|
|
Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 2004
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
JANUARY 20, 2004, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kersenboom at 7:00 P.M.
Commissioner Hoffman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Kersenboom
Absent: None
Also Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Ken Robertson, Senior Planner
Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
With regard to the vote for Resolution P.C. 03-63, Commissioner Hoffman stated that the vote should reflect Commissioners Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer in favor and Kersenboom abstaining.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE the December 3, 2003, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the zone code provides for determinations of legality for nonconforming buildings if there is substantial evidence to indicate that a building was constructed prior to current code requirements; and advised that the applicant is requesting a validation of an existing room addition, a legal nonconformity and an authorization for it to remain. He noted that the lot is 3,024 square feet and is located in the R-1 zone; that the subject property is a 2-story, single-family home, with a detached garage; and advised that there is a required 3.64-foot side yard and a 5-foot rear yard requirement. He stated that the property is located on the east side of Manhattan Avenue -- noting that this area of town slopes steeply up to Circle Drive; stated that as a consequence, there are a series of retaining walls separating the subject property from the properties to the north, south and east; and stated that the issue of these retaining walls and the property line walls have some bearing on the nature of this request.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the things the Planning Commission should look at in these legal determination matters are County Assessor information, building permits, plans on file in the Building Division, Residential Building Reports, and Sanborn maps. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Sanborn maps show this house and a detached garage on the lot without the subject room addition; advised that the maps date back to 1927; and that this City has had periodic updates to these maps into the 1950's. He advised that the building records indicate that a single-family residence was constructed on this lot in 1936; that a permit for alterations was issued in 1942; that a permit for a patio wall was issued in 1946; that a permit for sandblasting was issued in 1968; that a permit for the demolition of a temporary patio cover was issued in January 2002; and that a permit for concrete steps and electrical work was issued in February 2002. He advised that staff found in looking at the microfiche of this property that only the front half of the property was placed on microfiche - noting that the area under consideration this evening is located at the rear of the property.
Director Blumenfeld advised that a letter from Ms. Jean Williams, who was the owner of the property at the time the City was involved in code enforcement action at this property, indicates that her mother had a den addition constructed in 1948 - pointing out that staff cannot find that reflected in the permit history. He stated that there is no permit on file for a den addition. He added that the adjacent properties to the south and east are of similar vintage and have nonconforming conditions relative to their yards, which may indicate that the yard condition was not considered with the original property construction permits.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant argues the addition was constructed under Permit No. 2164 - noting that this is possible, but that the permit does not reflect why it was pulled; mentioned that the applicant provided staff with correspondence from long-time residents in this area who have indicated that the addition had been in existence since the 1930's; and that the applicant has produced two photos from the 1950's from the adjacent property to the north which shows the addition in question. He noted that a Residential Building Report prepared in 1975 indicates that there were no building or zoning violations on the property.
Director Blumenfeld stated that because of the evidence presented by the applicant, staff is concluding that the original building addition was constructed prior to 1959, the cutoff date for a legal determination; and that staff can find no clear record that the room addition was constructed legally under a building permit - believing that it is possible Permit No. 2164 may be the permit in question. He stated that some of the alterations to the addition were done without required permits but have since received after-the-fact permits; and noted that Mr. Jeffrey Rhind, on behalf of the family trust owning the property next door for years, had submitted a letter expressing his support for the addition and indicating that the addition had been in existence for approximately 50 years.
Director Blumenfeld advised that City records contain conflicting information from the original permit record; mentioned that the original permit record for this residence is dated in 1936; and advised that there was an unknown permit issued in 1939 - pointing out that these two dates would be consistent with this addition if it was added sometime in that period. He mentioned that the adjacent properties to the south, east and north have these nonconforming features on their yards, which tends to substantiate an error on the subject property. Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Planning Commission determines the addition was lawfully created, staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Perrotti that except for the setback condition, this room addition presently complies with the building codes; but stated that there still are some building code issues to address with the rest of the house.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned if staff knows why the 1975 building inspection was conducted.
In response to Commissioner Hoffman's inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that it could have been done in connection with a field inspection for a Residential Building Report or may also have been in connection with one of the earlier permits -- noting that staff is not sure because of the records on hand. According to the field record, Director Blumenfeld noted that this record indicated there was no building or zoning violation.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Lesley Wright, applicant, stated that she purchased this home in December 2001; that when they moved in, they obtained a permit to remove the temporary patio cover; stated that their neighbor, Jeffrey Rhind, advised them that the addition had always been there - noting that his family has owned these neighboring properties for over 60 years; and stated that Mr. Rhind provided her with a photograph, dated 1953, showing her property in the background with the addition. She advised that her discussions with Ms. Jean Williams are contrary to what Ms. Williams wrote in her letter to staff. Ms. Wright stated that she is currently in the process of resolving all code violation issues staff has brought up with the rest of the house. She stated that in her research, she located in the City's files two permits that could potentially be for the addition: one being the 2164 from 1939 and one on April 9, 1942, which describes an alteration and repair. She commented on the inconsistencies she has seen with the City's record keeping on this property; and she highlighted other nonconforming properties in the immediate area that have the same condition as her property with regard to the setback issues.
Rick Tarik, applicant, highlighted the permits on record that he feels support his claim for the legality of this addition; commented on the City's destroying of records that are no longer available for research; and noted the history of the City's record-keeping inconsistencies that he has come across. He expressed his belief that the setbacks are not significant or unusual in regard to compatibility with the neighboring properties; and stated that the photographs and neighbors' accounts of this property support the applicant's request. He advised that the addition is a nice finished room and the only room which is large enough to occupy their bed; and stated that the loss of this space would create a significant loss of living quarters. He noted their interest in preserving this old building and noted that he is not adding on to this structure.
Joy Tupac, 2109 Circle Drive, stated that she lives directly east, behind the property in question; and expressed her concern that this nonconforming room is too close to her home and that she is concerned with fire safety.
Julie Nunez, resident, stated that she owns the property directly across the street from the subject property and noted her support for the applicants -- stating that they have improved and beautifully maintained this home.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that this addition was once a barbeque house in the earlier years that got walled in; pointed out that the only concrete piece of evidence is that this addition was existing in 1953; mentioned the fact that there is a void in the records for the 1939 permit and for the 1942 permit - stating that either one of these permits could have been for the addition; and pointed out that the 1975 field inspection report states that there were no zoning or building code violations on this property. As a result of the information provided, Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that this addition was done legally.
Commissioner Pizer concurred with Commissioner Hoffman's statements.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that the materials presented indicate that this room addition was not recently built and that there is enough documentation to show that this was probably built prior to or in 1953. He stated that he could make the determination that this is a legal structure.
Chairman Kersenboom concurred with the Commissioners' comments.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MAKE the legal determination that the building addition was lawfully constructed. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission approved this similar project on August 19, 2003, which also contained three units above the ground floor commercial units; stated that since that meeting, the applicant has conducted soils and geotechnical studies which reflect that the groundwater on the site would make construction of the underground parking cost prohibitive; noted that, therefore, the revised plans do not include subterranean level parking; and advised that the overall square footage of the commercial portion has been reduced.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that this project is not subject to the new mixed-use since standards in the C-1 zone that will go into effect around the end of February, beginning of May it is vested under the current Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and that this project must be reviewed under the terms of the current C-1 Ordinance and condominium development standards.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in addition to requiring an amendment to the PDP and CUP that were approved in August 2003, this proposal will require a Parking Plan because of the proposal for tandem parking for 2 of the commercial parking spaces and some slightly substandard dimensions for the residential and commercial parking spaces. This means that the project has a parking deficiency pursuant to the code. He stated that the applicant is still proposing a 3-story building with 2 floors of residential and a roof deck above the ground floor commercial; noted that at this point, the applicant has not indicated any commercial tenants being considered for the project; and advised that the 3 residences are located side by side, contain 3 bedrooms and 3 baths, each in a split level floor plan. Reiterating that the plan no longer contains subterranean parking, Senior Planner Robertson stated that all the parking will now be located on the ground level with access from the alley. He noted that the residential units are similar to the previous plan, but because of the need for parking on the ground floor and the reduced number of spaces, the square footage for the commercial use has been reduced from 3,120 square feet to 2,360 square feet.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that with respect to the C-1 standards, the only standard that applies to the project is the maximum building height of 30 feet - noting that this project complies with the height limit; and stated that no setbacks are required in the C-1 zone unless the property directly abuts residentially zoned property. With respect to the condominium standards, Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project meets the minimum unit standards for a 3-bedroom unit; and that it now complies with the 5-foot setback requirement for the residential floors of the project. He noted that the proposed deck is located within the setback, but that staff does not see a problem with the use of this front setback area for the deck - noting that in the new mixed-use development, this type of arrangement is permitted. He mentioned that enclosed storage is not properly shown on the plans and that it will need to be corrected on the final plans; and explained that because the construction drawings are not detailed, staff cannot determine at this point if the plans comply with all the sound insulation standards in the Condominium Ordinance or standards relating to utility separation, etc. -- pointing out that all these issues will be checked when more detailed plans are submitted.
With respect to the R-3 development standards, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the residential portion of the project is consistent with the density, height and open space requirements of the R-3 zone; however, he advised that the project is not consistent with R-3 standards for lot coverage -- noting that this project covers over 90 percent, has no rear yard setback, and has no side yard along the Lyndon Avenue frontage on the south side. He pointed out that these inconsistencies in the R-3 zone with respect to lot coverage and the setbacks are the same as in the previously approved project, that the Planning Commission had approved.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the main difference with this plan is parking; and noted that residential parking is provided in a separate, secure a garage and is separated from the commercial parking, which faces the alley. He stated that the two parking spaces per residential unit are being provided in tandem, with dimensions of 18 feet in depth per space; and advised that the plans also include a guest space for the residential units in the private parking garage, with one of these spaces also serving as the handicapped accessible space for the entire project. He explained that the 18-foot deep residential parking space is not consistent with the 20-foot depth typically required for residential garages; however, he explained that an 18-foot depth is the standard for outdoor residential parking, and stated that this should be functional given that the code does recognize that depth for other residential situations. He stated that commercial parking is provided with direct access from the alley; and that 7 of the 9 spaces are provided as single access spaces with direct access to the alley, with 2 of the spaces in tandem. He advised that 3 of the 7 spaces are deficient with respect to turning radius - noting that a 20-foot backup is provided - and that the stall widths of 9'4" do not comply with the required 10-foot width for a 20-foot turning radius. He stated that the other 4 spaces, which are identified as compact (8'-6" wide), are permitted to provide a 20-foot turning radius for compact stalls. He noted staff's belief that these stalls still are to be functional even with these slight deficiencies. He stated that if this is not approved as proposed, these parking dimensions will have to be corrected -- noting that changes could have a significant effect upon the project design.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff is recommending a Condition 9A to deal with offsite improvements in the alley as follows: "Detailed plans for offsite improvements shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer for approval by the Public Works Department and shall include a design to remedy the drainage situation on Palm Drive."
Addressing Vice-Chairman Perrotti's question concerning the 90 percent lot coverage, Senior Planner Robertson explained that lot coverage was one of the allowed exceptions to the R-3 standards, recognizing that to make these commercial projects work, a project would need to cover most of the lot.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that the hours of operation for commercial use should be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. for businesses such as coffee houses and snack bars.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti requested clarification on Condition No. 20, written disclosure.
In response to Vice-Chairman Perrotti's request, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff would suggest that a separate written disclosure be provided and written into the conditions of approval as follows: "The owner shall provide separate written disclosure upon sale or rental of the subject property"; and added that this separate written notice should reflect the fact that the property is mixed use and permits commercial and residential in the building.
In response to Commissioner Pizer's inquiry regarding the proposed turning radius, Director Blumenfeld explained that the stall width is slightly deficient but functional.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the 9'-4" stalls would have to be increased to 10 feet to comply with code; explained that the applicant may be able to narrow the driveway to 14 feet to make up the difference; and mentioned that they may have to relocate some of the structural posts to make it work.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Julie Oakes, project architect, explained that it is not unusual for stalls to measure 9'4" -- noting that this is adequate for other cities and expressing her belief that it can work here; and she stated that if it is the Commission's desire, the driveway width can be altered to accommodate more stall width. She stated that the handicapped stall is within the security gate area, which will remain open during business hours; and clarified that the gate is a sliding gate and not a rolling door, as noted in Condition No. 12 in the Resolution. She stated that these units are more pedestrian friendly, and that the units also have private access from the garage. Ms. Oakes stated that the storage will be located underneath the stairwells and that there is plenty of room to provide adequate storage. With regard to Vice-Chairman Perrotti's desire to limit the commercial hours, Ms. Oakes asked that the hours of operation only be limited for retail purposes.
In response to Chairman Kersenboom's inquiry regarding the placement of the handicap parking space, Ms. Oakes stated that one would go through the side access, which is along the sidewalk, and could either go into the private units from the rear or around to the front. She advised that the Coastal Commission was opposed to the previously approved plans for the location of the handicap parking space - pointing out that it is in the same location, just pushed back more.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated that he is not concerned with the commercial hours for businesses such as a law office, architect's office, but that he is concerned with a coffee shop or snack shop use.
Ms. Oakes asked that consideration be given to relocating the pole that holds the banners across Hermosa Avenue.
Responding to Ms. Oakes' request, Director Blumenfeld stated that Public Works will work with Ms. Oakes on that matter.
Skip Bomar, resident, expressed his concern that this project is too large for this site; that it will negatively impact traffic and parking in the immediate area; pointed out that the applicant is now proposing less commercial space; questioned if the height of the entrance to the parking area is adequate; and noted his concerns with drivers illegally utilizing Palm Drive, which is a one-way street. He requested that a traffic engineering survey be prepared to address the affects this proposed project will have on the surrounding streets; and stated that if this project is approved as proposed, that the City more clearly identify Palm Drive as a one-way street or make it a two-way street from First Street to Lyndon Drive.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that this is very close to what was previously approved for this site, with the exception in the variation of parking; highlighted the applicant's willingness to work with staff on increasing the stall widths and turning radius; and reiterated his preference to limit the commercial hours for a snack shop or coffee shop use, 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.
Responding to Commissioner Pizer's inquiry regarding a traffic study, Director Blumenfeld stated that a traffic study was not conducted, but that staff had prepared a trip generation comparison of alternative uses the first time this project was evaluated. Advised that staff found that the existing preschool was one of the highest trip generators; that residential is a low trip generator; and that the amount of commercial was not substantial and was not a significant trip generator. Staff found was that this proposed use was not an extraordinary trip generator and was less than the existing use that had been on the site for many years. He added that staff suggests an amendment for the height of the garage to be 7 feet clear from the garage entry to the finished interior surface of the garage; and that Condition No. 12 be amended to reflect an automatic sliding garage door, minimum 7 feet clearance on all garage door openings.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Chairman Kersenboom that the alley width is 20 feet, measured from the back of the commercial parking to the other side of the alley.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that the issues of concern can be ironed out.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the motive behind this mixed use issue is to add incentive for the redevelopment of commercial properties in the City, not an incentive for residential redevelopment; and noted that this project is similar to the project this body previously approved, but highlighted his concern with the reduction in the commercial square footage. He expressed his belief that the parking is too limited for this project. He expressed his belief that given the parking issues and the decreased square footage for commercial, this proposal is an inadequate trade-off for the City in terms of the incentive to redevelop 2,300 square feet of commercial property on what could conceivably have been more than 10,000 square feet of commercial; and stated that he would not approve this revised plan.
Chairman Kersenboom stated that this proposal is similar to what was previously approved; noted his concern with the 9'4" parking spaces; and stated that he would like to see more space for parking if possible. He noted that he would support the proposal.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 03-15/PDP 03-18/PARK 03-6 -- Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit amendment and Parking Plan for a mixed use building with three residential condominiums above commercial at 30-44 Hermosa Avenue; moved that staff work with the applicant concerning the parking issues that have been discussed, the radius and size of the parking spaces; that the commercial use hours of operation be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. for a coffee shop or snack shop; that Condition 9A be included, as proposed by staff, relating to drainage issues; that Item No. 12 be revised to correctly reflect a sliding automatic garage door with a minimum 7-foot clearance, as proposed by staff; and that Item 20 reflect that the owner shall provide a separate written disclosure statement. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to February 17, 2004 meeting.
Chairman Kersenboom invited public input. None was provided.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE CON 04-1/PDP 04-1 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060571 for a three-unit condominium at 403 11th Street to the February 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to February 17, 2004 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld briefly commented that the reason to continue the matter was due to lack of proper public notice for this item.
Chairman Kersenboom invited public input. None was provided.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to February 17, 2004 meeting.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE VAR 04-1/SUB 04-1 -- Variance from the minimum lot size and lot width requirements of 4,000 square feet and 40-foot width and Parcel Map No. 060842 for a two-lot subdivision resulting in two 30-foot single-family lots consistent with the prevailing lot sizes in the vicinity at 2226 Hermosa Avenue to the February 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request for a nonconforming remodel; advised that the existing dwelling was constructed in 1953; that the dwelling is nonconforming to the current open space, side yard, garage setback and guest parking requirements, since only 2 parking spaces are currently provided; noted that the existing usable open space is 225 square feet rather than the 400 square feet, which is required in the R-1 zone with 300 square feet of grade; stated that the southerly side yard is 2.67 feet rather than the required 3 feet; and that the garage setback is 10.75 feet as opposed to 17 feet, which is required. He stated that the proposed valuation is 99.8 percent, exceeding the 50-percent standard. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a second-story addition of 1,009 square feet, and that 327 square feet would be allocated for an exterior deck. He noted that the proposed addition complies with the 20-foot height limit; stated that there is an existing deficient side yard that would be continued on the second story; and advised that the expansion will increase the living area of the house from 985 square feet to 1,994 square feet, resulting in the 99.8 percent increase in valuation. He advised that the proposal conforms to planning and zoning requirements, except the proposed bay window on the second floor which covers a portion of the existing usable open space between the residence and the garage; and explained that only minor obstacles may encroach into the open space areas in the R-1 zone. He noted that this existing usable open space is nonconforming to the current requirement; and stated that removal of the bay window would alleviate this problem.
Frank Glen, project architect, stated that the water heater will be relocated from the side yard; and that the final dimension will be 2.67. He advised that the owners purchased the property in 1996; that they are desirous of making these changes to accommodate their growing family; and noted that the applicants concur with the conditions of approval.
Director Blumenfeld stated that if the Planning Commission goes forward with approving the resolution, staff would recommend that the site plan adequately reflect the dimension to show the 2.67-foot discrepancy.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE NR 04-1 -- Addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence with nonconforming open space, parking, side yard and garage setback resulting in a greater than 50% increase in valuation at 2030 Prospect Avenue; and that the applicant correct the dimension on the site plan to the satisfaction of staff. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Staff Items
-
Memorandum regarding six month review of the Conditional Use Permit for "Element" at 1320 Hermosa Avenue (PDF File).
Director Blumenfeld explained that the permit is technically effective once the owner signs an affidavit accepting the conditions of approval; however, for practical purposes, the effective date starts once the Planning Commission renders its decision. He stated that it is loosely worded in the text and that staff is discussing with the City Attorney the need to tighten up the wording for the effective date of the permit.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his preference that the permit become effective 6 months after a business begins its operations.
Director Blumenfeld stated that if that is the Planning Commission's desire, that it be stated in their motions when warranted.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked staff to contact the owners of the Element and advise them that their property needs to be kept in a tidy condition - pointing out that there is debris on the front patio area. Staff indicated that the owner will be issued a code enforcement letter about the maintenance of their property.
-
Report on periodic reviews for Conditional Use Permits for restaurants (PDF File).
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in July 2003, staff provided the Planning Commission with a list of conditional use permits that require periodic reviews in the interest of creating a schedule for conducting these reviews, since the period for the reviews vary dramatically; at a subsequent meeting, August 2003, he stated that the Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to conduct reviews of all such CUP's concurrently at this January meeting. As previously reported, he advised that only a small portion of these restaurant CUP's contain a required review as a condition of approval; and explained that because of the limited number of establishments subject to these periodic reviews, these reviews may not be an effective tool for evaluating or resolving problems related to existing restaurant operations. He pointed out that most of the restaurants on the list provided to the Planning Commission are there to review as a formality, as the businesses are long-time restaurants with a focus on dining, but that they clearly do not create any issues or concerns. Staff distributed to the Commission a copy of the incidence reports for various restaurants provided by the Police Department. He stated that the results of these incidence reports from the Police Department reflect that the subject businesses under review are consistent with or have fewer incidents than other restaurants/bars in these time periods. He noted that the data covers the past two years and that it does not seem to indicate any chronic problems with the listed restaurants that are subject to periodic review (Hermosa Beach Yacht Club, Union Cattle Co., The Pitcher House, The Underground, and the Cantina Real).
Senior Planner Robertson stated that whether or not any of the subject businesses are fully complying with the operational conditions of their CUPs, it would require further investigation on a Friday or Saturday night, at their peak times, and when live music is playing; and that if the Planning Commission directs, staff would conduct inspections regarding noise and other operational issues. He reiterated that the ones which require periodic reviews, staff does not see any current problems to follow up on.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that the incident reports in the future be given prior to the meeting so that he has adequate time to review the report and see what the incidents were.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this matter can be continued so that staff can provide this body with a copy for the next meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff to bring this back to the next meeting.
-
Commissioner Items
Commissioner Pizer reminded everyone of the General Plan Workshop this Thursday at 7:00 P.M.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti requested input concerning the City Council's review concerning amending the code for nonconforming dwellings.
In response, Director Blumenfeld explained that the City Council reviewed the variance request that the Planning Commission had considered at its previous meeting; that they could not make the necessary findings, but they felt that there was some validity to the request, and asked staff to look at revising the Nonconforming Ordinance to provide a more latitude for remodels of a certain size in order to try and preserve some of the older structures in the City that are otherwise nonconforming to parking. He stated that staff is working on draft regulations that would allow a little more latitude for these projects, either by relaxing the parking requirements somewhat or extending the threshold for limitation of the nonconforming remodels, perhaps doing both; and stated that staff will be suggesting ways to streamline some of the regulations.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Hoffman that if one is adding parking, it certainly is a benefit; stated that the rest of the Council's direction was that if a project isn't fully code complying with the parking, but is attempting to provide more, the ordinance should be a little more accommodating.
Highlighting the brisk room temperature throughout this evening's meeting, Chairman Kersenboom asked that access be given to the air conditioner thermostat.
-
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
|
