Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_03_01MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 1, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Peirce. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Izant, Peirce, Smith, Strohecker ABSENT: Comms. Loosli, Shapiro ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director. (Comm. Shapiro arrived at 8:00) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chrmn Peirce asked that the salient parts of the minutes be high­ lighted in the future to facilitate the reading of the minutes. Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Chrmn Peirce, to approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Comms Brown, Izant, Peirce, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABS: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 83-7 Comm Izant stated that the resolution appeared to correctly reflect the amendments made to the resolution at the last meeting. He point­ ed out that the vote from the February 1, 1983, meeting should be added. Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Strohecker, to approve the resolution with the addition of the results of the vote on 2/1/83. AYES: Comms Brown, Izant, Peirce, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: STORER CABLE Ms. Sapetto gave the Staff Report, and recommended that the Public Hearing be opened and then continued to the next meeting due to the fact that the mailed notification required to be given by the appli­ cant to the surrounding land owners was not done. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question she stated that the application was for a legal non-conforming use of the land, involving three issues: A General Plan Land Use Amendment; a zoning change; as well as a discretionary approval to allow the 100' height. Chrmn Peirce stated that there is a similar type tower owned by CalTrans and located at the southwest portion of the Harbor and Santa Monica freeways, just north of the Coliseum. He suggested that Commission and interested parties perhaps take a look at that PAGE 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1983 tower so they will have a better idea of what Storer is proposing be built in Hermosa Beach. Comm Strohecker asked if the City is requiring a red light be placed at the peak of the tower, as previously discussed. Ms. Sapetto said that that was a suggestion from staff and was not, at this time, a requirement. She felt that it was an area that could be discussed by the Commission, with Commission deciding · whether or not to require the light. Ms. Sapetto added that this hearing had been noticed in the news­ paper by the City. Public hearing was opened with the previso that it will be continued to the next meeting since it had not been noticed properly. There being no testimony, the public hearing was continued to the next meeting, March 15, 1983. R~VISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Ms. Sapetto stated that because of the bad weather, Mr. Casteneda, who was to present the Staff Report, was unable to attend the meet­ ing. She asked Commission to continue the item to the next meeting at Mr. Casteneda's suggestion. Chrmn Peirce stated for the members of the audience that the Commis­ sion has been reviewing the Housing Element of the General Plan and trying to rewrite it. Public Hearing was opened and contined to the next meeting, March 15, 1983. Chrmn Peirce asked whether it was the concensus of the Commission that the city should attempt to grandfather these units in or other­ wise legitimatize them, as that was the idea he had from reading Comm Brown's comments in the minutes from the last meeting. Comm Brown said that that was his opinion, and not the prevailing attitude of the Commission. Chrmn Peirce stated that he would be opposed to grandfathering or legimatizing any bootlegs, if it was in the wrong zone, i.e. if there was a second unit on an R-1 lot. However, if the unit in question was substandard and met the Safety Coae,, that would be a different matter. Adele MacIntyre & Client, West Coast Land Company, Hermosa Beach, stated that her Client owns a piece of property on 7th Street in Hermosa Beach that is a legal non-conforming unit in that it was built in 1923 before the zoning or General Plan was changed. She stated that the lot was 40' x 120', and that the city had told her that her client would only be allowed to build a duplex on that lot. However, two houses down on 7th Street, on the same size lot, they were saying that that lot could support a fourplex. And she wanted to know if that is true. PAGE 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1983 In checking the zoning, Chrmn Peirce stated that it appears that all the land in the area in question is zoned R-2. Ms. Sapetto stated that the way to get accurate information would be to call the Building Department and ask to speak to Mr. Lee Alton, Building Director. Ms. Macintyre's client stated there is now a duplex on the lot and he would like to build two condominiums there. Chrmn Peirce stated that it was his interpretation that he could build two units or one house, but not two condos, since the location of his property is considered to be a low-density area according to the General Plan. Ms. Sapetto added that with respect to that area the zoning is not consistent with the General Plan. Mark Cava-nagh , Hermosa Beach, asked what the difference would be in terms of density, between a duplex and two condominiums, in that both structures would probably be occupied by the same number of people. Chrmn Peirce answered by saying that state law regulates condominium construction through the city's General Plan, and that the General plan would be the authority and not the zoning, and the City was just following the law as presented by the State. Ms Sapetto added that the City would like to see a single-family dwelling there and not a multiple dwelling. She added that the area in que 9 tion is a small pocket of R-2 in a predominantly R-1 area. Ms. Sapetto stated the the City Council has authorized a work pro­ gram to amend the Land Use Element to see where they migh t want 'to change the ele ment. Those hearings will be noticed an d s hould be conducted s ome time in April. She suggested that the memb ers of the audience who testified tonight should also attend the se hearings in April. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chrmn Peirce asked for a clarification on the City Council minutes with respect to page 2 regarding the Hotel/Motel, etc. definitions. Ms . S apetto s tated tha t b asi c ally the Council had some difficulty unders t andin g why we were making t hese definitions and to what purp o se it wo uld serve . Principal ly, an objection was made that by cr e ating d e fin i tion s for hotels and motels we would preclude mo tel s fr o m be i n g deve lo ped downt o wn. Their rationale being that th e way the code is now, with no definitions, hotels are allowed in C-2 and C-3, and mo t els i n C-3 only. By not having definitions yo u can subvert the co d e re gu lation, i.e., you can call a hotel a motel and get around t he cod e . She added that basically Council has asked staff to comeback with a furt her exp lanation of why th e y were suggesting definitions and wh at pu rp ose they woul d se rve . Further, that the Staff report is comp let ed a nd will be pr es ente d at the next Coun'cil Meeting. The Repo rt s p ea ks to the r ea so n s wh y distinctions are being made between hote ls/mo te ls and boar d ing h ous es/rooming houses in the commercial zones. ~l PAGE 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1983 And Staff suggests that the Council decide whether they want to have C-3 motels in C-2 as well. Comm Brown stated that by not having definitions you can include either structures in both zones. Ms Sapetto ~ated that if that is the intent of the Council then they will probably not define the terms. Ms Sapetto stated in response to Comm Brown's q ues tion re gar ding page 4 of the City Council Minutes, t hat Counci l h ad aske d S taff to convene a workshop between the Building and Pla nning Depa rt- ments ne the distinctions between co ndo an d apa rtment cons tr uctions. Council felt uncomfortable not allowing convers ion s on th e o ne hand, or , on th e oth er hand , all o wing t h e m with out a def inite a nd specific s et o f sta n dards b y which a commis sion would judge a conversion pro­ j ec t . She added th a t what Coun c il wanted was for Staff to come back and pre sen t to them some o f t he in formation that has been present- ed to Commission. Chrmn Peirce stated that the problem with definitions is that developers will uaually build to the limit. Comm Strohecker stated that it was his impression Council was ask­ ing for specific guidelines and definitions because they misunder­ stood commission's intent to be that commission wanted to have the conversions before it to approve or disapprove it. They didn't understand our intent was to have a set established code to follow re approval of condominium conversions. Comm Smith stated that the resolution was clearly stated, with the standards being very specific. He added that if Council is looking for better guidelines on conversions they should request that of Commission. Ms. Sapetto stated that she didn't believe Council knew enough about it at this point, and that is why they want staff to supply more details. Comm Izant reported on the subc o mmittee . He s t ated that the s ub ­ committee was appointed at t h e l a s t meeting and was co mprised of Comms Strohecker, Brown and Izant . The c har g e of the Co mmi ssio n was to consider looking a t P CB at the so uth end of the City . He cont in ued by saying that the Sub-co mmittee met at 6:30 thi s ev e nin g an d had a discussion among s t th e ms e l v es to familia rize themse l v es with what had been do n e previ ous ly , what the ob jectives of the sub-committee would be, and what go al s should be ac hieve d. The sub-committee thought, as stated in the resolution, that the objective should be for the City to work towards a down growth of non-residential traffic on the north and south streets through the City. Also that perhaps there will have to be some action take on PCH to produce less traffic on those streets. The plan of action the sub-committee decided to take was to meet informally with a number of other groups, in an attempt to get the widest spread of alternatives. Two groups mentioned were the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and the Hermosa Beach Home Owners Associa- PAGE 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 1983 tion. Hopefully, the sub-committee can get in put and opinions from these groups so it can come back to the Co mmi ssion as a whole with some recommendations. He added that Comm S t r ohecker will contact the Chamber of Commerce to get their p ar t i c i pation, and that the sub-committee will meet again in the near future. Comm Smith asked that the sub-committee, in regards to · the traffic on PCH, also sound out the business raen in the area who might not be represented by the Chamber of Commerce. Also, they should sound out the home owners in the area that are not members of the Horne Owners Association, as those groups don't necessarily represent the general concensus or opinion of the area. Chrrnn Peirce reported in regards to the sub-committee on the rezon­ ing of the Seaview Inn property. He stated that as of this time they have not been able to meet due to conflicting schedules with the members of the Commission and Council sub-committees. He will attempt to set a meeting date. He added that the status of the issue at this time is that the City Attorney has filed a Quit Claim in court for the property, and that proceedings on that will probably take a number of months. Comm Izant made a motion to adjourn at 8:35. CERT! FI CATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes meeting of the Planning Commission JA~7ilr , CHAI IRMP.N DATE were approved at regular 1st day of March 1983.