. There are plenty of ways to accomplish what is typically required for other projects. She would also like to see some detail around the window frames to make the elevation look less severe.
Commissioner Perrotti agrees with Commissioner Schwartz. The north elevation on the second floor needs more articulation.
Chairman Tucker is concerned with the second guest spot. He would like to see the wall on the north side shortened or the area opened up. The open space off the living area is still too overwhelming. He would like to see the sun room turned into a balcony off the family living room and eliminate the deck above. The front of the project is too massive and doesn't fit with the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Pizer agrees that the guest parking should be open.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution with the following changes: The second guest parking space be opened up so it's not part of the two-car garage and the wall be moved back against the second space to allow for a better turning radius; the plans be revised so that the open space and the amount of open space accessible to the units be adhered to; the sun room be opened to minimize building mass on the front of the project, the tower be removed and roof deck on the rear unit as well, to make the project less massive; and the north elevation get further design and detailing.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
8. CON 98-18/PDP 98-23--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25212 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 301 2ND STREET (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 MEETING).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a four-unit project, replacing the six units currently on the site. The units are 2100-2200 square feet. Each unit is attached with three bedrooms and two full baths, one three quarter bath and one half bath. The buildings are two stories with a basement. The garages are accessed from 2nd Street on the south and all the required parking is provided in four two-car garages and there are eight guest parking spaces. All the yards are conforming and the proposed height is conforming as well. The plan meets all the other requirements. The applicant will provide a required landscape plan.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo at 5147 West Rosecrans, Hawthorne provided the rendering. The initial submittal plans were lacking in a few areas and the plans shown tonight meet all the criteria. The landscape plan will be submitted with the final working drawings, and additional trees will be included.
Commissioner Schwartz would like to see some differences in the units. Ms. Vargo stated the units are attached and are one project and are intended to look the same for continuity.
Chairman Tucker suggested varying balcony railing between units with wrought iron, concrete, and glass.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated the north elevation looks like one big wall with no relief. He would like this broken up.
Commissioner Schwartz would like to see some differences between the units, not just a balcony.
Chairman Tucker suggested different roof tile, and noted that the driveways resulting in expanses of paving and suggested some trees can be put in at the unit entries. Director Blumenfeld stated this project, which is considered row housing, includes averaging of the side yards and the minimum required yard of 7.5 feet is available because of the geometry of the buildings which provides substantial building setbacks.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to ADOPT the Resolution with the following modifications: When the landscaping plan is reviewed, staff work with the applicant adding some more landscaping in the front. Modify the decorative concrete to eliminate the one mass of concrete, using different colors and patterns. Make the units different by modifying the glass on the balconies, making them rod iron. The entry doors and garage doors be different so they are not all the same. Also two different blends of tile be used on the roof.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
9. GP 98-2/ZON 98-3 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM CC, COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, TO MD, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND ZONE CHANGE FROM SPA7, SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 7, TO R-2, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 731 4TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated there are two resolutions that are attached to the report. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the Resolution #1 will need to be adopted. If the request is denied, then Resolution #2 will need to be adopted. The lot is located south of 4th Street and is the first lot west of the commercial development that fronts on PCH. The lot is located about 180 feet from PCH and the property is designated medium density residential and on the General Plan Map, but on SPA7 on the Zoning Map, the SPA Zone allows for some limited commercial expansion but only if it is contiguous to the rest of the commercial development to the east. No stand alone commercial developments are permitted. The existing use can remain residential which is currently a single family home. The owner could expand it as a single family home substantially, but could only develop it as a single family home.
The issue for the applicant is that they believe that if there be significantly more utility of the property, if it could be re-zoned to R-2. The City Council had some problems with a recent zone change request to the north, Learned Lumber property, and this is analogous to that and approving this change would preclude assembly of the property for commercial development in that the commercial lot depth which was an issue for the City Council at the time would be reduced from 180 feet to 140 feet. The Council was concerned that the quality of commercial development is affected if there is not a significant amount of commercial depth. He noted that this is a stand alone parcel and is not currently connected to the commercial development to the east.
Commissioner Perrotti clarified that in the current zoning SPA7, condos cannot be built. The applicant can continue using it as a single family residence or somehow persuade the existing adjacent commercial to expand into that area? Director Blumenfeld stated this is correct.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the third line down in the staff analysis in the paragraph background, it states the property is designated Medium Density Residential and it should state it is Commercial Corridor.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Tom Engelbach, at 550 Rosecrans Avenue, Manhattan Beach stated he purchased the property with plans to eventually develop it. He talked to the current owner of the commercial property that has the PCH frontage and he said he wasn't interested in any type of future development. Mr. Engelbach then talked to Carol Doff from the Chamber of Commerce and she felt the property should be residential. Mr. Engelbach also spoke to Jim La Point of Sun Point Realty and he wrote a letter recommending also the property be residential. Mr. Engelbach passed out picture to the Commission showing two properties that were attractive and how he would like the property developed, re-developing it into two condominiums and he would plan on living in one of them. Mr. Engelbach also spoke to the Council and believes it should be re-zoned to an R-2.
William Eger, 23822 Vine Avenue, Torrance has lived in Hermosa Beach for 53 years. He owns the property that is east of the lot in question. How many units can be put on there? Director Blumenfeld stated it depends on the lot size, but it looks like two units. Mr. Eger's concern is the parking.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated in the analysis, staff mentions that directly to the north and south of the subject property there are residential uses. Also on the west, there is a large residential. When the zoning was changed in 1989, it was zoned R-3 prior to that and now the only thing that can be done is to modify the house into a bigger single family house. With the very large residential developments on all sides except for the east, it wouldn't fit in. the best use of this lot would be R-2. If two condominiums were proposed, there would have to be adequate parking on the site and conform to all the building and zoning regulations. The prospect of this lot being merged in with the other commercial lots to the east seems remote. It is a stand alone parcel and can't be developed commercially by itself. It would be best to re-zone it to R-2 and amend the General Plan. This is different from the Learned property because they are only dealing with 5000 square feet. A loss of 40 feet of commercial depth is on a local street and isn't on PCH.
Commissioner Schwartz agrees and there isn't any reasonable alternative if it is not merged to become part of the commercial area. It should be approved for R-2. She stated in their packets there was a memo from Staff which stated the notice for the meeting was not clearly visible on the front of the building.
Commissioner Pizer stated this property was purchased with full knowledge of the current zoning and the highest and best use isn't an issue. This isn't consistent with what the City Council wants in terms of the use of commercial expansion along PCH. He can't see why the zone should be changed.
Chairman Tucker agrees with the Commission. He stated the demographics have changed completely from 1950 when PCH was like the 405 Freeway. He feels it should be R-2 but is not sure that two condos right next to a commercial would be a good idea.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to ADOPT the first Resolution with the modification in paragraph one to be corrected to say Commercial Corridor rather than Medium Density Residential.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: Comm.Pizer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
The Commission took a break at 8:25 p.m.
10. 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.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to November 17, 1998 meeting.
Mr. Schubach stated there are some major deficiencies in terms of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and there needs to be some changes to the design of the project.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the request states to allow for a 4-unit condo and it should be 2 units.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Peter Ellis, 1037 Sunset currently occupies the rear 40% of the split lot that the proposed development is going to be on. Looking at the attachments in the staff report on page 13, the photograph at the top shows his house sitting 5 feet from the current property line. Their house is facing west and the rear of the house will be looking right into their house. If the builder does a 5 foot setback, the rear of the proposed units will be 10 feet from the front of their house. On page 12, the windows from 1037 shows the house is quite exposed. Perhaps trees could be put in as a privacy barrier. Also, their light may be encroached. They will be building retaining walls that will drop down approximately 5 to 6 feet below level and they will be on his property because they share a sewer line.
Chairman Tucker stated this will have to be corrected.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to CONTINUE this item to the November 17, 1998 Meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
11. CON 98-22/PDP 98-27--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25265 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1419 MONTEREY BOULEVARD.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated the Commission received a revised Resolution with three changes made to the project. The parking dimensions have to conform to the zone code, the average setback for row type housing on the north side where the main entries will be has an average width of six feet and the height must be lowered by about 6 inches at one critical point.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo is representing the applicant of the project. They just got the staff report and they feel the project can be modified. She presented some renderings.
Commissioner Schwartz would like something done with the elevations. The renderings show more detail than what is on the elevations.
David Raider, 2431 Clipstone Street, Woodland Hills stated they can carry the concept of reveals around the building.
Bill Kebel, 1427 Monterey, Hermosa Beach has the property just to the north. He requested a rendering.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer doesn't like the tandem parking but doesn't see any way around it.
Commissioner Schwartz is concerned with the tandem parking also. The two spaces in the garage won't be used and the spot on the street will be used. She would like to see more detailing on the project, including expression around the windows. There is nothing decorative. She would like to see more than reveals.
Commissioner Perrotti agrees. In the proposed Resolution on the first page, paragraph 1, it states two detached units and this should be changed to three attached units. He asked about the tandem parking.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Zoning Ordinance allows tandem parking.
Chairman Tucker also doesn't like the tandem parking. He also is concerned about using the railroad ties for stairs. It may be a maintenance problem later. He would also like to see decorative concrete.
Ms. Vargo stated the architect tried every way he could to park other than the tandem and there isn't enough room.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested staff looking at revising the section in the Code regarding tandem parking.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to ADOPT the revised Resolution with the modification in paragraph one to change the two detached residential to three attached residential and the plans be reviewed during the Consent Calendar at the next meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
12. CON 98-23--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25258 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 634 AND 636 LONGFELLOW AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated this is a typical condominium project and the required yards are provided and the lot coverage is only 45%. The front yard also exceeds the minimum 5 feet in an R-2 Zone and it maintains a depth of the existing front yard consistent with prevailing setbacks of nearby properties. the private open space areas are provided within roof decks and they also exceed the requirement and include 134 square foot adjacent to the primary living areas, common yard area in front and private rear yard also included. Overall, open space complies and exceeds with the Planning Commission's direction and also for accessibility.
Commissioner Schwartz stated on page 2 of the staff report, third line from the bottom, the word "consistent" should replace "inconsistent."
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo representing the applicant stated this project exceeds the development standards for the zone. It is a project by Mike Mulligan and he has done several in town. There is plenty of detail on the elevations.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the west elevation looks to be identical and would like to see something to make it look different. Perhaps some different size windows or different shades and colors.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer likes the design.
Commissioner Schwartz stated it is a very nice project and would like to see a slight difference in the two buildings.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the height and landscaping issues have been resolved with the Resolution with the height addressed on paragraph 7A and the landscaping addressed on paragraph 6A. The plans will have to be modified or corrected to indicate the maximum height of the critical points. The applicant has taken the time to make the property, especially the front yard setback, consistent with the neighborhood using the 10 foot setback rather than the 5 foot. The neighborhood will appreciate this once they are built. It looks like a good plan.
Chairman Tucker feels it is a project that meets all their requirements and a color rendering change to give each one their own identity. It is a nice project.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz, to APPROVE the Resolution subject to some color changes between the two units to differentiate them.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
13. CON 98-24/PDP 98-29 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25299 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 936 MONTEREY BOULEVARD.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the project will consist of units of about 1700 square feet. The project is proposed for a half lot on Monterey Boulevard and the lot is 70 feet x 100 feet and is steeply sloping. The developer is proposing to provide basement level garages. The project is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The basement garages are jointly accessed from a common driveway on the north side of the property and the required parking is provided in two-car garages. The garage parking extends all the way back to the rear property line which it is allowed to do under the Zoning Ordinance. Because the parking intrudes into what is considered uncovered area and not counted as lot coverage, staff is asking for Commission confirmation on this issue. The Zoning Ordinance defines lot coverage as anything covering the upper portion of the lot. This is below the area that would normally be considered coverage. Since the Zoning Ordinance is a little unclear, staff would like the Commission to confirm that this is permissible.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Loera Designs, 118 S. Catalina, Redondo Beach is the applicant. Regarding the garage being completely subterranean, the finished floor or the walk around the back is at 112 elevation and the existing grade is at 111.4, so it is only 8 inches above the natural grade in that area. He tried tandem parking, but they didn't think this was a very good resolution, so they worked with Planning to come up with this design. He agreed to remove the trellis from the roof and bring the building down 1 foot. He submitted new elevations. They agreed to put a wall between their property and the owner in the rear. He submitted a rendering.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the interpretation of lot coverage to be such that the subterranean parking would not be part of the lot coverage calculation is fine. Architecturally, it is a nice looking project.
Commissioner Pizer agrees and likes the project.
Commissioner Perrotti agreed and feels it is good that the applicant took the time to discuss the project with the neighbors and eliminated a trellis.
Chairman Tucker also agreed.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
14. TEXT 98-3 - TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT OF STAIRS TO FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR LEVELS INTO SIDE AND REAR YARDS OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 1998).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
Director Blumenfeld stated the intent of the Text Amendment is to provide relief to existing properties where there are stairs intruding in substandard yards. The wording in the Text Amendment requires that one conform to the Uniform Building Code requirements for stair width which is 36". However, many of the properties have substandard yards of less than 36". Thus the Text Amendment would provide relief under the Zoning Ordinance but some major reconfiguration of building would be required despite the proposed change. The amendment ties the ability to rebuild stairs to the Nonconforming Ordinance which requires once a project exceeds 50% in replacement costs, that the stairs be relocated and that reconstruction to comply with the rise and run and non-combustibility requirements for stairs.
Commissioner Pizer asked about the Alternate C, if an old stair is being rebuilt, it may not be possible to maintain the tread width of the riser.
Director Blumenfeld stated there really aren't any exceptions from the UBC, however, the Text Amendment recognizes that if you've got an existing stair in a substandard yard you can rebuild it, if you conform to other building code requirements.
He noted that the Text Amendment wording doesn't say you shall build to the substandard stair width but it doesn't preclude it. When the Building Division is reviewing plans if there is the ability to put in a standard stair width, staff will require it as part of the plan check process.
Chairman Tucker asked if a survey will be required? Director Blumenfeld stated it may not be cost effective and noted that if there is a survey tag in the street, staff uses the tag to determine if the stairs are within the property limits. If there isn't, they may ask for other evidence. It's a case by case basis.
Commissioner Perrotti prefers the Alternative C.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz feels staff's approach with the Alternative C makes sense in this situation.
Commissioner Pizer agrees.
Chairman Tucker would like to see some wording in that the stairs cannot be reconfigured to use storage underneath. Director Blumenfeld stated they can add wording in the italic section.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to ADOPT the Text Amendment with Alternative C modified to include after the requirements, shall not contain storage area below.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
15. TEXT 98-4 - TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING A HERMOSA BEACH PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORICALLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated on December 17, 1998 the Council adopted a Moratorium Ordinance on the demolition or modification of historic and architecturally significant structures for the purpose of possible adoption of historic preservation ordinance. The Ordinance was extended an extra ten months and will now expire on December 1998. The buildings that are currently under consideration for historic designation are shown on the Ordinance as Exhibit A. Two of the buildings shown on Exhibit A are also subject to a Seismic Strengthening Ordinance and must be vacated or retrofitted by the end of the year. Once the Moratorium Ordinance lapses, then the building currently subject to this building/demolition moratorium can be re-developed.
What is behind the intent of the Ordinance is to enable the City to conduct a survey of local historic researches which designates these historic resources. If the City desires, they can be submitted to the State for either State or Federal designation of historic landmarks. That also gives the owner of property some mobility to receive some tax credit incentives to preserve their buildings. The ordinance provides criteria for designating historic buildings or historic landmarks, it provides procedures for nominating and designating landmarks based on a historic resources survey that would be prepared by a consultant with special expertise in that area. It also provides procedures for complying with the designation status. And finally it provides procedures for removing buildings from a historic landmark status based upon economic necessity or if there was a natural calamity that resulted in the buildings being severely damaged.
In the Ordinance, the Council is proposed to act as the decision making body to implement the Ordinance and the Draft Ordinance and is intended to deal primarily with building exteriors, although it does also permit a designation of the building's interior. One of the objectives expressed by the Council members was to restrict the types of use that could locate in certain properties, in particular the Bijou Building. The City Attorney has advised staff that the use of the building can't be restricted as part of the historic designation. However, the interior of the building could have some bearing on the type of use that's located within a building. Commissioner Pizer asked what the role of the Planning Commission is on this historical preservation? Director Blumenfeld stated to approve a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the Ordinance was to have the Council being the decision making body because that provides some streamlining to the review because it means there is no further appeal. Nothing prevents the Planning Commission from making recommendations to the City Council.
Commissioner Pizer asked about the list of candidates. Director Blumenfeld stated the list is not exhaustive and Exhibit A is a beginning list.
Commissioner Pizer stated approving exterior is fine but approving interior isn't for building preservation. Director Blumenfeld stated the City would look toward retaining an architectural historian to help in the designation process and to give direction on that issue.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Bijou and B of A buildings both had different times to complete their retrofits based upon their occupant load. The Bijou Building had a much higher occupant load and has been allowed over the past three years to reduce it in order to maintain compliance with the Seismic Strengthening Ordinance. By January 1999, they will have to completely not occupy the building in order to remain in compliance. The owners of the Bijou building have submitted an appeal for relief from the Moratorium Ordinance and will be considered by City Council at their next meeting.
Commissioner Pizer stated when there is a moratorium on your building, you can't do anything and it is impossible to comply to the seismic retrofit date. Director Blumenfeld stated the owner has submitted plans for the retrofit of the building, but the moratorium prevents the staff from accepting an application for processing a building permit. At this point, staff has examined the plans and the owner is now seeking relief from the moratorium and has submitted an appeal to City Council under the ordinance the building is subjected to CEQA as a historic resource. Also, the Ordinance will enable an individual to submit a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness which means if you want to modify your building, you have to do it in a manner which is consistent with the architectural or historic integrity of the building.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Shaul Kuba is one of the principle owners of the Bijou. He noted that their intent from the very beginning was to restore the building. They will support the Ordinance but they feel the interior shouldn't be part of the Ordinance. This will create a hardship for them. They own over 15 properties that are much older and there is nothing in these ordinances that incorporate interior to the restoration. San Diego and Pasadena exclude interior.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there is interior in the Bijou that is historical and should be preserved.
John Given, CIM Group is a principal in the company which owns the Bijou Building. It is not the typical practice to add interior to the Ordinance. This will take the building up against retrofit deadlines and will create a waiting period to evaluate the interior. They are going to preserve the Bijou and are concerned about timing and the designation process can be lengthy. They are looking at a streamline way of moving out of the moratorium and into construction.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer asked if the Resolution is passed tonight, what would the Bijou owners look forward to in terms of processing time? Director Blumenfeld stated the Ordinance would go to Council and then be effective in 30 days. The moratorium would lapse on December 16 then the City issues a building permit for properties on Exhibit A and then be subject to the provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City Council then makes a disposition on the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Commissioner Schwartz stated the delay they are talking about is a month and is worthwhile to see what this particular building has in store and should not close off the investigation of the interior for historical preservation.
Commissioner Perrotti agreed. He is surprised not to see more people from the public regarding this issue. This Ordinance shouldn't be structured for one particular project and also feels the interior is important to consider.
Chairman Tucker agreed. The interior is important in the preservation. The buildings are a case by case basis.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed with the definition section of the Ordinance, B, with the wording "including but not limited to resources shown on Exhibit A."
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
HEARINGS
16. NR 98-11 - REMODEL AND 250 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE DUPLEX WITH ONLY 1 PARKING SPACE PER UNIT AT 2402 PARK AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated this is a small addition and because there is only 1 parking space for each unit on the property, it is a nonconforming use. It complies with current Code.
Chairman Tucker asked if the footage has been calculated onto how much is being added on? Mr. Schubach stated yes with a small amount on the first floor and the larger amount on the second floor.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Dean Nota, the architect for the project stated that Eric Orton is the owner of the property and hopes to occupy the remodeled unit in the back. They are within the requirements of the Ordinance. The project has positive elements and they'll have a property of 2130 square feet, including the parking at 440 square feet. They have generous setbacks on the north side. The majority of the building remains at 4 feet. On the south side, there is 6 feet for the entire first floor. The front yard setback is 10 feet and the back varies from 8.5 to 10 feet. The rear yard setback is 5 feet. The building fits well within the R-1 standard. They are only covering 52% of the lot.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated it looks acceptable and Commissioner Schwartz agreed.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed .
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
17. NR 97-9 - NONCONFORMING REMODEL TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 4 THE STRAND.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated the walls are proposed to remain. There have been conditions added because of noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Overhanging eves and the chimney have been changed. The deck up in front is within 3 feet of the side yard and needs to be changed. The garage will no longer overhang into the public right-a-way and needs to be final. Also, a survey with the property corner points need to be provided.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned the coverage. Mr. Schubach stated there isn't the proper side yards on the north side and the proper setback for the existing garage. Under the Code, a remodeling expansion is allowed to these types of existing uses and structures including the fact that it's over lot coverage by 7%.
Chairman Tucker asked about the windows on the north side as being fire rated? Mr. Schubach stated those windows cannot be there.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Michael Fleisher, the owner of the property, stated the south side of the house will be moved back to conform. The garage will stay on the property. They will comply with the engineering recommendation.
Commissioner Schwartz asked why they are doing a remodel? Mr. Fleisher stated they are moving the garage wall 6 inches, otherwise they're not moving that much. They're putting a second floor on for a master bedroom. Everybody sees this home and they want it to look nice and preserve what they have. It is currently very small. They're also taking out a basement.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz is concerned as to how much will be left to allow existing nonconformities to remain. Director Blumenfeld stated they are asking that the engineer certify that this plan the Commission approved can be built without substantial building demolition.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed .
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
19. STAFF ITEMS
a. CODE INTERPRETATION - DETERMINE WHETHER CHANGES TO RAILING DESIGN ARE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT AT 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE.
Director Blumenfeld stated the proposed change is to substitute a precast concrete balustrade railing for a wrought iron railing and if this would be a minor modification. The tenant felt the balustrade looked heavy because there isn't an adequate amount of clear space. The railings in the front are in question.
Chairman Tucker feels they should stick with the precast concrete balustrade railing and that's what goes with the building.
Commissioner Perrotti feels it is not a major modification.
Commissioner Schwartz stated they could deem it as a minor modification but give some input that there be greater intermediate spacing of the wrought between the balustrade and keep the integrity of the design.
20. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Chairman Tucker to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|