|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 06-15-99
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 17, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tucker at 7:10 p.m.
Vice-Chair Perrotti led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Perrotti, Pizer, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker Absent: Commissioner Ketz Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Pizer inquired about the status of CON 99-7/PDP99-8 which was presented at the April 20, 1999 Meeting. Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant has not yet re-submitted a plan.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant is proposing to amend an existing CUP for full service alcohol and to add a dance floor and live entertainment within the existing premises. The interior would be modified to have a bar and piano for live entertainment. The building is in the downtown district and is appropriate for downtown uses and the zone. However, the use is located approximately ½ block to the south of the westerly end of Pier Plaza, and there is the potential that the added noise will create a negative effect upon the residents. He noted that at the previous hearings, residents expressed concern about the number of alcohol/entertainment type establishments in the downtown area, but that a survey of downtown businesses serving alcohol indicates that the actual number of such businesses or ABC licenses only increased by four over the last four years. Further, the Police Department indicates that crime or reports of disturbances have not significantly increased during this period.
Because of the concerns regarding noise, staff is recommending that the Resolution require a requirement for air conditioning and double-glazing of windows. Also, staff is recommending that the project come back for review six months after implementation of the development permits.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Mangurian of 52 11th Street is the applicant and stated he has been using his entertainment license for a number of years and has been paying for it on his business license. He questioned Section 3, Item 3 stating that he had a dance permit previously, and he also questioned why the hours of entertainment have been changed from his original permit in1993. He also questioned who made the recommendations.
Director Blumenfeld stated the standard Conditions for Approval have been attached that Council suggested be implemented for CUP's relative to live entertainment and full alcohol.
Director Blumenfeld further stated approximately three years ago, the City Council reviewed the Conditional Use Permit sections of the Zoning Ordinance for commercial establishments and came up with standard conditions that were to apply to all the downtown businesses. This also simplified the CUP process. Prior to businesses getting an Occupancy Permit, the various departments look at the project improvements, and the Planning Division looks at the conditions and in particular, ensures that there is an air handling system when it is required by commission.
Albro Lundy stated he is a partner with Baker, Burton and Lundy and also an owner of a residence south of the pier and south of Scotty's. He stated concern regarding the impact from the patrons. There have been many problems with people coming from the bars and stopping in front of his house and loitering on his premises. There are also violations with parking being generated from the patrons. He further expressed that Hermosa Beach needs more establishments which don't generate drunkenness, and that the City has enough bars in the area.
Kyle Lundy stated he is the brother of Albro Lundy and expressed that the environment of the City of Hermosa Beach should be a familiar environment where people can come with their children and enjoy the beach, sites and the community. He asked for a limitation of bars in the City.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the new application contains a plan that shows a piano bar and dance floor. The applicant was advised that if he is including a piano bar, he needs to process a permit that includes live entertainment. The original permit from 1991 was for live entertainment. However, this permit was not in effect because the applicant failed to comply with conditions to sign an affidavit accepting all project conditions and provide proof of recordation of the conditions. Also, the applicant was issued a notice for posting that included the request for live entertainment, so he has been aware of the permit being processed for several months.
Vice-Chair Perrotti asked for clarification on live entertainment regarding the applicant.
Director Blumenfeld stated there is a condition in the Resolution dealing with live entertainment and the need for conducting a noise study by a qualified acoustical engineer to determine if there would be a nuisance created by amplified live entertainment. This is a standard condition for entertainment uses.
Commissioner Pizer expressed concern regarding an overflow of patrons that could be generated with this project if it became successful. Also, 11th Street could become a congested area.
Commissioner Schwartz also expressed concern regarding expansion of the downtown and its impact on the neighbors. Also, noise impacts cannot be mitigated given the type of building construction at Scotty's and the building will transmit a tremendous amount of sound, and live entertainment would not be appropriate.
Vice-Chair Perrotti pointed out that there were letters submitted to the Commission from Stephen Hunt, Albro Lundy, Mary Elisabeth Cattani, Michael Randall, Richard Molony, P. J. Hathaway, Lawrence O. Fordiani and Darrell Lee Greenwald who were all opposed to the live entertainment and general alcohol at Scotty's. He further stated the location is off Pier Avenue, but it is zoned commercial and the adjoining properties are zoned commercial. There are also restaurants and clubs on Hermosa Avenue up at Pier Avenue. He stated that he feels the rules for the conditions may be changing for this applicant. Also, the existing structure would take an enormous amount of remodeling to comply with the conditions in the Resolution, but he would like to give the applicant a chance to comply and then in six months, there could be a review.
Chairman Tucker stated the crowds on Pier Avenue need to be contained. He also stated he is not in favor of granting any of the requests by the applicant. There is beer and wine being served which is sufficient, and he would like to see the restaurant maintained with a family atmosphere.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to DENY CUP 98-9, Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-sale alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant and to add a dancing area and live entertainment, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1100 The Strand, Scotty's.
AYES: Commissioners Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: Vice-Chair Perrotti ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
8. CUP 99-4/PARK 99-2 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (FAT FACE FENNER'S FISHACK) WITH ON-SALE ALCOHOL AT 53 PIER AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant is proposing a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a restaurant expansion. He noted that the Planning Commission previously approved CUP No. 98-7 to allow live entertainment outdoor dining, extended hours and on-sale alcohol for the site formerly known as Casablanca Restaurant located in Loreto Plaza. He further noted that Loreto Plaza is comprised of two buildings located at 49 and 53 Pier Avenue connected by pedestrian bridges and walkways spanning a pedestrian right-of-way which is City owned property. The bridges are subject to a lease agreement between the building owner and the City which has been in effect for over 21 years. The previous restaurant enclosed the northerly bridge in 1991. A lease to permit use of a proposed deck extending over the right of way was not approved by City Council and this element of CUP 98-7 is no longer in effect.
Director Blumenfeld stated the current plans call for a 1,150 square foot expansion within the contiguous building extending to the south of the existing restaurant utilizing a shared kitchen but no thru pedestrian access. The current restaurant will retain the name of Fat Face Fenner's Fishack and the new restaurant will be called Fat Face Fenner's Falloon. The plans show seating for 32 with bar seating for 11. This operation is analogous to the previous approval of the former Descanso Restaurant which was replaced by Pointe 705.
He noted that the the primary issues for the Planning Commission relate to the Parking Plan, as the CUP is consistent with the General Plan and the zone; however, the replacement of second story office space with restaurant use is also a policy issue for consideration. The Parking Plan is proposed to provide remote parking, consider the parking credit applicable to the site, and approve in-lieu parking for the project.
He further noted that there are no special circumstances applicable to the project which would permit waiving or reducing the parking requirement under the Parking Plan. This project is located in the Coastal Zone and must also be approved by Coastal Commission.
The project is located in the Vehicle Parking District which permits remote parking. Remote parking for the project is proposed for 200 Pier Avenue will only be non-required parking as the required parking will be satisfied in-lieu pursuant to the applicant's request. The Planning Commission previously reviewed the parking credit applicable to the property under CUP 98-7 and found that a 624 square foot banquet facility eliminated as part of the previous restaurant use resulted in a parking credit of 4 spaces as shown on the Parking Table in the staff report. With the proposed restaurant expansion, the parking requirement is 3 spaces. These spaces are proposed to be provided through a contribution to the in-lieu parking program.
Staff is recommending approval of the CUP and the Parking Plan with a contribution to the in-lieu program to satisfy parking requirements and approval of the remote parking for any supplementary parking, as the Parking Plan approved for 200 Pier Avenue is only granted for parking after 6:00 p.m. A review of parking conditions related to the restaurant is also suggested six months after implementation of development permits if the Commission chooses to restricted business operating hours as a method to satisfy parking requirements.
Director Blumenfeld presented the requirements of the parking plan in the staff report which states that after 6:00 p.m. daily, the parking can be used as shared parking.
Vice-Chair Perrotti asked if the tenants of 200 Pier Avenue received notice of tonight's meeting. Director Blumenfeld stated they are not within 300 feet since the remote parking is about 600 feet away, however, the project site is posted and there was a published notice.
Commissioner Pizer stated there are three parking spaces required and the applicant has outside dining which requires two more spaces. Director Blumenfeld stated outdoor dining is not the subject of this application, and that if it is proposed, it will be subject to the same parking requirements as the restaurant.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Gary Vincent, Vice-President, Fat Face Fenner's Fishack, stated when they came forward with this project, there was no in-lieu parking program in City. Therefore, they leased spaces for availability. The in-lieu is a long-term solution and because of this, they are interested in this as soon as it is available. At the next meeting, they plan to bring forward the issue of the bridge. They would like the remote parking to count as required parking in order to move forward with the project and not have to deal with the in-lieu program. He further stated that their restaurant is family oriented and 75% of their revenue comes from food sales.
Director Blumenfeld clarified there is an in-lieu program available. The applicant is pointing out that City Council has indicated they want to revisit this program . It also has to be approved by the Coastal Commission. Since this may involve a Zone Code text amendment, it could be a lengthy process.
John Bowler, project consultant, stated they took a five-year lease because the recommendation made to them was that the lease be at least as long as the lease on the business at five years. He also stated they have gone out of their way to create additional parking for the general public. They are requesting to use the lot on the weekends to make the 21 spaces available to the general public during the day on Saturday and Sunday. Also, the parking is currently operational by Ampco Parking with valet. When patrons come to their establishment, the parking is validated, but the other parking pays a fee. Ampco is currently holding seven spaces for availability for Fishack customers.
Jim Lissner of Hermosa Beach stated the conditions regarding the requirement of the percentage of food being food are not enforced. He questioned the number of licenses being approved downtown. Downtown is being intensified with most of the existing establishments lengthening their hours, adding live entertainment and dancing, and some existing licenses have increased their square footage. The bar industry is noisy and brings many cars into the City creating air pollution until late at night. The issue is not parking but the addition of more bars in the area.
Rebuttal
Mr. Bowler stated there is a distinction between bars and restaurants. There is a necessity for diversity in the downtown area such as restaurants and establishments catering to the adults.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated the remote parking cannot be considered required parking indefinitely, and as soon as the in lieu parking is approved, the remote parking would no longer be recognized as required parking.
Commissioner Schwartz suggested that the applicant be given an option of either closing the restaurant and only operating after 6 p.m. seven days a week, or reducing the area of the restaurant until the in lieu fee can be agreed upon.
Vice-Chair Perrotti stated Mr. Lissner presented the letters relating to Scotty's and applied them as relating to Fat Face Fenner's Fishack's application. The authors of the letters may not have felt the same regarding Fat Face Fenner's Fishack's application. He further stated that in the future, the businesses of the City will have to utilize more shared parking which is underutilized at certain hours. He agrees with staff's proposal to use the in lieu parking for the required parking and the remote parking to be supplemental parking. The daytime hours may need to be limited and some of the floor plan may need to be restricted.
Chairman Tucker agreed with staff's proposal. He suggested closing the north bridge area during the day. With the remote parking area, another 21 spots have been added downtown. The applicant is willing to go with the in lieu parking when it comes back from City Council.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE CUP 99-4/PARK 99-2 Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Plan to allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant (Fat Face Fenner's Fishack) with on-sale alcohol at 53 Pier Avenue with the conditions of having 3 spaces reserved in the remote parking for the restaurant, reduce occupancy, and approve remote parking as required parking until a new in lieu parking program is adopted by the Council.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
The Commission took a break at 9:00 p.m.
The Commission reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated the lot is unusual in several ways. It is only a half lot at 1154 square feet and the depth is only 40 feet. By allowing a smaller in depth garage, there would still be the 17-foot setback. The rear yard is allowed to be 3 feet at the second level in the R-1 Zone currently. The applicant is asking that the lower level also be allowed to be a 3-foot setback. This is not in conflict with the General Plan, and these variances would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
David Boyd, 24050 Madison Street, Suite 202, Torrance is the architect for the project. They concur with staff's recommendations. This was approved a year ago but had lapsed. It had a previous owner and architect. Mr. Boyd stated that they feel they have now come up with a better design and as staff pointed out, there will be 4 parking spaces with 2 in the front and 2 in the garage provided to a lot that essentially has no parking currently. There is a small storage space with a sump pump inside.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chair Perrotti stated the existing structure has no parking at all and with the new residence, it is a benefit for everyone involved with the added parking.
The Commissioners agreed.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE VAR 99-3, Variance to allow the construction of a new single family dwelling with a 3' rear yard at the ground floor rather than the required 5', and an interior garage depth of 19'4" rather than 20' at 2650 Hermosa Avenue. AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
12. CON 99-10/PDP 99-12 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #52872 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 700 11TH STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated that the average setback on the street is 10 feet and the proposed project is requesting 8 feet on one lot and 7.5 feet on the other lot. There have been previous projects approved at 6 feet of setback. Staff would also like to see two 36-inch box trees provided.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
David Olin of 1243 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, is the designer of the project. He agrees with staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Schwartz questioned the location of the driveways. Mr. Olin stated they are located on the westerly side. For the use of the two parcels, their location works out better with more privacy. He is also trying to work away from the church property as well. Chairman Tucker requested that the elevations be made slightly different from each other. Mr. Olin agreed.
Susie Potter of 650 11th Street presented pictures. She requested that the two palm trees at 700 11th Street be save. She also requested that Hermosa Beach keep these trees in the City.
Norman Potter of 650 11th Street stated there have been grant funds that have been used for the development of the greenway, and with a developer agreeing to do the digging around, it would only require the removal and the planting of the trees on the greenway. He asked if there are any grant funds available. Director Blumenfeld stated that he would have to check with the Public Works Department to determine if there are funds available, and that Commission could request this matter be considered by City Council.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chair Perrotti agreed with the setback request for the project. He asked if there were any private organizations that could contribute funds for the trees. Director Blumenfeld stated timing could be a problem relative to the developer's schedule.
Commissioner Schwartz also requested differentiation between the two elevations.
The applicant is willing to help facilitate saving the trees and do the grading to make the trees transported to another location, but the applicant does not want the Resolution to state he is totally responsible for the trees.
MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE CON 99-10/PDP 99-12 and CON 99-11/PDP 99-13, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #52872 for a three-unit condominium at 700 and 720 11th Street, with the additional modification that staff contact Public Works to determine the feasibility of moving the trees and salvaging the trees and if necessary, coordinate with City Council, and modify the elevations between the two buildings with more articulation and difference in colors.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
14. CON 99-12/PDP 99-14 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25440 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 2902 - 2916 INGLESIDE DRIVE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated the area before 1986 allowed on every lot two units as long as there were over 2400 square feet of area. In 1986, the Density Ordinance was changed which required there would have to be at least 1750 square feet per dwelling unit on a lot, which meant almost every one of the lots in the area no longer could have more than one unit. These lots were not rezoned at this time as it was believed that they would be assembled and that assembling of lots was a good idea because of the smaller lot size.
This project is similar to other condominium projects, however the driveway slope exceeds code requirements and lot coverage is over by 2 %. The open space provided is not consistent with Commission policy relative to being directly accessed from the living areas. There is 93 square feet on Unit 2 and 153 square feet on Unit 3. Landscaping is ample and the 36-inch box trees would be required. There are steps encroaching on the south side. Conditions have been added to correct these problems.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Suite 110, Manhattan Beach, is representing the applicant, Gary Schaar. There is an active neighborhood interest in the property. The project is in compliance with Code. The architect has met with staff and all of the issues raised by staff including the driveway slope and clarification of height, etc., have all been addressed. The property consists of originally subdivided lots under single ownership. There are three units on the property and the area between 28th Street and 30th Street is zoned R-2. There are two separate structures on the property currently which are non-conforming. Because of the location on Valley Drive, parking in the garages is very difficult. The setbacks on Ingleside Avenue are a one-foot setback. The new structure will be setback further from the construction there currently. The architect has gone to some extent to design a building in which all of the elevations are broken up, and he has made an effort to create a concept of terracing established at the ground level. The intention is that the patios and decks at the upper levels have water available for landscaping.
She stated what is before the Commission tonight is a philosophical concern by the neighbors regarding condominiums. However, the proposal is in full compliance and is permitted by Code. A benefit of the proposal is that the elevations are very attractive, the entrances are separated and the parking is split up so there is a double car garage from the Ingleside elevation with two guest parking spaces in the front. The parking spaces are completely on private parking. There are two enclosed garages on the alley side to the north and are setback nine feet to allow guest parking parallel to each of the garages. The curb cuts on Valley will be closed so there will be no vehicular access from Valley. There will also be a curb cut on Ingleside Avenue, and as a result of the one parking space that will be lost will be replaced on site. There are a total of ten parking spaces provided with the proposal which are all easily accessed.
Jim Collis of 2191 Hermosa View Drive presented a list of resident's signatures in the area. There are approximately 16 signatures of concerned residents in the area. The desire is to maintain a single family neighborhood. If this project is built, a precedent would be established in this one particular location. If this project is approved, he is requesting that all of the development standards of the City are met with no exceptions.
Kimberly Allen of 502 30th Street stated she is a relatively new property owner in the area. She was drawn to the area because it is a neighborhood. She would like to see what is good for the community and neighborhood. Sunlight and open space is important and she would not want to see this lost. The neighborhood has a sense of community, and condominiums are the beginning of a very distinctive change in the neighborhood. Condominiums are not the same as single family homes.
Charles Doughtery of 446 30th Street stated density is a key issue. Both sides of the alley are lined with cars, and from a parking standpoint, maximum density has been approached. He expressed concern with the possibility to lose light if this project is built.
Brad Levin of 436 29th Street stated he bought in north Hermosa Beach because of the single family home environment with neighborhood and community involvement. He stated this project would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Peter Hastings of 623 30th Street stated the condominium project would not keep the same community environment and would encroach upon the neighbors on each side of the development. He further stated he would not want to see a precedent set with the development.
Sue Brennan of 454 30th stated her family bought their home in 1948. She expressed concern with the width of their street and is concerned with the project bringing in more congestion.
Adelo Ho of 2829 Ingleside Drive is a practicing architect and opposes the project as a 3-unit attached condominium. The property is originally designed for two pieces of separate properties and would be changed into a 3-unit attached condominium which totally changes the character of the neighborhood. Her house is 940 square feet and the project proposes 3 units of 2700 square feet each, totally 8100 square feet which is nine times the size of her house. There are many houses less than 1500 square feet on Ingelside Drive as well as 29th Street. Also, 70% of the homes are less than one story. She suggested seeing two separate units which would fit better into the neighborhood.
Eric Zimmerman of 2029 Ingleside Drive expressed concern with the timing of the notice of the project. He stated the community was only given approximately six working days notice to respond to the project in the neighborhood which did not allow all the neighbors to properly plan their schedules to be at tonight's meeting. He also stated some of the neighbors were not notified, and he requested an extension to continue the item. He further stated that the project is completely out of scale for the community and it would be a huge precedent setting move for the community.
Director Blumenfeld stated that generally, there is 12 days advance notice for a hearing on any project. The noticing process is normally 12 days, but due to the special election day of May 18, this project was noticed 11 days in advance. Rebuttal
Ms. Srour commended the neighborhood for their concern. However, the basis for the concern is the concept of condominium ownership. Condominiums are a form of ownership and is permitted by the Code and is permitted on the property. The second concern is the physical buildout for the property. The development standards that are in place between 28th Street and 30th Street from Valley Drive West all the way to Manhattan Avenue is R-2. Any single individual owner in this area can build to the same development standards in terms of height, lot coverage, setbacks, etc. The applicant is asking for the same opportunity to develop his property as does exist for the adjacent property owners. The architect has done an excellent job and has made a great effort to break up the building mass and present a very attractive streetscape. The City has set forth development standards which are much higher, and the project incorporates on all of these development standards including parking, open space, etc. The plans incorporate open space available from the living area for each unit ranging from 150 square feet to 204 square feet in addition to the roof decks. She further stated that the project is properly situated for this particular property.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer pointed out that the new open space ordinances will address the problem of open space and make buildings a lot more attractive. He further stated that if the residents would like to maintain their neighborhood, they would have to propose a zone change which may be a complicated process. The project meets all the legal requirements.
Commissioner Schwartz stated that within certain limitations, the project is a well-articulated project. However, comparing it to the rest of the area, it is out of scale. The developer has every right to put three units on the property, but she would like to see less square footage encompassed in the area and more separation between the units.
Vice-Chair Perrotti stated a lot of the condominium development has taken place south of Pier Avenue, but more development will be seen in the future in northern Hermosa Beach. The Commission is required to follow the Code and policies of the City Council, and the developer could sue the City if the project was denied. The project complies with the Zoning Code, and the Commission is limited on what they can do. In the future, the neighborhood could be preserved by contacting the City Council and down zone the area that is R-2 which could be a complicated process. Another alternative would be to form partnerships among the neighbors to purchase properties as they go up for sale.
Chairman Tucker disagreed, and stated that the Commission has the ability to say yes or no to three units. However, the City Council would be the ultimate decider on the project. He stated this project is barely legal at 41 square feet and is way too large for the lot. He further stated that he has lived in the north end of Hermosa Beach for over 25 years and has been through re-zoning in the mid-70's and again in 1986. He stated it was not the Council's intention back in 1986 to let lots be assembled like this current lot. This project is not in conformity with the neighborhood and is too massive, too tall and bulky. He expressed concern that the quality of life will be diminished by the project in the neighborhood. He is not in support of the project. He would rather see two homes on the lot which would look much more attractive based on the size of the lot.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to CONTINUE to the June 15, 1999 meeting CON 99-12/PDP 99-14 Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25440 for a three-unit condominium at 2902 - 2916 Ingleside Drive with the conditions of the mass being reduced and the additional stories detached above the garage.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer NOES: Chairman Tucker ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
City Planner Schubach stated the development is for two two-unit condominiums which are identical with some minor changes to be made to meet the current Code. The parking is provided, and the landscaping plan is ample with the size of trees being required at 36 inch box. The decorative driveway paving will be reviewed and approved by staff. The open space is through the kitchen at 77 square feet, and there is 148 square feet for the rear unit with one of the two balconies accessed through the kitchen.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Steve Jones of 800 S. Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach is the architect of the project and stated the floor plans are the same for each project. The lots are slightly irregular but they are designed so that the same profile fits on both properties. The one particular side of the street has no parking six days a week, so there would not be any spaces lost. Also, there are two additional spaces at the rear unit that do not count as guest spaces. The height of the project is under the height limit, and the 36 inch box trees will be added. The lots are a little wider and not quite as deep as a typical two-unit site in the City, and they wanted to make the project fit into the neighborhood like two single family homes. Therefore, they were separated by 10 feet with one and 12 feet with the other. This would give the four owners privacy and allow more light, ventilation and views through to the neighbors uphill. The property has nice views to the west, southwest and the northwest, and by putting living areas on the top floor, these views can be captured during the waking hours. The disadvantage is that there would not be access to the ground floor open space. However, it would be landscaped and have ample open space, exceeding the open space requirements for the zone by double. The project exceeds almost all development standards by a very wide margin and the minor issues can be taken care of in plan check.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker stated he would like to see a differentiation between the front elevations.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE CON 99-13/PDP 99-15 and CON 99/14/PDP 99-16 Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25454 for a two-unit condominium at 940 & 942 and 944 & 946 5th Street with the condition that the applicant work with staff to provide more differentiation between the elevations of the two parcels.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ketz ABSTAIN: None
Director Blumenfeld stated that the changes that have been made are attractive, but are significant in that they vary from the approved plans and staff is asking for direction from the Commission, as to whether they constitute a minor modification to the plans.
The Commission agreed by Minute Order that the changes are acceptable and minor. Passed 4-0.
19. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Pizer asked for clarification for the parking and open space standards from the Minutes of City Council. Director Blumenfeld stated staff is currently working on the office space standards and the front yard setback standards and will be bringing this back in final form in June for City Council to review and start the process as a Text Amendment.
Chairman Tucker encouraged the residents to vote tomorrow. Also, he expressed concern with establishments in downtown doing their cleaning and discarding in the alleys in the mornings. This goes into the storm drain and then into the ocean. He reminded them to use their mop sinks and grease separators. Director Blumenfeld stated staff will send out reminders to these establishments.
MOTION by Chairman Tucker to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|