Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-18 PC Minutes Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 18, 2005, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman Hoffinan at 7:01 P.M. Commissioner Perrotti led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti Absent: Pizer Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Approval of the September 20, 2005 Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the September 20, 2005, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 5. Resolution(s) for consideration a. Resolution P.C. 05-55 approving Variances to the guest parking, parking setback, rear yard, and open space requirements at 249 26th Street. MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 05-55. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom NOES: Perrotti ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 41 b. Resolution P.C. 05-56 denying a Conditional Use Permit amendment to extend operating hours for a restaurant with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment at 73 Pier Avenue. MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 05-55. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 - 674 4th Street (continued from June 21, August 16 and September 20, 2005 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the November 15, 2005 meeting. Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is recommending this item be continued one additional time without renoticing, as the applicant still needs to complete gathering the information and supporting documents needed to present their case to the Commission. There being no input, Vice -Chairman Hoffirian closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to November 15, 2005, L-5 -- Determination of whether six dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 668 - 674 4th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 7. CUP 05-4 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the City parking structure at 1301 Hermosa Avenue (continued from July 19, August 16 and September 20, 2005 meetings). Staff Recommended Action: To receive and file. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is recommending the Commission receive and file this report, noting the project is no longer active because the applicant has not returned with an alternative to the original proposal. He noted that the original proposal couldn't be approved because it was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There being no input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to RECEIVE AND FILE CUP 05-4 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the City parking structure at 1301 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 8. ZON 05-6 -- Zone Change from C-3, General Commercial, to R-1, One Family Residential, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1255 Prospect Avenue. Staff Recommended. Action: To recommend approval of said zone change. Director Blumenfeld stated that the project is located on the west of Prospect Avenue, between Aviation Boulevard and 14th Street; noted that the C-3 zoning of this site allows reconstruction of a new commercial use, but that it does not allow residential development; noted that the properties directly to the north, west and behind the subject lot are R-1 and developed residentially; advised that the properties to the south are zoned C-3 and developed with nonconforming residential use; and that the parcel directly opposite to the east is zoned C-3. He noted that at the meeting of September 15, 2005, the Environmental Review Committee recommended an Environmental Negative Declaration relative to the zone change. He stated that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property R-1 to allow exclusive residential use of the lot and to allow a single-family home to be developed on the property; advised that development of this subject lot, with a single-family residential use, results in a density that is consistent with the surrounding residential properties and is compatible with the development pattern of the residential areas to the north and the west. Director Blumenfeld explained that approving this zone change will preclude any possible future commercial use of the property; and mentioned that the applicant does not currently have a project proposed. Director Blumenfeld explained that the current C-3 zoning of this property is inconsistent with the low density residential designation in the General Plan; and noted that to resolve this inconsistency between the Zoning Map and the General Plan Map, the 1994 Land Use Element recommended rezoning this property to conform to the surrounding R-1 residential land uses. He mentioned that there are three other similarly zoned C-3 properties at 1235, 1245, 1251 Prospect Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, that remain inconsistent with the low density residential designation of the General Plan; pointed out that the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan specifically recommends rezoning these properties to R-1 to make that entire area consistent with the General Plan — mentioning that rezoning the subject site will still leave three other properties that are inconsistent with the General Plan. He stated that the 1994 Land Use Element recommends eliminating nonconforming and inconsistent land uses in certain areas of the City; and stated that based on City Council direction, rather than initiating a General Plan Amendment on an area -wide basis, the City will consider rezoning on a case -by -case basis. He stated that the 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 proposed zone change is consistent with City Council policy; advised that staff is also involved with the development of a Specific Plan for the area, which includes the subject property. Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the Aviation Corridor Study will include the properties along Prospect. Director Blumenfeld advised that one of the issues to study is commercial lot depth; and noted that this portion of Prospect is contiguous with commercial property that could be assembled with the properties along Aviation Boulevard. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Erica Offutt, representing the applicant, stated that the neighbors on each side of this property are in favor of the project, expressing her belief the neighbors would write letters in support if necessary. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Allen noted his preference to give commercial a chance; stated that he is not necessarily in favor of converting this site to residential at this time, believing it has a long-term chance of becoming a viable commercial area and vital to the rest of the C-3 lots in that area. Commissioner Perrotti stated that because this parcel will be included in the Aviation Corridor study that staff will be conducting, he would prefer to keep the zone commercial until the Aviation study is complete, when it is determined what will be done with those lots along Prospect. He added that because the Land Use Element is from 1994, it is likely this information will be updated during the Aviation Corridor Study. Commissioner Kersenboom echoed the Commission's comments. Vice -Chairman Hoffman stated that he is torn on this item because of the 1994 memo reflecting this is one of the properties that should have been rezoned, essentially designated at that time. He explained that this is important to him because of a reasonable expectation when someone purchases a property that's zoned a certain way, believing one is compelled to do what the current zoning prescribes for that particular property. He pointed out, though, that in this case, there is a mixed message from the City; that this is a property zoned a certain way, that it's not in conformance with the General Plan; and that one could make an argument there was a reasonable expectation for this property owner to assume this property, upon application, would be rezoned on a lot -by -lot basis. He stated that given this property is one of the opportunities along the Aviation Corridor to capture additional commercial use, there's an argument to be made in both directions; and he stated that making a determination while this is under active consideration might be a little premature. MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to DENY ZON 05- 6 -- Zone change from C-3, General Commercial, to R-1, One Family Residential, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1255 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 follows:. AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 9. ZON 05-5/CON 05-22/PDP 05-24 -- Zone change from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to R-2, Two Family Residential, and Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063246 for a 3-unit condominium project, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 494 Ardmore Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: 1) To recommend approval of said zone change. 2) To approve said request for a 3-unit condominium contingent upon City Council approval of the zone change. Senior Planner Robertson stated that this property is located at the corner of Ardmore Avenue and 5th Street, one of the last remaining properties in this segment of Ardmore Avenue that retains an M-1 zoning inconsistent with the Medium Density General Plan designation; advised that the property is currently developed with two automotive repair shops; and noted that the proposed change to R-2 would make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. He stated that the applicant is proposing the zone change in order to develop the property residentially and make the Zoning Map consistent with the General Plan. Map; and noted that the rest of the block of Ardinore between 5th Street and 4th Street contains five properties that would remain M-1 Zoned. He explained that the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan specifically recommends rezoning these properties to R-2 to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan; stated that City Council direction in these cases is to review these zone changes on a case -by -case basis; noted there are currently 49 parcels zoned M-1 in the City, 9 remaining parcels in the area along Ardmore Avenue that are zoned M-1 with this Medium Density Residential General Plan designation. Senior Planner Robertson advised that in conjunction with this request, the applicant is also submitting a 3-unit condominium project; stated that the lot area is 5,360 square feet, which is large enough to allow 3 units; that the applicant is proposing 3 attached units containing basements with 2 stories above and roof decks; that these units are considered row dwellings because their entries front on the side street, 5th Street; and that the primary living areas of each unit are on the second floor, with the first floor containing the bedrooms. He noted that the building is designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style, with smooth stucco finishes, tile roofing, and decorative wrought iron guard rails for all the decks; and stated that the project complies with all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to height limit of 30 feet, all required yards, lot coverage, open space, landscaping, and required parking. He added that the required parking is provided in the basement level of each unit, with two units sharing driveway access from 5th Street and one garage with direct access from Ardmore Avenue; and that two guest parking spaces are provided in front of Unit A's garage, in tandem, and a single guest space is provided with separate access from 5"' Street to provide guest parking for the two areas units. He mentioned that the project will not decrease on -street parking since the street frontages on Ardmore Avenue and 51h Street include driveways for accessing the auto repair business repair 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 bays and parking areas. He stated that the entries to all three units are oriented along the northerly side; and that a continuous 6-foot setback is proposed to provide an average north side yard width to comply with side yard requirement. He added that the project meets all the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage areas. Addressing Commissioner Perrotti's inquiry regarding decorative and pervious pavement, Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project only indicates a concrete driveway, but that the Commission may add a new condition for paving. Due to the potential for poor draining in this area, Commissioner Kersenboom stated that this would be a good location for pervious material. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Rosa Velasquez, project designer, explained that the reason for putting the extra bar/coffee area on the lower floor of the main level is for convenience, noting that the kitchen area is two levels up. She added that some owners may wish to keep their guests downstairs on the first level while entertaining on the first level and on the lower porch area. She noted that the applicant would support a requirement for a covenant to limit its use and noted that the applicant accepts the conditions of approval. Vice -Chairman Hoffman noted his support for a covenant regarding the first floor to limit the potential for a bootleg, There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission to support the Zone Change. MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE ZON 05- 5/CON 05-22/PDP 05-24 -- Zone change from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to R-2, Two Family Residential. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Commissioner Kersenboom suggested adding a covenant for the lower level. Commissioner Perrotti suggested adding a condition to include decorative and pervious paving wherever possible and noted his support for a covenant. Commissioner Allen echoed the Commission's comments. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan clarified that the covenant should require the lower level not be separated from the rest of the unit. 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063246 for a 3-unit condominium project, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 494 Ardmore Avenue; to require decorative and imperious paving where possible; and to require a covenant not to rent out the lower level. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Director Blumenfeld reminded the Commission that its approval of this project is contingent upon City Council approval of the Zone Change. 10. CUP 05-9 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a fence greater than 6 feet where commercial property abuts a residential use at 736 Gould Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson advised that this project is located just west of the Hermosa Hotel, both properties zoned Commercial, but added that the Sea View Villa Condominiums are a residential use; with respect to the height of the fence that separates the two properties, he stated that the applicant is seeking a fence higher than 6 feet; explained that the Planning Commission may consider fences with greater height where a commercial use abuts a residential use subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and certain criteria, such as the use of the higher wall/fence is necessary to mitigate potential noise, visual or other impacts of the commercial use on a residential use; noted that the higher fence shall not be detrimental to neighboring properties or shall not interfere with light, air and scenic views of any property; and advised that the higher wall/fence shall be constructed of aesthetically pleasing materials and that the fence shall not cause any vehicle vision obstruction. He explained that the applicant is requesting to replace an existing 3- to 4-foot high rotting wood fence located on the east side of the property along a walkway where the residential condominiums abut the hotel use to the east; and stated that the property abuts part of the hotel building, part of the landscaped hotel courtyard, and part of the hotel parking structure. He stated that the existing and proposed fence are at a lower grade than the adjacent hotel and will measure a maximum of 8 feet high from the lower grade at the walkway, thus preventing people from climbing over the low wall; and he noted that the proposed fence does meet all the criteria of the City's codes. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Cheryl Stites, condominium property manager, stated that on numerous occasions, people have climbed over the low wall; and noted that because the existing fence is low, automobile lights shine into the units. She advised that the hotel has no objection to this proposal. Mike Watson, 661 25th Street, asked that the City require this property owner to properly 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 maintain all their fences/walls on the condominium property, noting they are in poor condition. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffinan closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom asked that staff report the poor condition of the existing fences to the Code Enforcement Division. Commissioner Perrotti noted that this request meets all required criteria. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 05-9 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a fence greater than 6 feet where commercial property abuts a residential use at 736 Gould Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 11. CUP 05-10 -- Conditional Use Permit for a massage therapy business at 407 Pacific Coast Highway. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing to operate a massage therapy business called Just Massage Studio in part of a two -tenant commercial building located on the corner of 4th and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); noted that the building contains 5,600 square feet, with the proposed business containing 1,300 square feet; and advised that there are 24 parking spaces available for the building, which also includes a hardware store. He pointed out that the City has adopted fairly restrictive regulations for obtaining a business license to conduct massage therapy; and advised that this is only the second application for a conditional use permit under the new provisions, as other massage businesses in the City are considered secondary uses to a health club, spa, beauty salon, or medical -related use. He advised that this applicant is proposing massage as the primary function of their business; that there will be 5 work rooms, a small waiting area, 2 bathrooms, and a storage linen closet; and stated that the location appears to be suitable for this type of business, with adequate parking and a visible location along PCH. He added that the proposed use is not considered any more intensive than prior commercial uses and that the parking requirement will remain the same as a retail use. Senior Planner Robertson stated that a licensed massage therapist must be on the premises all at times the business is open and that the management must inform patrons and employees of all the rules under the Zoning Ordinance; and he noted that the hours shall be limited between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. He stated that a more detailed floor plan will be required. He noted that the applicant has opened three similar studios in the South Bay area and that they employ 40 therapists. He highlighted additional steps the applicant will have to take before this business can be opened (as noted in staff report, of record). He noted that the Police Department conducted a preliminary investigation of this applicant; that the Police Department checked with Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 the city of El Segundo to determine if there has been any problem with their studio in that city; and that El Segundo had confirmed for the Police Department that no illegal activity has been found at that business. He stated that a more thorough investigation will be conducted prior to issuing the business license. Vice -Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Ana Vietta, applicant, stated that this business does only massages, no facials; and noted that they do Swedish, deep tissue, sports, pregnancy, etc.; that they treat people of all ages; and she stated that her three studios are located in El Segundo, Lomita, and Westchester. She distributed business flyers which provide additional information concerning their business. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that the criteria in the Code and police review is quite extensive before this applicant is able to open their business and expressed his belief the City has put in place adequate safeguards to maintain a reputable business. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan stated that the City has made this application as restrictive as possible to ensure this will be operated in a legitimate fashion; and he noted their favorable report of the El Segundo and Lomita studios. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 05-10 -- Conditional Use Permit for a massage therapy business at 407 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 12. CON 05-24/PDP 05-26 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061109 for a two -unit condominium at 970 6th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the property is located on the south side of 6"' Street, between Pine Street and Prospect Avenue, in an area zoned R-2B, which limits this property to two units; advised that the lot size is 8,294 square feet and that each unit is over 4,000 square feet, containing at least 5 bedrooms in each unit; and noted that the buildings are designed in a contemporary Craftsman style architecture, with low-pitched roofs, wide eaves with exposed roof rafters, tapered wood porch columns, tiffany style copper wall lights, decorative wood corbels and brick veiieer over wood frarning. He toted that the garages for both these units are accessed from 6�h Street witli a common driveway; that one garage is loaded in the front directly from 6th Street, while the other garage for the rear unit is at the end of a 90-foot driveway; and that the Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 required parking is provided in the 2-car garages, with the guest parking provided in tandem in the front driveway and in front of the garage at the rear, for a total of 3 guest spaces. He mentioned that no on -street parking will be Lost as a result of widening the driveway since no parking is allowed on this side of 6"' Street; stated that the proposed tandem guest parking with direct access from 6"'Street is fairly convenient for the users and is typical for these types of projects; explained, however, that the guest parking proposed at the end of the driveway creates a bit of inconvenience because the guest vehicle will have to be moved to allow a car parked inside the garage to exit; and that given there is room on the lot to provide guest parking for the rear unit at another location that would not block the backup area for the garage stalls, staff is recommending a revision of the location of the guest space as a condition of approval. He stated that this project otherwise complies with the zoning requirements with respect to building height, lot coverage (at 50 percent), required yards, open space, landscaping, and storage areas. He noted some minor corrections that are necessary related to the stairway in the front yard, the height of the planter wall in the front yard, and stated that the plans do not show a location for the trash receptacles, which have been added as conditions of approval. He noted that the proposed landscape plan is well developed and shows a generous amount of landscaping along the driveway, in between the units, in the rear yard, includes a lawn between the units, and two mature sized 36-inch boxed trees. Vice -Chairman Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Mr. Goita, project architect, stated that he will work with staff to correct the deficiencies and to relocate the rear guest parking space. There being no further input, Vice -Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom stated he will approve this project as long as the deficiencies are corrected. Commissioner Perrotti stated that the conditions should include decorative and pervious paving wherever possible; noted his concurrence with relocating the guest parking in the rear; and pointed out that this is a nicely designed project, with a greater setback and lot coverage than what's required. Vice -Chairman Hoffman commended for the applicant for the pleasing design of this project. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 05-24/PDP 05-26 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061109 for a two -unit condominium at 970 6th Street; and to require decorative and pervious paving wherever possible. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 HEARINGS 13. PDP 04-16 -- Request for a one-year extension of a Precise Development Plan for a 54- unit commercial condominium project at 200 Pier Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that the Planning Commission originally approved this 54-unit commercial/condominium project on October 26, 2004; that the approval consisted of a Conditional Use Permit, a Precise Development Plan, and a Vesting Map for the 54-unit condominium units; explained that the Precise Development Plan (PDP) expires October 26, 2005; and that the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Map do not expire until October 26, 2006. He stated that the applicant is requesting an extension of the PDP to allow additional time for the architect to revise plans to the satisfaction of the Coastal Commission. He noted that demolition of the existing building is expected to begin within the next month; and he recommended extending the expiration date of the PDP for one year, to October 26, 2006. He noted that the owner intends to start construction soon, that it took them time to resolve building code issues. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE PDP 04-16 -- Request for a one-year extension of a Precise Development Plan for a 54-unit commercial condominium project at 200 Pier Avenue, to October 26, 2006. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 14. LLA 05-1 -- Lot line adjustment of the property at 550 21st Street, now comprised of three lots, to create equal sized 49-foot wide lots. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stated that at the August 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission approved merging the four lots in order to be consistent with the Lot Merger Ordinance; noted that this resulted in 3 unequal sized parcels; advised that this project was appealed to City Council; and that upon appeal, City Council sustained the Planning Commission's decision. He stated that the owner is now seeking to proceed with re -dividing the lots and is processing this lot line adjustment to make the lots equal in size so that each measures 49 by 100 feet; and stated staff believes this proposed adjustment is a logical realignment of the parcels and will allow the owner to develop 3 single-family homes in accordance with the R-1 Development Standards. Rosalie Murphy, 554 21st Street, owner of the property immediately adjacent to the subject site, expressed her approval for 3 equal lots and questioned what the design of the buildings will be. Director Blumenfeld noted that staff will contact Ms. Murphy when the building plans are 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 submitted so that she can come to the department to review the plans on file. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE LLA 05-1 -- Lot line adjustment of the property at 550 21st Street, now comprised of three lots, to create equal sized 49-foot wide lots. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 15 NR 05-14 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 126 34th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To continue to November 15, 2005 meeting. Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff is requesting this matter be continued to give the applicant more time to submit plans that comply with the maximum height limit and other requirements of the Zone Code. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to CONTINUE to November 15, 2005, NR 05714 -- Nonconforming remodel and addition to allow a greater than 50-percent increase in valuation to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling at 126 34th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffinan, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer 16. LLA 05-2 -- Lot line adjustment at 1120 8th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To pull this item from the agenda for possible consideration at a later date. Director Blumenfeld advised that staff is recommending this item be pulled from the Agenda for possible consideration at a later date; noted that staff has been working with the City Attorney and the applicant to determine if the proposed lot line adjustment is possible for this subject property; and explained that there is an underlying subdivision of the property, in which the applicant believes the existing map is still in effect. Because staff has questions concerning this issue, the City Attorney has given a preliminary indication that the map is no longer in effect and, therefore, it's not possible to make the proposed lot line adjustment. He noted that staff will get this opinion in writing and resolve this issue. He requested tabling this issue. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to TABLE LLA 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 05-2 -- Lot line adjustment at 1120 8th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pizer Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Kersenboom that he will contact Public Works staff to address the poor condition along the sidewalk at this area. Commissioner Kersenboom recused himself from consideration of Item 17 due to the close proximity of his home to the subject site. 17. A-14 -- Appeal of Director's decision regarding the grade used for the height measurement on a convex sloping lot at 1227 8th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that this lot is located on the north side of 8th Street, between Prospect and Reynolds Avenues; that it's zoned R-1, with a 25-foot height limit; and stated that it's similar to other properties on the north side of the block where the lot slopes up steeply from the street at the front of the lot and then relatively flat at the rear of the lot. He noted that the applicant is requesting consideration as a convex lot and is proposing alternative points, the top of the front slope as the basis for measuring height rather than the southerly corner point elevations. He explained that this would allow the addition of a second story above the existing single -story, single-family dwelling; noted that if a standard straight line interpolation method from the corner point were used, the construction of a second story would not be possible unless the building is lowered into the ground. He stated that the applicant's request appears to be reasonable given the existing topographic conditions of the lot. Dimitrinka Dulguerova, 120 41't Street, Manhattan Beach, project designer, offered to answer any questions. Mark Raymond, property owner, offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief the submitted materials reflect this is a convex sloping lot. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to determine this is a convex sloping lot at 1227 8th Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom, Pizer 13 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 Commissioner Allen recused himself from consideration of Item 18 due to the close proximity of his home to the subject lot. 18. A-14 -- Appeal of Director's decision regarding the grade used for the height measurement on a convex sloping lot at 1532 Prospect Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld commented on making a determination to take an alternate point for measuring height; explained that the Code allows using an alternate point if based upon significant evidence it represents an altered grade; advised that this lot is zoned R-1, with a height of 25 feet; and expressed staff s belief this is a convex form as evidenced by the topographic profile and the photos attached to staff report. He noted that the applicant is requesting consideration as a convex lot, which would allow taking alternative points at the top of the hill as the basis for measuring height rather than the westerly corner point elevations; stated that this would allow construction of a second story addition to the single-family home on the flat portion of the lot; and explained that if the applicant were to use the standard interpolation method, it would not be possible to do an addition without sinking the building lower into the grade. He stated that the applicant's request appears to be reasonable given the topographic conditions on this site and added that the applicant is requesting the Commission consider this on the westerly corner point elevation. Peter DeMaria, project architect, mentioned that his clients are only putting on an addition rather than tearing the house down. Commissioner Perrotti stated that the submitted materials support the request for a convex sloping lot. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to determine this is a convex sloping lot at 1532 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Kersenboom, Hoffman, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen, Pizer 19. STAFF ITEMS a. Report on Aviation Boulevard Specific Plan. Director Blumenfeld highlighted the draft work program distributed to the Commission, noting that this version is more detailed, identifying the tasks, timing, and responsible parties to complete the jobs; stated that the work program takes the Commission out to Fall 2006; advised that staff will shortly commence putting together the land use data base, do some area mapping; and that staff will attempt to summarize those findings and present those findings from time to time at the Commission meetings. He reviewed the draft work program, which includes 14 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005 community workshops; advised that the public approval process would occur sometime late spring, early summer; and noted that the final plan is anticipated to be presented for review before the Planning Commission and City Council in summer/fall 2006. He invited the Commission to add anything to the draft. Vice -Chairman Hoffman reiterated that the public will have an opportunity to be involved in this study. Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Commission is agreeable with this work plan, he will assign staff to pursue the next step. MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Vice -Chairman Hoffman, to approve the draft work program and to direct staff to pursue the next step. No objection was noted. 20. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. 21. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 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 October 18, 0 Peter 'offi��aAigc7e-: �hait�iian *S'6rBlum7e'_in'�_�tfeT,,_S rotary - W.......... ............... _.......... Date 15 Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2005