|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- Planning Commission Minutes of 12-06-01
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 Hoffman led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner
Tucker, to
APPROVE
the November 21, 2000 Planning Commission minutes.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to
APPROVE
Resolutions P.C. 00-60 and 00-61.
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Tucker requested that the meeting be adjourned this evening in the memory of Richard Greenwald. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.. Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from this Item, as he lives within the 300-foot radius of the property. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and described the property and its location. He indicated that the applicant has requested to rezone the property to multi-family development at the R-2B density, two units on a lot, which would increase the value of the development potential of the property. He stated that if the Commission approves this change, it would preclude the kinds of expansion along the corridor discussed in the past. He noted that approximately one half of the commercially zoned lots on Pacific Coast Highway are between 100 and 160 feet in depth and the balance are 160 feet or greater. He further indicated there are approximately 6 lots that are transitional abutting commercial use. He also noted that the subject proposal and the one at 7331 4th Street differ from the Learned Lumber proposal since the residential uses in these cases can be maintained and expanded as allowed by the S.P.A. Zone. Further the changes do not involve the reduction of any land currently used for commercial purposes and the scale of the proposed change is much smaller. He indicated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1 if the proposal is approved, and to adopt Resolution No. 2 if the proposal is denied. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that the property was rezoned R-2 to Commercial S.P.A. which in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment in 1989. He also stated that Learned Lumbar was reduced to a depth of 120 feet. He indicated that the property to the east is R-2B but can only accommodate single family development because of the size of the lot. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Susan Licata, applicant, indicated that she lives across the street from the proposal which she would like to renovate and make nice and live in one of the homes. She also stated she was aware of the zoning when she bought the property. She believes her proposal would make a nice gateway to the residential area and be a great improvement to Hermosa Beach. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Ms. Licata stated she just recently purchased the property. Monica Owen expressed concern with population density on 6th Street parking and the integrity of the foundation above the proposal. Director Blumenfeld explained that virtually every project that involves excavation, involves shoring and there are usually no problems with adjacent properties. He also indicated that the area surrounding the proposal is R-2 density. He pointed out that the Code requires replacing parking on site if there is a curb cut, and parking is replaced at a much higher ratio than the older housing that is being replaced. He stated that the request this evening is to change the zone without a project to evaluate relative to parking, shoring or other development issues. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that the proposed lot is large enough to accommodate R-2B density. Commissioner Tucker suggested combining the other three lots on the highway, making the property a commercial condominium development, and he expressed concern with voting on the rezoning for the request this evening. Commissioner Hoffman stated he is reluctant to engage in a speculative change, given the mandate from the Council to preserve and expand commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld read from the S.P.A.-7 zone and stated that the applicant would have the choice to maintain property or redevelop it at the same density. Commissioner Pizer believed that there needs to be a compelling reason to change a zone which he does not see in this case. Chairman Perrotti stated that the intent of the Commercial Corridor Study in 1989 was to conserve as much commercial area as possible. He pointed out that there may be an opportunity for a commercial development or a mixed-use possibility in the future. He also commented that he voted for re-zoning on 4th Street, but there was residential on three sides and the lot was in need of rezoning. He said he would not be in favor of the rezoning for the request this evening. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the current zoning compels an owner to assemble property for commercial redevelopment. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to DENY the request and ADOPT Resolution #2, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to deny a General Plan Amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential and a zone change from Specific Plan Area 7 (S.P.A. 7) to Limited Multi-Family Residential (R-2B) for the property located at 822 6 th Street and legally described as the southwest 40 feet of Lots 11, 12, and 13, Camino Real Tract. AYES: HoffmanHHH, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
Director Blumenfeld explained the appeal process. Commissioner Kersenboom returned to the dais.
Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and explained the request. He reviewed the four findings required for a Variance. He stated that staff cannot make Finding No. 1, as there are other adjacent properties which may be possible alternative sites that do not require a Variance, nor Finding No. 3, as the proposed antenna may still be visible from PCH and Artesia Boulevard and create a negative visual impact to the area. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that denial of a substantial property right would not occur if there are alternate locations that could be found. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. James Lee, applicant, described the project and stated that they are deploying a network system that is state of the art technology for digital radio. He indicated that the proposed site was chosen, due to the hilly terrain which would not allow their satellite to connect with all the major highways in the area. He said there will be three major pieces of equipment within the lease area; a dish, repeater and omni-whip antenna which will stand approximately 7 feet 9 inches above the parapet wall which is the same height of the existing antenna. He also pointed out that if their equipment is not located in the requested area, there will not be signal coverage for a satellite radio system in vehicles. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom who asked if alternative sites had been investigated, Mr. Lee explained that they are issued a search radius, based on technical requirements for the system and then look for willing landlords and then zoning requirements are reviewed. At that point, they move forward with the site. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Lee stated that they would only be using the rooftop. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Mr. Lee stated he is not aware if any other buildings were considered. Chairman Perrotti expressed concerned with no other locations being considered. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Lee stated that microwaves would be transmitted out of the omni antenna, and the site has been chosen due to line-of-site for the signal. He also indicated that the signal can only transmit in the Continental United States off of the proposed tower. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that the FCC regulates receiving and transmitting. He also pointed out that the dish side could not be reduced which would cause the loss of the signal. He questioned why other areas have not been pursued, as the satellite dish could be set up anywhere to receive the signal. Mr. Lee indicated that the satellite dish and omni antenna need to be separated by at least 10 feet. He also said that any visual impact will not be significant, and that the requested site would be the most optimal for technology reasons. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner of the property has indicated their desire for the Variance. Commissioner Hoffman stated he is not hearing any compelling reasons to make the findings for the Variance. Commissioner Pizer stated he cannot make all four findings for the Variance. Commissioner Tucker passed out information on the FCC regulations and stated he would like to read it into the motion for denial, for backup. Commissioner Kersenboom would like to see the applicant pursue other sites for consideration. Chairman Perrotti pointed out that more electronic equipment will be needed to accommodate the new electronic devices, cell phones, etc.; however, he said he cannot make the findings for a Variance in this case. He would like to see other sites pursued where a Variance may not be needed.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to
DENY
VAR 00-3 and
ADOPT
Resolution No. 00-, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California, denying the requested
Variance to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance to allow the
addition of a roof antenna and satellite dish exceeding the
maximum twelve (12) square feet allowed above the height limit at
2601 Pacific Coast Highway legally described as part of Lot A,
Tract 1594 and part of Lot 6, Block 3, amended Map of Seaside
Park Tract.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to January 16, 2001 meeting. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is requesting that this item be continued, as the Variance was not adequately described in the notice and subsequently, staff redefined the variance issues for the project. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to
CONTINUE
to the January 16, 2001 meeting VAR 00-4 – Variance from
front yard requirement and to allow guest parking behind open
tandem parking at 2059 Monterey Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and described the project. He indicated that the project conforms to the zoning requirements with respect to lot coverage and is below the maximum of 65% lot coverage. It also has all the required open space to adjacent living area and on roof decks. Further, the height will be within the 30-foot height limit, and there will be adequate landscaping pursuant to the Commission’s standard requirements. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated that the requirements for the changes for roof deck open space became effective at the end of November. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Jerry Olguin, applicant, presented a drawing to the Commission, and he said the designer will work with staff to meet all of the standards. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Olguin stated that the price range of the units will be of high quality and he takes pride with his developments. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Olguin explained that the bedroom/storage for Unit A will have egress windows and can be used as a bedroom. He also said the lower bathroom for Unit B will be three-quarter, which is addressed on page 4 of the Resolution. He said the skylight on Unit A will not exceed the height limit. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer stated that the project complies with all the requirements and is a nice design; however, he would like to see more articulation on the exterior. Commissioner Hoffman agreed and indicated that he wants the finished development to have good quality. He would like to see a more complete application. Commissioner Kersenboom requested to see the final version of the plans with more detail. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld stated that since this is a discretionary permit, the Commission can request another submittal. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with the project being too boxy, and he would like to see more creativity and detail. Chairman Perrotti believed that specific direction should be given to staff and the applicant if revised plans are requested. Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing. Mr. Olguin expressed concern with not receiving direction from staff requesting details being listed on the drawings. He said he uses vinyl windows with dual glazed glass along with many other details on his buildings. He indicated that buyers dictate what they will pay for, and he said he builds homes in the $700,000 price range for buyers who know what they want. He also said he takes pride in his developments, and he can be more specific in his drawings if requested. He believes his buildings meet and exceed what is being built in the City. Chairman Perrotti indicated that he would like to see more articulation but believed it is not fair to change the rules in the middle of a hearing. He believed this issue could be further addressed with staff. Commissioner Tucker indicated that requesting further detail has not held up projects in the past. He agreed that this project needs the bulkiness broken up with perhaps some banding or different colors of stucco. Director Blumenfeld noted that the project application handout spells out specifically what needs to be provided. He indicated that details on the exterior of the building could be added as part of the submittal requirement, amending the application.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to
APPROVE
Resolution No. 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 #26176 for a two (2) unit condominium project, at 332
and 336 Ocean View Avenue and legally described as Lot 8,
Hurd’s Ocean View Tract, with the south elevation of Unit A
and north elevation of Unit B having more articulation.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant failed to finalize the Tentative Map within the specified time period of two years, and the map expired on September 15, 2000. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. George Shweiri, Denn Engineers, stated he is representing the applicant. He noted that the map was held pending taxes to be paid at the County and the applicant did not apply for the extension. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to
APPROVE
P.C. Resolution 00-, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California, Approving a Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map #25176 for a two (2) unit condominium at 702
10th Street legally described as Lot 8, Tract No. 223.
12. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated it is requested that the Commission confirm by Minute Order that the modification to the project at 1129 – 1131 Cypress Avenue is a minor modification. It involves a change to the profile of the building which involves enclosing a portion of the roof deck at the rear of the unit to create an interior mezzanine level which complies with the maximum allowable building height since the height limit slopes toward the back of the lot. The roof deck open space is reduced by 200 square feet with the remaining open space of 362 square feet being more than enough to meet the requirement. He indicated that staff believes that the changes are minor. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the project conforms to a Building Code requirement for a 2-story building with a basement and is not 3-story. He further said the project is currently being framed. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the change occurs at the back of the lot and is not visible from the street. Commissioner Hoffman stated that the enclosure will not affect sunlight to the house, etc., and there would not be much of an impact to the house to the west. He believes that the change would be minor. The Commission directed by Minute Order that the change is a MINOR Modification.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and reviewed the background of the project. He stated that the project is what the Commission approved and meets the interpretive standard that the Commission set in August 18, 1998, relative to nonconforming remodels. He also said staff would like to bring back the Nonconforming Ordinance for Commission review. Commissioner Tucker said he has been following the progress of the project since its inception. He also said that the wall to the south was lost and then put back up in a nonconforming condition which should have conformed to the current setbacks. He also indicated that the whole roof structure has been changed . Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission originally considered the project because it involved a 59 percent valuation increase, not a 50 percent. He also said there was shoring but that it was inadequate which caused the failure on the southerly side and along the west. He further said the Nonconforming Ordinance does not address what is new or old framing construction work and is difficult to implement and confusing for the public. However, he believes the project conforms to the code requirements and the Commission’s interpretation of the Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld informed that the square footage approved or valuation has not changed. The Commissioner directed by Minute Order to RECEIVE AND FILE the report.
13. COMMISSIONER ITEMS In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Variance and Precise Development Plan for the Hermosa Pavilion building expire at different times. The Precise Development Plan expires after one year and the Variance expires after two years. He indicated that there is currently no construction, and new tenants lease negotiations have complicated funding construction of the project. He indicated that 24 Hours Fitness is still interested in the site; however, the other major retail tenant has left and the building is not fully leased. He said that approvals from the Commission will no longer apply when they expired and the building will revert back to its original status when the permits expire. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld informed that other than direction by Minute Order from the Commission, staff will make revisions to the application for the condominium project regarding Item 12a on tonight’s agenda, and staff will bring back a revised application at the next meeting along with a rendering provided by the applicant. Commissioner Hoffman stated he would like to see clarification from staff on the federal exemption regarding Item 8 on tonight’s agenda. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld stated that the Coastal Commission Hearing on the City’s LCP will be held early next year. The Commission wished everyone happy holidays. 14. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to ADJOURN the meeting at 9:15 pm. No objections, so ordered. |
|
|
|