The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-7C~~ ~ CPD KG AS PF f Iplanlsharelpclstrptlta97(}03 wpd Santa Monica, Califarma Planrung Commission Mtg 7uly lb, 1997 TO The Honorable Plannmg Cornmission FROM Plamm~g Staff SUB3ECT Text Arnendment 97-OQ~ to Mad~iy Section 9 04 1$ 020(c} of Article IX of the Santa Montca Mumcipal Code Regardmg Non-Canformmg Buildings and Uses Address Citywide Applicant Edward Thomas Management Company INTRODUCTION Acti4n Proposed is the amendment of Sect~an 9 04 18 020(c} of Arucle IX af the Santa Mon~ca Mumc~pal Code to allow the replacement of non-conformi~g archrtectura~ features which have been remo~ed from any existuig build~ng wh~ch is des~gnated as a City of Santa Momca landmark ar is listed on either the California Reg~ster of Histor~cal Reso~rces or the National Reg~ster of Historic Pkaces Recomrnendat~on. Recommendanon of apprvval to City Counc~l of the propvsed text amendment Permit 5treamlmin~ Exnzrat~on Date. Not applicable SITE L~CATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed text amenclment wauld affect all prap~rti~s C~ty-wide that are designated as eitlier a Ctty of Santa Monaca Landmark or are iisted on the Californ~a Reg~ster of H~storzcal Resources or the National Register of Historic Places The sub~ect property for wluch the applzcation has been filed ~s located at 1901 Ocean Avenue (also listed as 1910 The Promenade} located m the R4 High Densrty Multiple-Family Resident~al D~strict PRdJECT DFSCRIPTION The appl~cant ~s propos~ng an amendment to Subchapter 9 44 18 (Non-ConfortYUng Buildings and Uses) by amen~ing Section s.o4 ~~ o2aEc> to al~ow the rep~acement of non-conforming arch~tectural features whzch have been removed from any exist~ng building wh~ch is designated as a Czty af Santa Monica landmark or is l~sted on either the Ca~iforn~a Register of Histortcai Resources or the National Register of Hzstoric Places 1 ~~~ MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFQRMANCF. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the M~ucipal Cade and in conformity with the General Plan u~. that Land Use Element Po~icy #3 1 3 states ""Encourage recent~on of histor~c and architecturally significant resources " The proposed text amendment will allow arch~tectural elements which have been removed from historically designated buildmgs in the C~ty to be restored CEOA STATUS The proposed Text Amendment ~s exempt from the gro~isions of CEQA pursuant to Class 5 af the State Gu~deli~es ~r~ that the proposed text amendment will allaw legal non-conform~ng historically-designated butldings to replace removed architecturai features The proposed text arnendment constiiutes a minor land use lurirtation with no changes m land use or denstty PUBLIC NQTIFICATIQ~T Notice of the public hearmg was published in The Outlook as reqt~~red by Gso~ernment Code Section G5091 and Section 9 04 20.22 050 of the Zoiung Ordinance ten days prior to the hearmg A copy af the notrce is contained ~n Attachment A ANALYSIS Background Pursuant to Section 9 04 20 16 020(a}(3) of the Zorung Ordinance, an application was filed wrth the C~tr for a Zonin~ Ord~nance Text Amendment to allow for the restoration, rehabilitatian andlor reconstruct~on of histor~cally-designated buildings t~ their origuial cond~tion The applicat~on was filed by the Edward Thomas Management Company, the pending new owners of the Prit~k~n Longevity Center located at 1910 Ocean A~enue Accordmg to the C}ty's H~storic Resources In~entory, chis buildmg zs eiigzble for local des~gnation as a C~ty landmark and is hsted as a Category 3S Nauvnal Register property as potent~ally eligible as a national landmark 'Ttze owners wish ta restore the buildmg to its original farm by replacing a penthouse which was damaged many years ago but never rebuilt The height and the floar area ratto of the existing building and the removed penthause do not compl~ with present ~onmg standards, therefore, the structure ~s cons~dered a legal, non-conforming building Text Amendment The applicant has propased the fallawing text amendment language 2 ,~~ t~}~~ Praposed Te~rt Amendment Adc3 Section 9 04 18 020(g) Restoratian, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction of Histarical Properties. Notwithstandmg any other prov~stans c~f th~s Code to the contrary, a nonconforming build~ng wh~ch ~s damaged or destroyed and which ~s l~sted an erther Nat~onal Register of H~storic Places ar the Califorma Register of Hxstorical Resources or which has been designateci as a Iandmark gursuant to the prav-sions of this Cade, may he restored, rehabilitated, and/or reconstructed to its onginal condrtYOn, regardless of the degree of damage suffered There shall be no tune lun~t within which such restoration, rehabil-tation, andlor reconstruction must be commenced, provided, however, that upan eornmeneemenc of s~eh restoration, rehabil~tatton, and/or recanstruct~on, such work shall be diliget~tly pursued to complet}an Such restorat~on, rehabilitation, andlor reconstrucuon shall be pernutted only m connection with those buildings far which a determmation authoriz~ng such restoration. reconstructton has been issued by 1) the National Park Ser~ice, fvr those buildings listed on the Natfonal Register of His~or~c Places, 2) the Cahfornia Office af Histonc Pzeservat~an, for thase buildings listed an the Califarnia Register of Historrcal Resaurces; or 3} in accardance wit~ the proced~res set forth rn Chapter 9 36 of tttis Code for those bu~id~ngs des~gnated as a City af Santa Momca Landmark The authoriz,ed restoration, rehabilitation, and/or reconstruction shall conform to the Secretary of rhe Interior's Standards and Guidelines fQr Rehab~litati~n Plamm~g staff bel~e~es the applicant's intent to allow replacement of nonc~nforming h~storic architectural features ss rr~ore clearly achieved by modify~ng the following sectian Language to be added ~n ualres Secuon 9 04 18 a20(c} Replac~ng Non-confarn~ng Features or Portions af Bu~ldings (c) Non-conform~ng features or portions of buildings that are remaved shall not be replaced unless they conform ta the prov~sians of this Chapter Notw~thstandtng this requ~remeru, non-confarmang archnectural features whrch have been removed fi-om am~ extsting 6utldtng whtch is designated as a Ctry of Sanra Monaca landmark, or l~sted on either the Calrfornia Register af Histancal Resources or the Nationa! Regrster af Historic Places may be replaced if the Landmarks Comrnassron determines that such ~feature contnbutes to the buildrng's hcstortc archttectural rntegri~j~ and that the reconstructaon conforms to the Secretarl~ of Intercor's Standards for Rehabrlrtatton I.andrr~rks Commcssian review of such reconsrructron shall be processed generall}- rn accordance with the procedures for processcng applrcatrons for Cemfacares of Apprupr~ateness contarned rn Santa Monica 3 ~... ~:}23 MuracipaI Code Sectzon 9 36 174 The determtnation of the Landmarks Comrnasscon under thts Section shall be appealable to the Plannang Cammassaon The Zoning Qrdinance currently allows the "xn-kind" reconstruction of des~gnated landmazks structures ar historically sigruficant buildings which are damaged or destroyed In addiuon, the Code allows for the restorat~on of non-conforming bu~ldings which are damaged or destroyed to an extent that is less than fift~~ percent of the bu~ldmg's replacemenc cost if restoration is commenced wzthu~ one year of the date the damage vccurred The proposed text amendment addresses situations where sigmficant ~rch~tectural features af an existing histortc bu~ldmg have been removed and could not be replaced under current de~elopment standards As proposed, these features cauld be repiaced sub~ect to a determination by the Landmarks Comm~ssion that such features contribute to the building's historic architectural mtegrtty and that the replacement conforms ro the Secretar3~ of Inter~vr's Standards for Rehabilttation The dec~szons of the Landmarks Comimssion ~n this regard would be appealable to the Planrung Commiss~on Anu~~~~.~t Comm~nts In reviewing the zo~ung text amendment language proposed hy staff, the applicant expressed concem that the re~yew process by the Landmarks Commission would cause additional delays m movmg forward w~tt~ the construetion of a restoration pro1ect Ac~dittonally, the appl~cant thoaght that the language ~roposed by staff implied that the arch~tectural features referenced 1n the text were removed vvluntarily and not as a result of fire or other damage Staff believes that review hj~ the Landmarks Commissran is essent~al to uasure that such features contribute to the buiiding's h~staric architecnFral integrity and that the reconstruction conforms ca the Secretary of the Inter~or's Standards for Reliabilitauon Staff does not bel~e~e that this rev~ew will cause s~gnificant delays Secondly, ~t is staff's intent~on through the proposed text amendment language to braaden the ctrcumstances under which a restaratron of architecturally his[oric features ma5~ occur than is currently allowed by the Zonmg Qrdmance Conclusion The proposed text amendment will permit, sub~ect to Landmark Comm~ssion approval, le~a~ non- conform~n~ historically-designated structures to be restored, rehabilitated and/or reeonstructed to their originat condit~on, thus a(lowing the most historically signifcant ~uildings in the City to reconstruct any lost historic architectural elemenFs RECOi~MENDATION It ~s recommended that [he Plannmg Comrniss~on recornmend to the C~ty Council adoption of the proposed Text Amendment to amend Se~tion 9 04 18 020(c} of the Zomng Ord~r~ance as set forth in Attachment D i~ased upon the following findings 4 .:* ~~~~ 1. The proposed Text Amendment is consistent in pnnc~ple with the goa~s, ob~ecn~es and policies, land uses and prvgrams of the C~ty's General Plan, specifical~y w~th Lartd Use Element Policy #3.1 3 wh~ch encourages the retention of tustoric and archrtecturally significant resources in that the proposed amendment w~ll allow for replacement of historic architectural features on des~gnated histarFC structures, thereby promoting the retention of archrtecturally sigruficant resources in the commumty 2 The public health, safety and ~eneral welfare requires the adagtion of the proposed Text Arnendment language m order to perm~t the restoration of architectural features which have been removed on buildings in the City that are h~starically designated Ttus amendment w~ll have a posit~~e unpact vn the general welfare af the cammunity because rt witl enab~e the restoratian of lost arctuteetural features ta histarically designated buildings chereby cantr~buting to Santa Man~ca's ~mportant archrtectural herita~e, visua~ character and sense of place Prepared by Karen Gmsberg, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner Paul Foley, Associate Planner Attachments A Notice of Publ~c Hearmg B Photographs of S~b~ect Property C Elevatzons and floor plans show~ng replaced penthouse at 1901 Ocean Avenue D Proposed Zonmg Text Amendment language f 1planlsharelpclstrpt1ta97003 5 +~ ~ €) ~ ~l ~- ~~2s ATTAC H M E N T A ~- ~~ z ; -p ~~2~ OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARTNG Subject of Hearing: Te~t Amendment 97-003 Citywide Applicant: Edward T`hamas Management Campany A Pubiic Hear~ng will be held by the Plannin~ Cammission on the following request Application for an amendrrtent to the Comprehenssve La~d Use and Zonuig Ordinance, Subchapter 9(}4 1$ (Non-Conforming Buildings and Uscs), to allow the replacement of non-conformm~ arcYutectural features which have been removed from any ex~sting buildmg which is designated as a City of Santa Mvnaca landmark or listed on either the Cal~fornia Register af H~storical Resaurces br the National Register of Historic Places (Planner Paul Foley} TIME: WEDNESDAY, July 2, 1997 AT 7:p0 P.M. L~CATION: COUNCII., CHAMBER, R~OM 213, CITY HALL 1685 MAIN STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFURNIA THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ENCOURAGES PUBLIC COMMENTS iNTERESTED PERSONS MAY COMMENT AT THE HEARiNG, OR BY WRITING A LETTER Ixtters should t~e addressed to Plannuig Drvision. Room 212 1685 Main Street Santa Momca, Californza 90401 Attn (Paul Fo~e}~, Associate Planner) Additional information may be obtained from the City Planning Divisian. To request review of a project file and/or for more information, please call (310) 45$-$341. The meetmg facility is accessible If you need any disabil~ty-related accommadat~ans, please contact staff at {310} 458-87Q1 TDD Num~er (310) 458-8696 The Santa Monua Blue Bus Lmes #2, #3 anci #8 serve City Hall Pursuant to Californ~a Government Cade Sect~on b50(}9{b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be lunited to only those issues raised at the Public Hearmg described in this notace, or in written correspondence delrvered to the Ciry of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Publ~c Hearing ,.z~ ~z~ Esta es una noticia de una audencia publica para revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mas informacion, fa~or de llamar a Linnea Hernandez en la Di~ision de Planuficacian al numero (310) 458-8341 f '~plan~~share~pc'.nottces1ta97003 APPROVED AS TO F~RM KAREN GINSBERG Plamm~g Manager ,~ ~ ~l ~ l~ ATTACHMENT B :,~ ~3{ ~ M_ ~~z ShTEST SII3E ~~T~S i SID~ 1 91 G Ccear. F~ont Walk, ~anta TMionica, Californaa 90405 iV'OR.miH SIDE EaST SI~E 1 91 G~ ~cear_ ~ rcn~ Walk, San~a Mor,ica, CaZifornia 90445 E~ST SIDE ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~. , ~~ SOL'•TH SIDE 1910 Ocean =rant ~ti'alk, Sa~?ta '_+~onica, Californ~a 90405 ~ ~ SOUTH SIDE LOOKING VORTH 191G Oczan rrant Walk~ 5anta Mor:ica, Californ~a 90405 ~~C? ATTACH M ENT C 4~. F}39 ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h.,.. ~ ~ - i r I .. ` . ~ # i , i • , `, , ~ ~ ~:i ,~I i. ~~ti ~i'~' '1~ ~ ! •~ ' ' . . ~~ _ ' _ . ~ ~ • : ' ~ i..i i.. . ~ _ r r ! ,:~a i~ i ~+ ~~' ~ ~ ~' ~ t ~ , • e~ . . • - ; ~ ~w . ' ~ ~ ~ .~. ~ . . F . • ~ i , . - I • EAST ELEVATIUN ti , _ ~ a_ . ~ ' _ _ . .~ . • . . ~ ---. . ~ - ~- • • titi: ;.,..c,~ti 1. .~ 7~^rAo-~'~'-ti.;4~6,ti,"fi~ ~ Zt ~^7~-i,*7 - . - • _ ~~~~i" ~ .~ Ra, ~ ~ a, ~ ~l~ ~~ _ . ~..~ _~ .`~,~~ ~ ~ ~~~~1 ,~~ti ~f~ ~ S~ ~ -!' '~ x- , . .. f _.s•..C. .. t .. + , ~~ • ~- '~ : ' ~ ' ~ ' - . - ~ s ~ ~ ' } * f- s. '• __' ' ' ' " ' ' _ ' " ' _ ' ' " ' +~.{a.~".-M- ~ ~ ~ ' ~ .+~ ,_ , i 1 ~y ' , ~' ". . • - ' ' ~ ~ s"-~ 9~+e- ~ :s s%' ±~ ~'` ~ ~T,~' • ~ ~~~ ~~ Hotel Casa del Mar wEST ~~EVa~io+~ ' APRII ~ 1997 ~« ` ` ~~ :.~~~ , . 5,W1A MONICA, CALIFORNI0. , , , , i , , ~~ N~, .-., .~ . _ . . . -- - 1 a ,h i~ i i ~v ~ -d:' i I ~ ' ~ ~ ~` ~ C , ~ ~ -~ - ~1 ~ JI ~ ~ j - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~~ - ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ , ~ , , ~~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ -., ~ ~~ { ~ ' ao i ~ I ... ~ {~ ~ I ~ ~ A ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ Hotel Casa del Mar ~'~"~""`~ .~.i MON504 ~ESIfM ~55MI~~ES V~ t~-~A'w ~.lln PENTHDUSE FlQOR PLAM ^ `~' SAMA Mpry1Cq CAl60NNIl APRIL 7,1997 ,.., ,.",~„ . .. ~.~; ., .. . ,,. ' °°~•tR"""~~`••,,;~~•~ N ~ ,~~ » ,., "~,,,~,.. , n ~~, • h i~IS CMA fe 311 l;11!{~' I~. I~) IS! Mh ATTACHMENT D ~~ ~i43 r x~ ~ /~ /~~ ~~ Y PROPOSED ZONIlVG ~RDTNANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Language ta be added in rtalres Sect~on 9 04 ~ 8 024(c) Replacing Non-confornu~g Features or Portions of Buildi~ngs (c) Non-confornung features or portions of buildings that are remo~ed shall not be replaced unless they conform to the provis~ons of ttus Chapter Notwathstandrng ~hrs requrremerrt, non- confarming archrtectural features which have been removed from arry exJShng buiddrng which is destgnated as a City of Santa Mor~rca larldmark, or lrsted an eJther the Calrfarnra Regzster of Historieal Resourees or rhe Nat~or~al Regrster of Historrc Places may be replaced lf the Landmarks Cammissron deternrrrres that srrch fe~ture coratrrbutes to the buildtng's hrstorrc architectural rntegrrty and that the reeonstruchon canforms to ihe Secretary of 1'nterrar's Standards for Rehahrlitatron La~admrrrks Commrssron revaew of such reconsiructron shall be processed generaddy tn acenrdunce wrth the procedures for processrng applrcations far Certrficates of Approprrateness contarned m SantaMonicaMuractpal Cade Sectron 9 36170 The determrrtrrtlorr af the Landmarks Commrssion under thrs Sectron shall l~ appealaLle to the Plamm~g Commrssion. ~`"~ L~~j "" 046 ATTACHMENT D ;~47 ~~ ~~~~ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF SANTA M~NICA WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1997 CiTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M RODM 213, ClTY HALL 1. CALL TO ORD~R: The meeting was called to order at 7.46 p rn. 2. P~EDGE OF ALLEGlANCE: Comm~ssioner Gruber led the Piedge of A11eg~ance 3. ROLL CAL.L • Present #Cer~neth Bre~sch Frank Gruber Lou Moench Kathy Weremiulc John Zinner, Chairpersan Absent Berton R. Sradley Er~c Charles Parlee Also Presen~• Michael Feinstem, Crty Cou~cil Liaison KyEe Ferstead, Commiss~on Secretary 5uzanne Friclc, Director of Pfanning/PCD Karen G~nsberg, Planning Manager Susan Healy Keene, Assocjate Planner Sarah Le~uer~e, Associate Planner David M~rt~n, ACting Sen~or Planner Amanda Scl~achter, Seniar Plan~er Mary S~robel, Deputy City Attorney 4 pLANNtNG DIRECTQR'S R~PORT. Ms. Fr~ck gave the ~~rector's Report. St~e reported tt~at th~e C~ty Counc+! w~!! be hearing the Edgemar appeals on August 12, 1997 Chair Zinner asked Ms FriclE for the status of the C~rculation Eiement upclate, Ms Frick explained the current time line. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ,~ `~ ~4~ Plannin~ Commission Au~ust fi, 't 997 Cammissioner Weremiul< made a mot~on to appro~e the mmutes far June 1 1, 1997, and June 1$, 1997, as submitted, Commissioner Gruber seconded the motion, wh~ch was ap~raved by voice ~ote. fi. PUBLIC HEARINGS Cansent Calendar 6-A: De~elonment Re~iew 97-~02. 201 5anCa Monica Boule~ard and 'f333 Second Street. De~e~anrt~ent Review to a~low a 357 sauare foot brjdae connectEna the fifth floors of two seoarate b~~ldinas at 201 Santa Monica Bouievard and i 333 Second Street as oermi#teci b~ Santa Monica Munjci~af Code Sect~on 9 04.08.15.060. The bridae w~l! s~an the 20 feet betweEn the fifth floors af the two buildinas (Planner. Sarah Le~~une) Aonlicant: David Hf~bert. Comm~ssianer Weremiuk made a mot~on to appro~e the Consent Calendar. Commissianer Bre~sch seconded the motion, which was ap~raved by ~oice vote 7. Public Hearings: Cont~nued #rom Jufy 2, 1997 and Juiy 16, 1997 A. Cond~tionat Use Permit 97-OQ3. 1910 Ocean Awenue. R-4. Aanlication for a Conditiona! Use ~ermit to aflow the issuance of a Tv~e-47 iOn- Saie Gen~ra] Eat~r~a P9ace1, T~pe-6B {Controlled Accessl and Tv~e-68 fPartabte Bar} alcohoP I~cens~s to be rssued in coniunct~on w~th a oror~osed hotel remodel located at 1910 Ocean Avenue The Candit~onal Use Permi~ wauld ~Ilow th~ hotel ~p $erWe alcohal within oubl#c function areas Encluding the lobb~. dinina and lounae areas. ~ool d~ck. meetina and ballroam facEl~t~es Alcohof wp~,ld also be a~~ifable in all auest roarr-s and su~tes from controffed access I~auor cabinets and from room ser~ice. iPlanner, Paul Folevl APPLfCANT; Edward Thamas Manaaem~n~ Comqa~v. The applicant's representat~ve, George Mihlsten, 633 West Frfth 5treet, Los Angel~s, was present to d~scuss the applicant The follawing members of the pubiic spol<e Janel Jones, 41-B Vicente Terrace, Santa Man~ca 90401 Stephan~e Sarbanell, 17 Seaview Terrace, Santa Manica 90401 St~ve Brackett, Santa Mon~ca Poi~ce Off~cers Assac , 1685 Main Street Dar~jel L Ehrler, Exec Director, Santa Monica CF~amber of Cornmerce Jufie Lopez Dad, 117 Pacific Street, Santa Monica 90405 Stacey Ingber, 1307 E~ghteenth Street #3, Santa Monica 90444 Harry Bennett, 324 Soutf; Beverly Hills, Los Artgeles 90212 Donna Alvarez, 339 Virgmia A~enue, Santa Man~ca 904~4 Nancy Cattell, 261 'f Efe~enth Street #4, Santa Monica 9~445 frene ZiW~, 2~'E ~~~cl~d Street, Santa Monica 90405 E.e~gt~ Kavanaugh, 930 T~vent~eth Street, Santa Monica 90403 ~ -r ~~~! Plannin~ Commission August f, 1997 Roxanne Auer, 525 Colarado Avenue, Santa Monica 90401 Also spoke far Beth Leder-Paci<, 7~ 4 Navy Street, Santa Monica 90405 One rrtember af the pubf~c, Susan W~ite, 650 Ker~s~ngton Road #4, Santa Monica 90445, subrn~tted a request to spealc farm, but was not present when her name was calfed Mr, M~hlsten spolce in rebuttal to the public commer~t. Camm~ss~oner Gruber asl~ed Mr. Mihlsten if h~ was aware of any parking problems with the Shutters Hotel. Mr Mihlsten stated that he is unaware of any parking problems for the hotel. Councrl Lia~son Fe~nstein asiced Mr. Mihlsten if he knew when the property was fast uti[tzed as a h~tei Mr. M~hlsten stated that it is his understanciing thart the current use ~s constdered a hotei under the de#mit~on cited in the Municipal Code He also stated that the building was bu~lt as a hotel ~n thE early 1920s Carnm~ss~oner Werer~~ul< aslced about park~ng and traffic issues for t~e property Mr M~hlsten stated that this w~l! be d~scussed under the next publ~c hearing rtem (7-81, hawe~er he d~d rr~ent~an that a ualet pian is being devis~d far review by the Parl<ing ar~d Traffic Engineering Di~FSion Commissia~er Werem~ul< asked Ef the staff report was correct that se~enty par{cing spaces ~n the Shutters parlung area are reserved far use by the 19~ a ~cean bu~fd~ng Mr Mihlsten answered Gn the affirmative CommEssioner U1lerem~uk aslced abaut the p(anned restoratron of the hotef bu~lding Mr M~hlsten stated that tF~is issue wilf be discussed under Etem 7-C of ton~ght's agenda Commiss~oner Weremiul< aslced how this pra~ect wif! be a benefit to the cammun~ty Mr Tim DuBo+s resp~nded far Mr M~hlster~ and expla~ned that the restoratinn w~if cost approx~mately $50-55 million and wtif include a se~smic retrofit, histor3c restoration to tY~e appearance of the building cn 1926, life safety upgrade and American5 w~th Disab~l~t~es Act {ADA] requ~rements. C~a~r Z~nner closed tt~e public hearing Cha~r Zinner aslceci for cfar~fication an the `AA" ~ssUe Deputy City Attarney Strobel expla~ned that the previously appro~ed Adm~nistrative Approval (AA) was for the Prit~kin Center as a hot~l use and there was 3 ~ `~ [~ ~ .~ Plannin~ Commiss~or~ Au~ust 6, 1997 no request for alcaho~ sales Sf~e stated that if the Commission is concerned with the Acfm~n~strat~ve Approval, then the issue shou~d t~e ager~dized for a later discussian on ~ossEble revocation of the AA. Comm~ssioner Gruber as~ed thE C~ty Attomey to explain the reasonEng that the site use is consider~d a hotel. Deputy City Attorney Strobel referred the question to the Zon~ng AdmEn~strator, Ms. Frick Ms. Fr~ck explain~d the Administrative Approval pracess, which evaluates whether or not a project meets the ZvnEng Ordinance standards. She cited the criteria as includ~ng researching the pr~or uses of the property, the locat~on (wh~ch is Er~ the R-4 Beact~ Overlay zone}, r~search~ng the building ~aermits, the business I~cense records, the o~erall histary of the site, and prev~ous Pianning ~ivis~an actians. She stated that based an the ev~dence, the s~te has ~ee~ used as a hote! and club s~nce it was built and 4vas a hoteE use when Proposit~on S was appro~ed by the ~aters ~n 1990 Chair Zinner asl<ed abo~t an ~ssue raised regardtr~g callectian of the hatel occu~ancy tax Ms Fr~ck stated that wh~le th~s tax has not been collected through some overs~ght ~n the Business LECense Division, the City is work~ng on an agreement for the collectian of the back taxes. C~ty Counc~f Lia~son ~e~nste~n aslced about an ~nterpretation regarding the inter~s~ty of use for the property Deputy C~ty Attorney Strobel stated the Proposal ~s not mterpreted as an mtensrftcat~on. C~ty Council Ltaison ~einstein aslced if the hotel s~te to the sQUth of the Lowe's Hotel has an a(cohol permit. Ms. Frick stated that the "hole in the graur~d" does nat ha~e an alcohol perrnrt approval at th~s time. C~ty Co~nc~l ~iaison Feinstein aslced if a site by site analysis was done on affected pro~ert~es in 1990 for Proposition S. Ms Frick stated that s1~e is not aware of a~y such study CEty Counc~l Liaison Fefnstein com~ented that tf~e s~te appears to ha~e been a hotel in the formal interpretation o# the word in 1952. Ms ~r~ck stated that the site was descri~ed ~n 1921 as club and hatel and named the Del Mar CIuE~ SF~e also sta#eci that ~n the 'f 985 Pfanning Division fil~, the Pr~tik~n application cites the hrstory af the property as a"hotel m 1921" Ms Fr~ck caut~o~ed that the descriptian and defin~tion of a hotel has changed sinee 1921 and that clubs of that era functioned as hoteEs w~tY~ overn~ght aecommodations Commiss~oner BreESCh commented on the ~ncluded the long term occupancy of rooms actuaf sale of roorns He c~ted hotef/clubs ~ that st~ll funct~on ~n this manner today h~stflry of hotels, wh~ct~ through rentals and the n New York and Chicaga 4 . .~ ~ 5 2 Pianning Commission August 6, 7 997 Comrn~ssianer Gruber stated that, based on the pre~iaus discussion, he has no caneerns regarding the Zon~ng Administrator findings. CommESSianer Moench asked if the AA is r~le~ant to the CUP appl~catian. Chair Zinner stated ~t is only relevant if someone w~shes ta agendize ~t far discussion at a later date Comm~ss~oner Moench asked ~f the CU~ appl~cation far alcahol is indEpendent of the AA appra~al. Staff responded in the aff~rmati~e. Cammissiqn~r Weremiuk stated that she E~as no problem with the issues regarding the AA and she does not want the top~c agendized for later discussion. She stated that she is pleased with the work being done on tF~ES pro~ect and the effort to sa~e the h~stonc bnck building. She also stated ~hat there are no goad arguments agains~ grant~ng the alcohof CUP She aslced about the requirement for food serv~ce a~a~la~~i~ty when alcohof rs being served. Mr Martm stated that #oad service must be a~a~lable dur~ng the hours af alcohol service, wY-fch is sirnifar to other alcohol apprava[s. Corr~missioner Weremiuk asked if alcohol would be perm~tted to be served in meeting rooms Mr Mart~n ar~swered in the affirmative. Commissiorter iNerem~ul~ commented on the lack af a traff~c and circulation plan for the hotel and the current "grandparented" parking for the }~roperty She suggested that there be a condrtion requinng a valet parlung plan. Ms Friclc stated that such a cond~tion could be added anci a valet perm~t could be obtained from the C~ty Parking and Traffic Engineer~ng DivisEon Commissioner Werem~ufc made a mot~on for appro~ai of the CUP with the conditaon that the appl~cant submit a valet parking plan for ap~raval. Ms Frick suggested the word~ng for the condit~an be t1~at "a parkmg and circulat~an plan be subrnitted for approval to t~e Director of Plann~ng prior to issuance of a build~ng perm~t" Cammissioner Moer~ch seconded the motaon Commissioner Gruber commented on public comments regarding drjnlcing and the abuse o# alcahol He sta~ecf that this type af facility will not pose a pro~lem as sometimes ~s associated wEth alcohol autlets. Commjssianer Moench stated that, as a bar own~r, the cancerns raised by the publ~c are maot sinc~ people already ha~e 24 fi~our a day acc~ss ~ ~m, ~~53 Plannin~ Cammission Au~ust 6, 1997 ta alcohol in their own homes and a hatel is I~Ice a home away from horrEe. He also cammented or~ the State regulations and code r~qu~rements regarding alcohol Commissioner BreESCh offered a f~nding that a~cohal service is an intregal, but mcidentai, part of the use of the property, whECh will be a fEVe-star hotel. He commented that nat many uses can save this particular buildEng, whECh is ~ery histaric and part of the character of the beacl~ Cammiss~oner Bre~sch stated that he worked on Propasition S and part of the ~nten# af that propositian was ta save older buildings along the beach#ront He further stated that housing can not be dane fn this ~uilding As a preser~at~onist, he stated tt~at the building cor~tributes to the C~ty's sustainable goals and saves landfill space. He also stated that ct wall tal<e "deep pocl<ets" ta save this building, which ~s deterior~ting He comrr~ented that ~t is fortunate t~at someone has the amb~tron and f~nding to rehab tF~e buEld~ng and that the Federal Tax credits the property owner rece~ves w~tl retu~n to the C~ty. Lastiy, he stat~d that th~s pro~ect is "extremely beneficEal° to Sanrta Mon~ca. Cha~r Z~nner cornme~ted that there ~s little he can add #a Comm~ss~aner Breisch's comrnents He stated that he always supports reasonable CUPs far alcohol He c~mmented that the pro~ect w~11 be a first class operation and ti~e hotel wil! be an ass~t for the City He also stated that he supports Propos~t~on S CommissEOner 1~Nerem~ulc comrnented on a recent wafk-through of the property she did and descnbed the great publ~c space and expanse of wrndows She also cammented on the costs to retrofrt and rehab~l~tate the build~ng Chair Z~nner corr~mented that the ground floor at the beach leve( has been cfosed off ~or years and w3fl be reopened as a public space. The mo~ion was approved by t~e followmg vote. AYES Bre~seh, Gruber, Moench, Werem~uk, Zinner, ABSENT Bradley, Parlee 7-B. Conditional Use Permit 97-00$. 'f$28 Qeean Avenue. RVC. Pursuant to ~~n~a Monica Mun~cipal Code $eGtipn 9 04.20.12 ~6Qfb~. Prooosed is a Condrtional Use Permit to extend for a neriod of eiaF~teen f18} months the riahts aranted bv CUP 94-Q~ 2, which was aooro~ed on Ma~ 3. 1 99~ and subseauentl~ extendecf to Mav ~ 7. '~ 997. to allow a 127-soace surface aarlc,ng !~t ~Q l~e deve~oaed in the RVC Dastrict. As ~.rpoased, tf~e oarkina lot uvo~l~l h~ve v~hi~ular ~naress an~i ~aress from Pico Boule~ard. a small quard!cashier structure, and nro~ide Eandsca~~na m excess of th~ 1an~lscao~na reauirements of the Zonma Ordinance The ~ro~osal m~~~$ a11 ~~ofrcable de~elooment standards. ~ `°°~ E~5~ Plannin~ Commissian Au~ust 6, 1997 {Planner• Paul ~ole~l APPLfCANT: DMP. Inc . dba The Pr~tik~n Lonqev~tv Center The applicant's represe~tat~ve, Kev~n Kozal of the ~.aw Dff~Ces af Lawrence ant~ Hard~ng, 1250 S~xth Street, Santa Monica, was present ta disc~ss the appl~cat~an The followmg members of the publ~c addressed the Comm~ss~on• Douglas Heller, 708 Cedar Street, Un~~ B, Santa Mon~ca, 904Q~ Ste~e Bracl<ett, Santa Mon~ca Poliee 0#ftcers Assoc , 1685 Main Street Roxanne Auer, 525 Colorado A~enue, Santa Monica 9Q401 The follow~ng mernbers af ~he publ~c subrr~itted requests to speak, but were not present when their names were caller! Jane! Jones, 41-5 Vicente Terrace, Santa Mon~ca 9o401 Stephanie 8arbanell, ~ 7 Seaview Terrace, Santa Mor~~ca 90401 Susan Whrte, fa0 Kens~ngton Raad #4, Santa Manica 90405 Mr Kozal spol<e in rebuttal to the pub[ic comment Cha~r Zinner asi<ed Mr Kozal if he would ob~ect ta the additian o~ condEtions regardjng a bus shelter and a gateway element. Mr. Koza~ stated t~at it ~s not a~propr~ate to add conditions to a CUP extension. Mr M~histen stated that he would be happy to d~scuss the gateway elernent wtth staff and, ~f he coulcE be pra~ided mora infarmation on the histary of the bus shelter, he would be wil! to d~scuss the bus shelter also. Comm~ss~oner Wererr~~ul< aslced Mr Mihlsten at what pq~nt dur~ng the const~uct~on phase w~ufd the parking fot be handled. Mr Mihlsten stated that work on the park~ng lot is slated for the end of the construct~on plan, approx~mately 14 to 15 after the start of constructian Mr DuBo~s stated #hat the parking !ot will not be used as a stagmg area for cnnstruct~on He also stated that he is negotEating with t~e to use a piece of Caty-owned ~roperty south o# the hotel Commissioner Weremiulc aslced how the parlcmg lort wil~ bE utilized during tf~e construct~or~ phase Mr. DuBais stated that the Coastal Corrzm~ssion requtres that the !ot remain access~ble for public use. Commissioner lNeremiuk commented on the prior appro~al for this site and i~e Comm:ssion's desire for a more appropr~ate use of the property. SF~e aslc~d ~f there ~s any fkexib~lrty trr ~he constructian schEdule Mr DuBois stated that the sequence ~s open for discussion. Mr Mihlsten stated he can suppEy a letter to PlannEng regard~ng discussion af th~s and the two pre~iaus issues. ~ L'~5 PEannin~ Commission August 6, 9 997 Chair Zinner closed the publ~c hearing. Comm~ssaoner Maench aslced if the City can mandate parking for the hotel si#e. Ms. Frick ansr,~ered m tl~e nEgative Cha~r Z-nner commented on the plans in the staff report and asked E~ the lancfscaping plan ca~ be changed Ms Schachter stated t~at the landscape plan has been approved by the Architectural Rev~ew Board. Ms FrECI< stated that m~nor modifications may be appra~ed by the Dir~ctor of Plann~ng. City Counc~l L~a~son Femstein commented on setbacks for Ocean Avenue as rEqu~red by the Ci~ic Center Specific PEan Ms. Schachter stated that a 35 foot setback is required for a new building, however there are na se~baclc requ~rements far parlung fats City Co~nc~E Giaison Fe~nste~r~ remarked on a comm~nt made by Ms. Auer regarding Eow wage hotel employees and charging those workers to park He stated that he has heard that such em~loyees are sometimes pa~d rrtore ta caver parlcing feas and suggested such a candrt~on be made Ms ~r~ck stated that such a condition would ~ot be appropnate She also stated that the park~ng lot is a public parking lot She noted that Car~drt~o~ #28 may also not be appropriate. Cornmissioner Gruber stated that he was not on ~he Commission when this item w~s originally heard He aslced ahout the wording of Condrtion #28 Deputy C~ty Attorney Strobel stated that she d~d not recall a reason for the ~vardmg ar candition, however a Transportat~on Ma~agement Plan may already be required for the site. Commiss~aner Gruber aslced ~f the emplayer could pro~ide bus passes. Ms. ~r~clc sta~ed that the Transportat~on Demand Ord~nance offers the employer ~arious aptions to meet the required gaal. GomrnassEaner Gruber asked rf there was any pro~is~on for the hotel to enter ~nto this type of demand pfan. Ms Fricl~ stated that there is such a~arov~s~an and rt ~s regulated by the rules of the ord~nance. ComrnESSioner Gruber aslcer~ if Condition #28 is rele~ant Ms. Frick answered in the negative Comrnissioner VL~erernjulc stated that Condition #28 ~s not rele~ant and the hote! {Shutte~s?1 already is requ~red to ha~e a plan Commissioner Moench commenied on free parfcing as tt pertains to susta~nabtk~ty ~ssues H~ also cited for the record the faffowmg: 8 l~~tr Plannin~ Commission Au~ust 6, 'I997 Section 9 04 02 030 410 - Hatel A building, group of buildings ar a portion of a bu-lding wh~ch is designed for or occ~pied as the temporary [odgi~g pEace of ind~viduals #or generally less than th~rty consecutive days 3ncludi~tg, but not limited to, an estabfishmer~t held out to the public as an apartment hotel, hostel, inn, t~me-share pro~ect, tour~st court or other s~mifar use Comm~ssioner Gruber commented on the rssue of the parl<ing for the hotel ar~r~ Pritilurt Longevity Center He related his understanding tha# Shutters has rr~ore than adequate park~ng. He expressed apm~on that Condrt~on #28 should be left in He suggested that the employees be gi~en bus tolcens. Corr~missioner Gruber made a mot~on for appraval Comm~ss~oner Moench secanded the motion. Comm~ssioner Weremiul< aslced for a cond~t~on that the ~dward Thomas Management Company be required to purchase the parkmg lot property and landscape it Per this CUP at the earlEest stage of construction. Commissioners Grub~r and Moench agreed to the amendment. Ms Fricl~ stated for the record that the current use is ~n v~olation of the Zaning Ordinance and current CUP Commiss~aner 1,Neremiulc stated that the applicant needs to con~orm with the CUP and not ignore the violation. Commissioner G~uber asl<ed staff about placing a condition on the CUP regarding t~e discussian lett~r offered by the hatel applicant. Deputy City Attorney Strob~l stated that in the prjor heanng the Commission was unable ta art~culate the need for the bus sl~e~ter and gateway element. S~e recommended that any dESCUSS~an be done outside this forum Ms Fnclc added that the applicant has ~olunteered to discuss t~e issues Chair Zinner commented that the gateway cancept was cancei~ed because th~s locat~an ~s an ~mportant access point to the beach and the area needs definit~a~ Comrn~ssioner Bre~scl~ expressed agreement w~th Chair Zir~ner. He s~ated that tne Commissson would not ha~e chosen a parlung lot for this locat~on He aclcno~~rledged that the histor~c build~ng does not 9 (~ ~ "' r Pfannin~ Commission August 6, 1997 meet current parlcing requ~rements, t~owever the reuse of the building and the par]<~ng lot use are hest ~eal at th~s t~me. The mot~o~ was approved k~y the following ~ote AYES Breisch, Gruber, Moench, Wererr~iu{c, Zinner, ABSENT• Bradley, Parlee 7-C. Text Amendment 97-003. C~tvwide. Aqolication for an amendment to ~h~ Cornorehe~sive Land U~~ ~nd Zonina Ordinance. S~bchar~ter 9 04 18 tNon-Conformina Buil~inas and Uses1, to allow the r~placement o# no~-co~form~ng ~rGhitectura~ features which have been removed from any existEna ~u~ld~na wh~ch ~s desianated as a Cit~ of Santa Monica landmarlc or is I~sted on e~ther the Cali#ornia Reaister flf HistorECal Resources or the Nationaf Re4ister of Historic Places. fPlanner• Paul Folev} APP~I~ANT ~dward Thorr~as Manaaement Comqanv The applicant's representat~ve, ChrEStie McAvoy, 1728 North WhitEey, Hollywood, was present to dESCUSS the proposed Text Amendment. The follow~ng members of the publ~c spol~e Rodney Punt, 424 Tvventy-Second Street, Santa Monica 90402 Julie Lopez ~ad, 117 Pac~f~c Street, Santa Mon~ca 90405 The following members af #he p~blic submitted reauests to speak, but were r~o# pr~sent when the~r r~ames were called: Stephanie Barbanell, 17 Seav~e~v Terrace, Santa MoniCa 90401 Steve Braclcett, Santa Mon~ca Polfce Officers Assoc , 1685 Main Street Janel Jones, 41-8 Vicente Terrace, Santa Monica 90401 Susan Wh~te, 650 Kens,ngtan Road #4, Santa Monica 90405 M5 McAvoy spaEce ~n rebuttal to the publ~c comment Chair Z~nner closed the publ~c hearing CommjssEOner I~~~eremEUlc made a motion ta approve the text amendment per the staff repar# Comm~ssioner Breisch seconded the mot~on He aslced that the appro~al incl~de Cflnd~t~on #3 from the Secretary of the fnterior`s Standards far Rehab~l:tatfon The cond~t~on r~ads as follows. (3f Each property sh~ll be recogn~zed as a physical recorc~ afi ~ts t~me, place, and use Changes that create a false sense of historica! development, suc~ as addEng con~ectural features or a~ch~tect~ra! elements from other bu~ldings, shall not be undert~l<en 10 i J~ ~S Plannin~ Commission Au~ust 6, 1997 Carr~missioner Maench commented or~ the public process. He stated that t~e Corr3mrssron rrrust be dESpass~ar~ate and I<eep an open mmd on each pro~ect He expressed support ~or the motion Commissioner Gruber cort~mented on t~e Text Arr~endment process. He stated that if people do not suggest things far Text Amendment's, the Crty could miss out on gaod opportt~ni~ies. Charr Zmner stated that the Zonmg Ordinance is a~rving document. He stated that as text ~n the ord~nance is tested aver t~me, Text Amendments need to be r~ade Cornm~ssioner Bre~scl~ stated that part o# the Text Amendment states that buildGngs must be landrnarl< ~]ig~bl~ artd there are very few such pro~erties left to could be cons~dered el~gible The motion 5,rvas approved by the fo[lowing ~ote. AY~S• Breisch, Gruber, Moe~ch, lNeremiuk, Zinner, ABS~NT. Bradley, Parlee fThe Cornmission tool< a brealc at th~s t~me.] 8 P~bhc Hearings $-A. Conditionaf Use Permit 97-~05. Variance 97-021. 23~5-2309 Ocean Park gouie~ard. R3-BR, A~r~lication for a Cor~d~tionaf Use Perm~t to allow the continued ~se af ~n exastina ne~ahborhaod ^rocerv store with a Tv~e-ZO (Off-Sale Beer and L~linel alcahol I~cense and ta allow the con~ersian of a nonconforming aen~ral offic~ u~e to an office far a char~table oraan~zat~an A Variance to aifow the conti~ued use of the existina r~~igh~prhpod arocery St9r~ w~t~ 5~arluno snaces ir~ lieu of the 6~arlung $oac~s rea~,~retf bY Code ~s also reauested, The Conditional ~Js~ Perm~t w~~ch permi~t~~ a neighbprhood aracery store and a Qene~al of#~ce at thES nrpbert~ has exqired Under the R3 District develonment standards. neiahborhood arocer~ stores and aff~ces and meet~np rooms far charitable. vouth and wel#are oraanEZat~ons are nermitted subiect to apbro~a! af a Condrtional Use Permit (Planner: Susan Healv Keene 1 A~olicant Teri Jacobs The appficant's representat~ve, Rosario Perry, 1333 Ocean A~enue, Santa Monica 90~a1, v:fas present to discuss the application. One member o~ tne ~ubf~e, ~m~ne StaPler, 2301 Ocean Park Boule~ard, Santa Monica 90405, addressed the Commission regarding the applicatior~ 11 ~~~ Plannin~ Commission August 6, '1997 Chair Zinner closed the public h~ar~ng. Comrn~ssioner iNeremiufc asl<ec~ about changr~g Condrt~on #21, which was a request of the appl~cant's representat~~e. Deputy C~ty Attorney Strobel stated that the restr~ctEOn is "for o#her uses perm~tted by right in the zone" Commissianer Weremiuk made a motian for appra~al w~th staff cond~t~ons; and w~th Cor~d~t~on #21 being amended to 90 days; and wrth the deed r~str~ct~on be~ng for ~`any use permitted by right i~ the zone" Commjss~oner Bre~sch seconded the motion He asked staff why the candition regardir~g vacating the tenant s~ace was for 45 days. Ms. Keene stated that staff advised the appficant of the requ~rement for the tenant to vacate many months ago, therefore th~ short t~me fram~ was deemed appropr~ate Commiss~oner Gruber expressed support for the motion The rr~ot~on ~vas approved by the followmg vote• AYES Bre~sch~, Gruber, Moench, tiNerem~uk, Zinner, ABSENT. Bradley, Parlee $-B. Developn~ent Review 97-00~, 23~0 Colorado Ave~ue. C-5 fSo~cial Office Comme~c~ail. A~pfication for a Develo~ment Review Permit ta allo~v the ~~nstruct~on af a n~w, 191 .000 sauare foot, six-storv office bu~ldina abQy~ ~ Chree-ie~el. f~7 S~ace subterran~~n oarlcina aaraae at the s~te Icnovvn as The A~horetum A Develo~ment Rev~ew Permit is reauired ~p en~ure that th~ prqposed bro~~~t compfres with the reauirement~ qf ~he D~~~fo~m~n~ Aareem~nt for this drooertv. (Pl~nn~r D Jerex ? Ap~l~c~n~ Da~id Forbes Hibbert far Arbaretum De~elo~ment Partners ContEnued to Aug~ast 20, 1997 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Aooointrrient of Plannina Commiss~on Reer~sentative to 415 Pacific Coast Hiahw~y VVori~ina Group Ms G~nsberg expla~ned to the Camrnission tha~ the City Council has establ~shed the format~on of a ~^~ork~ng graup to de~elop a plan for the reuse of the 41 5 P C H property Members of the worlcing group will be one representative each from the Arch~tectural RevEew Board, the Landmarks Corr;m~ss~o~, the Recreatior~ ancf Parl<s Comrrz~ssign, tY~e Pfann~ng Comm~ss~on ar~d two City Councif inembers iFemstein ~nti Genserl 12 ~' tib~ Planning Cammissian August 6, 1997 Deputy City Attorney Strobel pqinted Duf Of #h~ recard an error in the stafif repart She stated that the t~otel pro~ect praposed for the srte ~nras defeated by a vot~ af the people under Prapvsrtion Z, not Proposition S COr'1"im~SSiOn~f Bre~sch expr~ssed ~nterest in the worl<ing graup and was ap~arnted as the Commiss~on's representat~ve by Chair Zinner. 10. COMMISSION AGENDA. A. U~dated Plannina Comm~ss~on Discussion Item List Comrr~rssioner Moench aslced t~at D~scussion ltem #4 be dropped; that #3 be ~eard with #17 and n 19, and that #5, the Dawntown Parking d~scussion ~nclude the overall C~ty Parking Policy Chair Zcnn~r stated tt~at tt 13 can be dropped fram the I~st Commissioner Moench stated hES u~derstand~ng that these can anly be discuss~on ~tems and there ~s na budget for further act~on Chakr Zmner comrnented that he has d~scussed th~s ~ssue with several C~ty Cauncil members ar~d th~y were ~n favor of the Comm~ss~on explor~ng more ~ssues Cha~r Z~r~ner commented that staff can move #he items araund as seems reasonable Comm~ssioner WeremFUlc stated that #~, on Proposit~on 218, should also ~nclude the street I~ght~ng issue Chair Zinner commer~ted that the C~ty of Torrance has recently woriced on th~s ~ssue and should be contacted Ms Fr~ct< stated she is a4~rare of Torranc~'s worl< and staff wilf contact Lhem Cflmmiss~oner Gruber commented on the City Counc~!'s approval of the Downtown Urban Des~gn plan He also commented that he forgot to mer~tion at the City Co~.~nci~ m~eting that staff was great thraughout th~s process Commissioner 1~"~'eremiuk asl<ed that ~n the future, the Corrtmiss~on, or at least the Comm~t~ee rr~embers, rece~~e copi~s of staff's recommendat~ons pnor to the City Counci! meeting 11. PUBLIC INPUT None 12. ADJO[iRNM~NT The meeting r,vas ad~ourn~d at 1~ 28 p m ~3 L'~~ Plannin~ Commission f lplanlsharelpciagen~a'~,pca86 97 8/12/97 14 August 6, 1997 APPROVE~ SEPTEMBER 17, "[997 ~`~c