|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Hoffman |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, stated he would like to comment on the Pier Avenue Improvement Project following this evening’s presentation.
Chairman Hoffman advised that item is a brief informational report for the Planning Commission, but noted that the public would be permitted to speak on this item following the presentation.
Mr. Longacre addressed his concern with the limited parking with a lot of businesses in the City; stated that one of the problems is the City is granting new CUP’s where it only requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet for retail; noted that in the case of restaurants, the requirement is only one parking space per 100 square feet, believing this is too liberal; and mentioned that other cities have more restrictive parking requirements, suggesting this City take another look at its parking requirements. He expressed his belief the Cingular tower at the southeast corner of Prospect and Aviation is not aesthetically pleasing; and he noted his disappointment in the aesthetics of the three row houses at 838 Prospect.
Chairman Hoffman briefly explained that the parking ratio for retail was intentionally set by City Council to encourage more retail.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Mr. Longacre that the parking ratio is 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Gary Brutsch, resident, stated he too would like to provide input concerning the Pier Avenue Improvement Project.
Director Blumenfeld explained that Public Works Director Rick Morgan is providing some information to the Planning Commission this evening regarding the Pier Avenue Improvement Project; and pointed out that this evening’s presentation is simply a prelude to the formal Public Works Commission hearing scheduled for tomorrow evening wherein the public is encouraged to provide input regarding this issue.
Chairman Hoffman added that the Planning Commission will not be taking any action on this report this evening.
Roger Bacon, resident, expressed his concern this matter was not adequately publicized for this evening.
Chairman Hoffman reiterated the formal hearing regarding this matter is with the Public Works Commission, which will meet tomorrow evening; and that this evening’s report is purely for informational purposes.
As far as this evening’s report, Commissioner Perrotti stated this is merely for informational purposes for this Commission, that it’s no different than if this were a presentation by an energy consultant who wanted to discuss ways to make homes more energy efficient; he expressed his belief the concerns are unwarranted; and he stated he is surprised with the Chair’s acceptance of public input on this matter this evening, pointing out that tomorrow evening is the proper forum and Commission meeting in which to provide that input.
Public Works Director Rick Morgan stated this evening’s presentation is primarily to provide information to the Planning Commission and to gather any input from the Planning Commission; advised that following the public hearing tomorrow on this matter, all comments from the Planning Commission, the public and the Public Works Commission will be forwarded to City Council for direction; and he noted that if people are not able to attend tomorrow’s meeting, they are welcome to provide input this evening. He pointed out that issues related to lane stripping and number of lanes is not under the purview of the Planning Commission, that it’s a Public Works Commission issue. He stated that since the 1990’s, there has been a lot of planning effort, time and money expended to develop a vision for the Downtown District; and advised that part of this vision included going to two lanes and widening of the sidewalks as a way to create an attractive pedestrian corridor to revitalize business on Pier Avenue. He advised that the subcommittee and the Public Works Commission will participate in guiding this entire project, stating that whether Pier Avenue turns out to be four lanes or two, it will be good for business and the community. He added there is no staff position at this time and that he is waiting for final traffic counting information, noting all the details will be provided at tomorrow evening’s Public Works Commission meeting. He displayed a few slides of similar, small beach main streets which lead to piers, believing they all have a similar feel.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his concern that when it rains, the water flows easterly instead of westerly on upper Pier Avenue and that it begins to smell badly after a couple days of stagnation; and he stated that the road is in poor condition, believing this road work will take place with this project. He asked for input on the proposed street trees for Pier Avenue.
Public Works Director Morgan noted the likelihood of planting queen palms, linking it to the Plaza; advised that the poor drainage on upper Pier Avenue will be included in this project; and he advised that the ficus tree will be prohibited from the list of acceptable trees to be planted.
Gary Brutsch, resident, expressed his belief the planning for Pier Avenue favors business owners and asked that it be more balanced between the wishes of business and the rest of the community; and he asked that this subcommittee also be comprised of residents, not just Planning Commissioners, Public Works Commissioners and City Councilmembers.
Mr. Longacre stated that public notice of this evening’s presentation was confusing.
Responding to Mr. Longacre’s comments, Director Blumenfeld clarified that the Planning Commission’s agenda was posted on the City’s website and that the staff report Director Morgan has prepared contains the recommendations he’s making to the Public Works Commission.
Roger Bacon, resident, noted his objection to the way this item was published for this evening; and he addressed his disappointment that the trees promised to be planted on Aviation Boulevard 5 years ago still have not been planted. He added that a City marker/sign should be placed near Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway; and noted his support for making improvements to Pier Avenue, but addressed his concern with congested traffic. He added that many residents have expressed opposition to what is being proposed for Pier Avenue.
Public Works Director Morgan stated the Aviation improvements are anticipated within the next couple of weeks.
Ann Anderson, resident, noted her concern for traffic/pedestrian safety; pointed out that emergency vehicles all have to leave on Pier Avenue and stated this is not the place where a city should constrict its traffic flow; and she urged the City to not limit the number of lanes in this area. She noted her concern with the traffic gridlock in this city.
Chairman Hoffman reiterated the formal hearing on this matter will take place tomorrow evening, wherein a complete presentation will be provided; and he thanked Public Works Director Morgan for his presentation.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of August 15, 2006 Minutes .
Commissioner Perrotti corrected the top of page 11, first paragraph, fifth line down, to reflect the word “he mentioned” instead of “she mentioned.”
With regard to page 12, Director Blumenfeld stated that in the motion by Commissioner Perrotti, the words “using a combination of onsite parking and parking in-lieu fees to meet parking requirements” should be stricken and that it should state “reduce parking requirement for shared parking.”
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE the August 15, 2006, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 06-24modifying conditions of approval of a previously approved Master Conditional Use Permit for two automotive repair businesses and an office at 725 5th Street (AKA 715 5th Street).
-
Resolution P.C. 06-25approving a Variance to the front yard requirement to allow no front yard (a zero foot front setback) rather than the required seven feet at 311 31st Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVEResolution P.C. 06-24 and P.C. 06-25. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the October 17, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the owners of The Shore restaurant have requested a continuance of this matter in order to collect more information with regard to the revision of their CUP.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to CONTINUEto October 17, 2006, CUP 06-7/PARK 06-3 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to add 180 square feet to an existing restaurant with on-sale alcohol and Parking Plan to pay in lieu fees for the required parking at 1320 Hermosa Avenue, The Shore. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this is a proposed subdivision of one lot into three lots, two of which would contain 5,415 square feet and one which would contain 6,053 square feet; stated the zoning in this area is R-1; noted that the proposed lot frontages would be two at 57 feet and one at 59 feet; and that the lot depth is 95 feet. He stated the current property contains three detached single-family homes that were established on the property in the 1940’s; noted the applicant is proposing to divide the property into three parcels to allow the construction of one single-family home on each parcel – pointing out that the applicant’s current plans are to demolish only one of the buildings at 1775 Valley Drive and then sell the other two lots with the existing residences maintained; and stated that the proposed location of the new lots allows the two homes to maintain compliance with yard requirements. Director Blumenfeld stated that in order for the Planning Commission to approve a subdivision, it needs to determine that the proposed subdivision will not be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern and reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood; and that the size of the proposed lots will not be smaller than the prevailing lot size and lot frontage within the same zone and General Plan designation within 300 feet, pointing out there are two standards for review under the Subdivision Ordinance.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff took a 300-foot radius, pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, and identified all the lots within that 300-foot radius; and noted that staff found there was no clear prevailing pattern of development – finding there were five lots that were 5,000 square feet, five lots that were 5,550 square feet, five lots that were 5,500 to 6,000 square feet, five lots that were 6,000 to 7,000 square feet and six lots that were greater than 7,000 square feet. He noted there are 26 lots in that radius, with the average lot size being approximately 5,850 square feet, the average lot frontage being approximately 52.7 feet, the medium lot size being 57.46 feet and the medium lot frontage being 50 feet, noting the proposed subdivision is not inconsistent with the preponderant number of lots in the area. He stated there is no prevailing lot pattern that staff can use to establish whether the applicant’s proposal is necessarily consistent with the area. He stated it would be safe to say the existing lots on the same side of the block are 45 feet in width, the lot area is approximately 4,275 square feet, the lots across the street are 48.5 feet and 5,003 square feet, and that the proposed subdivision is larger than the pattern of development on the block. He stated it is important to point out that part of the reason the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the prevailing lot area is that the lots on Valley Park Drive tend to be deeper and the depth contributes to the extra size, so the width tends to be a little more conforming than the depth.
Director Blumenfeld stated the applicant has an option to create three equally sized lots, each at 5,627 square feet, a little closer to some of the larger lots in the area; he noted the lot width would be slightly larger but they’d still be smaller than the average and medium lot sizes within that 300-foot radius; and he noted that unfortunately, the criteria the City has to approve a subdivision is not clear cut and stated the Commission needs to make those two findings to ensure consistency.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Bernard Murray, property co-owner, stated there are three buildings currently on the property; pointed out that the new proposal will have the same number of buildings; and expressed his belief this project will enhance the property values in this area.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated that these lots are facing 18th Street and that they are consistent with that street, noting there are both large and small lots in this area; and he pointed out that there currently are three homes and that there will be three homes following construction.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that the survey of 26 lots indicates 20 have a frontage less than 57 feet; that there are two at 55 feet and a few larger, but looking at that area with the survey, he stated the 57-foot frontage is substantial, believing most people would be pleased with that amount of frontage in this city. He stated there will be no increase in the number of houses and noted the way the lots are proposed, they are not inconsistent with the other lots.
Vice-Chairman Allen expressed his belief this project will enhance property values in the area and noted his concurrence with the Commission’s comments.
Chairman Hoffman stated that the 300-foot radius survey indicates an inconsistent neighborhood and that he can make the necessary findings.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE SUB 06-1 -- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 66165 to allow the subdivision of a property containing approximately 17,000 square feet into three parcels each containing at least 5,400 square feet at 1775 & 1779 Valley Drive and 590 18th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is a half lot and is located on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street, fronting on 7th Street; that it’s in an R-3 zone; that the lot is rather small, 1,915 square feet; and explained that because 7th Street is a walk street, the only possible vehicle access is directly from Hermosa Avenue. He noted the lot is currently developed with a two-story single-family home which is nonconforming to parking, as there is only a 1-car garage; that it is nonconforming to side yard requirements, as there is only a 3-foot side yard on the west side rather than the required 4 feet; and he stated that open space is currently available on the ground between the house and the detached 1-car garage. He stated the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached single-car garage, remodel and expand the living areas of the existing home with an addition of approximately 494 square feet, ending up with a 1,931-square-foot home. He stated the applicant will add a new 1-car attached garage, noting this would allow the site to provide more parking by creating an area for one additional open parking space to the side of the garage and to allow for two guest parking spaces in tandem. He noted the nonconforming westerly side yard is proposed to be maintained at the first floor and continued for the garage expansion as well as the second floor expansions; advised that the current height of the building is 25 feet, 5 feet less than the maximum allowed; and noted the height will not be increased with this project.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the Planning Commission had previously granted variances for this property in January 2000; and in that case, the variances were for a 3-foot side yard and a substandard garage depth of 19 feet in connection with a much larger project which involved a total floor area of approximately 3,000 square feet. For this project, he stated the required open space is provided on decks adjacent to a third level and advised that this project was never constructed. Similar to the previous variance requests, he advised that the applicant’s objective is to resolve the parking issues for the property with a much smaller expansion and keeping the existing two-story structure; and explained that given the substandard lot size with access only from Hermosa Avenue, this objective can only be achieved with variances to the side yard requirement and/or the requirements for the depth of the garage parking stall. He stated the applicant is requesting variances to allow a 3-foot side yard rather than the 10 percent of lot width and is asking for a substandard interior garage depth of 19 feet rather than the required 20 feet; stated these variances are necessary to provide a garage and driveway for guest parking, as only 40 feet is available for the length of the driveway and garage – noting it is not possible to provide the full 17-foot setback and a 20-foot garage and a 4-foot yard. He added that the applicant is also requesting a variance for the open space requirement; stated that currently, the open space is available on the ground between the house and the detached garage; that in order to provide parking, he noted it is necessary to attach the garage to the house; explained that the applicant can compensate for the loss of this ground level open space by providing larger decks on the second floor or perhaps a roof deck, but noted these are not consistent with the applicant’s objective for a two-story plan with 3 bedrooms on the second floor. In order to accommodate added open space, he noted that some of the second floor area would have to be reduced or a roof deck provided, which would increase the height of this structure.
Senior Planner Robertson highlighted the plans to provide 105 square feet of qualifying open space on the second level adjacent to the family room; noted that the walk street encroachment area in the front of this house provides ample open space on the ground level, but since it is in the encroachment area, it does not count as the required open space; and he stated that in order to grant the variance, the Commission would have to make the following findings:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved;
2) The variance(s) are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
3) The granting of the variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
4) The variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant’s request is based on the premise the subject lot has limited access from the side of the lot, with a substandard distance of 40 feet to accommodate the garage and driveway; also, in order to provide the required parking, the existing open space area will be covered and to provide such open space on upper floors, it is the applicant’s belief this would cause too much of a hardship on the project.
With respect to Finding No. 1, Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff believes this lot is uniquely situated with access from the side only, making the circumstance unique and arguably exceptional and extraordinary; stated that while there are many half lots scattered in the R-2 and R-3 zones, at least 50 throughout the city, only a few front on a walk street, which limits parking access to a side yard; and that arguably, the variances are necessary to place the property in parity with surrounding properties in the R-3 zone.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson stated the variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity because the side lot access does not allow the project to meet the parking requirements; also, he noted the small lot limits options for providing sufficient open space in connection with a two-story floor plan; and, therefore, he noted the owner is prevented from expanding the home without a variance from at least one of these requirements. He stated that arguably, however, the variance from open space is only indirectly related to these unique attributes to the property and is not necessary for the house to have sufficient open space; however, again, he stated to keep the house as a two-story structure rather than a 3-story structure and to achieve parity with similarly situated properties, this finding could possibly be made.
With respect to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated the variance only involves minor reductions in side yards and parking stall dimensions which will not impact or be materially detrimental to surrounding properties; and that the construction and remodel of a single-family home in this location is consistent with the General Plan.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Richard Gould, representing the owner, noted the owner’s intent to maintain a beach cottage style home for him and his wife and not to create a tall dwelling; he expressed his belief the requirement for 4 parking spaces on this small lot is an exceptional requirement and is the reason he is requesting the variance for the open space; and he stated it is obvious the issues concerning the garage, side yard and reduced parking size is necessary to develop this lot.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated he can make the findings for a variance.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he can make the four findings, No. 1, because of its location and half lot condition on Hermosa Avenue; that the variance is going to allow an increase in parking; that the increase in dwelling size is not substantial; and that in the long run, this is better for the City.
Commissioner Pizer noted his delight to finally see a remodel; highlighted the addition of three parking spaces; and stated he can make the findings to support a variance.
Chairman Hoffman stated he is not able to make Finding No. 2, noting the extraordinary conditions of this lot are related to the depth and the fact that it’s a half lot accessible only from the side does make it impossible to provide the required parking with a full sized garage; that this requirement does not have any bearing or impact on the open space because there are a lot of ways to provide open space on this property, the most obvious being to reduce the scope of the project; and that the problem for the inability to provide the open space is purely a function of the design, not a function of the lot. He stated he is able to make the other findings.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE VAR 06-2 -- Variance to allow the expansion of an existing single-family dwelling with a three-foot side yard rather than the required four feet, an interior garage depth of 19 feet rather than 20 feet and less than required open space at 635 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property is located on the west side of Monterey Boulevard between 4th and 6th Streets and has alley access from Bayview Drive; that it’s located in the R-3 zone; that the property contains 3,001 square feet; and that the existing use on the property is a 3-unit residence. He stated the proposed project consists of 2 detached units containing basements with two stories above and roof decks; noted the unit facing Monterey Boulevard is larger, as it contains a full basement with recreation room and utility room located approximately 12 feet below grade; advised that the units are designed in a contemporary style with a smooth stucco finish, concrete flat tile roofing, green tinted windows, galvanized steel guardrails for all decks and accented with pre-cast concrete trim; he advised that required parking is provided at the basement level of each unit with separate driveway access provided directly from Monterey Boulevard and Bayview Drive; and stated the guest parking on Monterey Boulevard is partly located in the encroachment area created by the excess right of way, which has typically been permitted by the Planning Commission. He stated that the new driveway curb cut on Monterey Boulevard results in the loss of one on-street parking space, but this is compensated for by providing 3 guest parking spaces on site; overall, he noted the project is designed to comply with all zoning requirements with respect to building height, required yards, lot coverage, open space – with some minor corrections as noted in the attached resolution to deal with one of the critical points on the height calculation, and also to deal with the stair landing along the alley; stated the project meets all the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage areas; and that the plan provides for landscaping in the side yard and the patio areas between the building with two mature trees in the encroachment area.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Jerry Compton, project architect, stated he will make corrections to those minor issues addressed by staff.
William Doherty, resident living next to the subject property, noted his concerns with the size of the project and asked for clarification on the height of the structure once completed, stating he now has a view of the ocean. He asked for clarification on how the height is calculated.
Chairman Hoffman noted for Mr. Doherty that the building will not be over the allowed height.
Mr. Doherty asked for input on construction restrictions concerning hours/days for activity.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the construction hours are Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. and on Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and no work allowed on Sundays unless the owner is doing the work.
Mr. Doherty questioned who will be responsible for the cinder block retaining wall.
Chairman Hoffman urged Mr. Doherty to talk with the project architect and to visit the Planning Department for further details of this project.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated he supports this project because it meets all the requirements.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he will support the proposal as long as the architect corrects the four deficiencies that are listed in the proposed resolution.
Chairman Hoffman asked that additional articulation be added to the side elevations, particularly on the northwesterly corner of the building.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 06-9/PDP 06-8 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 67610 for a two-unit condominium at 421 Monterey Boulevard; that the applicant work with staff to increase the articulation on the side elevations and to correct the four deficiencies listed in the resolution. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Roberson stated that the subject site is located on the south side of 8th Street between Cypress Avenue and Valley Drive; noted that it’s zoned R-3; that the lot size is 4,980 square feet and currently is a single-family residence with an attached garage; advised that the proposed project consists of 3 attached units designed in a U-shape; noted that both Units A and B have entry corridors from the front, while Unit C enters from the side of the building; stated that all three units contain garages in the basements with two stories above and roof decks; and that the primary living area of the units are on the upper level with the lower level containing the bedrooms. He stated the building is designed in a contemporary style of architecture with exterior smooth finished stucco, flat roof and square steel railings for all decks; advised that the required parking spaces and guest parking spaces are provided at the basement level and a shared common driveway and common turning area; noted that the proposed turning area for the garage is consistent with the parking ordinance, although one of the trash enclosures in the driveway interferes with the turning area for the guest parking space and will have to be relocated; and stated that otherwise, the project is designed to comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance with respect to building height, required yards, lot coverage, open space; that it complies with the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage areas, landscaping, but noted the plans need to be revised to provide at least two minimum 36-inch box trees and that the plan needs to show compliance with the sound transmission coefficient requirement of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to the interior building walls. He noted the front setback of 5 feet is consistent with the existing developments on the block.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
David Watson, project architect, stated he will relocate the trash enclosure and stated that he inadvertently left off the information concerning the sound transmission coefficient for the shared walls between the three units.
Chairman Hoffman questioned if there is adequate room for one to move furniture into Unit C.
Mr. Watson stated there is a 5-foot setback between the fence and the building; and stated there is good access coming down the driveway and into the garage.
Commissioner Perrotti highlighted a letter that was sent from a neighbor living on 8th Street, questioning construction hours; and asked that someone contact that resident to address their questions.
Mr. Watson stated the owner intends on speaking with that resident and others in the neighborhood.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Allen commended the architect on his design.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his pleasure with not maxing out lot coverage and noted his support as long as the applicant corrects the deficiencies.
MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 06-13/PDP 06-12 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 67274 for a three-unit condominium at 520 8th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Hoffman asked staff to respond to the resident who submitted the letter.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this property is located in the R-1 zone, which has a specific permitted use list which includes single-family homes, patio covers, bath house or greenhouse, swimming pool and/or spa, tool shed, garage, storage room for customary household items, and a maximum 400 square feet in size; advised that the owner is proposing to construct a pool house, which is analogous to a bath house – pointing out that a bath house is not adequately defined in the Zoning Ordinance, but typically it’s seen as a dressing/changing area; and in this case, though, he noted the owner has a very large space that’s planned, 650 square feet, and the pool house in this case would contain a sink, garbage disposal, full sized refrigerator, countertops, and stacked washer/dryer. He stated the Zoning Ordinance is very specific about what’s allowed in the R-1 Zone and because bath house is not adequately defined and because the owner is proposing to put in a pool house/bath house that contains these other items, staff felt it important to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for confirmation to see if the Commission is comfortable with what’s being proposed. He mentioned that last year, the Planning Commission approved a pool house at 1921 Power Street; explained that in that case, the pool house was also significant in size and it contained other uses, such as a music studio, dressing and changing area. He noted staff’s desire to confirm that the Planning Commission is in agreement the proposed use is consistent with a bath house and to confirm that this use is appropriate to the zone. He stated this has a partial kitchen with a sink, garbage disposal, and refrigerator, noting a longstanding concern for bootleg units.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested placing a covenant on the property to keep it from becoming a second unit; and he stated he would be supportive of this request.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the code has no definition of what a bath house is or a cabana; noted when those terms are used, especially cabanas, with larger homes, it contains a shower to be used before getting into a pool, bathroom, sink; but when one starts getting into a kitchen, he stated it no longer is a bath house. He stated the Zoning Code should have a definition for a bath house; and stated if the Commission wants to call it an accessory building, he would support that.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated he understands the desire to have these accommodations when having backyard parties/activities.
Chairman Hoffman commented on the evolving use of backyard pools and bath houses, believing that as property values continue to escalate and Southern California lifestyles continue to evolve, there will be more of these proposals coming forward. He expressed his belief this is not planned for a bootleg unit and mentioned there are a lot of things that go into this type structure today that the City couldn’t have anticipated putting in the code when it was written.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted the need to alter this definition.
Damian Catalan, resident, stated he already received a permit to construct a pool house; advised that he withdrew his plan to have an oven because of staff’s concern for a bootleg; and stated this will not be a bootleg unit, noting his agreement to sign a covenant. He agreed with Chairman Hoffman that the Southern California lifestyle is evolving and noted his intent to use the countertop and sink as a wet bar.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner received a permit to construct a pool house and it was staff’s sense at the time that the pool house was a much simpler structure that contained fewer items that could be construed as a unit; and that the project was subsequently stopped after staff looked at it more closely, wanting the Planning Commission to address this matter.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he would support this proposal as long as the owner signs a covenant restricting its use not to be rented as a separate unit.
Commissioner Pizer questioned how large can these bath houses become; suggested that until a more definitive code is written, he would support future proposals to include a covenant restricting the use, agreeing that today’s lifestyle includes greater use of backyard amenities.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, toAPPROVEA-14 -- Appeal of Director's decision regarding a proposed kitchen in a pool house at 1911 Power Street on the condition the owner signs a covenant this will not be rented as a separate unit. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Hoffman asked that staff look at updating the City’s code in regard to this issue.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Memorandum regarding rotation of Planning Commission chairmanship
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Chair and Vice-Chair rotate their positions every 9 months; that the new Chair and Vice-Chair positions will run from October 2006 through June 2007; and noted the new Chair will be Kent Allen and the new Vice-Chair will be Langley Kersenboom.
Director Blumenfeld passed out a sample of a public notice concerning the Aviation Specific Plan that staff will issue this week, proposing the first workshop for October 26, 2006, 7:00 P.M., at City Hall; stated that ultimately, this double-sided postcard will be mailed to all businesses in the commercial area and also to residents in the immediate area who may have an interest in the new work/improvements that could occur on Aviation; and stated that as Chairman Hoffman has requested, staff has put together a list of ideas to be discussed. He noted the meeting should last approximately 2 hours.
The Commission commended staff on the postcard type notice.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld highlighted some of the Community Development Department Activity report for July 2006 for Commissioner Pizer.
Commissioner Kersenboom asked if a permit to operate is required along with a business license payment. Director Blumenfeld stated he would check into that matter.
Commissioner Perrotti commended Chairman Hoffman for his service as Chair of the Planning Commission. The Commission echoed that sentiment.
Chairman Hoffman noted he is honored to serve on the Commission and to have served as its Chair; and he asked that this evening’s meeting be adjourned in the memory of Pete Manguarian, a long-time civically active resident who recently passed away.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARING(S)
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 September 19, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |