|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 09-18-01
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE
CITY OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Tucker led the pledge of allegiance. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, and Chairman
Perrotti
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Chairman
Perrotti, to
APPROVE
the July 17, 2001, Planning Commission minutes.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to
APPROVE
Resolutions P.C. 01-21, 01-22, 01-23, 01-24 and 01-25.
Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and indicated that staff is requesting direction on the distinction between a roof deck and regular deck. He said that the architect has a revised set of plans that reflect the reconfiguration recommended by the Commission, and the Resolution could be approved as amended based on the Commission’s direction. He further requested that the definition of roof deck be amended with specific information on the decks adjacent mezzanines and stairs intervening between floors. Jerry Compton, project architect, explained that he left the rear unit in the original configuration with the front unit now showing access directly from the mezzanine out to a small access deck at the level of the mezzanine, stepping up three steps at 18 inches maximum. He also said he is proposing to step up again at the center of the deck, creating a roof deck at 100 feet where the spa is located with the rest of the open space being down at the 18 inches the Commission specified. He said his intent is to get the deck high enough to allow for a view. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Compton explained that the level below will have higher ceilings and windows. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Compton explained that glass rails would only be adjacent to the spa. In response to Mr. Compton, Director Blumenfeld informed that the requirement of 100 square feet of open space directly accessible to the primary living space is stated in the code. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that regarding the project, in addition to the 100 square feet of open space on the roof deck, the balance of the open space is met on decks, which are not in question, adjacent to the primary living area.
MOTION
by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to
APPROVE
the revised plans for a three unit condominium at 106, 108 and
110 - 8th Street.
In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that a mezzanine is not considered a story under the Building Code or Zoning Ordinance. The Commission gave direction and concurred that in the event there is an intervening mezzanine between floors, the access provided will be no more than three risers.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Pizer, to
APPROVE
P.C. Resolution 01-26, a Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a
Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map #26395 for a three (3) unit condominium
project, at 106, 108 and 110 - 8th Street and legally described
as Lot 12 Block 37, 1st addition to Hermosa Beach.
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to September 18, 2001 meeting. City Planner Schubach stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next meeting of September 18, 2001. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION
by Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to
CONTINUE
CUP 01-3 – Conditional Use Permit to locate a wireless
communication antenna on the existing office building at 2447
Pacific Coast Highway.
8. CON 01-8/PDP 01-9 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26262 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 300 HERMOSA AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 19 and JULY 17, 2001 MEETINGS). Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. City Planner Schubach suggested that this item be re-noticed for whatever date the applicant could come back with a new plan. Director Blumenfeld stated that the re-noticing would be to reapply as a new project to be heard, processing a new application. However, the noticing fee would be charged at a reduced rate as a second notice. He further explained that the project has been substantially redesigned. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION
by Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to
DIRECT
staff to accept a new application and re-notice the project.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld gave a staff report and reviewed the project. He stated that the applicant proposes to eliminate the existing unit located under "Java Man" by converting it to commercial use, reducing the number of units to five. Further, all the original garages will be restored, increasing available parking from 8 to 10 spaces. He also said that the applicant is proposing to remodel and expand three of the existing residential uses, Units 1, 3 and 5. He further explained that the only development standard that pertains to the project relates to parking. He indicated that since the project involves the expansion of non-conforming residential uses located in the C-2 Zone, there are no residential development standards that apply to this project. He also said that non-conforming uses can be expanded up to 50 percent of the current replacement cost. In this case, the cumulative increase of the residential non-conforming use is 44 percent. He said that the Commission may consider granting a parking "credit" for the existing residential use being eliminated, and consider the conversion to commercial an increase in parking requirements of only two spaces since the commercial parking requirement for the 900 square feet (4 spaces) exceeds the residential requirement by two spaces. He said that if the Commission chooses to recognize this credit, it should be reflected in the Conditions of Approval. Alternately, if the Commission determines that the existing parking credit for the residential use cannot be applied, then the applicant must provide additional parking or satisfy the parking requirement under the provisions of a Parking Plan or a Variance. The parking calculations and calculations regarding increase in valuation are both based on the assumption that the property is one parcel. As such, staff is recommending that a condition be included to require merger of the parcels prior to issuing any building permits. In summary, the project complies with the provisions of Chapter 17.52 only if the Commission confirms that the increase in valuation can be calculated using the net expanded floor area rather than the gross area of the addition. Further, compliance with the parking requirements of Section 17.44.140 are satisfied only if the Commission confirms that the parking garages are exclusively for residential uses, and that the conversion of the residential unit to commercial use results in an increased parking requirement of two spaces. Also, the Commission would have to confirm that credit can be given for the addition of two spaces on the alley, even though it appears to be the restoration of previously existing spaces. The applicant is seeking a favorable determination from the Commission with respect to these issues. Staff will return with a resolution of approval or denial based on Commission direction. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the two garage spaces converted to residential have no permit record; however, as early as the 1920s, there were up to 8 units recognized on the property. He also said there is some permit history on the commercial use. He also explained that since the property covers more than one lot, it would be more advantageous to merge the lots. He said that the garages are deep enough to accommodate a car but do not meet the current standards for a parking garage for two stalls. He said the minimum height for garage doors is 6 feet 8 inches. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Oakes stated that the garages are 18 feet deep. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Oakes clarified that Units 3 and 4 are separate and are not connecting. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Oakes explained that Unit 1 behind Java Man would not rise above the roof line, as the elevation is lower with a courtyard that drops down.
In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. LaPoint said that the units have been residential for many years. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. LaPoint agreed with merging the properties. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer believed that the area will be improved, and he agreed with the parking credit and had no objection with the request. Commissioner Hoffman believed that the townscape in the area will be saved and the parking issue will be resolved. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with using an illegal unit as a credit toward a remodel. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld indicated that the garage area is being used as part of the calculation. Chairman Perrotti stated that the plan would improve what is existing whereas the alternative would be to demolish the existing structures. He said he likes the mixed use concept. He pointed out that there is not enough evidence to show there was an illegal unit. Chairman Perrotti recommended adding "occupants of the residential units" to Condition No. 1, as he expressed concerned with subleasing. He further expressed concern with using the parking at 1300 Manhattan Avenue. He would like to see the parking credit approved or to have a separate parking plan. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld stated the approval of this project would be for a Precise Development Plan, as the project consists of an existing non-conforming use but changes the envelope of the building. He said staff will come back at the next meeting with the Resolution, addressing all of the Commission’s concerns. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Oakes stated that there is a service area off the alley with staff onsite keeping the property clean. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Oakes explained that the area between Units 4 and 5 is an entry area with a connection to Unit 4 on one side and an entry into Unit 5 on the other side. Chairman Perrotti appreciated that there have been numerous improvements to the property over the last few years, and he hoped to see other developers follow in suit. Jerry Compton agreed with multi-use in the C2 Zone downtown, and he suggested putting multi-use back into the Zone.
MOTION
by Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to
APPROVE
PDP 01-14 – Precise Development Plan to remodel and
expand existing residential uses at 139, 145B and 155C Pier
Avenue, with the 4 conditions of approval and summary in the
staff report, and to direct staff to return with a Resolution.
10. STAFF ITEMS
11. COMMISSIONER ITEMS - None. 12. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to ADJOURN the meeting at 8:35 p.m. No objections, so ordered. |
|
|
|