|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 03-20-01
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Perrotti at 7:09 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom and
Chairman Perrotti
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner
Pizer, to
APPROVE
the January 16, 2001, Planning Commission minutes.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to
APPROVE
Resolution P.C. 01-2.
Item(s) for consideration Resolution P.C. 01-1 approving a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26172 for a three-unit condominium project at 636 9 th Street. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report. He indicated that the architect has proposed reorienting one of the units to face to the street, resulting in only two units with common entry on the side yard and requesting clarification whether the reorientation alleviates the row housing condition and the requirement to provide a side yard of 7.5 feet which is 1.5 times the lot width. In addition, the architect is requesting clarification as to whether the addition of columns below a permitted roof cantilever is consistent with lot coverage requirements. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the columns are at the entry. Jerry Compton, architect for the project, stated that the projects in the neighborhood generally do not have wider side yards. He also believed that the roof at the entryway is not considered lot coverage and is used for entry protection and is an architectural element of a style. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Compton stated that the columns are connected to the structure. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld explained that if the roof structure is considered exempt as a cantilever, then there would not be an issue. He also said that the roof cannot extend more than 5 feet. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that there would not be an issue if the building were not built to the maximum of the envelope. Commissioner Pizer would like to see further clarification on the column issue. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Compton indicated that the stairway could be pulled back to avoid encroaching into the side yard. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that stairs leading from grade are allowed provided they are not higher than 4 feet from the finished grade. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld informed that the definition of multiple includes more than two.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to
APPROVE
P.C. Resolution 01-1, deleting Section 5, Condition 3e; that the
roof structure would not qualify with the columns as proposed as
an exception; and that staff bring back the issue of the columns
as a public hearing.
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS VAR 01-01 – VARIANCE TO ALLOW GUEST PARKING BEHIND OPEN TANDEM PARKING AND TO ALLOW REQUIRED OPEN SPACE TO BE LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD AT 2059 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 16, 2001 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report, and reviewed the background of the project. He indicated that by providing the basement level condition, the possibility to construct the unit that was originally proposed would be eliminated. He also explained that based on the lot size and its orientation, a judgment and findings could be made to support the Variance. Further he said with respect to the corner lot condition, were it not for its location, the narrowest frontage being Monterey, or if it were an interior lot, the yard orientation would have changed. He indicated that given the parameters of the lot, its location, orientation and shape, there are findings that could be made to justify a Variance relative to the issue of parity with surrounding properties. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that Public Works has indicated that there are no plans to vacate Monterey and have also indicated that they would like to see the slope taken from the property line, not the back of the nearest public improvement. If this is the case, it would foreclose the option to have a driveway off Monterey and forces a driveway orientation off of Circle Drive. He also said it would be difficult to construct a project to a 25-foot height limit off Monterey. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, stated that there are circumstances for consideration of a Variance. She said that the proposed project at 2200 square feet is not typical of the homes being built in the R-1 area along Monterey. She indicated that the goal of the property owners and the architect is to provide ground level accessible usable open space, and requiring enclosed property would severely reduce and alter the living area and eliminate the opportunity for ground level usable open space. She believed that the findings that have to be met for a Variance would relate to the size of the lot, the configuration of the lot with a slope and the upward slope on the site. She further indicated that the home would be small and conducive to a couple and the proposed parking would be suitable and accessible. She pointed out that if enclosed parking is approved, there would be a detriment to the neighborhood, as on-street parking would be removed. She also said that the proposed single family home would be consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that the basement parking would not work, as there is a 15% grade at maximum which is in violation of the Code. Grant Kirkpatrick, architect for the project, stated the that proposed home is a little over 2,000 square feet for a couple, and will have an ocean view with a generous garden that can be developed in the front toward Circle Court. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that the proposed parking in the side yard will be entirely on grade and will not be subterranean or basement parking. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman indicated that given the size and scale of the project, he believed that a Variance could be granted. Commissioners Pizer and Kersenboom agreed. Commissioner Tucker further agreed but indicated that he is not in favor of tandem parking. Chairman Perrotti indicated that he could approve the tandem parking for a single family home and the project is unique, and he is in favor of the Variance. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld believed that new curb, gutter and sidewalk is a requirement for any project over 400 square feet.
MOTION
by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Kersenboom, to
APPROVE
VAR 01-04 and
ADOPT
Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, to approve the requested
Variances to allow guest parking to be located behind tandem
parking and to allow a portion of the side yard to count towards
a portion of required open space at 2059 Monterey Boulevard
legally described as a portion of Lot 12 Block 32 First Addition
to Hermosa Beach.
8. CON – 00-24/PDP 00-26 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26219 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 222 CULPER COURT (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 16, 2001 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To continue to March 20, 2001 meeting. Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant has requested continuation to permit time for the applicant to further revise their plans to be in conformance to the Zone Code. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to
CONTINUE
CON 00-24/PDP 00-26 to the March 20, 2001 meeting.
VAR 00-1 – VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ROOF ELEMENTS EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT LIMIT TO COVER MORE THAN 5% OF THE ROOF AREA AT 1303 HERMOSA AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 16, 2001 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and described the proposal. He stated that the building and footprint are unusually small and are impossible to achieve parity with the surrounding properties and still develop a modern office building with a modern heating/cooling system. He also said that the air handling systems and duct work are provided on the first and second floors, but on the third floor, he stated that the proposed open space is not adequately provided. Due to the narrow width of the lot, it was impossible to provide the HVAC condenser units and duct work on the third floor and is provided on the roof which created over the permitted coverage requirement. He reviewed the findings which staff believes can be made to grant a Variance. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with the massive amount of equipment on the roof. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that there are no other commercial properties like this property and as a result, the condition is unique and there has not been a compelling reason to revise the Zoning Ordinance to deal with this condition. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Larry Peha, architect, explained that there are two units on the roof that serve the third floor with the balance of the units being the condensers for the first and second floors. He also said the first and second floors have air handlers which also have ducting. He stated that ducting could not be run on the third floor due to the 8 foot ceiling. He also said that the elevator tower size is the minimum requirement necessary. Director Blumenfeld explained that the elevator tower is the same height as the parking structure elevator tower and the Beach House Hotel elevator tower. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer stated that the area on the roof is necessary for the HVAC equipment and is needed to have a competitive type of commercial building. He said the building is small, and the applicant has utilized the space the best way possible and the building is very efficient. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that the project request for proposal was conditioned by the City to require that the building be of sufficient size to screen the parking structure from view from the street. He believed that the findings can be made for a Variance, given that the building was required to be at the maximum height and meet other project requirements. He suggesting adding conditions to reduce the screening to a minimum size and that the equipment on the roof be painted and maintained in a color conforming to the rest of the building. Commissioner Tucker stated that the building is nice but he expressed concern with the roof equipment. He suggested that in the future before a commercial building gets approved, that the mechanical equipment on the roof be approved by Planning. He said he does not like the appearance of the duct work and suggested screening which would build into the architecture of the building. He further expressed concern with the ladder from the roof to the parking structure roof being accessible. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed. Chairman Perrotti stated that he can make the four findings for the Variance and believed that the lot is unique, and the City had put restrictions on the building, putting the applicant in a position to have certain requirements.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to
APPROVE
VAR 01-1 and Resolution 01-, a Resolution of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, to approve the requested Variance to allow
roof elements that exceed the height limit to cover more than
five (5) percent of the roof at 1303 Hermosa Avenue legally
described as Lot 29, Block 14 Hermosa Beach Tract.
CON 01-1/PDP 01-1 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26205 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1144 CYPRESS AVENUE. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and described the project. He stated that the architect has submitted a landscape plan, showing the landscaping at the ground level with improvements to the first floor level. He said the project conforms to the requirements of the Zone Code, but the proposed lot coverage exceeds the maximum of 65% due to the covered patios being supported by wood columns. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld reviewed the columns and indicated that the columns are part of the architectural detail, but when included with the roof projection, the lot coverage requirement is violated. He also said that the area below the columns is a retaining wall. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Fran Uralman, representing the applicant, stated that the condominiums presented this evening will have the appearance of a custom home and will be a great addition to the neighborhood. She indicated that the front and rear yard setbacks will be greater than required. She pointed out that the columns will be an important architectural element for a Craftsman style home. She presented a colored rendering to the Commission. Larry Peha, architect for the project, stated that the project will be quality homes with only two units on the lot with no roof decks. He indicated that they are close to the 65 percent coverage due to the decks between the units covering the parking area below. He also indicated that the front, rear and side yards are over the requirements. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing. Mr. Peha clarified that the decks are being counted toward open space. He also pointed out that the roof overhanging the front doors is what is putting them over the coverage requirement. Commissioner Pizer indicated that it is a great design and the columns are an important design element with a Craftsman design and should not be counted as coverage. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that the Commission has to be consistent in terms of the coverage requirements and he suggested that the units be reduced in another area of the building. Chairman Perrotti agreed. He said he likes the design and will be a benefit to the community.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to
APPROVE
CON 01-1/PDP 01-1 and Resolution 01-, 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 #26205 for a two (2) unit
condominium project, at 1144 Cypress Avenue and legally described
as Lot 7, Tract 780, with the understanding that the project
meets the 65% coverage.
The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m.
11. CON 01-2/PDP 01-2 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26216 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 220 6TH STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and reviewed the project. He stated that the driveway access from Monterey includes an extra width with respect to the right-of-way which might create a problem with the driveway slope. He said a condition has been included requiring that Public Works require a detailed civil drawing. He said the project complies with lot coverage requirements and has ample open space. Because of the sloping condition on the lot, the building appears to be approximately 6 inches over height at one portion of the building, and the Commission should confirm the convex slope condition for establishing building height in the project approval. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that there is a convex slope condition on the lot which rakes quickly in about 5 feet of run from 91.5 to 96 at the southerly side of the property and the same conditions are mirrored on the northerly side. He also said there are steps on grade. He further said that the applicant would need to reduce the building height by about 6 inches at the critical point on the lowest portion of the lot, unless the Commission finds that the lot has a convex slope which can be used in determining building height. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld informed that the three pine trees will be removed, and two additional 36-inch box trees will be provided. He also stated that the existing structure is currently non-conforming to several issues. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, presented a colored rendering to the Commission. She said there is a great amount of articulation from the 6th Street frontage which shows up nicely in the site plan. She further distributed additional details from the surveyor regarding the issue of the convex lot. She indicated that the design is intended to be in full compliance with all of the development standards. She pointed out the lot has a very unique configuration, and in the northwest corner of the lot, there is a drop of about 7 feet and also on the southwest corner there is a similar topographic feature, to allow the cut for Bay View. She said that the architect has worked with staff regarding the Monterey frontage, and Public Works has indicated that the design is acceptable with the understanding that the property owner record a hold harmless statement regarding drainage. The natural downward slope from Monterey toward the lower portion of 6th Street will allow natural drainage from the driveway apron facing Monterey and will occur under the building out onto 6th Street. Also on Monterey, extra right-of-way width will be used to gain access. She also said that the applicant will be providing four 36-inch box trees. Commissioner Tucker stated that the survey does not show the elevations of the neighbor to the south and looking at the corner points, he believed that the lot may have been built up and artificially raised with concrete and he cannot support the convex nature of the area. Director Blumenfeld suggested that the architect present a graphic indicating the south side which may reflect the convex nature of the slope. He also suggested providing the survey immediately abutting the property. He indicated that looking at the under story of the garage may be helpful which may validate the cut condition along Bay View. He said that staff prefers that the Commission make the final determination regarding the convex condition. Ms. Srour stated that they will work with staff and provide additional data points to support the configuration. Eugene Rapaport, owner of the property to the south, informed that there is a platform that the current property is built on which is somewhat above the street level. He expressed concern with his view being obstructed. He also indicated that he has not noticed any convex nature to his property. He further expressed concern with the construction hours. Director Blumenfeld explained the construction hours and explained the calculations for measuring building heights. Nancy Oberto expressed concern with the height of the project and view impacts. Steve Slorinski expressed concern with parking impacts and his inability to park in front of his driveway with a permit. Commissioner Tucker explained that the project will improve the parking situation, providing seven more off site parking spaces, and the project will not affect is permitted parking space in front of his driveway. Bob Corbett stated he is across from the project which will dramatically affect his view, and he urged the Commission not to allow the project to go beyond the height requirements. Mr. Rapaport suggested that the property development start at the lowest possible point, and he requested that major construction be done only on the weekdays. Commissioner Tucker believed that there will probably be no work on Sundays due to the hours of only being from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Ms. Srour stated that what is being requested this evening is not an exception to the Code or the formula for determining height. She pointed out that looking at the registered survey markers of record with the County Recorder, the topographical pattern has a natural upward slope overall that influences the site, and the difference in grade occurs in the most westerly 5 percent of the lot. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that there is no view ordinance and the construction hours have been in place for a long period of time. He said he cannot support the convex condition and the property may have been artificially created, and he would like more information provided. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated the width of garage doors become an issue when the alley is less than 20 feet in width. He indicated that this project has adequate turning radius to get into the garage. Commissioner Tucker requested that only a ¾ bath be allowed in the lower unit. He also pointed out that there will be more parking provided. He said the drainage issue needs to be resolved by Public Works and the developer. He also expressed concern with the appearance of the easterly elevation on Monterey. He further suggested that the deck be over the living area with a tile roof, bringing the height of the project down. Commissioner Kersenboom indicated that he would like to see the elevations before he approves the project. Commissioner Pizer agreed. He said that the northwest corner point is in question, and a proper determination is needed as to where the natural grade exists. Commissioner Hoffman doubted that there has been any grading done and the lot is the natural product as to the way Bay View was cut into the dune. He agreed that more data needs to be provided. Chairman Perrotti also would like to see the correct data to establish the height, and perhaps more information from historical records as to the property to the south may be helpful. Director Blumenfeld suggested getting access to the structure from the garage side on Bayview to determine if there is a retained condition just as the hill begins to break. He also commented that when the structure on the property was originally built there was generally a reluctance to place fill soil on a site or move earth, which tends to support the idea that the structure follows the contour of the site.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to
CONTINUE
CON 01-2/PDP 01-2, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development
Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26216 for a two-unit
condominium at 220 6th Street, until proper data and information
is provided to support the applicant’s theory of a convex
slope along with clarification from Public Works regarding the
driveway off Monterey.
PDP 01-3/PARK 01-1 – PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER TO ACCOMMODATE OFFICES, A HEALTH AND FITNESS CLUB, AND RETAIL USES AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA PAVILION. Staff Recommended Action: To continue said request. Director Blumenfeld indicated that staff is recommending that this project be continued to the next meeting. He said there was not enough information for an environmental clearance because when the project changed from retail to office, the trip generation data changed relative to potential project impacts. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Lori Magnan stated she lives next to the facility and expressed concern with a 24 hour fitness center. She stated she will review the plans. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the owner is currently considering a sale of the property rather than developing it himself as originally submitted to the Commission. This tends to cast it as a speculative venture, since there is no assurance the property will be sold and developed. Also, the developer has changed plans as the project has evolved and the economy has changed. He said, however, there is apparently an interested buyer for the property with the proposed configuration.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to
CONTINUE
to the next meeting PDP 01-3/PARK 01-1 – Precise
Development Plan and Parking Plan for alterations to an existing
retail and entertainment center to accommodate offices, a health
and fitness club, and retail uses at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway,
Hermosa Pavilion.
13. L-5 – LEGAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THREE DWELLING UNITS WERE LAWFULLY CREATED AND CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY AT 221 33 RD STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Commissioner Tucker left the dais at 10:05 p.m. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and reviewed the project. He stated that staff examined the permit history and found some conflicting information with respect to the assessor information and insurance related Sanborn Maps. The 1950 assessor information shows two bedrooms, one bathroom, one kitchen, one garage apartment with no reference to living area, suggesting only two units. An earlier assessor record also has no reference to a living room with only one bedroom, bath and kitchen and no reference to a garage apartment. He said the City’s permit history is very unclear, with the front structure never having a building permit and a two-car garage created in permit in 1935, an alley unit created in 1947, a rumpus room permit issued in 1951/52 but no references to a kitchen in the rumpus room or an internal connection required at the time. In summary, the limited evidence available seems to place in serious doubt that three-units were ever legally constructed, however, the evidence is also conflicting and incomplete since the Sanborn Map seems to indicate three addresses in 1927. It is probably a reasonable assumption that the original front structure was a single dwelling, but both the County records and the Sanborn Map place that in doubt. Therefore, there is no certainty that the three units were not established on the property before the 1951/52 rumpus room addition. Also, while it seems fairly clear that the second story of the front building was the rumpus room and bedroom permitted in 1951/52, the permit is not precise enough to determine whether the exterior access was permissible at the time. Staff has researched the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time, and no language was found that would have required an interior connection as is required now. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld explained that the safety issues are being pursued separately and were the precursor to the subject request. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld indicated that staff was unable to get the information from the Gas Company regarding the three separate meters. He also said originally, there were only two electrical meters and one house meter. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that the second unit in the front is all upstairs, with a stairway leading to it. He said that it is unlikely that before 1951, the front unit was two units on the ground floor. Director Blumenfeld indicated that the City Attorney informed that the City cannot be stopped from enforcing a Zoning Ordinance and there is no statue of limitations. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Gordana Swanson, owner of the property, stated her husband and herself purchased the property in 1965 with a title search done at that time and recorded as three units. She said the County provided a document stating that in 1920, the front unit was built and at that time, two units were built that had three bedrooms on the front. In 1934, there was one additional unit built. She believed it had been legal for 35 years during their ownership and they have never added any living space or any additions. She said they have always paid the City business license tax for three units. She also said that the City records indicate that for each improvement done, there has been a legal building permit issued by the City. She indicated that everything has been done in good faith over the years and complied with all of the City’s requests. She believed it would be unfair to be denied to continue using their property as they always have been. She expressed disappointment with having to pay over $2,000 in expenses for this request, but she wants to make it right. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld believed that the garage was originally constructed in 1935, the alley unit was constructed in 1947/48 and there was a rumpus room permit issued in 1951/52. Ms. Swanson stated that the rumpus room may have been created in the back or front. Director Blumenfeld stated the elimination of the third unit would not require demolishing the building, but would only require creating an internal connection within the unit. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld stated that in 1943, the zoning became R2 and prior to that, there may have not been a restriction on the number of units. Ms. Swanson indicated that making the front two units into one unit would create a tremendous hardship and she believed this would be unfair. She further indicated that she has had seven building permits on the property with none addressing a kitchen. She also pointed out that the City shows three different addresses on the lot. Rita Bernhardt questioned why this issue has come up after 35 years. She expressed concern with the smaller quaint homes disappearing and being replaced with large massive structures. Director Blumenfeld explained that there was construction observed on the site with an investigation about the units and nature of the building. Tasha Henship stated she has known the Swanson’s for about 18 years and grew up in the area. She indicated that she has been inside the property and is not a bootleg property. She stated that with the configuration of the front unit, the building would have been originally constructed as a two-unit property because of an external access for the unit which is rented out separately. She believed there were two units built from the very beginning with the garage built at a later time as a third unit to the property, with all three having been built before the 1943 R2 zoning. She also said that Ms. Swanson keeps up the property, having long-term tenants and no problems in terms of density, the neighborhood or parking in the area. She also informed that the garages are not accommodating for parking, and she believed that assessor data is generally incorrect. Jerry Compton indicated that the three units were created during the war for housing needs and were legal at the time. He also believed that if the units have been rented continuously, they should be grandfathered in. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld stated that any Building Code issues will be dealt with independently. Commissioner Kersenboom stated it is shown that there have always been three units in existence, and he believed it would be unfair to change the building back to two units. He indicated that as long as the building is safe and meets all the Building Codes, the building can remain as three units. Commissioner Hoffman stated the issue involved is whether these units were legally created, and the only specific evidence he sees is that the R2 zoning dates to 1943 and that the building permit for the rumpus room and bedroom would appear to be the second story, and this could not have been legally created as a second unit. He indicated that he would need to see evidence that the original building was a two-story building and the addition was on the ground floor. Director Blumenfeld informed that the Sanborn Map shows a two-story structure. Commissioner Pizer indicated that the issue is not safety and nothing can be determined exactly because of the history. However, he believed that the units were lawfully created at the time since the Sanborn Map shows three units, there have been inspections over the past 50 years, and the continuous rental records show that it has been three units for a long time. Chairman Perrotti believed that there is enough information to find that there were three units and are legally constructed. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER that the three units were legally constructed. Commissioner Tucker returned to the dais.
14. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that the owner has completed the project pursuant to the required plans, but there are still some ongoing operational issues and violations relative to actual utilization of the site for parking along the Pacific Coast Highway side. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld stated that there is a code enforcement officer available to monitor the site and if there is a violation of the permit, the matter can be referred to the City Prosecutor or the owner can be subject to a fine. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the lumber stacks issue will be referred to the Fire Department if it is a Fire Code issue. He also indicated that the saws near the molding shed need to be weatherized and permitted. He stated that the Building Plans are still not submitted for approval. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER that staff monitor the site over the next 30 days and meet with the City Prosecutor and bring back a report at the next meeting.
Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and indicated that the overall increase in project valuation will rise from 92 percent to 98 percent. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER that the addition would be a minor modification.
Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and stated that staff is requesting by Minute Order as to whether or not the Commission wants to initiate a zone change to the properties between 4 th and 5 th Streets on Ocean View Avenue. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld indicated that unanimous agreement is a policy to eliminate rezoning property that owners are against. Director Blumenfeld explained that a zone change could only occur if there is a compelling public benefit served or the owners could initiate the zone change if it affects their property. He also indicated that different development standards cannot be established on a lot by lot basis. Commissioner Hoffman believed that the public interest would not be served by this change. Jerry Compton reviewed the history of the area and indicated that it does not make sense to have an R-2 area behind an R-1 area which is sandwiched between the R-2 and Commercial. He explained that there is high density on one end, low density on the other end, commercial on one side and medium density on the other, and property will never be built in this area. He believed that the City made a mistake and the area has been zoned improperly and is not good for the community. He also indicated that if the area were rezoned R-2B, a maximum of 13 units could be developed. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER to decline to initiate the General Plan amendment and zone change for the west side of Ocean View Avenue between 4 th and 5 th Streets, and that Director Blumenfeld investigate further if a private party could submit an application for a zone change and investigate further the 100 percent rule. d. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
15. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Pizer stated that columns supporting roofs eaves should be around 5 percent. Commissioner Tucker would like to see commercial buildings be reviewed where AC units on the roofs not take up more than the necessary amount and require screening. Director Blumenfeld explained that whenever there is a private separate discretionary permit, roof screening is required and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to ADJOURN the meeting at 12:03 am. No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|