|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 11-16-99MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Schwartz led the pledge of allegiance. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti Absent: Commissioner Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Blumenfeld reviewed the added Section 17.46.015 Calculating, Measuring, and Enforcing Maximum Building Height, which would amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the precise method for measuring building height shown as Items A-F. He further reviewed the measurement and definition for critical point. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar and Resolution P.C. 99-55 as amended. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant requested that Item 7 on the agenda be heard after Item 10 due to a scheduling conflict. Chairman Perrotti clarified that a final decision regarding Item 16c on the Agenda will not be made until the November meeting, and only a brief discussion will be presented this evening. 6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Jean Donateli, 5th and Ocean View Avenue, Hermosa Beach, expressed concern regarding a home for sale for the last two years on 5th and Ocean View Avenue across the street from her home. She said that the home has large overgrown vegetation which is dangerous to the pedestrians on the sidewalk, and she is concerned about health problems. She asked what responsibility there is of the town to keep the property in a safe condition. She stated she has been down to City Hall several times and has received no help. Director Blumenfeld stated the Fire Department annually does a weed abatement program, and he will follow up this problem with them. He clarified that the City does not get involved in the sale of a property. Janet McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, asked if Resolution P.C. 99-55 has been approved. Director Blumenfeld stated it has been approved as amended by the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He reviewed the items under consideration for the Commission’s review, and stated that the stylistic review items have been handled under the Certificate of Appropriateness. He further stated that the issue of trash and storage will be addressed by the applicant, and an area will be provided at the southeasterly corner within the existing building footprint for trash. He concluded that staff believes that the project conforms to the requirements for issuance of a Precise Development Plan. Commissioner Schwartz questioned where the loading areas will be located. Director Blumenfeld stated there is an area at the terminus at 13th Street adjacent the hotel. He stated that loading is a problem in the downtown, and businesses are allowed approximately 15 minutes to unload adjacent their business. He further said that loading is encouraged during non-peak traffic periods. Commissioner Schwartz suggested that the current trash enclosure could be moved to allow a loading zone. Director Blumenfeld stated the final disposition of 13th Street will become clearer after the parking structure is finished. He said there may be the opportunity to provide some additional on-street parking and loading on 13th Street, immediately abutting the parking structure. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. John Given, Vice-President of Development, CIM Group, Inc., stated they are proceeding with the project to complete the phase of work involving the seismic retrofit of the structure. They are also opening up a whole storefront along 13th Street with additional lighting and signage. They will be leasing the second and third floor as office space upon completion, and the ground floor will be leased to two to four tenants. He indicated that there is adequate opportunity for different size vehicles to provide service to the site, and the building along the alley will have a couple of different doorways with access to an interior corridor that will be of service. Chairman Perrotti asked if the north side of the building will remain as it is. Mr. Given stated that a portion of the building was identified from the City’s inventory as a building having character defining features and will be substantially preserved. Commissioner Pizer asked if there will be an elevator installed which would be essential for a three story building. Mr. Given stated that they are evaluating this issue with staff and are considering where it would be located. Pete Tucker, 235 34 th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated he hopes this project will be approved and is long overdue. He further hopes this will stimulate some retail downtown. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer stated the parking has been solved and assumes the HVAC is correct, and stated that the project is fine and will be a big asset to the community. Mr. Given indicated that HVAC is being installed in a location not intrusive with the least visibility from the street locations. Samy El Bayar, RTK Architects, reviewed the rendering showing the site line study which shows the size of the HVAC unit and how it sits relative to the building. Commissioner Schwartz suggested a balloon test or cardboard box model be done to see where the least impact visually is located. She further stated that the trash and loading is not so dependent on this building, but is a larger issue with a separate recommendation. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that supplemental page 1 of the resolution was given to the Commission because the original omitted the preface to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Perrotti stated that staff will work with the applicant concerning the elevator and access issues. He said that the applicant has shown care in preserving the building, and some of the interiors are unique. He is looking forward to seeing the building reopened and getting retail in the downtown area. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz, to APPROVE PDP 99-29 –Precise Development Plan for interior and exterior remodel to a designated historic landmark building, with the condition of a model be constructed to evaluate the location of HVAC units in working with staff. Remodel will include seismic retrofit of building and renovation/repair of exterior elevations with no floor area added at 1221 – 1235 Hermosa Avenue, Bijou Building. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He reviewed the changes made by the applicant and further non-comformities of the project. He stated to approve the project this evening, staff has put conditions in the Resolution regarding all of the issues of concern. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd. Suite 300, is the architect of the project and presented a rendering to the Commission. He stated the issues can be addressed. Concerning the open space, he stated that a new roof deck was added between Units A and B off the living room areas, and he stated the decks can be modified to 7 feet wide. He further stated there is a patio off the bedroom level. Concerning the bay windows, he stated the walls are actually 7 foot 10 inches with a roof above the bay windows projecting 6 inches. He further clarified that the original 1.7% overage in lot coverage is in the architectural projections. Concerning the floor area, he stated that the actual framing for the bay windows is above the floor with the framing coming out from the floor with seats, and are not intended to be floor area. Concerning the driveway slope, he stated that he has taken the 12.5% at the center of the garage doors, being less than 12.5% on side and 14% on the other side, and said the garage floor could be lifted 1.5 inches. He further clarified that the actual grade of the project is not above the height limit based on the new survey information given, and there is no reason to lower the building. He requested that the Commission approve the project subject to the attached Resolution. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that if there is an issue regarding determination of grade, staff would request that the Commission make a determination about the issue as the Zoning Ordinance allows where there is significant variations in grade. He further stated that staff does not have the street cut information, and there is no detailed topographic information. He stated the only survey staff has is shown in the original submittal. Commissioner Pizer asked if an average driveway slope across the driveway entrance has ever been used. Director Blumenfeld stated staff uses a maximum scope of 12.5% per the Zone Code, but sometimes there is a cross slope condition with extraordinary circumstances where 12.5% cannot be uniformly maintained. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer stated he likes the look of the building, and the proposed Resolution covers all the deviations of concern. Commissioner Schwartz also agrees it is a nice looking project, but she stated the open space and height are an issue. She hesitates to approve a project that could get totally reconfigured and suggests that it should go back to staff. Chairman Perrotti stated the applicant is willing to work with staff on all the concerns. He suggested that the Commission approve the Resolution and then at the next meeting, review the revised plans. Director Blumenfeld stated under Condition 1 of the Resolution, minor modifications can be reviewed by staff but if there are major modifications, they have to be brought back to the Commission as an agendized item. He further clarified that once the Resolution is approved, the applicant would have to amend the CUP which is added cost to the owner and extra work for the architect. Mr. Compton noted that the changes would be done in a timely manner, having them for the next meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE CON 99-24/PDP 99-28 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25664 for a two-unit condominium at 321 10 th Street. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to November 16, 1999 meeting. City Planner Schubach stated the applicant is requesting to continue this item.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to CONTINUE CON 99-25/PDP 99-30 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25628 for a two-unit condominium at 839 7 th Street and 838 8 th Street to the November 16, 1999 Meeting. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He stated there are some minor issues that can be resolved, and staff added the standard Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with the tandem parking and there being enough room to be usable. She suggested that the guest parking space could be perpendicular in front of the garage if the garage were set back 9 feet. Director Blumenfeld stated that both Units A and B would be affected by this configuration. He further stated that staff has not been able to come up with any other solutions. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Suite 300, is the architect for the project, and stated that the current configured parking is the best arrangement since there won’t be a guest space blocking both units. He further indicated that he has designed a lot of these tandem garages and they do get used. Commissioner Pizer asked if a dividing wall between the parking in the garage is necessary. Mr. Compton stated it is necessary for security purposes and storage. He suggested using a flat stud wall which would be thinner at about 2 inches. Mr. Compton stated the trash area could be enclosed in the entry area of Unit B. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer stated his only concerns are the tandem parking and the trash location. Commissioner Schwartz stated she would rather see the guest parking space in front of the two garages, allowing more width in the tandem. Chairman Perrotti stated he is not in favor of tandem parking and after a period of time, the front parking spaces stop being used and become used as storage. However, he said the configuration presented seems to be the only design that can be used at this time. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Chairman Perrotti to APPROVE CON 99-26/PDP 99-31 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25665 for a two-unit condominium at 32 8 th Street with the condition that the dividing wall in the garage be modified with a narrower width. AYES: Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: Schwartz ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to November 16, 1999 meeting. City Planner Schubach stated that staff had been recommending continuing this item, but the applicant has worked closely with staff to resolve the most serious issue of the slope problem for the driveway along the Sunset Drive side. He said this issue has been resolved by excavating the site and installing a retaining wall along Sunset Drive. Also, the lot coverage will be reduced to under 65% at 64.85%, and the open space on the roof will be increased to 7 feet. In additions, the roof overhang was cut back, but still needs to be reduced completely on the rear side. He also stated that the building is designed as a two story over basement building and does not require a second exit from the upper level. He stated the only other outstanding item is elimination of the full baths which will be made into three quarter baths. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, 1001 Sixth Street, Manhattan Beach, stated she is representing the applicant and property owner, Loraine and Stan Namanny. She reviewed the items of concern in her letter dated October 18, 1999 and stated they have been addressed. She presented a rendering of the project. She pointed out the street right-of-way will be improved on the Eleventh Street side which is the full length of the property. Also, she stated that the street will be widened and 3 parking spaces will be provided that don’t presently exist. She requests that the project be approved and stated that staff is satisfied with the effort made by the architect. The architect will work with staff with the outstanding items. Loraine Namanny, 333 Eleventh Street, stated she and her family have been out of the country for 13 years and have returned to build their new home. She said they have been working very hard with Ms. Srour and Mr. Peha and are very happy with the plans. She hopes that the plans will be approved. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer questioned why this item was not continued as planned. Mr. Schubach stated the changes were made quickly and staff went out to the area and concluded the slope would not be a problem. Chairman Perrotti stated the applicant and architect have agreed to resolve the outstanding items and if there are any major items outstanding before the next meeting, staff can remove it from the Resolution. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE CON 99-29/PDP 99-35 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25435 for a two-unit condominium at 333 11 th Street. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None The Commission took a break at 9:10 pm. The Commission reconvened at 9:20 pm.
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of the General Plan amendment for permanent street closure and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He stated that the recommendation is to create a landscaped walk-street and not remove it from the circulation element. He stated that following disposition by Commission the matter will go forward to Council relative to determination of the closure and public improvement plans. Commissioner Pizer inquired about the safety issues. Director Blumenfeld stated that some of the residents expressed a concern regarding cut through traffic with many children in the neighborhood. He further indicated that he has not seen police reports concerning accidents. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Those in favor of the closure: Janet Toronto, 906 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that this has been a two year process and the safety problems have been very significant. She further indicated there has been a child hit on the street about three years ago and killed. She said there has been illegal traffic coming around Ocean View Avenue making illegal right hand turns down 3rd Street with 60 to 80 cars a day. She stated that they have met with Council and all the issues have been looked at by the Council members. She reviewed the signed petition of those opposed to the closure with the Commission. She stated she has police reports that show that accidents have been cut in half from 2nd to 5th Street. Ellen Murphy, 84 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated before the closure, safety was a problem, as cars were coming down 5th Street, coming across Ocean View Avenue and making an illegal right onto 3rd Street to get into the businesses, and they then come back up the hill. Since Ocean View has been closed, the cars cannot make this route and also the lower section of Pacific Coast Highway was made a two-way street, and the businesses have not been impacted. She said that all the business traffic stays on Pacific Coast Highway and off the residential streets and since the traffic reduction, all of the streets in the area have benefited. Paul Dareo, 402 Ocean View Avenue, stated that the Council on two separate times over a two-year period fully approved a park in the area. He said a community panel got together and he sent out a neighborhood survey to 140 residents. He said that 60% of the submission responded and 80% were in favor of the park. He said that a walkstreet has never been considered. John Scandolan, stated he sees cars screeching up and down the street and safety is an issue. He said the closure will better the neighborhood and increase their property values and provide a better place for their children. Lora Guncent, 1023 4th Street, stated that some of the signatures on the opposition of the recent petition stated that they wanted more traffic studies done. She said she is home a lot and has not noticed any increased traffic in the area from the closure. She stated it would be nice to have a space for their children and community. Nicole Webb, 847 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated she lives next to the area being block off and said she has two small children and is interested in the safety of their neighborhood. She believes by the closure, it will be safer for the residents on 3rd Street, Ocean View Avenue and the surrounding streets. She said it will add green space and beautify the neighborhood. She also said the children need more places to play. Those opposed to the closure: Joseph Di Monda, A.I.A., representing a group of residents in the area against the closure, presented documents to the Commission and said the law is not being followed. He indicated that the street is closed in violation of the law. He said the original public notice to close the street is not included in the staff report and was for a temporary street closure, and he presented a letter confirming this. He said there are a number of issues which need to be addressed before a decision can be made which he reviewed in his memo dated October 19, 1999 to the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission. He submitted this to the Commission. In summary, he stated that the street is closed illegally and according to the Fire Department and Traffic Engineer, people are at risk. He said the City should open the street pending an adequate traffic study, noise study and safety study. He presented two more documents to the Commission for public record. Phyllis Macek, 1023 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated she owns property at 422 Ocean View and presented pictures where children are currently playing. She appreciates the Commission’s reconsideration to open the street. John Wolf, 1212 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated there is not a safety problem. He said he has lived in Hermosa Beach for 30 years and his kids grew up on 3rd Street. He said it has always had a lot of traffic, but he said the kids have to learn not to play in the street for common sense purposes. He stated the petition is not accurate regarding the closure and also questioned how closing the street would affect quality of life. He said there are emotional issues, and the street needs to be open for the traffic. He also noted that within two blocks of the area there are three parks available. Jean A. Donatelli, 456 Ocean View Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated they did not receive any notice about the park and everyone North of 4th Street was not consulted. She said there is no budget for the park and will always be an asphalt top until Planning or Parks and Recreation decides to make it a park. She said the street will have official traffic barricades and gives the message for children to play in the streets. She said the traffic on her corner of 5th Street and Ocean View Avenue has picked up considerably due to the closure. Fred Hoopsher, 924 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated it is wrong for the Commission to ratify an illegal decision made by the City to close a street without a public hearing. He said it is wrong to close a street to build a park, using their tax dollars, when there is no real need for it. He suggested putting speed bumps on the streets. He further indicated that the residents bought their homes and were well aware of the situation. He said many factors still need to be considered before the closure is made. He suggested having a temporary blockage of the street for six months and then have a public hearing. Rebuttal In Favor of the Closure Janet Toronto stated there have been studies done and have been told they are correct. She further stated there was a public meeting after the six month closure. She also said they do not let their kids play in the street. She indicated that the parking issue was completely wrong and was rectified at the Council meeting and no parking spots will be lost. She said she spoke to the Fire Chief and said he had no opinion on the issue. She further said that more signage on the street could be added once the closure is finalized. She said that when she bought her house, Pacific Coast Highway was a four lane highway and is now a five way highway. She also said she has police reports that prove from July of 1997 that accidents across the board have decreased significantly. She also stated that everyone was given notice on this issue. In summary, all they are asking for is to add a little green, make the streets safer and less busy, and the barricade has done this. Rebuttal in Opposition of the Closure
Joseph Di Monda stated this is not about a lawsuit but is about doing things the right way. He stated there have been memos such as from the Fire Chief which says there will be a negative impact on emergency response time and fire hydrants would have to be moved. He also said that the street was not closed properly and he said the memo he submitted supports this. He noted that the prior parking studies now contradict the study done once this became a political issue in town. In summary, he asked that the Commission look at the data and remove the emotional aspect and stated it will be found that a negative declaration would be the wrong way to go. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Director Blumenfeld clarified how environmental clearance was carried out for the proposed project. He noted that a study is statutorily exempt under CEQA. He said that this project commenced as a study, and barricades were set up to study the potential impacts of a closure. He said that when an initial study is conducted, a determination is made as to whether or not project impacts will be significant. He indicated that staff noted the only potential significant environmental effects pertained to traffic and circulation and did not feel there was a parking issue as the project involves a local street and will not generate trips to the project site or increase parking demand. He concluded that the City has met its obligations under CEQA relative to issuance of a Negative Declaration based upon the initial study. Commissioner Pizer stated in summary, some of the residents want to build a park/improve safety, but he has not reviewed the police reports, etc., and all he has seen is talk. He feels he is not in a position to vote on this issue and has more homework to do. He would like to see more information. Commissioner Schwartz agreed. She stated they have not been presented with anything that is a compelling set of facts as to why the street closure should or should not be closed, and there is too much ambiguity. She also said the traffic study done falls well below quality and thoroughness, and she cannot make a recommendation based on it. She stated she is not ready to make a decision at this time. Chairman Perrotti indicated he is familiar with the traffic problems on the Pacific Coast Highway corridor and since 1989, the traffic has gotten much heavier with more congestion with the increase in density. He stated there have been numerous articles in the newspaper on this issue and City Council meetings and there has been adequate notice. He said he would base his decision on the traffic engineer’s report that the barricade on 3rd Street are positive impacts and do not have a significant negative traffic impact on the surrounding area. He feels the barricade should remain and the park request is something to consider in the future. Commissioner Pizer asked if the traffic study shows turnaround in driveways. Director Blumenfeld stated it shows only general turning movements in the morning and evening at intersections. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to CONTINUE GP 99-1 – General Plan amendment for permanent street closure and creation of a walkstreet at Ocean View Drive between 3 rd Street and 4 th Street east of Pacific Coast Highway, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration to the November 16, 1999 meeting to allow further information to be provided to the Commission. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer NOES: Chairman Perrotti ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of the subject ground lease as conforming to the General Plan. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He stated that the Commission is being asked this evening to comment on the conformity of the proposed ground lease and the intended uses with respect to the General Plan. He also stated that all of the development permits were approved in 1996 for this project. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to ACCEPT GP 99-2 – General Plan conformity with the proposed ground lease of City owned property between the City of Hermosa Beach and 1301 Hermosa Avenue LLC to design, construct, maintain and operate a retail building located at 1303 Hermosa Avenue, and that the architect review the third story design. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None HEARING(S)
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 300, stated the issue of concern is the rounding of the stairway in the front. He requested adding some small rounded edges to the steps in keeping with the rounded elements being added to the building. He stated that the elevation from the front is going to have much more interest from the street. Also, he said the new parts of the building conform to all the new setbacks. He further indicated that they are taking part of an existing deck and developing an additional family room area, putting the deck area at the upper level. He said there is a significant view from the property and brand new homes across the street will benefit from the addition. Commissioner Pizer asked what the problem would be having the front stairs back to the official setback so that they are in compliance. Mr. Compton stated that the existing steps that are inside the house that go down to the lower level would have to moved and pushed back, losing part of the bedroom at the lower level, and would push the stair back into where the dining room is currently. It would have a major impact on the existing building. Sarah Content, 671 13th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated she lives two buildings east of the project. She noted that the building that sticks out evenly with the project is the one to the west, and the property to the east is set considerably back. She indicated that the project is very close to the front edge of the property and the mezzanine area would appear from the front of the street as being a third story. This would affect the property at 667 which is setback. She suggested that the mezzanine could be built back to the legal conforming area of the 10 foot setback on top of the third story. She also said that on the north side which is the alley side, the lot slants down toward the alley, and this is where the driveway comes in and by adding a 5 foot cantilever seems unnecessary. She indicated that there is a 6 foot wall along the deck and by going over into the cantilevered section, this would compound the issue of a noncompliance by an additional 6 feet. Martin Cenzoric stated he lives slightly west of the project and emphasized that the property is in noncompliance in several areas, and what is being proposed will make it even more noncompliant. This would have an impact on the neighborhood and will look like a third story which would block the view of all the houses west of the project. Rebuttal Mr. Compton clarified that the upper level steps back to the 10 feet and nothing being added is in nonconformance. The only reason they are here is because they are doing a 60% remodel. He said in terms of view blockage back in that area, they are at the level of the existing deck now, and there is a 3 foot rail around it, and the owner agreed that glass along that side would be agreeable. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz clarified that there is a height limit and the building is no higher than it would be if there was a mezzanine or not. She appreciates the effort of putting the glass in, and feels it is a nice looking project. Commissioner Pizer pointed out that there is no view ordinance in the City, and believes the project will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Chairman Perrotti agreed, and stated that the project complies with all the building code requirements. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE NR 99-5 – Expansion and remodel of a nonconforming single family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 663 30 th Street, with the condition that the wall around the spa be transparent. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-ChairKetz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He stated the applicant needs to revise what was submitted initially for accuracy, however, there is nothing wrong with the lot line being adjusted and would be benefit to both properties. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Marianne Gausche, 572 25 th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that many of the lot lines are off in Hermosa Beach, and at the time the property went up for sale, her neighbor wanted to rectify the lot lines. She stated that by her neighbor moving her fences, this would create an extremely small side yard and the fence would abut next to a fireplace. She further stated that by approving a lot line, it essentially would allow the current situation to be in effect, which allows a reasonable side yard to allow passage between the fence and the existing structure that has been there since approximately 1950. She indicated that the impact is minimal at 1.9% of Ms. Lavalle’s property and would not have any negative impact in terms of her market value on an almost 7400 square foot lot. Commissioner Schwartz asked why it wasn’t moved another 8 inches so that the front yard could be a conforming side yard. Ms. Gausche stated there is an existing fence currently, and the lot line is along the line of the fence. She didn’t want to further negatively impact in any way Ms. Lavalle’s property. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE LLA 99-1 – Lot line adjustment at 572 25 th Street. AYES: Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Vice-Chair Ketz ABSTAIN: None
16. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He stated that the owner submitted a letter attached requesting that the Commission consider that this still be considered a nonconforming remodel. He said that alternately, the owner could try to process a Variance if the required mandatory findings could be made for the nonconforming yard. He indicated that the owner’s only other option is to process a new set of plans as a conforming single family dwelling, requiring quite a bit of time. He also pointed out that the lot size of the property is 30 feet by 85 feet and is not an extraordinary small lot. He also noted that most of the building has been demolished. Commissioner Pizer asked if all the required walls have been removed. Director Blumenfeld stated what was required to remain was primarily the southerly wall and a portion of the wall on the east in proximity to the garage. Unfortunately, the contractor exceeded the requirements and demolished the parts that were required to remain. Donna Grossman, 2728 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, is the architect of the project and stated what is remaining is the four walls of the garage, and the four walls of the house have been removed. She said what happened during demolition, was that the plaster was being removed from the walls and exposed the wall conditions, and the contractor found that some of the walls didn’t have studs in them and framed unconventionally. She said this was brought to her attention and had a meeting at the site and talked about which walls of the house that were necessary to keep. She stated within a week, the contractor took it into his own hands and decided it would be faster to remove these areas and document it and then bring it to the City’s attention. It was demolished in one day and at that point, it was too late to do anything. Michael Fleischer stated that they check their site everyday. He further stated that all the foundation, existing footings and flooring still remains and the engineer came out again for a recheck. Chairman Perrotti asked that since the original footings and foundation still remains, would it be possible to reconstruct from the existing foundation. Director Blumenfeld stated yes and the existing continuous footing can be used and conform with the original footprint of the building thereby maintaining a nonconformity on the southerly side of the property. Commissioner Pizer pointed out that if this project continues as a nonconforming remodel with 100% of the required walls being gone, this would set a precedent with not complying with the nonconforming ordinances. He also cannot see any substantiation or reason why a Variance would be allowed. The Commission directed by Minute Order that the project is not a nonconforming remodel.
Commissioner Pizer asked if this architectural metal is good for the beach area. Director Blumenfeld stated it is used in the beach area, and the material is galvanized and is a standing seam roof and powder coated. It has been approved from time to time in Hermosa Beach. Chairman Perrotti stated the intent of the original ordinance was to avoid the tin roof look.
Chairman Perrotti expressed concern with the 4 foot and 11 foot setbacks and the impact it would have. He does not want to see condominium units built that are so small that they turn into rentals. He suggested going with a percentage reduction in bulk and leave it up to the architect’s discretion. Commissioner Pizer stated that the building standards are being changed to reduce bulk and the boxy appearance of new construction. Those that would benefit would be the public looking at the front of the buildings driving by, the neighbors and the developers and owners of the new building. A significant complaint has been privacy and losing views with high buildings next to lower buildings. He noted that the setbacks that staff has worked on will benefit the general public, but the new building standards could be sandwiched between two buildings that were built to the bulk standards, losing air and view due to the new setback standards. He summarized that the 65% lot coverage be maintained, eliminate exceptions to the lot coverage calculations, use roof open space of 15% of the required open space and private open space, use minimum dimension for open space for R2 and R3 at 440 square feet, keep the separation of the R3 buildings at 8 feet, maintain the 50% open space directly accessible for condominiums and the 50% of open space may be covered and not enclosed by more than two sides, tandem parking not be permitted for common guest parking, for one family have 2 off street parking spaces and no guest spaces, maintain the current code for two family and multi family and not implement the setback on the upper floor. Commissioner Schwartz agreed and also agreed with the roof open space of 15% of the required open space and private open space. Director Blumenfeld stated staff will study the 15% margin and look at some typical lots and the residual areas and make some determination at the next meeting. Staff will bring back a tabulation.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He pointed out a correction in the staff report under Section 17.46.130 (B), the wording to be corrected to state "shall not be considered." Commissioner Schwartz suggested that the openness be more evenly distributed vertically and have small sections of benches in between.
17. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:35 pm. No objections, so ordered. |
|
|
|