Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_11_17MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON NOVEMBER 17, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulaki s , Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director, Ralph Castaneda, Can~ultant TDC; Kim Reardon Cutes, Planning Intern APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve the October 18, 1983 minutes with the following corrections: All pages, change "Stroehecker" to "Strohecker." Page 4~ middle of the page, change, "Comm. Soulakis stated that he was not concerned that the eaves encroached on the property line" to "Comm. Soulakis was concerned whether the eaves encroach ~d into the setback, as opposed to the property line." Also, delete the following sentence. Page 7, middle of the page, change, "Comm. Soulakis requested the definition of a density bonus" to indicate that Comm. Strohecker requested the definition. Page 9, paragraph 3, not that Comm. Soulakis did not recommend making a statement in the Housing Element. Page 9, paragraph 5, change the wording to indicate that Comm. Soulakis felt that the accelerated variances should apply equally to the remodel of new homes. Page 10, paragraph 3, should read, "Comm. Shapiro stated that the procedure should be the same with existing and new construction." Page 14, Commissioners' Items, Comm. Shapiro requested that a paragraph that was given to staff be inserted concerning the Mayor of Redondo Beach who stated that all illegal imigrants should be relocated to Hermosa Beach. Page 1, Comm. Smith was absent due to business. Note his absence on all pages. No objections; so ordered. \ PLANNING COf\AMISSION MINITTES -November 17, 1983 Page 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLITTIONS Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve Resolutions P.C. 83-26, 83-27, 83-28, and 83-29. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Smith Comms. Brown, Newton AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She recommended that the Commission allow Code Section 1103 of the Zoning Code to remain as is and not be amended. The mechanism that the Commission had adopted to implement was determined to be not a legal method by the City Attorney. The question at hand is whether or not the City should change the manner in which C-potential property is translated into commercial property. The City Council had requested the Commission to look at the mechanism in the Code and to determine whether or not it needs to be changed, the rationale being that the viability of the multi-use corridor requires strengthening and that the commercial development is best suited for Pacific Coast Highway and that the existing mechanism by which C-potential property is transformed is not the most functional. The Planning Commission approved amending the Code by including a provision that when a property was rezoned and subsequently the project denied, an automatic rezone could happen with the property reverting back to its original zone. Likewise, the Commission required an automatic rezone for the translation of the C-potential property into commercial. The only discretionary act the Commission was going to retain was the approval of the actual project itself. That was determined not to be a legal mechanism. At this time an applicant may come before the Commission for a zone change request and bring a specific plan, have his plan approved, and have the zone changed all at the same time by the Commission. The applicant does have the option to simply ask for a zone change with a review at a later date; however, most applicants request both at the same time. If the Commission feels that the requirement of the specific plan is burdensome and asking too much on the part of the developer, the only solution to answer the concerns of the Commission would be to create certain development standards particular to those parcels, as compared to the regular C-3 standards. If the Commission does not wish to implement standards applicable to all commercial development abutting residential properties but still wishes to examine each development on a case-by-case basis, the Commission can delete the requirement for a specific plan and require a conditional use permit for every commercial property that is built. \ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (Cont. ) Page 3 At that point, the Commission would be extending the review period for all commercial property. Presently, C-1, C-2, and C-3 properties do not require any Planning Commission review because there is no conditional use permit required. By deleting the specific plan requirement and requiring a conditional use permit, the Commission would be creating more review, rather than less review. She felt there was no way to expedite zone changes for commercial development on C-potential property and still obtain the Planning Commission review unless all C-potential properties are rezoned at the same time on a city-wide basis or unless the Planning Commission implements new development standards for the C-potential properties. The simplest way is to keep a specific plan review with a zone change request. Comm. Smith questioned whether 81-21 was adopted by the City Council. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative; however, it was revoked by the newly-elected City Council. Comm. Smith questioned whether the motion/resolution passed by the Planning Commission in relation to C-potential properties had been before the City Council. Ms. Sapetto stated that it was revoked because of the City Attorney's . opinion; however, the City Council indicated that they were not interested in re-examining it. Comm. Smith asked whether the request to examine the C-potential properties originally came from the City Council. Ms. Sapetto replied that the original request was from the City Council. Comm. Smith questioned whether the motion and resolution passed by the Planning Commission in reqard to C-potential included anything dealing with standards for properties abutting residential. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated, however, that there were concerns by the Planning Commission that the corridor would best be served if lots were assessed individually regarding their utilities as residential versus commercial property. Comm. Smith asked whether a specific plan was identical to a precise plan. Ms. Sapetto replied that they were on in the same, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 4 AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ( Cont.) Comm. Soulakis asked if C-3 is the only option if one files for a rezone in a C-potential zone. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Izant asked if there were any properties with C-2 potential. Ms. Sapetto replied that C-2 potential limits only the use; it does not limit the development standards. The height limitations, setback re­ quirements, et cetera, are the same for C-2 potential as it is for C-3 potential. Comm. Smith felt that Section 1103 of the Zoning Code did not adequately reflect what a specific plan consists of. Ms. Sapetto stated that a precise planis the actual preliminary drawings of the structure. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether an alternative would be to have modified reduced development standards. He asked whether the Commission has the option of zoning the property either C-1 or C-2. Ms. Sapetto replied that the C-1 and C-2 zones have the same development standards; the only difference is the use. The uses pertinent to C-1 are neighborhood commercial uses, and the uses pertinent to C-2 are down­ town uses. Second Street and ''Five Corners'' are C-1 areas; the downtown area is in the C-2 sone, and along the highway and Aviation are C-3 zones. Comm. Shapiro asked for the original purpose of the two-step request. Ms. Sapetto replied that it was done at the time the Zoning Code was adopted; therefore, it would be difficult to understand the rationale. She stated that it was most likely to maintain a Planning Commission review. Comm. Smith questioned whether C-potential were contiguous only to C-3. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing opened at 8:04 P.M. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that the C-potential along the east side of the Highway should be rezoned. She stated that C-potential originated when the City Council desired high-rise buildings along the Highway. These buildings PLANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -November 17, 1983 Page 5 AMENDING THE ZON ING CODE : C-POTE NTI AL PR OP ERT IES ALO i\K:i PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (Con t .) were to be built on the east end with the parking lots toward the Highway for ease of parking. If a tall building were constructed on the east side of Ocean Drive, it would obstruct many views. She believed many areas were in need of rezoning, especially areas with steep grades such as 14th Street. She stated that the west side of the Highway is flat, and it is at a downward slope. She spoke in opposition to block busting in C-potential zones. She believed C-3 zones should be contiguous to other C-3 zones. She did not favor having C-3 property in the same block as residential. She believed there should be protection for the persons on the other side. Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P.M. Comm. Smith stated that he could see no reason for changing the zones on the properties in question. He believed that the only action might be to strengthen the precise plan. He was not concerned that Hermosa Beach would have any block busting. He believed that the Zoning Code should be left as it stands at this time. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Commission was obligated to take action on this item. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that a Resolution must be made, and reasons must be given as to why the Commission does not want to change the ordinance. Chmn. Izant stated that a resolution would be something to the effect that "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that no change be made in Code Section 1103." Comm. Smith felt that the most significant factor is that the Commission is cognizant of the City Attorney's opinion. Chmn. Izant stated that the above would go in the resolution. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Resolution would show that the Commission feels that each project should be examined on a site-by-site basis. Comm. Smith questioned whether the above recommendation is, in effect, saying that the current ordinance wording sufficiently handles the need for a precise plan on each project. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 6 AMEND ING THE ZONING CODE : C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HI GH WAY (Cont.) Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to recommend to the City Council that no change be made in Code Section 1103. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Brown, Newton Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to make Resolution P.C. 83-30, that being, "WHEREAS, the previously-adopted Resolution to amend the Zoning Code creating an automatic re z one was determined not a legal mechanism by the City Attorney; WHEREAS, each project should be examined on an individual basis;WHEREAS, the current ordinance provides a reasonable balance for the property owner and surrounding developed properties. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES to recommend to the City Council not to amend the Zoning Code, Section 1103." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Brown, Newton REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Ms. Castaneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission had expressed a desire to adopt and forward to the City Council the Housing Element. The Council had requested the Commission to discuss six items. Those six items were reviewed on November 18, 1983, and the minutes reflect the discussion. As a result, a resolution has been prepared. Public Hearing opened at 8:28 P.M. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether there is any basic change. Chmn. Izant replied in the negative. He stated that the public hearing was for consideration of not the document itself, but whether or not it should be forwarded to the City Council. He added that all Commissioners have agreed on the document. Comm. Smith questioned whether the document was available on file at the library. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Izant stated that there will be more public hearings on this item at the Council level. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 7 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Public Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M. Comm. Strohecker wished to amend the wording in the last WHEREAS to read, "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it best represents the values and goals of the community." Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission concurred with the above amendment. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Strohecker for discussion, to recommend to the City Council that they hold hearings on the Housing Element and to adopt the Housing Element after those public hearings. Comm. Smith stated that he would support the motion to send to the City Council. He believed it represented the sentiment of the Community. He has been to many sessions on this issue, and he has seen the document change since : its inception. He stated that it does not substantially change anything that Hermosa Beach has not done for 20 years. He did not agree with it, in that he felt it represents a community that is socially irresponsible in regards to its senior citizens. He stated that he was in favor of the motion because it represents what the citizens of Hermosa Beach desire. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Brown, Newton Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded bv Comm. Shapiro, that Resolution P.C. 83-31 be forwarded to the City Council as recommended by staff with the first WHEREAS amended to read, "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it best represents the values and goals of the community." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Brown, Newton REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mr. Castaneda gave staff report. He stated that presently there are four Land Use designations, those being, general commercial, multi-use corridor, neighborhood commercial, and commercial recreation. He suggested that there be five categories in the new Land Use Element, three of which would deal with common hierarchy in commercial land use, and two of which would deal with certain areas which need more detail. He requested input from the Commission in terms of hierarchy and the convenience designation of neighborhood PLANNif\X3 COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 8 REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) commercial as well as the general commercial category. At the present time, there are three areas designated as neighborhond commer~ial. General commercial areas would be those areas that are not included in the first two designations or the multi-use corridor and downtown commercial. This would include Aviation along Pacific Coast Highway. An example of the residential areas within the corridor not zoned C-potential are on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway behind the commercial from 21st Street to 14th Street. On the west side of Pacific Coast Highway there are a number of C-potential properties; however, the character is different. He felt that the boundaries could include all of the C-potential property on the west side of the Highway within the limits of the multi-use corridor. Comm. Smith asked if it would be possible to get some overlays onto maps for the Commission's perusal. Ms. Sapetto stated that a map has been prepared. Comm. Smith felt that the Commission should think outloud at the sessions on this subject. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the term "convenience commercial" had been used in other documents. He did not believe the difference between neighborhood and convenience commercial necessitated a breakdown. Comm. Soulakis asked what the reason was for redefining commercial zones so narrowly. Comm. Shapiro stated that there are at the present time four commercial land use designations in the Land Use Element. He questioned why a fifth commercial land use designation was needed. Ms. Castaneda replied that it better represents what is out there at this time. Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that a contour map of the hillsides would be helpful to the Commission. She thought it would be interesting to know how many square feet this proposal represents and how many people it involves. This would be a major change throughout the City with no consideration given to traffic which has tripled in the last year. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 9 REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF IBE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Henry Reado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether this proposal was a smokescreen used to cover up the general plan on the Highway. He stated that these items continually stretch out before the Commission. Wilma Burt stated that Mr. Reado was concerned about his property because he and others do not know what their properties will be zoned in the future. Public Hearing continued at 9:09 P.M. Ms. Sapetto scheduled a workshop session for Thursday, December 15, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. She stated that there would be a public notice. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission had four items to consider, those being, commercial area definitions, recommendations for changing of boundaries in the multi-use corridor, recommendations of further development of downtown area concept, and pursuing zoning inconsistencies. Comm. Soulakis stated that he would like to see any changes in size in any of the four directions in the multi-use category. He felt that data regarding the number of people who would be affected would be beneficial. He also wished to see the overlays. Comm. Smith stated that almost any area covered by the Planning Commission would need an impact study. He wished to see exhibits, rather than mere verbal facts. He stated that the Commission should know what types of properties are involved. Mr. Castaneda stated that the City has the above information. Mr. Soulakis stated that the first step would be to have an overall recommendation on the four areas from staff at the workshop session. The next step would be to focus on specific areas. Comm. Smith wished to see the model to get an overall view of the situation. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Commission would like to see the zoning inconsistencies in the residential areas at the first workshop session. Comm. Smith replied in the affirmative, adding that it is part of the overall plan. Chmn. Izant noted that the Commission had no comments with regard to the downtown area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINlJfES -November 17, 1983 Page 10 REVISIONS TO THE LAND _USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Comm. Smith stated that the fifth zone has an ambiguous purpose. He requested a further explanation of why it was needed. Comm. Shapiro asked whether the current Land Use Element showed the Biltmore site as being the only commercial recreation area. Mr. Castaneda replied in the affirmative. He stated that he would prepare the language of the Land Use Element, prepare exhibits, prepare larger exhibits for the meeting, and submit the results of the survey on the Biltmore site. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE. SECTION 800-A Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Building Department has requested the Planning Commission to make an interpretation of Section 800-A which refers to allowable uses in the C-1 zone. It restricts residential use to four or more apartment units in the C-1 zone. The owners of one of those parcels is inquiring whether or not they can use a C-1 parcel for a lesser residential use, that is, for an R-1 or R-2 use. The Commission must determine if they can build to a lesser degree as is allowed in the residential zones. Staff researched the Planning Commission minutes at the time this ordinance was implemented. It was apparent from looking at those minutes that at the time the Commission felt that it was inappropriate to allow residential in the commercial zone; however, they sought to strike a compromise because of some comments made during the public hearing. They allowed certain types of residential use in that zone. They referred to some development taking place along Wilshire Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard which was actually mixed commercial/residential use. Staff suggested that if the Planning Commission wishes to encourage a higher density residential development, that the Planning Commission should allow the section to remain as is, allowing only four or more apartment units or commercial units on that site. If the Commission feels that a less intense use of commercial properties would be acceptable as a residential use, the Commission could change that section to allow a lesser use or interpret that the same provision for residential zones stand as well in the C-1 zone. Comm. Smith stated that there were alternative residential uses according to the Code, such as building only one or more units if certain setback requirements were made. Ms. Sapetto replied that one can build one or more residential units if one builds commercial with it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 11 PLANNIJ\K3 COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE. SECTION 8OO-A Public Hearing opened at 9:26 P.M. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, urged the Commission to allow less development in C-1 zones. Public Hearing closed at 9:26 P.M. Comm. Smith stated that the C-1 properties are very small, and there are few of them in Hermosa Beach. He preferred using the lesser interpretation, that being, to allow building less that a four-unit apartment. He was concerned, however, that people may tear down their existing buildings in the C-1 zone and build only two units. Comm. Strohecker stated that he would prefer .~aving a lesser requirement; however, he noted concern for single family dwellings or even duplexes on C-1 property. Chmn. Izant felt that the Commission should revise the section of the Code denying residential use in the C-1 area. The definition of C-1 property is commercial use. Comm. Strohecker stated that he would approve of one family living unit as long as it is combined with commercial property and if the property is properly zoned C-1. Chmn. Izant stated that the concensus of the Commission was that the current ordinance does not allow for anything lesser than as it is currently stated,that the land should be used for what the zoning designates. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission may want to adopt a Resolution to delete Section BOOA-3O and retain Section B. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission wishes no change at this time. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Smith questioned whether a commissioner who declares a conflict of interest should mention this fact before the issue is discussed. He noted that Comm. Newton failed to do so at the previous meeting. Ms. Sapetto replied that commissioners with a conflict of interest should declare so before discussion. .... PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 12 COMMI SS I ONE RS' I TEMS (Cont.) Comm. Smith recommended that the City clean up the Biltmore site, suggesting that grass be planted and that it be picked up. He stated that it is an eyesore. Chmn. Izant stated that he voted for the motion to grant the antenna at the Poop Deck without visiting the site. Had he visited the site, he would have required a fence on the north side because the antenna is very visible from the northern side. Comm. Shapiro stated that Chmn. Izant could change his vote. Chmn. Izant requested Ms. Sapetto to check into his alternatives. STAFF ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission. STEPHAN IZANT, CHAIRMAN SECRETARY DATE