HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1961_01_16MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING·OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE CITY HALL ON MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1961, AT 7:30 P.M. Present: Absent: Comm. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm. Locken and Edgerton. Present: Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector John E. Stevens, City Engineer R. A. WATT CONSTRUCTION CO. Continuation of hearing on R. A. Watt Construction Company application for zone change from R-1 (R-3 potential) to R-3 of the westerly 135' of Lot 33, Hiss Addition, review of proposed lot division, and approval of precise plan showing proposed 64 units. At the December l2 continued hearing, the Conmrission had voted to request the City Manager to make certain studies involving the development of this plan. At the regular meeting of January 9 the matter was postponed until January 16 at which time a report on these studies would be available to the Commission. The Commission was presented with cppies of a report from Mr. Trott and Mr. Stevens, which incorporated the cOlIDllents and recommendations of the professional pJanning consultant employed to investigate the matters referred to. Questions were directed to Mr. George Foutts, representing the applicant, pertaining to items in the report. Mr. Foutts stated that the fire department and water company would have to be contacted to see what could be worked out for hydrants and fire protection. Relative to the suggestion that access to the property be made through the trailer park to Valley, Mr. Foutts informed the Conmrission that Mr. Watt had already purchased the westerly 135' and would have no control over the easterly section, and that the property could na longer be considered one parcel. Conm. Black expressed his views that Valley Drive was already too congested, suggesting that access might be made over to 16th Street and over to Monterey Boulevard. Comm. Hales suggested that the applicant study the staff report, the Planning Coumission·having no particular objections to any of the features contained therein, that the Commis.sion s.et up parking to be considered reasonable, and that Mr. Foutts return with a counter proposal. Comn. Johnson said that it was obvious. that the nwnber of units wcu1d have to be reduced and felt that the number of units and access thereto would have to be worked out by Mr. Watt based on the report. CollDll.. Fredricks did not feel it the duty of the Commission to predetermine:i:arking for any plan not yet submitted to the Commission. Chairman Viault expressed his opinion that this entire area should be considered as raw land, drainage, utilities, etc., being developed for the total area, the present plan being the first step ltoward development of the whole area. Discussing the access to garages, it was agreed that it would be better for the applicant to study the report and come up with a new plan.,. rather than t.o lave· certain standards laid down by the Commission for nim to follow. A motion by Comm. Fredricks., seconded by Connn. Black, that this matter be continued until applicant requests that it be set back on the agenda, a new plan to be presented based on the recommendations of the staff report of January 16, carried unanimously.
Planning Commission 2 1/16/61 EISNm PROPOSAL FOR GENERAL PLAN Mr. Simon Eisner presented a formal proposal for-developing a general plan for Hermosa Beach. As he read the proposal, he invited questions and discussion of the various proposed studies, maps and plans, and explained the need for each of the proposed items. On completion of his presentation, there was considerable discussion as to the procedure to be followed for the acceptance <Yf such a proposal by the Oi ty Council. Since the Commission had had the opportunity to hear several professional consultants discuss the importance of· a general plan to be used as a goal toward which the city could develop, and since the Commission had met with Mr, Eisner on several occasions, it was felt that the Comn:ission should have a joint meeting with the Council to study Mr. Eisner's proposal and to pass on imormation which the Council had not had the benefit of. Asked if the members felt they could answer any questions proposed by the Council, the Chairman answered possibly not on a technical basis but they should be able to convince the Council of the need for this program. Comm, Fredricks moved that Mr. Trott be authorized to present this report of Mr. Eisner's to each of the City Councilmen and that he be authorized to inquire about setting a date for a joint workshop meeting between the Commission and Council to discuss. this report. Comm. Johnson seconded the motio:n.,which carried Ullanimously. PRorosED PURCHASE OF BEACH PROPF.RTY At this point, City Manager Harris asked to be heard. He stated that the Citizens Advisory Committee had suggested that the eity consider ~quisition of the privately-owned property, 3101 of the beach property being controlled by the Sherman Trust Company. The Beach Improvement Committee in s0D2 of their studies met with representatives of the company. At that time., they said they would withhold any plans for residential development.on that property; and that the City had until March 31, 1961, to acquire their property, else they would consider the City bad no interest in the acquisition of their property. Before the City Countil, questions were raised as to how thia property could be acquired. the tideland funds were considered, and immediately there came the proposal for the development of a pier. The Council found no objection in pursuing this development of a pier and obtained an architect to do a drawing showing the use of the adjacent lands and how this property might lend itself in adjunct with a pier. If the Council adopts the policy they propose for the development of a pier and acquisition of the beach properties, they can proceed with the negotiations with the State to use the tide land funds and begin acquisition of the properties to develop the pier. The use of the ~unds is permissible for the pier, and the State can be shown that the acquisition of these lands would be a logical adjunct to a pier. The purpose of the plan must be approved by the State, not the details. He asked the Commission if they saw problems associated with this plan and for their reaction to this proposal. Comm.. Johnson's opinion-was that if this is the only way the property can be acquired by the City, then he would go along with the idea; however, he is opposed to a pier and parking on the beach. Chairman Viault questioned the number of stalls shown on the sketch presented, expressing the view that the number shown was apparently greater than would be required for the pier development. He felt every other avenue should be explored for acquiring the land and its use, rather than settling for the pier and parking on the beach.
Planning Commission 3 1/16/61 Proposed Purchase of Beach Pr~perty Contd Mr. Harris said the issue is whether parking and the pier would be a compatible develo~ment, and if there are other developments, then certainly the Commission should come up with someo comm. Johnson interjected the statement that the City c~Jld not maintain the former pier. Mr. John Armer, representing the Citizens Advisory Comittee, said that the committee had primarily recommended that this property be acquired by the City and had secondarily recommended that there would be no pier in Hermosa Beach. The committee's study emphatically pointed out that nobody wanted a pier, and it is felt that the City is obligated to find some other alternative to acquire this property. If the citizens want the City to acquire this beach property, it can be done. The pier was outvoted by the committee unanimously. Chairman Viault asked then why has only a pier been proposed. Mr. Harris answered that he was present to carry forth an attitude of the City Council; this property is available to the City; tideland funds vs. bonds has been studied by the Council, and they feel by using the tideland funds, this is one way of acquiring this property. The Chairman said there must be other solutions, and Mr. Harris stated that the City Council has agreed this is what they would like the COillll.ission to study, they want their attitudes and are now asking about this one plan, adding that he felt:this matter to be of enough significance to this community to warrant a joint meeting of the Council and Comnission for thorough discussion. Chairman Viault asked if the Council authorized a continual study until a determination was made. The employment of a person to draw a sketch, a conceptive drawing that would serve as a portrayal of the kind of thing that could be done in keeping with the use of the tideland oil money so that a petition could be made to the State, had been authorized by the Council; in this way it could be determined if the money could be used as proposed and would not necessarily mean that it would be used this way. Connnission members expressed their opposition to private capital or county funds being used in acquiring this property. On motion by Comm. Fredricks, seconded by COIIBn, Hales, it was unanimously agreed that this matter should be considered in a joint workshop meeting with the City Council at the same time as the Eisner proposal. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:20 p.m. r