|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 12-06-00
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Tucker led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the October 17, 2000 Planning Commission minutes. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE Resolutions P.C. 00-56, 00-57, 00-58 and 00-59. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that the developers submitted a revised landscape plan showing a reconfiguration of the entry stair which adds between 40 to 50 square feet of landscaping. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld indicated that with the new landscape area, access is now taken off the driveway that serves the unit in the front. Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that the Queen Palms have a diameter of 6 to 8 inches when planted with the fronds being very high and will not interfere with the pedestrians. She also said there is grasscrete proposed in the driveways as well to add more green to the front of the project. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Ms. Vargo stated that there would be other access through the garage and the homeowners generally cooperate with each other for further access. She also believed that there will not always be two cars parked in the driveway. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Ms. Vargo informed that the step up on the west part to the walkway from the driveway is approximately 2 feet. Ms. Vargo pointed out that there are a number of condominium projects in the area that have less landscaping than the proposed project. Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with access and having to go through the garage. Ms. Vargo pointed out that since the stair has now been reconfigured, there is room for two trees in the planter area with the grasscrete and possibly increasing the size of the stepping stones. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Ms. Vargo explained that moving over the garage and master bedroom 1 foot would change the integrity of the entire building causing a redesign. Commissioner Pizer believed that the tree on the west serves no purpose and should be removed. Director Blumenfeld suggested that one 48-inch tree could be installed rather than three 36-inch box trees. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE Resolution 00, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26019 for a three unit condominium project, at 506 11th Street, legally described as a portion of Lot 10, Knutsen Tract, without the installation of the tree on the west in the pedestrian area. AYES: Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Housing Element and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that a draft document containing housing policies, quantified objectives and programs has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Upon approval, the Housing Element Update is forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review, approval and certification. He indicated that the City retained the firm of Blodgett, Baylosis and Associates, and Mark Blodgett of the firm will review the summary, findings and recommendations of the draft. Mr. Blodgett gave a brief presentation and reviewed the following: Calculation of Adjusted Housing Need
In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Blodgett stated that the Sunrise senior facility is included in the total for 1998-1999. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Beach House project has been classified as a hotel, as it only allows transient occupancy. Summary of Projected Housing Needs
Housing Issue Areas
Policies in the Element
Housing Programs
In response to Commissioner Pizer, Mr. Blodgett stated that the HCD staff will work with the City and would like to see the City make an effort, but there are no fines involved if the City does not comply with the State requirements. He noted that it is advantageous, however, for the City to have a certified Housing Element, especially if there are legal challenges related to land use. He pointed out that the City of Hermosa Beach does have some affordable housing and provides a lot of housing as one of the most densely developed communities in Southern California. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Blodgett explained that he would like to see SCAG completely revise the methodology for calculations, and he indicated that the maximum theoretical build out in Hermosa Beach would be 400+ units under the City’s General Plan. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Blodgett explained that there will be a similar meeting with the City Council with further feedback before being sent to HCD. He also said that some of the programs were added late and he is continuing to work with City staff. He believed that mixed-use may work in this community as it relates to developing affordable housing. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that some of the buildings are older structures in the City and are processed from time to time for rehabilitation as multi-family buildings. Commissioner Pizer suggesting a Mixed-Use Ordinance which would include affordable housing and public parking combination. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld indicated that the Sunrise senior facility has been very successful, but is still not entirely occupied. He also informed that the City does not have a Housing Authority or Redevelopment Project to administer grants. However, he said there are statewide programs available which the City could investigate. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Blodgett informed that the Element must be looked at along with impacts on the City’s infrastructure. Director Blumenfeld reviewed the supplemental items given to the Commission. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to recommend amending the Housing Element of the General Plan by adopting the 2000 Update to the Housing Element and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration. AYES: HoffmanHHH, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To set for public hearing to consider revocation or modification of the Precise Development Plan if the project is not implemented as approved by January 31, 2001. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant now has requested that the plan of May, 2000, be implemented. He also stated that the applicant expects to implement the approved plan by no later than January, 2001. He stated that landscaping has been installed, and the owner is seeking to obtain a permit to improve the 6th Street frontage, provide new curb and gutter and provide a driveway. He said staff is requesting direction with respect to the driveway width, landscaping and for the Commission to set a date to review the project if the owner fails to implement the approved plan. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated that the trees will eventually grow to a height of approximately 20 feet, but the staff recommended planting is quicker growing and taller and will provide the required screening needed. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld stated that the original intent of the Commission was to encourage parking along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage and to discourage parking on 6th Street. He further informed that the only required parking would be 23 spaces for customers with no requirement for employee parking. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti reviewed the April 21, 1998, minutes when the plan was originally approved, which indicated direction that the driveway width should be reduced. Director Blumenfeld stated that the plans show an existing alley and any additional apron provided would exceed 20 feet in width. The minimum width for the driveway that would serve the site and adjacent businesses is a 20-foot wide driveway alley apron. He indicated that a smaller driveway width helps encourage larger trucks to only turn eastbound, but smaller trucks have the ability to turn either way and that a sign would be posted to discourage right turns. Commissioner Kersenboom believed that larger trucks would not be accommodated with a 20-foot driveway if cars are parked on the other side. Commissioner Hoffman witnessed a tractor trailer rig coming into the site, and he believed a 20-foot wide driveway would not accommodate the larger trucks. He also believed that signage is important to prevent right turns onto 6th Street. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld informed that a large semi truck needs a 50-foot turning radius. He stated that the radius could be shortened if the width of the area is widened. He also pointed out that a knuckle will not preclude a right turn movement, and the only way to affect the turning movement is to significantly reduce the driveway width. Commissioner Pizer expressed concern with the applicant complying, and he believed that this application may continue coming back without resolving any of the issues. City Manager Burrell explained that the applicant decided to go with the May, 2000, plan and the landscaping was installed. He indicated that the other remaining issues which are preventing the applicant from implementing the rest of the plan including landscaping along 6th Street are the width of the driveway, parking and the retail part of the building. He stated that if the applicant decides not to comply with the plans, then the application would come back to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld clarified that there is lumber that needs to be on a rack that is in an improper location which violates the Fire and Building Codes on the north side of the property as it is too close to the property line. The Commission agreed that the type of landscaping installed and the landscaping planned is adequate. Commissioner Kersenboom believed that a 32-foot wide driveway would help the larger trucks exit the site, and a narrower driveway would not stop smaller trucks going down 6th Street. He indicated that the applicant would have to enforce trucks going down 6th Street with signage. In response to Commissioner Pizer, City Manager Burrell stated that signage on private property regulating traffic is not enforceable by the City but could be enforceable by the owner. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that after the store is remodeled with the entrance on the north side, traffic should go back out Pacific Coast Highway. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld indicated that the store remodel will not come before the Commission. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld informed that the property line wall between the parking lot and JCC must be sandblasted or painted. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to DIRECT staff to set the Precise Development Plan for public hearing to consider revocation or modification, if the project is not implemented as approved by January 31, 2001, and to implement the May 15, 2000, plan as it exists, with the 32-foot driveway and landscaping installed. AYES: HoffmanHHH, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
The Commission took a break at 9:15 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and reviewed the project. He stated that the project conforms to the requirements with 65% lot coverage with open space provided at 200 square feet for each unit and is adjacent to living area. He stated that the project is 3 inches over height, and the northwest corner point of the lot appears to be altered and not an accurate reflection of the existing unaltered grade. Pursuant to the definition of grade, the Commission can approve the adjacent higher point for the height calculation upon receipt of supporting evidence. The survey submitted does provide sufficient information to show that the adjacent lot and corner point elevations along 17th Street resulted from a graded condition, and it appears from a site inspection that a point about a foot higher would be valid. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicants, stated that the project meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the zoning being R2B with a neighborhood pocket to the east at R1 zoning. She said that the land uses to the north and west of the property are developed with multi-residential units. She indicated that there are some condominium developments in the neighborhood as well as duplexes and one triplex. She also stated that there is adequate landscaping in the front. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Ms. Vargo indicated that both buildings will be identical. She also said that the pitch portion of the roof will be seam metal and the flat portion will be hot mop. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Ms. Vargo stated that the project is a single development project to be maintained by a homeowners’ association and by the units being identical, they would be easier to build and maintain. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the height of the fence on the west elevation should only be 6 feet and will be corrected in plan check. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Ms. Vargo stated that one of the units would have to be flipped in order to switch the garages. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Ms. Vargo stated that the garages could be painted differently, the railings could be made slightly different and other enhancement changes could be made such as window and deck treatments without completely changing the building. Virginia Walter stated she lives to the east of the project and expressed concern with the project not fitting into the neighborhood, and the project being a half block from the school. She also expressed concern with the loss of the family community. She stated that there are two letters submitted from the neighborhood who express concern with parking. She believed that the garages are too small, and she stated that the circular stairway going up to the roofs is not appropriate for the neighborhood. She also said that there is limited landscaping in the front. Ms. Vargo pointed out that the parcel is odd shaped and there will be a greater side yard, exceeding the 5 feet and becoming larger toward the rear. Also, she recommended saving the large tree in the back which will help create a buffer. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman stated that two on-street parking spaces will be lost; however the street will become wider. He also expressed concern with the units looking identical. Commissioner Pizer indicated that the height problem has been solved. He stated that since there are only two units, he believed their looking identical is acceptable and also the homeowner fees would be equal. Commissioner Tucker stated that Unit B needs a three quarter bath, and the rooftop decks are too large. He would like to see better designs that would not disrupt the neighborhood. He also pointed out that Unit B’s rooftop deck will look down on the residents to the east. He suggested flipping Unit B, and the two units could then have harmony and look at each one rather than the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed, and he stated that the project needs to blend in better with the neighborhood. Chairman Perrotti announced that letters have been received from the Barr’s and Vogel’s who are residents in the neighborhood. He addressed the concerns from the Vogel’s in which he indicated that sidewalks will be installed in front of 1220 17th Street, and the scheduling of the Planning Commission meetings are always the third Tuesday of the month other than the month of December. He further stated that the developer has indicated that they will make modifications so the buildings will not look identical, and he expressed concern with any impacts created by flipping the units. He suggested adding more landscaping on the property line for more screening and privacy. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that the character of the neighborhood is in transition. Commissioner Tucker stated that Unit B could be flipped over, putting the deck on the other side and bringing the scale down on the east side. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the amount of open space provided is beyond what is required. He suggested relocating the stairs and holding off the roof deck on the easterly side and still meet the minimum open space requirement which would then make the open space more private and avoid the redesign of Unit B. He believed that by flipping Unit B, there may be changes that will affect the overall design of the project and may conflict with allowable maximum building height. Ms. Vargo pointed out that if the building is flipped, the entrance would then be on the east, creating more of an impact to the neighbor on the east. She suggested more planting in the side yard and the deck could be set 4 or 5 feet from the edge of the roof with the required protective railing. Commissioner Tucker stated that there would still be noise from the deck. He suggested just moving the roof deck to the west and redesign that side of the building. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE P.C. Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26144 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 1220 and 1224 17th Street, legally described as Lots 21 and 22 Angela Heights Tract, with the balcony moved over on Unit B five feet to the west, transfer the westerly elevation to the east side, change the full bath in Unit B to a three-quarter bath, and change the exterior elevations to provide variation between the two units. Motion failed due to no second. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to APPROVE P.C. Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26144 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 1220 and 1224 17th Street, legally described as Lots 21 and 22 Angela Heights Tract, eliminating 5 feet of roof deck on the east side of Unit B or the maximum needed per staff’s site line survey, increase the landscaping on the easterly side yard for privacy, change the full bath in Unit B to a three-quarter bath, and change the exterior elevations to provide variation between the two units. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and reviewed the current Code text and the proposed change. He said that the developer of 1303 Hermosa Avenue has requested the proposed change because the Code prevents the installation of signs on the third story. The developer and tenants desire sign locations on the third floor, which they believe is more visible, and because locations on the lower floor are somewhat limited. He pointed out that the existing 3rd story signs submitted as evidence by the project developer is either an existing nonconforming condition or signing that exists on a tower element which appears to be above the second story but, in fact, is not. He indicated that the Code section is somewhat ambiguous, as two-story buildings that have architectural towers, tall parapet walls, and high ceilings may appear to be equal to or higher than some three-story buildings. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker believed that signs are not needed on the third floor roof line, and the Sign Ordinance language should remain unchanged. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to DIRECT staff that the Sign Ordinance language remain unchanged. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
HEARING(S)
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration by one year to October 29, 2001. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the extension to complete their establishing an easement which is a necessary item in developing the project. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that this extension will be the third and final extension. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to APPROVE the extension request for CON 96-5/PDP 96-6. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
12. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated the Commission approved this project in July as a nonconforming remodel. He said if there is a change in the valuation, there is no provision for staff approval and therefore, staff is requesting the Commission’s interpretation. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE the change as a minor modification. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that the fence as it moves to the west and to the driveway entrances becomes over height and exceeds 6 feet. Commissioner Pizer believed that the landscaping and fence looks good, and he does not see the increased height creating any impacts due to changes in the grade of the land.. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to APPROVE the increased fence height since finished grade is lower at new driveways, and that the fence is 50 percent open. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
13. COMMISSIONER ITEMS In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that since the City initiated the action regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission’s August 15 decision, there was a necessary fee to pay in terms of an appeal and also some dispute about the application date. He said the City Manager reviewed the matter and agreed that the appeal could be taken in and then it was mutually decided to set the matter for appeal to the first of the year. He said that the appellant expressed concern with remitting an appeal fee which was disputed and did not appeal by the correct date because it was under dispute. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that he will provide a report regarding the project at 19th Street and Manhattan Avenue.
14. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to ADJOURN the meeting at 10:45 pm. No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|