Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_70.02.16MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 169 19709 AT 7:30 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 706 P.M. BY CHAIRMAN NOBLE ROLL CALL - Presents Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Watters, Chairman Noble Absent: Comm. Stabler Motion made by Comm. Himmel, seconded by Comm. Watters, to approve the minutes of the February 2, 1970 regular meeting with the follow- ing corrections: 1. Page 8, line 249 amended to reads Comm. Collis qualified his "yes" vote by stating that he felt that city parking lots should be maintained as parking lots, and that it is the responsibility for businesses to provide parking in order to insure proper economic success of all businesses. 2. Page 79 Inserts Comm. Watters stated that the parking lot between 2nd and 3rd Streets north of Pacific Coast Highway, were used for storage and private parking. He requested that a letter to the City Manager should be sent asking that the lot be cleaned up and made available for business parking, not storage of automobiles for car dealers. 3. Page 8, Item 7 of conditions, delete "in a discussion with the Planning Commission". 4. Add Comm. Himmel to those present under Roll Call. Motion carried unanimously. Resolutions P.C. 154-7652 766 Motion made by Comm. Himmel, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger to approve Resolutions P.C. 154-7659 766 as amended. AYESs Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger and Chairman Noble NOESs Comm. Watters Comm. Watters qualified his "no" vote on Resolution 766 by stating that he didn't feel they should have been granted the sign variance because he was afraid that it might set a precedent in that area. Section 801 of N.S. 154 Proposed amendment of Section 801 of City Zoning Ordinance N. S. 154 -2- revising existing regulations to simplify wording and include entertainment as a Conditional Use. City Planner Crawford explained that this was the first public hearing regarding adding to Section 801 an ordinance regulating enter- tainment in the city. He said the City Council had adopted an emergency ordinance placing all entertainment under a Conditional Use Permit procedure, but, as it will expire in six months, the city is required to adopt a permanent ordinance. Four separate ordinances have been involved in creating Section 801 and, it is proposed to re- write them, leaving out nothing significant, only unused provisions. Public Hearing opened at 8s00 p.m. Chairman Noble stated that it will place a requirement on an applicant to come in for a Conditional Use Permit. No one appeared to speak for or against the proposed ordinance. Public Hearing closed at 8sO2 p.m. Comm. Himmel questioned the 100 foot distance exception from residential property for drinking establishments as opposed to 300 feet for entertainment, saying that he felt both should be the same. The City Planner said this 300 foot exception had been suggested by the City Attorney and that he would check with him regarding the effects bf .changing the 100 feet to 300 feet. Comm. Himmel also wished to have some determination on juke boxes in relation to the entertainment ordinance, psychedelic light shows and art shows. The problem of regulating merchants having special promotional shows was raised, with the concurrance that the ordinance should be amended to include these in the exceptions. Comm. Himmel raised the question of whether the Planning Commission should handle Conditional Use Permits since essentially their pur- view should concern itself with long range planning and definitions of ordinances themselves. Chairman Noble said that when the Board of Zoning Adjustments had become more knowledgeable about zoning ordinances. It was agreed that the Planning Commission should set up standards for approval before this change Amendment can be effected. Continued Comm. Himmel moved and Comm. Mulfinger seconded a motion to continue this item to the next regular meeting with ordin- ance to be prepared for that meeting containing the f oregoirTg revisions. AYESs Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Watters and Chairman Noble. NOESs None -3- Proposed Amendment - Article 9.5 of N.S._154 Proposed amendment adding Article 9.5 Planned Development of the City Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, providing for the creation of planned development zones. City Planner Crawford said that this amendment was the latest recommendation from the Zoning Committee, the City Manager and the City Attorney. If this ordinance is adopted, it would be enabling legislation and in order to be applied to any pro- perty in the city it would require the Planning Commission to go through the same procedures as a zone change, with com- plete due process and public hearings. He stated that there has to be a reason for a Planned Development Zone; that where no public reason existed, the property owners themselves would make the decision; the city could not impose it on them. He further stated that the City Attorney objected to the phrase "undue restriction" in Section 9562 and also considered some other items in this Section vague, and in need of greater precision. Public Hearing opened at 8140 p.m. Mr. Harvey Dennison, 232 First Court, asked if Planned De- velopment would circumbent the present rules and added that he was concerned with what was going to happen in the Herondo area. Comm. Collis explained that this concept would encourage coordinated development and a better use of the land. Mr. Roy Lyon, 160 -1st Street, asked what recourse was avail- able if high rise was approved and the residents did not wish::. high rise. The City Planner answered that it would be the same as any zone change -- if the city Council adopts the ordinance over the residents' protest, they can employ the referendum procedure. Mr. Adolph Ehlers, 455 Gould Lane, stated that he felt that Hermosa Beach should remain R-19 and was concerned with a tend- ency toward multiple units. In the disucssion which followed Comm. Collis pointed out that due to the small lots in Hermosa Beach as compared to inland cities, more people are packed in R-1 zones than in R-2 and R-3 zones in those cities. Mrs. Wallace Warner, 97 Hermosa Avenues criticized a large a- partment building on her street which covered the whole block and did not have landscaping of any type. Public Hearing closed at gill p.m. -5- Motion made by Comm. Collisq seconded by Comm. Report Back to Mulfinger that the Planning Commission report City Council to the City Council recommending that the pro- Z- 9-9 perty located on Hermosa Avenue in the 1400-1600 block, known as Precise Plan #229 be changed to R-3 as per the standards established by the Commission, eliminating items 4 and 5 of said development standards. AYESs Comm. Collisq Mulfingerg Watters and Chairman Noble. NOESs Comm. Himmel Comm. Himmel clarified his vote by stating that he would prefer to see a provision left in where the Planning Commission could have had some control over factors which they are now deleting. Ordinance Amendment Adding_Section 1208 Referral for City Council of ordinance for proposed minimum dwelling unit size for single and multi family dwellings. For evaluation of alternative suggested by Board of Appeals. The opinion of the Planning Commission was that the standards suggested by the Board of Appeals were too low to accomplish the purpose of the ordinance. Chairman Nobles seconded by Comm. Collis, submitted the following memorandum to the City Council, with approval of the Planning Commissions "The proposed ordinance concerning multiple dwellings has been reevaluated by the Planning Commission on this date. After evaluating the alternative suggestions by the Board of Appeals, it was thus determined by the Planning Commission that their comments and suggestions would negate the intents and purposes of the Planning Commission in suggesting this ordinance change. Howeverg we would like to suggest that to further clarify a particular point that might lead to possible misunderstandings, that a paragraph be added to the ordinance statings "This ordinance will pertain only to buildings hereafter constructed and the contents of this ordinance is not retroactive and will in no way impair or affect buildings now existing." AYESs Comm. Collisq Himmelq Mulfingerp Watters and Chairman Noble. NOES s None Miscellaneous Report on Southern California Planning Congress meeting. City Planner Crawford was asked to direct a letter to T.R.W. thanking them. Reaffirm Proposed Ordinance Relating to Dwelling Size '_C Comm. Himmel questioned whether the proposed standards were balanced. He indicated that under the ordinance, yards could be reduced but not enlarged. He also felt that some application of the Land Use Intensity scale should be at- tempted. He suggested that mention of regulation of utility service inlets, trash disposal should be made. Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. amendment Watters to hold over the ordinance for Continued further study. AYESs Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Watters and Chairman Noble. NOESs None . . Proposed zone change from C-2 with R-3 Potential to R-3 on lots 3-129 Block 339 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach, 1400- 1500 Hermosa Avenue and Precise Plan #22. For reconsideration of items 4 and 5 of Precise Plan. City Planner Crawford reported on items 49 regarding roof design and prohibiting visible antennas on roofs, and 59 recommending but not requiring a Mediterranean atmosphere, and requiring that the outside color of buildings be white, grey or a "warm" color rather than a "cool" color, and said that the City Council had suggested that perhaps the Precise Plan should be made voluntary rather than mandatory. He added that the City Attorney had expressed his opinion that it was legal for a city to have gegulations concerning archi- tectural treatment. However, in this case, the way the ordinance was written, not without the concurrence of the pro- perty owners. He said the city staff suggests that the Planning Commission concur with the Council opinion that the Precise Plan should be amended to delete items 4 & 5. Mr. Crawford indicated that the Planning Commission had two Choicest to stick to their recommendation that the Precise Plan be imposed now or the property left in the Potential Zone_) or to concur with the City Council's recommendation that it be made a voluntary plan. In the former case, the City Council can override the Commission by a 4-1 vote, in the second case, they can adopt an R-3 voluntary Precise Plan by a 3-2 vote. Upon request for his recommendation, Mr. Crawford suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that either the Precise Plan without items 4 and 5 be a- dopted or the property remain in the Potential Zone. Mrs. Bernard Donahue, 1640 Strand, stated that she had the only vacant lot in the block in question and she wanted only R-3. Joint meeting with City Council. Commission felt meeting was useful and agreed to continue meetings. Joint meeting with Redondo and Manhattan. To be held last week in March. Non -agenda items from Commissionerss Comm. Himmel presented an analysis on a graph of reasons why R-1 was impractical in certain locations in Hermosa Beach. Due to present high land values a family actually needs $309000 to $60,000 yearly inorder not to exceed the 25% ratio of housing to total income generally acceptedq and live in single family homes in Monterey Blvd. - Hermosa Avenue area. Capital Improvement Pram City Planner Crawford explained that the city staff had evolved eighty projects to be constructed in the cityq and was developing a Capital Improvement Program for a five-year period. The Planning Commission felt they would like to review thes capital improvements at the same time as they studied the General Plan since it was possible that they might revise their concept of priorities at that time. Motion by Chairman Nobles seconded by Comm. Himmelq at 10345 P•m- f or adjournment. The next meeting will be March 29 1970. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoi by the Planning Commission of the regular meeting held on the 14U l ZNLb, ATE ! . COLLIS9 Secretary Minutes have been approved ty of Hermosa Beach at a febi%a1970. QL 7 3OE B. OBLE9 Chairman