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.

5. Items for consideration

   1. 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.

6. Oral / Written Communications

   NONE

Public Hearing(s)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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)

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Staff Items

    1. 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.

    2. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.

       ACTION: RECEIVED AND FILED

    3. Community Development Department Activity Report of January, 2002.

       ACTION: RECEIVED AND FILED

    4. City Council minutes of January 22, February 5 and 12, 2002.

       ACTION: RECEIVED AND FILED

    5. 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.

15. Commissioner Items

    Chairman Perrotti reminded the Commission members to submit their 700 Forms to the City Clerk's Office in a timely manner.

16. Adjournment

    MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, for adjournment at 10:48 p.m. There being no objection, it was so ordered.