|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 02-20-01
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Tucker led the pledge of allegiance. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, and Chairman
Perrotti
CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Hoffman corrected under Agenda Item No. 6 on page 1, "Chairman Tucker" to read "Commissioner Tucker." He further clarified the wording under Agenda Item No. 10 on page 6 to read, "In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Olguin stated that the price of the units would reflect their high quality." Chairman Perrotti corrected the address under Agenda Item No. 7 on page 2 to read, "731 4th Street." MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the December 6, 2000 Planning Commission minutes, as amended. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to APPROVE Resolutions P.C. 00-62 through 00-65. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
Chairman Perrotti agreed with the revised application for the plan submittal requirements provided by staff. 6. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report, and described the property and its location. He stated that the applicant is requesting a Variance in order to allow open tandem parking along the south side of the lot with guest parking behind the tandem parking (within the Monterey Boulevard right-of-way). Also, a Variance is necessary from the small-lot open space requirements of the R-1 zone because 86 of the required 180 square feet of open space is located within the required side yard. He reviewed the four findings necessary to grant a Variance, and that staff believed it is possible to make these findings. With respect to Finding No. 1, the lot is considered a small lot under the City’s Zoning Ordinance and limits the potential to develop the lot with a standard size structure. Also, the lot has an unusual square shape with slightly lesser frontage on Circle Drive than unusual. With respect to Finding No. 2, without the Variance, the size and floor plan may not be comparable to neighboring homes. With respect to Finding No. 3, staff believes that the proposed project would complement the neighborhood and is consistent with the development in the area. Also, staff believes that a block wall along the property line be required to reduce any impacts from the three parking spaces along the southerly property line. With respect to Finding No. 4, the project is not unusually large or out of scale with the neighborhood, and is otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that the property line shown on the Monterey Blvd. side shows that the guest space intrudes beyond the property line and into the right-of-way. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld stated that there are currently two parking spaces on the property. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that there is no garage being planned, and the driveway will be used with an overhang from the structure. He also informed that the Zoning Ordinance does not require a covered garage. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the requirement for a guest parking space is 9 x 22 feet. He also indicated that the driveway will meet slope requirements and does not exceed 12.5 percent. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, presented a colored plan. She said that the property is exceptionally small and the property is in full compliance with the Code for R-1 use, with the lot coverage at 60 percent. She also said that most of the roof element is less than the permitted height for the area. She indicated that currently, there is a single car garage on the property that encroaches 1.5 to 2 feet onto the adjacent property on the west, and the garage will be demolished with the encroachment disappearing, and the side yard on the westerly property line will be cleaned up. She noted that the curb cut on the Circle Court side will be closed, and the curb cut on Monterey will be opened, with no loss of on street parking. Also, there will be improvements along the right-of-way subject to Public Works. She pointed out that the lot has a slope which makes the design options limited. She indicated that it would be very difficult to derive any livable area on the first floor if a full garage were required, and what would result would be living area above a garage only. She also indicated that by Code, the Monterey frontage cannot be used as the actual lot front yard. She pointed out that with the front yard facing Circle Court, the rear yard becomes the southerly lot line rather than the westerly lot line. She believed that the architect has done a good job utilizing the ground level yard area for open space along with distributing the open space throughout the unit, and orienting the living area as presented utilizes the view to the west. She also said that the proposal is well within a scale development that is acceptable for the area and is compatible with the adjacent neighbors. She said that the Code permits open parking, and the use of the home will not generate a lot of traffic in and out. She informed that the proposal is within the guidelines of the General Plan with regard to the single family use, and well within the goals of the community and the City and the findings can be made. She further stated that they accept the condition for the adjacent wall on the southerly property line. Grant Kirkpatrick, architect for the project, stated that they are before the Commission because all other potential possibilities to provide a home without a Variance have been exhausted. He said the proposal will be a retirement home for the applicants, and he believed that the Findings can be met. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that they looked at many ideas incorporating a two-car enclosed garage; however, the applicant is comfortable parking their cars within the overhang condition. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that they explored a one-car garage as well as a two-car tandem enclosed garage, but as soon as it becomes enclosed, space becomes limited. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he is not aware of any objections from the neighbor adjacent to the proposed driveway regarding the wall to be installed. He pointed out that the conditions in that area will be improved. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker stated he is against tandem parking and also suggested the right-of-way on Monterey be considered. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that a structure is not permitted to intrude in the right-of-way; however surface parking is allowed. Commissioner Pizer stated that he is also against tandem parking, but the proposal should be recognized as a single-family residence and the lot is very small. He also said the parking will be increased to 3 spaces. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld indicated that the minimum driveway width is 9 feet. Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with making Finding No. 2, and he believed that the community is being asked to sacrifice bulk beyond what the lot would tolerate. Chairman Perrotti indicated that he does not have a problem with tandem parking with R-1 properties, but he is opposed to tandem parking in condominiums, as the common area becomes involved. He believed he could make the four Findings. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE VAR 01-01 and ADOPT Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to approve the requested Variances to allow guest parking to be located behind tandem parking and to allow a portion of the side yard to count towards a portion of required open space at 2059 Monterey Boulevard legally described as a portion of Lot 12 Block 32 First Addition to Hermosa Beach. AYES: Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE VAR 01-01 and ADOPT Resolution 00-, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to approve the requested Variance to allow guest parking to be located behind tandem parking. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the front and rear dimensions are unique and the half lot is asymmetric. AYES: Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to CONTINUE VAR 01-01 for further study along with the consideration of investigating the Monterey Blvd. right-of-way as part of the open space. AYES: Hoffman, HHHPizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
8. CON – 00-22/PDP 00-25 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26172 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 636 9TH STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and described the request. He stated that the lot coverage is calculated at 67.1 percent which is above the maximum of 65 percent, and the applicant would need to reduce the building footprint by 2 percent to conform to the lot coverage requirement. He said the project provides the full complement of open space and is slightly under the height limit. He stated that staff recommends that a landscape plan be provided which would include the 36-inch box trees requirement. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated that photographs will be provided. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Jerry Compton , architect for the project, indicated that there will be adequate room for the turning radius, and the garage widths will be 3 feet wider than the minimum width. However, he expressed concern with pushing the building back, creating a tight situation of the lot and impacting the turning radius. He requested averaging the side yard, and he further believed that he is at the 65% lot coverage requirement currently. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with the building looking too massive and a 3/4 bath in the mezzanine area. He would also like to see the columns eliminated and the roof line between Units B and C on the east side be broken up over the entry. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld informed that the storage lockers require a minimum of 36 inches in depth. Commissioner Pizer believed that the building looks attractive, considering the bulk of the building. He also pointed out that side yard averaging has been allowed in other projects. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that the lot coverage was calculated with the requirement of 7.5 feet, calculating out at 67.1 percent. He further indicated that the Commission has permitted averaging along a side yard uniformly along the grade. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Perrotti to APPROVE CON 00-22/PDP 00-25 and ADOPT Resolution No. 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 #26172 for a three (3) unit condominium project, at 636 9 th Street and legally described as the West 50 feet of the East 120 feet of a portion of Lot 7, Block 78, 2 nd addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, submitting a landscape plan, and resolving in the plans the 7.5 foot setback and lot coverage calculation. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and described the proposal. He stated that the proposed open space is not adequately provided, and the height of the proposed structure is problematic, as critical points on the plans are not shown. Also, the landscape plan needs to include a minimum of two 36-inch box trees, and the lot coverage is slightly over at 67.8 percent. Commissioner Tucker believed that the plans indicate that the structure is a 3-story building with no basement. Director Blumenfeld clarified that a submittal generally includes the basement calculation, which is not included with these plans; however, in order to provide the roof deck and meet other egress requirements, this conformity to the Building Code requirement has to be met. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, stated that their intention is to be in full compliance with the Code. She said that the stairway has now been pulled back, not projecting into the area of the guest parking. She also said that the height does comply which will be verified during plan check. She stated that it is their intention to have a basement which is a Building Code requirement, and this also will be checked during plan check. She said the decks off the master bedrooms have been enlarged providing 50 square feet of calculated open space, and there is also open space off the living area which has been expanded. She also stated that the lot coverage will not exceed 65 percent. Commissioner Tucker stated he would like to see the finished elevations and calculations before he can approve the project. The architect for the project indicated that the proposed plans would be conforming to all the minimum standards that the Code requires, and the Commission’s concerns are addressed in the proposed conditions. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Melillo, owner of the project, stated that he will make sure all compliances will be met. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffman believed it is too preliminary to approve the plans, as there are still many outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Commissioners Pizer and Tucker agreed. Chairman Perrotti also agreed and stated that the application is too incomplete for approval. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, to CONTINUE to the February 20, 2001 meeting CON 00-24/PDP 00-26 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26219 for a two-unit condominium at 222 Culper Court. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To continue the public hearing. Director Blumenfeld indicated that this item is being requested to be continued to the February 20, 2001 meeting, as the completed application has not been received. He noted that the owner will be providing a revised plan and revised parking plan. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Variance is still in effect, but the Precise Plan is not, and staff is requiring that it be re-noticed as a new Precise Plan. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said that the health and fitness center has been reduced and the other uses are now being proposed as office rather than retail. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to CONTINUE Amendment to a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for expansion and remodel to an existing retail and entertainment center to accommodate office, retail and a health and fitness center at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
The Commission took at break at 8:45 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said General Plan amendment and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and explained that a General Plan amendment is necessary if the closure is to occur because Corona Street is identified as a through street which would be eliminated with the proposed closure. He said that the City Council approved a temporary closure in February 2000, and he also said that in April and May 2000, the Public Works Department conducted a traffic study and found that there was some spillover traffic as a result of the closure. He also indicated that there was positive impact by the neighborhood with no complaints with the traffic diversion. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated that since the street is just being closed and taken out of the circulation, there would be no change in the ownership of abutting property. Commissioner Hoffman corrected Item 1 under Section 4 of the Resolution to read, "Modifying the General Plan to close Corona Street to through traffic will serve to improve traffic and pedestrian safety, and have no significant impact on local traffic circulation." Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti pointed out that there are several other streets in the City that have more safety problems than this street, which should be considered by City Council. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE GP 00-4 and ADOPT Resolution 00-, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, recommending amendment to the Circulation Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan to permanently close Corona Street at its intersection with Prospect Avenue and Adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration, with corrections noted in the Resolution. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a Variance in order to exceed the maximum 5 percent coverage for over-height roof elements. He further reviewed the four findings to be met in order to grant a Variance. He stated that the building site and roof area are unusually small at 2600 square feet which causes the proportion of the elevator shaft, equipment room and appurtenant equipment and HVAC units to exceed the area restriction. He said that since the building has an uniquely small building footprint that strict application of the area restriction would preclude the placement of any of the required HVAC units on the roof. Staff believes that Finding No. 1 can be made on the basis of the exceptional circumstances limited to the property involved. He also stated that staff believes that Finding No. 2 can be met, since most of the surrounding buildings have a similar or greater amount of roof equipment because they contain a larger building footprint, or which exceed the 5 percent limitation because they are legal non-conforming to the requirement. He also said that since the additional roof coverage won’t be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity, staff believes Finding No. 3 can be met. He further indicated that staff believes that Finding No. 4 also can be met as the project and related roof equipment is consistent with area commercial development and the downtown improvement goals expressed in the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated he advised the owner to hold off completing the screening and completion of the HVAC system until this issue is resolved. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Larry Peha stated he is available for questions. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Mr. Peha explained that there were mechanical plans submitted prior to pulling their building permit, which were over 5 percent at that point. In response , Director Blumenfeld explained that planning staff only reviews architectural plans not mechanical plans and it is the architect’s responsibility to correctly show all information on the roof plan which is the plan received for review of roof top equipment. The roof plan that staff reviewed did not contain the required information on roof equipment. He said staff received a submittal initially that indicated only the equipment room and the elevator shaft area which complied with the 5 percent limit and the plans were approved on this basis. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Peha explained that there is currently the framing installed for the screen and they have taken this up to the height of the equipment. He pointed out that there are a couple of screens to the south that are built up higher than the equipment and could be lowered. He also said that they have put air handling units on the first two floors to reduce the amount of equipment on the roof. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the City was interested in developing a complete project and that a development requirement for the site would include an air handling system. Commissioner Tucker expressed concern with the equipment on the roof, and he believed that there are other ways to heat/cool the building which would take up less area. He suggested that the duct work could have run through the building instead of on the roof and used a hydroponic system. He further said he cannot make any of the Findings for a Variances. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld explained that since the building is unusually small even the elevator stair access required under the Building Code had to be provided offsite from the adjacent parking structure. He further clarified that a covenant is not required since both properties are owned by the City. Mr. Peha indicated that they have had a number of meetings with their mechanical engineer on how to mechanically condition the building, with little room to work with since the ceilings are only 8 feet. He pointed out that on the second floor has exposed duct work, because of the limited area between floors and in the building. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer stated that the elevator and HVAC equipment is necessary to the building, and he agreed with staff that the building site and roof area are small which makes a special condition. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated that the Code does not specifically define what must be screened as rooftop equipment, and he further stated there are numerous buildings in downtown that contain duct work that are not screened from view. Director Blumenfeld suggested a screen be provided which would follow the perimeter of the building, at the maximum parapet height of 36 inches. Chairman Perrotti believed that the building is unique, and he could make the four Findings to allow the Variance. Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that the building is new and believed that the Findings are not justified. He said he cannot make all of the Findings. MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to DENY Resolution 00-, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, denying the requested Variance to allow roof elements that exceed the height limit to cover more than five (5) percent of the roof at 1303 Hermosa Avenue legally described as Lot 29, Block 14 Hermosa Beach Tract. AYES: Hoffman, Tucker
MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to CONTINUE VAR 01-01 – Variance to allow the roof elements exceeding the height limit to cover more than 5 percent of the roof area at 1303 Hermosa Avenue. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
Commissioner Pizer left the dais at 9:30 p.m.
Staff Recommended Action: To review and comment. Director Blumenfeld indicated that staff is recommending to pull this item. He stated that on December 12, 2000, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Commission and directed staff to prepare an Ordinance to allow third story signs not to exceed 28 feet in height or the second story height, whichever is higher. He indicated that there is no action required by the Commission at this time. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld clarified that there was one example brought up at the City Council meeting which described the condition at the Beach House. He said the sign installed at the Beach House is slightly higher than the finished floor level from above the second story. The City Council felt that there were enough examples of signs which seemed to violate the intent of the second story limit or that were inconsistent with it, that were approved by staff. He noted there could appear to be a three-story building by actual height measurement which is only, in fact, a two-story building, and a sign could be located at the three story height based upon the wording of the Zone Code. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to RECEIVE AND FILE TEXT 00-1 – Text amendment to revise Chapter 17.50 of the Zone Code: Signs (to allow signs above the second story), Sections 17.50.120(G), 17.50.130(F) and 17.50.140(F) – Refer back from City Council. AYES: Hoffman, Tucker, Chairman Perrotti
HEARINGS(S) 14. C-25 – PROPOSED FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). Staff Recommended Action: To approve by minute order that the Five Year CIP is in conformity with the City’s General Plan. Director Blumenfeld gave a brief staff report and stated that each year over a five year term, the Planning Commission is asked to review consistency with the Capital Improvement Program and Funding Programs relative to the City’s General Plan. He stated that the Public Works Department has prepared its Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Long-Term Funding Program for Fiscal Year 99-00 through Fiscal Year 2003-4. He said that the CIP includes street and safety improvements, storm drain improvements, improvements to sewers, special projects to provide some additional on street parking, the Pier renovation, the Strand Bikeway and Pedestrian Path, new landscape and lighting and undergrounding districts and the City Hall remodel. He indicated that the Funding Program simply provides funding schedule based upon the City’s resources and operating budget. He indicated that staff has reviewed the plan with respect to the City’s General Plan which contains references to improving the commercial and residential neighborhood to the City along with other improvements in the City, and staff believes that the Commission can find consistency with the proposed CIP and General Plan. Commissioner Tucker commented that runoff from Lot A should go into a clarifier. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Tucker to APPROVE BY MINUTE ORDER that the Five-Year CIP is in conformity with the City’s General Plan.
15. STAFF ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated the owner has prepared plans for redevelopment of their property with a new single family home. He said that columns are proposed not to be attached to the balcony above but to maintain a gap between the columns and the underside of the balcony. This gap is proposed as a means to achieve consistency with the definition of lot coverage which is defined as the footprint of the building plus cantilevers and decks higher than 30 inches above the grade. Exceptions not to be included when calculating lot coverage are: architectural projections, eaves, and open and unenclosed balconies that project from the face of the building, not exceeding a five-foot projection. He stated that from the building plan, there is a balcony that meets the projection requirement, but it also contains columns below that are intended to provide no structural support, but are intended to provide aesthetic relief to balance the design of the building. He said that staff is seeking an interpretation as to whether "balconies that project from the face of the building" represents only an actual structural condition in relation to unenclosed balconies and lot coverage. Staff is of the opinion that allowing the addition of non-structural columns under an otherwise unenclosed and cantilevered balcony to give the appearance of being supported defeats the purpose of the current lot coverage definition. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the original intent seems to be to insure that there is not a flat building plane at the base but simply a projection that would add some architectural interest to the building. Commissioner Tucker agreed with staff and believed that the columns are unnecessary. Robert Schumann, owner of the property, stated that they are asking for the Commission’s consideration for the vertical columns to give the building a solid architectural balance and feel which makes the design superior. He indicated that the building immediately adjacent on the north is one of the tallest buildings on the Strand at 40 to 45 feet high. He explained that the solid base provided by the columns gives a substance that allows a better balance against the massive northerly building. He also said his building will be set back substantially further than the buildings to the north and south. He stated that the living room window on the west is almost 9 feet east of the front setback area. Commissioner Hoffman believed that the intent of the Ordinance is to prevent the enclosure of the open space, and the added columns start to enclose the space. The Commission AGREED BY MINUTE ORDER with staff in that allowing the addition of non-structural columns under an otherwise unenclosed and cantilevered balcony to give the appearance of being supported defeats the purpose of the current lot coverage definition.
Request for reconsideration of building improvements at 50A Pier Avenue, Patrick Molloy’s. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that on June 20, 2000, the Planning Commission denied an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 98-52) for the subject restaurant. The Planning Commission believed that the proposed revisions to the project plans and seating plans changed the use from restaurant to bar and increased the occupant load which would have resulted in increased parking demand for the business. He informed that the business owner has submitted a letter to clarify the intent of the proposed changes. The plans indicated a shelf area, referring to this shelf as an eating counter rather than "drinking rail," and the owner is willing to eliminate the shelf if it is perceived negatively by Commission. He indicated that in addition, the owner is proposing to install operable windows to improve ventilation in the day which will be closed in the evenings. He also indicated that the owner wishes to maintain 42-inch high table seating shown in the previous plans. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Mr. Fred Hahn, owner, explained that there are existing 42-inch high tables in front of the restaurant for an eating area. He also said that they are willing to take the railing out completely, and they are just asking for the window changes in the current plans. Mr. Hahn stated that they are trying to change the aesthetics of the restaurant in order to attract a more diversified group of people in the afternoons. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Hahn stated that the proposed windows will be 44 inches off the floor. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that the laminated glass is being recommended which has a better attenuation for noise. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated there are no provisions which would force the owner to close the windows at night unless there is amplified live entertainment. Director Blumenfeld suggested that a new plan be submitted, omitting what does not pertain to this request, eliminating the drink rail and only showing the window changes with a screen. The Commission APPROVED BY MINUTE ORDER the window changes at 50A Pier Avenue, Patrick Molloy’s. c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Community Development Department Activity Report of November, 2000. City Council minutes of November 28 and December 12, 2000. 16. COMMISSIONER ITEMS In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Commission has not approved nor has staff recommended many Variances, and he indicated that staff makes it very clear that four mandatory findings have to be made. He also said in respect to the two projects under consideration, the issues of uniqueness have to be looked at in concert with the other findings with respect to granting a Variance. He also suggested bringing to the Commission some specific discussion in case law that helps illustrate this point. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld stated he drafted a letter to Learned Lumber which gave the owner a date certain to complete the work, which if not done by that time, the matter will be referred back to the Commission. 17. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tucker, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to ADJOURN the meeting at 10:15 pm. No objections, so ordered.
|
|
|
|