Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_69.12.01MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1969, AT 7:30 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:35 P.M. BY CHAIRMAN NOBLE ROLL CALL - Present: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble Absent: Comm. Boice, Stabler Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger, to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of November 17, 1969, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING - I NLAND DEVELOPMENT Review of Precise Plan #21 for Kenland Development Company (part of Change of Zone Request #Z-69-6). Continued from November 17, 1969. The City Planner stated that Kenland Development requested the public hearing in order to present their revised precise plan, which is part of the zone change now before the City Council. However, they are not yet ready. The developers anticipate to be ready to present their revised plans to the Planning Commission at the next regular meeting, December 15, 1969. Public hearing opened at 7:40 p.m. Motion made by Comm. Mulfinger, seconded by Comm. Himmel, to continue the Precise Plan hearing, 7t-69-6, at the request of the applicants, to the next regular meeting, December 15, 1969. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None CHANGE OF ZONE RE VEST z-6 -8 Request for change of land use zone classification from C-2 with R-3 Potential to R-3 multiple family on lots 3-12, block 33, Hermosa Beach tract, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 141h and 161h Streets. Initiated by City Council. The City Planner stated that Precise Plan #22 was initiated by the Plan- ning Commission for the block between 14% and 16th Streets on Hermosa - 2 - Avenue; that the Comm. considered, at the last meeting, the City's pro- posed channelization of the street by way of a median strip; and that the Land Development Committee discussed the refining of the Planning CormLission's recommendation for a precise plan for the area. He further stated that legally, under the Zoning Ordinance, once a potential zone is established over an already existing zone, a precise plan is required to be submitted and approved in order to utilize the "potential" zoning. The City Planner explained that the Planning Commission has a good deal of latitude regarding the standards to be required for a precise plan; for example, it could be a precise plan as detailed as the Kenland Development plan showing landscaping, exact layouts and architecture, and drainage facilities; or the precise plan could have no special con- ditions at all by stating that the developers must conform to the City Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Crawford then read the 10 development standards proposed to be included by the Planning Commission as a textual require- ment for the precise plan for the block. Public hearing opened at 7:51 p.m. B. J. Donahue, 1640 Strand, Hermosa Beach, owner of lot 6, stated that he favored a straight R-3 zone and favored the idea of improving Hermosa Beach. However, Mr. Donahue opposed the standards read by Mr. Crawford because he felt that standards should be drawn for the entire City rather than one particular block and expected to be treated the same as other property owners throughout the City. He further added that since the area is not economically feasible for commercial uses, he favored the building of more apartments, especially for tax purposes. Mrs. Edna Lehman, 1520 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, owner of lots 8 and 9, stated that all of the property owners, with the exception of one, favored the straight R-3 zone change; however, all the owners were opposed to a "superblock" concept. Chairman Noble asked Mrs. Lehman what were the particular objections she had to the development standards. Mrs. Lehman replied that she would like to make her own decisions regarding building concepts and was opposed to the idea of conforming to a development standard, which was someone else's planning concepts, for the area. She further added that the type of roof style and color of building should be her decision not the Planning Commission's. Mrs. Donahue, 1640 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that she, along with the other property owners, is opposed to the "superblock" concept and favors a straight R-3 zone change for the area. Public hearing closed at 8:01 P.M. Comm. Collis stated that he wished to know what specifically the opponents objected to regarding the development standards;for the requirements are nominal and he felt that some standards may seem incompatible but overall, they are generally beneficial to the future of Hermosa Beach. Comm. Collis -3- explained to the opponents that the Planning Commission is concerned with apartment developments because apartment living will become more of a way of life in Hermosa Beach, since more single family residential devel- opment is not economically feasible due to the extremely high land values. He stated that the people in the audience could see a good example of a planned community in the Fox Hills Development, just off the San Diego Freeway. Mr. Donahue asked for an explanation of item 6 of the proposed develop- ment standards, since he could not agree to its value. Mr. Crawford explained that the block fronts a commercial zone, which is across the street and is partially developed commercially. Moreover, the City plans to place a median strip from 14th to 1611h Streets and that the Parks and Public Works Departments have prepared 3 median proposals; of which, at the last meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the 3rd proposal, consisting of landscaping of the entire strip. Presently, the current front yard requirement is 10 feet but the Planning Commission is rec- ommendizig the reduction of the yard to 7 feet, the same reduction given to the Juckes-Howard development. If the promenade idea is accepted by the City and the property owners, then the City would take an easement over the front yard and add a sufficient area of the present street (9 feet) to develop a landscaped promenade in front of the apartments, with decorative lights and paving. Mr. Donahue questioned whether the property owners could veto such a "promenade" proposal and who will pay for the landscaping? Mr. Crawford replied that if done as the Planning Commission recommended, and the majority of property owners favored the promenade proposals, then the City would pay for the improvement. Copies of the proposed precise plan text were distributed to the property owners. Mr. Donahue asked whether the owners had a say in the zone change from C-2 with R-3 Potential to a straight R-3. Mr. Crawford replied that the Planning Commission recommends zone changes to the City Council as the advisors of the City; that the Comm. is breaking a planning axiom by having residential across from commercial, for usually like uses will face across the street. Chairman Noble recommended that since this is the first meeting in which the Planning Commission has seen the finished development standards and because of the Planning Commission's lack of knowledge of this opposition, the Comm. continue the hearing to the next meeting. Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger, to continue the request, Z-69-8, for a zone change to the next regular meeting, December 15, 1969. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None - 4 - CONDITIONAL USE PST C-69-20 Request for a conditional use permit to sell alcoholic beverages and provide entertainment on lots 5 and 6 of block 44, Hermosa Beach tract, located at 1332 Strand. The City Planner stated that the hearing was duly advertised to the property owners located within a radius of 300 feet from the proposed use and that the requested analysis from the Police Department will not be ready for this evening's meeting. Jack Bliss, 23525 Arlington Avenue, Torrance, and Donald Lee, 1530 Strand, Hermosa Beach, the applicants, presented their plot plans and construction plans to the Planning Commission, indicating that layout plans of the interior are not yet completed. They also presented the Comm. with a letter of consent from Mr. & Mrs. Willard James, property owners, for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premisis. Mr. Bliss read a quote from the economic analysis made for the General Plan, prepared in 1965, which stated that, "we anticipate that the great- est increase in sales and the number of establishments will be exhibited in shopper goods, repairs and services, and eating and drinking establish- ments." Projected sales in 1964 were $3,430,000; in 1970 were $4,470,000. Population projections for 1965 were 17,800; for 1970 were 19,300. Mr. Bliss stated that the number of liquor distributing outlets, excluding markets, has dropped from 28 to 21, a 25% decrease; that currently there are 2 beer bars in Hermosa, 8 bars that serve liquor and 6 restaurants that serve liquor. He also read another quote from the General Plan which stated, "if a 425-guest room establishment is built within the City, the area could support 6 to 7 more drinking and eating establishments; and the applicants' consensus is that the only logical area for such an establishment would be the Biltmore lot, within the vicinity of the proposed use. Mr. Bliss continued that in consulting with the neighbors, a big concern of theirs appears to be the noise problem. He added that on November 8, we tested the facility for noise transmittal with a horn connected to a 100 watt amplifier; and on November 11, we contacted C. H. Apple, acoustics engineer for Douglas Aircraft, who is currently working on a noise abatement study for the D-C 10. We -inquired as to the type of fixtures and type of people needed to reduce the noise magnification and he gave us possible designs to either deaden the noise or throw the sound out to the ocean. Mr. Bliss presented a list of reasons why the applicants desire to operate the business in that location: 1. Adequate parking - plenty of entrances and exits to the lot; public parking adjoining the lot. 2. Commercial zone - no schools or churches in vicinity. -5- 3. Policing - will have private police at all times to combat any problems arising from the sale of beer. The applicant stated that they plan to cater to the young adult and plan to be open 4 nights a week during the winter season and to serve food after 8:00 p.m. and plan to have entertainment. Mr. Bliss stated that if the conditional use permit is issued, more businesses will be drawn to the area, which is a typical marketing technique; an approach taken in Manhattan Beach. Donald Lee stated that they tried to research all angles possible and that the Police Chief said he would assign an investigator to check out all the problems familiar to the area; make character checks; and verify the acoustical designs. Farther, Mr. Lee stated that there are currently 2 places in Hermosa Beach for young adults and that they feel that with this type of establishment, a large number of young people could be brought into the City to fill up the many apartments that are being proposed. Mr. Lee felt that people probably would question the need for another bar in the City but that the other establishments are located away from the downtown area and that they are hoping to draw from the many crowds who frequent Manhattan Beach establishments. Farther, there are areas in Manhattan Beach where residential is a lot closer to commercial than in Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach does not seem to have any problem with these establishments. Jim Gaunder, 64 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that kids, who are under Jack Bliss' supervision under recreation department programs, seem to approve of him and he seems to be a man who is quite concerned with the young people; Mr. Gaunder felt he would rather have someone who is concerned running a beer bar than one who is not. Mrs. Carl Nigoian, 1318 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that she has lived at this address for the past 12 years and that she is on good terms with Mr. James. Also, she tries hard to keep the building up and her only concern is the problem created by liquor because drunks have used her place and have dirtied up the premises; and that her tenants are older people and she would hate to lose them, since good tenants are hard to come by. Martin Oghigian, 20 13th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the idea of private police sounds good but doubts their effectiveness because he has lived behind the Poop Deck for 2 years now and has seen nothing but crime in the area; with the addition of another bar more police protection will be needed and as a citizen, he would expect it; but he doubts whether the Police Department could properly patrol the area since many department personnel are cadets and the department has just one motorcycle officer. He questioned the adequacy of the parking since most people will not use the public parking because it is metered; therefore, they will use private property for parking. He further added that even if the applicants are the best of character, they cannot stop or control the problems them- selves. Mr. Bliss stated that he believed there has been a constant decrease in bars in Hermosa and that there has been a decrease of 30% in the last 5 years; therefore, there should have been a decrease in police problems. Also, he stated that he has not seen any study which corelated crime to bar establishments. It seems that Taco Bell has more problems than any bar in town. The City Planner stated that under the Urgency Ordinance a conditional use permit is required for entertainment as well as for the sale of alcoholic beverages; therefore, the Planning Commission needed to know specifically what entertainment would be provided. Mr. Bliss replied that they Mould have live entertainment in the "rock group" category and they would have singers, dancing, possibly recorded music but no juke boxes. Chairman Noble asked what hours of operation they would have. Mr. Bliss replied that, tentatively, they would be opened on Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. They have not established their summer schedule as yet but hope to be open to cover the many events which are being planned for the beach area. Mr. Crawford stated the following required considerations by the Planning Commission in order to approve a conditional use permits 1. Distance from existing residential and non-commercial uses - residents located about 30 feet from proposed use... newspaper office about 100 feet from use ... public beach and parking is adjacent to the use. 2. Amount of existing or proposed off-street parking - no parking problem since property is part of the Parking District ... no off-street parking is required. 3. Location of schools, churches, playgrounds - no schools are in the vicinity... the nearest church is about 650 feet from use... public beach playground abuts use ... a pedestrian walkway abuts use to the west. 4. Hours of operation - covered by Mr. Bliss. 5. Combination of uses - entertai.nment...sale of food ... beer. 6. Number of on -sale establishments in close proximity - beer bar is one block southerly about 200 feet ... 2 restaurants with alcoholic beverages to the north about 200 feet...4 bars located to south about 500-600 feet. 7. Other considerations - police problem, have not received report ...General Plan, shows location to be part of retail shopping - 7 - area ... City is preparing to redevelop block north of proposed use. The City Planner stated that the character of the applicants was not important in the decision in granting a conditional use permit; however, if the City appeals the issuance of an ABC license, it may do so on the basis of the applicant's character. Importance in granting the con- ditional use permit is based on the character of the use and the location. Mr. Oghigian wondered if the theme was to be based on the Poop Deck or Pier 52 because each presents a different set of problems. Mr. Bliss replied that the use will be more on the idea of Pier 52, but since it is difficult to obtain a hard liquor license for this type of operation; therefore, they are proposing the beer bar. Comm. Himmel asked whether the entertainment will be outdoors and will the building be air conditioned. Mr. Bliss replied that they will probably install air conditioning and the entertainment will be indoors. Mr. Lee stated that the circulating vents which are in the building are according to the building code but there are no heating or cooling units there at the present. Comm. Himmel asked whether there were any windows. Mr. Bliss replied that there were no windows, just 3 doors and they might possibly block off one door and use the area for storage. Comm. Mulfinger wished to wait to see the police report and to receive a report on the problems created by the Poop Deck. Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger, to continue conditional use permit C-69-20 to the next regular meeting, December 15, 1969, because the written police report is unavailable for review and consideration at this time; that the applicant is to submit an interior floor plan of the intended use and location. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE N.S. _ 154 Proposed amendment adding Section 1208 to City Zoning Ordinance establish- ing minim dwelling unit sizes. The City Planner stated that if the Planning Commission approves of the text, the Comm. should then adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council that the ordinance be adopted. Public hearing opened at 9:13 p.m. No one was present wishing to be heard on the question. Public hearing closed at 9:14 p.m. Comm. Himmel asked Mr. Crawford what was the nature of Section 7-2.4, that the Planning Commission is repealing as well as adopting. The City Planner replied that the existing regulations, establishing minimum dwelling sizes of 400 feet for apartments, 500 feet for duplexes, and 600 feet for single family, is located in the Building Code and needs to be repealed from there and established in the Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Himmel wondered what area would the common wall/Townhouse fall under. Mr. Crawford replied that if a condominium or separately owned town- house, it would be single family; if part of an apartment complex, then it would be multi -family. Motion made by Chairman Noble, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger, to forward the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None Motion made by Chairman Noble, seconded by Comm. Collis, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-758, adding -Section 1208 to the City Zoning Ordinance establishing minimum dwelling unit sizes. It has been determined by the Planning Com- mission, through studies extending over nine months, that this minimum unit dwelling area is feasible and desirable to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City, and within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to recommend it to the City Council as a necessary means to maintain the present quality of residential development. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CITY ZONING ORDINANCE N.S. 154 Proposed amendment to Section 1104 of City Zoning Ordinance providing for wider application of Potential zone restrictions. The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission had sent the amend- ment to Section 1104 to the City Council with the recommendation that it be adopted. The City Attorney, studying it at Council level, is still not satisfied with it. At the last Council meeting, Mr. Crawford stated that he suggested to the City Council to refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission to be considered along with the proposed PD zone ordinance. In effect, the Council said they wanted one of them returned, not both. Moreover, if the PD zone ordinance is adopted, the Planning Commission will not need the amendment because the Comm. would use the PD zone rather than the potential zone in such cases. Mr. Crawford stated that it was his recommendation that the Comm. receive the proposed amend- ment from the City Council and to place it on the next agenda, for the meeting of December 15, 1969. Since all the Comm. were in agreement with Mr. Crawford's recommendation, Chairman Noble so moved the recommendation. REPORT OF BUILDING RECORD Mr. Crawford stated that the report has been continued to hear the comments of the South Bay Board of Realtors. He read a proposed new section, "Section 7.5-9 -- Forms, Time Limit" to the Planning Commission and explained - 16" that this section was so worded, at Comm. Himmel's suggestion, because of the concern about what would happen to the seller if the City failed to perform. Comm. were in agreement to adding Section 7.5-9 to the ordinance. Comm. Collis wondered how would the City know who the authorized agent would be; for there is the possibility of anyone coming in and saying that they are the agent and acquiring the forms. Mr. Crawford replied that the City would require written authorization from the owner making the person his agent; for the City would be relunctant to give a report to just anyone. Chairman Noble stated that, in his opinion, as soon as the property is listed by the realtor, most would request the forms as soon as possible, as a service to the owner. Richard Fears, realtor, representating the Zoning and Legislative Committee of the South Bay Board of Realtors, stated that the Board has spent a year, at various times, studying the ordinance and it is the committee's consensus that the ordinance is not really necessary and it is a waste of the honest fellow's time and will accomplish very little. Mr. Fears stated that the ordinance will not make an honest man out of a crook and they will still manage to get around the ordinance and sell the property illegally. If the seller leaves the State, it would be time consuming for the City to prosecute; therefore, the ordinance is really not an effective one. He further stated that if the City administrations had enforced the Zoning Ordinance 30 years ago, none of the problems regarding illegal units would exist today. Comm. Collis asked Mr. Fears what he suggest in place of the ordinance. Mr. Fears replied that if the Building inspector was authorized by the City Council to enforce the City Zoning Ordinance, there would be no need for the ordinance. Comm. Collis stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to warn the unwary buyer that the property is non -conforming, if he still wants to buy, he has at least been educated to its nomeonforming uses. Mr. Fears stated that the South Bay Board of Realtors had changed their multiple listing form a few years ago, so that now the buyer can be aware of the legal use and zone classification at the time of the listing. Mr. Crawford asked Mr. Fears if, assuming the City is going to adopt the ordinance, was there any comment from him on the wording of it. Mr. Fears replied that Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Hermosa Beach's ordinances are technically similar and that he preferred that they were, so that just one memorization of the ordinance is required. Mrs. Marsh, 1050 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked what the forms will consist of. Chairman Noble stated that the following will be included on the forms and that no physical inspection will be made unless requested by the owner: 1. street address and legal description; 2. zone classification and authorized use as set forth in the municipal code; 3. occupancy as indicated and established by permits of record; 4. variances and conditional use permits and other pertinent legislative acts of record; 5. any special restrictions in use or development which may apply to subject property; 6. any known non -conformities and/or violations of the City Building Code or Zoning regulations. Mrs. Marsh stated that she disliked the 40 day contingency period, located in "Section 7.5-9 -- Forms, Time Limit"; she felt that an inconvenience is created by having to wait 40 days to find if the owner is able to sell or not. Why can't the seller get the report in 5 days rather than 40 days? Mr. Crawford replied that the section is for the protection of the seller because it forces the City to make out the report within 40 days and -the form is valid for 6 months. Further, the seller normally gets the report as soon as the City finishes it; but if the City, due to some unforeseen absence in the Department, is unable to furnish the report within 40 days, the seller can close the sale without being in violation of the ordinance. Comm. Himmel stated that Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have an indefinite period of time allowed the City to furnish the report; therefore, this section is added protection for the seller. Mrs. Marsh asked what penalties would be imposed if the City prosecuted for a misdemeanor. Mr. Crawford replied that the maximum fine would be $500.00 or 6 months in jail or both. Tex Marsh, 1050 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that his concern was that the proposed 15.00 fee would not cover all the paper work costs involved and within a period of time, the City will have to up the cost of the reports, especially since there is no set limit defined in the ordinance. Comm. Himmel wondered what would happen to the broker who violated the ordinance for the 3rd and 4+h time. Mr. Crawford replied that the City could lift his license but that this would be a separate action and does not need to be included in the text of the ordinance. Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger, to approve the Report of Residential Building Record in its amended form, and forward it to the City Council for adoption. - 12 - AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None Motion made by Comm. Collis, seconded by Comm. Mulfinger, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-759, recommending adoption of the Report of Residential Building Record ordinance. It has been determined by the Planning Commission that said ordinance will help to protect the unwary buyer of real property; that local communities are in the process or have already adopted a similar ordinance; and that the proposed ordinance is reasonable and enforceable. AYES: Comm. Collis, Himmel, Mulfinger, Chairman Noble NOES: None PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE A revised proposed Planned Development ordinance was presented to the Commission by the City Planner. The proposed ordinance was referred by Chairman Noble to the Zoning Committee for study and report to the com- mission at its next meeting. PROPOSED AME2gTM= REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Proposed amendment to Section 801 requiring conditional use permit for entertainment. The City Planner stated that the City Council has adopted an Urgency Ordinance, which is good for 90 days, placing all entertainment under the conditional use permit. At the end of that time, the City must adopt - a permanent ordinance; or the City Council must adopt another urgency ordinance at a public hearing. The question before the Comm. tonight is whether we want to set up a public hearing, so that we can adopt an ordinance requiring anyone who applies for an entertainment permit to first acquire a conditional use permit. Also, the Planning Commission may not want to include all forms of entertainment for a conditional use permit, like juke boxes. Therefore, Mr. Crawford recommended that this proposed amendment be referred to the Zoning Committee, along with item 11, for further study; maybe the committee could narrow the forms of enter- tainment requiring conditional use permits. The Commissioners adjourned at 10:27 p.m. to the conference room for a study session. STUDY SESSION -13— During the study session, the Commission discussed the proposed joint meeting with Manhattan Beach's Planning Commission. The City Planner noted that Mr. Fleagle, secretary of the Planning Com- mission., had indicated Manhattan's willingness to meet on Monday, December 8, 1969, and had provided a list of the Commissioners and their addresses. The Comm. decided to establish a simple agenda and rely primarily on a question -and -answer period to discuss problems of the two cities. Meeting adjourned at ll:30 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes have beah apl Pl o ssion of the City of Hermosa Be4ch�t a ret he on 5tb of December, 1969__ / JOE B. NOBLE, CHAIRMAN J.AMES D. COLLIS, SECRETARY