|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 08-18-98
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 21, 1998, 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.
Commissioner Perrotti led the pledge of allegiance.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker Absent: Commissioners Merl, Pizer Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary
Discussion
Chairman Tucker announced that one of their retired city employees, Dick Olson, passed away on July 18, 1998. The visitation will be Wednesday, July 22, 1998 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at White and Day Mortuary at 338 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA. The memorial service will be held Thursday, July 23, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. at the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd at 21100 Victor Street. The funeral will be at Pacific Crest, 2701 182nd Street, Redondo Beach, CA. There will be a reception following at Heritage Point at 1801 Aviation Way, Redondo Beach. In lieu of flowers, donations are requested to the American Cancer Society at 1599 Clifton Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329. Donations can also be made by phone at 1-800-ACS-2345. Chris Kelly may be contacted with questions at 318-0261.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4G and 4H - Director Blumenfeld stated at the previous meeting staff was asked to bring back the plans to confirm the requirements the Commission had set on the approval that had been made. The stairway below the first floor has been opened. This is indicated on the elevation drawing on the plan. Also, the buildings at 1646 and 1648 have been modified to look substantially different from the 850 7th Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE the minutes and the resolutions.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None.
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Charlie Cheadum at 548 2nd Street stated as a homeowner, he is concerned about all of the single family homes being bulldozed to make way for approved condo developments. He is also concerned about the increase in the density, the decrease in on-street parking, and the impact of quality of life as more people move into the area and urged the Commission to restudy the zoning ordinances that were approved by past pro high density development committees and councils.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PDP 97-25 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDESIGN MOBILE HOME PARK TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER UNITS AT 531 PIER AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 20, FEBRUARY 17 AND JUNE 16,1998 MEETINGS).
Staff Recommended Action: To deny the request.
Director Blumenfeld stated there is a supplementary sheet provided to the Commission noting two corrections: realignment of three mobile home park sites rather than the four total and the existing number of sites is shown as 60 and the proposed at 57 but the number of proposed sites should be 59, or a loss of 1 site.
The Planning Commission in January originally reviewed this project and recommended the applicant return with revised plans and look at incorporating the westerly portion of that project site which is approximately 1 acre as part of the development project. The applicant has requested a number of continuances in order to prepare the necessary plan and an appraisal and feasibility report to make a determination about whether or not it would be cost effective to redevelop the site. At the last meeting, the applicant had made some changes and decided to submit a new application, narrowing the scope of the request and changing the applicant. The applicant is now Susan Moss, a co-owner of the property. The required revised plan was also submitted. The plan has a several problems relative to the Precise Development Plan request. All project applications are required to have a survey and the project plans must include measured and scaled drawings showing areas of parking and accurately represent the site. The plan submittal is not a measured and scaled drawing indicating existing and proposed conditions and there is no site survey which makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the applicant's request.
The owner has changed the plan to focus upon only the newly reconfigured portion of the site where four sites have been reconfigured to three sites. The Planning Commission had previously requested that the applicant make accommodation for the existing tenants and the current complement of mobile home sites, by improving the westerly portion on the property. The applicant has chosen to not pursue this option. A feasibility study prepared by the applicant indicated that development of this westerly portion would be costly and only yield 8-12 mobile home spaces. According to staff's analysis up to 20 additional spaces could be added. The feasibility study also contained a soils analysis which concluded that the site was stable for such development. Based upon the plan submittal and the applicant's reluctance to pursue development of the westerly portion of the property which would leave the existing park site unimpacted and avoid the proposed loss of one mobile home site which negatively impacts the City's Housing Element and the current park tenants, staff believes that it would not be appropriate to approve the project. Staff is also asking the Commission to direct them to consult with the State to make sure that the original configuration of the site is restored.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the applicant has submitted the required site information in response to the letter dated June 29, 1998, from staff. Director Blumenfeld stated there is a submittal before the Commission but it is deficient since it doesn't contain a scaled plan, site survey and other information that is typically required for a Precise Development Plan. He indicated he spoke with the applicant on two occassions and described the requirements reflected in the letter.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Susan Moss is co-owner of the mobile home park and also resides there. Her brother, Curtis McCallum is the other owner and is not present. Les Rogers, her manager, is present to answer questions about the existing foundations. Just for a deletion or addition of a space in the park, she was told that she just needed to fill out an application for that and didn't have to submit a full PDP. Tenants in the park have expressed an interest in purchasing these double mobile homes. The parking is provided underneath and wouldn't impact the park. In terms of losing a space, they have room in the park to reconfigure a space down below and put the necessary utilities in. Since the foundation work is in, they are just going for approval of that one site and they have no plans to do anything else.
Commissioner Perrotti asked about the parking for the proposed sites. Ms. Moss stated the space would accommodate one car and by law this is all they need to provide.
Chairman Tucker asked what the dimensions of the garages are? Ms. Moss stated it is a carport. There is one foundation existing which would accommodate a two car garage and that's for the larger model.
Commissioner Perrotti asked by eliminating the two spaces with the double wide site, would the applicant be able to come up with the full 60 spaces? Ms. Moss stated they could even come up with 61 spaces in the park if they reconfigured the one on a diagonal, even with the turnaround if they eliminated coach 30. Ms. Moss stated their goal is to put mobiles back on all the vacant spaces. They are trying to utilize what's there.
Shirley Kay, owner of Space 36, stated this unit is directly west of the area that has foundations on it. There has been a retaining wall on the west side of the area that is being reconfigured that has been moved 3 feet west. This has caused the elimination of 1 parking space in the area where there are documented 4 spaces. They have also been moved in a northerly direction which has caused an ingress on the north road. It is difficult to make a left turn out of there or a right turn headed north onto the north street. Examining the picture of the manufactured home, there was a golf cart in this space which is approximately 4 feet in width and doesn't look like there is an 8 foot space for parking allowed for the units on the north side to be in this island area that's proposed. With the way that people park in 8 and 9, the access which is on the north side of the proposed modification area does cause complications for access to the proposed new units and also causes access to the park itself through the north road.
Catherine Kinny, owner of Space 28, stated her space is next to the parking lots where it is planned to put the extra mobile. They have purchased their mobiles with the understanding that they have the parking spaces that were given to them at the time. These parking spaces are not empty. Some of them have been rented. If these homes go in, it will increase the parking value of the park. It has been their experience that property values are consumed by the management of the park. People seldom can sell because the move in rent is so high, from $795 to $825 a month, which is in addition to purchasing the mobile home and taking care of it along with utilities.
Scott Kinny, Catherine's son, lives also in Space 28. With the parking spaces as they are, they had no problem parking 3 cars there for the majority of the last 10 years they have lived there. The St. Claire's redrew them several years back and made them smaller. Any benefit that becomes of it, they'll take up the slack and increase rent and move-in charges. He does not appreciate any encroachment on their space. They can't sell their mobile home and can't get a loan and anyone buying it, couldn't get a loan because of this kind of activity.
Sandy Garcia, owner of Space 9, stated when she purchased her unit 6 years ago, in her agreement it stated she had 2 parking spots. One in front and one directly across from her. She is directly adjacent to these new mobile homes that are going in. They don't look anything like a mobile home. She would like to have the whole place conforming. If everybody is to have 1 parking stall, then she will have 1 taken away which she has legally in a contract.
Linda Slanager stated she is the tenant who submitted a copy of a letter written to Susan Moss today. She has included some color reproductions of the space down at 60 and 61 at the southwest end. Director Blumenfeld stated it is labeled supplementary information dated July 21 with photos. Ms. Slanager stated they have been renting from the owner, Lisa Luke and is opposed to adding more units at that end. The plot plan doesn't really depict how the mobile homes lay. The photograph on the last page shows their porches are now 1 foot apart since St. Claire Management moved Trailer 61 into a vacant area. She has been keeping that vacant area clean, maintained and planted for two years. It was the children's play area. When St. Claire Management took over, they moved in and abandoned the gray trailer down there and called it Space 62. It really wasn't a space. It was left as an abandoned unit with no hookups and unsightly until it was removed by the owner's daughter because she passed away. What is left there is now 61. St. Claire Management has asked her landlady to reconfigure her built steps which are wooden. They must be torn down and her landlady has no intention of doing this. They are opposed to anything in Space 61. It is cramped, not safe, the hillside retaining walls are coming down, the weeds have been let to go and all her planting and work is now just fallow.
Rebuttal
Ms. Moss stated St. Claire's son said the tenants in Space 60 have been notified that they have been encroaching on that land. No one ever told the tenants that was the center for the children. There have been many problems with the park and her job now is to just get it back to a running condition. She would like to utilize the foundations that sit in place.
Commissioner Perrotti stated at the January meeting, there were several residents that testified to problems concerning drainage and when the Commission prepared their motion, there were several items to be addressed. Has anything been done with these problems? Ms. Moss stated the system for drainage is very old but has been told it's adequate. There is a lot of standing water if there is an excess of rain or flooding. Mr. Rogers stated the system is in but they don't have the pump. The problem is where to pump it to.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti felt a lot of the issues that were brought up at the January meeting haven't been addressed. He realizes that the applicant doesn't have the expertise in preparing the information that staff wants, but staff's requests are pretty specific as to what the City needs. He feels they should either deny the PDP or continue it if there is some progress and request staff to work with the HCD to get the mobile home park complying with their regulations.
Commissioner Schwartz is concerned with loss of parking. Are there really 4 spaces that are usable parking spaces next to the 3 to 4 units that are going to be configured? She doesn't see any reason to approve any plan that doesn't have 60 mobile home spaces in it, unless they see plans that fully document how many parking spaces will be available. She has a problem with the sketchy nature of what has been submitted and can't make a decision. She is also concerned with the size of the carports. If there could be a submittal that meets all the requirements at the next meeting, then a decision can be made.
Chairman Tucker agreed. Parking is a big issue. There is no recreation for the children. The residents may want a recreation hall. He would like to see it revert back to the way it was originally with the original mobile homes. The roads also need to be fixed. He is opposed to continuing this Item.
Commissioner Perrotti stated if they deny this PDP, the applicant has the option of reapplying and at that point working with staff, preparing more precise plans and giving the information that staff and the Commission needs to make a decision.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz, to ADOPT the Resolution DENYING the project.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
8. PARK 98-2 -- PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE SHARED USE OF THE EXISTING REQUIRED PARKING FOR OFF-SITE BUSINESSES AT 200 PIER AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 MEETING).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said Parking Plan.
Director Blumenfeld stated this was continued since the March meeting in order to accommodate the Commission direction to get more definition to the proposed Parking Plan. The applicant since that time substantially revised the shared Parking Plan request to request that less than half of the spaces be allocated to a shared use, reserving more than half for the existing tenants. The applicant has met with the tenants. Director Blumenfeld contacted one of the tenants that was concerned and indicated that he supported the plan but had a concern with respect to the start time being pushed back one hour to 7 o'clock and that the spaces be designated. The parking is not being used to satisfied any required parking downtown. It would be to supplement parking demand in the downtown, particularly for one downtown business which has expressed interest in leasing the parking and providing valet service. The new Parking Plan involves providing 21 shared parking spaces out of the total 44 and currently shows operating the shared parking after 6 o'clock, and this is the recommendation in the Resolution. Staff is recommending for approval because it provides a real opportunity to the City to provide a better method to get more efficient use out of some of the lots that aren't currently utilized to their maximum potential and satisfy some of the downtown parking demand in the evening.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about weekends? Also, is there any mechanism to protect against abuse? Director Blumenfeld stated this would be for nighttime use, seven days a week. This is a Parking Plan and if the applicant isn't complying, it is subject to revocation. The spaces would be designated with a sign and on the bumper stops. Also, not that many tenants use the building after 6 p.m.
Chairman Tucker asked about handicap parking? Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant is not changing the parking demand for the site and if the use is a valet service, you wouldn't need an accessible space.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing .
Jack Bliss, the property manager, stated they currently control the system with a permanent parking pass and a monthly parking pass for the existing tenants. Also, part of the proposal would be to have for the shared parking a daily pass and alternate the colors. The majority of tenants were for it. They adjusted the plan based on input of the tenants.
Commissioner Perrotti stated in the staff analysis it is mentioned that the applicant is going to negotiate a lease with one business. Is valet parking planned?
Mr. Bliss prefers one tenant, probably a valet from the Comedy and Magic Club. The colors would change for each show. If there isn't valet, the person parking would have to be given a map instructions and a parking pass with the pass in the car window.
Carol Cooper at 1100 block of Manhattan stated her bedroom windows face onto the back alley, Palm Drive where the Comedy and Magic Club's parking lot is at one end. This will take parking off the street, but she states there is a lot of traffic down the alley at 2 a.m. making noise and if there isn't a valet running the traffic, there could be problems. The pedestrian traffic is the most bothersome.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti feels the only way it will work is to have just one lessee and a valet service. These conditions should be added to the Resolution. Commissioner Schwartz agrees. Chairman Tucker also agrees. He would like to see the traffic go back to the north and down Pier Avenue instead of going down the alley. Also, 4 spots in the main lot should be saved for 24 hours a day.
Director Blumenfeld stated if the Commission wants tenant parking in the front, this could be added to the Resolution.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the Resolution and add the two conditions of a valet service being used and with only one lessee.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
9. PDP 98-6 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO A DUPLEX AND TO ADD 534 SQUARE FEET AT 1734 PROSPECT AVENUE. (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 21, MAY 19, AND JUNE 16, 1998 MEETINGS).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to August 18, 1998 meeting (final continuation).
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing .
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to CONTINUE the Item to the August 18, 1998 meeting.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
10. CON 98-10/PDP 98-12 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25179 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1133 CYPRESS AVENUE. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 MEETING)
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated the plans have been significantly revised with only two detached units proposed. This is a typical condominium project.
Commissioner Schwartz stated on the drawings the kitchen appliances are not fully indicated. Mr. Schubach stated they will require this.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Fran Uroman of 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach is representing the applicant, Scott and Desaree Welch. The applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns and has come back with a smaller project that would actually be allowed on the site. It conforms to all the zoning requirements.
Chairman Tucker asked about the rear unit with the pillar going down and if it can be eliminated. They will leave this to the architect to work out with staff. Chairman Tucker would prefer copper for the roof.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz is pleased that their concerns were taken into consideration seriously. It is a nice looking set of buildings. Commissioner Perrotti agrees. The first proposal had some problems with the retaining wall and the tandem parking and it looks like these have been elevated.
Chairman Tucker also agrees. He is concerned about the westerly property line. He hopes the retaining wall will take care of this.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution as drafted and add a stipulation that the metal roof not be a galvanized metal.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
11. VAR 98-3 - VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD, LOT COVERAGE, AND GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND ADD 320 SQUARE FEET TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 2512 HERMOSA AVENUE. (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 MEETING)
Staff Recommended Action: To be continued at Staff's request to the August 18, 1998 meeting.
Mr. Schubach stated staff is asking for a continuance because they are waiting for the City Attorney to answer several questions regarding the project.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Chairman Tucker to CONTINUE the Item to the July 21, 1998 meeting. (final continuation).
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
12. VAR 98-4 - VARIANCE FOR EXTERIOR STAIRS TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED THREE FOOT (3') REAR YARD SETBACK AT 3515 MANHATTAN AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the garage setback request and deny the height Variance.
Mr. Schubach stated staff is recommending that they deny the height request since they cannot find the required findings for granting a height Variance. It's not really related to the property itself and is more related to the existing development. As far as the 17 foot setback step, staff can find some grounds for granting this. The lot is very small at 30 x 50. The purpose of the 17 foot setback was to keep cars off the sidewalk from overhanging and with the setback that's there now, it is an enticement to park and overhang the sidewalk. It is defeating the purpose.
Commissioner Schwartz wanted clarification of the height where they are over? Mr. Schubach stated that the height limit was exceeded at the top of the ridge, but that by lowering the pitch the building height would conform.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Trinidad Campbell who represents the applicant. They won't request a Variance for height. They have to reduce the building to meet the height requirements.
Bob Douglas at 216 1st Street, Manhattan Beach stated he received an invitation to attend the meeting. He stated it is important to control height. The setback for the garage provides for two spaces and are never used except on weekends. They are so desperate for parking and anyway to mitigate that problem, would meet with their approval.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz stated if they move the wall out, it may make a situation worse because people will park there on weekends. She is not in favor of expanding the garage. Commissioner Perrotti agrees. There were two letters submitted and they opposed the Variances. He feels he would allow the Variance for the 14 feet. Chairman Tucker agrees with Commissioner Schwartz. He is not in favor of granting the Variance for the garage driveway setback because parking is such a premium.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Chairman Tucker, to DISAPPROVE the project as proposed.
AYES: Commissioner Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: Commissioner Perrotti ABSENT: Commissioners Merl, Pizer ABSTAIN: None
13. PDP 98-15 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONVERT AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING BUILDING TO A SELF-STORAGE WAREHOUSE (38,000 SQUARE FEET) AT 530 6TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated the remodel involves creating partition walls and removing several interior walls and dividing those spaces to accommodate mini-storage type use per the plan submittal. There would be some improvement to 6th Street for parking and loading area and the main access to the self storage would be taken at the ground floor. There would be an elevator connection to the upper floors which can be used for moving heavier equipment and storage items. Staff believes that the proposed use is less intensive than the existing use. The storage facility is an M-1 type use with industrial uses surrounding the site and is not a heavy traffic generator. There currently is no parking requirement for mini-storage but if parked at the warehouse ratio it is more than adequately parked. Staff recommends providing some landscaping along the Valley Drive frontage and Public Works would require some improvements along Valley and the 6th Street frontage to provide curb and gutter. Staff believes that the south property line adjacent to South Park could also be improved.
Commissioner Perrotti stated on the proposed Resolution, page 5, paragraph 4, there is a misspelled word. It should read "in compliance."
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Russ Lessor, 530 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, and 404 Highland, Manhattan Beach, is representing Body Glove, the property owner.
Raymond Selser is representing Hunt Enterprises.
The designer of the mini-storage introduced himself.
Mr. Selser stated the loading dock on the south end is still there. The driveway is existing. The new driveway will be on the corner of 6th and Valley and this is where most of the loading and unloading for the mini-storage will be done. These are small stalls and the vehicles that come in are generally small. You can't get a truck larger than 40 feet in there. They will be painting the building and improving the structure of the building. The building will also be sprinkled. The vacant lot on the southwest corner will be cleaned up and possibly putting a block wall in and paving it.
Director Blumenfeld stated the recommendation was to deal with the frontage along Valley and on Cypress and to just clear the site and keep it maintained. The lot on 6th and Cypress will be restriped for a parking lot.
Paul Rudum , of 414 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked if a 40 foot truck comes in, will it block 6th Street and access to the beach route and how much truck traffic will there be?
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti preferred a high tech business coming in at this location but he is not opposed to this mini-storage.
Commissioner Schwartz feels Hermosa Beach is going to be over-storaged. She suggests something done to upgrade the business going in instead of looking like another mini-storage building. Chairman Tucker agrees. He likes the idea of curbs and sidewalks on 6th. He would like to see a deceleration lane put from 6th Street to connect with the facility.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to APPROVE the Resolution with Public Works to look at the need for a deceleration lane and some further architectural treatment be added to the exterior of the building in addition to the proposed re-painting.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
14. VAR 98-5 -- VARIANCE TO THE GARAGE SETBACK AND FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE IN ORDER TO ALLOW A GREATER THAN 100% EXPANSION TO THE MAIN DWELLING AT 1265 BONNIE BRAE STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To deny said Variance request.
Mr. Schubach stated staff is recommending denial because they cannot find the findings to approve a Variance to the setback of the garage. There is adequate room on the property and it is not an unusual shape or size or topography of any kind. The garage could be setback without difficulty as it exists currently. There is a parking space that's been illegally created on the south side of the garage and the curb has been altered. This area could be declared an open space area because there would then be the 17 foot setback with two spaces in front of the garage.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Patrick and Vicki Hansen, the owners of the property, introduced themselves. The cement pad was there when they bought the property. They moved to this City because it is family oriented with great schools. They went from 2,000 square feet to 900 square feet. If the Variance is granted, they would be parking in the garage and not on the sidewalk. They would like to do a modest remodel covering only 43.17% which is a little over 10% of the lot size. The house is situated 12 feet off the back property line leaving approximately 23 feet in the front yard for the children to play. They need the expansion since their children can no longer share a room. There's no other place to move to in Hermosa Beach. She has a list of 14 other properties that do not meet the setback as well. The property adjacent to them at 1259 is a duplex and was allowed in 1995 a greater than 100% expansion. The garage is parallel to the applicant's garage and not required to set it back. They are willing to provide the 4 spaces and not asking for an exemption for this. They intend to maintain the integrity of the property by keeping the yard and the large tree that is there. If they are required to setback the garage, the tree will have to go. The proposal is in keeping with the General Plan. It is not an oversized remodel. They are not taking up all of the space. They exceed all the other requirements. It presents a hardship to their family not to have this open space for their children.
Mr. Hanson stated if they are forced to move the garage back to the required position, it leaves approximately 11 ½ feet between the house and the garage. Keeping the garage remaining where it is keeps the flavor of the street.
Carolyn Hanson, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Hanson stated the Variance is needed.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there was a letter from a neighbor from Lena Cord and it was in opposition to granting a Variance. In reviewing the staff's analysis and the information presented by the applicant, he can't make Finding #1. He would be opposed to allowing the Variance. Commissioner Schwartz agrees. They are tied in terms of what findings they must make. She feels they can't grant the Variance. Chairman Tucker agrees also. The Codes are different today and they have to conform with the new setbacks. Looking at the project, the garage could be moved over toward the entry way and slide it back toward the southwest and there would still be the large area. The tree would be saved and it would save the wooden patio.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed to deny the Variance.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
15. PDP 98-16/NR 98-10 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NONCONFORMING REMODEL TO AN EXISTING DETACHED TWO-FAMILY DWELLING, TO DEMOLISH AND RECONSTRUCT ONE UNIT, AND TO MAINTAIN THE SECOND UNIT WITH A NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD, RESULTING IN A GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 1111 MANHATTAN AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a request to approve the demolition reconstruction of the front unit at 1109 and to maintain the rear unit at 1111 with a non-conforming side yard which results in a greater than a 50% increase in valuation and a greater than 30% removal of the exterior wall. This needs to come before the Commission. This is an older home built in the 20's and there are significant non-conformities that exist. The front unit has no parking space. The rear unit has a 15 foot wide by 18 foot deep two car garage which qualifies as only one space since the 17 feet interior dimension is not large enough to accommodate the current standard. In addition, the side yard is substandard relative to the rear unit on the north side. It's 2 feet, 9 inches rather than the required 4 feet. Access within the dwelling unit is non-conforming. The rear unit has separate access to each floor which separates the main living area on the second floor from an office area or game room area and utility room at the garage level. This also doesn't comply with the current definitions for dwelling unit which requires that all rooms shall have interior access. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two story front unit and replace it with a larger unit with two stories above the garage. This would help bring the project into greater conformity. Staff believes that the non-conforming side yard is the only non-conformity that would be maintained and staff believes it is not particularly severe or unusual and it should be approved and that the amount of expansion and remodel is reasonable given the R-3 zoning for the property. Given the lot size and age of the structure, it's more than justified. If both structures were completely demolished, the site could be developed with three units and this is not occurring under this proposed plan.
Commissioner Schwartz asked what the reason would be to define the dwelling unit to include the spaces that are on the first floor since they're not living spaces? Director Blumenfeld stated the issue is whether there is the ability to convert the space to livable area.
Commissioner Perrotti stated staff is recommending the garage be expanded from the 15 feet to 17 feet and there isn't anything on the plan to see what impact that will have on the building. He also stated Items 15, 17 and 18 on the Agenda did not have any signs. Director Blumenfeld stated staff will confirm that the signs get put up and will make sure they stay up for the period that they are advertised.
Chairman Tucker stated on the rear unit on the north side, there is a fireplace with a bump out. Does this obstruct the sideyard access? Director Blumenfeld stated you are allowed to have an architectural projection in a required yard.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
James and Kaye Caldwell at 1111 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach are the applicants and live in the west unit on Palm. They put the sign up on the Manhattan side of the unit. With regard to the stairs and the widening of the garage, they currently park two cars in the garage. The widening of the garage seems to have limited utility for the money involved. Adding the stairs would make those lower rooms a lot more useful. They commissioned their architect, Gary Lane and asked him to treat the property as if they were two detached homes, so that the home they were building would be completely compliant with whatever the Department would request.
Gary Lane, 500 South Sepulveda, Manhattan Beach is the architect of the project. Regarding the issue with the staircase on Sheet A6 where the deck is, they will make an entryway there and create a staircase down below. There is plenty of open space requirement.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz understands the applicant's desire not to spend money doing things that don't appreciably add value to the house. On the other hand, the reason there are Zoning Codes is because of the needs of the entire community. She respects the fact that the applicant can fit a Jeep Cherokee and another car into the garage but she feels the garage needs to be expanded in this case. Commissioner Perrotti agrees and the Resolution that staff has prepared. Chairman Tucker agrees also.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti to ACCEPT the Resolution as proposed by staff.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
16. CON 98-12/PDP 98-17 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25118 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 600 9TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Mr. Schubach stated staff's main concern is to have a lower height and there is a condition added for lowering the height. It is a standard condominium project.
Commissioner Perrotti stated on page 4 of the Resolution, paragraph 1F, should be 9th Street.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the property owner and applicant, Mr. Thomas King. The staff has presented a very well thought out staff report. Mr. King is prepared to deal with the height issue during Plan Check and the garage issue. The conditions of approval are acceptable to Mr. King. The heading of the Resolution references Ardmore. The property is at 9th and Ardmore. The heading should reference 9th Street. This project will be a very attractive addition at this intersection.
Betsy Corigan, at 610 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, resides directly behind where the building is going to be put up. She would like to request an illustration of the condominium unit with the projected height in relation to her building. After reviewing the projected blueprints at the Planning Office, it appears that from the first floor of the bedroom area, it will be completely blocked. If the builders start the foundation deeper, these few feet will make a difference to her building. There are currently two construction projects underway within 200 feet of one another on their street. With this project only 50 feet away, the noise, street congestion and stress is heightened. She proposes that the developers wait until the other projects have been completed. On the street in front of her property is a sink hole. This needs to be addressed. They have also had a theft occur two separate times since construction has begun. There is an ivy growing on the neighbor's side of the wall that completely covers her wall along the driveway. She requests that the ivy is left as it is. They also have two 25 foot trees along the same property and may lose the sunlight that they need if this property goes up. Will she be compensated if they die? They are on her property on the southwest side directly on the back area of the driveway. She is located in the middle unit. The unit height is 30 feet.
Director Blumenfeld will speak to Public Works about the sink hole. Chairman Tucker stated they have no mechanism to control how many jobs are on the street at one time. Looking at the cross section of the plan, it looks like her top floor is going to look over the top of this project.
Tom McWilliams, of 610 9th Street, Unit A, Hermosa Beach, also agrees with the height issue. During the excavation of the lot across the street, there were a lot of vibrations causing a lot of tremors. They have not received any notices regarding this. Also, their parking situation is completely saturated on the street, even before the dump trucks and semi-trucks were pulling in and taking dirt away for this construction and the new units are built.
Goodrin Ovestoter, at 610 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated she felt the pounding from the construction up the street two houses on the north side. She is also opposed to losing the top view. She would also like to see the construction delayed.
Chairman Tucker stated the building will not exceed 30 feet. It is below as high as they could go.
Rebuttal
Ms. Srour stated the construction hours have been thought out well by the City and the regulations will apply to this project. There is a natural grade from west to east from 5 to 6 feet and it does continue up 9th Street. The property to the east does benefit from that naturally higher elevation. The units enjoy a wonderful view across the property of the adjacent property owner who now chooses to develop his property and will probably live in one of these units. This property is being underdeveloped. It proposes two units and they are detached with a 15 foot separation between the two buildings on the east side and benefits the properties to the east. The side yard setback is required to be 5 feet but it is actually 6 feet. Also the front and rear setbacks are 10 feet which will be beneficial. There has been a great deal of care in the presentation of this project. The garages are oriented to the west so the traffic will be taken from Ardmore, which is also to the benefit of the units to the east. There is a motor court there which is ample for turnaround. Regarding the property line wall, Mr. King will work with the neighbors to preserve the landscaping. His intent is to be a good neighbor. Regarding notification of neighbors, this is a new condition of staff in the last several months and the applicant is making an effort to comply with this.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he sympathizes with the people on 9th Street. He agrees with the Resolution as proposed. It cleans up some of the problems that were identified during the review concerning the garage and the elevations and the ¾ bath and also the landscaping with the 36 inch box size trees.
Commissioner Schwartz stated she is impressed with the architectural design that she has seen at this meeting. There are no view ordinances. She agrees with the staff Resolution but would add a stipulation that if during the construction the existing property line wall gets demolished or the planting along it gets stripped, then new ivy planting be required along that wall facing the other units.
Chairman Tucker stated after some quick calculations, the peak of the roof will be approximately 28 feet. He sees no problems with the project.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz, to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed with the heading of the Resolution be reviewed to make sure the street address is correct and that a condition be added that if the existing wall and ivy planting is destroyed, that it be replaced.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl and Pizer ABSTAIN: None
17. CON 98-13/PDP 98-18 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25096 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 824 & 828 MANHATTAN AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Commissioner Schwartz asked at what point is this recommended to come back to the Planning Commission for review? Director Blumenfeld stated the simplest way is to allow staff to work with the applicant and stipulate that the revisions be brought back when the Resolution is heard for final approval at the next meeting.
Chairman Tucker asked if there is enough open space at Unit 828? Mr. Schubach stated it doesn't have the right dimensions to be countable. Mr. Blumenfeld stated there has to be a designated area for storage and trash.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, is here on behalf of Michael Mulligan, owner and applicant of property. He is present along with his architect, Tony Ishai. The project is intended to comply with all of the Codes, from height to location of storage, open space, etc. When they received the staff report, they became aware at that time there were some issues. Mr. Ishai is confident that all of the issues can be resolved without any material change to the look of the building or its relationship to the adjacent properties. The homes have been designed to capture the view to the west with nice views from both units. The garages have to be adjusted to allow the appropriate turnaround and this can be done by moving the garages forward. The height must comply with the methods of staff and will be worked out with Mr. Schubach this week. Regarding the open space, they have learned on the roof deck of the rear unit the space shows 236 square feet of open space. This is usable, but staff measures this slightly different so the decks can be enlarged which are off living areas. The FAU will be in the attics and accessed from inside the units. They believe the project is appropriate for the area and will be an attractive addition for Manhattan Avenue with two beautiful new homes.
Commissioner Schwartz stated 1.6 feet is quite a large difference in height. Is the proposal to sink the whole thing by this much?
Tony Ishai, of 23670 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 210, Torrance, is the architect of the project. One of the issues was the turning radius for the driveway. They can push the garage 3 feet back and take 1.5 feet from the bedroom which is 11 feet 6 inches and it will make it 10 feet by 10 feet and the upstairs stays the same. The height is something they can work out. They can change the pitch of the roof. Instead of 4 and 12, go 2.5 and 12 so they get away from the critical points and reduce the ceiling a bit. Regarding the open space, they have a staircase that goes up to the deck. If they take this out and put a spiral in place, this can be considered as an open space. Also, regarding the deck on the front of the living room facing the street, this can be made larger and can be 7 feet by 10 feet. He doesn't see anything that they can't work out without making too many modifications.
Chairman Tucker stated when they figure the heights, the City has a computer program. The numbers are put in and outcomes the height exactly.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz is satisfied that the changes can be made without materially effecting what they have but should something come up, it should come back to the Commission. The eastern and western elevations are nice, but the south and north elevations are pretty horrid. She would like to see more banding to tie it together and get rid of just walls and window look. It just needs some breaking up. Commissioner Perrotti agrees. If the Commission is concerned about the amount of deficiencies that have to be correct, they could just approve the resolution and review the final plans.
Chairman Tucker has no objections to the project. They could bring it back on the Consent Calendar just for the elevations.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE the Resolution as prepared with the requirement that the architect work with staff on improving the north and south elevations and that staff bring back the elevations at the next meeting on the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Merl, Pizer ABSTAIN: None
HEARINGS
18. LLA 98-1 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 2130 LOMA DRIVE, 2121 POWER STREET AND 2127 POWER STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve applicant's request.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a request by the owner at 2130 Loma to reconfigure their lot line. The owner had discovered that an existing wood deck was over the rear lot line of their property which is on a sloping lot and overlooks the Valley Park area and encroaches about 10 feet to the easterly property. There's enough room in the lot line adjustment to accommodate the existing deck. The problem is it doesn't include enough room to accommodate a required side yard of 3.5 feet and a rear yard of 5 feet. The deck would have to be modified to conform with the yard requirements.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
Cathy Sodl at 2130 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach asked for further consideration in terms of the recommendation of their deck being modified. They have a unique situation at their location. Their back view is their main focus. They are asking that they stay neck and neck with their neighbors instead of moving back. They are on good terms with the neighbors down below and on each side.
Mat Sodl at 2130 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach stated they have taken the deck which was encroaching on their neighbor's property and proactively tried to make it a correct situation. Looking at the back lot lines on Loma Drive, there is a lot of non-compliance going on. He is asking for consideration with respect to not purchasing the extra land in order to comply with the 5 foot setback requirement, the Commission provide a Variance on the 5 foot requirement given the unique circumstances of the football field of distance between them and their neighbors. All of the neighbors are working together.
Director Blumenfeld stated a Variance couldn't be granted but Condition 2 from the Resolution could be struck relative to the existing deck and apply to the new deck.
Chairman Tucker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the intent of the 5 foot setback is to prevent a fire safety issue and in this instance, the nearest structure to the rear is so far away, that this setback requirement could be waived. He would approve the Resolution as proposed with the elimination of the second condition. Commissioner Schwartz and Chairman Tucker agreed.
Jay Semour, of Redondo Beach, is the surveyor for this survey. They are doing a lot line adjustment and a record of survey to clear up the title for everyone. They are exchanging deeds with everyone and also monumenting the boundaries. All neighbors have been covered and all comply with the Subdivision Map Act.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz, to APPROVE the Resolution as proposed with the modification that the second paragraph be eliminated.
AYES: Commissioners Perrotti, Schwartz, Chairman Tucker NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Merl, Pizer ABSTAIN: None
19. S-4 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ALLOW A MURAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENTS AND TO ALLOW A COMMODITY IDENTIFICATION SIGN WITHIN SAID MURAL AT 2 HERMOSA AVENUE, DAWN TO DUSK.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Commissioner Schwartz left the meeting. The Commission can discuss this item but cannot act on it.
Director Blumenfeld stated the proposal is to install a mural at 2 Hermosa Avenue. It is depicted in the report and is an area of 7 feet by 13 feet. The business has a permitted wall sign which hasn't been installed and is 30 square feet and a double faced monument sign which is 36 square feet. They have a total of 66 square feet of sign area. Based on the building frontage, they can have almost twice that or 120 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows for mural that describes it as the pictorial representation. It can't contain identifying designations of goods or services being offered on the premises. This mural would contain identification of a soft drink, Mountain Dew. The applicant is way under the allowable sign area and it would be possible to incorporate this sign not as a mural, but as product identification.
Chairman Tucker opened the public hearing.
France Geneder, of Fresh Airbrush, Studio 1903, Hermosa Beach, is the artist.
Michael Dark , at 24881 Georgia Drive, Laguna Hills, is with Pepsi Cola. He stated driving down Hermosa Avenue, he counted eight similar examples.
Commissioner Perrotti stated if they approve it as a mural, they would be setting a precedent that could get out of hand. They could approve it as a sign.
Chairman Tucker stated he wouldn't approve it as a mural because it has Mountain Dew on it.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission will still have to approve the commodity ID when they have a quorum. Since the Commission does not have a quorum, this Item will be continued to the next meeting.
20. STAFF ITEMS
None.
21. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti stated the City Council at their last meeting made a motion to study the parking requirements in R-2 and R-3 Zones. If he wanted to discuss the issue of tandem parking, would that be applicable? Director Blumenfeld stated the direction of staff was to look at two things. Parking requirements for multi-family housing and open space requirements. They have been asked to just bring back the requirements.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|