|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 11-21-00
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Kersenboom led the pledge of allegiance. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom and
Chairman Perrotti
CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Perrotti requested that his comments be added on page 10 of the September 19, 2000 Minutes regarding Item 9, VAC 00-1. 4d. Resolution P.C. 00-55 approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26027 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 817 and 819 Monterey Boulevard. Director Blumenfeld indicated that the applicant has made changes to the plan, but the changes do not precisely fit in with the Conditions of Approval to limit the width of the projections to 8-feet. The Commission agreed with the revised plans. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolutions P.C. 00-52, 00-53, 00-54 and 00-55. AYES: HHHPizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
5a. Resolution P.C. 00-47 approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26019 for a three (3) unit condominium project at 506 11 th Street (continued from September 19, 2000 meeting). Director Blumenfeld stated that the landscaping in the front setback has been substantially increased. The applicant has also proposed to use metal grates to cover the planting area for the 36-inch box trees in order to accommodate the size of the trees without obstructing the proposed front driveway and walkways. Staff believes that the project now fully complies with the Zone Code and the directions of the Commission. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld indicated that the run of the stairs could not be extended. Commissioner Hoffman believed that the entrance at the northwest corner may become too small if landscaping were added. Commissioner Tucker agreed that the current landscaping plan would create too much density. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE Resolution P.C. 00-47 to allow the applicant to work with staff with a revised landscaping plan to be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 2000. AYES: HoffmanHHH, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Perrotti announced that Item No. 8 has been requested to be moved to the end of the Public Hearings.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that the project has conformed to the Zone Code, and the applicant has submitted revised plans to show compliance with the 17-foot setback requirement causing a loss of a bedroom on the ground floor of Unit 1, but causing no significant change to the exterior appearance of the project. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the project notification sign had been posted. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Municipal Code states that if a building improvement exceeds 400 square feet in floor area or is greater than 50% of the main existing building, new curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be required. However, certain streets are designated not to have sidewalk improvements.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Fran Uralman, 1001 6 th Street, Manhattan Beach, clarified that she posted the sign for the project on the Golden Avenue side eleven days prior to the last meeting. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, stated that they received clarification from Public Works with respect to the size of the sidewalk on 17 th Street. He explained that they originally believed a sidewalk was not needed, but subsequently Public Works had indicated that they need a 5-foot wide sidewalk which has been provided and has now pushed back the front of the garage facing 17th Street which eliminated a bedroom on the bottom level. He said that they converted the existing family room into a flex room to be built as a bedroom/family room. He also indicated that there are now only two windows at the lower level along 17th Street, and a window was added that is facing toward the garage. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Peha confirmed that egress would be met. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioners Hoffman and Pizer agreed that the revised plans are acceptable. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that the height calculation starts from the lowest corner point elevation that is available on the survey. Commissioner Tucker believed that the building is too massive and does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the project is acceptable with the revised changes. Chairman Perrotti stated that the applicant has made an effort to make adjustment to the plans concerning the sidewalk and the setbacks and has complied to the Commission’s concerns. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE P.C. Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25990 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 1637 and 1641 Golden Avenue and legally described as the N.E. 53’ of lots 15 and 16, Angela Heights Tract. AYES: HoffmanHHH, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant has now revised the plans by enlarging the decks located on the second floor adjacent to the living room and dining room areas. With this change, the plans are consistent with previous Commission direction that a substantial portion of open space be provided adjacent to primary living areas. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld indicated that Public Works has confirmed that the parking could be adequately replaced as shown. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Al Loera, Loera Designs, stated he is available for questions. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE P.C. Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25299 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 932 and 936 Monterey Boulevard and legally described as the southeast 40 of the southwest 70 feet of Lot 9, Block 57, first addition to Hermosa Beach. AYES: HoffmanHHH, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and reviewed the project and project history. Although the project was approved in April, 1998, work commenced without permits in December, 1999, and the owner was compelled to submit plans for approval in May, 1999. The current plan submittal reflects changes to the layout of parking, lumber stacks and the type and location of landscaping along the business frontages. The owner’s new plans also eliminate the parking adjacent to a saw installed without approval or permits. He said staff recommends that the parking be relocated rather than removed, as shown on staff’s plan, and that the commission consider adding a condition to the Resolution providing the same "knuckle" configuration for the driveway that was originally approved for the first project application in 1997, and further, that operational restrictions be added to the Resolution to minimize disruption to the new residential development immediately abutting the lumber yard. He stated that attached to the staff report is the original plan approval dated 4/21/98, the applicant’s revised plan dated 5/15/00, applicant’s new plan dated 9/14/00 and staff’s recommended plan change dated 10/12/00. He indicated that staff’s plan is meant to deal with the relocation of the parking by consolidating it and to relocate some of the lumber stacks away from the highway. He further reviewed the photos in the staff report. He stated that staff recommends that the Commission approve the applicant’s request to modify the plan such that it reflects some of staff recommendations in the revised plan of May 15, 2000 including reconfiguration of the driveway to create a knuckle type apron discouraging right turns. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the proposed driveway reconfiguration includes a standard 6-inch curb that follows the minimum turning radius that could accommodate truck movement. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that there would be no change with the employee parking on the southwest corner of the lot. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant has suggested landscaping that staff believes will not provide the screening the Commission requested with the original approval. Staff has recommended that the applicant provide a broad spreading tree such as a liquid amber, as shown in the photos. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that the trees between Learned Lumber and the JCC Project are specified by the landscape architect which are an evergreen tree forming a tall hedge that will screen up to 20 feet or more and will be provided by JCC. However, it is not fast growing. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Michael Learned stated that their application as submitted is a minor amendment to the Precise Development Plan. He explained that the trees along the northern boundary are proposed to be planted in the middle of their drainage system, which cannot be planted in this location. Further, he said that the parking as approved in May has vehicles being parked adjacent to their saw shed which would create a safety issue. He further said that they are obtaining a larger dust collection built for the saw and are currently working on their 6 th Street exit. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Mr. Learned explained that the entire parameter of the site has a drainage system which drains out the northeastern edge of the property. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Learned stated that the landscaping that they are proposing in the front are giant Bird of Paradise and will provide adequate screening. He also said that they are already 8 to 10 feet tall when planted.. He also stated that their driveway is 32 feet, and a knuckle will not prevent someone turning right down 6 th Street. He also clarified that a large truck or trailer cannot turn down 6 th street, as it is too narrow, and he believed that a knuckle would not be necessary. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that this hearing is a de novo hearing, and the Commission can approve, modify or deny the request. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Learned stated that Public Works approved the site drainage plan after the approval of Cal Trans. Director Blumenfeld explained that Mr. Learned received a Precise Development Plan and was compelled to provide a site plan for approval by the Community Development Department as a requirement to obtaining a grading permit or any other permits. If the plan submittal could not be implemented, the owner should not have submitted it. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Mr. Learned stated that the giant Bird of Paradise is a tropical-type tree and should be able to stand up to windy conditions. Commissioner Hoffman disagreed. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Learned stated that once the project is completed, the first driveway will be truck only access and the second driveway will have signage for customer parking. Scot Aldin stated that it was promised there would be a knuckle installed to prevent traffic coming down 6 th Street and that parking would be in the front. He said no trees have been planted between the residential properties and employee parking lot. He also noted that Bird of Paradise plants require a lot of upkeep and would not be practical. Pat Price expressed concern with any impacts to 8 th Street regarding the noise from the lumberyard. She believed that more landscaping and screening is needed. Pete Staples believed that the goal of beautifying Pacific Coast Highway has not been achieved. He would like to see more landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway. Rebuttal Mr. Learned explained that they still have not prepared a landscaping plan, but will be providing landscaping as soon as they have a workable plan. He also agreed to install screening between the residential properties and the lumberyard. He said that there have been a lot of delays, and noted that three different Fire Chiefs have given a different version of the Fire Code as to how the lumbar stack is to be arranged. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Mr. Learned explained that the saw was located in the middle of the yard to be as far as possible from the residential areas. He indicated that they would prefer to have 10 to 12 parking spaces in the front of the building and along the highway. However, he pointed out that pickup trucks have a tendency not to use the parking spaces. Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that Mr. Learned meet with the neighbors regarding the landscaping if he wants to install something other than what is on the approved plans. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Learned explained that they plan to have all the storage containers inside the gates and locked up at night. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that a saw was installed without approval. He also informed that the Vehicle Code governs truck weight and circulation on public streets. He indicated that staff’s recommendation for the landscaping was intended to provide good screening and is fast growing. Commissioner Hoffman believed that Bird of Paradise plants would not be the best choice for a commercial location on Pacific Coast Highway. He is also reluctant to reduce the number of trees. He suggested removing the customer parking sign designated on the first entrance from the north to prevent confusion with parking. Commissioner Pizer stated that he would like to see the applicant work with staff’s proposed plan, and he believed that the Bird of Paradise planting would not provide a screen for Pacific Coast Highway. Commissioner Tucker indicated that the economy has driven the yard producing more lumber to the betterment of the City; however, he stated he would like to still see the original approved plan. Further, he indicated that a catch basin could be installed to the west which would still allow planting in the drainage area. He expressed concern with the parking being scattered in staff’s plan, and he would like to see it more concentrated as in the original plan; however, he believed that Staff’s plan of May 15, 2000, may be the best solution at this time. He also said he would not want to see the Bird of Paradise planting in the front. Director Blumenfeld clarified that the plan of May 15, 2000 was prepared by Learned based upon staff’s input and that the parking which now conflicts with the saw location drove staff to recommend the most current revision dated 10/12/00. Commissioner Tucker indicated that the knuckle is needed, but he does not agree with changing the hours of operation and that a clarifier should be installed in the parking lot. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that 19 of the 20 parking spaces are required in the customer area. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld explained that the saw was installed and permits were obtained after the fact. He indicated the design for the site plan is a reflection of the location of the improvements that were in conflict with the original approval. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld explained that some of the grading work commenced concurrent with grading operations on the residential sites at the end of last year. He also stated that the drainage for the site is an engineering issue that is typically resolved with an overall plan for the site which is why the owner is required to prepare one. Director Blumenfeld explained that some parking spaces were provided on the northern wall to increase a setback condition and that the lumber racks would be further away from the street. Chairman Perrotti stated that landscaping can take many years for screening, and he would prefer to see the type of landscaping suggested by staff rather than Bird of Paradise plants. He would also like to see as much parking and landscaping toward Pacific Coast Highway as possible. He would prefer that the saw remain in the middle of the site and the hours of operation not be restricted. He agreed that the knuckle should be required to encourage the customers and employees to turn left exiting out of the 6 th Street driveway. He also preferred the October 12, 2000 plan revision made by staff. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that the space between the parking spaces may be an operational issue, but he indicated that it might be possible to move the parking over. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with the scattered parking on staff’s revised plan. Director Blumenfeld suggested that staff meet with the owner to prepare a plan that works for the owner and the City in order to allow the applicant to move ahead. Chairman Perrotti summarized that the Commission agreed on the following:
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to CONTINUE PDP 00-21, sending it back to staff with the Commission’s directions to work with the applicant to come up with a revised plan. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
The Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and described the project. He stated that a letter was received by Perry La Ness requesting staging of the construction occurring along the street. He stated that the Conditions of Approval could include a requirement for a Building Permit start date at some reasonable period of time to allow the other projects to significantly progress. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Director Blumenfeld stated that the plans are currently in zone check. He stated that structural check takes 6 to 8 weeks and the Resolution does not become effective until the final reading which is 30 days after the decision date. He said that the Holiday Inn Express is in finish stage, the 7-unit project is just in ground permit, and the 12-unit project is just in plan check. He also said there may be parking available on site. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Fran Uralman, Srour and Associates, stated she is representing the applicant and the project is in conformance. She said that they preserved the on street parking space. She said the project has the door on the front with the garages in the back giving a single family appearance. She questioned delaying the construction, however, as the developer is currently in escrow to purchase the property and there may be a financial burden involved. She stated that the neighbor to the east has some concerns regarding privacy with the second story windows looking down into his property. She suggested landscaping being installed on that side to work as a buffer and screen. She also would consider installing windows that cannot be seen through. She agreed with all the conditions in the proposed Resolution. Trevor Wright stated that he owns the property to the east of the development. He said there is a lot of development on the street, and he indicated that he has been disturbed in the early morning hours on Saturday. He also expressed concern with privacy issues. Jerry Compton expressed that impacting start dates could create financial burdens. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer indicated that it is unfair to stage construction which could create a financial burden to the developers. He said he has no problems with the plans. Commissioner Hoffman stated he would hesitate delaying start dates of construction. He believed that the neighborhood will be receiving an improvement with this project, and he appreciated the setback of the building. Commissioner Tucker believed it is not the Commission’s duty to restrict the construction start dates. He also believed that the height limit is over by 8 inches. He suggested that the streets be fixed via through the developers while the development is occurring. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the height is to the top of the roof sheeting which is the requirement. He indicated that the project conforms to the height requirements. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed that builders cannot be stopped from building. He liked the idea of the obscure glass being installed in the windows overlooking the neighbor’s property. Chairman Perrotti agreed with the Commission. He also sympathized with the neighbors concerning all of the development occurring on the street; however, he expressed concern with precedent setting by delaying construction. He also would like to see language in the Resolution concerning the landscaping for screening. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to APPROVE P.C. Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26057 for a two (2)-unit condominium project, at 709 and 711 First Place, Legally described as Lot 116, Walter Ransom Co’s Venable Place Tract, and to direct staff to work with the applicant regarding the landscaping used for screening. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
HEARING(S)
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration dates to November 17, 2001. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant is seeking an extension to the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to allow more time to obtain the building permit. The applicant anticipates submittal for plan check to occur later this month. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Fran Uralman, Srour and Associates, requested the extension. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE the extension request for CON 98-15/PDP 98-20. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the hearing was continued to allow time for the applicant to work with staff to improve the building elevations, particularly at the rear units, to be more consistent with the building elevation on the front portion of the project to comply with lot coverage requirements and to get verification from Public Works that re-striping along Hermosa Avenue would not cause the loss of any street parking. He said that the applicant has addressed the concerns with the building elevation modified, the roof line has been modified slightly, and the railings have been made consistent throughout the project to look like one development. Also, lot coverage is now reduced to 65 percent, and the off street parking re-striping is consistent with Public Works requirements. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Fran Uralman, Srour and Associates, stated that the architect has worked with staff and has come up with a good resolution to the Commission’s concerns at the last meeting. She said there have been some additional indents on part of the building in the rear to help accommodate the 65 percent lot coverage requirement. She believes that the architect has done a good job in coming up with a design that is more coherent with the rear unit blending in better with the project. She said they agree to all of the conditions. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that the project looks better and the look has improved from the west. Commissioner Tucker believed that the project is too large for the lot and is too massive. He said he would like to see more articulation on the front and sides. He said, however, the project meets all criteria. Commissioner Pizer stated that the applicant addressed both the parking and the appearance problems, and he has no problem approving the project. Commissioner Hoffman stated that the north elevation looks better and the applicant has addressed the Commission’s concerns. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the storage dimensions meet all requirements. Chairman Perrotti agreed that the applicant has complied with what the Commission requested concerning the rear unit, lot coverage and parking. He also pointed out that 3-unit projects become more crowded, but are allowable in the zoning. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to APPROVE P.C. Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #26045 for a three (3)-unit condominium project, at 1518, 1520 and 1522 Hermosa Avenue legally described as Lot 9, Block 33, first addition to Hermosa Tract. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
13. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing to install new store front windows and a new 44 inch high and 8 inch wide drink rail on the inside window sill. He said the drink rail would parallel the new window treatment along Pier Avenue. He stated this may potentially affect the use and because the improvement is being made along the Pier Plaza frontage, staff is referring the matter to Commission. He indicated that staff is requesting direction and a determination as to whether or not it is a major or minor modification. He also pointed out that window treatment on the frontage from the bar rail can be separated as two different determinations. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated the drawing on page 3 of the staff report was submitted by the owner. Commissioner Hoffman noted that the purpose of a drink rail is to provide stand up drinking, and he believed this would be a major modification, as it would be a proposal to move the use of the establishment from a restaurant to a bar use. Commissioner Pizer believed that the window treatment would be a minor change, but the bar rail would be a major change, as it would increase the bar business. Commissioner Tucker agreed. He believed the bar rail would be a major modification and would change the use to a bar with doubling the capacity. He believed that the use should stay as a restaurant. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed. Chairman Perrotti also agreed. He understood that Patrick Molloy’s is attempting to increase their seating; however, he expressed concern with the restaurant turning into a bar later in the evening. He also believed that the window treatment would also be a major modification, as it goes all the way across the front. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that by putting in sliding windows would open the bar into the patio. He also believed that the window treatment would be a major modification. The Planning Commission CONCURRED by Minute Order that the change would be a major modification.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and he stated that the applicant is now proposing to modify the existing restaurant, enclosing a portion of the existing restaurant patio in conjunction with improvements to the parking area. He stated staff is requesting Commission direction on whether changes to C.U.P. 96-16 and Parking Plan 00-1 are minor and can be approved by staff since the Commission has approved the applicant’s requests under separate applications and under a C.U.P. Chairman Perrotti pointed out that there is no increase in seating, and that some of the seating originally on the patio will now be incorporated into the building. The Planning Commission CONCURRED by Minute Order that the changes to C.U.P. 96-16 and Parking Plan 00-1 are a minor modification.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report, and he stated that the project is currently under construction and the owner is seeking to modify the plans to change the exterior appearance of the building, and reconfigure the interior stairway location that provides access to the mezzanine. He indicated that staff is seeking direction on changes to the building exterior. Commissioner Tucker stated that there is now a deck on the southerly exterior and in front of the restrooms, there is a loft going over to the northerly wall which will increase the mezzanine area. He pointed out that these changes are not what the Commission originally approved, and the project is growing larger which will increase the parking demand. He said he is not in favor of the changes. Commissioner Hoffman believed that there is a dramatic change in the exterior which would be considered a major change. He also expressed concern with precedent setting. Commissioner Pizer stated that he considers this a minor change, as the building is very small with not much usable space. Charles Belak-Berger, project architect, stated that the amount of storage area available on top has decreased because of the deck. He also indicated that the small bridge that is linking the area over the existing bathroom is for mechanical purposes for a water heater. He said moving the stairs toward the back frees a larger corridor to display a few more items down below. He also said that the mezzanine cannot be used for any other purpose other than storage, and the ceiling height will not be increased. He indicated that the balcony is purely an aesthetic consideration to make the building look more accessible and has no function. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Mr. Belak-Berger explained that the storage area has decreased by 22 square feet, and the building will not become larger. He stated that the area in back will now serve as a stairway. He informed that the mezzanine is designed to carry only 150 pounds of light load. Olari Yim, owner of the property, stated that the building was changed to look nicer aesthetically. She said the business will be only retail to bring value to the Hermosa Beach area. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the project is an extremely small commercial building and is unique in that it is located on a half lot in an area where there is very little commercial. He believed that the cosmetic changes are not that significant, the net change on the mezzanine is not changing the functional use and the amount of floor area on the balcony is not significant and shouldn’t change the overall function or use of the building. He believed that there would not be any precedent as the building is very small and unique. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed that the building is very small and the changes are cosmetic, and he believed it would be a minor change. Director Blumenfeld explained if it is decided that the changes are a major modification, the applicant would have to amend their previous approval. Commissioner Pizer indicated that there is no change in the functional use of the property, and the change in the physical appearance would be positive. He stated it would be more efficient for staff to forward modifications to the Planning Commission on a consistent basis rather than applicants reapplying, etc. Chairman Perrotti agreed and stated that the property is very unique and the applicant shouldn’t have to come back to the Commission, and he also agreed the changes would be a minor modification. He also would like staff to bring similar exterior changes in the future back to the Commission. Commissioner Hoffman agreed. The Planning Commission CONCURRED by Minute Order that the changes to the commercial building at 802 Hermosa Avenue are a minor modification.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report, and he stated that there is an attached letter which requests that the Planning Commission initiate a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the block of Ocean View Drive between 4 th and 5 th Street, and that the City consider changing the designations to Medium Density Residential and R-2. He indicated that the Planning Commission’s only decision this evening is to make a determination as to whether or not this General Plan Amendment should be initiated by Planning Commission, as there is a unanimous recommendation from all the affected owners. He stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission defer any decisions until a Housing Element is drafted, and the proposal could then be evaluated relative to the draft Housing Element. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated that elsewhere in the City there are areas where there is a mix of zones. Jerry Compton stated that the location is very unusual with R-1 abutting directly behind an SPA zone. He said there is R-3 on the north, SPA to the west, R-2 to the east and then R-1 that runs up the hill up 3 rd Street. He indicated that a single family home would never be built in this location, and he strongly agreed that this area needs to be rezoned. Commissioner Tucker agreed. Chairman Perrotti also agreed, but he indicated that he would like to wait until the Housing Element is completed. Commissioner Kersenboom agreed. Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with potential density. Jerry Compton informed that the property used to be R-2 and was then down zoned to R-1, and he said there would not be any impacts with density. The Planning Commission CONCURRED by Minute Order that all decisions will be deferred until the Housing Element of the General Plan is completed.
Director Blumenfeld requested that the Commission provide their comments on the Housing Element which will be incorporated, and then the draft document can be completed by November. He said that the City Council would then review the document at their December meeting.
Director Blumenfeld reminded the Planning Commission that there will be a joint meeting with the City Council on November 2, 2000. He requested any issues or recommendations to be discussed be submitted.
14. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. 15. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:10 pm. No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|