|
|
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 Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman Recording Secretary Denise Bothe |
Oral / Written Communications
Vice-Chairman Perrotti announced that the Hermosa Beach Art Walk event will take place on August 18, 2007, from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Upper Pier Avenue; advised that the $25 tickets for the fund-raiser event on Saturday evening, from 7:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., will include dinner and drinks; added that this year’s event will salute Mr. LeRoy Grannis, a well-known surf photographer in this area; and stated there will be a silent auction and a regular auction of fine quality art.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of June 19, 2007 Minutes .
Commissioner Allen noted that Howard Longacre submitted a letter in opposition to the summary comments on Item 4 of the July 17, 2007, Planning Commission minutes.
Acting Director Robertson stated the minutes secretary took a reasonable approach to summarizing the approximately 40 people who spoke in opposition and their concerns with regard to the Condom Revolution application, summarizing all the issues that were mentioned. He added there are audio and video tapes of each meeting if someone is interested in listening to them.
Commissioner Pizer pointed out the meeting is recorded and televised; and that it’s been the tradition to summarize long hearing items, reiterating the meeting can be listened to on tape or video.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti added that the Planning Commission minutes are even more detailed than City Council minutes; and suggested that the minutes include Mr. Longacre’s comment with regard to the Condom Revolution selling materials for adults only.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti to APPROVE the June 19, 2007, Minutes, modifying those minutes to reflect Howard Longacre’s comment, whether the establishment was going to be providing materials that were adult only, 18 years of age and older.
Acting Director Robertson asked for clarification, whether Vice-Chairman Perrotti is asking for the minutes to specify what Mr. Longacre said, pointing out that issue was repeatedly addressed by other speakers and already included in those minutes.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti indicated yes, to add that Mr. Longacre made that comment. Mr. Longacre’s letter states: “I questioned and focused on the fact that the application appeared to be a 100-percent adult business and thus did not meet the ordinance under which the CUP was being asked for.”
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pizer and carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 07-25denying a Conditional Use Permit application for a retail business in which some, but no greater than 20 percent, of its stock-in-trade materials are defined as “X-rated” and/or “adult paraphernalia” in an existing commercial building located at 727 Pacific Coast Highway.
Acting Director Robertson mentioned that staff worked with the City Attorney’s office in drafting this resolution.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-25. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 21, 2007 meeting.
Associate Planner Denniston advised that the applicant is requesting a continuance to August 21, 2007, in order to complete the request for a traffic impact study.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, to CONTINUE to August 21, 2007, CUP 07-8 / PARK 07-4 -- Conditional Use Permit for a frozen yogurt business with a drive-through window and outdoor dining in an existing commercial building of 1,690 square feet; and a Parking Plan to be classified as a snack shop in order to base parking requirements on retail commercial use at 900 Pacific Coast Highway, Pinkberry. 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 Denniston advised that the Planning Commission continued this hearing at its last meeting, requesting the applicant work with the residents to address their concerns with visibility of the rooftop panel antennas; noted that on June 28, 2007, the applicant held a community meeting and presented the revised plan to the local residents; stated that the revised design provides more visibility through the rooftop antennas, as the screening walls will be eliminated; that the antenna will be free-standing, held by a non-penetrating rooftop ballast frame and painted blue to match the horizon; advised that the separation between each antenna has been increased from 2.5 feet to 4 feet, maximizing visibility between the antennas; and that the height and depth of the rooftop antennas will remain the same as the original design of 7 feet high and 2 feet deep. He stated the revised design includes a cable tray that sits on the roof to the west of the antennas, measuring approximately 1 foot in width and 2 inches high, which will protect the cables from the weather; noted it was the consensus of the residents who attended the community meeting to paint the proposed 3 antennas blue, believing it will best intersperse with the sky and the ocean; added that the original project includes 2 additional panels mounted on the exterior walls of the building facing Aviation Boulevard and Aubrey Court below the parapet wall; and that the design and location of these 2 panels will remain unchanged.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Jason Kozora, representing the applicant, stated he met with the residents following the hearing last month and obtained their names and phone numbers, gave them a call and set up a community meeting at the site; and explained that he gave them an option of using 3 colors when removing the screen wall -- tan to match the building, blue to match the sky/ocean, or the typical white, noting those residents were more favorable to the blue. He stated they have increased the separation from 2.5 to 4 feet, which basically moves the antennas farther apart for a better view; and he emphasized the E-911 capabilities of this site, highlighting a few articles citing the importance of E-911 service to accommodate emergencies. He pointed out that without adequate T-Mobile service in this area, the E-911 service would not be possible.
Mr. Kozora noted for Commissioner Allen that due to the hilly terrain, they would need 6 to 7 right-of-way covenants, noting that the RF engineer has indicated that would be too cost prohibitive; he stated they could put multiple antennas on utility poles, but pointed out that they would only get 3 to 4 antennas on each pole as opposed to the 10 at this site; that placing the antennas on poles would reduce their capacity; and noted that the equipment cabinets would also be smaller, 1/8th the size of the proposed cabinets because they would have to be strapped to the pole or placed in a ground vault. He stated by doing that, instead of handling thousands of calls which the proposed site could handle, they would only be able to accommodate 20 calls at any given time on the utility poles. He stated it is more advantageous to use existing buildings instead of utility poles whenever possible, noting a free-standing pole is the last option.
Don Feeny, Ocean Drive resident, stated he objects to the proposal because it will negatively impact his view. He stated he did not get notice about the meeting conducted by the applicant. He indicated he had left the last Planning Commission meeting before this item was discussed.
Denise Macrae, Ocean Drive resident, stated that the residents came to no agreement at the community meeting conducted by the applicant; noted the proposed antennas will create an unsightly obstruction to the view of the residents; and questioned if the Quality Inn had to make some height concessions when that project was first proposed years ago, stating any height concessions should not be altered now. She stated this would negatively impact the property values for those impacted by this proposal. She suggested this matter be continued because there are a lot of residents on vacation, believing there would have been more residents attending the meeting had it not been summer.
Mariano Alvarez, Ocean Drive resident, noted his opposition to this proposal, stating it will have a negative impact on his view.
Mr. Kozora stated they are complying with all aspects of the City’s adopted wireless codes, that they are not exceeding any height limits; and pointed out they have exhausted all other possible alternatives. He stated if this does not get approved, the residents with T-Mobile will not have adequate coverage in this area. He pointed out that adequate public hearing notice went out to the residents, believing they would have commented on the project if that was their intent. He added that the rooftop screen wall is equal to the height on the hill at Aviation and that it is not possible to get that signal up the hill without the proposed height. He added if they were to flush mount that sector, it would not be effective.
Commissioner Allen questioned if an independent RF engineer has provided input.
Mr. Kozora stated the RF engineers are independent contractors at T-Mobile, that they are paid to find the best locations for adequate coverage; and stated they are financially motivated to keeping the antenna sectors as low as possible, yet provide the best coverage. He added that the RF engineers are trained to exhaust all options; and he stated this site barely meets the coverage objective, that it is not 100 percent, but it’s the best they can do in this area. He stated this is the last option for this area.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if there were any rooftop restrictions when this building was being constructed.
Associate Planner Denniston stated he is not aware of any rooftop restrictions for this building; and noted that this building was approved approximately in 1985 when the approval process was much different than it is today.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti highlighted the number of commercial buildings that house these type units throughout the City; noted his understanding there is inadequate coverage in this area, noting that improvements are critically necessary; and expressed his belief the applicant’s revised proposal is an improvement. He mentioned he would rather see this type proposal than a large number of single poles.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief this proposal would not have been approved when this hotel was first being considered; and stated there must be a better solution to providing coverage in this area, suggesting the applicant investigate the area directly across the street on top of Super Cuts.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief this proposal would have been approved when this building was first proposed, believing this would have been considered somewhat of an accessory structure on the roof; he noted the many cell sites throughout the City; and expressed his belief the revised proposal is a reasonable compromise in terms of aesthetics and efficiency.
Chairman Kersenboom expressed his belief this would have been approved as a rooftop appendage; and highlighted the importance of being able to call for emergency assistance in this area. He pointed out there is no view ordinance in this city; and stated the applicant has made accommodations for those residents who spoke at the prior hearing. He noted they could have put a chimney on top.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CUP 07-2 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of an existing hotel building, Quality Inn, at 901 Aviation Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Acting Director Robertson stated a tavern was originally established on this site over 50 years ago, prior to the requirements for any conditional use permit; that in 1989, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for beer and wine and to continue the use as a tavern; that in 1997, the Planning Commission approved an amendment for live entertainment; and that in 2002, the Planning Commission approved an amendment request for on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment, which decision was sustained by City Council upon reconsideration. He noted that the business currently operates under a Type 48 license from the State Alcohol Beverage Control, which is on-sale general for public premises; advised that this applicant has recently purchased this business and intends to operate it under the terms of the existing conditional use permit; however, the applicant is proposing several interior modifications that are not considered minor and would require amending the conditional use permit. He noted that while the basic floor plan will remain similar with respect to the location of the bar, the kitchen, the stage and restrooms, the changes and improvements would include the following: moving the primary entrance to the northwest corner along 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) with a lobby and fixed bench and standing wait area; the addition of 183 square feet of kitchen area for additional food preparation space; enlarging the restrooms to meet ADA requirements; the gaming area to be converted to dining booths and casual dining seating; and that a 203-square-foot raised dining area with bench seating is being proposed adjacent to the restrooms. He stated the applicant is not requesting any changes in the current use with respect to the hours of operation or the designated live entertainment area. He added that a preliminary evaluation of the occupant load shows it will be comparable or less than the current occupant load; and since the proposed interior modifications are generally consistent with that of the previous Planning Commission and City Council approvals, he noted staff would recommend approval of this CUP request subject to standard conditions of approval which incorporate the previous conditions from the 2002 City Council approval.
Acting Director Robertson explained for Commissioner Hoffman that the occupant load may decrease at the same time because the applicant is increasing the kitchen area and restroom areas, losing some of the area that was previously counted in the occupancy load, there being less customer area.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti highlighted the current inadequate parking.
Acting Director Robertson stated the applicant will not have to provide any additional parking, that it is considered legal, non-conforming; and added they do have 8 parking spaces, which is shared with the adjacent business.
In response to Vice-Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the possibility of changing the hours of operation, Assistant City Attorney Feldman explained the appropriate modifications that can be made this evening would have to be related to what is being requested, which is the expansion of the kitchen and restrooms; and added that the hours can be changed if there is a condition that has arisen since the 2002 amendment that would require some modifications, something to generate that change to that condition.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Allen Sanford, applicant, stated they will be upgrading the restrooms to comply with ADA requirements; that they will be making the kitchen twice as large, noting it is not up to fire, health and ADA codes; advised that the pool tables and gaming machines will not be part of this new business; and noted their intent to renovate the historical architecture of this building. He stated they are not proposing to intensify the use at this establishment, that they are only trying to improve the business. He asked that an amendment be made to Condition No. 5d, the requirement for an acoustical study to be prepared biannually, expressing his belief a biannual study is not necessary; and that Condition No. 7 be amended to allow cuing outside the building on PCH when necessary. He pointed out this is a bar and a tavern with food service; and stated that live entertainment will be provided, such as a piano, jazz, and live bands, pointing out he is not interested in causing any problems from the operations of this business. He added there will be less occupant floor space by virtue of redesigning the kitchen and the restrooms.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated the entrance for the Union Cattle Company has been successful in baffling the noise.
Mr. Sanford stated this establishment will have an improved design to baffle the noise for its entrance.
Richard Digiorgio, owner of Okell's, stated he has purchased the lot behind his building to double the parking for the restaurant and his business; stated the shared parking will not be a problem because the demand for parking will be at different times; and he noted his support for this applicant’s request. He noted for Commissioner Allen that no interest other than food and alcohol have been received for this building.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen agreed that Condition 5d should be amended, but stated that Condition No. 7 should remain as is.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti noted that many businesses have lines that extend out onto the sidewalk; and that it should be appropriate to allow controlled cuing on the PCH sidewalk. He stated that no queuing should be permitted on 2nd Street.
Commissioner Pizer noted his concurrence to allow some cuing on PCH in a controlled manner.
Acting Director Robertson stated it is reasonable to require an acoustical study from the applicant when he opens the new business, but noted that every two years might be too frequent.
Chairman Kersenboom expressed his belief a study done every two years is an unnecessary expense, but that he would support an additional study be performed if there are noise complaints.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated he would have liked to been able to modify the hours of operation, believing there should be a future vision for all the redevelopment taking place along PCH; and stated that because there are more residents living closer to those restaurant establishments around Upper Pier Avenue, Aviation Boulevard, and PCH than there is with the Downtown area, those operating hours should be reduced. He stated he would support some controlled cuing along PCH when necessary.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief a biannual acoustical study is not necessary unless there are legitimate noise complaints; and stated this proposal will benefit the City.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if an acoustical study has been done on this building.
Acting Director Robertson stated that an acoustical study has been done, but that another one is necessary following the modifications to the interior of the building.
Commissioner Hoffman noted he is pleased with the proposal to upgrade this building; and stated he would support this request since the applicant is not proposing an intensification of use.
Commissioner Allen stated that cuing should only be allowed on PCH, heading south.
Chairman Kersenboom stated this is an improvement for this building; noted his concurrence with the proposed amendments to Condition Nos. 5d and 7; and stated that one acoustical study after the modifications have been made is sufficient.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CUP 07-9 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment for alterations to the interior floor plan of an existing business with on-sale alcohol and live entertainment at 142 Pacific Coast Highway, currently known as “The Pitcher House”; that Condition No. 5d be amended to require an acoustical study be performed prior to opening; that another acoustical study be performed one year after opening; that no other acoustical studies be conducted unless deemed necessary by the Community Development Director; and to allow cuing only on PCH, with the cuing direction heading south.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti noted his opposition to requiring another acoustical study a year after opening.
Commissioner Pizer stated that the City will be apprised of any problems with noise because of complaints and police reports.
Commissioner Allen stated he will agree to amend his motion and delete the requirement for the second acoustical study a year after opening.
Commissioner Hoffman suggested striking Condition No. 5d and modifying No. 7 to limit the queuing to PCH only.
Commissioners Allen and Hoffman noted their support of each other’s amendments to the motion.
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 Denniston highlighted the provisions of the Lot Merger Ordinance, which have been addressed in depth at prior Planning Commission hearings. He noted that the subject property is one large 7,500-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains a single-family residence partially constructed on contiguous lots with a hallway that connects the main house to the garage; and stated that each lot has a 50-foot wide width and 75-foot depth, with a total lot square footage of 7,359 square feet. He stated this property meets the basic criteria to be considered for merger since the lots are less than the minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet and a portion of the main structure is sited on both contiguous lots; however, pursuant to the criteria related to the neighborhood compatibility, he noted the subject property shall not be merged due to its combined lot size of 7,500 square feet unless the integrity of the neighborhood is harmed. He stated that the substandard lot is greater or similar in size to 50 percent of the lots on the block and is greater or similar in width to 100 percent of the lots; and given that 100 percent of the lots on the block have the same or smaller lot width of 50 feet, he noted staff would recommend the lots not be merged.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Mark Anello, property owner, noted his concurrence with not merging the lots.
There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to NOT MERGE the property at 530 24th Street, comprised of two existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the August 21, 2007 meeting.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that because the property owner is out of town, this item is recommended to be continued to the August 21, 2007 meeting.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to August 21, 2007, L-11 -- Lot merger determination for the property at 2408 The Strand, comprised of two existing lots, to determine whether the lots shall be merged into one parcel. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the subject property is one large 7,630-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains a single-family residence partially constructed on contiguous lots which is oriented to and fronts on Manhattan Avenue; noted that the two lots are reverse corner lots fronting on 19th Street; advised that the property meets the basic criteria to be considered for merger since the smaller lot is less than the minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet and the main structure is sited on both lots; however, pursuant to the criteria related to neighborhood compatibility, the subject property shall not be merged due to its combined size unless the integrity of the neighborhood is harmed. He advised there are 81 R-1 zoned parcels within the neighborhood boundary, only 37 are similar in size and width; that the substandard lot is greater or similar to 45 percent of the lots in the neighborhood; that there is no compelling argument that separate development of these lots will harm the integrity of the neighborhood; however, he noted the Commission may want to consider the orientation and steep topography of the lots along 19th Street and whatever integrity of the neighborhood would be harmed with new development fronting on 19th Street.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer stated there is no compelling reason to merge these lots.
Commissioner Hoffman stated as this lot is currently developed, it stands out as an unusually large parcel for this area and that he would not recommend merging these lots.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated this complies with the merger ordinance; that it is a good sized lot; and that he would support not merging these lots.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to NOT MERGE the property at 1901 Manhattan Avenue, comprised of two existing lots; and directed staff to bring back a resolution to support not merging these lots. 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 Denniston stated that the subject property is comprised of approximately 7,490 square feet, comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains a 12-unit apartment building which straddles between the lot lines; that the property meets the basic criteria to be considered for merger since both the lots are 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 7,490 square feet unless the integrity of the neighborhood will be harmed. He stated that within this defined neighborhood, there are 150 parcels, of which 113 parcels are similar or smaller in size and width to the subject lot; therefore, the lot is similar or greater in size and width to 74.8 percent of the lots on the block; and he added that the interior lot is essentially the same size and width or greater than most of the parcels on the south side of 21st Street along Manhattan Avenue, with the exception of a few half lots. He stated that based on this analysis, the integrity of the neighborhood would not be harmed if these lots were separately developed in the future; added, in fact, that merging the lots will create a parcel with a combined area of approximately 7,500 square feet, which would be second to the largest parcel within the neighborhood; and that given the high percentage of lots within the neighborhood that are similar or smaller in size and width than the subject lots, staff does not believe separate development of these two lots will adversely impact the neighborhood integrity.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman
Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to NOT MERGE the property at 228 22nd Street, comprised of two existing lots. 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 Denniston stated the subject property is a 2,590-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision at the northeast corner of 25th Street and Myrtle Avenue; advised that the property contains a single-family residence which straddles between the lot lines; that the lots are less than the minimum lot size and they meet the rule of the main structure being sited on both contiguous lots; advised that there are 149 single-family zoned parcels within the neighborhood, of which 6 are similar in size and width to the smaller of the subject lots; that the substandard lot is greater or similar to only 4 percent of the lots in the neighborhood; and based on this analysis, he noted the lots qualify for merger.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGE the property at 302 25th Street, comprised of two existing lots. 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 Denniston stated the subject property is a 5,360-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the property contains a single-family residence which straddles between the lot lines; noted that the property meets the basic criteria to be considered for merger, as the lots are less than the minimum lot size and they meet the rule that the main structure is sited on both contiguous lots; advised that there are a total of 35 lots; that the substandard lots are greater and similar in size and width to none of the lots on the block; and given that 100 percent of the lots are larger than the subject lot, he stated staff would recommend the lots be merged.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Rex Atwell, Valley Drive resident, questioned if this change will have any impact upon the recording of this property, noting there is a current problem with the County Recorder’s Office with the description of this property.
Acting Director Robertson explained that a merger has noting to do with the legal description, unless someone re-subdivides the entire area.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to MERGE the property at 2441 Valley Drive, comprised of two existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment.
Acting Director Robertson stated that Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the issue of rebuilding nonconforming structures in the C-1, C-3, and residential zones; noted that the Planning Commission reviewed this and recommended that no substantive changes be made to that section of the code, which was modified by City Council in November 2006; and stated that the Planning Commission also concurred with staff at the April meeting regarding its clarification of this code section. He explained that the section as revised by Council is silent with respect to rebuilding a nonconforming use in a commercial use in a residential zone and is also inconsistent with state law, as it does not allow reconstruction of existing residential uses that exceed 45 units per acre; and that staff is recommending those clarifications to that section, while at the same time recommending City Council otherwise not change the amendments as they adopted in November.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti noted his understanding the City does have structures and residential buildings that exceed the 45 units per acre.
Acting Director Robertson concurred with Vice-Chairman Perrotti’s comment.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE TEXT 04-4 -- Text amendment to clarify Section 17.52.070 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to reconstruction of damaged nonconforming buildings, as recommended by staff. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Kersenboom recessed the meeting at 9:06 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:14 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to August 16, 2008.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the applicant is requesting an extension of the map to allow additional time for the engineer to record and process the final map with the County Engineer.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE a one-year extension of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 062448 for a four-unit condominium at 648 9th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the subject lot is located on the south side of 25th Street to the east of Park Avenue; that the lot is zoned R-1 with a height limit of 25 feet and can be developed with one dwelling unit; that the lot is situated on an incline that slopes downward to the east along 25th Street with an existing house on the relatively flat portion of the lot; he advised that the applicant is requesting consideration of alternative points along both the north and south property lines where the survey and topographic profile clearly show a convex condition; advised that the western half of the lot is fairly flat, while there is a slope differential of 10 feet along the eastern half of the north property line; that along the rear, there is a slope differential of 25 feet along the eastern portion of the lot; and mentioned that no other properties on this block have requested a convex slope determination.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated there is a large slope on this property; and that looking at the topographic map, he can make the determination for a convex slope on this property.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to make the determination there is a convex sloping lot at 482 25th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the minor modifications by minute order.
Acting Director Robertson stated that on October 17, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a plan for a new 3-story office condominium building with a first floor restaurant and snack shop at 1429 Hermosa Avenue; and explained that due to some unforeseen structural changes, the applicant is requesting approval of a number of minor modifications to the previously approved project. He stated at the basement level, there were a couple changes to the parking, but noted this has not affected the number of parking spaces; and advised that at the first floor level there has been some changes to add more area for utilities and an onsite transformer, which will be housed along the southwest property corner. He added that on the second and third floor levels, there have been some changes to the number of units on each level, noting that originally, there were 15 units on the second floor and 17 on the third floor; and that it has now been modified to 14 on the second floor and 18 on the third floor. He stated that the most prominent changes are with the building elevations; that on the second and third floors, the plan had voids and boxes; that they have been reversed to accommodate the structural changes, which has not affected the overall design of the building; given that the applicant has not increased/decreased the overall square footage nor changed the total number of units or parking spaces and basically has maintained the architectural integrity, he stated that staff is recommending approval of these minor modifications by Minute Order.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the minor modifications to the previously approved three-story office condominium building with a restaurant and snack shop on the first floor located at 1429 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
TEXT 07-5 -- Special Study regarding tattoo businesses.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To initiate text amendment and set the matter for public hearing.
Acting Director Robertson stated that recently, the City has received inquiries regarding the establishment of tattoo businesses; advised that currently, the zoning ordinance does not list such a use as permitted within any zoning district; however, the ordinance does provide for similar uses, but in these cases, he noted that staff has determined tattoo or body art businesses are distinctive and that there are no other land uses which share the same characteristics, as tattoo businesses might have different impacts on surrounding land uses and residents. He stated that staff is recommending instead of looking at this as similar to another use in the zoning code, that the Commission consider a code amendment to address this proposed use and that the Commission recommend initiating the process. He noted there are some options that can be considered: allowing the use by right; allowing the use subject to approval of a CUP; allowing the use subject to a CUP plus impose some restrictions to location; or simply not allow the use. He noted the Commission should consider whether to allow the use in one or more commercial districts. He stated the Commission looked at this issue in 1995 wherein it was recommended to adopt an ordinance to conditionally allow these, subject to a conditional use permit in the C-3 zone, but advised that City Council at that time did not take any action on that recommendation. He stated there were health and safety issues of concern back then, which has in more recent years been largely addressed by the County, updating specific provisions that regulate body art establishments. He stated this would require a County issued public health facility permit should these uses ever be allowed in the City.
In response to Vice-Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the controlling agency, Acting Director Robertson stated the County would regulate the health and safety codes governing these uses.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti cited a couple articles that address the increasing number of people who are getting tattoos and piercings; stated his main concern is health, suggesting that more information be obtained with how these businesses are inspected by the County Health Department; and noted he is concerned with the proliferation of these facilities, suggesting a separation restriction.
Commissioner Pizer stated this community has limited space for business establishments and noted his opposition to these limited areas being occupied by tattoo and piecing businesses.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his support to allow these businesses in the C-3 zone, stating those operations can be strictly controlled with a CUP; and stated there is less a concern today with tattoo businesses than there was 20 years ago.
Commissioner Allen noted his support to set a distance restriction from schools and other similar establishments.
Cheri Beaupre, health and safety consultant, noted her extensive study and work in the body art business, pointing out the County Health Department and other health/safety agencies have consulted with her on these practices; and she offered her assistance to Hermosa Beach in this regard. She stated that body artists now use new, updated equipment in the industry; and explained that these businesses are tightly regulated by the County. She stated that parking is rarely a problem because the tattoos are usually done on an appointment basis, an appointment averaging an hour and half. She commented on the requirements of the County. She advised that one must be 18 years of age to get a tattoo and most piercings. She added this is a multi-billion dollar a year business that is seeking a more professional existence in communities.
It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to return with a resolution that addresses requirements for a CUP, allowance in the C-3 zone, and distance/separation limitation.
-
STAFF ITEMS
None
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Commissioner Hoffman noticed that The Tender Box has removed all of its sexually explicit awning signage and adult paraphernalia from the window display.
Acting Director Robertson stated there is some code enforcement action taking place at The Tender Box, noting they are using the upstairs area without the benefit of a permit; and explained that this business is opening a separate apparel store next door.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked staff for a status report on the Aviation Boulevard Study.
Acting Director Robertson stated that due to the limited staff and limited interest in the community, this study has been put on hold for now.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti noted his preference for the work to be completed within the next six months if possible, stating he would not like to see all that work waste away.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti requested that the Commission be provided a report listing all the hours of operation for businesses that have CUP’s.
Acting Director Robertson stated that information can be provided.
Commissioners Allen and Hoffman noted they will be on vacation and not able to attend the August Planning Commission meeting.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:54 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 July 17, 2007.
| Langley Kersenboom, Chairman | Ken Robertson, Acting Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |