MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF

HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 20, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tucker at 7:05 p.m.

Vice-Chair Perrotti led the pledge of allegiance.

Roll Call

Present: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Pizer, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker

Absent: None

Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director

Michael Schubach, City Planner

Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Jackie Oto of 222 Hermosa Avenue expressed concern regarding overcrowding. Chairman Tucker stated the Zoning Code determines the size of lots.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. CON 99-2/PDP 99-2 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25390 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 601 MANHATTAN AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1999 AND MARCH 16, 1999 MEETINGS.)

Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

City Planner Schubach stated staff's only concern with the project is the open space and the Planning Commission's policy regarding open space directly accessible to the living areas. There is a deck at a 5 foot dimension, but it should be 7 feet to be countable open space.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

Elizabeth Srour of Srour & Associates presented the rendering of the project. She stated the project is located at an attractive location, having exposure from three sides. The architect has taken care to break up the elevation on all three sides. The project is in full compliance with the Code. The unit with the deck off the living area meets the spirit of the Code, having a generous amount of open space. Also, the open space is very usable. The applicant accepts all of the conditions of approval.

Larry Peha of 67 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, is the project architect and stated they are trying to create a more usable interior space. He further stated they provided open space off of the living room with well over enough countable open space.

Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Schwartz stated she does not see a reason making an exception with this project regarding the deck square footage requirement of 7 feet. Also, the bathroom in the basement needs to be a three-quarter bath.

The Commission agreed.

MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to ADOPT CON 99-2/PDP 99-2 as proposed with the additional language stating that the basement bath in each unit be made a three-quarter bath.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

Director Blumenfeld explained the appeal period of 10 days after the disposition from Council on April 27, 1999.

8. CON 98-9 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ON-SALE ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND TO ADD A DANCING AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 1100 THE STRAND, SCOTTY'S (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 19, 1999, FEBRUARY 16, 1999 and MARCH 16, 1999 MEETINGS).

Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the May 18, 1999 Meeting to permit processing the new Environmental Negative Declaration for the project.

Director Blumenfeld stated that the City Attorney advised that a new Negative Declaration be filed due to the amount of time that has lapsed since the original application was approved.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.

MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to CONTINUE CUP 98-9 to the May 18, 1999 Meeting.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

8. CON 99-4/PDP 99-4--CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25198 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1724 GOLDEN AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1999 AND MARCH 16, 1999 MEETINGS.)

Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission requested at the last meeting that the tandem parking be eliminated. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the project with a minimum parking stall requirement at the guest parking space location. Also, staff would like to work with the architect to try to move the building opposite the stall as far as possible to get the largest stall possible.

Commissioner Schwartz requested an explanation of the method used for measuring the lot. Director Blumenfeld explained the measurement calculations. He further explained that when the project is ready to be permitted, staff will ask the architect to show the limit of the project approval as part of the permit.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

Fran Uralman of 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, is representing the applicant, Steven Lust. She stated the applicant and architect have come up with a good plan providing more parking than required. They would prefer to have the guest parking space approved as it is tonight with the condition that the applicant and architect will work with staff to see if it is possible to shift the building slightly to increase the width of the guest parking space.

Chairman Tucker questioned the front unit being changed from a workshop to a bedroom.

1. Steven Lust of 1724 Golden Avenue stated the front unit is designed to be converted into a bedroom. He will be using it as a workshop, but would prefer that it be modified to satisfy the conditions for a bedroom.
2. 
   
3. Gail Halenbach of 1722A Golden Avenue expressed concern regarding the setback of the project from the front of the street. Director Blumenfeld stated the setback varies from 5 feet to 7 feet. This is the minimum required setback in the front yard.
4. 
   
5. Ms. Halenbach also stated concern regarding the parking. She suggested the street be zoned only for residents with permits. Director Blumenfeld stated this would be a Public Works or City Council issue.
6. 
   
7. Ms. Halenbach expressed concern regarding her view. Chairman Tucker stated there is no View Ordinance in the community.
8. 
   
9. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
10. 
    
11. Commissioner Pizer concluded that the project has complied with the guest parking issue and the project should move forward.
12. 
    
13. Commissioner Schwartz agrees with the recommendations of staff regarding the widening of the parking space. She would like to see further refinement of the building elevations.
14. 
    
15. Chairman Tucker stated the Commission should have a rendering of the project. He pointed out that the window wells need to be larger than what is shown on the plans on the front and back. He expressed concern with the cul-de-sac and at the dead end spot, there should be no parking. There should also be access to the school.
16. 
    
17. MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE CON 99-4/PDP 99-4 as proposed with the modifications that the applicant provide a rendering, the workshop area conform to the bedroom specifications and that staff review the elevations with the applicant to insure there be more articulation and a better design plan.
18. 
    AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker
19. NOES: None
20. ABSENT: None
21. ABSTAIN: None
22. 
    
23. CON 99-5/PDP 99-5 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #52794 FOR A SEVEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1046-1054 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 16, 1999 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
24. 
    
25. Director Blumenfeld stated the project was continued to consider the common open space area. The Commission expressed concern with the area being a discreet common open space area. The project architect worked with staff and came back with a plan showing water features, fountain, bench for seating and to create the minimum 700 feet without combining it with any other part of the entranceway.
    
26. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
27. 
    
28. Elizabeth Srour of 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, is representing the applicant, Steven Legare. She stated the lot coverage has been corrected and the rear units have been reduced almost 300 square feet each. This project replaces a seven-unit nonconforming apartment complex with substandard parking, with a brand new seven-unit complex with parking that meets the requirements plus additional space. This project with its design contemplates a lifestyle that is desirable for young couples, families and working professionals. The concept with the courtyard provides the social context with a communal area which is attractive, safe and secure. There are a number of attributes in the design for the residents and neighbors. The elevations are setback which makes it attractive from the street. The view for the properties to the north and south is preserved. The buildings in the rear have been setback, there is a 20 foot in diameter dimension for the courtyard and the landscaping has been increased. The architect and applicant will work with staff regarding the texture of the driveways and walkways in the courtyard. She further stated that the changes that have been incorporated in the project reflect the concerns of the Commission at the last meeting.
29. 
    
30. Vice-Chair Perrotti indicated that staff has recommended to the Commission that the fountain area be recessed in more like a pond concept with a fountain. Ms. Srour stated they will work with staff.
31. 
    
32. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
33. 
    
34. Commissioner Pizer stated that the open space problems have been resolved and the building is attractive. This revised plan will benefit the residents.
35. 
    
36. Commissioner Schwartz commented that she does not see this courtyard area as a recreational area. She would like to see the 700 foot requirement separate from the circulation access. She also pointed out that this community is turning its back on the community at large.
37. 
    
38. Commissioner Ketz stated most people will be coming in through their driveways into their house and will not even see the communal area. She expressed that she does not like all the driveways facing Monterey Boulevard.
39. 
    
40. Vice-Chair Perrotti agreed that the plan is preferable to the last one. He stated he would like to see the pavers with grass in between be implemented to break up the concrete. He further requested the applicant work with staff concerning the fountain which would make the area look better.
41. 
    
42. Commissioner Pizer pointed out that this plan serves a purpose of separation of the buildings, allowing more light inside between the buildings. Even if the communal area is not used, there will still be a view of having something nice to look at in the courtyard area.
43. 
    
44. Chairman Tucker agrees that the courtyard area will be usable common area. Also, the fountain will look nice. There will be 25 spots of parking gained with this project. He suggested using grass blocks in the driveways to break up the concrete.
45. 
    MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE CON 99-5/PDP 99-5 with the condition to work with staff on lowering the fountain and enhancing the landscape area and walks with pavers and grass.
46. 
    AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker
47. NOES: Commissioners Ketz, Schwartz
48. ABSENT: None
49. ABSTAIN: None
50. 
    
51. VAR99-1 - VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE TO HABITABLE FLOOR AREA, AND PROVIDE ONLY ONE PARALLEL PARKING SPACE, AND HAVE LESS THAN REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AT 316 29TH COURT.

Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

City Planner Schubach stated that the project is on a very small half size lot; it is off a narrow 15 foot wide alley and is on a lot that slopes considerably. The applicant would like to change the garage into livable space that could be used in conjunction with the dwelling above the garage. The applicant proposes to put in an internal stairwell which would attach with what is existing now downstairs, an inaccessible room. Also, by removing the driveway, the area would be converted into a parallel parking space which will add another space.

Commissioner Pizer asked how the garage was accessed? Mr. Schubach stated it was never used as a garage.

Vice-Chair Perrotti asked if the driveway could be modified so that the garage could be used? Director Blumenfeld stated because of the slop of the driveway, the run of the driveway would have to be increased to reduce the rise.

Vice-Chair Perrotti questioned the boundary survey. Director Blumenfeld stated staff did not get the boundary information which is needed since there is some discrepancy on the yards. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission require the applicant submit a stamped survey from a licensed surveyor showing all the boundary information required. He also stated the applicant is not adding footage except for the stairway.

Commissioner Ketz expressed concern with this project. She does not see how parallel parking could be used in the area with walls on three sides.

Commissioner Schwartz asked if the Variance runs with the land? Director Blumenfeld stated that it only runs with the approval of this project.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

Dane McKay of 316 29th Court is the applicant and presented pictures of the area. He stated if he reconfigures the steps up to the upstairs, he could provide the 22 feet needed for the parking space.

Bret Johnson of 321 28th Street is located immediately adjacent to the subject property on the east side. The house was built in the 30's. The dimensions for the parking space will work. By granting the Variance, the quality of life in the neighborhood will improve by allowing one car to park. The building will also have a much more pleasing look.

Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.

Vice-Chair Perrotti pointed out that there have been letters submitted from Janet Davis, Ron Felsing, Rich Allen and Pate Johnson who are not in favor of granting the Variance.

Commissioner Pizer stated the project meets all the findings for a Variance.

Commissioner Schwartz agreed. She stated it is an existing structure and the Commission has the ability to make exceptions to the conditions. By approving the changes requested, one parking spot will be gained.

Commissioner Ketz stated the house was built in the 30's and is one of the very few half lots that are just fronts on a court. She agrees there are reasons for the Variance.

Vice-Chair Perrotti stated the garage currently cannot be used and by approving the Variance, at least there will be one parking space that can be used.

Chairman Tucker agreed with the Commission.

MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE VAR99-1 as proposed with the applicant submitting a corrected boundary survey by a certified engineer.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

12. VAR 99-2/CON 99-7/PDP99-8 - VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD OF 2.6' RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 10% OF LOT WIDTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25455 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1727 GOLDEN AVENUE.

Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate with respect to the Variance request and to approve said request for a two-unit condominium.

City Planner Schubach stated staff is concerned about making Finding #2. The cost should not be a consideration for a finding. Also, there are corrections that are necessary to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code such as reducing the square footage of the deck to under 400 square feet, widen the guest parking space to 9 feet, provide a detailed landscaping plan and have at least two 36 inch box trees, provide a shared driveway agreement for approval by the City, properly indicate the required continuous side yard of 3.85 feet and provide a location for trash in the front unit.

Chairman Tucker asked how decorative concrete will be approached with a common driveway? Director Blumenfeld stated it would be possible to combine the area that is under consideration on the lot with the existing concrete paving and treat the area within the property line with decorative concrete.

Chairman Tucker suggested that a sump pump be provided in the backyard.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated this property is being proposed by a family who has owned property on this hill since 1916. This family has had a three-generation presence on the hill since 1916. It is their desire to keep the front house after making significant improvements of $80,000. At the time of making the improvements, because there were no structural additions or modifications to the building, the issue of the setback did not arise. Because of the odd shape of the lot and the building not being parallel to the property line, the setback range is anywhere from a few inches over a foot to a few inches under a foot at the rear of the structure as far as encroachments are concerned. The second floor of the building is set back from the north side of the building an additional 6 feet. A nonconformity will not be extended, and relief will be given by setting the second story back 6 feet from the existing wall. The front yard setback is 17 feet to 33 feet back from the front property line on the first floor and an additional 25 feet on the second floor. The property is well under what the Code permits as far as lot coverage. Cost should be considered as part of relief in this case because the applicant is minimizing the additions to the property as far as the north property line is concerned where the encroachment exists. The driveway is not very visible to the street due to the topography and additional work to the driveway is not necessary. The rear yard drainage is directed to the sump in the driveway.

Alan McKinney of Torrance stated the lot is an odd shaped lot, and the school property was taken from the owners originally. Apparently, there were no building codes in 1954 when the applicant placed the existing structure on it because the garage is nonconforming as well as the house.

Gail Halenbach of 1722 Golden Avenue expressed concern with losing her view. She presented pictures to the Commission. She further stated that the driveway of the project is very visible, and that there is a parking problem on the street.

Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Ketz stated the house will be brought off the street and is a good design.

Vice-Chair Perrotti stated since there are no improvements anywhere close to the north property line, he could find for the Variance. Concerning the condominium addition, he stated he sees no problems and staff has included the items in the proposed resolution which need additional information submitted. He expressed concern with the decorative paving, however.

Commissioner Schwartz suggested that the project needs more consistency and articulation. She would like to see some landscaping incorporated along the front lot line for screening.

Commissioner Pizer stated he has difficulty meeting Condition 2.

Chairman Tucker stated the Variance can be met regarding the sideyard expansion, but he would like to see a landscaping plan submitted. He would like to see the whole driveway improved with decorative paving.

MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE VAR 99-2 as proposed.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker

NOES: Pizer

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE CON 99-7/PDP99-8 subject to design review by staff including a landscaping plan for the front patio, and modification of Condition 12 adding in a catch basin in addition to the sump pump for proper drainage.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

1. CUP 99-2 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OUTDOOR DINING HOURS TO 11:00 P.M. DAILY DURING DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME (APRIL - OCTOBER) AND TO 10:00 P.M. NOVEMBER - MARCH AT 26 22ND STREET, BOTTLE INN RISTORANTE.

Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.

City Planner Schubach stated additional hours where given to the restaurant May 28, 1996 on appeal from the Planning Commission to the City Council. The Resolution given tonight updates all of the conditions, because since 1996, the standard conditions have been modified by City Council. Staff is requesting that the Commission approve the new Resolution.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

Randy Fortunato, owner of the Bottle Inn Ristorante stated many patrons come to the restaurant later in the evening to eat on the patio and watch the sunset. Generally, there is not enough time for the patrons to finish their meal unless the hours can be extended during daylight savings time. Many of his customers have been coming to the restaurant for over twenty years. Also, alcohol will not be served on the patio without food.

Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.

Chairman Tucker pointed out that one letter of opposition has been submitted from Lawrence Fordiani.

Commissioner Pizer asked what normal outside dining hours are for other restaurants? Director Blumenfeld stated it varies. The Hermosa Beach Steak Out outside dining hours are consistent with their operating hours.

Vice-Chair Perrotti pointed out that in the Resolution, staff has added a condition that there be a review in six months.

Chairman Tucker agrees with the Resolution. The restaurant has been a good neighbor and is good for the community.

MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE CUP 99-2.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

14. CON 99-6/PDP 99-7 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25452 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 139 AND 141 MONTEREY BOULEVARD.

Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

City Planner Schubach stated staff believes that the decks should be increased 100 square feet directly off the living areas. Also, the height of the project is over at about 5 inches at one point, but this could be corrected without any difficulty. Also, the requirement for 36 inch box trees should be added.

Commissioner Schwartz stated that the half bathroom in the storage area should be eliminated.

Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.

The architect of the project stated they agree with all the recommendations and conditions of approval. Also, the bathroom in the downstairs storage area can be eliminated.

Sandra Aden, 158 Bay View, lives in the unit just to the north of the project. She expressed concern for proper landscaping, that required open space is complied with and the height requirement is met. She would also like to see the rules complied with regarding construction.

Chairman Tucker stated that the rules and regulations for construction have to be posted on the job site.

Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.

Chairman Tucker would like to see less concrete in the front entryway on Monterey to inhibit another car being able to park there. Director Blumenfeld stated there is a requirement that the excess right-of-way area provide street trees. Also, if the bathroom remains in the storage area, then the storage room should comply to bedroom standards. If the bathroom is removed, the storage room can remain.

MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE CON 99-6/PDP 99-7 with the addition that the curb cut be reduced in the front.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

1. CON 99-8/PDP 99-9 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25404 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 644 AND 646 MONTEREY BOULEVARD.
   
2. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
3. 
   
4. City Planner Shubach stated the project is slightly over height and the driveway is slightly more sloping than it should be. The steps and walls on the sideyards will need to be modified prior to getting a building permit. Staff is also asking for additional landscaping as well as 36 inch box trees.
5. 
   
6. Chairman Tucker stated the bedroom downstairs will need a window well to comply with the Uniform Code of size 3 feet wide and 10 feet long. Also, a landscape plan needs to be submitted.
7. 
   
8. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
9. 
   
10. Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated the deficient items can be remedied. The plans show bedrooms and will meet the Code for exiting, light and air requirements. The placement for the second tree can be accommodated.
11. 
    
12. Commissioner Ketz stated more landscaping area will be needed for a second 36 inch box tree.
13. 
    
14. Shelly Marson of 646 Monterey presented a letter to the Commission and expressed the concerns of the current renters of the property. She stated that the current owners deceived the current renters to obtain rental payments with no home repairs or maintenance. She further stated the owners elected to suppress their intentions which left their cooperative tenants with no place to move during the most difficulty moving time. She also stated that the renters of Hermosa Beach are a sizable portion of the residents and should be treated honestly and not be mislead.
15. 
    
16. Chairman Tucker stated the Commission has no authority on this issue, and a lawyer may need to be hired to go to Small Claim's Court.
17. 
    
18. Venda Tuesbarrow owns the property at 650 Lamont Drive which is directly across from Sunset Street. She expressed concern that Sunset Street is very narrow and the project may be over height which may block any ocean breeze.
19. 
    
20. Chairman Tucker stated the height will conform to the 30 foot height limit.
21. 
    
22. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
23. 
    
24. Commissioner Pizer questioned where the two 36 inch box trees will be placed. Director Blumenfeld stated they could be installed at the Monterey side and rear yard area, and the area outside of the driveway and in the side yards.
25. 
    MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE CON 99-8/PDP 99-9.
26. 
    AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker
27. NOES: None
28. ABSENT: None
29. ABSTAIN: None
30. 
    
31. PDP 99-10 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ADD A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 931 5TH STREET.

Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

Chaiman Tucker left the dais at 10:10 p.m.

Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He stated there is a discrepancy between the survey sheet A1 and the architectural sheet A1 relative to the yard which will have to be picked up on the final plan.

Vice-Chair Perrotti opened the public hearing.

Vern Saxe, architect of the project, stated Mr. Norris' grandparents purchased the property in 1939 and in 1969, Mr. Norris constructed building #1, the existing two-story structure. Mr. Norris is anticipating a move to the unit above the four-car garage in the back, and a family member of his will be moving into the front building. The four-car garage will service both the front and the rear units. The area in between is a concrete drive court which serves a dual purpose of being open space for the family in the front unit as well as for directly off the entry of the rear unit. This project will not be a condominium. It is a custom design for Mr. Norris and his family. It is 6 feet below the height limit and 20% below maximum lot coverage.

Commissioner Schwartz asked if the landscape area could be increased. Mr. Saxe stated they will be increasing some of the landscaping by the front entry of the rear unit. The rest of the landscaping will be based on maneuverability of the parking of the cars as well as breaking up the concrete by the use of trellis lines, etc.

Vice-Chair Perrotti closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Pizer stated the project will be architecturally consistent with the existing building and will be a nice project for the family.

Commissioner Ketz and Vice-Chair Perrotti agreed.

MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE PDP 99-10 along with increased landscaping in the parking area.

AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: Chairman Tucker

Chairman Tucker returned to the dais.

1. HEARING(S)
   PDP 97-27 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY SELF-STORAGE BUILDING AT 601 CYPRESS AVENUE.
   Staff Recommended Action: To grant a one-year extension.
   
2. Director Blumenfeld stated the original approval for this site was to create a self-storage facility. The project was approved, but the project had not commenced within the one year period to avoid expiration of the permit. The applicant is requesting an extension of the permit for an additional year.
3. 
   MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE PDP 97-27 for a one-year extension.
4. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker
5. NOES: None
6. ABSENT: None
7. ABSTAIN: None
8. 
   
9. STAFF ITEMS

1. Code interpretation Section 17.46.010 relative to similar structures.
   
2. Director Blumenfeld stated staff is requesting direction from the Commission with respect to the Zoning Ordinance which deals with yard, height, and area restrictions. Staff is requesting direction in connection with a property owner who installed a solar energy system on his roof. The owner obtained an electrical permit to install the unit, however, plan review is not required in issuing this permit. As a result, since the dwelling unit was constructed when the zoning was R-2 with a height limit of 30 feet; and current zoning is R-1 and the height limit now is 25 feet, the system installed could be considered over height unless Section 17.46.010 also applies. Staff is asking for direction as to whether solar system units fall under Section 17.46.010 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. 
   
4. Commissioner Pizer suggested that the project be approved along with modifying the Code so that solar heating and electrical power generators can have some standard to be referred to.
5. 
   
6. Director Blumenfeld stated there has been one complaint some distance away from the site. However, the owners immediately adjacent to the east of the property who would have the greatest view impact have submitted letters or confirmed verbally with the owner that they were in support of the project.
7. 
   
8. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Chairman Tucker to interpret in the Code that solar systems fall within the Residential Zone Section of 17.46.010 by Minute Order, and to direct staff to proceed with a text amendment to include solar heating and electrical systems in this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. 
   
10. Minor modification to Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 58-60 Pier Avenue.

Director Blumenfeld stated the project was approved a few years ago and subsequently has amended their permit for an expansion. The owner was advised to obtain a building permit for the awning. Staff feels the awning installation is not minor and is analogous to other shading devices that are provided within the outdoor dining areas. In this case, it is within private property. A Building Permit cannot be issued unless the issue of minor modification is resolved.

Commissioner Schwartz stated the nature of the awning is not permanent and agrees that it is a minor modification.

Commissioner Ketz and Vice-Chair Perrotti agree.

Chairman Tucker stated the awning is more than a minor modification because the roof was not put back on. He further stated, however, as long as this addition meets the Code, it can be approved.

19. COMMISSIONER ITEMS - None

MOTION by Chairman Tucker to ADJOURN the meeting at 10:35 p.m.

No objections, so ordered.

Agendas / Minutes Menu | Back to Agenda | Top of Page