|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 07-17-01
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Perrotti at 7:05 p.m.
Roll Call
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the May 15, 2001, Planning Commission minutes. Hearing no objections, Chairman Perrotti so ordered.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to
APPROVE
Resolutions P.C. 01-14, P.C. 01-15, P.C. 01-16, P.C. 01-17 and
P.C. 01-18.
The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER to continue Resolution P.C. 01-19. 6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from the dais due to living within 300 feet of the block between 4th Street and 5th Street from Ocean View Avenue west to the alley. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and reviewed the history of the request. He said a new petition was submitted in April 2001, by the affected property owners which indicates that 5 of the 7 property owners are now opposed to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. He reviewed that there are 7 lots located on the west side of Ocean View Avenue between 4th and 5th Street. Six of the lots are developed with single-family homes, and one with a triplex. If the zoning were changed to R-2B, five of the lots currently with single units could add a second unit, with up to 14 units added in total to the project area. He further reviewed the distribution of zoning in the area along with the General Plan designations. He further said that the property owners in favor of the proposed General Plan and Zoning changes argue that the changes would make the area consistent with the properties to the east, including the lots which share the same street, which are being developed with higher density projects. He indicated that the property owners that object to the proposed changes would prefer to maintain the current lower density status of the neighborhood. Further, while the area is inconsistent with the property on the east side of the street, it is part of continuous section of R-1 properties to the south, and east along the 3rd Street. He also said that the area has been designated Low Density Residential since 1989 and prior to that, the General Plan Designation since 1965 was Multiple Use Corridor and the zoning was originally designated R-1 in 1956. In 1989 when the entire Multiple Use Corridor was studied, the block was re-designated from M.U.C. to Low Density Residential to make the General Plan designation consistent with the R-1 zoning. He informed that state planning and zoning law suggest that amending the General Plan must be based on good planning principal and zoning practice and any zone change would have to be internally consistent with the other elements of the General Plan, and the change would have to reflect the policies of the General Plan. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman commended the neighbors becoming organized with this issue. Commissioner Tucker stated the City is unique with different zoning throughout and most densely populated per square footage. Commissioner Pizer stated he was glad to see the applicant withdraw the application based upon the other property owners’ request. He believed that the congestion and building construction could be addressed further. Chairman Perrotti commented that the R1 does not seem to be that out of place in looking at the Zoning Map in regard to the entire southeast portion of the City.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to
deny GP 00-2/ZONE 00-2 – General Plan Amendment from LD,
Low Density Residential, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and
Zone Change from R-1, One Family Residential, to R-2B, Limited
Multiple Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and adoption of an
Environmental Negative Declaration for the block between 4th
street and 5th Street from Ocean View Avenue west to the alley.
Commissioner Kersenboom returned to the dais. 8. CON 01-8/PDP 01-9 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26262 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 300 HERMOSA AVENUE.
City Planner Schubach informed that the applicant has requested that their proposal be withdrawn at this time and resubmit as a two-unit condominium residence rather than the three-unit condominium residents as was proposed. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION
by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to
CONTINUE
to the July 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, CON 01-8/PDP
01-9 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan,
and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map N. 26262 for a three-unit
condominium at 300 Hermosa Avenue.
9. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING LOT COVERAGE DEFINITION.
Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and noted the basis of this proposed change originated from a previous Planning Commission meeting in which the Commission finding it be appropriate to allow columns supporting a cantilever or balcony not contribute to lot coverage. He reviewed the suggested change to the text. Commissioner Pizer suggested having reference as to what percentage of the footprint could be covered. Director Blumenfeld suggested continuing this item to allow staff to come back with some sketches of column dimensions or alternatives to the Commission. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that only single story low-level roofs be allowed to extend 8 feet forward. Commissioner Tucker believed that the north/south streets would not be effected but the east/west streets would be effected due to view blockages. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that projects are being built to 65 percent of lot coverage which precludes the ability to have covered entries and, that if these architectural features are deemed essential, the builder can simply reduce the building coverage by .5% to add them. Commissioner Tucker agreed and believed that square footage could be reduced in the buildings to allow more space for the front entryways and front elevations. Chairman Perrotti expressed concern with setting a precedent that would affect the lot coverage.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to not
modify the definition of lot coverage in the Zoning Ordinance.
HEARING(S)
City Planner Schubach gave a staff report and said that the garage is proposed to be demolished and rebuilt to conform to current setback requirements. The proposed addition causes an overall increase in valuation of 75.5 percent and the lot coverage will remain under the required 65 percent maximum allowable. He said that staff believes the existing nonconformities are not severe or unusual, and the scale of the proposed expansion is reasonable. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with a bootleg situation and requested that the applicant sign a covenant stating that the property will only be used as a single family residence. He also requested that the wet bar be limited to 15-square feet of counter space. Chairman Perrotti also agreed that a covenant be submitted restricting the use to a single family dwelling.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Chairman Pizer to
APPROVE
PC Resolution 01- , a Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a greater than
50 percent expansion and remodel to an existing single-family
dwelling while maintaining less than required front yard setback
at 1710 Monterey Boulevard, and that the applicant sign a
covenant stating that the property will only be used as a single
family residence, and that the wet bar area shall not exceed 15
square feet of counter space.
11. STAFF ITEMS
City Planner Schubach gave a staff report and stated that since encroachments for bathroom sinks are not listed as an architectural projection, a favorable interpretation is needed from the Planning Commission pursuant to sub-section D. Director Blumenfeld stated that the homeowner would like to do a small bathroom addition to an existing bedroom and the projection would be for the sink only and within the footprint. Commissioner Hoffman believed that floor space would be created by bumping out the wall and violates the spirit of an architectural projection and increased square footage. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER that the request would not be considered an architectural projection.
Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and said staff is recommending that the actual corner point elevation be used for the project, rather than splitting the difference of the adjacent grade. Grant Kirkpatrick, architect for the project, stated the first level would be sunken beneath The Strand elevation if the corner points of measurement from The Strand level were used. He noted that the Code gives the flexibility to split the difference in a case where there is significant variations in the elevations and no obvious historical grade context. He said there is approximately 18 inches in difference in height only occurring at the western side of the building. He also said the design actually splits the building in half along The Strand, and only one part of the building fully extends out to the front yard setback at approximately 13 feet wide. He said by splitting the difference would allow them to come close to the grade at The Strand level. He also pointed out there are many homes in the nearby area that don’t sink down from grade and are relatively new construction. Peter Bichat, owner of the property, explained that he went under the house and measured from the sand up to the plate and then went outside on the wall where the side yard is located and measured from the cement up to the plate. He indicated that this one done in four different spots with the measurements being very close which represents undisturbed grade under the house and is a very accurate represent of the true unaltered grade of the lot. He also said that less slope on the lot would create less stairs and for every 14 inches saved would save 12 steps. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Mr. Bichat informed that the ceiling heights are 9 feet, 8.6 feet and 8 feet. Commissioner Tucker believed that staff is correct using the datum of The Strand and is more accurate. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed. Chairman Perrotti noted that Section 17.04 of the Code pertains to "in the absence of supporting documentation," and pointed out that staff does have supporting documentation. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld explained that he looked immediately to the north and south of the property at some of the new projects which appear that the buildings are conforming to the current height limit for R1 and as measured from The Strand elevation. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld suggested studying some of the permit records which may have more current information, and provide a report on the survey information. Mr. Kirkpatrick suggested waiting until after staff researches the parameters and comes back with some historical data. Director Blumenfeld indicated in terms of setting the parameters, staff could look at a block-and-a-half to the north and south of the property and collect data from homes built in the last five years. The Commissioner AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER to have staff research survey information to the north and south of the property for up to two blocks and report back at the next meeting. 12. COMMISSIONER ITEMS In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld informed that regarding the Marineland Mobile Home Park, staff will be meeting with the State next week and meet with some of the local mobile home park authorities in Southern California. He also said that the Ordinance would need to be changed to allow staff to assume authority for the mobile home park. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld informed that the City of Redondo Beach has issued a notice of preparation for an EIR for the Heart of the City Plan, and staff has prepared comments for inclusion in the EIR reflecting traffic issues primarily on the northerly side of the project. He suggested that the Commission could prepare comments which could be forwarded to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Department. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with traffic impacts on Hermosa Avenue and the beach facilities with respect to the Heart of the City Plan. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated an update on the Pier Plaza study could be provided to the Commission from Public Works. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that City Council has asked the Police and Fire Departments to provide a report on occupancy issues and other disturbances in regard to the Pier Plaza study. He suggested if there is an ongoing problem, the Commission could request from the Community Development staff to provide an ongoing review. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained ex parte items and said they could be included on the agenda. He also said that when the Commissioners have any communication prior to a hearing, suggestions and input could be made but not decisions. 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to ADJOURN the meeting at 9:09 p.m. No objections, so ordered. |
|
|
|