|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Acting Community Development Director Ken Robertson Associate Planner Richard Denniston Lauren Feldman, Assistant City Attorney Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Donald Logan, business owner, stated he was before the Planning Commission approximately 6 months ago to discuss his concerns with The Shore and how its operations are negatively impacting his business. He stated that a representative of The Shore indicated that after football season, they would turn off the televisions to those sitting outside on the patio and that the business would not be open before 6:00 P.M., noting that this has not been the case. He stated that prior to The Shore becoming a sports bar business, his business located next door was a successful and thriving business, but that since the change with The Shore, he has only had five sales in the past six months. He addressed the City’s ordinance that requires 50 percent of The Shore’s business to be from the sale of food, and questioned if that is the case; and stated that little is being done to police this business, noting that after 3:00 P.M., he can easily hear patrons from this establishment loudly cursing, screaming, and yelling; and expressed his belief their security guards only add to the problem at this establishment. He stated he continues to suffer from this intolerable situation and urged the City to help him out; and he expressed his opinion this City is doing little to police alcohol business establishments.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his pleasure with The Shore withdrawing its application for the proposed expansion; and questioned if the Commission would be accepting the letter given it’s not been written by the business owner.
Roger Bacon, resident, highlighted his pleasure in seeing news coverage at this evening’s meeting.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of May 15, 2007 Minutes .
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE the May 15, 2007, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 07-19 approving a Conditional Use Permit amendment for an expansion and interior alterations at an existing restaurant with on-sale alcohol, live entertainment, and outdoor dining, and a Parking Plan to pay in-lieu fees rather than providing the required additional parking at 1320 Hermosa Avenue, The Shore.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson advised that the applicant has submitted a letter indicating he does not wish to pursue the expansion of the mezzanine floor area; and, therefore, he noted there is no reason for the Commission to adopt this proposed resolution.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to RECEIVE AND FILE proposed Resolution P.C. 07-19. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: None -
Resolution P.C. 07-22to not merge two contiguous lots on property commonly known as 1161 7th Place.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-22. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: None -
Resolution P.C. 07-23to not merge two contiguous lots on property commonly known as 1245 7th Place.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-23. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: None -
Resolution P.C. 07-24 approving an amendment to the Precise Development Plan, to modify the architectural finishes and features of a mixed use condominium building with three residences above commercial on the ground floor at 30 - 44 Hermosa Avenue.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-24. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Perrotti ABSENT: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson noted the Commission continued this matter to this meeting for a decision by the full Commission; he briefly commented on the various revisions to this project; stated that the latest version of the project design proposes a garage off the alley only, but noted a revision to the garage to accommodate one additional parking space, for a total of 11 onsite parking spaces; and noted that the latest revision is intended to address the primary concern expressed by the Planning Commission, to enhance the pedestrian environment by creating an uninterrupted street frontage rather than a curb cut to accommodate the driveway. He stated the net office square footage results in a total parking requirement of 28 spaces, and noted the deficiency subject to the in-lieu fee is proposed at 17 spaces. He advised that the applicant is seeking a final decision on this matter this evening; and he highlighted the three alternative selections for the Commission to consider this evening: 1) approve the revised submittal and adopt the attached draft resolution - Option No. 1; 2) approve the plan with 19 spaces and roll-up door - Option No. 2; and 3) deny the application - Option No. 3.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Louie Tomaro, project architect, advised that the front façade will not change with either plan.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman reiterated his preference to see this project with additional onsite parking spaces, noting that 11 spaces are not feasible for 21 units.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his intent to be fair and consistent with prior decisions concerning office buildings; addressed the need for adequate onsite parking; and commented on the residents repeated complaints with limited parking. He noted his preference for Option No. 2, which provides the most onsite parking spaces and limits the in-lieu parking spaces to 7.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 07-1 / PDP 07-1 / PARK 07-1 Option No. 2, 19 onsite parking spaces and roll-up door with 7 in-lieu parking spaces. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the subject property is currently a furniture store located at the southwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and 8th Street, with the primary entry on the east side along PCH. He explained that the applicant is making this request pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 17.40.060 as a retail business that does not meet the adult business definition since the secondary portion being no greater than 20 percent of the floor area will be for the sale of x-rated materials and adult paraphernalia; and he advised that the applicant has submitted a detailed floor plan which shows 3,873 square feet of retail floor area within the existing building, of which 748 square feet will be restricted to patrons 18 years of age and older for the sale of regulated adult materials. He stated that Zoning Ordinance Section 17.40.060 specifically states that in lieu of the standard criteria the Planning Commission uses for evaluating a conditional use permit, for this type business, the Planning Commission shall approve an application for a retail business like this in which some, but not greater than 20 percent, of its stock-in-trade material meets the x-rated and/or adult paraphernalia definitions. He added the Planning Commission shall approve such applications where evidence has been presented to substantiate the six findings in the code as follows:
- The public interior areas shall be fully and brightly lit and arranged so that every portion of the premises is visible immediately upon entrance and so that the entire body of any patron is also visible immediately upon entrance to the premises.
- All stock-in-trade materials, either for sale or rental, which have exterior covers that display specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities, shall be adequately covered with an opaque material so as not to expose any display of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities to the general public.
- The area designated for adult videos shall be partitioned and screened from view, accessible only to persons 18 years of age and over. A sign stating “Adults Only-No Minors Permitted” or equivalent wording shall be conspicuously located at the entrance to the designated adult area.
- The store shall be managed in a manner that anything illegal for a minor to view shall not be displayed from an area where a minor could view such objects.
- Advertisements, displays or other promotional exhibits of any materials depicting specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities shall be prohibited.
- The area designated for adult paraphernalia shall be partitioned and screened from view, accessible only to persons 18 years of age and over. A sign stating “Adults Only-No Minors Permitted” or equivalent wording shall be conspicuously located at the entrance to the designated adult area.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson noted the applicant is proposing a 3,125-square-foot unrestricted general retail sales area with a cashier and wrapping station located in the center of the retail floor area for sales of lingerie, shoes, club ware, lotions, condoms, oils/lubricants, and games; advised that the 748-square-foot restricted area will be for adult novelties and DVD’s and is proposed at the northwest corner of the building and screened by a metal weaved floor-to-ceiling wall; that entry into the restricted retail area is located directly north of the cashier station; and noted there is an unobstructed view between the restricted retail sales entrance and the cashier stations, allowing this area to be easily monitored from the cashier station. He added that the Chief of Police has reviewed the floor plan and is satisfied the applicant can properly monitor access into the restricted retail area due to its close proximity and unobstructed view from the cashier station.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the required parking for the 4,150-square-foot building is 17 stalls, including one handicap stall; noted that currently, there are 15 off-street parking stalls provided; and stated the proposal will not intensify the parking demand. He stated the Commission’s authority is limited to determining if the applicant satisfactorily addresses all the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 17.40.060; and noted that the plans show the restricted retail area is adequately screened from view and does not exceed the 20 percent floor area, which is a reasonable measure for stock-in-trade. He added the applicant also indicates the business will be fully and brightly lit; that all regulated goods will be in the restricted area; and that the area will be clearly posted for adults only and will be enforced with identification checks. He stated enforcement of the operational requirements will be monitored by the standard code enforcement procedures over the life of the business.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson introduced Lauren Feldman from the City Attorney’s Office who is present to answer any legal questions.
Chairman Allen expressed his belief this business would be an intensification of parking use compared to a furniture store.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson explained that this proposal is guided by the parking requirements in the code for retail.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned the significance of setting a 20-percent rule.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the code section pertaining to the 20-percent rule was adopted as a policy by the City Council in 1992 and is a similar provision used by many cities. He clarified that 20 percent of stock-in-trade is the volume/materials; and that staff believes the floor area measurement is the most reasonable approach to guide this 20-percent provision.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the Commission has the authority to restrict this establishment’s hours.
Assistant City Attorney Feldman stated the Commission should look at this as a regular retail business, noting that under code, that is how it is characterized; stated that the Commission has the same authority as with any other application which it considers; and that if the Commission finds there’s substantial evidence this business will bring negative impacts that are directly generated from the business, then the Commission can impose additional conditions that are directly related.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the Commission can regulate what is presented in the 80-percent area.
Assistant City Attorney Feldman indicated no, the same as with any other retail business.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned what products can be regulated.
Assistant City Attorney Feldman stated that under the code, adult paraphernalia and x-rated materials must be screened, preventing minors from having access to these materials.
Commissioner Pizer questioned what the other 80 percent of the building is being used for, questioning the definition of adult paraphernalia and x-rated items. He expressed his belief the lingerie designs are different than a typical lingerie store.
Chairman Allen questioned what items will be sold in the 80 versus 20 percent of the store.
Assistant City Attorney Feldman stated that adult paraphernalia is defined as an apparatus depicting a human body and specified anatomical areas intended to induce or enhance sexual arousal, which would be paraphernalia in the 20-percent area.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Charles Jewell, Senior Vice-President of Peekay, Inc., stated he has submitted extensive materials to comply with the CUP application process.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom asked the applicant if he feels his business will be successful after seeing how many people have indicated their opposition to this proposal.
Mr. Jewell stated it is only fair to let the consumers in this area determine whether his business will be successful, noting his right to open a business that doesn’t violate any ordinance in Hermosa Beach.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for clarification on what will be sold in the 80 percent, open area.
Mr. Jewell stated the unrestricted area will have similar items that can be purchased at other stores in a mall, such as Spenser’s; and that any items depicting nudity or anatomically correct figures will be housed in the restricted area.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief the name of the business should be more subtle; and reiterated the question about what will be sold in the open area.
Mr. Jewell stated the open areas will have women’s and men’s clothing, lingerie, lotions, oils, shoes, condoms, games, novelties; and that if the packaging depicts nudity, it will be in the restricted area. He stated the store itself will be limited to those 18 years of age and older as well as the restricted area, that they will not allow children in the store, even in the open area.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned where the applicant anticipates drawing his client base from and how he will advertise.
Mr. Jewell advised that Peekay owns/operates 30 stores in Washington and California; noted that the latest any of these stores are open is until midnight; explained that where there is a lot of foot traffic, the stores typically stay open an hour later, but that he anticipates this store to be closed by 11:00 P.M. Mr. Jewell stated it is his experience most people shop within a 5-mile radius of their homes; and that because of the size of the Los Angeles market, he will attempt to advertise in several publications that serve this 5-mile radius. Mr. Jewell stated that his calculations indicate there are 17 parking stalls, not the 15 staff has referred to, putting them in compliance with the parking requirements.
Commissioner Pizer asked Mr. Jewell to define the operation of this business and its product.
Mr. Jewell indicated this will be an upscale boutique that caters to the adult customer; and he stated that 80 percent of the items can be purchased at other nonrestricted stores. He stated they may have some leather goods in the store, noting that each store carries slightly different items. He noted for Chairman Allen that leather goods are sold at the vast majority of his stores and that it is likely these leather goods will be sold at this location.
Chairman Allen pointed out that the internet is an effective way of selling these products and questioned why the applicant feels the need to have a store in Hermosa Beach, pointing out the internet serves much larger than a 5-mile radius.
Mr. Jewell reiterated he has 30 store fronts; stated he has been in business for 25 years; noted he would not have been in business for 25 years and have 30 store fronts if there were customers interested in physically visiting these locations to shop; and stated that all indications support the decision to market this area, that it is a good place to open this type store.
Commissioner Perrotti indicated that in the proposed resolution, the applicant is proposing 3,873 square feet of retail sales floor area, of which 748 square feet (19.31 percent) is restricted to patrons 18 years and older; and questioned if the entire store is going to be restricted to 18 years of age and older.
Mr. Jewell indicated the entire store is restricted to 18 years of age and older.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the resolution may have to be amended to reflect that.
Meryl Harrel, Epstein & Associates, representing the applicant, noted for Chairman Allen the lease is pending on this property and that technically, the property owner can back out of the lease at this point in time.
The following residents spoke in opposition to this proposal:
Aric Ackerman John Karambelas Jonathan Kielbasinski Joan Arias Peter Barsuk Greg Tucker Jim Lissner Susan Darcy Shawn Darcy Shirley Meyer Melinda Curtis Roger Bacon Julie Oakes Susie Fraley Viva Stroyke Dave Pedersen Ashley Beck Shirley Cass Michelle Wattfellow Kevin Smilack Alan Meyer Sean Loetta Brad Kineso Shannon Thompson Brad Whittaker Joanne Edgerton Barbara Elman Ruth Island Sandy Ohrbach Christie Samm Chris Sinfield Stephanie Shaw Jim Sullivan Kay Grahmco Judy Woodard Pat Price Marco Alvarez Greg Liss Howard Longacre Norm Levine Elizabeth Riley
Issues of concern were addressed as follows:
Creation of a “red light district”; inadequate ordinance that needs to be amended to further restrict these type businesses; enormous front window that will display saucy items, viewed by children walking to school; proximity of the parking lot to 8th Street and its impact to the traffic and residential parking; need to restrict the hours of operation if permitted; who will police the 20/80 ratio of goods sold and age of patrons who enter this business establishment; poorly lit parking lot; need for a secured parking lot; need to screen employees who may work at this business; too close to an existing erotic business; concern with the type of people who will visit this establishment; business not compatible with a residential area; increasing news of pornography and pedophilia and concern for the safety of the City’s residents and its reputation; unlimited length of CUP privilege; concern for a safe, clean environment for the nearby residents; potential increase in crime for this area; need to improve the vision for this area of PCH; loss of property value in this neighborhood/corridor; need for more time to check this business out; secondary negative impacts resulting from adult businesses in communities; concern with signage; and safety for pedestrian and traffic safety.
Mr. Jewell indicated this business is not affiliated with the Tender Box; advised there have never been nor ever will be any viewing booths in any of their stores; stated that the merchandise sold on their website is different than what is sold in their stores; and he pointed out that if all the audience statements this evening were true, he would not be in business today, that he runs a reputable business. He stated that studies have been done which prove these type businesses do not have negative secondary effects upon communities.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that following his review of the materials submitted and his viewing of the website, he believes this is not a typical drug store type business that sells condoms, that it is a business which aggressively promotes and bills itself as an erotic boutique; and expressed his belief the applicant has incorrectly submitted this application and that it was incorrectly analyzed, pointing out this is not a normal retail establishment with 20 percent or less of adult paraphernalia. He stated this business is free to resubmit an application as an adult establishment to be located in an appropriate part of the City and regulated under a different code.
Commissioner Perrotti stated the evidence indicates there is going to be more than common lingerie in 80 percent of the store; expressed his belief this application was inappropriately submitted; and stated this business should be regulated differently than a retail establishment, that it should be regulated under Section 17.40.050 as an adult business. He expressed his suspicion the applicant tried to take advantage of the 20-percent provision.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom expressed his belief the applicant submitted the wrong application.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if anyone has contacted the property owner to discuss the community opposition to this proposal; expressed his belief this is not a retail establishment that should be regulated under Section 17.40.060; and that there is enough evidence to indicate this is an adult business that should be regulated under Section 17.40.050.
Chairman Allen expressed his belief 100 percent of the merchandise to be sold will be adult paraphernalia.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to DENY CUP 07-7 and to direct staff to bring back to the next meeting a resolution of denial. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Allen recessed the meeting at 9:48 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to July 17, 2007 meeting.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the applicant needs additional time to study the traffic impacts.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Riley, 10th Street resident, noted her concern with the traffic impacting her street.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the current plan maintains the existing traffic circulation, but indicated the need to further study the traffic issues.
Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to July 17, 2007, CUP 07-8 / PARK 07-4. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston noted that the subject lot is located on the northwest corner of Aviation Boulevard and Aubrey Court; that it is currently developed with a 3-story hotel; stated that the applicant is requesting to install 10 antennas projected on 3 separate panels; that the panels will be mounted in 3 locations – one on the exterior wall of the southeast side of the building facing Aviation Boulevard, one on the northwest building facing Aubrey Court, and one on the building roof. He noted the roof top panel is 7 feet tall by 8 feet wide and 2 feet in depth, with an antenna access door of 2 feet wide; advised that the wall-mounted panels will not exceed the height of the existing parapet wall; and that the antenna panels are required to service the northeast and southwest portions of the City. He added that the existing height of the building varies in height and grade and that the portion of the building along the easterly property line facing Ocean Drive is well below the 35-foot height limitation; and that the proposed roof panels will be mounted upright, 7 feet above the existing roof line on the easterly portion of the roof and within the allowable height limit for the property. He stated that the two panels mounted on the sides of the building will be completely screened by transparent stealth boxes that are painted, textured, and designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing building facades; that the third panel housing 3 antennas inside screened walls will stand upright on the existing roof and will also be painted, textured, and designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing building facades; that the remaining equipment needed for the operation of the wireless facility will be placed within a leased storage area on the lower level; and noted the applicant is proposing to place new wrought iron gates with removable rails around the equipment cabinets. Because the proposed wireless telecommunications facility is co-located with existing commercial uses and the antennas adequately screened, consistent with the Municipal Code, he noted that staff is recommending approval. He noted that staff also worked with the applicant to minimize visual impacts and at the same time maximize coverage for T-Mobile.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Jason Kozora, representing the applicant, stated the project will consist of 10 antennas and 4 equipment cabinets; advised that Sector A will be mounted on the northwest corner of the building and flush-mounted with the boxed screen wall and painted to match the existing building color; stated that all the antennas will be completely concealed; that Sector B will be roof-mounted and located approximately 7 feet above the roof line, 6 feet above the existing parapet; that the screened wall will measure 8 feet wide, 2 feet in depth, and is within the allowable 15 feet by code and under the 35-foot height limit; and that Sector C will be flush-mounted on the southwest corner of the building and will consist of 3 antennas and a boxed screen wall similar to Sector A and completely concealed. He advised that 4 equipment cabinets are needed to service these antennas, which will be located on the lower patio deck of the hotel and will not be visible to anyone. He stated the coverage area is all angles north and south along Aviation Boulevard and a portion of PCH to the south and a residential hillside area north of the subject property. He stated this site was their last option before having to obtain a right-of-way antenna/covenant at another location, highlighting other areas they had considered, all lacking adequate space for this project. He noted that the project has certain limitations because of the nearby hillside. He added this site will enhance the E-911 coverage.
Addressing Commissioner Hoffman’s inquiry regarding the size of the antennas in Sector B, Mr. Kozora noted the antennas measure approximately 1-foot wide by 5-foot high; that the amount of the antennas is determined by the needed capacity to service the network; and he commented on the required minimum separation of the antennas.
Claude Brando, Aubrey Court resident, noted his concern with the numerous equipment items on this building, addressing his concern with the negative visual impacts; and questioned if the 3 satellites on top of the roof are operable.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the satellite antennas have been on this building for a long time and that staff will check whether those antennas are permitted.
Mr. Brando asked if those 3 satellites are not functional, that they be removed from the building. He reiterated his concern with the view of this hotel and its satellites and antennas.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom suggested Mr. Brando contact the hotel to determine whether the satellites are operable and whether or not they can be removed.
Denise McCray, Ocean Drive resident, noted her concern with the health risks of this facility to the nearby residents, addressing literature which indicates these type facilities may present hazardous radiation exposure. She asked for input on how far these facilities can be safely placed from human beings and its effects on the environment. She added that these facilities have a negative impact on nearby property values; and she urged denial of this proposal.
Lance Harris, 10th Street resident, noted his concern with the poor aesthetics of the roof- mounted equipment on this building, noting all he will see is a large box on top of this building.
Matt Ostrom, Bonniebrae Street, noted his concern with his view of this facility and with his property value, noting it will obstruct his limited ocean view.
Mario Alvarez, Ocean Drive resident, addressed his concern with the visual impacts of this building from his property.
Mr. Kozora stated that this project will be in full compliance with FCC requirements and will be well below the allowable threshold adopted by the FCC; stated they will be amenable to inquiring if the existing satellite dishes are still operable and whether they can be removed; that as part of their project, he noted the existing and dilapidated handrails will be removed; and highlighted the need for this facility because of the large number of customer complaints in the area experiencing dropped calls and non-service. He stated if the City is agreeable, they can remove the screening from the roof-mounted antennas to allow people to see around the antennas; and noted they can increase the separation between the antennas to allow the residents a better viewing area. He noted they have proposed the screening only because of a requirement by the City.
Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Chairman Allen pointed out there is no view ordinance in Hermosa Beach; expressed his belief there is too much equipment on the roof of this building; and suggested this matter be continued to allow the applicant to work with staff and the neighbors on improving the aesthetics, yet satisfy T-Mobile’s needs for adequate coverage.
Commissioner Pizer stated he would not be opposed to continuing this matter if more work can be done to satisfy the residents.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there are a lot of dropped calls in this proposed area; noted he would prefer something on the roof rather than a similar pole as is located on Aviation and Prospect; and noted he would support a continuance.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to July 17, 2007, CUP 07-2 to allow the applicant to work with staff and the residents to make this a more aesthetically pleasing proposal. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To not merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston highlighted the provisions of the Lot Merger Ordinance, which have been addressed in depth at prior Planning Commission hearings. He stated the subject property is one large 5,000-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains two dwelling units partially constructed on contiguous lots; and that each lot has a 25-foot-wide and a 100-foot depth, with a total lot square footage of 2,500 square feet. He stated that of the 32 parcels that front on 11th Street between Prospect Avenue and Reynolds Lane, 31 are similar in size and width and, therefore, the subject lots are greater or similar to 97 percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance; and based on this analysis, the lots do not qualify for merger. He stated that merging these lots would not be consistent with the majority of this block.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to NOT merge 1202 11th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vice-Chairman Kersenboom recused himself from consideration of Item Nos. 11 and 12 due to a possible conflict of interest.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated the subject property is a 4,230-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that each lot is 25-foot wide with varying depths; and that the property contains a single-family residence which straddles between the property lines. He stated the subject property is one of only 4 parcels on this block fronting Prospect Avenue; therefore, the 80-percent analysis must go beyond the limits of the block and consider the neighborhood. He added that “neighborhood” is specifically defined for the purposes of the lot merger determination as a grouping of similar uses within the same zoning district bounded by topographical or other physical features, arterials, or collector streets or other characteristics that give it a separate and distinct identity. He noted that given Prospect Avenue is a defining boundary, the neighborhood includes all R-1 zoned properties east of Prospect Avenue and west of Reynolds Lane between 7th Street and 11th Place; advised that there are 240 R-1 zoned parcels within this neighborhood, of which 135 are similar in size and width to the subject lots; therefore, the subject lots are greater or similar to 56 percent of the lots in the neighborhood as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance; and that based on this analysis, the lots do qualify for merger.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGE 906 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom Commissioner Hoffman stated he has an interest in a property near 808 Prospect Avenue and therefore would recuse himself from consideration of Item No. 12.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated the subject property is a 4,100-square-foot parcel comprised of the western half of 3 lots from the original subdivision; that each lot is approximately 25 feet wide with varying depths ranging from 63 feet to 46 feet; and that the property contains a single-family residence which straddles between the lot lines. He stated that the subject property is one of 6 parcels on this block and is the only property comprised of three 25-foot wide lots with depths of less than 65 feet fronting Prospect Avenue; that there are a total of 8 lots, and the substandard lots are greater or similar in size and width to none of the lots on the block; and that pursuant to Section 16.20.030, the substandard lots shall be merged since no other lot on the block is greater or similar in size and width to the subject lots.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGE 808 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman, Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated the subject property is one large 5,590-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains a single-family residence partially constructed on contiguous lots; that the most westerly lot is approximately 50 feet wide and 74.5 feet deep; and that the adjacent smaller lot is approximately 25 feet wide and 74.5 feet deep. He added that the subject property is one of 17 parcels on this block fronting 14th Street and zoned R-1; that of these 17 parcels, one is similar in size and width to the smaller of the subject lots; therefore, the substandard lot is greater or similar in size and width to only 5.88 percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance; and based on this analysis, the lots do qualify for merger.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGE 925 14th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated the subject property is a 3,540-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains one dwelling unit partially constructed on contiguous lots; and that each lot has a 47.5-foot wide width and a 37.27-foot depth, with a total lot square footage of 1,770 square feet. He stated that the subject property is one of only 5 parcels on this block fronting on 14th Street; that the substandard lots are greater or similar in size and width to only one of the 5 lots on the block; and, therefore, the 80-percent analysis must go beyond the limits of the block and consider the neighborhood. Due to the hodge-podge of different zoning classifications in the area, he noted that staff selected a large neighborhood boundary, defining “neighborhood” as follows:
- R-1 zoned properties north of Aviation Boulevard between Prospect Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH);
- R-1 zoned properties south of 16th Street between PCH and Aviation Boulevard;
- R-1 zoned properties east of PCH between 16th Street and Aviation Boulevard; and
- R-1 zoned properties west of Prospect Avenue between 16th Street and Aviation Boulevard.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated that of the 181 R-1 parcels within the neighborhood boundary, only one is similar in size and width; therefore, the subject lots are greater or similar to only 0.5 percent of the lots in the neighborhood as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance; and based on this analysis, the lots do qualify for merger.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to MERGE 1021 14th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To not merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated the subject property is a 7,920-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the corner lot has a 35-foot wide frontage with a 4,743-square-foot lot size; that the interior lot has a 31-foot frontage with 3,177 square feet of lot area; and that the property contains a single-family residence which straddles between the lot lines. He advised that the property meets the basic criteria to be considered for merger as set forth in Section 16.20.020 since the interior lot is less than the minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, and the main structure is sited on both contiguous lots; however, pursuant to criteria related to neighborhood compatibility, the subject property shall not be merged due to its combined lot size of 7,920 square feet unless the integrity of the neighborhood will be harmed. He added that the subject property is one of 17 lots that front on Prospect Avenue; that of these 17 parcels, 9 parcels are similar in size and width to the interior lot on the subject parcel; and, therefore, the smaller interior lot is greater or similar to only 52.9 percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance. He further added that the smaller interior lot is essentially the same size and width to all the parcels on the east side of Prospect Avenue. He stated given the lot pattern on the block and in the neighborhood, staff does not believe separate development of these two lots will adversely impact the neighborhood integrity; therefore, staff would recommend that the lots not be merged; and, furthermore, he added this would allow the property to be developed as two equally sized parcels in the future with a Lot Line Adjustment.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Jim McFarland, Torrance, noted that his wife is the subject property owner; and read a statement on her behalf as follows:
“I urge the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendation of the Community Development Department that the two lots comprising this property not be merged. I am open, however, to the possibility, as also suggested by the Department, of a Lot Line Adjustment at some point to make the lots into two parcels of approximately equal size. Thank you for your consideration.”
Kent Allen, area neighbor, stated he was approached by several of his neighbors, all who believe it would be more appropriate to have one single house on this site; highlighted the parking problems in this area; and urged the Commission to merge the lots, believing there is enough density in this neighborhood.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman stated this is one of the very few places the Commission is going to look at potential merger of a parcel that comes almost to the 4,000-square-foot minimum size; that looking at this especially from the Prospect Avenue profile from that lot, counting down from Lot No. 16 to No. 5, every single lot is 30 feet; and stated it would be reasonable to leave this as two separate lots. He expressed his belief the only reason this is before the Commission is because this is an unusual pie-shaped property.
Commissioner Pizer and Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted their concurrence with Commissioner Hoffman’s comments.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to NOTmerge 1504 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen, Perrotti -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson stated the subject lot is a street-to-alley lot on a walk street located on the south side of 31st Street between Manhattan Avenue and Morningside Drive; that it is a small lot under the R-1 development standards; and that the property is located within the R-1 zone with a height limit of 25 feet. He added that the applicant is requesting consideration as a convex sloping lot and is proposing alternative points at the top of the bank along both the east and west property lines as the basis for measuring height rather than using the straight line interpolation method. He stated that the definition for building height and grade is set forth in the Zoning Code, and the method for determining building height is based on the surveyed elevation points at the property corners; added that the definition, however, allows for consideration of other points along the property line for convex lots; that in these situations, the grade may be based on alternate points; and that the intent of this convex slope finding is to allow use of alternate points if the evidence supports there is a natural or unaltered convex condition. He added that in this case, based on the topographic profile submitted and investigation of this site, staff believes the current grades demonstrate a convex slope which appears to be a natural condition consistent with other properties on the block to the west.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Lorena Pulichino, representing the applicant, offered to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, that there exists a CONVEX slope at 242 31st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Richard Denniston stated that the subject properties are located on the westerly side of PCH between 30th Street and Gould Avenue and held under the same ownership; that the property at 2901 PCH is currently developed with 3 commercial buildings used for furniture sales; that the property at 2851 has one vacant commercial building; advised that 2901 PCH includes an elongated section that extends behind the alley at the rear of the property at 2851 PCH; and advised that the applicant is proposing a Lot Line Adjustment to transfer this elongated section that contains approximately 1,855 square feet of lot area from 2901 PCH to 2851 PCH. He stated that reconfiguration of the lot lines will not have an adverse impact on street access, front or side setbacks; that after obtaining Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant intends to request a vacation of the portion of the alley running through the property which will improve the development potential of 2851 PCH as a separate parcel; and, therefore, staff recommends approval of the Lot Line Adjustment. He advised that any decision concerning a vacation would be separately considered.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson noted for Commissioner Hoffman that this will not preclude anyone from developing this property, noting there currently is no proposal for this property.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE LLA 07-1. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to July 19, 2008.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, toAPPROVE a one-year extension for VTPM No. 062415 to July 19, 2008. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to June 21, 2008.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, toAPPROVE a one-year extension for VTPM No. 063034 to June 21, 2008. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Centennial mural project at 19 Pier Avenue.
Acting Community Development Director Robertson explained that the Historical Society and the Centennial Committee wishes to display a mural on the west side of the brick building at 19 Pier Avenue, noting this does not involve putting paint directly on the building; and noted it is advertising a historical event for this city. He noted the property owner is in agreement with the proposal.
By Minute Order, there was unanimous Planning Commission approval of this request.
-
Memorandum regarding rotation of Planning Commission Chairmanship
There was unanimous agreement to follow the usual rotation of Commission Chair, with Mr. Kersenboom serving as Planning Commission Chair and Mr. Perrotti serving as Planning Commission Vice-Chair.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Perrotti congratulated Peter Hoffman for being reappointed as Planning Commissioner.
Commissioner Hoffman congratulated Sam Perrotti for being reappointed as Planning Commissioner.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 11:05 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARING(S)
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 2007.
| Kent Allen, Chairman | Ken Robertson, Acting Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |