Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_75.07.28MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, JULY 28, 1975, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Collis at 7:37 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Absent: Comm. Burt Also present was Rod Merl, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Hough, to approve the minutes of July 14, 1975, as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-1043 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Loosli, Ch►nn. Collis Noes: Comm. Rosenberger Abstain: Comm. Learned Absent: Comm. Burt Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Hough, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-1044 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Hough, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-1045 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-1046 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Abstain: Comm. Learned Absent: Comm. Burt PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Monday, July 28, 1975 page 2 Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve Resolution P.C. 154-1047 as submitted, the review date established as October 28 by City Council. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: Comm. Hough Absent: Comm. Burt R-2 AMENDMENTS Continued Mr. Merl read Article 12 of N.S. 154, referred to in Section 501 K. of the proposed R-2 zoning amendment. Public hearing opened 7:47 p.m. Bud White, 1522 Strand, said he is a new resident in Hermosa Beach as of July 1st, has a lot 2400 sq. ft. zoned R-2B, and received notice in the mail regarding a zoning change to 3000 sq. ft. for a duplex. Chmn. Collis told him the R-2 amend- ment will not affect his lot. Mr. Glick, 220 29th Street, said the great majority of R-2 lots are under 2600 or 2700 sq. ft.; were bought in good faith for duplexes to carry part of the tax burden; the buildings on his block are mixed; and he thinks there should be a modification to this section that present lots in that area will automatically conform to the code. Alan Adler, 2132 Monterey, said between 19th and Park there are 21 lots, only 5 of which are not already duplexes; changing the R-2 requirements would reduce the property value of thise odd lots that have not already been developed; and he thinks this would add confusion and make things unnecessarily complicated. Mr. George Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, said he wants to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes; there is a question as to whether there is a legal problem in changing this ordinance to restrict these properties. Mr. Merl said the City Attorney stated that he sees no immediate problem but is concerned because this action is in a new area; and requested that if the Commission does approve of:all the changes that they approve all the changes but create severability by acting on the lot area requirement in a separate motion; if it becomes an issue it will not cloud the other portions . Mr. Becker said a statement was made that the properties in the proposed area are preponderately single family dwellings, but he observed one street where, of 8 or 9 dwellings, 6 or 7 were duplexes, on each side of the street. He cited traffic and parking problems, and substandard conditions, such as sewers, that need correction; he does not believe the city has a positive definition of what it is trying to do with the town; and believes the proposed changes will not do enough for the city but will work a hardship on a few people. James Miller, 2415 Myrtle Avenue, said he lives next to a lot affected and thinks people paying taxes should be able to enjoy the value of their property. In answer to the suggestion that people go to the County for tax relief, he said the city should effect the changes; the County will do nothing for the individual. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Monday,July 28, 1975 page 3 An unidentified individual delivered three pages of a petition opposing the proposed changes to the R-2 section of N.S. 154, totaling 43 signatures. Pete Tucker, 235 34th Street, asked for clarification of the 10' front setback, and method of determining lot coverage. Bert Johnson, 321 28th Street, said he would like to go on record as saying that the idea is good but the city is going about it the wrong way; he would like to see people able to develop as other people in the immediate area have done. Mr. White questioned the effect on property values. Comm. Haller said the South Bay Board of Real Estate estimate of increase is 10-15%, an average for all properties in that area including R-1 and R-2. Chmn. Collis read a letter dated July 10, 1975, approving the proposed amendment and signed by Coralie C . Ebey, 2466 Myrtle Avenue. Public hearing closed 8:26 p.m. Comm. Haller said part of the reason for the proposed changes has to do with the state mandate which says that zoning laws must conform to the General Plan. In the land use element the areas discussed are medium density, or 14-25 dwelling units per acre; with the lots developed to the maximum under present requirements, the density would be 36.9 du/acre. By increasing lot area requirements, it can be reduced to 29 du/acre. In one sense, we do have a mandate to bring our zoning into conform- ity with the General Plan. There is a definition as to what conformity ought to be. She said the area is now developed to 60% of its potential; the implications of development to full potential bother her; and she wants to protect the amenities of her environment as much as she can. Comm. Hough said changing the amount of land from 2400 to 3000 sq. ft. might affect the deterioration of the buildings if people could rebuild only to R-1 after tearing down a building. She questioned whether people would change if they had to give up rent or income to relieve taxes. Comm. Rosenberger said it appears to be economically feasible for the owner to maintain and rehabilitate, and that he is not worried about deterioration. Comm. Haller noted that there is a provision for planned unit development in the proposal which supercedes the restrictions imposed by the zone and makes it possible to obtain quality development. Comm. Hough said if the zoning is changed to R-1, people would not be able to build to R-2 even under planned unit development. In answer to several requests for statistical information, Chmn. Collis said there are 1289 R-2 lots; of those, 458 have less than 2400 sq. ft. and/or a width of less than 30 ft; 374 lots are 30 ft. or wider with land area from 2400 to 2999 sq. ft.; and 457 lots have 3000 sq. ft. or more; so we are talking about a little over 800 lots affected in terms of land use area. He said the 458 lots are less than 2400 sq. ft. and do not qualify for two units at this time, therefore we are talking about 374 lots that would be affected by the proposed change. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Monday, July 28, 1975 page 4 Comm. Loosli said a lot of the problem has to do with taxation; Assemblyman Beverly, 1611 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, has made available a booklet giving procedure for filing assessment appeals; and the city can help by making a statement that the owner can take to the tax assessor. Comm. Rosenberger said the inequity can be alleviated by downzoning to the actual usage rather than creating extra paper work and costs of appeals. Comm. Learned said the people seem to have two separate concerns: one, taxation for R-2 lots with only R-1 usage; and two, the desire to develop as R-2. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve the R-2 zoning amendment to N.S. 154 (Article 5) with the following corrections: Section 501. B. (second line) ; However, the maximum required setback shall be ten (10) feet..... Section 501. H. (2) Any building used for human habitation shall not be located closer to the rear property line than a distance of five (5) feet, and three (3) feet on the upper stories; however.... Section 501. E. exclude entirely. Comm. Haller said she would like to see Section 501. E. included in the motion; that this item is an essential part and would prefer that it go to City Council as one motion. She said if one part is found to be unconstitutional that does not necessarily nullify the entire law. Comm. Loosli concurred. Vote on motion above: Ayes: Comm. Hough, Chmn. Collis Noes: Comm. Haller, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger Absent: Comm. Burt Chmn. Collis added that he thinks the recommendation of the City Attorney as to procedure should be followed concerning the separation of the motion. Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve the R-2 zoning amendment to N.S. 154 (Article 5), including Section 500, 501 A-L (with corrections to B. and H. as above), 502, and adding Section 503. If any portion of this ordinance is found to be outside the law or unconstitutional it will not nullify other provisions of the amendment. Comm. Hough said she feels the crux of the matter is the square footage and would not like to have the other provisions held up if it is appealed at the Council level. Vote on motion above: Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: Comm. Learned Absent: Comm. Burt PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Monday, July 28, 1975 page 5 Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Hough, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-1048 approving the proposed R-2 zoning amendments to N.S. 154 (Article 5), including Sections 500, 501, 502 and 503 as in the motion above. After extensive public hearings in which testimony was taken from residents living within and outside the area affected, and receiving written correspondence and petitions; and as the R-2 change would make the zoning consistent with the General Plan designation; as the new proposal calls out the option of planned unit development heretofore not specifically called out although it did apply; in light of the city's current philosophy in regard to density and especially to density problems in that area, to include problems with parking, trash, animals, pollution, density, and noise; and with the provision for open space which has not been previously included in R-2. There has been a continuing process on the part of the Planning Commission to try to enhance the standards of development following the philosophy established in enacting changes to R-3 in 1968 and 1972, setting a precedent which was to be carried out in the other zones. Qualitative analysis of the R-2 zones established that there are 1289 R-2 lots; 458 having less than 2400 sq. ft. and/or a width of less than 30', which did not qualify for two units prior to this amendment; 374 lots of 30' or wider with land area from 2400 to 2999 sq. ft., which would be affected by the proposed change; and 457 lots having 3000 sq. ft. or more, which will not be affected by the amendments. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Rosenberger, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt Mrs. George Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, requested that all 1298 property owners be notified when this matter comes before City Council. Chmn. Collis said her request should be made to City Council. Comm. Hough suggested that in transmittal letter to the City Council, the Planning Commission shouldrmention that members of the audience requested that all R-2 owners be notified. NOISE ELEMENT Mr. Merl said the copies received are the revised element, however Commissioners have come in today with more changes. Chmn. Collis said he would like to see it continued until all changes are incorporated and they have the final copy before them. Public hearing opened 9:14 p.m. Mr. Grant Isgreen, 726 Prospect, cited enforcement problems such as a street having a 6000 lb. gross load limit which is still used by trucks and the police apparently are unaware of the limit. He said he has not seen a copy of the element. Mr. Merl said copies are available in the city library. Mrs. George Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, said she is in favor of a noise element; there is no manual of procedure concerning animal control; she believes the police department handles noise problems so would like to know if the Planning Commission is infringing on other departments, or if they are attempting enforcement of existing laws. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Monday, July 28, 1975 page 6 Mr. Robert Reed, 2902, 2904, 2916 Ingleside Drive, residing at 2902, cited a number of traffic problems on Ingleside Drive. Mr. Higgins, 2705 Morningside Drive, described the traffic conditions from Artesia to Gould to the beach as complicated by beach traffic and by large trucks on residential streets, and asked if such traffic could be diverted to commercial streets, as Pier. Mr. Merl replied that it is current city policy to move through traffic to commercial streets, and to redesign Gould to reduce traffic; also they are trying to realign buses. Public hearing closed 9:3 6 p.m. Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Learned, to continue to the first meeting in August; the Noise Element to be placed first on the agenda and advertised for public hearing at 7:00 p.m. So ordered. 901-903 15TH STREET Final development plans and tentative tract map #25800 to construct a two -unit condominium on an R-2 lot. Comm. Hough asked if the driveway will be asphalt or cement; and if the CC&R's designate that children will be allowed. Mr. Merl said the driveway will be asphalt; and there is no prohibition on children. He said that provision has been stricken by the Department of Real Estate. Public hearing opened 9:41 p.m. Katherine Smith, 6318 Vista Del Mar, Playa del Ray, representing Charles Gotanda, said that on the paperwork received so far, this is referred to as planned unit development; they have not been able to sell a previous property under Veterans Administration because of terminology of the city which has no conformity with the terminology of the state and the Department of Real Estate; and this lack of con- formity also causes difficulty in insurance, financing, and taxation. Mr. Merl said the city is in the process of changing the language of the ordinances, and this resolution could give approval for a condominuzm. Miss Smith said that would be sufficient so far as they are concerned, or it could give approval under planned unit development as defined by the city of Hermosa Beach. Public hearing closed 9:56 p.m. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Haller, to approve subject to standard subdivision requirements. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Abstain: Comm. Rosenberger Absent: Comm. Burt Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Haller, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-1049 approving the two -unit condominium at 901-903 15th Street under page 7 PUD as defined by the City of Hermosa Beach. After receiving testimony, it has been determined that it meets thetentative conditions and requirements for PUD as defined by the City of Hermosa Beach. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosi, Chmn Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt Abstain: Comm. Rosenberger 208-2121 MANHATTAN AVENUE 20SECOND STREET CUP for construction of 3-unit condominium under PUD and Tentative Tract Map #26400. Mr. Merl reviewed the analysis; the IC approved last Thursday with one addition to the landscaping pale, a planter between the driveways. He said that 33 du/a is the correctfigure (incorrectly shown on second page as 27 du/a). Public Hearing opened 10:15 p.m. Katherine Smith, representing Charles Gotunda, said the recreation space is a common facility, a grass area fenced on the east and north sides and left open on 2nd Street and Manhattan Avenue sides. Comm. Rosenberger asked on what the landscaping plans are based. Miss Smith said they maintain a professional land- scaper, they have information provided by the Chamber of Commerce on the plants and trees best suited to the locality. Qgmm. Rosenberger what professionally trained staff reviews landscape plans for the city and is any city staff involved. Mr. Merl replied that they are reviewed by IC and that the city does not have landscape architects. Miss Smith noted that they have provided two parking spaces per unit as required and make an effort to keep curb cuts to a minimum in order to leave additional parking on the street. Public. hearing closed 10:22 p.m. Motion by Comm. Rosenberger., seconded by Comm. Learned, to approve subject to standard subdivision requirements Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned , Rosenberger; Chmn Collis Noes: Comm. Loosli Absent: Comm. Burt Motion by Comm. Rosenberger ., seconded by Comm. Hough, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-1050 approving a three -unit condominium and tentative tract map #26400 under PUD as defined by the City of Hermosa Beach. In the opinion of the Commission it is consistent v ith the GP; meets subdivision requirements; exceeds open space and recreation space requirements; is well within the density of the GP: and subject to the standard map conditions. Final development plan is required within six months; and irrigation system; the landscaping plan as approved by IC. Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Rosenberger, Chmn Collis Noes: Comm. Loosli Absent: Comm. Burt 628 THE STRAND Final Develo ent Plan & Tract Map 126122 page 8 628 THE STRAND Final Devel.apement Plan & Tract Map 1 63 Mr. Merl reviewed one of the analysis and said this was previously approved subject to a series of conditions, one of which was elimination of the elevator to the roof. Public Hearing opened 10:27 P.M. Richard Cooling, 205 Avenue 1, Redondo Beach, architect, said they have removed the elevator from the roof; the elevator penthouse is necessary for operation of the elevator and projects 5"or 6 feet above the roof; and the stairway to the roof projects 8' above the roof. He said the landscaping firm that was employed has been doing coastal word in adjacent areas for 12 years and has a total file on plant materials in this area; the fireplaces are wood -burning metal boxes with gas jets, not masonry. He said there is a permanent irrigation system. Public Hearing closed 10:30 p.m. Comm. Loosli said this is an apartment condominium requiring a minimum of 5000 sq. ft. and is in violation of the law since the lot size is 4800 sq. ft.; he feels that the city can do better that this under the Plan Unit Developement on the Strand. Comm. Haller said she voted no on this originally because there were a number of almost identical developments, it is lacking is some of the amenities, and she objects because she tMnks that it is not the kind of quality that the city would like to see; although it does conform to the preliminary she will vote no. Comm. Rosenberger said he voted no also at that time; certainly the Improvement Commission has given the man direction; and asked staff the standing of the Planning Commission. Mr. Merl said a memo from the City Attorney indicated that they are voting whether it is consistent with that which was requested. Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Hough, to approve the final development plan.and tentative tract map #26539 at 628 Strand with the tract map being subject to standard map conditions. Chmn. Collis said he thinks the Planning Commission has an obligation since they have given the applicant direction and are legally bound to approve. Comm. Hough said she is reluctant to vote yes; the change to the elevator was not what she expected; technically they are supposed to be able to make changes; and she feels that they must screen these projects the fires time and make sure that everything is specific. Comm. Loosli read from the code that a legislative body of a city shall disapprove the final development plan if the site is not physically suitable for the development or not physically suitable for the density. Comm. Haller said she would definitely like her objections to the project incorporated in a minority report to be carried on to the City Council; although she objected before she is now bound by the majority vote �� ofetherecordCommission Comm.Rosenbergerher Concurcomments to be included as pa page 9 (A minority report is to be complied incorporating the comments of the dissenting members as given above.) Vote on the motion above: Ayes; Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Rosenberger, Chmn Collis. Noes: Comm. Loosli Absent: Comm. Burt Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Learned, to adopt Resolution Planning Commission 154-1051 approving the final development plan and tentative tract map #26359 to construct a four -unit condominium at 628 Strand subject to standard map conditions; it meets the requirements on ginally established in the Planning Commission 154-1035; is consistent with the General Plan and subdivision requirements and density Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Rosenberger, Chmn Collis Noes; Comm. Loosli Absent: Comm. Burt Comm. Hough suggested that on propertied requiring a cul-de-sac or street extension, the Planning Commission asked or required that the applicant use the material, as asphalt or concrete, to conform to the rest of the street. Comm. Rosenberger left. OPEN SPACE ZONE Mr. Merl said the Commission has made a determination regarding the advertising for Open Space Zoning in which the properties will be divided into two groups: the first advertised by newspaper as it was previously listed as public or school on the zoning map; the second group will be advertised to all property owners within 300 feet since they were previously zoned by other designations such as R-2 or C-2; and review procedures will be established for future uses. He said a letter has been received from Dr. Joyce asking that the Planning Commission delete the developed portions Of the school grounds from open space designation, (listed in the letter of July 25, 2975)- Public Hearing opened 10:49 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Closed 10:49 p.m. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Haler, that the property listed in the notice of public hearing, dated 7/17/75, by classified as open space. Chmn. Collis, asked for clarification of the subcommittee's recommendation regarding the open space. Comm. Hough said the school feels that they cannot get the highest price for the land if it is in Open Space. The subcommittee felt that they want to sell land to a developer it would have to be rezoned anyway, consistent withthe land around it: she still feels it should be in Open Space and the Planning Commission should see plans first; North School was not really discussion was of Hermosa View and South School. page 10 Vote on motion above: Ayes: Comm. Haller, Hough , Loosli, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt, Rosenberger Abstain: Comm. Learned Motion By Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Haller, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-1052 designation the properties listed herein as zoned Open Space consistent with the revisions of the General Plan and Open S'pace element; all properties are publicly -owned properties; and this does not pertain to any privately -owned properties. There are kept open to insure continuance of public benefit gross lack of open space in Hermosa Beach. Ayes: Comm.Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Chmn. Collis Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt, Rosenberger CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Motion by Comm. Haugh to continue since the Board of Zoning Adjustments has not yet acted on them. So ordered. 16 14TH STREET Six-month review of the Conditional Use Permit for sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Merl said there have been no complaints from the police department. Motion by Comm. Haller to grant an additional twelve month review period since all conditions of the Conditional Use Permit have been met. So ordered. PROPERTY EXCHANGE- CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT MR.Merl described the properties to be exchanged which requires review by the Planning Commission to see if they are consistent with the General Plan: the school property must be retained by the city as park o;' it will revert to the School District; the red properties involved are nto yet designated open space as they are included into the group,to be advertised to residents within 300' ; the properties shown in blue on the map are already designated open space. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by .Comm Learned to approve; it is consistent with the General Plan and Open Space -element; provided that the property is to have a record deed restriction to retain it for park purposes. Ayes; Comm. Haller, Hough, Learned, Loosli, Chmn. Colli Noes: None Absent: Comm. Burt, Rosenberger Resolution P.C. 154-1053 will be written by Mr. Merl page 11 26 9 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Six-month review of the Conditional Use Permit for a take-out restaurant facility. Mr. Merl said the signs were approved by the Hermosa Improvement Commission but never were put up; one sign on the window was not painted out as stipulated. Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Hough, to continue to the next regular meetion of August 11, 1975. So ordered. PARKING DISCUSSION Motion by Comm. Haller, seconded by Comm. Hough to continue to the next regular meeting. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Merl said the Housing ordinance has cleared the Board of Zoning adjustment and will be on the next agenda for public hearing. He said the Planning Commission agenda is being given to KKOP, the Hermosa Review, the Daily Breeze and the Easy Reader. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Chmn. Collis said that a car repair business to the south of 2659 Pacific Coast Highway has a trash receptable in the alley. Mr. Merl said there is a requirement to keep trash bins off city property and he will look into it. Chmn. Collis requested that members of the Planning Commission consider some goals and objectives for the next fiscal year, and make suggestions as to the direction to the Planning Commission in the planning process. Comm. Hal&er suggested that each member prioritize his list. Chmn. Collis requested that the members analyze the materials propr to the public hearings on items such as final development plans for conservation of time during the hearings. Chmn. Collis appointed Comm. Hough to attend the meeting of the League of California Cities in San Francisco in October, and deferred decision on the second appointment until next week. Meeting adjourned 11:22 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were adopted by the City Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at a public hearing held on the 28th day of July 1975. r DATE Ames Vollii�sChairman Sue Haller Secretary