|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||
| Present: | Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer |
| Absent: | Allen, Hoffman |
| Also Present: |
Ken Robertson, Acting Community Development Director Associate Planner Richard Denniston Lauren Feldman, Assistant City Attorney Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of July 17, 2007 Minutes.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the July 17, 2007, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 07-32 to not merge two contiguous lots on property commonly known as 1901 Manhattan Avenue.
There was consensus to delete Paragraph 2 under Section 3.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-32 to not merge two contiguous lots on property commonly known as 1901 Manhattan Avenue and deleting Paragraph 2. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 18, 2007, meeting and have the applicant pay for re-noticing.
Acting Director Robertson stated the applicant is seeking additional time to complete the required traffic study and required revisions to the plans; and he noted this matter will be re-noticed since it’s been continued on three prior occasions.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Roger Bacon, resident, expressed his belief the cars are traveling at too high a rate along that part of Aviation Boulevard to allow a drive-through that empties out on the corner going up Aviation Boulevard. He stated his concern with this project is the proposed drive-through.
Bill Hedrick, resident, echoed Mr. Bacon’s concerns with the proposed drive-through.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to September 18, 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: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Hearing Cancelled: No further Planning Commission approvals are necessary to operate the restaurant with on-sale beer and wine and outdoor dining under the terms of the Conditional Use Permit granted in 2000.
Acting Director Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Perrotti the applicants are proposing to follow the same floor plan of the prior CUP from 2000, which is still a valid CUP; and stated the new restaurant will follow all the terms of the CUP.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Denniston noted that Okell’s Fireplace shares an 8-stall parking lot with the Pitcher House, stating that currently, both sites are non-conforming to the parking requirements for retail use and bar/lounges; advised that the applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing parking lot by incorporating the property directly east of the existing parking lot; and that the new parking area will provide twice as much off-street parking as the current parking area. He stated that currently, the lot is developed with a single-family residence; that the property is zoned SPA-7, therefore, the existing single-family residence is a non-conforming building/use; and noted that conversion of the lot into parking for the two existing commercial businesses is a permitted use in the SPA-7 zone. He stated the applicant is proposing to convert the existing ingress/egress apron into an ingress-only apron; that a new egress apron is proposed off the new lot frontage along 2nd Street, adjacent to the east property line; and explained this would require vehicles to exit a 30-degree angle onto 2nd Street. He stated that upon review of the site plan, the Public Works Director recommends adding a condition of approval, that the applicant construct a new 4-foot high barricade 5 feet east of the existing barricade location to eliminate angled egress. He added that the southernmost portion of the site will have 8 parking spaces, of which one will be handicapped accessible; and that the remaining 8 parking spaces will be located parallel to 2nd Street between the ingress and egress aprons. He stated that the applicant has proposed a new trash enclosure adjacent to the north property line and adjacent to the proposed egress-only apron along 2nd Street; and stated that staff is recommending the trash enclosure be located to the southernmost property line, away from the 2nd Street frontage. He added that the proposed parking plan provides approximately 11 percent landscaping along 2nd Street and the west and south property lines; and that staff is recommending all plant/tree types be native Southern California drought tolerant species, abiding by the minimum size requirements. He noted a revised parking plan will provide additional off-street parking spaces for commercial uses that currently lack sufficient parking and noted that staff recommends approval of the parking plan amendment.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Richard DiGiorgio, applicant, asked for clarification on staff’s recommendation to move the barricade 5 feet for the ingress/egress.
Associate Planner Denniston explained that the proposed egress has a 30-degree angle; that staff is recommending setting this back an additional 3 to 4 feet to allow for straight access onto 2nd Street. He explained that as currently designed, when one is using the egress, they have to come at a 30-degree angle because it is set forward 13 feet from the property line; and stated that moving it 3 to 4 feet will allow more flexibility for vehicle maneuvering.
Bill Hedrick, resident, asked to view the plans for the egress/ingress.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti noted his approval with adding more parking and the proposed conditions of approval. His comments were echoed by the Commission.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE PARK 07-5, Parking Plan amendment to expand the shared parking area behind The Pitcher House and Okell’s Fireplace by incorporating the adjacent property to the east at 830 2nd Street, increasing parking from 8 stalls to 16 stalls at 134 and 142 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Acting Director Robertson stated the applicant is proposing a snack shop style café that serves Italian style ice cream (gelato), Italian style coffee, and other specialty coffee drinks; and noted that the floor plans indicate the establishment will have no more than 15 seats to accommodate customers and will not offer a sit-down wait person table service. He stated the applicant is requesting a parking plan so the business can be classified as a snack shop, which enables them to base the parking requirements as a retail commercial use; and added they are also requesting a conditional use permit for outdoor seating. He advised that the parking requirements for a snack bar/snack shop shall be the same as for a restaurant unless it can be shown the characteristics of the building, its location and other mitigating factors result in less parking being necessary for the business; and stated this allows the Commission to consider the type and intensity of snack shop use, its location, and if deemed appropriate, apply the same parking requirements as would be applied for a retail commercial use. He added if the more intensive restaurant parking requirement were applied in this case, one space per 100 square feet, 17 additional parking spaces would be required. He stated, therefore, the applicant is requesting to be classified as a snack shop, which is consistent with the City’s definition in the code for snack shops, given the types of food they will be offering, less than 15 seats to accommodate their customers, and no sit-down wait person table service. He stated that staff believes the proposed business is consistent with the definition of snack shop and, as such, will not intensify the existing land use in comparison to the previous retail establishment, which gives the Commission the authority to approve the use without requiring any additional parking.
Acting Director Robertson stated the applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit for outdoor seating; noted in this case, the existing façade will be set back to accommodate the proposed patio area, however, no additional square footage will be added to accommodate the outdoor seating; and stated that staff is recommending a condition of approval that is unique to this business, to limit the hours of operation for the outdoor seating to 10:00 P.M., which is consistent with a condition applied to the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, and Starbucks.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Brittny Tacker, Redondo Beach, co-owner, stated the gelato will be made on the premises each day with fresh ingredients, noting there is a batch freezer on site; advised that the production worker will be on site from 7:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. to produce the gelato; and she invited everyone to visit them when they open.
Monica Ibarra, Redondo Beach, co-owner, invited everyone to visit their business when it opens.
Ms. Ibarra stated the 10:00 P.M. patio closing is acceptable.
Ms. Tacker stated they would like to keep the interior hours of operation until 1:00 a.m. to coincide with the Comedy Magic Club next door and other late closing businesses in the immediate area.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Perrotti’s comment, Acting Director Robertson stated the City does not regulate the hours of operation of coffee houses/snack shops, that the City only regulates the outdoor use, pointing out there is no alcohol involved with this business.
Leland VanEmber, resident, noted his business is located next door to this proposed business; expressed his concern that patrons enjoying the gelatos will venture into his business and make a mess inside his building; expressed his belief Condition No. 4 should be amended to require the applicant’s employees wash down their sidewalk on a daily basis, stating that this should also be required of all the businesses in this area. He added that the benches should also be washed on a daily basis. He added that an adequate supply of trash receptacles and napkins should be available. He stated that one more condition should be added relating to the building itself in accepting this business request; explained that this building is old; that there are some problems around the building which might cause a problem with health conditions inside the store; and stated that before the store is allowed to open, that the building and everything around it/behind it be evaluated by an expert to make sure there are no conditions that cause health concerns. He pointed out if this is approved, there will be 4 retail businesses along this area out of 16 stores, which is hurting the retail businesses in this area.
Erin Schmitz, resident, asked for clarification on the hours of operation.
Chairman Kersenboom noted the hours will be from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. for the outdoor patio and 1:00 A.M. for the interior business.
Mr. Schmitz stated there is currently too much noise and trash in this area.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Associate Planner Denniston noted for Commissioner Pizer that Cold Stone, Starbucks, Coffee Bean, and the Tea Leaf stick with the corporate closing hours of 10:00 P.M.
Acting Director Robertson reiterated the City does not regulate the hours for those uses, only the outdoor areas. He noted that the CUP is for the outdoor dining only.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked if there are any other restaurants required to clean the sidewalks on a daily basis and questioned if there are any building code violations.
Acting Director Robertson stated that Condition No. 4 could be amended to specify the outdoor seating area and adjacent sidewalk be maintained on a daily basis; explained there were some issues with this space at the mezzanine level – pointing out the old Scorpio shop used this area as part of its retail business; and advised that this business will not be using that space for the operation of their business. He added that the landlord was doing some work without a permit, noting that work has been halted by the City; advised there is a condition for them to submit detailed plans for the alterations to the mezzanine; and mentioned this space is now intended for storage.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated this will be a welcomed addition to the area; expressed his belief there will not be a problem with loitering; and stated if the 1:00 A.M. closing causes a problem in the future, it can be brought back to the Commission. He wished the applicants luck with their business endeavor. The Commission echoed those comments.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE PARK 07-6/CUP 07-10, Parking Plan to allow a gelato business, Paciugo, to be classified as a snack shop in order to base parking requirements as a retail commercial use, and a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor seating, located within an existing commercial building at 1034 Hermosa Avenue, and amending Condition No. 4 to clean the sidewalk on a daily basis. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman ABSTAIN: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that in 1984, Council granted a variance on appeal from the Board of Zoning Adjustments for a second-story addition with non-conforming setbacks; noted that this variance allowed for the construction of a second-story addition with a 225-square-foot rear yard deck; advised that the applicant is proposing to convert an existing shed roof into a 140-square-foot second story deck off the master bedroom suite; and noted that the applicant is not extending or increasing the building footprint in any manner. He stated that in order to make this modification, the applicant will remove an existing 6-inch eave projection from the public right of way, effectively decreasing the encroachment by approximately 5 inches from the property line; and he highlighted the findings necessary to grant a variance:
1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) The variance(s) are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question; 3) The granting of the variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and 4) The variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
Associate Planner Denniston noted the subject lot has a 30-foot width and a 95-foot length and fronts a walk street; that of the 13 lots fronting on 20th Street, 5 have the same dimensions as the subject lot; that the lots have varying widths and depths between 30 feet and 50 feet, however, 12 of the 13 lots have the same depth of 95 feet; and therefore, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limiting the physical conditions of the subject lot since it is similar in size and shape as other lots on 20th Street. He noted that arguably, the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or to achieve parity with other properties in the same vicinity and zone since a 140-foot deck could be constructed by right under the current provisions of the zoning code if the applicant were to reconfigure the second story floor plan. He added that the single-family residence, as constructed, complies with the 300-square-foot open space requirement, is developed with an existing 225-square-foot second story deck to the rear of the property; and therefore, he noted the applicant has not demonstrated why an additional 140-square-foot deck is necessary to achieve parity with the neighborhood. He stated the applicant is proposing only a minor conversion of the shed roof and to a second story deck; further, the proposed deck is set back an additional foot and will no longer encroach into the public right of way; stated that staff believes the proposed deck is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure; and that it is consistent with the policies and goals of the General Plan because the construction of a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the General Plan designation.
Commissioner Pizer asked if similar properties in this area have made comparable modifications.
Associate Planner Denniston stated he is not aware of any other variances approved on 20th Street.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Karl Smith, project architect, stated this is an existing building that was constructed in 1918 and similar to the variance application that was filed at the time they did the addition to it; and he explained this basically is a historical building with an existing footprint, only converting that portion of the roof above it into a deck. He explained when they were repairing the roof, more damage was discovered, and it was felt at that time it would be better utilized as a deck to make it similar with the other houses in the area and feed onto the public nature of the walk street.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer noted he is pleased with the proposed design, stating it is consistent with the neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated the most difficult finding was No. 1 because there are a lot of similar lots, however, they are dealing with a home that was built in 1918; and explained that the City would like to, where possible, keep these older beach bungalows rather than tearing them down. He added that the proposed modification is small and minor; and he noted he can support all findings to support the variance. He noted the first finding is supported by the City’s intent to retain the beach bungalow style/architecture.
There was consensus that all findings can be made to support the request.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE VAR 07-5 a Variance to allow a second-story deck with no front yard setback rather than the required 5 feet, aligning with an existing non-conforming front yard setback on the first floor for a single-family residence located at 37 20th Street, and directed staff to prepare a resolution in favor of this request. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment.
Acting Director Robertson stated that based on the direction from the Commission at its last meeting, staff has prepared a text amendment to allow body art studios in the C-3 zones subject to a conditional use permit; and advised that the C-3 zone specifically includes Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard corridors and the SPA zones along the PCH corridor. He explained that the ordinance defines body art studios as any establishment where the principle activity is tattooing and/or body piercing; that it is also defined as the art of coloring the skin with a needle by injecting ink/dye or other coloring material upon or under the skin so as to leave a permanent mark or design on the skin; and he pointed out that tattooing does not include the application of permanent makeup that is performed as in incidental service in a beauty salon. He added that body piercing is defined as creating an opening in the human body for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other decorations. He stated the conditional use permit will be subject to the requirement that it be located 1,000 feet from any other body art studio; that it will be subject to the requirement the studio be closed from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.; and that it will be required to obtain a public health facility permit as required by the Los Angeles County Health Department. He pointed out the County Health Department has many rules that govern the use and licensing of these establishments, such as requiring a plan approval by the County, registration of tattoo artists, and requiring clients of tattoos to be at least 18 years old unless consent is given by a parent/guardian, to name a few.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked if these establishments would have the same parking criteria as retail or service; and noted his support to not allow anyone inside the premises if they are not at least 18 years old.
Acting Director Robertson indicated yes, they would have the same parking criteria; and mentioned that not allowing individuals 17 years of age and younger on the premises is more restrictive than the County regulations.
Responding to Vice-Chairman Perrotti’s comment, Assistant City Attorney Feldman stated it may be better to consider that age issue with each business application that comes before the Commission, considering the impacts that will be generated from that specific business.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked why the beauty salons have been exempted with the permanent makeup applications.
Acting Director Robertson stated permanent makeup is a common practice already in beauty salons and noted that staff has not seen any negative impacts from that use.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Cheri Beaupre, Gardena, stated she certifies the body artists in the industry; and she presented this evening a petition with 300 signatures indicating support for this type business in Hermosa Beach. She stated that this type business is a tranquil, quiet business, unlike many of the problematic businesses on Pier Avenue. She advised that permanent makeup has the same health issues that are regulated by Los Angeles Health Department and stated that permanent makeup application should be categorized the same as body art/tattooing. She advised that with permanent makeup applications, the same tattoo instruments and ink are used. She advised that ear piercing is done at various malls without a parent’s consent and stated these piercings shouldn’t be allowed in a general retail establishment. She added that the tattoo artists take tests to prove they are qualified. She pointed out that people from all walks of life are getting tattoos these days.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked if there is a certification program for body art, noting his main concern relates to health issues.
Ms. Beaupre stated that in order to successfully pass through an academy such as the one she operates, the tattoo artist has to prove they have skills; advised that each artist must apprentice for a period of time within someone’s shop; and noted that the artists obtain annual updates for their certification. She once again offered her assistance to staff in drafting this test amendment. She stated she teaches a course in sterilization, cross contamination, blood borne pathogen transmission, trains on how to complete the OSHA compliance forms, the logs for how they remove their trash and needle containers, noting all of this is mandated/regulated by the County. She stated if an artist does not successfully complete these courses, they do not get certified. She advised that every certificate is numbered; that the Health Department has the corresponding photo of their driver’s licenses all on file; and that if there is ever a problem, the City can call the Health Department to address any concern. She stated these artists are honest, hard working individuals.
Ms. Beaupre noted for Commissioner Pizer there is no state certification at this time other than the fact the artist has to prove they run a safe and healthy business.
Bill Hedrick, resident, questioned if ex-felons are allowed to work in this profession and whether Hermosa Beach could prevent them from working in this community.
Johnny Anderson, Redondo Beach, stated he owns a high end professional tattoo shop in Gardena; advised that his entire staff has been certified in the blood borne pathogens program that Ms. Beaupre was speaking about; and pointed out that his shop has gone above and beyond the County Health Department requirements to ensure that all the tattoos they do are very sterile/antiseptic. He offered his assistance should staff be seeking additional help with this text amendment.
Ashley Beck, resident, noted his support of a good tattoo shop in Hermosa Beach, but indicated he would like to see a low number of these establishments.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti pointed out there would be 1,000 feet separating these establishments, noting that would help to limit the number in the City.
Robert Moest, attorney representing Mr. Anderson, noted he has contacted staff on Mr. Anderson’s behalf to open a similar use in this community; and expressed his belief this text amendment is a good step forward, focusing on the need to make sure the tattoo establishments comply with County Health requirements. He pointed out that in the last few years, tattoo artistry has exploded in popularity; advised that underground/illegal tattooing can create health risks, but stated that the tattooing done in legal shops/establishments are very safe. He advised that Los Angeles County’s health regulations concerning tattooing is one of the most aggressive/stringent and well-drawn in the nation as far as protecting the health of patrons; mentioned that some studies indicate the greater risk is to the person giving the tattoo, not the person receiving the tattoo; but added the County’s regulations protect both individuals. He pointed out that Mr. Anderson is a nationally recognized tattoo artist, involved in shows all over the country and winning a number of awards for his work; and expressed his belief the City would benefit from Mr. Anderson having a business in Hermosa Beach. He stated this is a different time where this expression of art is widely accepted, and stated it should be permitted in Hermosa Beach.
Jim Ferrell stated he owns a business on PCH and expressed his belief the text amendment should not include all C-3 zoning, stating this zoning is located across the street from the Community Center, next to schools, and next to places where children may be influenced by the positioning of the business and the temptation it may provide. He suggested modifying some of the C-3 zones to get away from the schools and to look more closely at where this business may be better suited, yet allow for this type of business to grow and flourish.
Roger Bacon, resident, recommended that people read about the negative impacts of tattooing and piercings, such as blood diseases, bone diseases, skin disorders/infections, allergic reactions, MRI complications; and he commented on what he believes was an inadequate public hearing notice concerning this matter at the prior meeting. He suggested that a more suitable location for these type businesses might be the Pier Plaza area, not PCH and Aviation; and asked why this City can’t exclude this use entirely. He noted his concern with this type establishment near his shopping center, addressing his concern for the children attending Valley School, young adults, and the mentally handicapped individuals who routinely visit this shopping center. He asked that this matter be continued to allow for more community input.
Jim Lissner, resident, questioned who would want to rent next door to a tattoo establishment, expressing his belief it would harm the area and its business; expressed his belief that other zoning should be considered if this use is approved, suggesting possibly the Plaza area. He noted his opposition to the 1,000 spacing limitation, believing it is not enough and that it would create a poor impression of this City and PCH and lower its property values. He suggested that since the work is done by appointment, that these establishments be located in a professional medical building and not advertised with signs to run down the neighborhood. He stated there is no upside for the City in approving these establishments.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti mentioned that in the older days, the only people who typically had tattoos were bikers or service men that used tattoos as a means of identification; but stated that much has changed in recent years, making this activity very popular. He quoted from a July Newsweek article about this industry, “According to the American Academy of Dermatology, 36 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 have a tattoo, and the number is rising”; quoted from a July Los Angeles Times article, “Nearly 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 21 and 32 have at least one tattoo or piercing other than in an ear, according to a 2006 study by the University of Chicago and Northwestern University”; and stated this industry has become more prevalent, especially with the younger people and that it’s becoming more acceptable to people of all ages and walks of life. He expressed his belief that if this text amendment is adopted, the majority of the clientele will be from around the nearby South Bay area. He suggested a closing hour of 10:00 P.M. He stated that the C-3 zone is a better location than Pier Avenue; that he does not believe it should be on the Plaza; and noted his support of the ordinance, with the closing time of 10:00 P.M.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief there is no good location in this city for these type establishments; and stated that this matter should be continued to a full Commission hearing and to allow more public comment. He pointed out the adjacent cities do not allow this use.
Chairman Kersenboom noted his support to continue this matter to a full Commission; and noted his concurrence with the 10:00 P.M. closure and suggested possibly limiting the number of establishments to two in this City.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Chairman Kersenboom, to CONTINUE to the October Planning Commission meeting TEXT 07-5, text amendment to allow tattoo businesses / body art studios in the C-3 zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit, or other zone as deemed appropriate. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: NoneChairman Kersenboom asked staff to research the possibility of placing these establishments in other zones.
-
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 stated the subject property is one large 7,632-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; stated that the most northerly lot is approximately 30 feet wide, 126 feet deep; that the adjacent lot is approximately 30 feet wide and 128 feet deep; advised that the property meets the basic criteria to be considered for merger since the lots are less than the minimum lot requirement of 4,000 square feet, with the main structure sited on both contiguous lots; however, pursuant to the criteria related to neighborhood compatibility, he noted the subject property shall not be merged due to its combined size of 7,632 square feet unless the integrity of the neighborhood will be harmed. He stated that of the 6 parcels that front on The Strand between 24th and 25th Streets, 5 are similar in size and width; therefore, the subject lots are greater and similar to 83 percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance; and based on the analysis, he noted the lots do not qualify for merger.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti noted that in staff’s analysis, there was a determination the subject lot is similar or greater than 5 out of the 6 properties; and he noted his concurrence with staff not to merge the lots.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, to NOT MERGE 2408 The Strand, a property comprised of two existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 18, 2007, meeting pursuant to the property owner’s request.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the applicant is requesting a continuance to the September Planning Commission meeting because he is recovering from surgery and not able to attend this evening’s meeting.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Bill Hedrick, resident and close neighbor, asked if this is mixed zoning.
Acting Director Robertson stated these are R-1 lots.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, to CONTINUEto the September Planning Commission meeting L-11 for lot merger determination for the property at 230 Longfellow Avenue, a property comprised of two existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman ABSTAIN: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the subject property is a 7,028-square-foot parcel comprised of 3 lots from the original division; advised that 2 of the interior lots are composed of 25-foot widths and each are 108 feet in depth, with the third lot measuring 15 feet in width and 108 feet in depth; and advised that the lots are less than the minimum lot size and meet the rule that the main structure is sited on all 3 contiguous lots. He noted that of the 30 parcels on the block, 16 parcels were merged under the 1988 lot merger program; stated the subject parcel was part of the lot merger program in 1988, but a final determination was not recorded; that of the 30 parcels, 9 are greater or similar in size and width to the substandard lot on the block; and, therefore, the substandard lot shall be merged since only 30 percent of the lots on the block are greater and similar in size and width to the subject lot.
Associate Planner Denniston noted for Commissioner Pizer that he has not done an analysis for two lots subdivided within that block.
Commissioner Pizer stated that in all fairness to the owners of the lot, he believes that would be a good analysis to perform before the Commission makes its decision.
Acting Director Robertson stated it would depend on the property owner’s desire to pursue a lot line adjustment.
Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing.
Joanne Lindberg, co-owner of this property, stated she and her husband were hoping to split the lot into two for their two adult children to inherit, noting this would keep someone from building one very large home; and stated she would like a lot line adjustment to be considered.
Chairman Kersenboom noted that the lots on this block are pretty big; and stated if this were to be split in two down the center, it would create two long and narrow properties among the rest on the block.
Acting Director Robertson stated that by looking at the parcel map, the 32.5-foot lot would not meet the criteria; stated there are several 50-foot wide lots on this block and others that are 62 feet wide; noted if the property owners are interested in pursuing a lot line adjustment, they will need to apply for one at City Hall; and stated that based on the discussion this evening, there is enough evidence to still merge this into one lot.
Commissioner Pizer noted for Ms. Lindberg that her property is 17.5 feet short in width of what the average is in this neighborhood.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated that after reviewing all the information, he would support staff’s recommendation to merge these lots.
Chairman Kersenboom stated he understands the parents’ desire to leave two lots to their two children, but explained that the City is attempting to create neighborhood consistency; and he noted the owners can appeal any decision to City Council.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGE 707 24th Place, a property comprised of three existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the property owner has requested this item be continued to the September Planning Commission meeting, noting he is hearing impaired and wishes to get an interpreter to meet with staff before coming to the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to the September Planning Commission meeting L-11, lot merger determination for the property at 1115 2nd Street, a property comprised of two existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To not merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the subject property is approximately a 5,000-square-foot parcel comprised of 2 lots from the original subdivision; that each lot has a 25-foot width and 100-foot depth and a total square footage of 2,500 square feet each; and noted that the 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, with the main structure sited on both contiguous lots. He noted the subject property is one of 19 parcels on this block fronting 3rd Street and zoned R-1; and stated that of these 19 parcels, 18 are similar in size and width to the subject lot, therefore, the substandard lot is greater or similar in size and width to 94 percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance and do not qualify for merger.
Ashley Beck, resident, asked that these lots not be merged.
Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to NOT MERGE 516 3rd Street, a property comprised of two existing lots. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman
ABSTAIN: None -
STAFF ITEMS
-
List of on-sale alcohol / beer and wine and outdoor dining Conditional Use Permits with hours restrictions.
Acting Director Robertson provided a list of the Downtown area beer/wine, general alcohol businesses as requested by Vice-Chairman Perrotti; and explained that staff is continuing to modify this list, noting a column will be added to cite the approved closing hours by the City and also ABC. He clarified that the list provided this evening only cites the City approved closing hours, not ABC.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 8:58 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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 August 21, 2007.
| Langley Kersenboom, Chairman | Ken Robertson, Acting Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |