|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 05-15-01
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
Chairman Perrotti welcomed back City Planner Schubach. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner
Pizer, to
APPROVE
the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission minutes.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to
APPROVE
Resolutions P.C. 01-6, 01-7, 01-11, 01-9 and 01-10.
Director Blumenfeld reviewed Resolution P.C.01-8 and indicated that the reference to mobile cell antennas have been omitted. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that public facilities zoned open space could be added as a permitted use under the OS1 Zone, Section 17.30.020. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld explained that a private property would be a classified as an OSO Zone.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to
APPROVE
Resolution P.C. 01-8, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to recommend amending the
Zoning Ordinance regarding the limitations on rooftop antennas,
satellite dishes and similar equipment that exceed the height
limit and the placement and use of wireless communication
facilities, with modifications as discussed by the Commission.
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Judy Garland inquired about an R2 property at 19th Street and Monterey that has been designated as a cell site. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Commission could agendize this item for public discussion if desired. PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from the dais at 7:21 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach explained that this item was continued due to concern with the height and the critical points of the critical elevations. He said staff has provided a site plan showing the elevations on both sides of the property which explains why certain points are used as critical points. He indicated the lot has a convex curve which takes a dramatic drop at two points, one on each side. He pointed out that if other points off the property were used, higher elevations would take place. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that the top of the finished surface is being used, which is concrete. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld indicated that the deck is not considered part of the floor area of the building.
MOTION
by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Chairman Pizer, to
APPROVE
PC Resolution 01-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional
Use Permit amendment to allow a mezzanine addition and
alterations to a 2-unit condominium located at 858 Loma Drive,
and legally described as Lot 1, condominium P.M. 217-100.
Commissioner Hoffman returned to the dais at 7:28 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach gave a staff report and stated the project meets or exceeds the minimum zoning requirements. He said, however, there is still a 15 percent driveway slope which will be required to be changed to a 12.5 percent slope. He also said there are two 36-inch box trees provided, and all the standard conditions are included in the Resolution. In response to Commissioner Pizer, City Planner Schubach said that the required change in the driveway slope will be required on the front unit and should not be a problem. Commissioner Kersenboom requested to see the details on the south and east elevations. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Mesa explained that there is a trim mold on the west elevation between the garage and the first floor which will continue around the south elevation, and there will also be some moldings on the parapets and around the windows. He also said that the south and east elevations will look close to the details on the west elevation. Chairman Perrotti would like to see a more detailed plan. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker would like to see more detail on the south and east elevations such as detail around the windows, arches and horizontal reglets, etc. Commissioner Hoffman agreed.
MOTION
by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to
APPROVE
P.C. 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 #26290 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 2935
Palm Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 106, Shakespeare
Tract, subject to final consent approval of the design details.
Commissioner Pizer recused himself from the dais at 7:42 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and explained the request. He said that the applicant is proposing this Variance to allow the existing roof be extended over the proposed third floor/penthouse addition in an effort to maintain the architectural integrity and aesthetic appeal of the residence which is 75 years old, and according to the applicant is "known to be of historical value, especially for its style." He said no further evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this structure is recognized as a historic resource, or that the style of architecture is of particular historic merit, and the property is not included on the "List of Locally Significant Historic Resources" in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. He further reviewed the findings to be met in order to grant a Variance, and he said staff has found it difficult to meet Findings 1 and 2. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that the City’s consulting architectural historian would have to review the building for historic designation. He pointed out that the existing roof ridge of the hip roof is 6 feet over the 30-foot height limit, and he believed there would not be grounds to grant the Variance without determining whether or not there is historic merit. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the condition indicated on the renderings would be what will be built if the Variance is denied. He said the applicant has submitted a plan which was approved with a flat roof that conforms to the height requirements of 30 feet; however, the applicant is asking to create a more harmonious roof line that is consistent with the rest of the building which will require a Variance to the height in the zone. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said that the project is nonconforming to the height requirements. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Susan Darcy, applicant for the project, introduced the Mr. Roy Young, architect for the project and Mr. John Hales who sits on the Board of the Historic Society. She clarified that the roof line and the Variance only relates to a small portion of the addition which will expand the existing third floor. She said that they would like to maintain the architectural integrity of a beautiful old building that was built in 1924. She informed that she has received several letters of support from a variety of neighbors, and she said people in the area have admired and appreciated the home. She also informed that the previous owners were direct descendants of the Avila’s which was originally their beach house, and the Avila Adobe on Olvera Street is actually now a museum. She also pointed out that the other homes around her are as tall or taller in height, and the proposed roof line change would not impact any views. Roy Young, Architect for the project, stated he is in favor of making the house consistent throughout architecturally, and stated he is available for questions. John Hale stated he has been doing an extensive study of the history of the City, and he said in the 60’s and 70’s he sat on the Planning Commission. He said that the building permit was issued June 10, 1924, and he believed that some tolerance should be given to buildings that were created prior to 1930. He said that the Darcy’s are trying to make an asset for the City, and the building is very unique and genuine and will be an outstanding and fine home on the Strand. He believed that thought should be given to the age of the home and period of time it was built. He believed that there are other sites not on the "List of Locally Significant Historic Resources" that should be considered. He hoped that the very minor aspect of the overall project of continuing the roof line which will not impact any of the neighbors and carries out the continuity of the rest of the design of the house should be considered relative to the age of the property. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Hale said that a flat roof in the portion to be extended would be detrimental to the overall design of the home. Shawn Darcy, applicant for the project, stated that he and his wife had admired the home for a long time, and they purchased it with the intention of restoring and keeping it. He read a letter from Gladys Bain who owns the corner behind him and is in support of the proposal. He pointed out that the roof line will not impact on any of the views and will not change the use of the room. He said they just want to extend the hip roof backwards to maintain the aesthetic value and to be consistent with the architecture of the home. Larry Goldsmith, neighbor of the applicant, stated he has admired the home from its architecture value and he spoke highly in favor of the Variance which will enhance the overall project. He said the views will not be impaired, and he mentioned that the neighbors he has spoke to are all in favor of the project. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman stated he is in support of historic preservation, but he cannot make the finding of something unique about the property. He expressed concern with what and what has not been considered historical as far as modifications to the building. Commissioner Tucker believed that there could be an unusual situation about the project, and he believed that it has some historical value. Director Blumenfeld explained that a Variance finding could be based upon an historic designation, as the physical conditions of the property and/or the structure on the property would be constrained, and there would be something unique about the property that related to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Commissioner Kersenboom requested the square footage of the home before and after completion of the addition. He believed that the home has historical significance. Commissioner Tucker believed that the existing roof has historical significance and by extending it, would maintain its value. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Young stated that the historic roof as it exists will remain as is after the flat roof is put on beyond it. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld indicated that Finding No. 1 primarily relates to the property involved and not to the structure. An historic designation makes the property unique to the area by definition, and if the historical issue could be validated, the findings might be met. He suggested asking the Historical Society to review the project and provide input to the Commission. Chairman Perrotti commented that Variances are difficult due to gray areas involved and Variances concerning height are controversial in the beach area due to view impacts. He pointed out in this case, view impacts would be minimal. He expressed concern with precedent setting approving Variances for height; however the style both with the architectural and design is unique and may have some historical value. He appreciated the applicant preserving the style of the structure, but he would like to see further factual historical evidence.
MOTION
by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Tucker , to
APPROVE
VAR 01-2 – Variance to exceed the height limit in order to
extend and match an existing sloping roof currently nonconforming
to the height limit at 502 the Strand.
MOTION
by Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom , to
CONTINUE
VAR 01-2 – to the next meeting to allow the applicant to
gather further information and evidence of the historical value.
Commissioner Pizer returned to the dais at 8:43 p.m. The Commission took a break at 8:43 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and stated that the change would allow holiday decorations an exception to the Sign Code. He said a supplemental item has been provided with additional wording to Section 17.50.040, Section D, stating "temporary holiday decorations (if displayed by a business, do not contain text or graphics that advertise goods or services)." In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that in the current Sign Ordinance, temporary banners can be installed no more than 30 days and no more than 90 days in a calendar year. Chairman Perrotti expressed concern with temporary holiday decorations displayed for too long of periods. Commissioner Pizer pointed out that a holiday decoration could be put up 30 days before a holiday and 60 days afterwards with no control. He indicated that timing should be set for the duration of the display of decorations. Director Blumenfeld suggested the following wording to Section 17.50.040, Section D, stating "Temporary holiday decorations if displayed by a business, do not contain text or graphics that advertise goods or services and are installed for a period no longer than 14 days prior to a holiday and removed within 3 days after a holiday." Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker suggested that the size and amount of banners should be limited. Commissioner Pizer would like to see clarification as to what is a holiday or event, and he suggested that a list be provided. Commissioner Hoffman suggested no more than 30 days of continuous display per year.
MOTION
by Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to
CONTINUE
TEXT 01-3 – Text amendment to Sign Ordinance to exempt
holiday decorations from sign regulations, to the next meeting to
allow staff to revise the amendment and prepare a list of
holidays, prepare a beginning time and ending time duration for
when the appropriate decoration can be displayed, and define what
a decoration is subject to approval.
11. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that the owner has obtained a lease for 15 years, 7 months, with an option to extend three years and an additional option to extend for five years after that, which would take them beyond the 20-year term. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld explained that if the applicant didn’t renew the lease, they would be in violation of their use permit, and the code enforcement would be to remove seating. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said that the City is considering controlling the parking through a sublease to ensure that there is public parking at all times other than the days the church is in operation on Sundays. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER that the lease terms meet the requirements under the project approval of 20 years.
Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and stated that the actual operation of the business has changed. If a business operates as a restaurant but is parked at a less restrictive standard, it is unfair to businesses which are held to the more restrictive standard. The proposed new use would require installation of a hood, but the use would otherwise remain as it was previously approved by Commission. Staff would like clarification as to whether or not the proposed change would be consistent with a snack shop. He pointed out that if the owner were to park under the provisions for a restaurant, the in lieu fees would be over $80,000. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that there is not a firm definition of a restaurant in the zone code other than restaurants serving alcohol and a provision as it relates to gross sales. He said that the installation of a cooktop and hood has tended to constitute a restaurant in the past and is consistent with the building code definition. He also said there are fire safety requirements that have to be considered when a cooktop and hood are installed. He further pointed out that businesses that choose to be a restaurant offer more of a full menu. Rima Thomasian, owner of Hermosa Cafe, stated that she would like to expand the business with more choices to offer such as hot sandwiches, and she would like to add a Shawerma grill with a small range with a hood. She pointed out that there is an exhaust fan already in the building and she is currently paying for gas each month. She would like to switch from electric to gas cooking. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld explained that typically, a hood is required for cooking, but he would need to investigate this further. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Ms. Thomasian explained that the meat would cook directly on the Shawerma grill. Commissioner Tucker noted that the cooking would be subject to the Health Department which would require a Type I hood since there will be grease present. He also expressed concern with precedent setting. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Ms. Thomasian said that a microwave would not be adequate for her cooking requirements. She also said there is a lot of competition in the area, and she would like to use the Shawerma grill for cooking which would be unique and bring in more customers. Director Blumenfeld said he will check with the Health Department’s requirements. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER that there be no hood or stove and that the cooking device be investigated by staff and certified by the Health Department and qualify without a cooktop or hood.
12. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chairman Perrotti indicated that he received a letter from Richard and Barbara Schoonover, and requested that it become part of the file record on the proposed zone change. Commissioner Tucker addressed Ms. Garland’s comments regarding an R2 site being used as a cell site in an R2 zone. He believed that it should have had a Conditional Use Permit granted and public hearing, and he believed a cell site is a commercial endeavor. Director Blumenfeld explained that the project is at St. Cross Church and an application was submitted last November to install a cellular antenna on the property. The church is located in the R Zone, and the application was thoroughly reviewed. Staff looked at whether or not this was a permitted use in the zone and the provisions to approving a text amendment to Section 1746.240. He said that the City Attorney and staff felt that the overriding section that prescribes the permitted use is Section1746.240, and the use is an accessory use under the Zoning Ordinance which is permitted in all the zones which has been corrected in the new Zoning Ordinance text amendment. He said, however, that the project has undergone several proposed changes and is no longer an accessory structure as proposed under the modified plan, is no longer guided by 1746.240 and is no longer permitted under this provision. He indicated that staff will carefully evaluate this change in the project. He clarified that Section 17.08.020 relates entirely to home occupations which does not relate to this issue. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld explained that newspaper racks are controlled by Public Works, and the Public Works Commission is currently addressing this issue. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said that he gave the Commission a status report last month on Learned Lumber which revealed that they were in compliance as of February. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that on a discretionary permit, there is a condition regarding rooftop screening, but screening is generally left to the Commission’s discretion. 18. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to ADJOURN the meeting at 9:50 p.m. No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|