HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_05_21> I
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON MAY 21, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by chmn. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by comm. Peirce.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, chmn. Ketz
Comm. Rue (Present as of 7:03 P.M.)
Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Director,
Edward Lee, Assistant city Attorney;
Sylvia Root, Recording secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of May 7, 1991 pulled by Chmn. Ketz for revision and/or correction,
Items 6, 7 and 8 contained no Motion, item 9 contained no second to Motion and
Item 11 noted no conditions. The Minutes will be resubmitted for approval.
MOTION by chmm. Ketz, seconded by comm. Peirce to approve the following consent
calendar items:
Resolution P.C. 91-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN
FOR A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 320 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY;
Resolution P.C. 91-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO ADD 99 SQ. FT. TO AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING USE WITH ONLY ONE PARKING SPACE AT 2467 MANHATTAN AVENUE.
Resolution P.C. 91-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WAIVER TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO PORTABLE CLASSROOMS AT 1645 VALLEY DRIVE, HERMOSA
VALLEY SCHOOL.
Resolution P.C. 91-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH BILLIARDS, FOOD
SERVICE, AND RETAIL SALES AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, ON THE BREAK.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comins. Marks, Di Monda, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
Conan. Rue
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Mr. Al Johnson, Al Johnson's Karate school, stated although Resolution P.c.
91-29 was approved, neither Mr. Johnson nor the property owners understand why
the Conditional Use Permit included additional conditions for which Mr. Johnson
1 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
is not responsible. He requested either an amendment to CUP 91-6 or hearing to
rectify this condition.
Mr. Schubach said that a CUP is applicable to the land and is the property
owner's. The applicant, Mr. Johnson may ask for an amendment or hearing by
following the reapplication process.
Chmn. Ketz stated Resolution P.c. 91-29 was approved at a public hearing and
cannot be addressed at this meeting. To amend this CUP, a formal procedure
requiring another public hearing is necessary.
comm. Peirce questioned the property owner's responsibility to comply with code
requirements, to which Mr. Schubach stated there are current non-compliance
problems.
Mr. Greg Dahl, Property Manager representing the property owner, said the owner
has not received written notification requesting installation of landscaping,
automatic irrigation system, fence removal, walls raised, and parking
modifications. Mr. Dahl said the highest building codes were maintained during
original construction, with upgrades being made as required.
chrmn. Ketz stated the non-retail business would require more parking than
previously noted and recommended that Mr. Dahl contact staff to explore
obtaining an amendment, conditional Use Permit and public hearing.
Mr. Don Oleski asked if Agenda Item 14 (b) MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE OPERATION
OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX AT 1160 AVIATION, was scheduled for public hearing during
this meeting. Mr. Schubach responded, stating this was a memorandum noting
complaints received by the staff. The current CUP does not contain the
conditions necessary to resolve alleged problems.
Chmn. Ketz explained this was not a public hearing item, testimony will not be
accepted at this time, and this memo was presented by staff to commission for
hearing consideration only.
Mr. Jim Hallead, 1221 11th Place, asked if property owners would be notified as
to the decision and the rights of the property owners Mr. Schubach responded
that residents would be notified through public notice, but may contact the
Planning Department regarding the council's decision. Additionally, owners may
write to the council or the commission.
Mr. Schubach said the Public works Department requested a continuance due to
unavailability of necessary data in order to issue a report.
P-10 --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS.
Chmn. Ketz stated this issue would be continued to June 4, 1991 meeting.
PUBLIC BEARING
CON 91-1/PDP 91-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
122305 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMI.NIUM AT 918 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 AND
APRIL 2, 1991 MEETINGS), and
2 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#22304 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 930 15TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 AND
APRIL 2, 1991 MEETINGS).
Recommended Action: To approve said conditional Use Permits and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Maps.
Chmn. Ketz stated CON 91-1/PDP 91-1 would be heard in conjunction with CON
91-2/PDP 91-2 and requested a staff Report.
Mr. Schubach said the revised plans submitted April 2, 1991 improved view
potential, staggered upper and lower projects, but the concerns regarding
identical building design, floor plan, elevation, and lack of integration were
not addressed.
Applicant had requested continuance in order to revise original plans to 25'
height to take advantage of the 30' height limit. The revision maintained the
original layout with the upper project's exterior architecture redesigned from
a contemporary to Mediterranean style, making the two units distinct from each
other. The staggering effect has positively improved the project, which
complies or exceeds basic standards, but does not take advantage of the two-lot
situation.
If council wishes not to approve the project as revised, perhaps a denial based
on "not satisfactory" grounds, allowing for resubmittal of revised plans at a
later date may be considered.
Mr. Lee stated council may elect two alternatives: (1) If mitigation measures
adequately address project impacts, the issue may be decided on its merits at
this meeting, or (2) take this off calendar, allowing the applicant to resubmit
the plans, go through the notice procedure required in a public hearing.
Comm. Peirce asked about the specific statements and relationship of the
General Plan relating to any two contiguous lots. Mr. Schubach stated that the
zoning process and General Statements in the Plan indicate minimum standards
which may be exceeded. This is the reason for the conditional Use Permit, which
are looked at on a case-by-case basis, maximizing quality.
comm. Rue asked if the interior motor ,court was considered open space on the
918 15th street site Plan, to which Mr. Schubach responded that only the
footprint of the building is considered in calculating lot coverage. The
interior motor court is covered and included.
Comm. Rue also noted a lack of height elevations. Mr. Schubach stated the
Building Department staff calculates the height to assure conformity with
structural plan check via review of plans and on-site visit.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:25 P.M.
Mr. Dave Olin, 1233 Hermosa Beach, st. 203, addressed lot-coverage Code
requirements and gave several elevation colorings to the Council for review.
Mr. Olin stated his client does not wish to consolidate these properties. Mr.
Olin discussed associated problems with slope regarding the parking, also
stating the high roofs do not conflict with roofs on the lower lot, the
buildings are designed to dovetail each other, leaving an 11-ft. setback for
light and ventilation for the East-side neighbor.
3 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
cornm. Rue noted the site Plan displayed a 16-ft setback on both projects with a
driveway separating the property from the cornmon wall. Applicant stated this
was correct and the side yard has an 11-ft. setback.
Cornm. Rue asked the applicant if the contemporary-design building had been kept
at 25 ft., to which the applicant responded affirmatively, with explanation.
cornm. Rue confirmed with Mr. Olin that the Traditional-design building height
had been maintained, with addition to the roof area. Mr. Olin stated the
building height was dictated by the handrail on the roof deck.
Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:32 P.M.
Cornm. Di Monda stated he felt that the applicant had responded to requests for
dissimilar building designs made during May 7, 1991 meeting, but requested that
substantial 24" box specimen trees be noted exactly in the CUP. Comm. Rue
agreed and noted the applicant had made efforts to alleviate bulk and starkness
of the building while adding interest.
MOTION by Cornm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve CON 91-1/ PDP 91-1
and CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 with the condition that minimum 24" box specimen trees be
included, with the Planning Director's review and approval.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CUP 91-4
Comma. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Chum. Ketz
None
None
None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR & PAINTING, AUTO
SALES, AND GENERAL AUTO REPAIR, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FELDER'S BODY SHOP AND SALES.
Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit and adopt ~egative
Declaration.
Mr. Schubach stated a request for continuance at a mutually-agreed later date
had been received and recommended approval of this request. staff recornmends
continuance to the June 4, 1991 meeting.
Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:38 P.M.
Mr. Mick Felder, 838 2nd st., owner of Felder's Body Shop, agreed to the
continuance to June 4, 1991.
Public Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 7:41 P.M.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to continue until June 4,
1991. (~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CUP 91-8
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Chum. Ketz
None
None
None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR SHOP AT 1402
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FOLDED WINGS LTD.
4 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
Recommended Action: To approve Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Schubach stated the request was made by an existing auto repair business
located in a converted, remodeled building. staff recommended that the CUP,
subject to conditions in a resolution attached to CUP 91-8 be approved.
Applicant business is open to operate from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday
through Friday only.
The requested Conditional use Permit would authorize continuation of business,
submitted in accordance with the amortization ordinance.
This particular business has not been the source of any reported problems or
complaints. Conditions regarding property improvement are necessary to assure
compatibility into the future or with change in ownership.
submitted plans do not accurately reflect the site and need to be revised.
staff concern is that the trash enclosure lacks a gate, storage trailer is
stored in the parking lot, debris is on the slope. staff recommends the
condition that a view-obscuring gate be installed, the two other concerns be
addressed by standard conditions used by past auto-repair businesses.
staff also recommends previously-used standard conditions regarding the
business operation and recommends hours for repair be limited to 8:00 A.M. to
6:00 P.M., 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays. The applicant would
like the hours altered to 7 : 0 0 A. M. to 7 : 0 0 P. M. , working with the doors
closed. staff feels those new hours would not be a problem.
Due to business reasons, some cars may be stored on-site more than 72 hours.
staff can modify the condition, stating no car may be on site for any extended
period of time if it is unregistered.
Comm. Marks was concerned about the week-end hours and any objections from
surrounding residents, to which Mr. Schubach responded the hours would_be from
9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Chrnn. Ketz stated that a public hearing will be held to
allow complaint or support to be voiced.
Public Hearing opened by Chrnn. Ketz at 7:47 P.M.
Blane coon, 1402 Pacific coast Highway, owner of Folded Wings, is in agreement
with application correspondence received.
comm. Rue asked applicant if there was an objection to stating from the hours
of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., work will be done behind
closed doors; to which the applicant responded the doors cannot be c ·losed while
working due to safety hazards.
comm. Rue requested an explanation of noise
experienced during those hours. Applicant
compressor and pneumatic air guns are operated.
level,
stated
problems which may be
no hammering is done,
Richard Sullivan, 3rd street, commented on possible fumes emitting from the
building and acoustics east of Pacific Coast Highway which are amplified. He
requested a CUP statement be included which states the doors should be closed
when working on engines, but not enforce the statement. Mr. coon stated he has
had his business for 13 years and has maintained his business in good condition
during this time.
5 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
comm. Rue asked the "painting" be deleted from CUP 91-8 since none is done on
site, to which Mr. Coon agreed.
Public Hearing closed by chrnn. Ketz at 7:54 P.M.
MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve Resolution P.C.
91-34 with the following amendments: Item #4, Painting, be deleted, Item #6,
" ... on the premises shall be prohibited, except registered vehicles waiting for
repair or pick up may be stored," Item #9, "hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
week days and 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays."
chrnn. Ketz commended Mr. coon for being the first to come in under this
moratorium and not waiting the two years.
AYES:
NOES:
Conans. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
GP 91-1/TEXT 91-1 --GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE BILTMORE SITE FROM MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/RECREATION,
AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO ALLOW 30%
OF THE MAXiMUM FLOOR AREA TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES CONSISTENT WITH
TBE COASTAL COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Recommended Action:
with the Coastal
Declaration.
Amending the General Plan and zoning Text to be consistent
Commission's determination and adoption of the Negative
(A break was taken from 7:55 P.M. to 8:06 P.M.)
Public Hearing was continued by Chrnn. Ketz at 8:06 P.M.
Mr. Schubach displayed two maps showing the coastal zone boundaries and
open-space areas within the coastal Zone. The coastal commission recornmended
the General Plan Amendment from medium density residential to general
commercial be implemented for a portion of the site, which is to be implemented
through a Text Amendment to the specific plan area, and require that a minimum
of 30% floor area or more be developed on site for commercial.
Mr. Schubach discussed the adoption by council of Resolution ordinance at the
meeting of August 14, 1990 and the Amendment requested by the city of Hermosa
Beach. The coastal commission approved a modified version of the City's
request on March 13, 1991. The Environmental Review committee recommended a
negative declaration. If the coastal Commission's recommendation is accepted,
specific designations and regulations must be developed to carry out the {-
decision, otherwise the city of Hermosa Beach needs to request amendment or
reconsideration of that decision.
The alternatives considered are: (1) use of the south lots as commercial
consistent with the commercial uses which front on 14th street; (2) Mixed use,
with residential condominium above ground level commercial, using the strand
frontage for commercial; (3) commercial uses on the strand frontage with
residential behind, or (4) commercial uses with frontage only on 14th street,
6 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
using 15th street frontage and strand for residential. In staff's judgment,
option (1) is clearly superior.
conceptual plan blue lines for option (1) were distributed to commissioners for
review with an explanation given by Mr. Schubach.
Provisions to amend were drafted to allow variation from the staff's conceptual
plan as long as criteria are met. The staff's recommendations are as follows:
(A) split Biltmore site into two portions, one maintained at medium
density and one designated as Commercial/Recreation.
Proposed division is shown on map, Attachment A. Amendment
of the specific plan is required. Mr. Schubach explained in detail
the amendment required and presented some implementation
scenarios.
Although the development scenario is consistent with the
coastal Commission's decision, possible problems and decisions
pertaining to how the land is sold and developed were
presented.
(B) Requesting the Coastal commission to reconsider its
conditional approval by changing the 30% commercial floor area
to a 40% land area requirement, making the residential and
commercial requirements independent, is an alternative, since
the current proposal limits the city's and developer's options
and restricts residential floor area. Request to change the
Coastal commission recommendation would result in this matter
not being placed on the ballot.
commissioners were asked to consider if this matter should be adopted or put on
the ballot, as well as adopted.
Mr. Schubach presented a map and synopsis on property acquisition and
improvement status, also explaining that one land strip ownership was in
question between the Railroad and previous owners. chmn. Ketz asked if the
railroad property would be acquired with the rest of the right-of-way when the
property ownership decision was made, to which Mr. Schubach replied yes, but
the city of Hermosa Beach currently has no claim to it and is not eligible for
purchase under the utility Tax.
Chmn. Ketz noted the modification in the Text of 4 acres from 4 1/2 acres,
which Mr. Schubach affirmed.
Comm. Di Monda questioned the feasibility of commercial-use leases as opposed
to selling City-owned coastal property necessary to generate enough income to
buy other property and asked if a study had been conducted, to which Mr.
Schubach responded that due to time restraints, studies had not been conducted, (~
but options have been left open for future study.
Mr. Schubach stated that a decision by July needs to be made by commissioners
as to adopt and decide to put on the November ballot.
comm. Marks expressed his understanding that the land will revert back to a
hotel site if no action is taken, which was confirmed.
Public Hearing opened by chmn. Ketz at 8:30 P.M.
7 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
Mr. Parker Harriet, (213) 379-7196, stated the city of Hermosa Beach is asking
for a land-use amendment to a specific-plan area hotel. Prior to an approval
for a land-use hotel south of the Biltmore site by the coastal commission, a
land-use plan amendment was not done, nor repealed the specific plan-area
hotel. There is an inconsistency.
Mr. Harriet stated a petition for a 100% open-space park has qualified for the
ballot and will be voted upon in November 5, 1991. The Initiative ordinance
was read for the record by Mr. Harriett, who also stated the Initiative is not
binding on the City of Hermosa Beach, and if the wishes of residents are
followed, a park would be established.
Mr. Harriet said he has filed two Writs of Mandate against the City of Hermosa
Beach and requested they be part of the record, stating the following reasons
why the property should not be developed: ( 1) A Government Code states
ocean-front property cannot be sold or leased unless found not suitable for a
park or beach, and (2) An EIR should be done due to the fact that the 1984 EIR
cannot be used as a substitute.
Mr. Harriet questioned the propriety of land purchases of the south School
site, portions of Valley Park and the "green belt".
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:40 P.M.
Comm. Peirce noted the 40% land area is a good compromise, giving the ability
to persue each project on a separate basis and seems ideal for mixed-use.
staff has stated mixed-use projects are difficult to finance.
comm. Di Monda discussed the possibility of selling or leasing the 40%
commercial and selling 60% residential in order to buy four acres of open
space. Mr. Schubach responded that a study had been completed in 1989. Based
upon the 40% / 60% land ratio, there would be $5-8,000,000 available for
residential/commercial. Staff is in contact with a commercial broker, who will
give more specific figures as to the value. staff's evaluation is based not
only on the economic, but the quality of life.
Comm. Rue referred to the Resolution Report, section 9.6.1-4 (b)(c) and
questioned the original 12 and 14 units being changed to 7 and 9 units,
respectively, which was confirmed.
Comm. Rue felt the plans were more marketable with the open options being
maintained while giving the city of Hermosa Beach more control in project
development.
Comm. Di Monda ascertained that the decision to sell or lease the property is
determined by the city council and requested an explanation as to the mechanics
of the residential/commercial land split. Mr. Schubach responded the Coastal
Commission requires any amount between 30% to 100%. The staff's evaluation
concluded that actually 40% of the land would be required to meet the 30% ,
requirement. comm. Di Monda stated he did not believe selling the land would
be beneficial for the city of Hermosa Beach and felt a 99-year lease would be a
better alternative.
Chrnn. Ketz commented she did not believe residential use to be appropriate for
this site.
Comm. Marks stated his belief this area is key property to the city of Hermosa
and property usage should be considered.
8 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
comm. Rue asked Mr. Lee the amount of acreage covered by the 60% residential.
Mr. Lee responded that 2/3 acre or 20,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Lee separated the issues before the Planning commissions: (1) What is the
appropriate use, should the coastal commission's recommendation be conformed
to, and (2) What type of transaction is required in order to implement the use
of the land. Mr. Lee felt it appropriate for the commission to not only make a
recommendation to the types of uses but also in terms of the type of
transaction for the council to consider.
comm. Peirce stated the commission's vote regarding property percentage is null
since it is required that the General Plan be consistent with the coastal
commission's decision.
Mr. Schubach stated the commission's recommendation would be considered by the
coastal commission.
Mr. Lee commented that the appropriateness of land leasing residential
property is dependent upon the type of development and whether a developer
would accept a land lease. An alternative would be to strongly recommend, with
respect to residential property, that the city of Hermosa Beach consider a land
lease as the property-conveyance method and allow the council or City Manager
to structure a transaction to accomplish a land lease, if appropriate
economically. Mr. Lee stated land leasing was not an unusual method for cities
to structure transactions.
Comm. Di Monda asked the effect of a denial by the commissioners, Mr. Schubach
responded that GP 91-1/TEXT 91-1 would be sent to the City Council with a
recommendation that the coastal commission's decision is not acceptable.
comm. Di Monda stated the basic goal is keep city of Hermosa Beach property
control, obtain a cash flow with a use compatible with the beach and local
businesses, maintain a small open space area, purchase other open space from
the monies obtained. The land would revert back to the city at the end of the
lease period.
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm Peirce, the city council receive the
commission's rejection of the coastal Commission's recommendation1 proposal a
combination of commercial and open-space land use, with an option for land
leasing. staff, at a later point, would conduct a study to determine the
land-division percentages. Also, use funds to buy open space. •
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BEARINGS
P-10
CoJJDns. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS.
Recommended Action: continue to June 4, 1991 meeting.
Chrnn. Ketz stepped down because of conflict of interest. comm. Peirce assumed
the chair.
9 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
MOTION by Comm. Peirce P-10 --Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk streets be
continued until June 4, 1991.
No objections, so adopted.
***
CUP 90-4 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 340 MASSEY STREET, OUR
LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL.
Recommended Action: Approve a permanent additional classroom rather than a
portable one.
Mr. Schubach stated a temporary structure has been previously requested.
request is for a permanent building which would not impact parking.
recommends approval of the permanent building on this school property.
Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:11 P.M.
This
Staff
Mr. Doug Leach, 119 Torrance Blvd., suite 24, Redondo Beach, Project Architect,
feels this application is a permanent solution to the school and parish needs;
maintain esthetics and parking.
Hearing closed by chmn. Ketz at 9:13 P.M.
MOTION by Comm. Pierce, seconded by comm. Rue, to approve a permanent building
rather than a temporary building.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PS 91-1
BOUSE".
CoDDDs. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Peirce, Cbmn. Ketz
None
None
None
DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR A "COFFEE
Recommended Action: To adopt the policy statement interpreting "coffee house''.
to be the category of "snack shop".
Mr. Schubach stated coffee stores sell a variety of coffee beans, grounds,
perhaps snacks, but no restaurant food or entertainment.
snack shops need a conditional use Permit for the parking factor.·
Chmn. Ketz asked if anyone was present to speak on this subject, to which she
received no response.
MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve adoption of the
policy statement interpreting "coffee house" to be the category of "snack
shop".
No objections, so adopted.
STAFF ITEMS
$PE.ED STUDY FOR SECOND STREET ON HERMOSA AVENUE.
Comm. Pierce accepted the staff's recommendation of Receive and File.
10 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE OPERATION OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX AT 1160 AVIATION.
Mr. Schubach stated staff had received complaints concerning noise and activity
in the Jack-In-The-Box parking lot during evening hours. The applicable CUP is
old and not adequate to cover drive-through restaurants are known to have. A
memorandum defining the received complaint was previously distributed to
Commissioners. The owner does not believe there is a problem.Recommend
requesting a formal Revocation (Modification) Hearing or asking staff to
conduct further research and issue a report.
chmn. Ketz asked about the amount of resident complaints, to which Mr. Schubach
responded that one very strong complaint was received resulting in the issue
being brought to the commission's attention.
Comm. Peirce felt the issue should be investigated.
Chmn. Ketz directed the staff to investigate and present a Resolution of
Intent, with the setting of a hearing at a later date.
chmn. Ketz announced the commission would hold a public hearing, residents
within 300 ft. of the restaurant will be notified. staff will research and
develop a staff report.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING ADDED TOPIC TO CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP,
chmn. Ketz stated the topic of nonconforming ordinance was added by the city
Council on May 14, 1991 to this workshop, resulting in five topics to be
discussed.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR MAY 28, 1991 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
Chmn. Ketz stated the two items scheduled for this meeting are: (l)
Lighthouse Cafe reconsideration of the Planning commission's approval of the
on-sale general alcohol, and (2) an appeal from on-The-Break.
comm. Rue asked if the on-The-Break applicant appealed, which was confirmed.
TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
Chmn. Ketz stated the ballot misuse will be discussed.
comm. Marks inquired as to any studies to lower the building heights having
been conducted. Mr. Schubach confirmed this, stating draft-form studies will
be provided prior to the June 4, 1991 meeting.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1991.
No action taken.
11 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91
7
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
comm. Pierce stated he has not received the report stating how many passengers
to LAX from Hermosa Beach get on Route 1. Mr. Schubach responded this
information should be available for the June 4, 1991 meeting.
Comm. Peirce stated he needed this information to ascertain what the cost per
person, per trip city subsidy on MAX.
Comm. Di Monda asked if the city council should be reminded that the commission
recommended the ban on the strand parking be enforced. Mr. Schubach commented
a memorandum had been prepared and presented to the city Manager, but to date
no response has been received.
MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by comm. Marks, to adjourn at 9:26 P.M.
No objections1 so ordered.
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 May 21, 1991.
11r;;x-;a L
Michael Schribach, csecretary
Date
12 P.C.Minutes 5/21/91