Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-04-07MINUTES OF TIIE PLANNING CCM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BF.ACH HEID ON APRIL 7, 1982, IN THE CI'IY H.A..IL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order by Conm. Peirce at 7:52 P.M. ROLL CALL IRESENT: C.omns. Currmings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue ABSENT: Conms . Donnelly, Smith, Chrrn. Izant AI.SO PRESENT: Alfred R. Mercado, Planning Aide Ralph Casteneda, Housing Consultant Linda Brayton, 'IDC Planning Comn.. Peirce acted as Chairman for the rreeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Chrrn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Rue, to approve the March 2, 1982, minutes . No objections , so ordered. ZONE FOR MOBILE Ha,JE PARKS Mr. 'Mercado introduced Llnda Brayton from 'JDC Planning who gave the staff report. Cornn. Loosli asked for the definition of TDC. Mr .. Mercado replied Torres, Diaz, and Casteneda, consultants to the City. Ms . Brayton stated that the zoning code anendrrents were prepared to irrpleIIEnt the policies of the LCP. Phase III of the LCP work program states. that ''in order to preserve existing mobile barre parks, rezoning of these areas will be required." She offered two basic altemati ves , those being, to create an exclusive zone for roobile hone parks or to establish a conditional use permit procedure. She stated that a rrobile hone park zone had been developed and the following section of tbe zoning ordinance could be added to the City's zone --intent and purpose of the zone, permitted uses, permitted structures, developnEnt standards, and review procedures. The other option available to the City would be to add rrobile hoIIE parks to the list of conditional uses contained in Section 1000 of the zoning code. The disadvantage of this option is that it does not restrict the zone to mobile hone park development. The land use could revert to any permitted use allowed by the base zoning established for the area. If a rrobile hOIIE park zone was established for the areas where roobile hOIIE parks currently exist, then the pennitted uses would be retained as rrobile horre parks. ( PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUrES -April 7, 1982 Page 2 ZONE FDR MOBILE HOME PARKS (Cont. ) Chirn. Peirce asked if the Corrmission should determine whether they should incorporate a nobile hone park zone or a conditional use permit. Ms . Brayton replied in the affirmative. She stated that they have very minimal standards because the IIXJbile hone parks in Henmsa Beach are older and nonconforming, but if any additions or changes were made, they would have to IIEet Title 25 requirem:mts. Crum. Peirce asked for a surrrnary of the requirenents of Title 25. Ms. Brayton replied that the rnax:inrum for setbacks and coverage for mobile home. parks is 75% of the lot area. The mobile home. nrust be separated from any other IIDbile home. ten feet side to side, eight feet side to rear, and six feet front to front or rear to rear. It also must be three feet from any lot line. Crum. Peirce asked if the mobile hone parks confonn to those requi.rerrents at this tine. Ms. Brayton replied in the affirmative. She added that for the interior roadways, if the park is constructed prior to 1961, it must have access to a roadway of not less than 15 feet in width. If it were constructed after that tine, it nrust have access to a roadway of not less that 25 feet in width. Coom. Rue asked if Title 25 covers all rnobile hare parks at this tine. Ms. Brayton replied in the affinnative. Comn. Rue asked if Title 25 would be the enforcing agent on these requirerrents. Ms. Brayton replied that Title 25 covers building and maintenance. Conm. Loosli questioned the definition of a "roobile hone" in the new ordinance. He asked if the words "two dwelling units" rreant duplexes. Ms. Brayton replied that"two dwelling units 11 constitutes a double-wide mobile hone. Corrm. Loosli stated that the wording must be changed in the ordinance because Hernosa Beach considers a dwelling unit to be a living unit. Chmn. Peirce stated that the new ordinance excludes all factory-built housing. Corrrn. Loosli stated that factory-built house is a m:,bile hone if it is trailerable. Chrrn. Peirce stated that the Comnission must define a rrobile hone. PIANNING CCl:ft-ITSSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 3 ZONE FOR MOBILE Hav:tE PARKS (Cont.) Ms. Brayton stated that Title 25 does exclude factory-built housing. COIIIIl. Rue asked if Title 25 defines factory-built housing. Ms. Brayton stated that the ordinance has a developrrent plan review procedure subject to the appr oval of a Planning Conmission. Items such as c onstruction of a new m:,bi le hone park, addition or deletion of spaces in an existing parlc, redesign of an existing park,inwlving relocation of spaces, new driveways or relocation of driveways providing access to and from the public right-of-way rrrust be approved by the Planning Corrnd.ssion. Ms. Brayton stated that the only a dvantage of establishing a zone, rather than doing it by a conditional use permit, is that the basic permitted uses would be ·confined to the rrobile hOIIE park. Public Hearing opened at 8: 07 P .M. Francis Olbrick, 531 Pier Avenue, Space 46, HenIDsa Beach, stated that she has been at the park for 20 years. She stated that the park is inspected by the state, and they are conforming to all of those rules. She stated that the roobi le hone p ark i s being upgra ded , and new hones are coming in. She stated that i f the property is sold to cormercial uses , there will be 65 p ersons wi thout a place to live . She added that it is now in the trusteeship with the Bank of Arrerica. She rrentioned that the residents, ,of the m:)bile hone park have never given any trouble to the City of Herrrosa Beach or to the Police DepartrrEnt. She stated that the residents want the park to remain open space. Jack Darlington, 531 Pier Avenue, Space 3, Henmsa Beach, asked for the definition of LCP. Ms. Brayton replied that U:::P stands for the I.Deal Coastal Plan. Mr. Darlington asked if the rrobile home park is covered by the LCP. Chrnn. Peirce replied'in the affirmative. Patricia Ware, 531 Pier Avenue, Space 18, Herroosa Beach, urged the Comn:i.ssion not to: place any conditional ~es -on the zoning of the trailer court. Charles Ausburn, 531 Pier Avenue, Hennosa Beach, stated that conditional use of the park is frightening to all residents of the park. Jerry Hankins, 531 Pier Avenue, Henrosa Beach, stated that they would like to maintain the park in its current condition. He believed they should follow the LCP the way it was written. Public Hearing closed at 8:16 P.M. 9t- PI.ANNlliG Ca1MISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 4 ZONE FOR MOBILE Ha1E PARKS (Cont.) Chrm. Peirce asked if other cities have a rrobile hoITE park zone. Ms. Brayton replied that San Juan Capistrano, Yorba Llnda, and various cities in Orange County have n:obile hoIIE park zones. Chrm. Peirce noted that the public w:mld like the protection of the rrobile hone park zone, and the conditional use pe:rnrit offers no such protection. He preferred the wne, as opposed to the condi ti anal use permit. Conm. Curmri.ngs also preferred the zone. Chrm. Peirce noted concern, however, for incorporating the zone without being certain that the parks rreet the standards of Title 25. Coom. Loosli stressed that the definition of rrobile hares must be made rrore clear. Ms. Brayton asked the Conmission if they 'WOuld prefer having the definition of rrobile horre parks in Title 25 delete the section '1to contain not more than two dwelling units." Coom. Rue suggested that it read, 11to contain not 11Dre than one dW:lling unit" or "to contain not rrore than a single dwelling unit." Coom. Loosli suggested the verb age 11 to contain not rrore than two sections. '' Chnn. Peirce stated that Title 25 shall read, ''A structure transportable in one or m:,re sections designed and equipped to contain not IIOre than one dwelling unit . " • Cornn. Loosli stated that Hemosa Beach's definition of a nobile barre would now read, "A n:obile horre is a structure transportable in one or n:ore sections designed and equipped to contain not nore than one dwelling lUlit and shall not include recreational vehicles, cormErcial coach, or factory-built housing. '1 Conm. Cmrnrings noted that the ord:inance made no ITED.tion of any type of a fee for an application to go before the Planning Commission. Chrm. Peirce reconmmded that a fee be established by staff and incorporated at the City Corneil level. Motion by Cornn. Currmings, seconded by Cbnn. Peirce, to adopt the draft Mobile Hone Park z.one ordinance as arrended, this being a rootion to arrend the current City zoning code. PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 5 ZONE Fffi MOBILE HCME PARKS (Cont. ) Corrm. Loosli stated that the words "permitted uses, horre occupations" are c onfusing. He s uggested saying, ''hone occupations as p ernri..tted by local Code. 11 Ms. Brayton stated that she would arrend the wording to read, ''hone occupations as perrni tted by local Code. '' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms . Ci.mrri.ngs, Loosli, Rue, Chnn. Peirce None Coorns. Donnelly, Smith, Chrrn. Izant Clum. Peirce stated that one WHEREAS for the Resolution would be, ''WHEREAS, having heard public testinony to the desirability of the establishrrent of a nnbile horre park zone, the mobile hone park zone irrp le!IEI'lts one 0 £ the phases· of the Local Coastal Plan which states that 11in order to pres erve existing trobile horrE parks , rezoning of these areas will be required." Conm. Loosli stated that another WHEREAS would be, ''WHEREAS, it conforms with the intentions of the Housing EletIEnt to help preserve low-and rroderate-incone housing." Motion by Chrrn.. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Rue, to incorporate the two WHEREASs into a Resolutim. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns. Currmi.ngs, Loosli, Rue, Chon. Peirce None Corrms. Donnelly, Smith, Cbn-n. Izant Chnn. Peirce inforned the audience that the Planning Corrmi.ssion has made a re corrmmdation to the City Council to rrodify the Zoning Code. C-1 , C-2 & C-3 DE.VELOPMENT STANDARDS Ctnm. Peirce noted that there was a Resolution in his packet, nanely, Resolution P.C. 82-9 of March 2, 1982 entitled Resolution of the Planning Comnission to Alrend Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance· by Setting the Validity of the Conditional Use Permits to coincide with the 24-month Validity of Tentative Maps. Corrm. Loosli stated that the Planning Conmissian had previously voted an that Resolution. Motion by Chirn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 82-9. Comn. Currmings noted that Resolution P.C. 82-9 is only a Resolution to hold a public hearing. PIANNINS CCMMISSICN MINUI'ES -April 7, 1982 Page 6 C-1, C-2 & C-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Cant.) Mn Mercado stated that the Planning Corrmission acted on a particular subdivision to extend the validity of the tentative map, and, at that tiIIE, the Plann:4lg Coomission also indicated an interest to rrodify the City code which would apply to all forthcoming projects of that nature. He stated that the Resolution needed only a signature. Crum. Peirce stated, for the record, that it was a Resoluticn of Intention to Adopt. Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that the City Council voted to extend the telll)orazy ordinance regulating the developrrent standards for C-1, C-2 & C-3 for a period of four nnnths at their March 23, 1982, IIEeting. As a result, there is no reason to pursue this item. The Planning Conmi.ssion now has an additional four months to pursue the comrercial study of the Imilti-use corridor to develop pennanent standards. Chnn. Peirce asked if the four-rronth extension began on March 23, 1982. -Mr. Mercado replied that it beca.IIE effective._, 15 days°"'after approval of the extension. ~ Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:37 P.M. Clum. Peirce asked for volmteers to 'WOrk on a subcorrrnittee to establish developrrent standards. Conms. Cmm:ings and Rue volunteered to work on the _subconrni.ttee. Coran. Loosli stated that he was satisfied with the developrIEilt standards that have been adopted. COillII. Cuamings preferred having staff work on the first subcorrmi.ttee workshop. Chnn. Peirce asked :Mr. Mercado to give a report to Ms . Sapetto. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would contact Ms. Sapetto. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Ralph Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning Conmission has held two public hearings on the rough draft version of the Housing Elerrent as well as one workshop session with the City Comcil. In mid-February, the public and rrembers of the Planning CoillI!ission contributed an extensive aroomt of input. At that tirre, it appeared to be unclear and perhaps bulky in terms of what was being stated by way of housing policies Pll\NNING Cc.MUSSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 7 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.) for the City. There were also questions in terms of its relationship with the Local Coastal efforts and the adopted version of Decerrber 1979. For clarification, an outline was prepared for the initial step. The bulk of the do cUIIE.Ilt would be in 10 sections, and it v:10uld be streamlined in trying to focus on the essential iterrs. It woulli contain two major sections dealing with the stateIIEI1t of philosophy yet to be prepared as well as a s taterrent of the City's role in housing . Attention has also been paid to the area of those resources that the corrmunity possesses in order to address the concerns of the Housing Elen:ent as well as those overriding c onstraints, n:eaning growth and irrpact at the neighborhood level. He s tated that the Housing Elen:ent rrrus t be a part of the General Plan. He recorIIIEnded that the Planning Corrmission not proceed too extensively on reorganization of a docurrent at this tine, but to wait for an appropriate tirre at a joint -workshop session. Clum. Peirce stated that it would be early May before a workshop session could be held with the City Council. Public Hearing opened at 8:49 P.M. Henry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, asked what the "Housing Elerrent11 is. He stated that the public did not receive any outline, so how can they know what is being proposed. Th.e Planning Corrmission holds a public hearing, but the public is blind to the matter. Cornn. Curmrl.ngs stated that the Planning Comnission requested that the docU11Ent be in the library for the use of the public. Public Hearing continued at 8:50 P.M. Chrm. Peirce stated that the public hearing is continued to the May 4, 19 82 , n:ee ting . Chmn. Peirce recOITIIEI1ded that Mr. Casteneda fonnulate Sections II and III to be available before the workshop rreeting with the City Council. Comn. Loosli recornrended reviewing Sections II and III at a Planning Corrmission TIEeting before the workshop session. Mr. Casteneda stated that he would prepare Sections II and III for initial review by the Planning Cormri.ssion, and at the sane tine, make a progress report to the City Council on April 27, 1982. The Planning Conmission could then thorougply review Sections II and III in early May. A joint -workshop session could be held in mid-May with the City Council. Mr. Casteneda noted that he has another public hearing on May 4, 1982 ; however, he would make arrangerrents with staff. u P1ANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 8 CCH1ERCIAL/RECRFATION ZONE DIS'IRICT Ms. Brayton gave staff report. She stated that Item "j" of the LCP program stated that, ''Revision of the cormercial (C-2) zone will be necessary to encourage connercial-recreation use.11 After further analysis, she felt it would be nore effective to develop a suppleIIEI1.tal C-R zone to be added to a base zone. The advantage would be that if the uses currently permitted in the C-2 z one were aug,rented, areas would be affected that are not ·within the coastal zone, and sane of the corrrrercial recreation uses may not be appropriate for the other areas. The C-R zone would be a supplemmtal zone that would be applied as an additional classification to any land zoned for comrercial use within the coastal zone. The developnent of the C-R zone would conform to the · standards, and the Cormri.ssion could add conditions. Chnn. Peirce felt that the only difference between the supplemental zone and the C-2 zone is that the suppleIIEntal zone is Im..lch rrore restrictive. Ms. Brayton stated that many citizens expressed concern for having uses added to the C-2 zone because it would affect any C-2 zoning throughout the City. Mr. ~rcado believed that all C-2 is west of Valley Drive; however, there may be an exception. C0111Il. Loosli believed that they were all in the coastal zone. Ms. Brayton felt that the suppleIIEI1tal zone would enable better control in a coastal area, such as architecture, landscaping, etc. Corrm. Loosli asked if hotels are permitted in the C-2 zone. Mr. Mercado replied in the affirmative. Conm. Rue felt as though this might duplicate effort since there is a design review board in Hermosa Beach. Conm. Loosli asked if there --were any added uses. Ms. Brayton replied that note ls and nightclubs that do not serve food as a primary part of their business would be an added use. Public Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. Jerry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, requested the difference between corrrrercial and recreation. He asked what types of businesses would encompass the recreation zone. Ms. Brayton replied that it would encompass theatres, entertainnEnt establishrIEnts, etc. Public Hearing continued at 9:11 P.M. PI.ANNIN:; CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 9 CCM1ERCIAL/RECRFATION ZONE DISTRICT (Cont. ) Chnn. Peirce stated that four IIEnibers rrrust approve the .zone change in able to enact it, and he, for one, would not vote for the zone change. Corrm. Rue found it to be rrore restrictive and did not believe it would prorrote any kind of developn:ent. He would also vote against it. Conrns. Currrnings and wosli also felt that they would vote against the zone change . Corrm. Curmrings asked what they would add to the list if they did not go with the suppleuental zone. Ms. Brayton replied that Redondo Beach is doing a C-R zone, and recreational facilities that they are looking at are nulti-use recreational facilities, fishing facilities, tennis and racquetball courts, arcades, swirrming facilities, and uses incidental thereto, such as public restrooms. Mr. Casteneda requested that the CoIIIlli.ssion compose an augITEI1tation of the list as the primary TIEans of encouraging C-R uses. He would then corre back to the Corrrnission with that list as "the answer" to that objective in the LCP. Chnn. Peirce agreed, but he recorrrrended readvertising if they were to add uses to the C-2 zone. Motion by Chrm. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Rue, to reject the establislment of a comrercial recreational zone in the suppleIIEntal zone. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns . Currmings, Loosli, Rue,'" Chnn. Peirce None Cooms. Donnelly, Smith, Chnn. Izant Chnn. Peirce asked that staff corre back with a list of what they feel would enhance the desirability of visitors in the coastal zone with additional uses or deletions. Conm. wosli asked for the status of the Biltrrore site and other properties that were to be added to the Planned Developnent zone. Mr. Mercado was not certain of the status; however, he stated that he would report back with that information. He stated that the General Plan shows those sections of the City that are designated.-cOI11TErcial recreation are the properties north and south of Pier between the Strand and Henrosa Avenue. PIANNING COMMISSION MINillES -April 7, 1982 Page 10 REZONING RAIIRGID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO OPEN SPACE Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that the railroad right-of-way is designated as open space in the City 's open space elenent of the general plan, which was adopted on February 25, 1975. On J anuary 19, 1982, the Planning Comnissioh considered a zone change request from R-1 to open space or Planned Developrrent Residential/ O.S. for the portion of the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Boaryard site. At that ~eting the Planning Comnission wted to rezone this potion of the railroad property to open space. Since January 1, 1974, County and City Zoning Ordinances are required to be consistent with the general plan. He stated that staff is proposing that this requirerrETit be net by rezoning the railroad right-of-way property, which is currently zoned R-1 as stipulated in Section 305(4), (5), and (6) of the City's code, to open space which is the current land use designation in the open space elerrent of the general plan for this property, which comprises appronmate ly twenty acres. The open space eleirent is based on several premises, one of which is that the City will retain and gain additional use of the railroad right-of-way including creation of a p athway for walkers and nn:mers . It goes on to say, "to obtain and preserve open spaces within the City limits of Henmsa Beach sufficient t o provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residences .11 A potential problem that accorrpanies zone changes from z ones that are conm::m.ly recognized as economically feasible to open s p ace is that of "taking" or rerroving the market value of such property. This is sue has been discussed at length in the United States and California Suprene Courts. It is generally considered that a land use restriction is not invalid when it reduces the economic expectancy of its owner so long as the permitted us e yields a reasonable r ate of return. He stated that rezoning this property to open space will still permit this property t o secure a rreasurable economic return through various uses such as e ducational buildings, pub lie and private recreation centers , public utility structures, public goverrurental buildings, etc. This being the case, staff reconnended that said property be rezoned to open space, thereby bringing this property into ccmformity with the general plan land use designation. He added that the City Attorney felt that the open space zcne in HenIDsa Beach ITII.Jrlicipal code pe:rnrits uses which appear to allow reasonable economic use. He was not aware of whether or not the allowed uses would be available for this particular property mder consideration. Corrrn. Loosli asked the audience and staff to consider changing one of the penni..tted uses in open space to be railroad tracks. Mr. Mercado stated that once it loses its function of transporting or being a railroad rigpt-of-way, it automatically becorres R-1. Staff's re comrendation was to mitigate that by zoning it open space. Corrm. Cunmings stated that his can.fusion stermed from the definition of a railroad right-of-way. He believed that the 100 feet was the right-of-way. He asked if there were a definition of a railroad right-of-way in the Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 11 REZONING RAU.ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 'IO OPEN SPACE (Cont .) Chnn. Peirce asked i f a piece of property that is unzoned and has tracks an it i s a railroad right-of-way . Corrm. Loosli replied in the affirmative. Comn. Cumnings stated that the Code could be rewritten to the effect that the only way it is prevented from being a railroad right-of-way is when the tracks are taken out. Public Hearing opened at 9: 37 P . M. Benjamin Salvaty, 5200 East Shiela Street, Los Angeles, attorney for Santa Fe Railroad Conpany, stated that the only notice they had of the hearing was by accident. It consisted of a letter dated March 31, 1982 from Alfred Mercado requesting a legal description of Santa Fe's property. Other than that, Santa Fe Railroad Corrpany received no notice of the hearing. Chrm. Peirce asked i f any notice was sent to the owner. Mr. Mercado stated that the Oii7Der was not given notice . Chnn. Peirce stated that they could not proceed further until such tine that the CMner had been properly noticed. A public hearing would then be held. Mr. Salvaty requested the City Attorney's narre. Corrm. Loosli replied Charles Post. Mr . Sal vaty requested that this i tern be heard towards the beginning of the next reeting. Chrm. Peirce concurred with Mr. Salvaty 1 s r e quest. STAFF REPORTS None CCM1[SSIONER'S ITEMS Chnn. Peirce stated that there is a request in their packet that the Planning Comnission hold their next reeting on either April 19, 1982 or April 21, 1982, since elections will be certified that week. Crnm. Peirce stated that the ~eting will be held Tuesday, April 20, 1982. PLANNING C<H1ISSICN MINUTE.5 -April 7 , 19 82 Page 12 COMMISSIONER'S I TEM.S (Cont.) Coran. Loosli asked staff to obtain a copy of Manhattan Beach's railroad ri ght-of-way ordinance and put it in the packets when the item c 011Es b ack to the Corrmissi on . Camn. Cunnings requested that s t a f f keep a running l og sheet t h a t stays with the original packet noting what a c t i ons have t aken place on certain i s s ues. He also request e d that staff neke a list of exhibits submitted t o the Comniss ion . Mot ion to adj ourn at 9:55 P .M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minute s are a true and C<Jillllete re cord of the action taken by the Planning Corrmis s i on of Henoosa Bea ch at their rreeting of April 7, 1982. ~S PEIRCE, ACTING CHAIRMAN DAIE