Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_07_05PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 1983 HELD IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, HERMOSA BEACH ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chrmn I zant, Cornms Smith, Strohecker, {~hg.p _i~9, _ l,J,e.:j_r;-ce, Brown ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JUNE 21,. 1983 Motion by Comm Peirce, seconded by Comm Shapiro to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of June 21, 1983, as submitted. There being no objection, THE MOTION WAS SO ORDERED. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-18 & P.C. 83-19 Chmn Izant clarified that P.C. 83-18 is a Resolution of intent~on to hold public hearings regarding the Satellite Receiving Antennae, and P.C.83-19 is in regards to the seven unit condominium. These are being approved specifically for form, not necessarily for content. In answer to Comm Shapiro.' s question, Mr. Mercado advised there are no more than 6 satellite receiver antennaes in the City. Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve both resolutions (P.C. 83-18 and P.C. 83-19 , ~s submitted by staff. AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker; Sha~iro; Peirce, Brown NOES: None ABS: None REGULATION OF SATELLITE RECEIVING ANTENNAE Ms. Sapetto requested this item be continued until the next meeting in order that staff may receive further documentation. In answer to Chrmn Izant's question, Ms. Sapetto advised that no further public notification in the newspapers will be required. The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Izant. Seeing no public testimony at this time, Chrmn Izant continued the public hearing until the next meeting, and advised this, in effect constitutes legal noticing of this public hearing. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM OPEN SPACE TO R--1 AT 1800 -HARPER (adjacent to Hermosa View School) The Staff report was given by Alfred Mercado. He stated this project can, in a way, be considered as a second phase of the lot line adjustment approved by the Commission on June 6, 1983. He continued, the lot line adjustment transferred a marginal strip of property to six property owners, the current project applicants. As a result of the lot line adjustment, Mr. Mercado advised the six property owners involved now have land which is partially zoned open space and partially zoned R-1, and this inconsistency is also true of the General Plan. He continued, this project is not inconsistent with the goals of the open space element of the General Plan., due to the fact that the property being considered for rezoning has topographical characteristics (oronounced slope) which render it useless for open space and especially recreational purposes, and this position has been taken by the Hermosa Beach School District. In answer to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercadc 'advised it is his understanding Hermosa Beach School District 1is no longer property owner , and therefore, did not sign the application for zone change. Ar. Mercado continued, he was advised by the spokesman for the property owners that they are now the owners of the property previously owned by the Hermosa Beach School District, and that the deeds have been recorded, however, initially, when the applicants secured the application, the transfer of title had not been finalized. Chrmn Izant recalled extensive discussion at the last meeting concerning how many General Plan changes a city can make each year, and it was ascertained there were three allowable changes. In answer to Chrmn Izant's question, Mr. Mercado advised cities can change each mandated element of the General Plan three times within a calendar year, i.e. nine elements. This is not the General Plan itself. Mr. Mercado continued, to-date, this year, there have been no changes to the Land Use element of the General Plan. Comm Brown requested a quarterly update on the changes to the General Plan. In answer to Chrmn Izant's question, Ms. Sapetto advised there is an annual report to the State on the changes to the General Plan. Comm Brown advised the State feels if a City requires to make more than three changes to the General Plan, then perhaps the General Plan needs revamping. The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Izant. Joy Henry, 845 15th, Hermosa Beach, California -Citizen. Ms. Henry stated the newspaper notice advised of a zone change to R-1 at 1800 Harger~·and asked if th~s ·area is the park. Chrmn Izant clarified this area is behind the school, that on the eastern side of the school ?roperty where it abuts residential, there is a slope of land. There is an erosion and flooding problem with this land, and the homeowners have bought this land with the intent of improving it. Public Hearing was closed by Chrmn Izant. Motion by Comm Peirce, seconded by Comm Brown to approve the zone change and General Plan amendment on 1800 block of Earp-er -;· AYES: NOES: ABS: Chrmn Izant; Comms Smith, Strohecker 7 Shapiro 7 Peirce, Brown None None .Motion by Comm Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith to adopt Resolution P.C. 83-·20 7 a resolution approving a zone change and General Plan amendment from Open Space to R-1 at 1800 block of Harper-Comm Peirce amended the Resalution to show Mr. Izant as chairman. AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown NOES: None ABS: None ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM C-1 TO R-3 AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE The Staff report was given by Alfred Mercado. He stated, in 1977, the subject property in conjunction with its neighboring properties, was considered for rezoning from C-1 to R-3. Of the thirteen lots considered for rezoning at that time, nine were rezoned. The four that were not rezoned are the most norther~ and nearest 2nd Street and Hermosa. He continued, it appears that the Planning Commission in 1977, felt that the subject property, along with lots 12 and 13, should remain C-1 to ensure adequate area for parking for future commercial development. He added, the Land Use Map does not clearly define the boundaries of these neighborhood commercial areas. Therefore, the question, is the subject property in an area with a land use designation of high density or neighborhood commercial? This question requires interpretation of the intent of the Land Use Element by the Commission. Mr. Mercado continued, the zoning code's counterpart to neighbor­ hood commercial is the C-1 zone. Permitted uses in a C-1 zone include apartments on top of a commercial building, or as an entire project with four or more apartments. The major difference in permitted land uses between C-1 and R-3 are subdivisions, which in this community, are most often represented by condominiums. The subject property, being 5800 square feet, would allow a maximum of six apartments under C-1 zoning. Under R-3 zoning, five condominiums could be constructed. One major interest in retaining the site as neighborhood commercial is in keeping retail sales and retail facilities within the City. The applicant has suggested that the site is not large enough to accommodate commercial activities, and it appears that, in order for the site to be developed commercially, subterranean parking would have to take place, which is rather costly. Further­ more, the site is quite a distance from the downtown business district, therefore, the viability of commercial development is questionable. Mr. Mercado advised that Staff recommends that the Commission consider the information provided and that a decision be based on the utility and compatability of the proposed zone change with its environment. In answer to Comm Peirce's question, Mr. Mercado advised originally, it was the Planning Commission's intention to leave all four lots zoned C-1 since at that time in 1977, the applicant or applicants were asking that the entire block which consisted of approximately 13 blocks be rezoned from C-1 to R-3, and the Commission concluded that 9 lots be rezoned and 4 lots remain C-1. In answer to Comm Shapiro's question, Mr. Mercado advised that Staff sees some semblance of merit for and against this application, and does not feel strongly for either position, and therefore, feels it is appropriate that the decision be on the part of the Planning Commission. Comm Peirce recollected there was a petition, however there was not a specific project that was, at that time, in violation of the General Plan, being high density at that time. This was an attempt to bring the General Plan in conformance. Comm Peirce continued, it is his recollection the Planning Commission at that time, because of the uncertainty of the subject property, decided it should be left as it was. The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Izant. Chuck Sheldon, owner of Hermosa Real Estate Company, representing applicant in this zone change. Mr. Sheldon provided photographs of the site, which he felt would lend some greater understanding to the request. Mr. Sheldon advised this lot was owned in 1977 by a woman named Bray, who was not cooperative with the City and the applicants to the south, who wanted to rezone the property R-3. It is Mr. Sheldon's understanding the City prefers to have concurrence from property owners when they rezone property. Further, Mr. Sheldon understands, since it was impossible to discuss the rezoning of the subject lot with the then owner, and there was some sense to leaving it C-1 contiguous to its neighbor to the north, the City opted to leave the property C-1. Mr. Sheldon continued, the applicant took title to the property June 1st, 1983, and has attempted to determine the viability of a commercial development in this interior 5,800'. The applicant has found it to be virtually impossible to develop this lot commercially with the parking requirements, the subterranean requirements, and has asked that it be rezoned contiguous to the property to the south, east, north with the exception of the northerly two lots next to 2nd Street, and the Strand property to the west of Hermosa Avenue. This conforms to the General Plan, and also with the surrounding property, and makes sense from a development standpoint. Mr. Sheldon felt if the property were rezoned R-3, it would lean more towards less density than it would as C-1. Public Hearing was closed by Chrmn Izant. In answer to Comm Peirce's question, Mr. Mercado stated it is his understanding there are two lots on the northeast corner 80' along Hermosa Avenue still zoned C-1, and these are apartments. Comm Peirce's feelings were if there was a building on the lot, it would be an attractive place for a small store, however, since there is no building, this seems unlikely. Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Shapiro to approve the requested zone change from c--1 to R-3 at 166 Hermosa Avenue. AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown NOES: None ABS: None Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Smith to approve Resolution P.C. 83-21 adopting Staff wording as set out in packet, with the correction of the Chairman's name to S-teve -Izant. AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown NOES: None ABS: None STAFF ITEMS & COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS In response to Ms Sapetto's suggestion, the Commission agreed to hold one meeting each in July and August, and should the need arise, a further meeting could be held. Ms. Sapetto advised by September, Staff should have Land Use Element materials. Ms. Sapetto advised the firm Phillips, Brant & Reddick from Orange County were selected as Consultants to work on revisions to the Land Use Element. Ms Sapetto advised there will be a workshop in July with City Council, to help with the adoption of the Element. The date for this has not yet been set by Council. Comm Peirce questioned if a structure located on the Strand at the skating shop and Perry's Pizza has a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Mercado advised the owners received environmental clearance, and feels almost certain they have a Conditional Use Permit. Comm Smith requested Staff research this question and report back at the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Sapetto advised City Council appointed two new Planning Commissioners, Commissioner Leslie Newton, and Commissioner George Zulakis, who will assume duties at the first meeting in August. Chrmn Izant commended Comm Peirce for 8 years of service to the Planning Commission. Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 5th day of Julv, 1983