Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1967_05_22MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION held at the City of Hermosa Beach, California, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, May 22, 1967. ROLL CALL -Present: Absent: Comm. Armer, Hamilton, Hales, Chairman Viault Comm. Noble, Boice, Reeves Also present: Mr. Bud M. Trott, Building & Planning Director The adjourned meeting of May 22, 1967, continued from the Special meeting of May 1, 1967, was opened by Chairman Viault. Commissioner Armer referred to the subject of Tidelands Trust and proposed legislation by the State of California. The Commission was interested in the progress or action which the City of Hermosa Beach is taking relative to this matter. It was suggested that an informal report be requested from the City Manager on the status of the draft bills which affect local jurisdiction of Tidelands and what plans the City has made, or intends to make, to combat the potential threat to our Tidelands Trust. REVIEW OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE N.S·. 154 RELATING TO· P~OBLEMS WITH 11 PARTY HOUSES 11 Item two on the agenda was the first business discussed, a review ef possible amendmentto Ordinance N.S. 154, relating to problems arising with so called 11 party houses 11 and the definition of 11 family 11 Article 2, Section 220. This section now reads, 11 fami ly'1 means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or a group of not more than five persons, excluding servants, who are not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit i'n a dwelling unit.11 The proposed amendment suggests a change to 11 not more than two persons .11 Mr. Thomas W. Fredericks, Assistant City Attorney, was present as requested by the Planning Commission, to answer questions. Mr. Fredericks told the Commission that the information which he would be supplying was not factual, but merely impressions, based on case histories he had studied, of a situation which exists in Hermosa Beach. These impressions were as follows: I. There are many rentals to more than two young people in a dwelling unit, that do cause police problems. 2. These young people band together and require city services, beyond what the ordinary citizen may require, without contributing a great deal to the community in an economic sense. 3. It seems apparent that it is easier for these young people to find accomodations in Hermosa Beach, than to do so in Manhattan Beach, or Redondo Beach. Mr. Fredericks said that when the City he was curious about the figure 11 five 11 2, Section 220, and how it originated. first began to attack this problem, used in the Zoning Ordinance, Article He discussed this with Mr. Bud Trott, Planni ng Commi s s i on Page 2 Hay 22, 1967 1 1 PARTY HOUSES" CONT: Buildin g & Plann i ng Dir ect or, and the conc lusion was that this figure seems to be CO!Mlonly used in ordinances which a f fec t other citi es , coun ties etc. He remarke d that he was no t ad vocating any sp ecial figure be used, bu t he would like the Commi ssion t o consider all t he reas o ns why a parti c ular figure would be des irable. Mr. Fredericks was asked for reaso ns why Hermosa attracts more of t hese young peopl e than other commu nit i es. He replied that p erha ps this was due to low re ntals, and a greater number of absentee landlords. Commissi o ner Armer c ontributed information that a ft er a rece n t survey of b e ach front properties, lt was obvious tha t a large proportion .of own ers were living outside the c ity. Commissioner Hamilton asked Mr. Fredericks how the figure "two11 would i mp rove the situation, and Hr. Freeer i cks repli e d that it would almost outlaw 11 fraternities 11 in more des ira ble areas, and al though fr aternities legally fall under a conditional use permit, th er e are many who do not apply for s uch permits. Policing pro blems which a re i nc u r red by 11 party hou se s" a nd ord i nances and regulation s current l y in u s e, wer e questioned by t he Comm i ss ion, and wheth e r our p resent ordin a nces, more stron g ly enforced, cou ld be an answer. Mr. Frede ricks s tated that the mai n o bj e ctive was to get the property owners involved, concerned and re s po nsible to the c ommuni ty. Pol i ce can i ss ue ci t ations under the nuisance ordinance, but he belie ved th e b est con t rol wo uld be thro ugh th e landlord s . Pos si ble ado p tion o f the Uni f orm Housing Cod e, and hou se to hou s e ins pect ion, was also dis cussed and whether during s uch in spec tion s , v iola t ions of this nature could als o be rep orted. Mr. Trott, Bui ldin g & Planning Director, re plied that this would be do ne, i f the propo sed amendment bec ame p ar t of the Zoning Ordinan ce , and t hat even under existing r e gulations o f the Ordinance more t ha n 1 1 five 11 would consti t ute a viol ation. It was the conclusion of the Commis sion that a pub lic hear ing sh ould be he ld in order that the public could expr es s opini o ns and s uggestions. A motion was made by Commi ss ioner Ha les, s eco nded by Commissio ner Hamilton, t o ado p t P.C. Resolution 154-614, a resolu t ion of intention of the Planning Comm ission of th e City of Hermosa Beach to init iat e action for the purpose of co nside ration of amendi ng Zoning Ordinan c e N.S. 154, by amendin g Se ct i on 220 of Ar tic le 2, c hanging the definition of 11 fa mily" as f ollows: 11 Family means an individual, or two o r more persons related by blood o r marriag e, or not more than two persons, excluding servants wh o are not rel ated by blood or ma rr i age, living t ogether as a sing le hou se kee p ing unit tn a dwe ll i ng unit." ·The J.ieahi,ng:.::.to r lj)e('.he~l d 1,;at ;::r.,e~t;:.;r ~g i:i:l.r meeting of the Planning Commi s s i o n, June 12, 1967. The moti on carried unanimously. Planning Commission Page 3 May 22, 1967 11 PARTY HOUSES 11 CONT: The Commission also requested that a letter be directed to the City Manager requesting the City Staff to furnish them with further data as follows: l. Why it is a problem. 2. The number of dwellings during the past three years which had such problems, and whether a lesser number of people in such dwellings would have alleviated the problem. 3. Why can 1 t this problem be handled through enforcement of present regulations, and if not, what are the reasons. 4. If the ordinance is changed, how would implementation take place. 5, What is the relationship of 11 party house" cases to different types of residences, such as single residences, duplexes and multiple dwellings. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA -STUDY AND REVIEW At the request of the City Council, the precise plan for redevelopment of the downtown business district was studied by the Planning Commission, A scale model of this area was examined and maps and llterature regarding the plan reviewed. Thought was given to the possibility of certain changes in the plan, perhaps more feasible than the layout as shown. The Commission questioned the tiered concept, and lighting in the lower levels. There was also the suggestion that the plan be more open to areas on the south and north sides, as it appeared to be 11wa 11 ed i n11 as indicated by the sea 1 e mode I. Mr. Bud M. Trott pointed out that the redevelopment plan indicated high rise near the beach, whereas the General Plan did not include this type of structure. He added, however, that a developer interested in building a hotel such as proposed by the plan, could come to the Planning Commission with a request for variance on height limitation. The Commission expressed interest in the report of Mr. Martin Faerber, President, Verdes Investment Properties, Inc., to the Council at their meeting of May 16, 1967. The action of the Council was to refer the matter to the city staff to discuss with the Parking District and Planning Commission, in order that the Council be informed of their views before discussion of further consideration of this plan.be~ ,,,~ck. The possibility of hiring, on a retainer basis, a planning consultant to aid the Commission and advise them if a plan was workable at the time development might take place, was discussed. The Commission also felt it advisable to invite Frank Gary, of the Goodkin Corporation, to explain at another study session the concept of the redevelopment plan. A motion was made by the Chairman, unanimously carried, to adjourn the meeting to June 5, 1967, at 8 p.rn. and to invite Frank Gary to attend this meeting to answer such questions as what the concept of the redevelopment plan is, what could be done about the 11 wa 11 ed i n'1 feeling of the pl an, and how the 1 ewer l eve is will be lighted. Also to be invited would be Mr. Martin Faerher, developer, Planning Commission Page 4 May 22, 1967 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONT: The Hermosa Investment group (Viva Hermo sa ), members of t he City Council, the City Manag e r, Chamber of Commerce and other interested individuals. Chairman Vi aul t made ADJOURNMENT 11:00 a mo tion ~ adjourn th e mee t ing, a ( motion t ~~~-~l \~ -Ro ert Viault, Chai rman (Secret ary absent) c arried .