Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-06-01MINUI'ES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMJSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 1, 1982, IN TI-IE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chrm.. Izant ROLL CAIL PRESENT: Corn:ns. Currmings, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chnn . Izant ABSENT: Corrms. Donnelly, Rue ALSO PRESENT: PaIIEla Sapetto, Planning Director; Linda Brayton, 'IDC Planning Coran. Rue had an excused absence from this ~eting. APPROVAL OF MINlITES Motion by Conm. Loosli, seconded by Comn. Smith, to approve the May 8, 1982 minutes, as submitted. No objections. So ordered. REVISION OF CON1XMINTIJM ORDINANCE, SECTION 9.5-22(2) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF DWEILING UNITS ON ANY R..:2 OR R..:2B LOTS TO 25 'IMELLINC;°-- UNITS Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recornrended that Section 9.5-22(2) be deleted from the ordinance. She stated that on all of the combined lots, the existing dwelling tmits per acre is 12.8. This is .05% of the total number of dwelling units in the City. The potential developrrent to R-2 or 25 dwelling units per acre is 105 units. This represents 1% of the total dwelling units in the city. She stated that the potential developnent for all affected areas as allowed by the general plan designation of TIR.llti-use is 162.4 dwelling units, which is 40 dwelling units per acre. This represents 1. 6% of the total dwelling units in the City. A change from 25 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre would increase the total number of dwelling units in the City by .6%. Comm. loosli stated that he had requested a description. of what was on each lot. COillil. Peirce suggested changing the general plan areas that are zoned R-2 in the Ililllti-use corridor to rre.dium density. Ms. Sapetto stated that in order to change the general plan, staff must advertise and do an envirorurental impact report. She stated that a Resolution of Intention rrrust be made directing staff to do an environnEI1tal impact report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 2 REVISION OF CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE ; SECTION 9.5-22(2) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON ANY R-2 OR R-2B LOTS TO 25 DWELLING DN1TS (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there is a steep hill on the east side of the Highway on 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Streets. If the multi-use corridor goes up to Ocean, the view and air will be blocked for eyeryorie up to Prospect. She urged the Commission to forbid the destruction of single family homes between Aviation Boulevard and 5th Street. She stated that Areas 7, 8, and 9 on the map are the only areas in Hermosa Beach where family living could be maintained. Public Hearing closed at 7:52 p.m. Comm. Cummings asked if it would be possible to have a density in the general plan of 25 dwelling units per acre for the areas where there is a conflict with zoning. Ms. Sapetto replied that there would have to be a change in the general plan. Any change in the general pian within the multi-use corridor should form part of an overall study of the corridor as recently embarked upon by the Commission and not made to simply reflect zoning. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to make a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing with the effect of changing the general plan to reflect the zoning of the area. The Resolution would be, 11WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is not pursuing widening commercial interests and restricting what is zoning now; WHEREAS, R-2 becomes medium density, and R~1 becomes low density; WHEREAS, in 1979 when the Planning Commission attempted to rezone the south part of the town and extend the zoning, there was opposition from the homeowners and no support from the commercial community, except for Jim Fucile; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has currently sent a letter to the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to mediate increased commercial usage in the north end of town. Comm. Cummings asked if all of the abutting residential areas to commercial zones were zoned R-2. Comm. Peirce replied in the negative. Comm. Cummings asked if the above motion would cause downzoning. Comm. Peirce replied in the negative, adding that it would only change what is now multi-use to medium density or commercial. AYES: Comms. Cunnnings, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Cormns. Donnelly, Rue (Comms. Loosli and Smith originally voted against the motion.) PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 3 REVISION OF CONOOMINilM ORDINANCE, SECI'Ictil Q.5-22(2) WHICH Lil1ITS THE NUMBER OF DWEILING UNITS ON ANY R-2 OR R-2B lDTS TO 25 m,JEU,ING UNITS (Cont.) Cornn. Loosli wished to see a notion to change the general plan to IIEdium or law density in the rrn.tl.ti-use corridor citywide when the zoning is R-2 or R-1. 'Ms. Sapetto reiterated the Planning Conmissicm.1 s concerns, those being, to examine all areas in the nrulti-use corridor -which are not consistent and to consider changing the general plan designation to be either for cormercial or residential. CoIIID. Loosli added that if it is zoned conmercial, the general plan will be cormercial. If it is zoned R-2, the general plan will be IIEdium density residential. If it is zoned R-1, it will be low density. PHASE III -LCP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF RIC REOJMMENDATICNS Ms. Sapetto introduced Llnda Brayton of ±Ix:; Planning. Ms. Brayton gave a report on Phase III of the I.CP. She stated that the City Council directed TDC to solicit rrore input from the conmunity and the Henrosa Improvenent Commission. She stated that the following components of the Phase III LCP Work Program were addressed: 1) to adopt an ordinance m:,difying the Building Code in order to make preservation/ rehabilitation of older units an easier process; 2) to revise the Zoning Code in order to encourage rehabilitation of cormErcial-residential structures; 3) to examine the Zoning Code to rennve unnecessary impedinents to the rehabilitation of existing cOIIIIErcial and residential structures. She stated that after discussing with the Building Depart:nent staff the possibility of rrodi:fymg the Building Code, it was determined that IIDdifications were not necessary or practical. It is difficult and lengthy to rrodify the Building Code, and there were already provisions in the Building C.Ode encouraging restoration of historical structures. The Herzrosa J.mproverent C,onmi_ssion concurred that the Unifonn Building Code was adequate to i.nplenent I.CP policies without rrodifications. She noted that, with regard to No. 2 (above) , she spoke with the Local Historical Society, City Staff, architects in the area specializing in restoration, and the Henrosa ImproveIIEilt Corrrnission. She stated that the Historical Society believed that the City should set an exarrple by restoring public buildings of historical value. Clark Stadium was suggested as the nurrber one priority. 'The original Prospect Avenue School was also suggested as having local historical interest. City staff indicated that the restoration of Clark StadilDil. is currently in progress. Th.e interior of the Clark building will be corrpletely redone. 'Ihe Historical Society favored encouragerrent of a maintenance program to conserve existing structures. Most buildings of significant interest have already been destroyed. Remaining structures that may have local historical interest consist of the Cove theater, the Baptist Church and the Pueblo Apartrrents. It was also their PI.ANNING CCMv!ISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 4 PHASE III -LCP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF RIC RE<Il1MENDATIONS (Cont.) suggestion that there be a location where various items of his torical interest could be stored. She noted that preservation of historical structures were discussed with a local architect specializing in restoration. He had indicated that rrost of the major architectural buildings have already been renoved and that no significant public buildings are left. He believed that the Cove theater had the greatest historic potential. She state d that s orre publications and catalogues that provide tecbnical information, services, and supplies available were the Old House Journal, the Renovator's Supply, and the Old House Catalog. The Henmsa Improven:ent Comni.ssion believed that the nunber one priority should be to establish criteria for what constitutes local historical value. They did not feel that there were enough things left in the City to have a Historical Elenent, but perhaps a Master Ll.st of remaining stn.1Ctures. The Irnproverrent Conmission suggested that a local historian., Pat Gazin, be consulted in this task as she has done considerable research in Henrnsa Beach. It was the concensus of the Comnission that people owning structures of historic interest should be apprised that their property has historic significance. However, restoration activities should be left to the discretion of the property owners. 'Th.e City should not interfere with the property rights of private individuals. With regard to revising the Zoning Code to rerrove impedinents to rehabilitation, she stated that the nnst comron building pennit issued in Hermosa Beach is for a second story addition. When the addition occurs, the original structure is also updated. Currently 85% of the structures in Herm:::,sa Beach do not IIEet current setback require~ts, so a variance is necessary for alnost all second story additions. An administrative variance is at a staff level and requires noticing to adj acent property owners by staff. In order to obtain an administrative variance, there rrn.JSt be a mi.ninrum 3-foot setback on the sideyard, required front yard setback, and the enlargeirent cannot increase the building over 40% of the gross floor area . Chly two structures have quali fied £or an achninistrative variance. Expanding the scope of the Administrative Variance procedure would renove an impedinent to rehabilitation. Processing t ine and developn:ent costs would be reduced. The Herrrosa IrrproveITE11t Conrni.ssion agreed that the Administrative Variance section of the Zoning Ordinance should be clill:mded. She stated that, based on the input from the vari0us groups, the following recOIIIIEI1dations regarding housing rehabilitation and preservation were suggested: 1) establish criteria for determining local historical significance; 2) expand the scope .of the Achninistrative Variance procedure; 3) make information avail able to the corrrm.mity through the Building DepartrrBnt and His torica l Society regarding the preservation of historical structures; and 4) develop a Master Ll.st of Historic and Cultural Landrmrks. Other approaches which ma.y IIErit consideration would be to publish a booklet detailing the requiren:ents and associated cost impacts of the Zoning Code on the repair, rehabilitation, and 1.Jll)roverrEnt of existing residential and corrrrercial structures or to negotiate with local lending institutions to establish a special loan PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 5 PHASE III -I.CP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF HIC RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) program as part of an incentive program for historic buildings so that they can IIEet their obligations under the Conmunity Reinvestrrent Act or to nndify the existing rehabilitation loan program to include certified local historical landmarks. COI11I1. loosli noted that the words "rehabilitation" and "addition" were used interchangeable throughout Ms. Brayton' s report. His interpretation of rehabilitation was fixing up, while addition. TIEant adding an to. Corrm. loosli asked for the cost difference for the applicant between an administrative variance and a regular variance. Ms. Sapetto replied that she did not know the dollar arrount; however, she stated that the difference relates to tine, noticing, and application. fees. Cornn. Loosli asked if the Corrnri.ssion could con.sider changing the City Code so that a variance would require noticing all property owners within 100 feet, as opposed to 300 feet. Ms. Brayton replied that it .is part of Goverrurent Code that property owners within 300 feet be notified. Ms. Sapetto added that the Coastal Corrmission also requires the 300-foot noticing. Corrm. Loosli asked Ms. Brayton if she were suggesting that the requiremmts for a variance be relaxed. Ms. Brayton replied that she was suggesting that the Corrmission look at what has been routmely approved. The ones that have been routmely approved would be allowed to have second-story additions through an administrative variance process rather than go through the public hearing. The administrative variance process had not been ~eful. Public Hearing opened at 8: 42 p. m. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that she would not like to see the noticing of a variance go less than 300 feet. She stated that Mrs. Gazin noted around 100 buildings that were historical; however, windows and doors have been changed. She stated that the Historical Society was given a parrphlet by Mr. Widman stating ·that to be considered historical, no shrubbery, painting, or landscaping could be changed. Also, no one within eyesight could change the outside appearance of their hones. She stated that the question. is whether or not the City has the right to control property around the historical building. She stated that the Historical Society wished to see the Cove theater preserved, even though it is taller than other buildings in the area. She noted that srnre old buildings in Hernosa Beach are where the Either/Or Bookstore is currently located. Public Hearing continued at 8:57 p.m. PLANNrnG CCMITSSION MINlil'ES -June 1, 1982 Page 6 PHASE III -LCP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF HIC RECCM1ENDATIONS (Cont.) Chrrn. Izant stated that Ms. Brayton should submit a report to the Board of Zoning AdjustnEnts for their input. Comn. Peirce believed that the administrative variance should be in two parts. One part should cover single family houses and single­ floor houses, and one part should cover two-story houses. He believed that administrative variances for single-story houses should be expanded, and administrative variances for two-story houses should be rrore difficult to obtain. COIIIIl. loosli felt that Section 1309 did not necessarily deal with rehabilitation. Chnn. Izant concurred, stating that rehabilitation was one thing, and expansion and renoceling was another. Conm. Smith expressed his disappoint:TIEnt in the report in that the majority of it dealt with historic preservation. and it ignored the issue of additions, rehabilitation, and rerroceling. He believed there should be sorm strategies for preserving sane of the structures. Ms. Brayton stated that TDC was looking strictly at the Zoning Code, and many things such as additions and reroodels were beyond the scope of the Zoning Code. Ms. Sapetto stated that Corrm. Smith's concerns were incorporated in the Housing Elem:mt. Cornn. Loosli stated that they IIIl..lSt find a definition of "rehabilitation." Conm. Loosli suggested that Ms. Brayton give a full report to the Board of Zoning Adjustrrents. Conm. Cumn:ings stated that the Corrmi..ssion should separate the preservation of interesting or historical buildings from the preservation of old buildings which may be cheap buildings. Cl.-um. Izant directed Ms. Brayton to appear before the Board of Zoning Adjustrrents with a full report. Corrm. Srrti.th concurred with Corrnr. • Cumrcings' above remark in that there should be a clear separation between that which has to do with historic preservation and that which has to do with residential and comrercial structure preservation and continued use with the intent of retaining the current character of the City and affordability. COlllll. loosli requested that there be a distinction between an addition and rehabilitation to preserve a structure. Also, a definition of rehabilitation was needed. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 7 PHASE III -LCP PRESERVATION AND REHABIL ITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF HIC RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont:) Comm. Peir'ce felt that the Commission should focus in on what the Zoning Code says about rehabilitation and additions. Mr. Brayton reiterated the Planning Commission 1 s concerns, those being, that there is no need to change the Uniform Building Code; in regards to rehabilitation, the word 11 restoration 11 should be used in relation to historical structures as distinguished from rehabilitation; thatthere are not enough historical buildings left in the City worthy of a major restor­ ation effort; to review Comm. Loosli 1 s document and investigate what type of tax incentives are available; in terms of rehabilitation, that Ms. Brayton will approach the Board of Zoning Adjustments to obtain input from them and have them look at the second stories versus horizontal additions; that the strategy is to rehabilitate existing housing to pre­ serve affordable market housing; to determine if there are market strategies associated with zoning. Comm. Cummings requested criteria as to whether something is rehabilitation or a complete rebuild. He also requested that rehabilitation be separated from historical preservation when the report is presented to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Comm. Loosli stated that he is not in favor of relaxing the requirements for a variance. He believed that variances should be granted in extreme hardship cases. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS Update on Parking Program -Coastal Permit Ms. Sapetto stated that the document was merely an informational update, Upcoming Commission Agendas Ms. Sapetto noted that this was also included as an informational update. COMMISSIONERS 1 ITEMS Comm. Smith requested that some inforamtion be provided in relation to the possible impact of the Declaration of Abandonment by Santa Fe. He noted that they posted abandonment. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would consult with Charles Clark. Motion to adjourn at 9:42 p.m. PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -June 1, 1982 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and corrplete record of the action taken by the Plarming Conmi..ssion at their regular neeting of Jtme 1, 1982. Page 8