|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach -- 07-20-99
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Tucker at 7:08 p.m.
Roll Call Present: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz (arrived at
7:20 p.m.), Pizer, Chairman Tucker
CONSENT CALENDAR Vice-Chair Perrotti requested that the June 15, 1999, Minutes on page 1, last paragraph, be corrected to read " MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to AMEND Resolution P.C. 99-28 to record a covenant for the parking arrangements that were made for the expansion." MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the June 15, 1999, Minutes with modifications and the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 4a. AYES: Ketz, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker
Commissioner Pizer asked for clarification on the rules for the allowance of parking credits and the location of a restaurant in relationship to its outside dining limitations. He also asked if an owner of a commercial property can allocate parking credits to tenants of the same building. Director Blumenfeld stated that last year the Commission considered this issue and it determined that the owner of the business could utilize an area that was designated a banquet facility in an original 1990 Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant as part of his parking credit for the site. Based on the input from the City Attorney, review of the CUP and discussion with the current and past Commission chair person at the time of the original approval a recommendation was made to the Planning Commission and City Council that the parking credit be considered for the current restaurant use as it was approved under a previous CUP. He noted that the system of parking credits and debits is used throughout the City, but that the banquet facility was unusual in that it was part of the "previous" use of the restaurant, approved under a prior CUP. There is ambiguity in the Zoning Ordinance relative to "existing" and "previous" use as defined in Section 17.44.040 and that is why staff referred the matter to Planning Commission. The City Council has asked that staff provide more definition relative to "existing" and "previous" use in revising this section of the Zoning Code. Director Blumenfeld further pointed out that the building is a multi-tenant building, including restaurant and office, and is analogous to a multi-tenant shopping center. He stated that the allocating of credits is analogous to what is done at the Vons Center, when one use comes in and another goes out, the square footage is tracked and allocated. He said the calculation of parking is straightforward; however, it becomes more complicated when there are multiple tenants and one use does not immediately follow another use. In response to another question by Commissioner Pizer, he stated that unless the applicant can demonstrate that the use is contiguous, it may not be possible to issue an encroachment permit as encroachment permit requirements provide that the restaurant use must be adjacent. He pointed out that encroachment permits are issued by the Public Works Department. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti, to APPROVE Item 4a, Resolution P.C. 99-35. AYES: Ketz, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Tucker
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: The project is withdrawn by the applicant. City Planner Schubach stated the application has been withdrawn, and the applicant intends to build two individual single family homes on the two existing lots rather than the three condominiums that were originally proposed.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach stated this Item was continued to allow the applicant to make major changes necessary for the project to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Planning Commission policies. The revised plans comply except for the fence height and a ¾ bath. He also stated the den no longer has direct access into the garage and will be designed to be a sleeping room. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. David Olin, 1243 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, stated they did some revisions on the rear unit to meet open space and setback requirements. He presented the rendering and stated the bath at the basement level will be changed to a ¾ bath. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Perrotti questioned the parking space availability for the eight units. He stated the project should improve the parking and neighborhood in the area. Chairman Tucker questioned the water wall. Mr. Olin stated it is a waterfall. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution, CON 99-17/PDP 99-19 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25470 for a three-unit condominium at 900-904 Manhattan Avenue. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer,
Chairman Tucker
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that some of the tabulated numbers in the report and project Resolution include areas that are net floor area changes and conversions. The overall 13,000 square footage represents reconfiguring space, and the actual number is really 9,447 square feet. He said staff will come back with a Resolution with new numbers which will provide a better definition on the overall square footage and changes if the project is approved. He stated the Commission previously approved the modification to the Precise Development Plan on January 19, 1999 to allow for the Family Fitness Center. The use at that time included a theatre, but since that approval, the theatre has ceased operations. He stated the new program involves the elimination of a restaurant use and theatre use, and that the 24-Hour Fitness facility involves approximately 44, 476 square feet of gross floor area with the retail use proposed at 64,121 square feet of gross floor area. He stated when the project was originally approved in 1987, it included a mix of theatre, restaurant and retail uses. He said the building was never fully occupied due to problems with parking and circulation. He also said the new project has a retail use which will operate at off peak demand from the gym use, and the applicant has submitted a parking study relating to this. He stated that the project involves some re-striping and minor reconfiguration of the parking area. He indicated there are 504 stalls providing the full complement of parking on the site, and there will be surplus parking during peak shared parking demands as described in the parking study. He further indicated that staff is recommending that a parking management plan be prepared to insure that the club and retail use operate efficiently, that a condition be established to monitor and detail the parking operations, and that a report be prepared by the parking consultant after six months of operation and brought back to the Commission for review. He stated that the project is in conformity with the requirements of the S.P.A. Zone. He said there is a minor addition to the building frontage, and there is an area that is over height, that will be the subject of a height variance application filed subsequently. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Gary Wiggle, Keisker & Wiggle Architects, stated after the theatre closed down, it opened up some opportunities for them and he briefly presented them to the Commission. He stated they will be adding windows to the side of where the theatre is presently. They are taking out the outside valet and all the valet will be inside the parking structure. The escalators will be turned around toward the parking structure which creates more of a mall feel. This allowed them to take the glass element in the curved front all the way to the ground, with main entrances on each side, coming in from the street side. This will change the roof lines. He further explained the floor plan changes. He stated they are also removing the store front entrances along Pacific Coast Highway and making the entries from the mall area. Chairman Tucker is concerned with the elimination of the valet parking in the front. He stated the biggest problem with the building is that no one knows where to park, and he stated there needs to be visible valet parking in the front. Mr. Wiggle stated that the valet parking in the front is illegal, and with their new proposal, there will be a drop off and pick up down below in the parking structure. Gene Shook, Shook Development Corporation, stated the valet in the front presented problems relative to the building, and that was impossible to park more than two cars side by side where valet was located. He noted that when there were over four cars parked, they stuck into Pacific Coast Highway. He stated they have reconfigured the project where there are four entrances, changing from two congested lanes to four straight lanes and eliminating a few parking spaces so there would not be the congestion coming in or out. He further stated that all of the cars for valet and non-valet can be handled without any traffic congestion problems. He pointed out that they have wrote into their leases that all the tandem spaces would be for the employees of the various tenants. He further stated that with the new configuration, you will enter into the parking, go through the escalators or elevators and enter inside which makes for a safer environment. Chairman Tucker asked how the employee parking will be enforced. Mr. Shook stated the employees will not park in other spaces since they will be charged at the regular rates. He also stated there will be guards, parking attendants and valet people on staff. Mr. Shook further stated they are raising the sprinkler heads, painting the interior white, changing the lights from yellow to white, changing from a 6 foot 9 inch clearance to over an 8 foot 2 inch clearance throughout the parking structure, taking the handicap from level 4 to the very top level and are putting in higher capacity elevators. He also stated the facility will be much lighter and easier to use than the original facility. He pointed out that they have taken out a 1500-seat theatre and replace it with a major retail tenant that may have only 70 or 80 people occupying it. Commissioner Schwartz stated that the rendering of the project looks more unfriendly than what was originally there. Mr. Shook stated they prefer to enclose the front and would like to have restaurant use in the front, but cut back on this because of the need for more parking. Ozlan Malami, 14 th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked if there will be a stop light installed at 16 th Street. Director Blumenfeld stated Cal Trans perceives Pacific Coast Highway as a through corridor, and the desire is to open up the flow of traffic, with synchronized signalization. He stated Cal Trans would not approve another light in that location. Rob Razordi, 167 Ardmore, asked about the fees at the fitness facility. Mr. Shook stated the drug store and major retail tenant will have validated parking, and 24-Hour Fitness will be 50 cents for the first two hours, 50 cents for the third hour, and then market rates beyond that. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Perrotti stated the traffic circulation will be better. With the theatre parking, everyone was arriving and leaving at the same time. He agrees with the parking analysis. He also would prefer increased landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway and 16 th Street. Commissioner Ketz stated she hopes this project will become a success, bringing some sales tax into the City. She also agrees there should be landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway. She feels the parking plan will be better also. Commissioner Pizer feels the exterior will not be an improvement for the community, being too bulky; however, the interior is very well done and hopes the project will be successful. Commissioner Schwartz agrees that the building is too bulky and bland, turning its back on the street. She feels she cannot approve the parking plan. Chairman Tucker is sad to see the theatre go and is disappointed with the removal of the front valet parking. He also said the whole front will be shut off, and there needs to be more landscaping in the front. He pointed out that the residents in the area would like to see more openness, rather than being enclosed in a mall. However, he agrees with staff’s recommendations. Vice-Chair Perrotti questioned the six-month review. Director Blumenfeld stated the parking conditions will be evaluated after six months with a traffic engineer coming back to look at the operations of the facility. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE CON 99-26/PARK 99-4 – Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan Amendment to convert the theatre to retail uses and to add 13,000 square feet of new retail space within the Hermosa Pavilion at 1605 pacific coast highway with the condition of adding increased landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway and 16 th Street. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Pizer
Staff Recommended Action: To modify Condition No. 2 to require final map recordation prior to issuance of building permits. Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission originally approved this project in April 1998 for an 8-unit condominium project with a re-subdivision of land to accommodate both commercial and residential and a General Plan Amendment and Zone change which was subsequently considered by City Council and was not approved due to a lack of majority of affirmative votes. Subsequently, the General Plan Amendment and Zone change was approved on May 18, 1999 by a vote of the people. He stated that the applicant is now requesting to pursue an amendment to Condition #2 which would allow him to proceed with demolition of some commercial buildings prior to recordation of the Final Map. In order to make sure that the map goes forward in a timely manner, he stated staff’s recommendation is to require that the applicant’s final map be filed prior to issuance of building permits which would still make it possible to issue demolition permits and clear the property with that condition. He said there are two changes in the Resolution that need to be made if approved. Section 5, Condition #3, page 4, "Certificate of Occupancy’ should be substituted with "building permit." Also, on page 5, Item 16, the Condition pertaining to the effective date of the permit after reviewing with the City Attorney should be substituted by the final decision date of the zone change which would be May 28, 1999 which is 10 days after the results have been confirmed by the City. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Kurt Nelson, 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, is representing the applicant. He stated they have an approved Vesting Tentative Map, and the time to process the Final Map was put on hold for 13 months due to the lengthy political process to get the requested zone change. Since it is a Vesting Tentative Map, as long as they have a Final Map that is in substantial conformance, it will be approved, and it is largely an administrable act. They are already substantially invested since they have purchased the Mar Vista site and have entered into the contract with Learned Lumbar to trade that site for the rezoned parcel to the rear of their lot. He further stated they have every intention to expedite the recording of the Final Map because of added development costs with project delays. He stated concern in that they want to commence with demolition and would like the additional flexibility to pull the building permits and proceed as quickly as possible, spending money at their risk, in order to coordinate everything effectively. If necessary, he suggested that the occupancy of the project or final inspection be withheld until the Final Map records. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that under the proposal, the applicant could do everything that would not be required under a building permit such as demolition and grading. He also stated the approval for the CUP and Precise Development Plan also includes the Learned property and is part of Condition #16. Betty Kay, stated she owns the apartments on 7 th Street to the north. She expressed concern with parking for her apartments. She said there are eight tenants with three garages in the back, three parking spaces in the front and the other two park on Ardmore. Director Blumenfeld stated the parking for these units is not legal parking in that it encroaches in the public right of way. The Plan involves improvement to 7 th Street, and the proposed street improvement includes a rolled curb for 7 th Street which can be traveled on. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the change to when building permits are issued rather than to Certificate of Occupancy. Director Blumenfeld stated the project involves reconfiguration of some commercial and residential property. The Final Map will result in the new division of land which will merge the lots on the commercial frontage. The property will tend to be easier to develop as one large parcel. Staff felt they could move more quickly on the Final Map recordation if the approval was made prior to issuance of a building permits because it will take months to get to the point of a Certificate of Occupancy for all the buildings in the project. Vice-Chair Perrotti asked if there are two maps, one for the residential and one for the commercial or just one map encompassing all the lots. Mr. Nelson stated there is just one. Vice-Chair Perrotti pointed out there are a lot of safeguards in place with the project being subject to several reviews.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE CON 99-21/PDP 99-23 – Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment to eliminate Condition of Approval No. 2 of P.C. Resolution 98-16 to allow demolition and commencement of construction of proposed project prior to recording of the final subdivision map at 635 and 705 Pacific Coast Highway with staff’s recommendations with the changes in Section 5, Item 3 to state "recorded prior to issuing a building permit" and No. 16 stating the date of May 28, 1999. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer,
Chairman Tucker
City Planner Schubach noted that he provided a revised first page of the staff report with a modification to the recommendation. He stated staff is recommending approval of the project. He indicated that staff is requesting that the basement level room qualify as a sleeping room. Also, the proposed basement level must meet the Uniform Building Code definition of a basement or the proposed project will exceed the Zoning Ordinance maximum of two stories In addition, the railings shown in the front setback exceed the maximum of 42 inches, walls/fences and steps in the side-yards must be shown consistently on the elevations and site plan, maximum height elevations must be shown that indicate conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the correct addresses for the subject property needs to be noted. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. David Boyd, 24050 Madison Street, Torrance, stated he is the applicant and architect for the project. He stated they are proposing to build two units on the lot very much in keeping with the single family neighborhood character of the adjacent properties and the area. He also stated they have met with the neighbors and have addressed some of their concerns. He indicated they have moved their buildings back in keeping with the adjacent houses and still maintaining the 17-foot driveway space and required backup spaces. He said they also designed the homes to avoid a boxy appearance, and the lot coverage is at 56% versus the allowed 65%. He also indicated they have approximately 460 square feet of open space per unit over the 300 square foot minimum. He said they agree with staff’s recommendations except for the storage room having a window. He stated they have to maintain a basement definition on the lower level, and by adding a window behind the garage will work against them to qualify as a basement. He noted it is desirable to have a storage area. Commissioner Pizer asked where the location will be for the trash and force air heating. Mr. Boyd stated the forced air heating is typically in the attic, and they will make provisions for the trash area. Chairman Tucker suggested opening the storage room up into the garage for access, with a wall parallel to the garage to separate it from the laundry and bath area. He stated a window could be installed with a window well. Mr. Boyd stated if necessary, he would leave the window in the basement and accept staff’s recommendation. Mr. Boyd stated he would like to keep one of the tubs in the bathrooms in the basement area, since all the bedrooms are on this level except for the master bedroom. Helen Mundt, stated she owns the property at 1033 7 th Street, which is on the western property line. She stated her concerns were sent to the Commission in a letter. She also stated she would like to be assured that the conditions agreed upon be put in writing and sent to her. She expressed concern about the sewer lines on her property line because there are two lines, one for the house above her on 8 th Street, and with the building of the property, there will be a large amount of earth removed. She stated she would like to make sure there is a good retaining wall between the property, protecting the sewer lines for both the 8 th Street property and her own. She also expressed concern with vegetation growth and clean up in the area. Director Blumenfeld stated the Fire Department conducts a weed abatement program and he stated he will check with the Fire Department. Jim Sullivan, 1051 8 th Street, stated he is across the street to the east of the project. He expressed that the David Richmond, the seller of the property in question, has been a good neighbor and friend. Mr. Sullivan also indicated that he is in favor of the project and feels the project with complement and fit into the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to support the project. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz pointed out that the two buildings will have a different look from each other and she hopes that difference is maintained as the project is further designed and detailed. She expressed, however, that the sides of the buildings are very flat and would like to see more detail. Commissioner Ketz agreed that the project will be nice, giving more of a feel of a single family rather than two on a lot condominium. Vice-Chair Perrotti pointed out that there is an additional letter in the packet from Darlene Haggenmiller addressing construction problems and loss of ocean view. He also stated the applicant has agreed to further modifications with windows in the storage room, and he would like to see the bathrooms modified at the basement level. Chairman Tucker agreed with more articulation to break up the heights of the building and mass of the side views. He addressed some of the concerns that were brought up in letters received from residents, pointing out that there is an ordinance in effect concerning construction hours and also indicated that there is no View Ordinance in the City. Further, he said underground utilities and sewer lines would have to be worked out with the developer. He stated he is in agreement with the project. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution, CON 99-20/PDP 99-22 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25635 for a two-unit condominium at 1041 7 th Street and 1040 8 th Street (originally 1065 7 th Street) with the following conditions: Section 5.1.g. wording be changed to reflect that the bath at the 7 th Street basement level shall be no more than ¾ in size, and also work with staff in approving the articulation of the sides of the building.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer,
Chairman Tucker
The Commission took a break at 9:15 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach stated that staff would like to see the garage depth be the correct 20 feet minimum inside dimensions and that the turning area be a minimum of 26 feet. Other than this correction, he further stated the project is in conformance with Zoning and Commission policy. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6 th Street, Manhattan Beach, is representing the applicant, Craig Casner. She presented a rendering, and stated the proposal combines the two separate lots and acquires sufficient square footage for six units. The applicant, however, is only proposing four units as detached individual homes. Also, the applicant is using one single driveway which will provide added parking to the street. She stated the project would take all of the vehicular access to the interior of the lot so the vehicles can maneuver and pull forward onto the street. She stated the guest spaces are open and will function well for guests coming to the site. She said the height is 25 to 26 feet and the lot coverage is well under the 65%. She indicated the project will provide a very attractive elevation from the street, looking like two separate homes. She also indicated that the elevations have added detail to the different elevations and also, the homeowners association will function nicely on 2 nd street. She noted that the architect intends to increase the turning radius from 25 feet to 26 feet, and the two garage depths can be expanded to 20 feet. Chairman Tucker expressed concern with the location of the guest spots, stating that guests will not know where to park. Ms. Srour stated the way an association functions is that people will know when guests are arriving and will know who is coming, and it is very common for guests to be given instructions.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz agreed with the guest parking location, stating it could create tension and discussion among the residents. She appreciates the articulation and detail put into the elevations. She would like to see, however, more differentiation between the buildings. Commissioner Pizer stated he likes the design for the one driveway and courtyard parking. He also mentioned a letter received from Charlie Cheatham expressing concern with the loss of historical significance. Vice-Chair Perrotti indicated that he is a member of the Historical Society of Hermosa Beach, and he stated they are not very active in saving unique structures. Commissioner Ketz stated she likes the development having four individual detached units and the one driveway with no garages running the street. Chairman Tucker asked staff why incomplete plans are accepted. City Planner Schubach stated staff makes sure that the applicant has a survey, site plans, elevations for all sides, etc., and then assesses what details are missing. He further indicated that in order for the applicant to meet the letter of requirements, staff makes sure the applicant gives exactly what is needed. Chairman Tucker suggested that the roof tiles be made differently between the four buildings along with color differentiation. MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE CON 99-22/PDP 99-24 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25575 for a four-unit condominium at 615-621 2 nd Street, with the modification of color and roofing variations between the buildings. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer,
Chairman Tucker
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach stated the concerns of staff are that the project is approximately 2 feet over height, and he stated the ceiling heights could be adjusted. He also stated on this particular street, staff has required a larger setback of 17 feet rather than the minimum because the whole neighborhood had been originally set back considerably more than what staff would require today. He also pointed out that the project is short about 25 square feet of open space for unit A, and he also indicated that although landscape planter areas are shown, no plant material is identified.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Rosecrans, Hawthorne, is representing the applicant. She stated they can easily accommodate shifting the front unit back to provide for the 17 foot setback from the street and move the rear unit in. She also stated that by moving the front unit back will also pick up a greater front yard area which will qualify as private open space, easily accommodating the additional 25 square feet of open space. She pointed out there was an arithmetic error on some of the height calculation which will be corrected to the satisfaction of the staff. She also said they will bring back a landscape plan to the next meeting. She also pointed out that the basements all have ¾ baths. Lauren Amlani, 833 14 th Street, expressed her concerns and requested the following conditions:
She further expressed concern with the impact of an R-2 development on an R-1 neighborhood. She also showed the Commission a view from her backyard as it looks today. Timothy Personias, 827 14 th Street, lives directly behind and adjacent to the lot being developed. He expressed concerns with density and the impact of multiple units directly adjacent to single family dwellings. He also expressed concern with losing their privacy and would like to see the requirements met that Ms. Amlani suggested. He also requested that no large windows look down directly on his property. He stated he would like to see tall trees brought in for screening, and also would like to see the elevation unchanged. He also requested that the rear setback be increased beyond 7 feet. Rebuttal Ms. Vargo stated they could move the building forward 5 feet more which result in a 12 foot rear yard at the first level and 10 feet for the second and third levels. She stated this would take the roof deck further from the neighbors as well. She also stated this would give sufficient ground area to plant trees. She pointed out that the master bedroom is on the second level with the living room on the upper level. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the second level would be considered a setback. Director Blumenfeld stated yes because there isn’t a minimum requirement from the finished grade and technically it meets the required setback. Vice-Chair Perrotti prefers the term "mature" for the landscaping, and he also stated the Resolution could be easily modified concerning the rear setback and the comments concerning the landscaping. Commissioner Ketz stated the project will be attractive with nice areas to landscape both front and back with useable open space. Commissioner Schwartz stated by bringing the face of the upper floors to 10 feet from the rear property line will set back the roof deck far enough, plus the mature trees should provide enough privacy and differential as possible between the properties on the other street. She also would like to see both Units A and B have the same level of detailing as shown in the rendering. Commissioner Pizer stated the 12 foot rear yard setback solves most of the issues. He said the roof deck is already set back quite a bit and there is no need to change it. He also said it should be stated as mature trees for screening the rear yard to be more specific so that a screening type landscape would be selected. Chairman Tucker agrees with planting of mature landscaping. However, he stated he would like to see the rooftop deck be over the kitchen area and eliminate the other deck off the family room that looks into the neighbor’s property. MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti and seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the Resolution, CON 99-23/PDP 99-25 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25631 for a two-unit condominium at 830 15 th Street with the following conditions: Section 5.1.b. rear yard setback be changed from 5 feet to 12 feet at ground level and 10 feet at subsequent floors; the paragraph concerning the landscaping be modified to add language that the landscaping be mature for screening purposes; and that the landscape plan be submitted with the Resolution at the next meeting. AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to August 17, 1999 meeting. Director Blumenfeld stated staff wanted to present the staff report in advance of the proposed Text Amendments to give the Commission time to review the material. He summarized the staff report. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Charles Dougherty, 446 30 th Street, requested clarification on Item IV, Number of Stories, of the proposed Zoning Standard Changes. He asked if the proposed changes to Item IV require that the basement levels be below grade to the extent required to meet the requirements specified in the Zoning Standards. Director Blumenfeld explained that a building is no higher than the maximum allowed in the Zone because extraordinary measures are taken to make sure a project is surveyed at the outset, and at completion of project framing to confirm building height. The survey describes the corner point elevations which are the basis for measuring height. Staff then requires that the maximum height based upon the surveyed elevations are on the building elevations, and this plan is checked again by staff with height calculations based upon the surveyed grade. Further, he stated no matter how many stories a building is, it can never be greater than 25 feet high in the R-1 Zone or 30 feet high in the R-2 and R-3 Zones. When the building is framed, the survey company comes out again giving staff a letter certifying that the surveyed elevations on the plan are in fact what has been surveyed. Staff does not release that building from final roof inspection until staff is sure that the surveyed grades conform to what is approved on the plan. This is the protocol that staff uses for every building in the City. He further stated, however, that the confusion is that the Zoning Ordinance describes a maximum of two stories, and staff would like to eliminate this confusion. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. The Commission suggested having a special meeting for this Item. HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach stated the project is barely over at 57%. He said there is only a minor problem with the garage and side yard setback of the house not being 5 feet but rather being 3 feet which is still within the Building Code conformance. The amount of expansion and remodel is reasonable given the lot size, age, size and condition of the existing structure. Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing. Blake Mitchell, 1910 Hillcrest Drive, stated he would appreciate approval for the application. Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ketz stated she doesn’t have a problem with this remodel since it is very minimal. Vice-Chair Perrotti agreed. Commissioner Pizer asked about the existing stairway and why it needs to be there. Mr. Mitchell stated it is very functional because their trash and laundry is located in that area. He further indicated that it is an open structure. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE NR 99-4 – remodel and addition to an existing nonconforming single family dwelling resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1910 Hillcrest Drive.
AYES: Commissioners Ketz, Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer,
Chairman Tucker
Minor Modification to Approved Plan Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. The project is at 934 Hermosa Avenue and staff would like direction as to whether or not it is a minor modification to leave one of two remaining double garage doors on Palm Drive unsealed permanently. Vice-Chair Perrotti pointed out that the original intent was to have the doors sealed to prevent noise and that situation has not changed. Commissioner Ketz stated that this is more than a minor modification. Chairman Tucker stated that the doors should be closed up and made into storage. Chairman Tucker moved by Minute Order concluding that this Item is not a minor modification. Passed 5-0. 17. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. MOTION by Vice-Chair Perrotti to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:10 p.m. No objections, so ordered. |
|
|
|