|
Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 2002 - Hermosa
Beach
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 19, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
AT THE HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER, ROOM 4
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:11
P.M.
Commissioner Hoffman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer, Tucker,
and Chairman Perrotti
Absent: None
Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Michael Schubach, City Planner
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary
Consent Calendar
MOTION
by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to
APPROVE the February 19, 2002, Minutes as submitted. Hearing no
objections, Chairman Perrotti so ordered.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom,
to APPROVE Resolution Nos. P.C. 02-8, 02-9, 02-10, 02-11,
02-12, and 02-13. Hearing no objections, Chairman Perrotti so
ordered.
-
Items for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 02-7
(PDF file)
approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise
Development Plan and Parking Plan to allow a mixed use
building with two residences above commercial on the
ground floor with parking provided in tandem at 44
Hermosa Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the first condition
of Resolution No. P.C. 02-7 incorporates the parking
layout with two-car garages for the residential units
and the remainder of the parking to remain open. He
noted that the second condition is to ensure a
limitation on the kind of commercial use; that it be
consistent with the C-1 use, and that if there is to be
an alternate more intense use which increases parking
demand, it would require parking plan approval. He
stated that with respect to management of the parking
area, staff is suggesting that signing should indicate
customer parking is for businesses only and that
patrons must remain on premises. He further noted that
customers should make their keys available to those who
are operating the commercial facilities. Director
Blumenfeld stated that staff is suggesting signage to
designate the commercial and the residential parking;
and that the wording for these signs be jointly
developed by the applicant and staff. He also noted
that staff is recommending street tree planting on
Hermosa Avenue.
Commissioner Tucker questioned whether the applicant
should sign a covenant for enforcement purposes.
Responding to Commissioner Tucker's inquiry,
Director Blumenfeld explained that the owner must sign
an affidavit accepting the conditions which serves as a
compliance tool for code enforcement.
Commissioner Tucker addressed his concern that the
garages be maintained for residential usage and that it
be enforceable.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the City maintains
a copy of project plans; that the plans clearly
indicate that this area is to be used for residential
parking; and pointed out that staff is suggesting the
parking should be reserved with signage per Condition
No. 4. He noted for Commissioner Tucker that the Public
Works Commission has not adopted a street tree standard
for Hermosa Avenue; and mentioned that if the Planning
Commission so desires, it could recommend as a
condition the size of the street tree or the nature of
the landscaping.
Commissioner Tucker noted his desire that the Public
Works Commission consider adopting a standard 36-inch
box tree treatment for Hermosa Avenue.
Director Blumenfeld advised that this plan would be
reviewed for conformance with Public Works
requirements.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner
Hoffman, to APPROVE Resolution No. P.C. 02-7. There
being no objection, Chairman Perrotti so ordered.
-
Oral / Written Communications
NONE
Public Hearing(s)
-
CUP 02-2/PARK 02-2
(PDF file)
-- Conditional Use Permit to allow a small beer
manufacturer with on-sale beer and wine service and
extended hours to 1:30 a.m. and a Parking Plan Amendment
to use off-site parking to meet parking requirements at
58-60 11th Street, Hamilton Gregg Brewworks.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed
appropriate.
Pictures:
One
Two
Three
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Brewworks proposal
was originally approved in 1992 as a do-it-yourself
brewery; that the business was considered to fit within the
C-2 zoning category as a retail use; and that in 1993, the
Planning Commission approved this use and approved a
parking plan for the project. He noted that since that
time, the business has changed from a do-it-yourself
business to a beer manufacturing-type business on a very
small scale; and advised that the applicant is proposing to
phase out the do-it-yourself portion of the business and
now operate as a bar in conjunction with the manufacturing
of the beer as a micro-brewery. Director Blumenfeld stated
that currently, there is a license which allows for sales
and distribution of beer on the premises; and that it was
modified to allow on-site sales and consumption of the
manufactured beer. He pointed out that this business has
operated without incident since opening as a do-it-yourself
brewery.
Director Blumenfeld stated that at this point, the
applicant is proposing to phase out the mini-kettles, which
are part of the do-it-yourself operation and, instead,
install a bar, bar seating and bench seating -- noting that
tables already exist in this establishment. He added that
the remodeling also includes the addition of a restroom,
but that it does not include kitchen facilities and,
therefore, wouldn't be considered a restaurant and not
subject to the current moratorium in effect which prohibits
the conversion of retail space to restaurant space.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is also
requesting an addition to the CUP for on-sale beer; that
they also want to amend their operating hours to 1:30 A.M.
to be consistent with the rest of Downtown, which is
consistent with the applicant's Type 23 ABC license. He
explained that the proposed use is consistent with the
General Plan and C-2 Zone.
In terms of parking, Director Blumenfeld explained that
the applicant is proposing to meet the increased parking
demand (which changes from one space per 250 square feet of
gross floor area to one space per 80 square feet of gross
floor area) with off site parking since the project is
located within the Vehicle Parking District. The owner has
the opportunity to supply this parking either in lieu or in
an adjacent location; and that in this case, the owner is
proposing to supply 6 parking spaces in tandem within 300
feet. He stated that the required parking would be 15
spaces; that if the Applicant provides a portion of that
parking offsite (noting that they are proposing 6 spaces
offsite) the balance of the 9 spaces would have to be
provided elsewhere or provided in lieu, which is a
requirement of the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 6.
Director Blumenfeld explained that if the Planning
Commission wants to approve a reduced parking ratio, it
will have to make a determination that this business is
unique and not typical of other bars in the area. He
mentioned that this building was substantially renovated in
1993, which was an important project in the Downtown
revitalization activities.
Director Blumenfeld explained for Chairman Perrotti that
under the City's Zoning Code for fixed seating, one
occupant is allowed per two feet; and that an area seating
requirement for general seating is one person per 15 square
feet - pointing out that the difference from row seating
along a bar. He added that the Planning Commission could
consider reduced parking if there are other mitigating
circumstances that apply either to the business or to the
operation of the parking (such as managing the parking
through valet) or if the business was determined to be
unique or operated during non-peak periods.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Pizer's inquiry, Director
Blumenfeld noted that if the parking ratio is approved at
0.65, the business owner would still require Coastal
Commission for approval of the reduced parking.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Patricia Spiritus, one of the brewery principals,
highlighted her efforts in the Downtown revitalization
activities; and provided a brief history of this business -
noting that when this do-it-yourself brewery was opened in
1993, they were the first business of its kind in the
United States. Ms. Spiritus explained that the business's
clientele made appointments and drove to this location;
that this business did not entertain walk-in clientele at
that time; and explained that part of the reason for
phasing out the do-it-yourself business is due to the
parking difficulties. She stated that they are requesting
to reduce a portion of this business; and that the business
which remains now caters to walk-in clientele who are not
driving to this location but are people who live in the
area. Ms. Spiritus pointed out that this business offers a
unique environment and unique product; noted that the
business won't open until 5:00 P.M. -- pointing out that
the Coastal Commission is mainly concerned with parking
availability for beach-goers; reiterated that their
clientele are those individuals who live nearby and that
they will not be taking away any parking from the
beach-goers; and she urged the Planning Commission's
approval of the 65-percent parking reduction.
Ms. Spiritus noted for Chairman Perrotti that there are
two existing parking spaces behind the building. She added
that the refrigeration equipment located at the back of the
building will continue to be used for the keg beer
supplies; that the business now serves its own manufactured
beer, which is consistent with their ABC license; and that
it is their plan to only serve their manufactured beer. She
mentioned that no changes will be made to the exterior of
the building other than light maintenance work; explained
that half of the building is taken up by the brewery
equipment, which consists of a 7-barrel brewing system with
fermentors; and reiterated her desire to continue the
off-sale component of the business.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant may
want to consider a retail component for this small-scale
brewery, such as selling their bottled beer as a retail
portion of the business; that if the applicant is
interested in pursuing a retail, he suggested that they
work with staff to resolve some of the details of how this
could be accomplished and note these changes on the project
plans. For presentation to the Planning Commission at a
subsequent meeting.
In response to Vice-Chairman Pizer's inquiry, Ms.
Spiritus stated that approximately 50 percent of the floor
area is used for the manufacturing process; and that this
proposal will have a less intensive use than what was
originally proposed in 1993. She concluded that they offer
a unique service to the community.
Dean Clark, neighboring business owner/operator for the
past 3 years, stated that the brewery has been a perfect
neighbor; and noted his support of the applicant's
proposal.
Dan Laguardia, 47 10th Street, advised that his home is
30 feet behind the brewery, across the alleyway; addressed
his concern with the noise and the parking difficulties;
and noted his concern with opening a bar 30 feet from his
back door. He stated that during the summer months, his
daughter has difficulty sleeping in her room due to the
noise; and briefly highlighted the problems with pedestrian
traffic in the alleyway. Mr. Laguardia stated that he has
not experienced any problems with the brewery but that he
is opposed to it becoming a neighborhood bar.
Brain Koch, 53 9th Street, stated that he lives one
block away from this business; addressed his concern with
the proposal to change the operating hours to 1:30 A.M.;
expressed his belief that it is not appropriate to have a
bar this close to a residential neighborhood; and commented
on the additional people this bar will bring into the
neighborhood late at night and the disturbances with the
patrons leaving this facility during the early morning
hours.
James Patterson, 1068 Bay View Drive, Hermosa Beach,
noted the high number of liquor licenses in the Downtown
area; expressed his opposition to extending the operating
hours to 1:30 A.M., believing that this will only
exacerbate the existing Downtown noise problems; and urged
the Planning Commission to not approve any operating hours
for this business past 11:00 P.M.
Ms. Spiritus noted that she routinely communicates with
the neighbors and that she was unaware of Mr. Laguardia's
complaints regarding noise. She advised that a neighbor and
the main street activities are responsible for most of the
noise; and that the Brewworks is attempting to also deal
with this noise issue. She added that the owners of the
Brewworks immediately deal with any complaints and that
they will continue to do so. Ms. Spiritus mentioned that
the patrons will be leaving this establishment from the
front of the building; and explained that this will not be
a typical bar. Because of the incredible amount of activity
in the alleyway and on the main street, she urged the City
not to penalize this business for the noise which is coming
from other establishments and neighbors.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed
the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld noted for the Planning Commission
its previous intent to standardize the operating hours
Downtown; advised that similar businesses in the upper
portion of Pier Avenue have operating hours that extend to
10:00 P.M. or 11:00 P.M.; and that the businesses in the
lower portion of Pier Avenue uniformly close at 1:30 A.M.
or later.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his primary concern of
extending the operating hours and the patrons and employees
using the alleyway for parking and throwing away trash in
the early morning hours.
Vice-Chairman Pizer suggested that staff and the
applicant revisit the business plan, address the noise and
operating hours and seek some solutions which allow this
applicant to operate a successful business.
Commissioner Tucker suggested the possibility of using
air conditioning in this facility which would allow the
applicant to keep the windows/doors closed; commented on
the possibility of the Applicant developing an alternative
business plan to accommodate a manufacturing component
which will reduce the parking requirements; noted his
preference that the closing hours be limited to 12:00 A.M.;
and expressed his desire that this business only serve its
beer which is manufactured onsite.
Commissioner Kersenboom briefly addressed his concerns
with the late hours of operation in this residential area;
noted his support for a manufacturing component to help
alleviate parking requirements; and urged the applicant to
operate within the hours that is amenable to everyone.
Chairman Perrotti stated that two letters had been
received in opposition to the applicant's request: one from
Lawrence Fordiani, dated March 18, 2002, and one from James
Lissner, dated March 18, 2002.
Chairman Perrotti stated that while this is a unique
establishment, issues concerning parking, noise, and
operating hours need to be satisfactorily mitigated;
expressed his support for a manufacturing component to
alleviate the parking requirements; suggested that the
hours of operation should be limited to midnight; that
after one year, the operating hours could be revisited to
determine if any problems have developed and that if not,
consideration be given to extending the hours of operation
to 1:30 A.M.; and noted his preference that this matter be
continued to allow staff and the Applicant time to develop
an alternate business plan.
MOTION
by Vice-Chairman Pizer moved, seconded by Commissioner
Kersenboom, to
CONTINUE
this matter to allow the applicant and staff an
opportunity to develop an alternative business plan which
will reduce the parking requirements and to address the
hours of operation. Motion unanimously carried.
-
PDP 02-2/PARK 02-3
(PDF file)
-- Precise Development Plan minor amendment for a
surface parking lot located at 702 11th Place (AKA 1131
Pacific Coast Highway) and Parking Plan minor amendment
to allow the expansion of an existing church at 730 11th
Street with required parking provided off-site in a
common parking facility leased by the church. The
amendment is to eliminate the requirement for shared
public use of the parking at 702 11th Place (AKA 1131
Pacific Coast Highway).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed
appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant
previously received an approval for a PDP in 1999 to
develop a portion of the parking lot, basically doubling
the size of the parking facilities for the church; noted
that at that time, the applicant had requested that the PDP
fees and building permit fees be waived; and that in
response to that request, in order to avoid the issue of a
public gift, the applicant agreed with staff to make the
parking available for public use. He explained that since
October 2000, staff has been working with the church to get
compliance with the condition for public use of the parking
facilities. As noted in the conditions of approval for the
PDP, Director Blumenfeld stated that the church was
required to display signs that indicated the parking shall
be made available for public use and that the church would
have priority usage on certain holidays and Sundays. He
explained the church's difficulty in making this parking
available because of what they perceive to be as unforeseen
issues with liability and conflicts with some of the
surrounding neighboring uses usurping the lot when it's
been needed by the church; and stated that because of the
costs and liability factors, the church is requesting to
modify the PDP by eliminating this parking condition. Since
the approval originally involved a fee waiver for the PDP
and the building permit, he explained that staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission approve this
modification to eliminate the prohibition to the exclusive
use of the parking for the church's needs; and that if this
condition is eliminated, that the amendment include a
condition that the fees which were waived be reimbursed to
the City, which is approximately $2,000.
In response to Commissioner Hoffman's inquiry, Director
Blumenfeld explained that the condition to share the
parking was essentially a quid pro quo response to the
City's requirement that it be made available for public use
and that permit fees be waived.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Reverend Eileen Brigger, Beach Cities Christian
Fellowship (BCCF) minister, advised that this church has
been at this location since 1924; that it is now enjoying
the largest congregation this church has had since its
inception; and noted that the church uses this facility not
only twice on Sundays, but also throughout the week for
various events. She noted that because this church is
expanding, more parking is necessary for its members. She
advised that the church owns the front parking lot, but
that it leases the back parking lot; and that the church
pays 100 percent of the liability fees and upkeep. She
commented on the problems with the church members not being
able to use the parking facility when needed; and addressed
the increasing problems with vandalism, people living out
of their cars, and running taxi services out of the parking
lot. Reverent Brigger explained that while they've been
working with staff, this parking lot has been open for
public use and that they are attempting to be good
neighbors and make it available to the neighbors on trash
days and to the Civic Light Opera and Rocky Cola Café
for overflow parking. She noted the church's desire to
control the parking so that it is available to the church
members for various functions. She stated that the
condition as currently written does not provide the church
the flexibility to say when the lot is closed and when no
public parking is available; and expressed her belief that
this condition is unfair to the church.
Michael Briley, Alano Club representative, expressed his
belief that this church parking lot is necessary for
overflow parking and that it should be made available when
not in use by the church; and expressed his belief that the
church is not using this parking lot every day.
Eugene Buchard, BCCF church member, urged the Planning
Commission's support of the applicant's request.
Terry Russell, BCCF church member, stated that there
have been many instances where the congregation members
have been inconvenienced with the lack of parking on its
own parking lot; and addressed the concerns with vandalism
and liability issues. He stated that while the church does
not mind opening this parking lot up to the public when not
in use by the church, it is imperative for the church to
retain control over the usage.
Robert Schmetiky expressed his belief that this church
has never been in compliance with the conditions of
approval for shared parking; commented on the limited
parking throughout the beach cities; and urged the church
to work out a plan with its neighbors for the use of this
parking facility.
Ron Clungey stated that the parking should be utilized
to the maximum and that the City should find a better
resolution to this parking problem; and suggested that the
parking lot owned by the church not be accessible for
public parking, but that the leased portion of the parking
lot be utilized for public parking except when they need to
use it for their church-related events.
Ted Ogley, BCCF church member, highlighted the
substantial investment the church incurred for the parking
lot; and stated that they will continue to work with the
neighbors, but that they need the flexibility to maintain
parking for its members.
Reverend Steve Lewis, church pastor, stated that this
parking lot is utilized throughout the week; advised that
the leasing fees are approximately $1,000 a month for the
leased parking area; and noted the church's desire to work
with the City to make this lot available when appropriate
for the church.
Cheryl Townsend, Alano Club representative, expressed
her opinion that the church should have followed through
with the requirement to post the hours when they would need
it for church functions; and stated that the liability
incurred by the church was brought about due to the
church's negligence. She suggested that it would not be
unreasonable for the City to share some of the cost for the
liability fees.
Patriese Walters, BCCF church member, questioned how the
church is to determine which cars belong to its members and
which cars belong to the public; and suggested that the
parking spaces be designated.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed
the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Perrotti that the
parking lot was designed, paved, marked and signed
according to the City's design standards for public
parking; explained that there was a lot of discussion
between the City staff and the church about other modes of
operation; and that after examining the costs relative to
the metering and liability issues, it was not going to be
in the City's best interest to incur the additional costs
for public parking. He noted that if the Planning
Commission wishes to approve this minor amendment, then as
a condition of approval, staff would recommend that the
fees that were waived be paid to the City.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted that because the church is
paying the full cost of this parking lot, the church should
be able to exercise its rights; and that as long as the
fees are paid, he would support the applicant's
request.
Commissioner Tucker stated that the church should be
able to use its lot when needed; noted the applicant's
right to request an amendment; highlighted the church's
desire to share the parking with the neighbors; and stated
that he would be supportive of the amendment.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that signage be
utilized to secure the parking when necessary; that window
stickers be considered; and noted his support for the
applicant request.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his support for the
applicant's request.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to
APPROVE
the minor amendment; that staff be directed to return at
the next meeting with a revised Resolution; and moved that
the Applicant remunerate the City for the waived fees.
Motion unanimously carried.
-
TEXT 02-3
(PDF file)
-- Text Amendment for
non-required off-site parking in M-1,
Light Manufacturing zone.
(PDF file)
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said
Text Amendment.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this text amendment
was a direction by the Planning Commission at its February
meeting to add parking as a permitted use in the M-zone;
added that this proposal would also allow within the
Manufacturing zone the intent to provide flexibility for
businesses located in the M-zone to make surplus parking
available, pointed out that the proposed text amendment
would include the word "required" in Section 17.44.090 for
Off-Street Parking Location; and added that staff is
recommending that the zone code list include the words
"parking lots and structures" as permitted uses within the
M-zone, thereby providing the same flexibility as currently
exists in the C-zone.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Julie Oakes requested, and received, clarification in
regard to the proposed modification.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed
the public hearing.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer,
to
CONCUR
with staff's recommendation. Motion unanimously
carried.
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at 9:08 P.M. and
reconvened the meeting at 9:13 P.M.
Hearing(s)
-
NR 02-1
(PDF file)
-- A nonconforming remodel to remodel/expand 100 square
foot and reduce the number of dwelling units from four
units to three units at 802 The Strand (continued from
February 19, 2002 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to April 16, 2002
meeting.
City Planner Schubach stated that the Applicant is
requesting a continuance to the April 16, 2002, Planning
Commission meeting due to the request being modified and
the applicants being out of town and not able to attend
this evening's meeting.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner
Kersenboom, to CONCUR with staff's recommendation.
-
NR 02-4
(PDF file)
--
Remodel and expand a nonconforming
single family dwelling and rental unit with removal of
more than 10% of the existing exterior walls at 3130
Hermosa Avenue.
(PDF file)
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Pictures:
One
Two
Three
City Planner Schubach stated that the existing building
was constructed in 1913; explained that the applicants are
proposing to remodel and expand this development and that
they are requesting to remove approximately 42 percent of
the existing development - noting that they have a total
valuation of expansion and remodel of 48 percent. He stated
that the only concern staff has is that the open space as
proposed does not qualify as open space according to the
City's standards; and, therefore, staff is recommending a
condition that states the open space shall be modified to
meet the City's requirements. He advised that the exterior
staircase doesn't meet today's requirements and that it
should be replaced with noncombustible materials.
Chairman Perrotti opened the hearing for public
input.
Patrick Killen, 46 11th Street, Hermosa Beach,
architect, advised that the applicants have gone through
approximately five iterations of the plans to try and come
close to conforming with the City's codes; explained that
currently, only two parking spaces can be accessed off the
northeast corner of the site; and commented on various
options to increase the parking. He noted that only 100
square feet of the 500 square feet of decking can be
counted towards the open space requirements. Mr. Killen
stated that he would be willing to consider moving the
external staircase indoors, but pointed out that it would
require moving more walls and taking floor joists out; and
reiterated that this is a unique building and that the
applicants are attempting to meet the spirit of the City's
codes.
Other than his opposition to the external staircase,
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his support of this proposal.
Nancy Schwapac, resident at 3124 Hermosa Avenue,
requested, and received, clarification regarding lot
coverage in the City's zoning codes; and noted her
excitement for the remodel of this dwelling.
Director Blumenfeld stated that where the decks exceed 5
feet, they would contribute to lot coverage; advised that
the project is over coverage by approximately 72 percent;
and noted for Vice-Chairman Pizer that if the external
staircase is removed, it would bring the proposal into
conformance with lot coverage. Director Blumenfeld
clarified that there are two issues of concern -- an open
space issue and a lot coverage issue; and stated that
between resolving the location of one of the decks and the
staircase, the coverage issue could be resolved. He advised
that staff did meet with the project architect to address
the nonconforming staircase and the side yard.
Responding to Commissioner Tucker's comment, Director
Blumenfeld advised that prior to the issuance of this
building permit, the owner will have to provide a detailed
analysis relative to the structural integrity of this
building relative to the renovation.
Commissioner Tucker expressed his support for the
provision of additional parking; noted his concern with the
nonconforming staircase and the possibility of setting a
precedent for future applicants; and expressed his support
for this proposal if the balcony open space issue can be
resolved.
Vice-Chairman Pizer reiterated his preference that the
staircase be replaced internally.
Commissioner Kersenboom noted his concern with the
staircase.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer,
to
CONCUR
with staff's recommendation; and moved that the
nonconforming stairs be eliminated. Motion carried as
follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
NOES: Tucker
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-
CON 99-33/PDP 99-39
(PDF file)
-- Request for extension of a Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map No. 25751 for a two-unit condominium at 1214 Monterey
Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration to
March 21, 2003.
City Planner Schubach briefly presented staff report,
noting that the applicants are out of town this evening and
not able to attend this meeting.
MOTION
by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner
Kersenboom, to
CONCUR
with staff's recommendation. Motion unanimously
carried.
-
TEXT 02-4 -- Special study regarding
standards for mixed use development.
(PDF file)
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed
appropriate, and set the matter for public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that because there are no
specific development standards for mixed use in the C-1
zone, staff looked at neighboring cities to determine their
handling of mixed use developments. He noted that with
respect to amending the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning
Commission needs to consider several items, such as the
importance of amending the permitted use list within the
C-1 zone to eliminate the restriction to only provide one
or more apartments above a commercial building and make it
more inclusive to include condominium forms of ownership -
pointing out that this will alleviate the problem which
exists with the currently approved project at 44 Hermosa
Avenue.
With respect to other projects, Director Blumenfeld
stated that it would be important for the Planning
Commission to look at residential development standards on
the residential portion of a project, suggesting that they
look at the R-3 zone standards. He noted that if the
Planning Commission chooses to adopt R-3 standards in the
mixed-use zone, there would be a couple things to consider,
such as the amount of residential use allowed and the
percentage of the building.
With respect to the commercial standards, he noted the
importance of setting a minimum amount of commercial space
that would be available as part of the mixed-use percentage
-- noting that the Planning Commission may want to have a
sliding scale based upon the size of the lot.
Director Blumenfeld stated that with respect to parking,
the Planning Commission might want to allow some
flexibility for mixed use projects, but that it shouldn't
be so dependent on the shared parking condition that it
would create a pre-destined code enforcement problem.
With respect to the kinds of commercial uses, he
suggested that the Planning Commission may want to have in
the C-1 zone the kinds of commercial uses that aren't major
traffic generators. He advised that there was discussion at
the City Council level about trying to make the mixed use
ordinance inclusive beyond just the commercial zone and
incorporate it into the M-zone; that if the Planning
Commission wanted to do that, it might want to think about
the same percentages of commercial relative to residential,
the amount of manufacturing at the ground level and the
amount of residential above, so that you maintain the same
integrity of the ordinance throughout all of the zones
which will be affected. He stated that a draft form text
amendment will be presented at the next Planning Commission
meeting which will include any Planning Commission
recommendations or suggestions.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that an open
committee should be formed to study this complex matter;
and that the committee's findings be presented to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Tucker concurred with Vice-Chairman Pizer's
suggestion for the formation of a committee; and commented
on his interest in seeing how City Council is going to
receive the economic enhancement study.
Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that the areas
near upper Pier Avenue would make a better mixed use area
than the lower areas near Pier Avenue; and he expressed his
concern that putting some residential in the larger parcels
will create some problems and that the City might be
limiting the commercial potential on these larger parcels.
He stated that there is a lot to digest and that clear and
precise definitions should be developed.
Commissioner Hoffman commented on the charge of this
Commission to develop standards and proposals as it relates
to planning and zoning in the City and stated that he would
not be opposed to this body working with staff on this
matter.
Chairman Perrotti opened the hearing for public
input.
Julie Oakes commented on the importance of parking
requirements; suggested that no setbacks be placed on the
frontages; cautioned the City to be careful with putting
mixed uses Downtown; and noted the need for an interesting
mix of developments.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the formation of a
Planning Commission subcommittee would be more appropriate
to address this matter.
Commissioner Tucker concurred with the suggestion to
form a Planning Commission subcommittee; and suggested that
the members of this body write down their ideas and forward
them to staff before the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Director Blumenfeld suggested that the Planning
Commission may want to consider selecting a specific area
to start off with and expand from that point.
Commissioner Tucker commented on the need for this City
to deal with its parking limitations.
Chairman Perrotti asked each Planning Commission member
to contact staff with their suggestions and that staff
consolidate those ideas and forward them to the Planning
Commission.
Director Blumenfeld requested that the Planning
Commission focus on the outline which was provided to
determine which areas they'd like to address.
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner
Kersenboom, to consolidate the Planning Commission's
suggestions which will be forthcoming; and to forward all
the suggestions to the Planning Commission. Motion
unanimously carried.
-
Staff Items
-
Interpretation of allowable size
and height of chimneys exceeding maximum height in
residential zones.
(PDF file)
City Planner Schubach presented staff report (of
record) and explained that by installing a combustible
chase, it's forcing the noncombustible portion to be up
higher than what is necessary.
Addressing Vice-Chairman Pizer's inquiry, Director
Blumenfeld stated that this is partly a building code
issue; explained that there's a functional aspect to
the height of the chimney - noting that the chimney
needs to offer enough draft or draw to function
properly; and that the building code states the
requirement to provide enough height on the chimney to
meet the building code. He noted that the building code
reads that the chimney height shall be 2 feet above the
nearest roof within 10 feet; and that what is occurring
now is that there are chimneys which are wider, higher,
and deeper than they need to be to meet the
requirements of the building code.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that
by way of a minute order, a homeowner will not be
permitted to put a combustible chase up to the maximum
height and then on top of that go another 3 feet.
-
Tentative future Planning Commission
agenda.
ACTION: RECEIVED AND FILED
-
Community Development Department Activity
Report of January, 2002.
ACTION: RECEIVED AND FILED
-
City Council minutes of January 22, February
5 and 12, 2002.
ACTION: RECEIVED AND FILED
-
Proposed Text Amendment to permit
sidewalk signs.
(PDF file)
Director Blumenfeld advised that the City Manager is
recommending that this issue go before the City Council
for direction prior to going to the Public Works
Commission for input.
There was no opposition to the City Manager's
recommendation to forward this matter to City Council
for direction prior to it going to the Public Works
Commission.
-
Commissioner Items
Chairman Perrotti reminded the Commission members to
submit their 700 Forms to the City Clerk's Office in a
timely manner.
-
Adjournment
MOTION
by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner
Kersenboom, for adjournment at 10:48 p.m. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
|