Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-17 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 17, 2005, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman Hoffman at 7:02 P.M. Commissioner Kersenboom led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Vice -Chairman Hoffman Absent: Pizer Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary OR'AL[WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Vice -Chairman Hoffman welcomed Langley Kersenboom to the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR. 4. Approval of April 19, 2005 Minutes. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE the April 19, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kersenboom ABSENT: Pizer At this time, Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted for the audience members that Agenda Item No. 15, NR 05-8 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50 percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 1540 Golden Avenue, will be removed from this evening's agenda due to the lack of a quorum for consideration on that item. He added that two Commissioners present this evening live within 300 feet of the subject property and that they would need to recuse themselves from consideration. 5. Resolution(s) for Consideration None. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 6. GP 05-3/ZON 05-3 -- General Plan Amendment from CC, Commercial Corridor, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and zone from SPAT, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two -Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as deemed Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 appropriate by the Planning Commission, to allow the development of up to four residential units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 7 Pacific Coast Highway and 730 1st Street (continued from February 15, March 15 and April 19, 2005 and meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To continue to June 21, 2005 meeting. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant has requested another continuance of this matter; and stated that because this item has been continued three times, the applicant will have to renotice this matter if they wish to proceed. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no audience input, Vice - Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUE GP 05-3/ZON 05-3 -- General Plan Amendment from CC, Commercial Corridor, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and zone from SPA7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two -Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, to allow the development of up to four residential units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 7 Pacific Coast Highway and 730 1st Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 7. GP 05-4/ZON 05-4/CON 05-3/PDP 05-3 -- General Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HD) and Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Multiple -Family Residential (R-3) or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Change Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26923 for a two -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 19 2nd Street (continued from February 15 and April 19, 2005 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld stated that this matter was continued from the previous meeting in order for the applicant to prepare a comparative fiscal analysis of the proposed project relative to some of the other uses being developed on site; and advised that this information was received on May 11, 2005, and that staff did not have ample opportunity to review that material and include an analysis in staff's report. He noted that the Commission can take action on this request or that it can defer taking action and continue this matter in order to allow staff time to prepare an analysis and incorporate that review in staff report. Director Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission previously considered this request in November 2002; that the Commission unanimously voted to deny the request; that the applicant appealed the decision to City Council in February 2003; and that City Council sustained the Commission's decision. He advised that there have been no material changes in the use or development of the surrounding properties; and stated that the request is identical to the 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 previous request. He noted the Commission had approved the condominium project subject to Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Director Blumenfeld advised that the subject property is located on the north side of 2"d Street, the second lot east of the neighborhood commercial development that fronts Hermosa Avenue; that the lot is located at a depth of 60 to 93 feet on Hermosa Avenue and abuts Beach Drive; noted that the intervening property is also developed with a duplex; explained that the property is one of 3 lots located between Hermosa Avenue and Beach Drive; and noted that the C-1 Zoning on this site does not allow exclusive residential development, but that it does permit residential above commercial development as a mixed use project pursuant to the Design Development Standards of the C-1 Zone. He mentioned that the commercial designation for the block between Hermosa Avenue and Beach Drive dates back to the earliest zoning maps; noted that the Hermosa Avenue frontage property to the south is a mix of service and retail uses; that across the street on Hermosa Avenue are residentially developed properties at the R-3 density; advised that the property directly to the south of 2"d Street is also zoned C-1, which was formerly a restaurant use; and that the properties to the west and north are residential. With respect to the proposed zone change, Director ,Blumenfeld stated that the applicant's request is to redesignate/rezone the property to HD Residential and R-3, which will allow exclusive residential development of the lot, to allow a 2-unit condominium project; and advised that a 2-unit development results in a density that is consistent with the surrounding area and is compatible with development patterns to the south, west and east along Hermosa Avenue. He added that all required yards for the proposed project are consistent with the requirements of the zone; that the proposed condominium project is below the 65 percent maximum allowable lot coverage; that both units comply with the 30-foot maximum height limit; and that the project is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the zone — pointing out, though, there is a need to rework some of the open space to comply with the minimum 300-square-foot requirement for open space. If the Commission should choose to approve the request, he stated that staff would suggest adding a condition that it be done contingent upon Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Director Blumenfeld confirmed for Commissioner Perrotti that the maps/plans are the same condominium plans previously considered. Commissioner Perrotti questioned the adequacy of parking area with a mixed use development at this site. In response, Director Blumenfeld explained that staff looked at the parking relative to assembly of all lots; stated that if they are assembled, a project could be developed under the development standards of the C-1 Zone; that without lot assembly, it is more difficult because of the geometry of the lot -- to get the minimum commercial lot depth and ground level parking. Director Blumenfeld reiterated that this is the same project the applicant previously submitted. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Steve Kaplan, 1219 Morningside Drive, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicants, stated that he submitted to staff and the Commission an outline of his arguments in support of this request. He advised that nothing has changed in a year and a half with this project proposal, but he asked the Commission to think outside of the box this evening, asking the Commission to pragmatically look at planning policies rather than just a straight -forward look at the basic goals. He asked for the Commission to focus this evening on the fact that the subject lot has been a 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 commercial piece of property as long as the General Plan and Zoning Maps have been in existence in Hermosa Beach; pointed out that the residential duplex predates all that and was built in 1920, but for 85 years it has been a legal, nonconforming use. He expressed his belief this condition reflects that the marketplace does not want or support a commercial piece of property at this site. He added that if this building that's been used for the past 85 years were to burn more than 50 percent, his clients, their predecessors in interest, would have a genuine problem rebuilding that structure, that they would only be permitted to build a commercial building. He stated that the property just to the west is of equal age and also a duplex; and that one would have a commercial use on a small beach lot next to a 2-unit separating it from the Hermosa Avenue frontage. He stated that the marketplace has not driven anyone to assemble these 3 lots and noted that staff indicates it would be difficult to assemble those lots. He stated that the reality is the value of each property is such that it drives people to use the property residentially. Mr. Kaplan explained that two years ago, he was before this Commission and Council, representing another applicant for a different property, trying to get a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment on property that did not front Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) but was 100 feet back; advised that he made similar arguments to this evening's arguments; and explained public policy there dictates that obviously the Planning Commission, City Council would probably have a higher calling in protecting a commercial artery such as PCH from residential encroachment than it would from this site. He stated that he therefore lost on the 5th Street and PCH matter because Council wanted to maintain a 300-foot policy on commercially zoned property back from PCH. He stated that he does not see a similar policy here; that he does not see a driving reason why these 3 lots are zoned commercial. He stated that this lot would probably be used for parking if one were to combine the lots; and expressed his belief these lots are not going to be combined in the foreseeable future. He expressed his philosophy that if this property has not worked for 85 years, that something needs to be changed; and stated that because of this long- time condition, it is appropriate to amend the General Plan and Zoning. He pointed out that the Kosmont report (comparative fiscal revenue projection) indicates this property would generate more revenue for the City with the use of a 2-unit condominium than it currently does — highlighting one of the City's policy issues to maximize revenues. He urged the Commission to approve this request; and requested that at a minimum, the Commission recommend to Council that it open up discussion regarding neighborhood commercial designation for the General Plan, possibly indicating that a 60-foot depth is sufficient, thereby allowing this lot to be redeveloped. He concluded that it's time to redevelop this 1920's property. Justin Blackworthy, 24 Third Court, immediately adjacent to the subject property, stated that his neighbors were not notified of this continued hearing; and urged the Commission to stick with their prior decision on this matter. He commented on the City's repeated reluctance to apply individual zoning changes on postage stamp lots and suggested that if a change is imminent, that it be evaluated within the context of an overall General Plan change rather than just applying it to this single lot. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Allen expressed his belief the applicant's representative made some very good arguments; and commented on the need for the City to make a categorical stand on whether it will give up commercial lot space or not. He stated that this project would be an improvement for the neighborhood. Commissioner Perrotti noted that many requests for zone changes along PCH and its side 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 streets have come before this body, noting that a couple had been rezoned residential; but stated that he is reluctant at this time to rezone this property, even though it hasn't had a commercial use in 85 years, because he believes the mixed use concept in that part of town should be given ample opportunity to succeed. Given the plans for the condominium are the same, he noted he would approve that condominium development, contingent upon Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that he stands by his 2002 decision on this project, believing mixed use needs ample chance to succeed in this area. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he too will be supporting his prior decision on this project, believing this area involves quality of life issues for the entire neighborhood; and he suggested the vote be split. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to DENY GP 05-4/ZON 05-4 -- General Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HD) and Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Multiple -Family Residential (R-3) or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-3/ PDP 05-3, a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Change Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26923 for a two -unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 19 2nd Street, subject to City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 8. CON 05-6/PDP 05-6 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 62446 for a six -unit condominium at 640 - 644 Hermosa Avenue (continued from March 15 and April 19, 2005 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, between 6th and 8th Streets, backing up to the rear of the alley; stated that the site consists of 2 exiting lots, each which are currently developed with a 5-unit apartment building; and that each of the existing lots contain 4,000 square feet. He mentioned that if these lots were not tied together for this project, they could be developed as 2 separate 3-unit condominium projects based on the density requirements of the zone. He stated that the project consists of a 3-level structure containing all 6 units with a building attached at the second and third levels; that the project contains 3 different floor plans, with 2 units for each floor plan; advised that the front units, Floor Plan A, are oriented with front entries towards 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 Hermosa Avenue; and that the middle units, Floor Plan B, and the rear units of Floor Plan C are oriented to the sides. He stated that each contain 2-car garages with 2 stories and a roof deck directly above; that each unit contains 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, and a roof deck; and that the overall building design is contemporary Mediterranean style, with a smooth stucco finish, tile roof, corbels, stucco columns and ornamental deck rails. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the parking is provided in the basement level garages for each unit, with 2 other garages containing direct access from Hermosa Avenue, 2 with direct access from the alley, and 2 garages in the middle from a common driveway down the middle of the property; and noted that the guest parking is provided in front of the garages on the street and alley and along the driveway access from the alley — pointing out that the project provides a total of 8 guest parking spaces. He advised that the 2 curb cuts on Hermosa Avenue will cause a loss of at least one on -street parking space, but added that the 8 guest parking spaces more than compensates for this loss. Senior Planner Robertson explained that staff is concerned with the limited turning area for the garages that face each other in the center of the lot at the end of the driveway, garages for Units 131 and 132; explained that while those are designed consistent with the parking lot design standards (17-foot doors and 18-foot wide stalls), the garages and turning courtyard are accessed by only a 9-foot driveway with an abrupt transition to this 23-foot turning area; and that staff believes multiple turning movements will be required to exit this area. He stated that staff has discussed with the project architect adding a condition that the driveway be widened to a minimum 10 feet and also that it gradually transitions from this 10-foot width to the full 23-foot width; and he noted this will require reconfiguration and/or relocation of the laundry and trash areas at the basement level and a possible reduction in total floor area of the units. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the building design complies with the 30-foot height limit for the R-3 Zone — noting that the final maps will need to correctly locate and label all critical points to the satisfaction of the City; and he added that this project complies with all other requirements of the Zoning Code with respect to lot coverage and open space, with the inclusion of a common courtyard area (which is located toward the front of the lot between the two front units and is 642 square feet). He mentioned that part of this courtyard area is covered by the building. He stated that while this project may appear to be a dense development, given the General Plan Zoning designation for this site, staff believes the location is suitable for this type development; and reiterated that alternatively, these two parcels could have been developed separately as 3-unit projects and that by combining the lots, the project proposal improves the quality of open space, more efficient parking, and reduces the number of units this project currently has. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Public Works Department has requested the conditions of approval address drainage issues; explained that the low point on Palm Drive is at the center of the project; that the project will have to include a drainage inlet and piping to convey runoff from Palm Drive to Hermosa Avenue; and that the driveway must also incorporate a rise of 4 to 6 inches above the street flow line. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, stated that the recommended changes staff is proposing are acceptable; and noted her concern with adequate room to plant a sixth tree due to a front yard planter area and overhanging balconies. She noted the applicant's concurrence with the conditions of approval, including the added drainage condition. 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that combining the lots has created a preferable project for this area. Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that the applicant could have built 2 separate projects and that this proposal and configuration is much better for this area; and he highlighted the reduction in the number of units and increased parking spaces. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CON 05-6/PDP 05-6 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 62446 for a six -unit condominium at 640 - 644 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 9. CON 05-11/PDP 05-12 -- Conditional . Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063002 for a two -unit condominium at 42 15th Street. Staff Recommended" Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson advised that this property is located on the south side of 15th Street, between Hermosa Avenue and Beach Drive; stated that this project consists of two attached units containing a basement with 2 stories above; that each unit contains 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a roof deck; that the primary living area is on the second floor with the first floor containing the bedrooms; and that the building is designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style, with smooth stucco finish, clay tile roof, and glass guardrails for all decks. He advised that the project is designed to comply with all requirements of the Zoning Code with respect to height limits, lot coverage and required yards; stated that the parking is provided in the basement level of each unit with separate driveway access from 15th Street and 15th Court; that each unit has its own dedicated guest parking space„ one directly off 15th Court and two in front of the garage on 15th Street; and that the extra guest parking space compensates for the loss of one on -street parking space. He added that sufficient open space is provided for each unit with a deck over 100 square feet directly accessible to the second story primary living space, with the balance of open space provided on roof decks, decks outside the master bedrooms and in the front yard for the front unit. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, stated that this project is in full compliance with all development standards for this zone; and noted the applicant's concurrence with the conditions of approval. There was consensus this project complies with all standards. Vice -Chairman Hoffman asked that more architectural treatment be added to the west elevation and that the applicant work with staff on adding more articulation to that elevation. 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-11/PDP 05-12 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063002 for a two -unit condominium at 42 15th Street; and that the applicant work with staff in adding additional articulation to the west elevation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 10. L-5 -- Determination of whether three dwelling units are legal, nonconforming at 3212 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To determine that the property contains two legal dwelling units consistent with City records. Senior Planner Robertson advised that this property currently contains 2 detached, 2-story structures; that the building area in question is the structure at the rear, along the alley. He stated that the building at the rear of the lot, 3206 Hermosa Avenue, fronting on Palm Drive, was built in 1947; that it contains 865 square feet on the second story, a 2-car garage and a small laundry room and bathroom of 304 square feet on the first floor; and that the laundry room and bathroom area also contains a kitchen, which was evidently installed using the gas and plumbing conn 's the area the owner wishes to address through this legal determirr fi at the 1957 Sanborn Map for the property shows the building frontir �� story, single -dwelling unit; that an affidavit filed by a prior owner ii ly one unit permitted in existing dwelling at 3206 Hermosa Ave o be used separately. He stated that the property is currently zone p ng requirements allow only one dwelling unit due to this lot size, V''�"� � � ent use, whether 2 or 3 units, is nonconforming. He added that tt a dwelling unit is 600 square feet for a one -bedroom unit; advised that tree ou,+- u , _ _ contains a small living/bedroom, a small kitchen that contains a small countertop/cabinet with a sink, waste grinder, a full-sized refrigerator/freezer, and a four -burner gas stove/oven; and that the bathroom, which is accessed through the kitchen, contains a small shower stall, a sink and a commode. He stated that the property has one 2-car garage, making it nonconforming for the 2 units by current standards. Senior Planner Robertson explained that the property owner has the opportunity to request validation of current conditions which otherwise violate zoning or current building and safety requirements when City records and actual property use conflict; that when it can be shown the dwelling unit in question was constructed prior to January 1, 1959, in accordance with then applicable laws, and the use of the dwelling has been continuous, the unit shall be declared legally nonconforming; and that the Commission may also validate that conditions are legally nonconforming for a building constructed after January 1, 1959, based on the evidence presented. He advised that the evidence available to staff included the records in the building permit file; the Sanborn Map, which provides a legal record of the physical character of a property for insurance purposes; Hermosa Beach Fire Department records; Business License records; Parking Permit records; and L.A. County tax records. Based on the building permit records, he indicated no evidence exists that building permits were 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 applied for or obtained to allow a kitchen in the laundry room; stated that, in fact, the records show the 1959 affidavit indicated the laundry room would not become a dwelling unit; and added that the Sanborn Map shows the building as 2 stories and as a single-family dwelling. He stated that the applicant purchased the property in 1977, as evidenced by his signature on a Residential Building Report, stating the legal use was 2 units; advised that this document also references the 1959 affidavit and the prohibition against using the laundry room as a unit; however, he stated the applicant argues that the property had 3 legal units when it was purchased. To support the property owner's argument that the property has continuously been used as 3 units, Senior Planner Robertson noted the applicant has submitted several documents: parking permits for 3 units; business license records; escrow papers from 1976, which showed that the rear building had 2 stoves and 2 refrigerators; and L.A. County property tax information, which does show there are 3 units. He added that rental documents show it has been rented out in the last 28 years as a third unit. In reviewing the evidence submitted by the applicant, Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff found parking permit records that show a guest parking pass had been issued to 3206-A in 2001; that business license records show 3 business licenses since 1998; that the County Tax Assessors lists the property as 3 units — noting this is for tax purposes only and does not give the right to use it as 3 units; stated that the escrow documents are limited and really only inventory the property in terms of baths, stoves, and refrigerators; and stated that none of these records demonstrate the property was used as 3 units any time prior to the applicant's purchase of the property. While there is inconsistency between the City's permit records, the tax records and other private records provided by the applicant, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the evidence clearly shows the current owner was aware of the affidavit regarding the laundry and bathroom, which is demonstrated by his signature on the Residential Building Report. He stated that the evidence provided by the owner does not demonstrate continuous use since 1959, that it really only demonstrates it's been used as 3 units since the owner purchased the property, nor has he demonstrated through any conflict with City records that he has been using the property with 3 units despite it was not permitted to be used as such. He added that there is no record or permit for installing a kitchen or plumbing for the sink. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. William Majek, applicant, 3212 Hermosa Avenue, stated that his escrow instructions state that the house had 2 stoves, 2 refrigerators for 3206 and 3206-A; commented on the documentation he has provided (of record); stated that 3206-A was rented when he purchased the property; and that everything remains exactly the same since he purchased this property. He stated that City Inspector Robert Rollins came out to look at the property and indicated the only problem was the need to relocate the water heater. Commissioner Perrotti noted that an August 2004 code enforcement letter documents necessary corrections, including documentation regarding the legality of the third unit; and stated that that letter indicates the City was aware of a problem concerning that unit. Mr. Majek urged the Commission to allow the third unit. Christian Dorety, 2611 West 1541h Street, Gardena, plumbing and general contractor, 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 highlighted the November 22"d letter from the City's inspection of the property, "The apartment in the south portion of the building looks as though it meets the building requirements for habitation with the following exception: that the water heater needs to be relocated." He advised that a permit was obtained to relocate that water heater; that it was relocated and that the inspector signed off on that inspection; and he stated that the building permit chronology from 1976 indicates the City did have knowledge of the property in its current condition and that there was no follow-up. He stated that the prior owner, Mr. Parker, sold this property to Mr. Majek in the same condition that it's in now. He noted in his professional opinion that this property does not look like it's been altered since Mr. Majek took ownership, advising that the toilet and shower are both set in concrete. Noting his familiarity with Hermosa Beach, Mr. Dorety stated there are similar properties throughout Hermosa Beach, that this is not a unique situation. He stated that Mr. Majek's attitude has been one of compliance, that he is a man of good character; and he urged support for the applicant. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Allen expressed his belief that Mr. Majek has not altered the property, but stated that it's time to correct this situation. Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that there are some inconsistencies in the files and records; noted that it would have been preferable for the City to have conducted proper follow-up from its 1976 inspection when Mr. Parker owned this property, but stated that it apparently slipped through the cracks. He stated that the most important document is the affidavit which indicates in 1977 that there were only 2 units, not 3; and highlighted the Residential Building Report, which indicates 2 units. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that somebody dropped the ball in 1976, but noted that in 1977, the present owner signed the Residential Building Report which states "2 units. Only one unit permitted in existing dwelling at 3206. Bath and laundry not to be used separately." Vice -Chairman Hoffman highlighted the 1959 affidavit by the owner indicating the bath and laundry not to be used separately and that only one unit is permitted in the existing dwelling, expressing his belief the City records are mostly consistent. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to determine that the third unit is an illegal unit. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 11. L-5 -- Determination of whether an accessory dwelling unit is legal nonconforming at 1236 3rd Street. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting a determination that a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property be declared legal for use as accessory living quarters to accommodate a live-in nurse; stated that the applicant does not intend to use this structure as a separate dwelling unit with a full kitchen; and that the applicant is willing to place 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 a deed restriction on the property limiting its use solely as an accessory living quarter. He stated that this property contains a one-story single-family home, with a 2-car garage at the front and a detached accessory shed structure at the rear. He noted that the main house was constructed in 1928; that the age of the accessory structure is unclear, but is shown on the 1957 Sanborn Maps; and advised that the rest of the property is essentially the same as it was configured on the 1957 Sanborn Map. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff inspected the property on September 15, 2004, and found the building and floor layout to be consistent with the submitted plans; explained that the 288-square-foot accessory living quarters contains a playroom and a wet bar, refrigerator, and a microwave oven; and that at the time of inspection, the playroom contained a bed, television, and personal effects which indicated that someone was living in this space. He stated there were no significant building code violations noted during the inspection. He explained that given the Zoning Ordinance does not allow accessory living quarters outside the main building, the existing condition on the property can be approved with a conditional use permit, which is why the applicant is requesting the City recognize its long-term use prior as an accessory living quarter and deem it legal, nonconforming. Director Blumenfeld explained that the property owner has the opportunity to request validation of current conditions through a legal determination, when it can be shown the dwelling unit in question was constructed prior to January 1, 1959, in accordance with then applicable laws, and the use of the dwelling has been continuous; that the Commission may also validate that conditions are legally nonconforming for a building constructed after January 1, 1959, based on the evidence presented. He stated the evidence available to staff relates to the building permit file, the Sanborn Map, and L.A. County tax records. Based on the permit records, he stated there doesn't seem to be an abundance of evidence to indicate that permits were issued to allow a playroom or accessory living quarter nor for any of the plumbing, electrical or mechanical components. He stated that in looking at the Sanborn Map, it clearly shows the property in 1957 showing this detached structure. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant indicates she purchased the property in September 2004 with the understanding that the structure could continue to be used as an accessory living quarter to accommodate a live-in nurse; that to support the argument, he noted this structure has historically been used as an accessory living quarter; and stated that the applicant submitted testimony from a handyman and contractor who viewed the style of the improvements within the structure — noting it was their belief the improvements are vintage 50's and 60's. He added that staff also spoke with the neighbors to the rear who state the structure has been used as living quarters since the 70's. He reiterated that the applicant is willing to record a deed restriction to limit the use of this structure for accessory living quarters only, with the current wet bar, in order to prevent its use as a separate dwelling unit; and explained that the issue in this case is that there are no City records on file with respect to the use of this detached structure, which was built sometime before 1957. He stated that inspection of the premises indicated that the electrical, mechanical and plumbing seem to support the argument that the use of the building for living quarters likely goes back to the 50's; that given this long- term history and the applicant's willingness to continue to limit the use of the structure as a guest house or accessory living quarters without a full kitchen, he stated the Commission may want to consider this as a legal, nonconforming use and validate its continued use with a deed restriction; and that the Commission may also want to require that the owner obtain a permit for the existing wall heater or to upgrade it. He advised that if the Commission does not agree that this is an accessory structure, the structure will have to be removed or altered into a permitted accessory building. Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice -Chairman Hoffman that if the Commission determines this 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 condition existed prior to 1959, it can simply deem this to be a legal, nonconforming use and not require the need for a conditional use permit. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Marianne Gausche-Hill, daughter of the applicant, advised that her mother will be living at this address; that her mother currently has Alzheimer's disease; and that they purchased this property so she could live close to her mother — noting that she lives at 1931 Power Street in Hermosa. She noted her understanding that this accessory structure was occupied by a family member of the previous owner and stated there is documentation from the real estate agent indicating that it had been used as an accessory living structure by the two previous owners. She stated that this condition provides the flexibility to use this property for a live-in nurse that will care for her mother. She added that she has provided documents showing the structure did exist in 1957 and stated that the local handyman, who has been working in this area for the last 35 years, believes the style of electrical and the wall unit are consistent with the late 50's, early 60's. She stated she is willing to replace the wall heater; that she is willing to obtain a permit for the wall heater; and that she is willing to provide the City with a deed restriction for this accessory unit. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom pointed out that the Sanborn Maps indicate this structure existed in the 50's; and highlighted the applicant's willingness to obtain a deed restriction for the accessory structure. As indicated by the photographs, Commissioner Perrotti stated that the accessory structure was meant to be more than a tool shed; expressed his belief the applicant and staff have provided documentation which indicates this structure was in existence since 1959; and highlighted the applicant's willingness to obtain a deed restriction and a building permit for the wall heater. Commissioner Allen echoed the Commission's comments. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated it is clear this structure predates the 1959 Ordinance, which would be the distinction from the previous issue considered this evening; and stated that because of the quality of construction, he is inclined to believe this structure has been used like this since the 1950's. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to determine that the structure is an accessory living quarters and is a legal, nonconforming unit; that the applicant will provide the City with a deed restriction on the accessory structure; and that she will obtain a building permit for the wall heater. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 12. TEXT 04-4 -- Text amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and uses (continued from February 15, March 15 and April 19, 2005 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To continue to June 21, 2005 meeting. 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 Director Blumenfeld stated that Chairman Pizer has requested this matter be considered when he is present; and noted that between now and the next meeting, he will provide the Commissioners with further information related to this issue. He noted that some hypothetical build -outs in the areas have already been distributed. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to June 21, 2005, TEXT 04-4 -- Text amendment regarding nonconforming buildings and uses (continued from February 15, March 15 and April 19, 2005 meetings). The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Recess And Reconvene Vice -Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:35 P.M. 13. NR 05-6 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 3320 Highland Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson advised that this property is located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and 34th Street; noted that the existing 2-story building, which contains a basement garage, was constructed in 1947; and stated that a 617-square-foot second story addition was completed in 1995, with the 1995 addition resulting in a 48-percent increase in valuation. He noted that the dwelling is nonconforming to the Zoning Code with respect to guest parking, as no guest parking is available; nonconforming to the garage setback requirement, as the property has 2 feet from the edge of the sidewalk rather than the required 17 feet; nonconforming to the side and rear yard requirement, as the north side yard only has 2 feet rather than 3 feet and the rear yard along the alley is 1.4 feet rather than the required 3 feet. He explained that with the current project, the applicant is proposing to add an additional 331 square feet on the first and second stories and is proposing some interior alterations; and advised that the cumulative expansion results in an 85.9-percent increase in valuation, increasing the living area of the house from 1,870 square feet to 2,201 square feet. He stated that the proposal conforms to all other Planning and Zoning requirements; that it complies with the 30-foot height limit; that lot coverage is at 64.9 percent; that open space is provided on grade, adjacent to the primary living level and on a new roof deck, for a total of 430 square feet. Based on a visual inspection by staff, he stated the nonconforming garage setback is not unusual given the age of the subject dwelling and the age and pattern of surrounding development; also, that the scope of the project is reasonable, allowing the owner to add another bedroom on the second floor and to add a roof deck and remodel the first floor living/dining areas. 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 Larry Peha, 67 141h Street, briefly commented on the 1995 remodel and the cumulative percentage with this proposed construction; and noted that this proposal is attempting to straighten out an awkward floor plan. Commissioner Perrotti stated that the proposed remodel is minimal and meets all standards. Commissioner Kersenboom highlighted the applicant's effort to straighten out the floor plan. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated this is a modest addition and an insignificant impact to the neighborhood. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE NR 05-6 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 3320 Highland Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 14. NR 05-7 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming duplex in the R-2 Zone with one parking space per unit at 650 8th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing a 162-square-foot addition and also the addition of a 363-square-foot roof deck; noted that the existing 2-story duplex was constructed in 1964; that the duplex is a nonconforming residential use on a R-2 Zoned property, as the property contains less than 3,500 square feet of lot area; and stated that the duplex is also nonconforming to current parking, open space, garage setback, driveway slope and side yard requirements. He explained that the applicant is proposing to add 162 square feet to the upper unit and 363 square feet for a roof deck addition; that the project includes the removal of 13 square feet of existing livable space from the upper unit for deck access from ground level; that the total living area of the duplex will increase from 2,082 square feet to 2,244 square feet; and that the expansion and remodel results in the removal of 8.6 percent of the existing exterior walls and 9.8 percent increase in valuation. He stated that the addition complies with the 30-foot height limit; but noted that the topographical survey will need to label the property corner points as a condition of approval. He advised that the usable open space for the duplex will remain nonconforming to current requirements, but will increase from 387 square feet to 392 square feet; that as part of this project, the applicant is proposing to provide stair access to the usable open space areas from the ground level for both units — noting that currently, the usable open space is only accessible from the upper unit. He noted that the nonconforming garage and side yard setbacks are not unusual conditions due to the age of this dwelling; and concluded that the scope of this project is reasonable, allowing the owner to add another bedroom on the second floor and a roof deck. Brad Whitaker, applicant, stated that the intent of this remodel is a modest increase to the size of the master bedroom and bath; and he stated that the surveyor will be providing the necessary information on the property corner points for the topographical survey. 14 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 Commissioner Perrotti noted that this remodel will alleviate access problems to the open space. Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted that if the Commission were to reject this proposal, it would not change the condition of this nonconforming duplex; and added that this proposal does not exacerbate that problem, but that it improves this property. He asked that the applicant recheck the elevation calculations for accuracy. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE NR 05-7 -- Addition and remodel to an existing nonconforming duplex in the R-2 Zone with one parking space per unit at 650 8th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 15. NR 05-8 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 1540 Golden Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Vice -Chairman Hoffman reiterated from earlier this evening that two of the Commissioners present this evening would need to recuse themselves from this matter because of their close proximity to this project site; added that another member of this body is absent this evening; and that, therefore, there would be no quorum for consideration of this matter this evening. Commissioner Perrotti stated that he would recuse himself from consideration of this matter because he lives within approximately 300 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Allen stated that he would recuse himself from consideration of this matter because he lives within approximately 240 feet of the subject property. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, to CONTINUE to June 21, 2005, NR 05-8 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50% increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 1540 Golden Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 16. A 14 -- Appeal of Director's decision to confirm height measurement on a convex sloping lot at 106 Hill Street. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate, Director Blumenfeld stated that this property is located on the east side of Hill Street, just south of 2"d Street, between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue; that the lot is zoned R-1; explained that the method for determining height is based upon the corner point elevations; however, it 15 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 can also be based, when the evidence indicates, on a convex slope determination, or another point which based upon evidence represents unaltered grade. He stated that the applicant has submitted material to demonstrate their belief the lot is a convex slope; that the applicant is requesting consideration of a convex slope and is proposing an alternate point for measurement as opposed to corner point; and that that alternate point would be the top of the bank along the north property line, which can be seen in the applicant's submittal on the survey. He noted that by determining this is a convex slope, it would allow the construction of a 2-story single-family dwelling on the flat portion of the lot; and noted that if a standard straight-line interpolation was used for the corner points, the building would have to be depressed into the grade by approximately 3 feet, which the applicant does not want to do. He highlighted staff's submittal of a street profile, page 3, pointing out the lines where the existing property is and where the street has been cut and filled; and he highlighted on the profile map the grading along the east side of Hill Street as it intersects the north property line being cut 3.5 feet; and noted that the cut increases more significantly as one moves south. With the aid of the attached photos, he noticed that the grade of the surrounding properties is similar to this lot and that the slopes on all adjoining properties are steeply sloping from the street, with a relatively flat portion in the back portions of the lot as well. Commissioner Perrotti questioned if this property would have an advantage over the adjoining properties as to height if a convex slope were determined. In response, Director Blumenfeld explained that the top of bank is surveyed elevation 106.34 and the slope profile, shows this area arches upward (which is by definition a convex slope). He explained that the applicant is proposing to use an elevation at the top of the bank at 106.34 feet; and noted that otherwise they would not have to depress the building by 3.5 feet (the difference in elevation from the top of the bank to the corner point elevation). Carl Schneider, applicant, noted that some neighbors have dug in their basements, such as the one to the south, making it appear his project would be higher; and expressed his belief this is a convex slope. He noted for Commissioner Allen that his intent is to demolish the existing structure and start the single-family, 2-story building from scratch. Commissioner Allen questioned if this item was noticed. Director Blumenfeld stated that these appeals are not noticed hearings, that this is a code interpretation only. After reviewing the photos and other materials, Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief this is a convex slope. Highlighting the retaining wall at the front and the adjacent properties, Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that this is a convex slope. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to determine this is a convex slope at 106 Hill Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 16 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 17. PDP 03-6/NR 03-5 -- Request for extension of a Precise Development Plan for expansion of an office building at 8241st Street. Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration by one year to June 17, 2006, Director Blumenfeld stated that on June 17, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a Precise Development Plan and a nonconforming remodel to allow a 1,124-foot expansion and remodel to an existing nonconforming office building; advised that in June 2004, the applicant received a one-year extension; and that they are seeking another extension to allow their architect to finish the construction plans. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to EXTEND the expiration date to June 17, 2006, for PDP 03-6/NR 03-5 -- Request for extension of a Precise Development Plan for expansion of an office building at 824 1 st Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 18. S-3 -- Review of proposed sign for the Hermosa Beach Museum at the Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant's representative had to leave this evening's meeting due to illness and therefore requested a continuance of this matter to the June Commission meeting. Vice -Chairman Hoffman questioned the need to establish some signage design standards/guidelines for this building. Commissioner Perrotti asked that staff provide at the next meeting the total square footage being proposed for this signage. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to June 21, 2005, S-3 -- Review of proposed sign for the Hermosa Beach Museum at the Community Center at 710 Pier Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 19. STAFF ITEMS a. Review of Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformance with the City's General Planning. 17 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005 Director Blumenfeld advised that each year the City prepares a CIP program, a list of CIP projects for 05-06; pointed out that the list primarily includes streets, sewer improvements, drainage improvements, improvements to the Strand, bike lane lighting fixtures and replacement, Aviation Boulevard street tree planting, Clark Field improvements, fire station renovations, Community Center Theatre ADA improvements, improvements to the Municipal Pier, Public Yard, beach restrooms, etc.; stated that the CIP has been reviewed by staff in conformity with the General Plan; and noted that the projects listed in the CIP are directly related to the goals, policies and objectives spelled out in the General Plan, indirectly referring to improvements for commercial, residential areas, neighborhood parks, streets, sewers and other infrastructure improvements. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to find this is in conformance with the General Plan. 20. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Perrotti welcomed Langley Kersenboom back to the Planning Commission. He noted that he will provide some information on the proposed improvements for Aviation Boulevard when Chairman Pizer is present. He addressed his concern with the safety of some of the diagonal parking on Upper Pier Avenue, explaining that in certain areas, it is difficult to see on -coming traffic without walking out into the street. Addressing Commissioner Perrotti's concern with the parking on Upper Pier Avenue, Director Blumenfeld advised that Public Works will be reconfiguring that parking to make it more efficient and safe, and mentioned that one traffic lane will be eliminated in that area. 21. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 17, (27La4.;(_ offman, Vic _ airman Date q��M S`6fburn fel , Secretary 18 Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2005