Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_69.09.15MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, SEER 159 1969, AT 8:00 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 8:12 P.M. BY VICE CHAIRMAN ARMER ROLL CALL - Present: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Noble, Stabler Vice Chairman Armer Absent: Chairman Boice Motion made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Himmel, to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of September 3, 19699 as submitted. Motion made by Comm. Stabler, seconded by Comm. Noble, to approve Resolu- tions P.C. 154-750 and 154-751. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Nominations had been opened the meeting of August 18, 1969._ Comm. Noble and Comm. Stabler were nominated for the position of chairman and no one was nominated for vice chairman or secretary. Chairman Boice continued the vote on the election until the next meeting in hopes that all Comm. would be present. Since only 4 Comm. were present, he continued it again until this meeting indicating the vote would be held no matter which Comm. were present. Nominations were not closed at previous meeting. Motion made by Comm. Stabler to remove his name from the nominations and based on prior precedent of nominating the vice chairman for the position of chairman, he placed John Amer as nominee for the position. Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Himmel, to close the nomi- nations. Comm. voted by ballot producing a tie, with 1 abstaining vote. Vice Chairman Armer postponed the election of officers until such time an action is able to be held that would break the tie. ZONE CHANGE Z-69-5 Proposed change of zone on property fronting Strand between 18* and 22nd Streets, from R-1 to R-2 (continued from meeting of August 4, 1969). Public hearing to consider a change of land use zone classification on lots 1 through 7 of blocks 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Hermosa Beach Tract, located - 2 - between 18'� Street and 22nd Street and between Beach Drive and the Strand. A letter was received from Mrs. Phyllis Lombardo, a concerned Strand resi- dent, requesting that the Planning Commission continue the discussion and not make a decision tonight, since she was unable to be present at the meeting. Mrs. Patton, another Strand property owner in opposition to the request, would not be present. A meeting with a number of property owners had been held in which the future of the area and what the Planning Comd ssion was trying to do was discussed. Mr. Crawford stated that he explained to them the various options the Planning Commission had including the establishment of a potential zone. Public hearing reopened at 8:30 P.M. Virginia Kelsey, 1942 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that she has a single family dwelling on 2 lots and she is for the change. Since the R-2 zone is in the General Plan, she can not see any reason for establishing a po- tential R-2 because in actuality it is now a potential R-2 zone. As long as the area might go R-2 or more eventually, according to the General Plan, then there would not be any point in the owners improving their property the way the zone is now. It hinders owners from selling because someday the area will be R-2. Alfred Bowman, 2024 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated he is in favor of change. Quoting from a letter written by Mr. Crawford, Mr. Bowman stated, "If the zone were changed to R-2, the construction of new duplex units would be encouraged. If the zone remains R-19 the preservation of existing build- ings -- single, duplex and multiple -- would be encouraged." In effect, if there is going to be any change or improvement, it has to come from the change to R-2. It is conceded that the Strand is going to be R-2 eventu- ally and it seems to Mr. Bowman that the Planning Commission should act firmly to that end tonight. Robert Prenter, 2020 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that he had a conversation with a County Tax Assessor, who stated that the taxes will be going up again next year. He felt that the residents need help and that the area is not a single family area per se anymore. Mary Donahugh, 2008 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that she owns the lot next to her and that with taxes she cannot afford to build anything that is not income producing. Therefore, she is being denied the highest and best use of her land. The reason the lot has not been sold is because they want to control who lives next to them. Vice Chairman Armer stated that in view of the fact that the opponents have not had a chance to state their views, he moved to continue the hearing. Comm. Collis objected to the motion. Comm. Noble stated that it was the intent of having the 2 sides form com- mittees and develop reasons for their views. He felt it would be wise -3- to continue in all fairness to both sides. Since the Planning Commission has the testimony on record of those present, it would not be necessary for them to come to the next meeting because we would hold their testimony in respect when the Planning Commission voted. Mr. Prenter stated that he objected to further continuance. Vice Chairman Armer stated in view of the fact that the opposition has not had a chance to be heard, it would only be fair to continue the hearing. Comm. Collis stated that he could sympathize with some of the feelings but felt the Comm. owed the people in the audience a decision. Also, if the feelings opposed are so strong why hasn't someone showed up to testify. Comm. Stabler stated that the Planning Commission was to hear objective rather than subjective facts and the Planning Commission owes it to these people to postpone the hearing. He felt he had not -really heard anything new regarding factual evidence from the proponents other than they would like to have it and that there are economic hardships that would be helped by the zone change. The Planning Commission should have some sort of factual analysis on the zone change, discussing for instance: what the zone change does to property values, what it does to the demographic situation, is it going to bring in more or less high income people, is it going to overcrowd, and what it does to City services. Comm. Himmel stated that since the Planning Commission appointed the opponents and proponents, it owed it to the opponents to be heard if they are sincerely interested in coming before the Comm. He would be in favor of postponing the hearing until the next regular meeting. Motion made by Comm. Stabler, seconded by Comm. Noble, to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting, October 6, 1969. AYES: Comm. Himmel, Noble, Stabler, Vice Chairman Armer NOES: Comm. Collis zoNE CHANGE Z-6 Request of V.E. Howard, et al, for a change of land use zone classification from C-2 to R-3 on lots 1-12, Block 33, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, located on Hermosa Avenue between l0h and 16th Streets (continued from meet- ing of September 3, 1969). The City Planner stated that the hearing was continued from the last meeting to give the Comm. an opportunity to study the proposal in greater depth. At the last meeting, one property owner spoke in opposition to the request. Comm. Noble stated, for the Comm. who were absent September 3, 1969, that he requested the change be postponed so that Comm. could analyse the effects it might have on the area affected. He felt it would be highly influential - 4 and perhaps the Comm. may wish to look at other areas abutting or adjacent to for potential buffering. It had been pointed out that the need for C-2 has not been shown. There is a considerable amount of C-2 property in the downtown area for suitable use. The City Planner stated that the General Plan envisioned the general retail expanding southward to 10t' Street, more likely to 8th Street. The likeli- hood of its expanding northerly to include this block is relatively small because of the terrain; the hill becomes increasingly steep north of 141h Street and impossible to get parking and a commercial structure on the lot at the same time. Since the block is not in the parking district, any shops would have to provide their own off-street parking. The only way they could possibly do it is to drive directly in from Hermosa Avenue and back onto Hermosa Avenue, which is prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Technically unfeasible to use area commercially. Public hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. No one in audience wished to be heard on the question. Public hearing closed at 9:01 P.M. Comm. Noble stated that one possibility would be to rezone it C-1 rather than R-3. If it were a C-1 zone, they would have R-3 utility if they wished. This means they could have residential income property, according to land area requirements or if they wish, they could shift gears to the C-1 which basically has the intent of allowing commercial services such as doctors, lawyers, etc., not to include retail. He stated that he was also concerned about properties to the east of area on Manhattan Avenue and properties north of 161b Street being in line with the General Plan. He questioned whether area would lend itself to commercial development even if it were C-1. Because of the topography perhaps it wouldn't be feasible with any type of commercial. Comm. Collis stated that he couldn't see the economic feasibility of C zone property on a professional basis figuring the economics of the area and realizing the cost of building a nice professional building. Would not get the high rents needed to support the building. Also, the City has more commercial sites than it can support, with a lot of vacant stores in town. Comm. Stabler asked what was Mr. Juckes' intentions with this land. Mr. Crawford stated that Mr. Juckes planned on building an apartment house on the two lots. The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission could consider an R-P zone for the block, if Comm. felt there may be a demand for offices in the area and still allow residential development. Comm. Noble stated that by changing the zone, no matter what zone, the Planning Commission would be throwing many properties into non -conformity, for instance a church. There has been talk of revitalizing the downtown area for many years. It was determined by Planning Consultants, Ruth & Krushksov, that one of the first steps would be to rezone some of the -5- periphery areas to give more support to the core, which means bring in more people and attract more commercial development or those who wish to invest. Vice Chairman Armer stated that he would be inclined to believe that resi- dential would be the only thing able to economically support itself. His only concern was to let this area go into development with no real control over it and would like to see the area with a better quality of develop- ment. Comm. Collis objected to the idea of controlling the art styles of develop- ments because the Planning Commission is not in a position to judge art, according to the decision given by the Planning Conra scion for the C.W. Rail. Vice Chairman Armer stated that it is the Planning Commission's respon- sibility to determine the potentiality and value of area and if area will be able to support high density. The Comm. must try to implement a certain kind of building development in order to design the type of environment the Comm. are trying to create. Comm. Stabler stated, as added information, that L.A. County had an effective buying income irr 1968 per family of $10,510.00. Hermosa Beach had an effective buying income per household of $9,347.00. When Comm. Noble talked of revitalizing the downtown area, you are talking of getting money down there to spend either in quality or quantity. It seemed to Comm. Stabler that for the last 5 or 6 years, the quantity route had been tried, and it hasn't done a thing for the downtown area. He feels that the area should now attract quality customers. He stated that he thought the Comm. could design and control a housing environment that would provoke the kind of money, the type of people you want to bring in an area. Comm. Collis stated that, according to statistics, lenders will not loan out money for "posh" buildings with a surrounding low income neighborhood. Improvement must come gradually. The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission should: (1) get the minimum unit size ordinance adopted; and (2) work toward establishing some type of control, working with the merchants and residents to decide what the area is going to look like and make up rules the Comm. can apply con- sistently through precise plans. Comm. Noble asked Mr. Crawford if the Planning Commission would be in their rights to establish a "red tile" area or something of a theme area. Mr. Crawford replied that support of people is needed. The Comm. cannot create an R-3 zone with special rules just for itself outside of another R-3 zone. Vice Chairman Armer questioned if it would be possible to suggest to people a theme to adopt for an area, who are planning or designing a zone change. He referred to a book printed by one Planning Commission that was to be a guideline and set up building controls. Comm. Himmel stated that it sounded like rewriting the Building Code rather than the Planning Code. Vice Chairman Armer replied that the book is used to maintain a theme only. The owner of Lots 8 & 9 was present and stated that she was in favor of changing the zone to residential rather than commercial. Motion made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Collis, to postpone the change request to a special study meeting, September 29, 1969, and to request the services of the staff including Mr. Trott to analyse the minutes of our meeting this evening and perhaps present to the Planning Commission some materials that would be beneficial in organizing and determining a suitable solution and to continue the public hearing. Comm. Himmel stated that he would like to include Mr. Stevens among the members because it is incumbent on us not just to levy the requirements on the property owners but to see what is it the City can do in the block. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Noble, Stabler, Vice Chairman Armer NOES: None LONG-RANGE PLANNING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING to amend Sections 6009, 606, 607 and 800-C of Ordinance No. N.S. 154, as amended, to provide for a greater variety of development standards in the R-3 zone and to make the C-3 zone conform to General Plan provisions. Consideration of Section 600 - Permitted uses. Mr. Crawford stated that the open space requirement seems to be working. Most of the open spaces seem to be on roofs or roof decks and spaces have light and ventilation and are accessible and paved. Under this Ordinance, the Planning Commission was proposing to introduce the townhouse or the houses without side yards and the high rise dwellings where the General Plan shows them and the dwellings on alleys and garden apartments, which are essentially the requirements of the old R-3R zone and adding them as conditional use in the R-3 zone. Comm. Noble stated that he thought it might benefit the Comm. to analyse this material at their special study session, September 29, 1969, because it is directly related to the above zone change. Motion made by Conan. Noble, seconded by Comm. Himmel, to continue the discussion at the special study session, September 29, 1969. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Noble, Stabler, Vice Chairman Armer NOES: None DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED Zoning Ordinance amendments concerning R-3 uses and -7- development standards. The City Planner stated that it is related to the potential zone requirements, Section 1104 in Ordinance, "limitation of use in potential zone" and "land shall be used in accordance with precise plan." Mr. Crawford stated that he changed it by adding some language. So that not only does it say, current wording, that "the land classified in potential zone shall be limited to the uses permitted by a precise plan or where the existing zone is more restrictive than the potential zone to those uses allowed in the existing land use zone" but "or where the existing zone is less restrictive than the potential zone the creation or expansion of normally permitted uses shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission" was added. The City Attorney felt that the wording was effectively eliminating any use of the land without the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Crawford added that he has suggested changing the last couple of lines to read, "the con- struction or expansion of normally permitted buildings shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission." So that the industrial use of the land can be initiated or continued such as a contractor's storage yard where no building is involved. Any industrial building in the industrial zone would require the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Crawford stated that the City Attorney feels that this wording might be effective enough since we are not putting everything under the Planning Commission's control. Mr. Crawford stated that if the Planning Commission approved of the words, that they adopt and recommend it to the City Council. Comm. Collis asked Mr. Crawford if by adding this amendment,will something be eliminated or is the Planning Commission just adding more to the Ordi- nance. Mr. Crawford replied that it is adding to it, but that he hoped to eliminate entire paragraphs which are not applicable today. Comm. Stabler stated that he would find some sort of organizational chart or CPM indicating where all these actions are, so that he would know what is required to do or change the zoning ordinance or various studies. Motion made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Collis, to recommend amend- ment as revised to the City Council. AYESs Comm. Collis, Himmel, Noble, Stabler, Vice Chairman Armer NOES: None Motion made by Comm. Noble; seconded by Comm. Collis, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-752; recommending to the City- Council to adopt the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance .reversing the application of Section 1104 relating to the properties with potential zone classifications. It has been determined by the Planning Commission that the wording is in the spirit of what the Planning Commission originally wanted. The change gives the City more flexibility in implementing the General Plan through rezoning. MAE AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Noble, Stabler, Vice Chairman Armer NOES: None REVIEW REFERRAL BY CITY Council of Variance V-69-17 for reconsideration and re- commendation. Request by Allan Juckes for a variance from Section 506 of City Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, as amended, as applied to lot 9, block 117, Shakespeare tract, in an R-2 zone, known as 225 & 229 31st Street, in order to con- struct a duplex on a lot having a total area of 2100 square feet instead of the 2400 square feet required by ordinance. The City Planner stated that the City Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's action. This was an appeal to the Council of the Comm.'s action. The reason the Council felt that the request should be reconsidered was that the Planning Commission had previously granted the same sort of variance on 2 lots located at the corner of Manhattan Avenue and 30th Street. The Council would like to know why the Comm. granted that variance and denied this one. Comm. Noble stated that one was a street frontage and the other one, an interior lot. The City Planner stated that the neighborhood is medium density on the General Plan, however, within these two blocks a peculiar problem exists, for the streets are walk ways. The only access for these two blocks is by alley and that is a 10 foot alley, producing much,congestion. He suggested having some special rules for these two blocks, since they are unusual. Vice Chairman Armer stated that according to the minutes, the Planning Com- mission didn't wish to penalize anybody in the area by allowing this development in the area, creating further established precedent and thought the Comm. will have to make a special study of this particular problem. It seems that we are trying to push it through for one developer creating more problems by doing so. Comm. Noble stated that the developers should help analyse some of the problems, since they are familiar with them. The City Planner stated this is a home and income type area and he would like to see that -the second units be limited in size and bedrooms on these two blocks. If we allowed a standard unit, 2 or 3 bedrooms plus a 1 bedroom, which gives some income but insures pretty well that it won't be filled by a family, then family paraphernalia would not overcrowd the alley. Vice Chairman Armer asked the City Planner if there are certain standards that could be developed that would help the Planning Commission establish reasons for allowing people to get by with less. Mr. Crawford stated that �e Mr. Juckes has given us a large back yard which has to be paved for parking. Also, he has agreed to dedicate the additional right of way for an alley, which cuts his lot area another 150 square feet. Comm. Stabler stated that because of the area's peculiarity maybe the land would be better suited for R-1 rather than R-2. Comm. Noble stated that all the experts have allowed medium density for the area so there must be some reason for it. Also, he felt that there were things the Planning Commission could do to assist in the redevelopment of the area. Motion made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Collis, to continue the hearing to the special study meeting, September 29, 1969, for further study. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Noble, Stabler, Vice Chairman Armer NOES: None MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING Article 14 of Zoning Ordinance No. N.S. 154, as amended, to include references to Board of Zoning Adjustment. The City Planner stated that the City Attorney objected to the wording. It was suggested to include in the Zoning Ordinance, references to the Board of Zoning Adjustment, under Section 1400, which has to do with variances. It now states that the Planning Commission may grant a variance. Suggested we change wording to the Board of Zoning Adjustment may grant a variance, leaving everything else the same except we are going to add another sentence at the end stating, "that no variance may be granted to allow any listed use in a more restrictive zone." Motion made by Comm. Stabler, seconded by Comm. Noble, to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment at the first regular meeting in October -- October 6, 1969. Motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT OF COMUTTEES was continued to next meeting, October 6, 1969. CONFERENCE OF PLANNING and Conservation League, Santa Barbara, will be held September 20, 1969. Mr. Crawford will be attending the conference and will bring any information that is available back to the Planning Com- mission. Vice Chairman Armer requested information, if available, on the Water Pollution Control Pan61. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR public hearing to consider General Plan revision and change of zone on property northeasterly of Prospect Avenue and 21st Street. The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission has decided to hold - 10 - a public hearing for the change of zone on 24th Street to R-3 potential. Would the Comm. want to consider amending the General Plan along with the zone change? Vice Chairman Armer stated that the Planning Commission should consider the General Plan at this time because the Comm. is now working for the fixture. Comm. Collis stated that the change of zone and General Plan should be considered in the package because the Planning Commission could change the use and then it could be in non -conformity to the General Plan. Motion was not required to consider the General Plan along with the zone change, although Comm. unanimously agreed. Meeting adjourned at 10:52 P.M. to a special study session, September 29, 1969. JOE B._NOBLE, SECRETARY