|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 04-21-00
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY
OF
The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Perrotti at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz*, Pizer,
Chairman Perrotti
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
6.
ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
-
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS C-31 – COMPLETION OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT. INCLUDES AMENDING THE CITY’S COASTAL LAND USE PLAN, AND A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES OF THE LAND USE PLAN AND COASTAL ACT. WILL RESULT IN THE CITY OBTAINING PERMIT AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He indicated that the Coastal Act sets out regulations which guide the development of coastal resources. He said the State maintains authority over the City’s coastal regulations until such time as the City incorporates the goals of the Coastal Act into their local regulations. He also said that the purpose of the draft amendments will be to obtain certification on the City’s local coastal program. He indicated that last year, the City submitted a grant request to the California Coastal Commission and the City was awarded a grant to obtain funding to help the City prepare their local coastal program. With the approval of the documents being considered this evening, a subsequent decision hearing will be held the first week of April with a final consideration by the City Council. He said the matter will then be referred to the Coastal Commission for consideration and if approved, the Implementing Ordinance would be incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance as part of the City’s local regulations. He explained that while the City will retain coastal authority the Coastal Commission will still retain some of its permitting authority relative to the area known as the original permit jurisdiction area and appealable area. He indicated that all the properties within the Coastal Zone designated area would receive a CZ Coastal Zone designation appended to the standard designation. He also explained that the development standards within the City’s Coastal Zone would largely remain unchanged with the Implementing Ordinance simply mirroring the Zoning Ordinance with respect to development standards. Director Blumenfeld also noted that there are strikeouts (indicates areas in the Land Use Plan proposed for deletion) or areas underlined (indicates areas recommended for addition) in the documents received by the Commission. He further pointed out that after the draft was published, areas were picked up that required further refinement and clarification. He noted the following changes in the Land Use Plan: Page 4 – Delete the reference to the Downtown Implementation Plan relative to parking. Page 5 – Delete the reference to lease or purchase of parking resources and substitute with, "The City should maximize efficiency of parking in parking lots disbursed throughout the City and Downtown Enhancement District so as to minimize impact on parking demand to the City and its residents." Page 9 – Change paragraph 3 to read, "That whatever designation had the lessor designation." He reviewed that the Commission has received a Land Use Plan with corrections and revisions, an Implementing Ordinance and a matrix provided for comparison purposes. Brian James of the Planning Center presented a brief overview and presented the following for discussion:
Chairman Perrotti questioned the status of a lot that is part of an appealable area. Mr. James clarified that if only a portion of the lot is in the appealable area, the entire lot would be considered an appealable area. Commissioner Schwartz asked if prior comments and input into the original plan are still relevant today. Director Blumenfeld said this project has been initiated now because the Coastal Commission provided a grant to the City to provide the resources to complete the work. He further explained that the Coastal Program consists of the LUP and the Implementing Ordinance, and there was not an Implementing Ordinance prior to this time. He further pointed out that the original wording was left intact, with minor amendments made to the language and noted that much of the document is still relevant. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the railroad right-of-way on page 3 of the Land Use Plan. Director Blumenfeld indicated that this is the greenbelt area and refers to parking near the fields. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the VPD on page 3 of the Land Use Plan. Director Blumenfeld noted that the definition will be put back in before the abbreviation. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 4 of the Land Use Plan stating, "For new or expansions of existing retail and office development within the DED parking in excess of that existing on the site at the time of the proposal shall be provided at 65% of the current parking requirement." Director Blumenfeld clarified that this section is proposed to be added. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 5 of the Land Use Plan stating, "and the City shall construct new parking upon reaching that threshold limit or the City shall not approve new development beyond that threshold limit." Director Blumenfeld indicated that the City currently has an in lieu program which was based upon replenishing the parking that the City was granting in lieu after a certain threshold which was set at 100 spaces. He said the downtown parking has currently been replenished at 300 spaces. He said staff now has the ability to go forward with the in lieu program with a new threshold again of approximately 100 in lieu spaces. Director Blumenfeld noted that on page 5 of the Land Use Plan, leasing or purchasing parking is being deleted. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 7 of the Land Use Plan stating, "That the City should separate Strand uses that add to the congestion on the Strand between 10th and 15th Streets during the summer months." Director Blumenfeld explained that this suggests that some safety measures have been implemented. He agreed that this language may be better addressed in the paragraph above, Existing Policies and Programs. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the language on page 8 of the Land Use Plan stating, "The City, where feasible, should construct parkettes and pedestrian spaces similar to the one recently constructed at 13th, 14th and 15th Streets and Beach Drive." Director Blumenfeld noted that 13th and 14th Streets have special paving and landscaping that mirrors the Pier Plaza. Commissioner Schwartz requested clarification of the second program on page 9 of the Land Use Plan and asked if the Zoning Code and the General Plan have conformed. Director Blumenfeld stated no and that there are some inconsistent parcels. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the first policy under Future Policies and Programs on page 9 of the land Use Plan should be under Existing Policies and Programs. Director Blumenfeld indicated yes. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the third policy on page 10 of the Land Use Plan and asked if landscaping is feasible along the east side of the Strand. Mr. James commented that the parkettes in the previous policy could be an example. Director Blumenfeld further stated that any of the streets terminating at the Strand present this option. Commissioner Schwartz asked what is the exception and non-exception concerning Item 6 on page 7 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Mr. James explained that if you are converting these multiple unit residential structures to timeshares, this would be excluded from obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. He further indicated that he will check the applicability of condominiums. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the process of the public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding Item B, Appeal of a Non-Discretionary Project, on page 12 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Mr. James explained that if the item is appealed, it would go through City Council and then go to the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Schwartz questioned Item D, Continuation of Action, on page 12 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance and the limit of the continuation of public hearings. Director Blumenfeld said there is a process for timely review of projects that relates to permit streamlining, but there is not a set limit of public hearings and the Commission does it by policy. Commissioner Schwartz noted a typo on Item C, Local Appeals, on page 14 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance, "Action by the Director or ________ may be appealed to the Planning Commission." Commissioner Schwartz questioned what is appealable regarding Item F, Grounds for Appeal, on page 14 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Director Blumenfeld explained that anything can be appealed to City Council, but this section sets the grounds for appeal to the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the difference between an immaterial and material change under Item D, Action on Amendments, on page 16 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Mr. James said that the noticing is similar, but he noted the differences will be made more distinct. Commissioner Schwartz requested an explanation of Enforcement, on page 17 of the Draft Implementing Ordinance. Director Blumenfeld indicated authority along with responsibility is transferred with additional work involved. He further said that the vehicle for processing the appeals needs to be looked at and monitored. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti reminded the public that written correspondence can be sent into the City, the Commission is not making a final decision this evening and this item will be continued to April 5, 2000. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE C-31 – Completion of the Local Coastal Program pursuant to the California Coastal Act, to the April 5, 2000 meeting. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
The Commission took a break at 8:10 p.m.
8. CUP 99-3 – REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE, IBIZA. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the attached resolution modifying the Conditional Use Permit. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He reviewed the applicants violation of the existing CUP conditions related to the following items:
He reviewed the operating hours and Parking Plan. He further indicated that the City Attorney has advised that the CUP represents a substantial property right and that a revocation must be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.20 of the Zone Code. He reviewed the findings that would have to be met in order to revoke or modify a CUP. Alternately, he reviewed a list that staff has prepared as recommendations to use to modify the CUP. He also said staff is recommending to amend the CUP with a 90 day term to complete all the outstanding work and if after 90 days these items are not resolved, the matter be set for revocation. He pointed out that Sergeant Jaakola has provided a memorandum outlining the nuisance calls the Police Department received. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti asked about the status of the storage area. Mr. Wall indicated that the speakers have been removed. He pointed out the plans show this area as dining. Commissioner Hoffman suggested enclosing the patio. Mr. Wall indicated that one of the draws to their restaurant is the patio.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pizer was glad to hear Mr. Peiffer was at the restaurant and is trying to upgrade the restaurant to first class dining. He said he visited the restaurant and many of the items are not in compliance. He summarized a plan of action as follows:
Commissioner Schwartz believed that it is very easy to find conditions to revoke the CUP. She stated that the owners of the business have had a lot of time to comply and make progress. She recommended revocation of the CUP. Commissioner Ketz expressed frustration, and the owner has been before them many times denying that they have a problem. She agreed with Commissioner Pizer’s proposal adding the following:
Commissioner Hoffman indicated that a closing hour of 11 p.m. for a fine dining establishment should not be detrimental to the business. He also suggested closing the patio at sunset or enclosing the patio if longer hours are desired. He agreed that many items should have been corrected long ago, as they are minor. Chairman Perrotti announced that letters have been received from Wayne Harrod, Grace Ortiz, Micki Smallman and Lois Heintz concerning this item. Chairman Perrotti stated he is not in favor of revocation at this point. However, he said that the only action that has been taken is that the larger speakers have been removed, and comments from the Commission have been ignored. He also noted that the storage and occupancy issues still have not been resolved and should have been taken care of when the operation first began. He agreed with Commissioner Pizer’s implementation plan and agreed that a vestibule door would eliminate a lot of problems. He pointed out also that there are many successful restaurants in the City that close by 11 p.m. Commissioner Pizer suggested it would not be fair to revoke the CUP, as they were never cited for violations. He also said there is still a speaker in the patio area and some of the electrical connections looked unsafe. Chairman Perrotti asked about the status of the storage area. Director Blumenfeld said that the plan that was originally approved under the Resolution for the restaurant shows the area as storage. He believed that applicant is referring to an area on the building plans where nothing had been indicated on the original drawings. He said the plan checker noted in pencil "dining" because there is an exit door immediately adjacent and storage is not allowed around a required exit pursuant to the Building Code and was not a final approval. Further he clarified the occupancy load is based on 15 square feet per person, but the occupant load number that the applicant is using reflects the storage area as additional area to occupy, which is not approved. He also noted that if this area is approved as dining area, then the applicant would need to provide parking for it under a Parking Plan. Director Blumenfeld indicated that if the Commission agrees to roll back the hours, a Resolution would be brought back to reflect the changes. He said the matter would have to be set for hearing and amend the CUP to change the hours subsequently.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer to MODIFY CUP 99-3 incorporating the timing of Commissioner Pizer’s Implementation Plan with staff recommendations. Also, amending Commissioner Pizer’s Implementation Plan as follows: The removal of the first paragraph, #2; adding under (A) no dumping of trash or bottles between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.; adding under (C) construction of a vestibule; changing (C) to ten weeks; and come back for Planning Commission review in three months (June 20). AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
Director Blumenfeld indicated that this will be brought back in final form at the next meeting for final reading.
CON 99-30/PDP 99-36/VAR 99-7 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25678 FOR A CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX INTO A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND VARIANCE TO THE 30’ HEIGHT LIMIT AT 1136 – 1140 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 16, 1999, DECEMBER 1, 1999, JANUARY 18, 2000 AND FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETINGS).
City Planner Schubach indicated that this item has been withdrawn by the applicant.
PDP 00-3 – PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ADDITION OF A SECOND UNIT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 43 20TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETING).
City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He indicated that the applicant has revised the plans and is no longer a nonconforming remodel and meets all the current zoning requirements for the project except for enclosure of the trash area and the full 23 feet behind the one open parking space. He said, however, that these conditions have been included in the Precise Development Plan Resolution. Commissioner Pizer asked if the second unit can be less than a 1,000 square feet. City Planner Schubach indicated yes, since it is a Precise Development Plan and not a condominium project. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the separation of the garages. City Planner Schubach indicated that a condition could be added showing a separation of a two-car garage and one-car garage providing a side door for the one-car garage. He said, however, this is not a requirement. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked for clarification of the front elevation. The applicant indicated that it is visible through the windows on the rendering, which is a bit confusing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz stated that she would like to see
separation between the two-car garage and one-car garage.
Commissioner Pizer agreed.
MOTION
by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to
APPROVE
PDP 00-3 – Precise Development Plan for addition of a
second unit to an existing single family residence and the
remodel of an existing garage at 43 20th Street, subject to
staff’s conditions including the condition that the garage
be made into two separate garages.
VAR 00-1 – VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION AND REMODEL OF A BUILDING WITH NONCONFORMING FRONT AND SIDE YARDS AT 122 2ND STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: 1) LOT COVERAGE – 73% RATHER THAN MAXIMUM 65%; 2) INCREASE IN VALUATION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING GREATER THAN 100%; 3) PARKING – NO GUEST PARKING RATHER THAN REQUIRED ONE SPACE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MEETING).
City Planner Schubach indicated that the applicant is requesting to continue this item to the April 18, 2000, meeting. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Ketz to CONTINUE VAR 00-1 – Variance to allow the expansion and remodel of a building with nonconforming front and side yards at 122 2 nd Street with the following variances: 1) Lot coverage – 73% rather than maximum 65%; 2) Increase in valuation of nonconforming building greater than 100%; 3) Parking – no guest parking rather than required one space. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
ZON 00-1/CON 00-2/PDP 00-2 – ZONE CHANGE FROM
M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OR
TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #53116 FOR A TWELVE-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 603 1ST PLACE, AND 112, 138 & 142 ARDMORE
AVENUE.
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To recommend approval of said Zone Change and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. 2) To approve said Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 12-unit condominium and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He explained that at applicants’ requests in the past, various portions of the manufacturing zoned area have been changed to the R-2 zoning along Ardmore Avenue. He said that the applicant is requesting a change to R-2 to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. He also said that by combining the five lots, the applicant is able to construct up to twelve units allowing a better designed project with parking located on the interior of the project. Also, he said that staff has added the typical Conditions of Approval including significant landscaped area along the north property edge. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with clearance for the guest space. Ms. Vargo indicated that there would be adequate clearance with further shifting. Chairman Perrotti suggested installing a gazebo providing a more friendly area. Ms. Vargo indicated that this could be done, which would provide a usable area. Commissioner Ketz requested moving the trash area away from the open space. Ms. Vargo said that their intent was to locate the trash area where it would be convenient.
Rebuttal Ms. Vargo noted that the General Plan designation is for a density that is consistent with the proposed project. She said at the time the General Plan was changed in the area, an EIR would have been done for the evaluation of impacts on schools, fire, police and other City services. She also said at the time the General Plan designation was placed in this area, all of these factors were put into place. She pointed out that going through the building permit process, the project pays impact fees. She also said the answering service business that is currently there does not pay any sales tax to the City, and the other business pays a minimal sales tax of $1200 a year. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ketz stated that the buildings are large but meet all of the zoning requirements. Commissioner Schwartz agreed with the zone change, and she believed the project is nicely done. She again would like to see the guest parking made more usable, and also agreed that the courtyard should be made more inviting to the residents of the area. She also would like to see the trash area relocated. Commissioner Pizer agreed with the zone change and said that the internal parking access of the project is nice with less curb cuts. He also believed that the guest spaces should be widened for better utilization, and he too would like to see an alternate location for the trash. Chairman Perrotti also pointed out that City Council requested
that the property owner initiate the zone change, not the City.
He said that this is the case concerning this development and the
zoning should be R-2. He also believed that the configuration of
the development is better, as there is just two curb cuts on the
side streets off of Ardmore Avenue.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE ZON 00-1/CON 00-2/PDP 00-2 – Zone Change from M-1 to R-2, Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit per staff recommendations with the following modifications: 1) Revision of the plans to widen the guest parking spaces beyond the 8’ 6", 2) the common open space area include a gazebo or other structure, and 3) an alternate location be found for the trash area. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
The Commission took a break at 10:40 p.m.
CON 00-3/PDP 00-4 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#25473 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1041 MONTEREY
BOULEVARD/1042 BAYVIEW DRIVE.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said requests. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He indicated that the plans contain additional grade information demonstrating that there is a convex slope and staff has referred this to the Commission for confirmation. He also said the height of the proposed structure is 5.94 feet over the 30-foot height limit. He summarized that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt the Resolution approving the project with clarification of the height issue. Commissioner Schwartz requested clarification of the ground level versus basement bath requirements. Director Blumenfeld indicated that "ground level" will be reworded to "basement level." Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz agreed with meeting the findings for the convex slope but felt that the buildings are unattractive even though they are articulated. Chairman Perrotti believed that the Commission can find for a
convex slope, the project meets the height standards and staff
can work with the applicant to make the appropriate modifications
to the plans for further required articulation.
MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz and seconded by Commissioner Pizer to APPROVE CON 00-3/PDP 00-4 – Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #25473 for a two-unit condominium at 1041 Monterey Boulevard/1042 Bayview Drive as recommended by staff with the following conditions: 1) The reference to the ground level bathroom be changed to basement bathroom and be three-quarter; and 2) the architect developer work with staff to improve the elevation as one theme. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
14. L-5 – LEGAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE TWO
DWELLING UNITS AND CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO A BEDROOM EXISTING
WERE LAWFULLY CREATED AND CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY AT 77
14TH STREET/76 15TH COURT (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2000
MEETING).
Staff Recommended Action: To validate the two dwelling units, the west bedroom, and the conversion of the garage as legal nonconforming with respect to zoning requirements. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He indicated that staff is recommending based upon the evidence that the applicant has submitted and research into the file, that the Commission should be able to find that this is a legal nonconforming use. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission does not have latitude to allow a violation of the Building Code, but has latitude to make a determination relative to the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that in 1937, which was the earliest Building Code available, there was a requirement for a 3 foot separation to the property line..
Director Blumenfeld clarified that where there is a window opening less than 3 feet from the property line, it must be corrected. He further said that staff can infer from the assessor information that there was a building permit approving at portion of the project.
Director Blumenfeld suggested requiring a building permit and conformity to the Building Code on the westerly side where there is no permit record whatsoever. He also suggested that on the easterly side which seems to have more of a permit record that a building permit not be issued. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to ADOPT the Resolution for L-5 – at 77 14th Street/76 15th Court, with the amendment of Section 5, Items 2 and 3, inserting the word "westerly" before "property lines." AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
HEARING(S)
15. NR 00-1 – NONCONFORMING REMODEL AND 172
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION FOR AN EXISTING DUPLEX WITH ONE PARKING
SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT AT 641 AND 643 30TH STREET.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He indicated that it is a nonconforming use with one parking space per each dwelling unit on the property. He said that the maximum allowed addition is 250 square feet, which the applicant is well below at 172 square feet. Staff is recommending approval. Director Blumenfeld noted that the applicant’s name is shown incorrectly in the Resolution which has been corrected. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Ketz and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman to APPROVE NR 00-1 – Nonconforming remodel and 172 square foot addition for an existing duplex with one parking space per dwelling unit at 641 and 643 30th Street per staff recommendations including the modification of the name change in the Resolution. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
16. STAFF ITEMS
City Planner Schubach summarized the staff report. He requested clarification from the Commission as to whether the applicant can have just two 17-foot guest stalls and one required space rather than two 18-foot long spaces and one 17-foot setback. Director Blumenfeld clarified that a 17-foot setback is required and parking is only allowed in the front yard when it is located in a driveway leading to a garage. He further pointed out that required parking cannot be removed. He said in this case, there is no driveway leading to a garage and the owner is providing parking in the front yard. Commissioner Ketz noted that a 17 foot setback is required to prevent cars from hanging over the sidewalk. She agreed, however, that would not apply in this case. She further suggested that if it is determined that there is no setback because there is no garage and the applicant is not parking the first 10 feet, he can have two parking spaces. The Commission moved by Minute Order to
DIRECT
that there were two spaces provided originally and two spaces
provided currently with a required setback.
Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. Chairman Perrotti expressed that the Council may not have understood the 15% open space on roof decks. Director Blumenfeld indicated that he will clarify this in the follow up staff report to Council.
17. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chairman Perrotti requested the status of the Bijou building. Director Blumenfeld stated that they have completed their seismic retrofit and submitted plans for building shell improvements. He said there have been changes made and a building permit will be issued on the building shell which will include installing an elevator, dealing with fire exiting and escape and other building shell type improvements. He said as soon as this is completed, the applicant can submit tentative improvement plans and complete the project.
18. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chairman Perrotti to ADJOURN the meeting at 11:58 pm. No objections, so ordered. |
|
|
|