Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_06_07MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COM.MISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 7, 1983, IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce, Comms Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, and Izant. ABSENT: Comm Loosli ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado, Plan­ ning Aide. II. MINUTES Comm Smith asked that his remark on page two of the minutes be ex­ panded to include that "the document .;says a lot but promises little or nothing, as most planning documents do." Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith, to approve the minutes noting the above correction. AYES: Chrmn Peirce, Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABS: None I .II. RES. P.C. 83-12, P.C. 83-13, P.C. 83-14 Chrmn Peirce explained to the audience what the resolutions were about. It was the concensus of the Commission that they accurately reflected the actions taken by Commission. Motion by Comm Smith, Seconded by Comm Strohecker to approve the three resolutions as prepared. AYES: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker. NOES: None ABS: None IV. SCHOOL DISTRICT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that the Appli­ cant --Hermosa Beach School District--was proposing to sell a por­ tion of Hermosa View School. The reason for the sale of the land is due to its pronounced slope which renders it impractical for school purposes. Furthermore, there have been some erosion problems. Once the land is sold individually to the adjacent six property owners, they will landscape and take preventative measures against the erosion. He continued by saying that the project is viewed as being in the pub­ lic interest, in that it is the first step towards mitigating the drain­ age problem experienced by the six adjacent residents. Therefore, staff recommends. that the Commission approve this project by adopt- ing the attached resolution whcih contains the following 9ondition. PAGE 2 That a covenant be placed on each property limiting the use of the area shown on Tract Map #32162 (to be transferred from School Dis­ trict to individual property owners) to be maintained as open space until such time as property owners apply for a re-zone. Comm Smith asked what the purpose of maintaining the property as "ope,n space" was. Mr. Mercado replied that that is how the property is - reflected in the general plan and the city sees no reason to deviate from that policy at this time. Chrmn Peirce stated that the hearing tonight would deal only with the relocation of the lot line on the subject property, but that the six adjacent property owners could request a rezoning at a later time. Ms. Sapetto added that at the time that the School District filed the application it was discussed whether or not the Distri ct wished to re­ zone. However, they did not wish to incur the f ee at that time. The district is not interested in whether or not the pr o pe rty is changed. Furthermore, if Commission wished to rezone the land, then the item would have to be continued until the proper application was filed and noticing completed. She reminded the Commission that the City is limited by the number of general plan amendments that can be effected during the year and that this particular item would be a low priority use of one of the allotted amendments. Comm Smith stated that the purpose of this item was to get the strip of land to the adjacent land owners and for them to provide anti­ erosion measures. In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the only reason for rezoning this property was that as it stands the purchasers could not build on the land. Mr. Mercado stated in answer to Comm Stroheckers question, that the fence shown on the map is within the slope and it will no longer exist once this adjustment takes place. In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the covenant would be in the form of a deed restriction in that it would be recorded. Comm Brown felt that there should be a simple process whereby the six property owners could get the land rezoned altogether rather than each owner having to apply individually. He also added that by leaving the land zoned for open space that it would leave the property non-tax­ producing which would not be the case if it were rezoned .. Ms. Sapetto stated in answer to CornIIl Strohecker's question that the setbacks on the six adjacent lots would rema i n the same because the open-space zone is non-buildable. Comm Izant added that if the open space were changed tbe percentage of lot which is buildable would increase, i.e. the ratio of land to structure would be greater. Ms. Sapetto agreed. Public Hearing was opened. PAGE 3 Burk Bussierre, 1837 Harper Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he was a proponent of the lot line adjustment with the qualification that there would be a zoning changed.He felt that the zone change should cover all parties at one time to make it more economical and less time­ consuming. He added that the slope on his potential property is in excess of 45 degress and he wants to build a retainer wall to extend the level ground of the property. The footing required for the wall will be substantial; with estimates for the wall being about $15,000. So, in essence, the school property would co~t him approximately $20.00 per square foot. Due to this economical fact he would want the property rezoned so he could get the maximum use of his land. Chrmn Peirce informed the speaker that the zoning ~ssue was not before the Commission at this time. Mr. Bussiere stated that he would like the two issues dealt with concurrently. He also felt that if the land were not rezoned to R-1, that this would constitute a constructive breach. Ms. Sapetto stated that there are some uses for the property with the current zoning, i.e. swimming pool; adding that in open space zoning you can build up to ten percent. She felt that the original affect of the purchase of this property was to solve a run-off erosion pro­ blem. George Magert, 1841 Harper, Hermosa Beach, stated that he agreed with Mr. Bussiere's testimony, and that for the amount of money he would have to invest above the purchase price he would want to be entitled to full use of his property. He stated further that it is very compli­ cated having two zones on one lot especially with respect to resale. He agreed that the purchase price was low but with the improvements he would have to effect the cost could rise as high as $25.00 per square foot. Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Peirce stated that he felt there were two courses of action that the Commission could take, (1) go for­ ward with the lot line adjustment tonight or (2) Postpone tonight's hearing to allow application for a zone change and proper noticing, so the two items could be handled concurrently. Comm Brown asked what the costs would be to effect a zone change. Ms. Sapetto stated that the fee is $450.00 per application to partially cover staff costs plus the noticing costs, mailed notification and newspaper publication, which would be approximately $1,000.00. She added that it probably could be done with one application covering all six lots. She reiterated that there is a limitation to the num­ ber of general plan amendments that can be made during a one-year period. She was not sure whether the year would end at the end of the fiscal year or calendar year. She stated that if the zone change were in compliance with the general plan it would not be an amendment. Comm Brown said that he was surprised that there was no mention made in the report which reflected the thoughts of the property owners in­ volved. Ms. Sapetto replied by saying that that is an issue between PAGE 4 the School District and the property owners and not an issue of the city's. The School District informed staff that they were not con­ cerned about the zone chage. Comm Smith stated that he supported the lot line adjustment but that he didn't feel it should be complicated by piecemeal rezoning --i.e. done on an individual basis with each property owner coming before the Commission to discuss and argue the same points and issues. He felt it would consume a tremendous amount of time. Comm Izant stated that the applicanthas requested the Commission to pass on the issue of the lot line adjustment and sale of property. He added that the owners of the adjacent property have a right not to complete the transaction with the School District, and,if in fact that happens, then the District will have to renegotiate with the buyers and perhaps apply for the zone change. He continued by saying that Commission should take action on the issue before them. Comm Brown stated that he was concerned about the proposed covenant. Chrmn Peirce and Comm Izant agreed. Comm Strohecker suggested that the wording of the covenant be changed to read " ... until such time as the property is rezoned." Comm Smith stated again that he felt that it would be cleaner and more above-board if the lot line adjustment and zone change were handled simultaneously. Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Chrrnn Peirce, to accept the staff recommendation with the modification of the covenant as stated by Comm Strohecker. Comm. Izant agreed that this would have been better handled if the two issues had been brought before the Commission. However, he felt that it was important that Commission pass on this resolution tonight. If this is done it will allow the District and the property owners negotiate and reach some accord which may include the application for zoning change. It felt that it would not harm either of the parties to pass on this item tonight. Comm Smith requested that the second whereas of the resolution be changed to simply say " ... there is no detriment to public interest." He also wanted the covenant to be eliminated. Ms. Sapetto added that the language in the covenant was just a reaffirmation of what is in the code. Chrmn Peirce disagreed with Comm Smith and felt that the covenant should remain as a flag for any potential buyer. Comm Shapiro asked the two speakers from the audience whether when they negotiated the land sale with the School district, they approach­ ed them in the same manner as they approached the Commission and if so what the District's response was. Mr. Bussierestated that during the negotiation, the School Board felt it would be in the best interest of everyone for the land owners to apply for the zone change. He added that he was disappointed that the School Board was not represented at this meeting. PAGE 5 Chrmn Peirce requested that the afore-mentioned motion be put to a vote. He explained that a "yes" vote approves the staff recommend­ ation, and a "no" vote disapproves. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chrmn Peirce, Comms Izant, Shapiro; Strohecker Comms Brown and Smith. Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Shapiro, that the Planning Commission adopt resolution :83-15 ;;.with the change to the second whereas to read " ... there is no detriment to public interest." and the covenant changed to read" ... that the property be maintained as open space until such time as the property is rezoned." AYES: NOES: .ABS: Chrmn Peirce, Comms Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker Comms Brown and Smith Chrmn Peirce informed the audience that any decision of the Commission could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. V. FINAL APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS -BOATYARD SITE Chrmn Peirce explained to the audience that the Commission held hearings approximately a year and a half ago which resulted in a resolution to the City Council. The Council then took it under advisement, and ultimately they were desirous of reducing the number of units. It then went into litigation resulting in renegotiation between the city and the property owner. He added that the Commission has in the past only approved conceptual plans. However, tonights action is for approval of the final plaris . for the planned de v elopment at the Boatyard site. The Staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated, in addition to the history as given by Chrmn Peirce, staff recommends that the Commission approve the final plan, CUP and Tentative Map and, additional­ ly authorize staff to negotiate a revised access from Herondo to the project. She continued by saying that basically the role of the Commission is to look at the final plan in light of the conceptual approval that was effected by the council, to determine if in fact the plan does meet that conceptual approval --i .e. are the number of units, and traffic circulation the same. Commission should bear in mind that the traffic circulation that the Council approved was different from that which the Commission approved. Additionally, Commission approved a 79-uni t project with an ingress/egress across from the railroad right-of-way, midway between Second Street and Herondo. However, that has been removed, and the ingress/egress is at the corner of Herondo and Valley Drive. Staff has suggested tha.t in that particular area circulation might be improved by moving it up onto Herondo and perhaps utilizing a portion of the property that the city owns to better effect traffic circulation. PAGE 6 Staff suggested further that the Planning Commission allow staff to negotiate with the Applicant to modify that access. Other than that, the perview of the Cornmisssion is to determine whether or not the final plan is in fact the same as the plan approved by the Council and agreed to in the court settlement. Chrmn Peirce disagreed with part of Ms. Sapetto's analysis stating that State law reads that any modification to any planning commission action taken at the city council level has to be cycled back to the commission before approval of it. He added that in his opinion the Commission had some options, and that it is within their perview to suggest changes or v / modifications to the plan. However if the city council did not approve Comrnissions's changes/modifications, then it would go back to the original. Ms. Sapetto stated that that was not the way the issue had been repre­ sented to her by the City Attorney. She added that the item has come back to the commission for final review on a conceptual approval that was given in the past. In answer to a question from the audience, Chrmn Peirce stated that the newspaper notice of this hearing was correct. Public Hearing was opened. Richard A. Leonard, representing the Applicant, stated that the original conditions had charged the applicant to use their best efforts to obtain the right-of-way from Santa Fe Railroad. However, Applicant was only able to obtain the right-of-way in the position that it is shown. Jim Rosenberger, 1123 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, asked whether the ingress/ egress being referred to was the only one. Ms. Sapetto answered that there are four ingresses/egresses. At this point a five minute break was taken so that Ms. Sapetto could explain the plans for the project to the members 0£ the audience. Chrmn Peirce called the meeting to order. In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's question, he stated that on the average there would be four to five trips per day generated by each unit of the project. Mr. Rosenberger continued by saying that if Commission is considering a change that now would be the appropriate time, before the units are built, to perhaps change Valley Drive to a two-way street and/or widen it. Ron Orr, 168 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that half of the devel­ opment will be exiting out onto 2nd Street, and 2nd Street is already carrying a double load, so this project will worsen the traffic flow problem. He suggested the Commission consider blocking off 2nd Street at Valley to stop the traffic from coming up 2nd Street and thereby forcing the motorists over to Herondo --which he felt was already a freeway. Chrmn Peirce stated that 2nd Street is a "collector'' and it should be able to handle considerable traffic, even though it narrows to the PAGE 7 west of the project. He added that 2nd Street, as an arterial col­ lector, was supposed to collect traffic and then bump it onto Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Orr was upset because the original plans that he saw did not have an ingress/egress on 2nd or Hill and now there was. He added that he felt that Hill Street is unsuited for this kind of traffic because of the parking on both sides of the street. Also he felt the old resi­ dents would not be able to park on the street. Chrmn Peirce and Ms. Sapetto both stated that the plans tonight were not substantially different from the plans which Mr. Orr alluded to in his testimony with respect to the ingress/egrees on 2nd Street. Mr .. Snyder, 157 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach, stated that from the begin­ ning the developer was working for maximum density, and now we have maximum interference with the residents around the project. He felt the project would open the Ardmore stub and increase the flow of traffic thereon. Chairman Peirce stated that -there is no plan to open Ardmore to the south to Herondo. He added that staff is suggesting that the city arrange the entrance that comes off of Herondo into the property in a more convenient fashion for traffic, but there is no plan to feed into Ardmore. He continued by saying that the plan is to correct the deficiency in the plan which dumps the traffic onto Herondo. Stacy , 167 Hill Street, He rm osa Be ach , stated that her con- cern is that Hill Street which is v ery nar row and ~--allows __ parking on both sides of the street could not acc ommod ate rescue vehicles in the case of an emergency. Chrmn Peirce stated that Staff will take that into consideration, and if it is determined a emergency vehicle would be unable to travel down the street, it would be changed. Rita Neu, 662 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that Council had appro­ ved Plans A and B, but the plan which was not approved she felt should be reconsidered. William O'Clair, 620 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that in the past Commission had discussed not providing the project with as many ingresses and egresses . He felt that should be considered again. Ronald and Elizabeth Morgan, 524 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that their major concern was their being forced to leave their rental unit with only 30 days notice in order to make way for the construction of this project. Chrmn Peirce informed them that they would have to work that our directly with the development firm. Richard A. Leonard, Applicant's representative, stated that the plan before the Commission is basically the same as plan B which was recommended for approval in the past by the Commi$ion. He explained that there are four less units than were originally on plan B. The n umb er of units accessing onto Ardmore, Hill or Second Street are no g rea ter than what was originally approved. He was certain that this p roj ect does not impact the present use of Ardmore. He added that from the very beginning they had agreed to landscape and provide a bike PAGE 8 path in the unused right-of-way. Adding, that the project does not encompass any of the railroad property, except for one ingress and egress. These egresses are the same except that the tap from Valley Drive was moved closer to Herondo. The plan does comply with the existing city ordinance re visitor parking and recreational vehicle parking. The plan is an approved conceptual plan worked out by the county developer and the courts. He added that it was the Commission's discretion to determine whether this plan is consistent with the previously approved conceptual plan. In addition, these plans were approved by the Court. Public hearing closed. Chrmn Peirce stated that in his opinion the main concern of the pub­ lic testimony dealt with potential traffic problems. He added that unfortunately any project will affect traffic somewhere in the city, and the only way to mitigate the problem is to reduce the number of units, which was done in this instance. In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that if at some time it is decided that the ingress/egress near Valley Drive and Her­ ondo should be relocated and the new position eliminates any parking spaces, they would be replaced elsewhere on the property. Richard Leonard, developer, assured the Commission that the plan that is approved shows the tap down closer to Valley and at this time they are in a position to build that plan. However, they have indicated to staff they would entertain the idea of moving its location to a p o s i t ion that will be reflected in the study which should be completed today . He added that they had no intention a.nd would not negotiate a redes igned tap on Herondo which would take away any parking spaces be­ low the code requirements. Motion by Comm Smith, Seconded by Comm Shapiro to approve the conceptual plans subject to the conditions and stipulations set forth in the resolution including l; 2, a through e; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; and 8. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant none Shapiro, Smith and Strohecker Comm Smith stated that this project is a good example of negotiation that arrives at a reasonable development. The developer made some signifi­ cant concessions in bringing the number of units down from 104, and subsequently changing the design of the project which makes it more habitable. He felt it would be impossible to satisfy everyone with respect to traffic. He was disappointed with the final removal of the ingress/egress on Valley; however, he assumed that was because of the trolley plans by the railroad. Comm Izant agreed with Comm Smith's remarks. He felt that this is the best project the city will get on this, but, in hindsight, the Commission never should have changed the zoning. He added that he must remain con­ sistent and vote against the project. ( PAGE 9 Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to adopt Resolution 83-16 approving the final plan for 75 units, subject to the various whereas's and stipulations contained in the suggested resolution with the following change to the introductory parag:i:-aph: ".A resolution of the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach Approving the final plan for 75 condominiums, tentative tract map #22187 and Conditional Use Per­ mit for property located at 440 -2nd Street, also known as the 'Boatyard site'." AYES: NOES: ABS: VI. Chrrnn Peirce; Comrns Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker Comm Izant None SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP AND TENTATIVE TRACT M...A.P #42874 The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that the project consists of a two-story (over garages) seven unit condominium on a 9,961 square foot lot with a general plan designation of high density and R-3 zoning. The project meets all the requirements of the condo­ minium ordinance and is consistent with the General Plan. He stated that staff recommends that this project, which meets all condominium ordinance requirements, be approved. Chrmn Peirce suggestedthat perhaps the plan may be in violation of the code with respect to common garages/tandem parking. Mr. Mercado stated that only three of the spaces were tandem. He ,.added that the Director of Buildings opinion was that the proposed garage is, as defined in the code, a common garage, and, further, that only 30 percent of these spaces are tandem. Public hearing opened. Allan H. Juckes, 27310 Rainbow Ridge Road, Palos Verdes Peninsula -­ applicant --stated in response to Chrmn Peirce's question that there were no doors on the garages and in fact he had been told by the city that he could not install doors in a common gar~ge without violating the code. He added that he didn't need the doors because the project was set back further than 50 feet from the street. Curt Camper, 126 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, stated that this was a very good idea since that portion of Monterey is at the present time a mess of overgrowth. He felt that the developer should be encouraged to build, and the sooner the better. Comm Izant stated that using the roof deck to serve as open space for another unit was a novel approach. In Hermosa you have to use creative architecture. He wanted a confirmation that that area would be struc­ turally stronger to accommodate foot-traffic. Ms. Sapetto assured him that when the drawings come to the city the Building Code requires that this sort of ,building be checked,i. e. , dwellings one above another. Public Hearing closed. Motion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Comm Smith to approve the seven unit condominium, CUP and Tentative Tract Map #42874, located at 100-112 Monterey Boulevard. PAGE 10 AYES: NOES: ABS: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith and Strohecker None None Ms. Sapetto stated that the words "if the planning Commission deems it necessary" should be deleted from items number three and four of the proposed resolution. Motion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Comm Smith, to approve Resolution 83-17 subject to the change suggested by Ms. Sapetto. AYES: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith and Strohecker NOES: None ABS: None VII. REGULATION OF SATELLITE RECEIVING ANTENNAE The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that staff was asking the Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intention to regu- late the installation of satellite receiving antennas. She added that the city of Torrance had a similar resolution and she would provide copies of it to Commission at the next meeting. She advised Commission that if they felt that antennas should be regulated to some extent then they should adopt the attached Resolution of intention. Chrmn Peirce stated that at the present time this did not appear to be a problem but with decreasing costs to erect these antennas they may soon be proliferating in the city. He added that they look similar to a solar panel, only not as attractive. He encouraged the Commission to go forward and examine this issue. Comm. Smith agreed and added that if the computer revolution is any in­ dicator the installation of these antennas will increaserapidly over the next five years, and he didn't want a neighborhood filled with them to downgrade the neighborhood's appearance, not to mention the in­ terference. Comm Brown agreed. Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Izant to adopt resolution 83-18; there being no objection it was so moved. VII. REDEFINING HOTEL/MOTEL/BOARDING HOUSE/ROOMING HOUSE/LODGING HOUSE Chrmn Peirce stated that the council wants hotels and motels to have cooking facilities and they want parking to be scaled to the size of the project. He was somewhat dismayed by the councils request, since the Commission had put a lot of thought and reasoning into these defin­ ions. He also felt that kitchen facilities would make the hotels/motels too similar to apartments, and it may be difficult to keep them from becoming apartments . . Mr. Mercado suggestedthat the city could possibly place as a condition of approval that there be periodic assessments of the records to deter PAG~ 11 mine if there is a turnover of clientele; and if that is the case, their business license could be rescinded. Comm Smith said that kitchens would encourage long-term use. He also felt that the mode of enforcement suggested by Mr. Mercado would not work, based on past experience with that type of enforcement. Chrmn Peirce suggested that since there was a substantial difference of opinion between the Council and Commission, it would be worthwhile to meet with Council in subcommittee. All commissioners agreedv and it was decided that action would be held off until the subcommittees meet. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Chrmn Peirce referred to a letter, dealing with a: change in configur­ ation to the Appletree project which the Commission received and sug­ gested that it be referred to the Building Department. The letter apparently charged that the security gate had been set back on the first building. He then asked that the Building Department look into it, since the letter did not provide sufficient information as to what the violation was. Comm Smith asked that staff respond to the letter's author and advise in writing that the letter was being referred to the Building Depart­ ment. Ms. Sapetto agreed. Chrmn Peirce pointed out that since the next meeting of Commission would be his last nominations for new officers should be made tonight and voted upon at the next meeting. The following nominations were received: Chairman: Steve Izant Vice Chairman: Nominations were left open Secretary: Joel Shapiro. Ms. Sapetto informed the Commission that nothing new had transpired with respect to the parking on the westside of Pacific Coast Highway. Meeting was adjourned at 10:25. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a reg- ular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 7th day of June, 1983. JAMES PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN JOEL SHAPIRO, SECRETARY DATE