|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer |
| Absent: | Kersenboom |
| Also Present: |
Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Richard Denniston, Associate Planner John C. Cotti, Assistant City Attorney Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief the City is neglecting the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) corridor, suggesting that a study be done of this corridor just as one has been done for Pier Avenue; he noted his opposition to what he believes is allowing undesirable businesses along PCH; stated that business would improve on PCH even if the City simply painted the curbs along this corridor; and urged the Commission members, as residents of this community, to lobby Council Members to pay closer attention to PCH.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked that this evening’s meeting be adjourned in memory of Eleanor Lynn, a member of the Women’s Club and one who was heavily involved in the Hermosa Beach School system; and also adjourned in memory of William “Bill” Tilley, a general contractor who worked on large projects in Hermosa Beach.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of August 21, 2007 Minutes.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE the August 21, 2007, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:AYES: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Allen
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
a) Resolution P.C. 07-42 approving a Variance to allow a second-story deck with no front yard setback rather than the required 5 feet, aligning with an existing nonconforming front yard setback on the first floor, for a single-family residence at 37 20th Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 07-42, approving a Variance to allow a second-story deck with no front yard setback rather than the required 5 feet, aligning with an existing nonconforming front yard setback on the first floor, for a single-family residence at 37 20th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom(Agenda Item No. 8 was considered as the first Public Hearing matter, followed by Item No. 7 and then No. 6.)
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that the subject site is located on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) between 9th and 10th Streets; that the site is developed with a 1,690-square-foot commercial building that is currently vacant; noted that the applicant is proposing to convert the existing structure into a frozen yogurt business with a drive-through service and outdoor dining; and that the applicant is requesting a CUP for drive-through service, a CUP for outdoor dining, and a Parking Plan to be classified as a snack shop. He highlighted the Municipal Code definition for snack shop as an establishment with 25 or less seats with no waiter table service, no offering of full meals, or having a kitchen capable of serving full meals. He stated this project shows 35 seats, 9 more than what is defined under the current snack shop classification; and since the floor plan clearly shows no commercial cooking equipment and has no waiter table service and offers no full meals, he noted that staff believes the applicant is meeting the intent of the snack shop classification.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that the parking requirements for the drive-through restaurant requires one parking space per 50 square feet for drive-through with inadequate dining areas; advised that the applicant is proposing 17 parking stalls, 2 being ADA compliant; noted that the applicant contends the drive-through will serve as a secondary means to serve customers, as the primary draw will be to enjoy the product in the contemporary family-oriented environment; and that since the majority of customers will be eating on site as opposed to utilizing the drive-through, staff believes the 17 parking spaces proposed will adequately meet the parking demand because the parking plan exceeds the number of parking spaces required for sit-down restaurants without drive-through service but exceeds the minimum 10 parking spaces required for drive-through restaurants. He advised that while working with staff, the applicant has developed a number of different vehicle circulation configurations; that the final preferred design is an ingress-only apron located 18 feet north of the southwest property corner, adjacent to 9th Street, with vehicle access from PCH; that vehicles will enter from PCH only and exit the site via an egress-only right-turn lane onto 9th Street; and that a “pork chop” curb configuration has been proposed to force exiting vehicles into a right-hand turn onto 9th Street, at the same time restrict westbound traffic on 9th Street from the subject site. He stated the City’s traffic engineer concludes the proposed plan is preferred, as exiting vehicles would not be required to cross an exclusively free right-hand turn lane in order to enter northbound PCH; and in addition, he noted the traffic engineer recommends the egress driveway be located farther away from the intersection of PCH at Aviation Boulevard and 10th Street. He stated that the site plan includes a parking space located parallel to PCH directly north of the ingress and egress; that the traffic engineer recommends this space be eliminated to provide vision clearance for the pedestrians crossing at Aviation Boulevard and PCH; and, therefore, the site plan would have to be reconfigured to provide 17 parking spaces, at the same time not obstruct vision clearance at this very busy intersection.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that one of the major concerns of a drive-through restaurant is the noise caused by remote speaker phones used in conjunction with menu boards, noise problems related to loitering, idling engines, and noisy conversation from people in the outside the dining area; and noted that since the subject site is abutted by residential property, staff recommends a condition of approval to restrict drive-through and outdoor dining hours of operation from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. daily. He stated the proposed site will provide a much needed improvement to the currently vacant and dilapidated site, however, because the proposed use will potentially create a lot of local traffic adjacent to the busy intersection, staff is seeking Planning Commission direction as to whether the drive-through is appropriate in conjunction with this site. Should the Planning Commission approve this project, he noted that staff recommends adding the following additional conditions of approval:
- The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide 17 parking spaces of which 30 percent can be compact spaces;
- The applicant shall provide a queue analysis to determine the queue length measured from the intersection of 9th Street at PCH to assess the operational impacts to 9th Street and PCH intersection during A.M. and P.M. peak hours;
- The applicant shall ensure that the drive approach fronting 9th Street shall be constructed in a manner to physically force vehicles to turn right onto 9th Street;
- The applicant shall work with the Director of Public Works to mitigate any potential on-street parking spaces that will be lost from the new egress-only driveway and apron. The applicant shall incur all costs to the City for any changes along 9th Street that may be required as part of the egress-exiting plan;
- The drive-through and outdoor dining hours of operation shall be restricted to 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. daily; and
- The applicant shall submit a detailed roof and roof section plan showing that all roof-mounted equipment will be screened from view.
Director Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Perrotti that if the drive-through is eliminated, it creates opportunities for more parking behind the building; and stated the traffic engineer has indicated if there is no drive-through, it would be okay to ingress/egress off PCH only because the volumes wouldn’t be as significant.
Commissioner Hoffman noted a major reconfiguration is planned for the corner of PCH and Aviation Boulevard and questioned how this project fits into those plans; and he questioned if any traffic study had taken into account the 9th Street neighborhood.
Director Robertson noted it typically takes Caltrans a long time to implement a new proposal, but the idea is to create a stop intersection before turning right onto Aviation, which would mean there would be 4 lanes; and that one wouldn’t have that rapid a right-turn transition onto Aviation Boulevard any longer. He stated the traffic analysis is based on the existing configuration, noting that plans could change.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Gary Beecher, applicant, stated they agree with the conditions for approval. He noted that the rent for this property is fairly substantial and without the drive-through service, it would be difficult for them to maintain financial viability. He stated they will be a good neighbor, noting they have a lease for 10 years; and stated he understands the issues with noise in Hermosa Beach. He stated the yogurt business will have little impact to the residential area. He noted for Commissioner Pizer that this would be one of the first drive-throughs for Pinkberry, pointing out they are paying for this larger location approximately 40 percent more rent than other Pinkberry establishments. He stated that service takes approximately a minute and a half per customer.
Yan Baker, resident, stated he lives directly east of this location; noted his concerns with the drive-through noise he will be able to hear from his bedrooms; stated there currently is traffic and parking congestion on 9th Street; addressed his concern with traffic safety for those leaving 9th Street towards PCH; and he advised that employees from the nearby tile business park directly in front of this location, noting that parking will most likely now move into his neighborhood. He stated that the children oftentimes play in the street and that the increase in traffic will pose a danger for those living on 9th Street.
Cammie Herbert, resident, stated she lives on 9th Street; noted that parking is currently a problem in this area; she stated that other Pinkberry businesses are busy all day long with long waiting times for service; and noted her concern that this will create vehicle cueing onto 9th Street. She stated the traffic is too fast on 9th Street and that she is worried about pedestrian safety coming from this facility. She noted her concern with a constant traffic deadlock in this area.
Steve Gatch, 9th Street resident, noted his concerns with the safety to pedestrian traffic; expressed his belief a drive-through business is not safe for the corner of 9th Street and PCH; and stated this street is on a hill and that there are too many cars traveling at high speeds.
Elsie Kurtchner, 10th Street resident, stated that 11:00 P.M. is too late for this type business to operate on the weekdays, suggesting they close at 9:00 P.M. during the weekdays. She asked that they heavily landscape and improve that corner.
Steve Tawny, 9th Street resident, stated that 9th Street should be blocked off to this traffic; that the hours of operation should be more limited in the evening; and expressed his concern with the high rate of speed and the safety of pedestrians in this area.
Roger Bacon, resident, stated that traffic on Aviation Boulevard is busy too for a drive-through business at this location, noting he is in favor of this business but not the drive-through.
Pamela Gatch, 9th Street resident, questioned where the vehicles will cue waiting for drive-through service.
Mr. Beecher expressed his belief this establishment will not affect the speed around Aviation Boulevard and will not create more vehicular traffic on PCH; noted that the turn from this site is west of the residential area on 9th Street and shouldn’t impact the residential area; and stated that in terms of reducing noise, they will place shrouds over the speakers. He stated this is a work in progress and that they will do the very best they can to be a good neighbor.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if a traffic study has been completed.
Director Robertson stated that staff asked the applicant for an analysis of the traffic safety issues, not a traditional traffic study; noted that staff did get a trip generation study which did analyze traffic volumes but did not show any significant impacts on the level of service at nearby intersections; and stated they have not obtained the traffic safety analysis from their traffic engineer. As a result, he noted that staff met with the applicant and worked out the issues with the City’s traffic engineer. He noted for Commissioner Hoffman that the trip generation did not take into account the impacts upon 9th and 10th Streets. He pointed out this is an existing building and that they’re not increasing the square footage.
Commissioner Pizer noted that Pinkberry is a thriving business; stated the building design is pleasing; and expressed his belief the drive-through service is not appropriate for this site because it creates a problem from PCH and creates a counter-clockwise flow of cars that interfere with each other trying to get out and into this site.
Commissioner Allen stated he understands how vital a drive-through is for a fast food business, noting it accounts for 30 to 40 percent of a business, but agreed that a drive-through at this location creates legitimate concern.
Commissioner Hoffman addressed his concern with granting this CUP and the potential for a different business to locate to this site in the future; stated he would like to see the traffic safety analysis, hoping it addresses the concern with onsite circulation, ingress/egress, traffic flow, and impacts on the adjacent streets.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated the operating hours should be limited to 10:00 P.M. for the outside dining area; expressed his belief a drive-through at this location will create a dangerous situation; that the drive-through traffic may disrupt the nearby neighborhood; and he suggested this project be reviewed again without the proposal for the drive-through, seeing what effect that would have on ingress/egress.
The Commission noted their agreement to eliminate the drive-through service, changing the operation of the outside dining area closing hour to 10:00 P.M. daily, and to provide the Commission a traffic safety analysis, including a study of how it will impact 9th and 10th Streets and PCH.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to the next meeting 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, eliminating the drive-through service, limiting the outside dining hours to 10:00 P.M. daily, and that a traffic safety analysis be provided. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom
-
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the November 20, 2007 meeting.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that the plans as submitted exceed the maximum height allowed, therefore the applicant is requesting this matter be continued to the next meeting to allow time to revise the plans to meet the code requirements and complete the architectural renderings.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, toCONTINUEto November 20, 2007, CON 07-7/PDP 07-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 064523 for a 2-unit condominium at 1520 Manhattan Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: KersenboomFollowing the motion on Item No. 7, the meeting was convened for a break at 8:54 P.M. and reconvened at 9:05 P.M.)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To deny subject request.
Director Ken Robertson stated that the Tender Box currently operates under the terms of a conditional use permit (CUP) granted in 1994 by the City Council, which approved an amortized CUP for the continued use of an existing adult business; and noted that this CUP allows the sale of adult books, magazines, videos, and sexual paraphernalia in addition to having 8 individual viewing booths on the first floor only. He noted that the historic use of the second floor in its use at the time the CUP was granted was as a residential unit; and advised that the conditions of approval from 1994 include specific conditions that the interior access to the second floor be eliminated and that the viewing booths be limited to 8.
Director Robertson noted that the Tender Box currently exists as a nonconforming use; that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code requires that any adult business be located a minimum 200 feet from the exterior boundaries of any lot or parcel zoned Residential; advised that the subject building is approximately 20 feet from the nearest residential use and 86 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property; and explained that even though the retail business conducted on the first floor of the building does not conform to zoning standards, the business as described in its CUP is allowed to remain as a nonconforming use; additionally, operation of adult retail businesses, such as the Tender Box, is an activity that is protected by the First Amendment; and as a protected activity, the City’s ability to make changes to the existing CUP is strictly limited. He noted that, therefore, the issue at hand before the Commission is the expansion of the second floor into an adult use and reopening the access to the second floor.
Director Robertson advised that in June of this year, the City received a Code Enforcement complaint that the applicant had expanded the nonconforming use to the second floor; that an inspection of the site revealed the applicant had rebuilt the interior staircase and reopened the access to the second floor and added 14 individual viewing booths without obtaining building permits or Planning Commission approval for a CUP to operate this adult use on the second floor of the building; and stated that the applicant was notified the non-permitted work violated several Building and Zoning requirements and the conditions of approval for the CUP and that those violations must be corrected to conform to the code and the CUP. He stated that the applicant, instead, is seeking after-the-fact Planning Commission approval for the new adult use; and advised that the applicant has stated the existing 8 viewing booths previously approved in 1994 are being moved upstairs so this area can be converted to additional floor area for retail sales on the first floor. He stated at this point, the applicant has not submitted revised plans showing the proposed first floor modifications.
Director Robertson noted that because the existing CUP restricts the placement and operation of the 8 viewing booths to the first floor only and requires sealing off access to the second floor, an after-the-fact permit for the operation of additional viewing booths constitutes a new adult use that must meet the objective code requirements in Section 17.40050 of the Municipal Code; accordingly, the applicant must obtain the following approvals in order to operate the 14 viewing booths on the second floor: first, a Variance to allow the adult business in a building 86 feet from residentially zoned property rather than the required 200 feet; and that the applicant needs a Variance to provide 4 parking spaces rather than the required 14 parking spaces. He noted the applicant needs a CUP for the new adult use and a parking plan to provide 4 off-street parking spaces in a tandem formation; and noted the Commission must make all following 4 findings 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.With respect to the Variance from the 200-foot separation standard, Director Robertson stated a Variance requires a physical condition on the property that is unique and makes it impossible to comply with a generally applicable zoning regulation; noted that first, the property is zoned for regular commercial uses, such as office, retail, or service-based businesses; advised there are no unusual physical characteristics on the property that prevent the owner from using the second floor for any of these permitted commercial uses; stated that the upstairs is also permitted to be used as a residence based on its historic nonconforming use; and therefore, the applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warrant deviating from the zoning standards to allow operation of the business in this improper location. Secondly, he stated the Variance is not necessary to preserve and enjoy a substantial property right because the property owner is making beneficial use of this property with the existing conditionally permitted use on the first floor; stated that the property owner has the right to use the upstairs as a residence or retail use; additionally, the expansion of the existing business in the General Commercial C-3 Zone is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and implementation policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; therefore, the Planning Commission cannot grant the Variance unless all four of the findings are supported by substantial evidence; and that the applicant has not demonstrated any findings can be made to support granting a Variance from the 200-foot distance requirement.
With respect to the Variance from parking requirements, Director Robertson stated the 1994 CUP authorized the continued use of the business downstairs without any specifically identified off-street parking spaces, although parking has always been available to the rear of the property; noted that the applicant is required to provide 14 off-street parking spaces to accommodate the 14 viewing booths; advised that the applicant is only proposing 4 spaces, 1 standard space along the west building wall adjacent to the north property line and 3 additional spaces in tandem along the driveway; and that the applicant, therefore, must obtain a Variance for the proposed 10-space deficiency. He stated the applicant has not demonstrated any unusual physical characteristics of the property that prevent him from operating a less intense commercial use that can be conducted with less parking; and advised that the applicant is capable of using the property for any general commercial use or as a residence, both which have lower parking requirements.
Director Robertson stated the Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right with respect to Finding No. 2 or to achieve parity with other properties within the same vicinity; advised that every commercial business within the Commercial Zone is required to provide additional off-street parking if the use is intensified or additional floor area is added; stated that the approval of the parking Variance will be injurious to the properties in the vicinity; that the existing business currently provides no off-street parking for its customers; and that the upstairs expansion creates an additional demand for parking. He stated an additional 10-space parking deficiency will result in customers parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and that an expansion of an adult business with such a large parking deficiency is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. He stated the proposed 4 tandem and difficult-to-access parking spaces do not accommodate the parking demand for the upstairs expansion, which is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code; and therefore, the applicant has not demonstrated any findings can be made to support granting a parking Variance.
With respect to the CUP, Director Robertson stated that pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a CUP is required to operate an adult business in the C-3 Zone; advised that adult businesses include adult motion theatre arcades defined as an establishment in which a regular or substantial portion, over 20 percent of its stock in trade material, including but not limited to films, motion pictures, video cassettes, picture viewing machine, slide projections or similar photographic reproductions features the exposure of specified anatomical areas with the depiction/description of specified sexual activities; and advised that the upstairs portion of the building consists entirely of 14 viewing booths, which falls under the definition of an adult use and requires a CUP. He stated the Planning Commission must approve a CUP for an adult business where evidence submitted substantiates several findings; noted these findings include that the exterior walls of the establishment are located more than 200 feet from the exterior boundaries of any lot zoned Residentially; that it requires the public interior areas shall be fully and brightly lit and arranged so every portion of the business is visible upon entrance, but shall not be viewed from outside of the premises, and that the entire body of any patron is also visible immediately upon entrance to the premises; and that there shall be one parking space for each viewing booth. He noted the other finding is there shall be no doors or similar closable screens on video or film viewing booths. He stated that as previously noted, the exterior walls of the establishment are not located more than 200 feet from the boundary of any residentially zoned property; secondly, the applicant is not providing the one space required for each viewing booth; advised that City staff conducted an inspection of the upstairs viewing booths and confirmed that the public interior area was not fully and brightly lit and arranged such that every portion of the premises is visible and that staff also found that doors have been installed on all 14 individual viewing booths; therefore, the applicant has not provided any information to indicate any findings can be made; and stated that evidence does not support 4 of the required findings, leading staff to recommend denial of the CUP.
With respect to the Parking Plan application, Director Robertson stated that in this case, the burden is on the applicant to provide the information necessary to show that adequate parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors and employees; noted that the applicant is asking for a reduction based on tandem parking; advised that the site is currently developed with a 9-foot driveway with access from 8th Street west of the adjacent commercial building located at the corner of 8th Street and PCH; and that the driveway leads to a gravel lot, which historically has served as parking for the upstairs residential use and probably also for the employees of the commercial business. He stated the applicant is proposing one standard space along the west building wall and 3 additional tandem spaces along the driveway; advised that as they are designed, this will require all the vehicles to back out onto 8th Street; and mentioned that while the Commission has allowed tandem parking for office uses for larger projects where valet service is provided, it has never been approved for a small retail use. He stated that the existing business operating in the downstairs portion of the building already operates with a parking deficiency; and stated that in this case, the applicant has not met its burden of establishing that the 4 tandem parking spaces will be adequate for customers, visitors and employees. He stated the applicant has not demonstrated that a unique circumstance or hardship is warranted to grant a Variance from the Zoning and Parking requirements; that the operation of the 14 additional viewing booths and opening of the interior staircase at the second floor does not meet the requirements for a CUP and does not meet the existing CUP; that the proposal for a parking plan for tandem parking does not make sense for this type use; and therefore, staff recommends denial of the Variances, the CUP and the Parking Plan.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Roger Diamond, applicant’s attorney, stated that the application is to allow this particular use to continue as presently constituted; advised that this business has been at this location for the past 34 years; and that the current manager has been there for the last 17 years. He noted this business has been paying its taxes all these years and has been a good neighbor in the community. He stated that under the CUP, this business has operated downstairs since 1994 with 8 arcade booths; advised that this building is a 2-story building; noted that the upstairs area was vacant and unused and the owner felt it would be okay to utilize this area for his business, not realizing all the technicalities that have been raised by the City; and noted that slight changes were made. He stated that the parking problem has always existed; and that it cannot be solved whether the upstairs is used for the purpose of the arcade booths or whether the upstairs is used for some other purpose, noting this location has parking limitations. He pointed out the parking limitations are not only true of this site, but also true for many businesses in Hermosa Beach; and stated that if the City is going to be very strict with respect to parking for this business, that it would only be fair to implement those same restrictions with probably 90 percent of the businesses in the City because parking is limited all over the City. He stated this person expanded this area only by mistake, but expressed his belief the mistake may turn out to be a blessing because all of the projections made by staff, if this business were permitted to operate, can be made because it’s already been in operation for quite some time; that if the prediction there is not enough parking at the location, therefore the surrounding neighborhood is going to be overcome with parking, he stated that’s not true; and stated that there is no problem with parking in the neighborhood. He stated that no matter what is used upstairs, with the City suggesting using it for a residence or office use, theoretically that would impose another burden on the parking situation; and he suggested that to solve this situation, his client is willing to remove all but 8 arcades upstairs, which would be the same 8 as have been permitted downstairs, therefore, no net gain of booths at this location. He stated all that would happen is the removal of 8 booths from the first floor to the second floor. He stated that otherwise, the City would be requiring someone to move into the upstairs area, making it a residence. He pointed out that the City’s ordinance indicates this business cannot be within 200 feet of a residentially zoned property and not close to a residentially used property; that if the City has such a policy, this would violate that ordinance by permitting someone to live upstairs; and he noted this too would add to the parking situation.
Mr. Diamond stated his client needs a modification to the 1994 CUP; expressed his belief that somebody on staff erroneously stated the way to legalize what was inadvertently done without City permission would be to get a Variance and to get parking approval; and stated that with the 1994 CUP, all his client really needed to do was ask for a modification to the CUP to allow 8 booths that were downstairs to be moved upstairs. He pointed out that when one is expanding vertically rather than horizontally, they are not encroaching upon neighboring properties; and reiterated they are only requesting to move the 8 booths upstairs. He noted his intent to protect the property rights of this business and not allowing the City to deprive them the use of their property providing it does not cause an adverse impact on the neighbors; and expressed his belief that putting 8 booths upstairs instead of downstairs will have no effect on the surrounding area. He stated that the burden should be on those to claim that once the 14 booths went in upstairs, the neighborhood was destroyed by this slight change in operation, noting this cannot be done. He expressed his belief the City’s zoning law throughout the City is unconstitutional, that it violates the First Amendment because it doesn’t have any spots in the City that are correctly zoned for adult uses, whether it’s a strip club, an adult book store, or adult theatre; and stated that Hermosa Beach does not have enough approved sites currently under the existing zoning law. He stated that if the Planning Commission turns down this application, his client would be forced to look elsewhere in the City to establish an arcade that the City would apparently not allow him to put in here; explained that what the owner will be forced to do is look for another site in this city; and that not finding any legal site to establish a new adult arcade, book store, or strip club, he would simply locate anywhere and then challenge the zoning code on the ground that it doesn’t provide enough spots for adult uses. Mr. Diamond advised that under very important and recent Supreme Court decisions, cities may not zone out altogether adult businesses; that cities have to allow them someplace whether it wants to or not; therefore, given that obligation on the part of the City to provide some spot for an adult business, he urged the City to allow the existing business that’s been at this location for 34 years to continue on as it has been operating rather than forcing his client to look elsewhere and put up an adult book store or arcade somewhere in the City where clearly it doesn’t belong according to the City’s zoning law, which is rendered unconstitutional.
Mr. Diamond stated this business is providing the City some immunity because if anybody else tries to come into the City and claim its zoning law is invalid because there is no spot available for such a business, the City, in defending its situation, can point to the operation of the Tender Box; and he stated that if the City forces this business owner to go someplace else to operate, the City is asking for a constitutional challenge to its existing zoning laws. He stated this location is isolated and that it’s immunizing the City against any further challenges by someone else.
Commissioner Allen asked if this business owner has sought alternative locations in neighboring cities.
Mr. Diamond stated the established clientele for his store is from Hermosa Beach, not people coming in from other communities; that there is a demand for this particular product by consenting adults living in Hermosa Beach; and advised that if he’s is forced out of this particular location, he’ll find another location in Hermosa Beach to make sure his clientele continues as his customers. He added that most of the people visiting this store would probably want to preserve their privacy, noting this store provides anonymity and privacy.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to this request:
Peter Barsik, resident Joan Arias, resident Ashley Beck, resident and business owner Kevin Smilelack, resident John Cramblis, resident Kimmie Herbert, resident Joan Cramblis, resident Jim Lissner, resident Jim Sullivan, resident Henry Titzler, resident Pat Price, resident Brad Cameso, resident Claudia Levin, resident Brent Brevineau, resident Amanda Summerfield, resident Veronica Smilelack, resident Sheryl Paris, resident Gary Bruts, resident Shirley Myer, resident Roger Bacon, resident Dave Peterson, resident The issues of concern and comments were as follows:
Inadequate parking in this area; belief that the business owner blatantly and knowingly disregarded the conditions for approval of the CUP and disregard of the City’s codes; concern with children walking by and viewing the window displays; concern with the safety of children and women in this area; close proximity to a residential neighborhood; concern that this business cannot be trusted; belief this business is not a good neighbor; concern with some residents’ windows facing this establishment and having to see scantily clad window displays, late night operations and lighting coming from this business into the early morning hours; opposition to this business doubling its capacity; concern this business intends to expand their entire business on this corner; opposition with its online advertising and paper advertising, soliciting patrons from all over; use of loopholes to expand its business next door; fear that this business is a cover for an underground sex club and prostitution, highlighting some of their advertising campaigns; business patrons only parking on the street and not on their lot, thus impacting neighborhood parking; questionable individuals leaving this business at late and early morning hours; concern that this is not the first time this business has been in trouble for breaking the rules; belief that porn shops with viewing booths facilitate prostitution, increase crime in the vicinity, discourage other businesses from locating to that area, and spread sexually transmitted diseases; concern with purposely breaking the law and drilling glory holes in the booths; suggestion to have an adult business area on Pier Avenue, which is well lit and heavily policed in the evenings and no residential area nearby; belief the owner lacks integrity and good ethics; suggestion the City figure out a way to keep adult businesses out of the City; concern for allowing this business to stay open after violating its CUP; concern this business creates an ongoing code enforcement problem; request that should the City evaluate the requested parking mitigation, the City request an EIR be done to understand the true impact of this requested mitigation; suggestion that the owner provide a clientele list from this business to support the claim that the majority of patrons are Hermosa Beach residents; request that the Planning Commission, in looking at expanding a nonconformity like this, determine if there are any laws that regulate how far an adult business has to be from a school and how does that impact any decisions being made, be it City, state, local or federal; comment that there have been tenants living upstairs for the majority of the time; belief that it’s the owner’s obligation to find a suitable location, not the City’s; belief that the expansion of advertising on the internet and in this community will negatively affect the property values in this area; request to know if there have been any complaints to the Police Department related to the clientele and operations of this business and if so, the number and type of complaints; complaint that this site is not well maintained, that there is always trash and debris in front of the Tender Box; and a suggestion to picket this business.
Police Chief Saveli stated that as a result of the references being made to the internet, Craig’s List and alleged sexual rendezvous established at this business and viewing some of these internet ads that entice other people to meet at this location for sexual favors, the police conducted a site visit and found that some of the allegations were correct; and noted that the booths were found to have holes purposefully drilled through connecting the booths, creating glory holes, noting that illegal activity could have likely occurred. He pointed out that the police did not see that activity during their inspection of the facility last week; and noted that he inspected the facility yesterday and found that the glory holes had been sealed over in at least 10 of the booths – noting that 4 were occupied when he was there and was not able to check those. He advised that the Police Department has conducted sting operations in the past at this facility and that they have made arrests at this facility for lewd conduct.
Mr. Diamond stated this business operates a good business; pointed out that this business has been at this location for the past 34 years, questioning why this evening’s speakers bought their homes if they found this existing business unacceptable; and expressed his belief these residents, in general, are using this opportunity to vent their frustration over perhaps some parking problems in this area. He mentioned there is a barber shop in the area that has approximately 22 barber chairs, but noted that business only has parking spaces for just a few; that this is true of many other businesses in the community wherein the businesses in the area do not have adequate parking to meet the code requirements; and reiterated that if the City is going to start enforcing code requirements with respect to parking against the Tender Box, the City will have to do it against every store in the community, otherwise, the City will be accused of selective prosecution and selective law enforcement. He stated that if one takes all the requirements of the City’s codes in terms of zoning, required distance from sensitive uses - such as schools, playgrounds, parks, residential property - there’s not one spot in Hermosa Beach that’s legally zoned for this type of business; that if the City has no spot that’s legally zoned for an adult business where all the restrictions in place prevent any adult use from coming in, it will result in unregulated adult businesses throughout the community. He urged the City to not make its ordinance so restrictive that it leaves no opportunity to operate anywhere; advised that his client wants to do business from this location; that he is using an existing second floor to replace the booths that have been removed from the first floor; and he urged the City to do its constitutional obligation to provide some spots where adult businesses can operate.
There being no further input, Vice-Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Director Robertson clarified for Commissioner Hoffman that the business at the corner is a separate building, owned by the same property owner, but a separate property; noted there is some business connection; stated the City has approved a tenant improvement plan for a clothing store; that it has not been given final occupancy permission – noting there are still some final items in the inspection process to be done; and stated they have a building permit. He stated there have been no complaints of after-hour construction activity.
Commissioner Pizer questioned what action the City took to suspend or limit their operation in June when the City found out about the illegal construction and operation of the business.
Director Robertson stated that under the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, staff has taken the normal steps it would in a code enforcement case, such as notified the business immediately and asked them to correct the problem, just as is done with any property owner in violation; and explained that this business can operate until the issue is reconciled, as is the case with other businesses. He noted that if it was determined to be unsafe to occupy, the City could shut them down.
Assistant City Attorney Cotti noted that a code enforcement action has been commenced; explained that in Hermosa Beach, an after-the-fact permit can be requested, in terms of a planning context, to allow them to continue operating until the matter is resolved; and stated that if it is ultimately denied, code enforcement action would resume.
Director Robertson added that once this business goes through this process, if it is ultimately rejected at the City Council level, at that point the City can start a revocation hearing process, reiterating that they have the right to ask for an after-the-fact permit approval.
Commissioner Pizer asked what are the First Amendment rights of the community.
Assistant City Attorney Cotti stated that Mr. Diamond is correct in the sense the City’s adult use ordinance has to allow for alternative avenues of communication; pointed out that what the City is dealing with here is an existing business, not a new application that would have to comply with the 200-foot distant requirement set out in the ordinance; noted that because this is an expansion to a current business, the addition has to essentially comply with the 200-foot regulation; and as such, the community is protected by the ordinance itself, the 200-foot distance requirement and the 1,000-foot requirement from other sensitive receptors.
Director Robertson noted for Vice-Chairman Perrotti that their permitted hours of operation are 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M., which explains some of the late night activity at this facility as commented on by a speaker this evening.
Commissioner Allen questioned what kind of ordinances other cities have regarding adult businesses.
Director Robertson advised that staff will be studying the adult business ordinance sometime in the future, but pointed out that all cities are subject to the same First Amendment issues.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that while the City has an obligation to permit this type of use, the owner has an obligation to bring the business into conformance with the current codes; and stated there are no legitimate findings to support the request for a Variance. He thanked Police Chief Saveli for attending this evening’s meeting.
Commissioner Allen stated he cannot make the findings for the Variance; and he thanked Police Chief Saveli for his efforts in this community. He commended those in the audience for attending this evening’s meeting and providing input.
Commissioner Pizer thanked and commended staff and Police Chief Saveli for preparing the information for this evening’s meeting; and stated he cannot make the findings to support the applicant’s request.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti thanked and commended staff and Police Chief Saveli for their efforts in providing the information for this evening’s meeting; and stated he cannot make the findings to support the applicant’s request, mentioning the applicant has provided no evidence to indicate this property is unique in any way. He added that the City does not typically permit tandem parking in commercial zones, noting that it has allowed it in some instances where there is valet parking. He added he cannot support the parking plan.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to DENY CUP 07-12/PARK 07-8/VAR 07-6 -- Request for an after-the-fact approval of a CUP for the expansion of an existing, nonconforming adult business, the Tender Box, to allow an approximate 1,000-square-foot second-story expansion to the existing business within an existing building, including the installation of fourteen (14) additional video viewing booths, Variances to allow the expansion to the adult business in a building 20 feet from residentially zoned property rather than the required 200 feet, and to provide four (4) parking spaces rather than the fourteen (14) spaces required (one parking space is required for each additional video viewing booth), and a Parking Plan to provide off-street parking in tandem along a driveway behind the building at 809 Pacific Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the subject site contains a two-story multi-tenant commercial building built in 1983; noted there are currently 44 parking spaces available on the property; that the commercial building was developed when parking standards were one space per 300 square feet, thus the building is nonconforming to the current parking requirements of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; that the parking is located in two levels with signage directing customers to the upper level parking area should the lower parking level be full; and advised that the proposed business will be located on the first level comprising approximately 890 square feet of the 14,150-square-foot gross floor area in the commercial building. He noted that the applicant is proposing to operate a snack shop that will offer different types of cereals and candy toppings, fresh fruits and dry fruits. He noted that the floor plan indicates the proposed establishment will have 4 tables with 9 seats and will not offer sit-down waiter table service nor have a cooking facility or serve full meals.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the parking requirement for a snack shop allows the Planning 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 office use. He stated the previous use was a dance studio which required one space per 250 square feet, which would be 4 parking spaces required for the subject unit; and that if considered a snack shop use, it would have the same parking requirement as the previous dance studio. He stated that the proposed snack shop is not a destination, sit-down restaurant and does not serve full meals; advised that the applicant expects most clientele will be nearby residents and workers from this area and those who will be conducting business in the commercial building; and noted that staff believes the proposed business as a snack shop will not intensify the existing land use in comparison to the previous dance studio use and will not increase parking demand based on the limited seating floor plan and former use of the site.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Robin Ham, applicant, stated that the use will be nothing more than a typical Cold Stone, that he will be offering simple snack food items; and stated he concurs with the conditions of approval. He noted that all the containers will be to-go containers, that it’s designed to be to-go service.
Kerry Mickelmyer, 13th Street resident, noted his concern with the limited parking for this building and the over-flow parking that impacts the neighborhood.
Roger Bacon, resident, stated there is a problem with parking in this area, noting that overflow parking impacts the shopping center parking. He suggested putting up a “No Right-Hand Turn” sign restricting vehicular traffic into the residential area; and he suggested additional directional signage directing customers to park on the upper level, noting that the current signage is not easily viewed. He noted his support for the applicant’s request, but reiterated his request to erect more signage restricting turning into the neighborhood and advising of additional parking on the upper level.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted his support of Mr. Bacon’s suggestions for additional signage.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief this business will operate more so on off-peak hours, believing the parking will not become a problem; and noted his support for additional signage.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for this request.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated this would qualify as a snack shop and for the reduced parking requirement; noted his support for more directional signage in the parking area, especially a left- turn only rather than going up the hill; and suggested staff work with the property owner on the additional signage.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE PARK 07-7 -- Parking Plan to allow a cereal cafe business to be classified as a snack shop in order to base parking requirements as a retail commercial use located within an existing commercial building at 1200 Pacific Coast Highway #107; and to include that the applicant work with staff to devise additional directional signage for upper level parking and a No Right-Hand Turn sign into the residential area. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Robertson stated that the house is currently nonconforming because the garage is set back from the property line only 2 feet rather than the required 17 feet; that the structure is only set back a minimum of 2.7 feet from the north property line; noted that in 1990, the Planning Commission approved a nonconforming remodel to allow an addition and remodel to the existing structure to exceed 50 percent replacement value; that this approval allowed the property owner to construct a 1,040-square-foot addition to an existing 1,061-square-foot structure, which calculates to a 98.3-percent increase in floor area; and advised that the applicant is proposing a 40-square-foot addition in order to expand the existing kitchen. He stated the existing nonconforming ordinance as revised in 2005 only allows a maximum of 100 percent expansion in floor area of the existing building provided the expansion does not result in greater than 3,000 square feet of floor area; therefore, since the applicant previously increased the floor area 98.3 percent, the applicant can only add an additional 20 square feet by right under the terms of the nonconforming ordinance; and that the applicant is requesting a Variance to increase that to 40 square feet.
With respect to the four required findings, No. 1, Director Robertson noted there are 14 lots that are east and front on Prospect Avenue between the water company access road and 15th Street; stated these lots vary in size between 2,900 square feet and upwards to 7,900 square feet; noted that the subject lot is the smallest of these lots and is irregularly shaped with a 39-foot frontage and an 18-foot wide rear; that the subject lot is the only lot on the block that has a rear property line of less than 29 feet; and therefore, it is clearly arguable there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Also, given that the proposed new square footage will only convert a small proportion of the existing deck space to floor area and not create any additional site coverage, he stated that staff believes with respect to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, this will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property or other properties in the vicinity and it does not conflict with the General Plan.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Director Robertson stated the Variance is arguably 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 20-square-foot addition could be constructed by right under the current provisions of the Zoning Code and the revised nonconforming ordinance. So if the concern is with the kitchen, he noted the second story floor plan could be reconfigured to provide a larger kitchen area; stated the applicant has not demonstrated the 40-square-foot addition is necessary to achieve parity with the rest of the neighborhood; therefore, while staff believes the applicant’s request meets Finding Nos. 1, 3, and 4, recognizing it is a very small addition with minimal impact, the evidence is not compelling to support Finding No. 2; and staff would therefore seek Planning Commission direction as to Finding No. 2, noting staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting based upon the Commission’s direction.
Larry Peha, project architect, stated that the existing kitchen is very small; mentioned that the owner is a gourmet cook who wants to put in new appliances and slightly enlarge the kitchen to make it easier to work in and move around; and stated that the Variance is for 20 square feet. He stated the idea behind changing the code was to make things more simple; expressed his belief this applicant is getting penalized by the new code and is not making this small addition to a nonconformity viable; and he explained that the configuration of the house itself, adding 20 square feet onto an existing deck area, is the perfect spot to add onto this existing kitchen, otherwise, they would be pushing into other portions of the house which would create a much bigger remodel project than what his clients could afford or desire. He stated the difference with this property is the development potential of this lot, noting this lot is a very odd shaped lot; that it has 18 feet across the back and is extremely small; and that the development potential is limiting relative to the surrounding properties, believing this would apply to Finding No. 2.
James Wisley, applicant, explained that due to the odd shape of the lot, their house is basically one room wide and long; stated the small extension is upstairs where the kitchen is a little wider but still the smallest living space in the house; and stated he would like to replace the worn out appliances. He expressed his belief they are being denied a property right available to others in the neighborhood, noting that other neighbors are able to comfortably enjoy a functioning and reasonably sized kitchen with modern appliances. He added that if this request is denied, a complete new design would be necessary.
Linda Count, Prospect Avenue resident, noted her support for the applicant’s request.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman stated he can make a Finding for No. 2 by way of historical parity, given the fact the unintentional consequence of the change in law was not to penalize someone in this applicant’s situation.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief having a decent sized kitchen is a reasonable property right and stated he concurs with Commissioner Hoffman’s comment.
Commissioner Pizer concurred with Commissioner Hoffman’s comment.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti stated this lot is unique because of its triangular shape and the 18-foot width at the rear; and concurred with Commissioner Hoffman’s comment that the change in the law has created this problem and if the law hadn’t been changed, there wouldn’t be any need for this Variance.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE VAR 07-7 -- Variance to allow for a 40-square-foot second-story addition to an existing 2,101-square-foot nonconforming single-family residence that in combination with a prior addition in 1990 will cumulatively exceed the maximum 100 percent floor area expansion permitted by the Nonconforming Ordinance at 1570 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the October 16, 2007 meeting.
Associate Planner Denniston advised that the property owner wishes to have additional time to research the Lot Merger Ordinance and get a better understanding.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to the next meeting L-11 -- Lot merger determination for the property at 230 Longfellow Avenue, comprised of two existing lots, to determine whether the lots shall be merged into one parcel. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the October 16, 2007 meeting.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that the property owner requested this matter be continued because they would be out of town this evening.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUEto the next meeting L-11 -- Lot merger determination for the property at 1115 2nd Street, comprised of two existing lots, to determine whether the lots shall be merged into one parcel. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Denniston stated the subject property is approximately a 3,920-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots from the original subdivision; that the corner lot is triangular in shape with a 49.5-foot wide frontage and an area of 1,788 square feet; noted that the interior lot has a 25-foot frontage and a 2,132-square-foot lot area; and advised 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 and the main structure is sited on both contiguous lots. He stated that the subject property is one of 20 parcels on this block fronting on Gentry Street and zoned R-1; that of these 20 parcels, zero are similar in size, however, 19 of the parcels are similar in width yet larger in lot area to the substandard lot; therefore, the substandard lot is greater or similar in size and width to zero percent of the lots on the block as defined by the Lot Merger Ordinance; and that and based on this analysis, he noted that staff believes the lots qualify for merger.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no input, Vice-Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGE the property at 401 Gentry Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To merge subject lots.
Associate Planner Denniston stated that the subject property is a 3,380-square-foot parcel comprised of two lots form the original subdivision; that two interior lots compose of approximately 28 feet width frontage facing Prospect Avenue and a depth ranging from 54.8 feet along the southerly lot to 79.5 feet along the northerly lot; and 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 contiguous lots. He advised that the lots being considered for merger are similar or greater in size and width to only one of the 18 parcels fronting on Prospect Avenue between Reynolds Lane and 6th Street, indicating that the merger of these lots would be consistent with the immediate neighborhood lots on Prospect Avenue. He stated that broader analysis, such as the neighborhood analysis bounded by Prospect Avenue on the west and south, 6th Street on the north, and the east city boundary, staff found that the subject lot is similar or greater in size and width to one of the 80 parcels; and given the high percentage of larger lots in the immediate neighborhood, he noted that staff believes merging these lots meets the intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance and would protect the neighborhood integrity.
Vice-Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no input, Vice-Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted that what could potentially be developed would be inconsistent with the neighborhood.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to MERGEthe property at 444 Prospect Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
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 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map as demolition of the existing building is scheduled to begin September 30th; and noted that the extension of the map will allow additional time for the applicant to implement the project.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 07-8 & 05-20 / PDP 05-22 -- A request to extend the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 063311 for a 3-unit condominium at 427 11th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Robertson stated the subject lot is a through lot located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Longfellow Avenue and 33rd Street in the R-3 zone with a height limit of 30 feet; and noted this lot, like others on this block, slopes up substantially from the street at the front of the lot and then is relatively flat for the majority of the lot thereafter. He stated the applicant is requesting consideration of alternate points along both the north and south property lines where the survey and topographic profiles show a convex condition as compared to a straight line interpolation; and he commented on the method of determining building height. He stated the evidence supports there is a natural convex condition present and the profile clearly shows this abrupt change in grade; and stated that this condition also exists with other properties in the neighborhood, noting a previous finding was made on the property 4 lots away. He stated the current grade demonstrates the convex slope is a natural condition.
Dave Watson, project architect, offered to answer any questions the Commission may have.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to find there is a convex slope condition at 3216 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom -
STAFF ITEMS
a. Status report on Hermosa Pavilion at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway regarding Auto Spa and parking validation program.
Director Robertson noted that the Auto Spa has yet to re-open for business and stated that staff will review this item once the business is open for 90 days, if it re-opens. He noted the owner was injured and not able to re-open his business as of this time. He stated that staff is seeking to table the issue with regard to the 6-month review of the modified parking plan regarding the 2-hour free parking validation program; and that staff is recommending this matter be addressed 6 months after the restaurant opens for business, which is expected at the end of this year.
e. List of downtown area on-sale alcohol/beer and wine Conditional Use Permits.
Director Robertson stated that staff is continuing to work on this list; noted that the ABC restricted hours are not consistent with the City’s CUP hour restrictions; and advised that the ABC hours will eventually be enforced, noting that City staff is assisting ABC staff in this regard due to limited ABC staffing. He noted that Blue 32 has requested an amendment to their ABC hours to make it consistent with their CUP hours; and noted that City Council and the police chief are recommending ABC not change those hours.
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Vice-Chairman Perrotti asked staff to contact the police department to determine if any evidence exists to validate the audience members’ comments that tattoo establishments create criminal activity.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 10:38 P.M. in memory of Eleanor Lynn and William “Bill” Tilley.
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 September 18, 2007.
| Sam Perrotti, Vice-Chairman | Ken Robertson, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |