|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 09-21-99MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 17, 1999, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Perrotti at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Pizer led the pledge of allegiance. Roll Call
Absent: None Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Schubach, City Planner Diane Cleary, Recording Secretary Director Blumenfeld introduced Commissioner Hoffman. He stated he is a Professor of Geography and Urban Studies at Loyola University and has just been appointed Commissioner for a four-year term. CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Blumenfeld stated neighbors adjacent the project have requested that certain items be considered as part of the Resolution, and he read the changes as requested by the applicant’s representative, Cheryl Vargo. He stated the developer has agreed to these changes, and staff would like to incorporate them in the Resolution and bring it back to finalize it at the next meeting.
Director Blumenfeld stated under Section 4, Item 5, the last word should read "structure." Also, under Section 5, Item 2, the word "restaurant" should be replaced with "retail," and Section 5, Item 3a, the word "employeess" should be corrected to "employees." Vice-Chair Perrotti requested on page 7, fourth paragraph of the July 20, 1999 Minutes, the word "lumbar" be replaced with "lumber." MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar and Item 4C which will be changed with the changes in the letter from the applicant and the changes proposed by staff on Item 4D. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Vice-Chair Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 21, 1999 meeting. City Planner Schubach stated staff is asking for a continuance due to many non-conformities with the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission’s policies regarding condominium projects. Vice-Chair Perrotti opened the public hearing. Vice-Chair Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE CON 99-24/PDP 99-28 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25664 for a two-unit condominium at 321 10 th Street to the September 21, 1999 meeting. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Vice-Chair Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He stated the parking lot will be useful for both the City’s Christian Fellowship Church and the Community Center. He said staff is recommending that the aisle width be decreased to increase landscaping. He also stated that staff is recommending that signage be posted as to when the church uses the parking lot. Commissioner Ketz asked what the dimension of the landscaping is on 11 th Place. Director Blumenfeld stated they will work with the applicant with the detailing of the landscaping, and staff wants to make sure a tree well will fit in the locations where they are spotted. Vice-Chair Perrotti opened the public hearing. Pete Tucker, 235 34 th Street, stated he would like to see the parking be available to the public at any time. Also, he would like to see the City waive the building fees and plan check fees which would provide relief for some of the owners in that area to help out the public. Director Blumenfeld stated the parking will be available to the public. He further stated Council considered a request from the applicant to waive the application fee to process the Precise Development Plan. He also said the processing fees for the PDP were waived. Director Blumenfeld explained that the owner of the property is going to lease the parking, making it available for the church and during the church’s non-peak periods, it will be available for public parking. Vice-Chair Perrotti asked about the installation of the oil separator. Director Blumenfeld stated that when a commercial parking lot is built, an oil separator is required to be installed. Commissioner Pizer asked if there is any specific definition of the hours of availability for either use. Director Blumenfeld stated staff needs more clarification from the applicant. He further stated the signage could be installed on the block wall where the parking occurs or at the front of the lot. Vice-Chair Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Schwartz to APPROVE PDP 99-27 Precise Development Plan for a surface parking lot at 1131 Pacific Coast Highway. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Vice-Chair Perrotti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He reviewed the requested changes requested of the applicant. He further reviewed the four Variance findings that have to be met. Vice-Chair Perrotti opened the public hearing. Gary Wiggle, Keisker & Wiggle Architects, stated the square footage of the enclosed area is 2,946 square feet. He presented the rendering and pointed out the changes requested. He stated by enclosing the open area above the sixth level of the parking structure will help alleviate drainage and water problems. Carl Newman, 1707 Pacific Coast Highway, lives directly adjacent to the proposed construction area. He stated the building has been overbuilt and has been poorly occupied. He said there is plenty of open space for any kind of retail or other operations to bring into the building. It would be destructive to the view of the ocean from the adjacent building to have any additional height added to the building and would be inconvenient with the noise and dust from construction. The building has been a poor neighbor as far as maintaining the structure and is an eye sore. He requests that the Commission deny any Variance to the height which would further degrade the area. Phil McGrevy, 1707 Pacific Coast Highway, stated he is not opposed to new building. He is not satisfied with what is currently there. He stated there is currently no noise coming from the parking lot and is not aware of any drainage issues. He does not see a need for the building to go any higher. He stated there are six homeowners in the area that feel their views will be blocked. Rebuttal
Mr. Wiggle stated that when the building was originally developed, there was a 45 foot height limit in the Zone. The 35 foot limit was imposed after the building was built. He indicated that the technical building of the space in question requires a Variance due to the fact that the height during the life of the building has been lowered. He also noted that they are not building anything taller than the existing portion of the rear building, but are simply just feeling in that corner at the same roof level continuing existing roofs right out. Commissioner Hoffman asked what the intended use is of the space. Mr. Wiggle stated the upper right half will be storage area for a retailer. Vice-Chair Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with the boxy look of the building, the creep of the building envelope and attitude toward the space and feels there is not a reason for a Variance and does not see any reason for the space. Commissioner Pizer stated the request is in accordance with the General Plan, but he is not in favor of Findings 1, 2 and 3 and does not see the justification for the request. Commissioner Ketz asked if there was another Variance given on the building. Director Blumenfeld stated a Variance was processed in a similar situation to enclose an existing portion of the building with similar Findings. Commissioner Hoffman asked what the impact would be on the parking requirement for the additional 3,000 feet of retail space. Director Blumenfeld stated the last study showed there would be a surplus of parking spaces during the peak periods and based on this, there would be no impact. Commissioner Ketz stated the height is already existing and the request is just a matter of enclosing any existing structure. She also pointed out another Variance was granted for almost the identical reason. She is in favor of this Variance. Vice-Chair Perrotti stated any impact on the views would be minimal. He said alleviating the noise would be beneficial and the prior Variance set some precedent and it would be inconsistent not to approve this Variance. Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with an incremental addition as opposed to presenting the project the first time and resolving the concerns at that time. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Vice-Chair Perrotti to APPROVE VAR 99-6 – Variance to the 35-foot height limit to add floor area above the open parking area at the northwest corner of the Hermosa Pavilion at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Vice-Chair Perrotti NOES: Schwartz, Pizer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None
Staff Recommended Action: To consider the proposed text amendment and direct staff to return with a Resolution at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Director Blumenfeld pointed out staff is looking for direction based on the discussion and to come back with a Text Amendment and a Resolution to deal with the issues brought up in the staff report. He further stated the intent is to invite public input at this preliminary stage. He summarized the staff report. He reviewed the parking standards and reviewed a sketch of various parking situations. He further reviewed the allowable location of parking in tandem, covered and underground conditions and reviewed staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Pizer stated he would like to see tandem parking eliminated. He also asked about parallel parking for guests in front of a garage. He would like to see a requirement that each guest space of a duplex have parallel parking in front of a garage and that a guest space can’t block access to the required parking space. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the City Council’s recommendation for single family requirements of a 17 foot setback but no requirement for a guest parking space. Director Blumenfeld stated City Council felt there was more restriction on a single family dwelling than on a multi-family dwelling and it wasn’t equitable. Vice-Chair Perrotti opened the public hearing. Cheryl Vargo stated when there is a parallel space behind the garage door that are usually on alley configurations, typically there are two spaces already in the 17 foot setback in front of the front unit. The space behind the garage is a third space and would not be the only guest space. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that if the guest parking ratio does not change at one per two spaces, then Ms. Vargo would be correct. One of the concerns, however, is that the space is open and available to all of the units and the 17 foot setback is not perceived as a guest space for all units. One of the intents of the Commission is to make sure there is open and available guest parking on the lot for all the units. Ms. Vargo also pointed out regarding the concern about the openness of the required guest parking spaces, the project that has the space in the garage states that all guest parking must be enclosed. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Boulevard, Suite 200, stated Hermosa Beach requires replacement parking when parking is lost on the street. This effectively adds additional guest parking spaces to the condominium site. He stated in Hermosa Beach he has to provide additional parking above and beyond what other cities would require. In terms of parking behind such as a two car garage off any alley, his experience with this works very well because it tends to be the one parking space for the unit’s two car garage and nobody will park in front of it. There could be an issue when there are both guest parking spaces in front of a unit’s two car garage. He also stated that tandem parking is a major issue in terms of some lots if they are not through to street or alley. If tandem parking is taken away, anybody who has a walk street lot cannot do two units because there is no way to do the parking on it. Pete Tucker, 235 34 th Street, agrees with Commission Pizer regarding tandem. He stated the Council would like to reduce density. He said covered garages with tandem should be eliminated which would reduce density. He further indicated that with regard to guest parking, when the 17 foot setback first originated, it was off the alley also. He stated he has two or three along Monterey and Manhattan Avenue where there is a 17 foot setback off the alley. He said the parallel parking in the alley does not work because it blocks the garage for the tenant. He feels the 17 foot setback in the alley should be enforced, giving one more spot. He stated by getting two in the alley and two on the street gives eight parking spaces which is a better situation. Vice-Chair Perrotti recalled that a more prevalent situation where there was tandem parking on a small R-3 lot, trying to put in three units. Commissioner Pizer stated when he built his house, the 17 foot setback is the best thing that ever happened because there are spaces for guest parking with some open space outside which gives a much nicer appearance. Director Blumenfeld reviewed the rules on replacement parking as outlined on page 2 of the staff report. Commissioner Schwartz stated she would have a hard time trying to make a direct comparison to another city without really understanding the whole fabric of the city. Mr. Compton pointed out that the Municipal Code includes a section which does not allow the reduction of any public parking in town including residential and commercial. Director Blumenfeld reviewed the open space requirements and lot coverage standards as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the table calculations, sketches of elevations, photos illustrating the FAR requirements and the open space and lot coverage recommendations. He further reviewed the calculations of the Hypothetical Max Buildout for 2-Unit Projects table. Commissioner Ketz asked about the additional 100 square feet in addition to the 200 square feet. Director Blumenfeld stated the 100 square feet is private open space on decks required per unit. Vice-Chair Perrotti questioned the second lot coverage recommendation of eliminating exceptions to lot coverage calculations. Director Blumenfeld stated fireplaces in the side yards would be eliminated as an lot coverage calculation exception but would be allowed in a side yard as long as the maximum coverage requirement is met. Vice-Chair Perrotti stated the Council’s intent is to reduce some of the bulk, but if the units become so small, rental units will be created and this would not be Council’s intent concerning lot coverage percentage being decreased. Commissioner Ketz stated she likes the idea of the upper level yards, bringing the big square buildings away from the street, and she also likes the idea of no open space on the roof decks since the open space should be accessible to the living area. Commissioner Ketz further asked if there is a reason that in R-1, the requirement of 75% of the open space be on grade. Director Blumenfeld stated the idea is that often times the R-1 Zones are considered to be more restrictive zones, and the intent is to preserve the single family qualities that make them distinctive. More open space and less buildable area is consistent with that quality. Commissioner Ketz pointed out that many homes have the bedrooms on the first floor and the living area on the second floor which doesn’t make the open space accessible to the living area. Commissioner Schwartz stated she has seen many projects that are vertical in nature but are articulated in such ways that are very nice. She feels the 65% lot coverage is acceptable and she agrees with not allowing the required open space on the roof. She further stated she would hate to see the ground floors just be garage with very little open space. Director Blumenfeld stated some of the criticism that the Commission has received about new projects is that many of them look very tall and intrude along the street edge with not much light and air between the buildings. He referred the Commission to the photos in the staff report, showing typical projects reviewed by the Commission and not showing much articulation. He stated that by providing upper level setbacks (or yards) would help the building appear less tall. Commissioner Pizer suggested not eliminating totally open space on roof decks. Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with the reduction of square footage on a structure which could reduce the potential market value of that property taking away some of the incentive for a higher quality home. Cheryl Vargo stated by setting certain standards as far as building level setbacks dictates the design of the building. She said by taking the open space off the roof deck will create a single building because the space will be needed in between the two units. This space provides light and air, allowing more windows and openings and cuts back on the bulk or mass of the building. She said this will change the way the buildings will look from the street sides and alley sides and will allow more architectural design. Also on lots that have no alley or street abutting another lot that have a backyard that is useable, allowing the rear yard setback be counted as open space and have the 7 foot dimension for a yard, may provide some ground floor open space. Director Blumenfeld stated even with the street to lot configuration you tend to get a rear yard meeting the minimum 5 foot requirement and buildings are separated on a lot. He further indicated that while there may be more latitude under the current standards, the Commission has said it’s not being exercised and projects look boxy. Mr. Compton stated he is concerned with the setting back of the upper floors. He said by pushing the upper level back 17 feet from the street, there may be a situation where there are two buildings already built to within 5 feet right next to it, and an upper level on a new unit in many cases may be 5 feet lower than the one next door. He is also concerned with the flat front building appearance and a boxy look of the building. He suggested averaging the stepping. He also pointed out they do a lot of three-story buildings by going subterranean which allows more square footage and is a plus for lot coverage versus FAR. He also pointed out that the open space clear to the sky is a major impact. By putting the open space on the ground in an R1 Zone of 300 square feet, this 300 square feet will be lost along with 300 square feet on two floors above it. He prefers some covered open space. He also stated that the big, flat top buildings came in when the 35 foot height limit went out because you can’t step the buildings and get a small mezzanine level. He pointed out also that there is a major inequity with condominiums with the front half of the lot being a maximum of 25 feet and the rear half of the lot being 30 feet, and then have right next door a single family and build a 30 foot wall all the way across. He also expressed concern with losing value of homes by reducing the square footage. He further stated that 100 square feet is reasonable to allow as roof deck. Jim Givalon, 1214 Monterey, stated he owns a 30 x 100 foot lot on Monterey south of Pier. It has a 70-year-old duplex on the back half and the front half is empty. It was zoned R4 when he bought it in 1970. He said the entire block is virtually nonconforming. There is a four-story apartment building on one end, two-story retail on the other end and he is surrounded by 35-foot townhomes and duplexes. He also stated they proposed two 2300 square foot townhomes to meet the current standards of the 65% lot coverage, 35 height limit and more parking than required. They will be owner occupied. The proposed restrictions of two 1600 square foot buildings will dramatically reduce the value of what they are hoping to build. He stated Monterey is a wide street with two-story limits on one side with significant setback rules, meeting a lot of the open space objectives. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is not recommending the overall net reduction number of up to 1600 square feet. He said the issue in the tabulations is just to give an idea on how the restrictions affect the net buildable area. Putting in effect only the additional front yard setbacks results in a unit size that would be in the range of about 2000 square feet. Currently, the range is about 2200 to 2300 square feet. The net buildable area does not radically change. At the next meeting, staff would like to show how this reduction affects a typical floor plan. Commissioner Pizer asked how this meeting was noticed. Director Blumenfeld stated staff published notice in the newspaper indicating the proposed Text Amendment. Rick Gates, 44 The Strand, stated he is surrounded on all sides by large condos at 35 feet high with a flat wall. He expressed concern with the loss of square footage. He stated the reduction of the top floor of 250 square feet is substantial and would be taken out of the living area. He is concerned with the loss of property value and the limit on architectural creativity with everyone building the layer cake right to the edge. He noted that there are already lots surrounded by large condo complexes at 30-35 feet. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that these changes will affect ultimately all property values in town both directly and collectively. He stated with the existing Ordinance, the architects and developers have not exercised a great deal of the opportunities to be creative which has forced Council to make changes in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Ketz stated she would not want to see every property look like a box and would like to see more creativity. Mr. Compton suggested not re-zoning an owner’s property without their knowledge. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the tabulation done in the hypothetical model is only intended to quantify the proposed changes to help Council and Commission make an informed decision. The Commission took a break at 9:35 pm. The Commission reconvened at 9:50 pm. Director Blumenfeld summarized the zoning standards related to number of stories. He reviewed the height requirements and staff’s recommendations. Commissioners Pizer and Ketz agree with staff’s recommendation. Mike Mulligan, 2150 Circle Drive, asked if the garage is counted in the square footage. Director Blumenfeld stated no. Mr. Mulligan expressed concern with the loss of 300 or 400 square feet which is equivalent to losing a bedroom. Director Blumenfeld explained with the proposed recommendations, the footage at the ground floor would not be changed. What will be affected would be the upper level, getting reduced by 4 feet and 7 feet at second and third levels. Director Blumenfeld presented definitions and summarized the staff report. Mr. Compton stated it is difficult for architects in the middle of a design to know which direction to go when there are design modifications being made. He hopes the changes will be bundled together and happen at a certain date. Director Blumenfeld pointed out there will be a follow up meetings dealing with each of the proposed changes. Staff will come back with a schedule for adoption. He further stated staff will bring back a text amendment dealing with the number of stories per zone for the next meeting. Vice-Chair Perrotti moved by Minute Order to ACCEPT staff’s recommendations. Passed 5-0.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He stated staff is asking for direction on how to treat this sign. Commissioner Schwartz stated that the sign appears to be more of a roof sign. Commissioner Hoffman feels it does not violate the spirit of a roof top sign in the sense that it does not protrude above the roof. He agrees that it is not a roof sign. Vice-Chair Perrotti stated that it doesn’t look like a roof sign and it doesn’t protrude. He said it appears as more of a patio cover. Commissioner Ketz agrees. Vice-Chair Perrotti moved by Minute Order concluding that this Item is not a roof sign. Passed 4-1.
12. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Pizer asked about the parking credit allocation. Director Blumenfeld stated staff has been asked to look at this issue in addition to what the impacts would be along with some other planning work in the downtown. It will come back to Council with some recommendations. Commissioner Hoffman asked if there needs to be a voting in of the new Chair. Director Blumenfeld stated this will be done at the next meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to ADJOURN the meeting at 10:20 pm. No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|