Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1962_03_19MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA!t held at the City Hall and at Clark Staditm1 on Monday, March 19, 1962, at 7!30 p.m. ROLL CALL..-Present: Comm. NobleJ Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Absent: None, Chairman Fredricks called the meeting to order, stating that this was adjourned from the regular meeting of March 12, 1962. He requested Comm. Noble to read the City Council's letter of March 7, 1962, asking the Commission to 'hold pubiic hearings on the rezoning of Mamie, Inc., property to R-4 in conjunction with hearings on the adoption of R~4 amendment to the zoning ordinance. Proof of publication of notice in the Hermosa Beach Review was submitted. Because of the large audience assembled, Chairman Fredricks announced a 10- minute recess in order that the meering might adjourn to Clark Stadium. On reconvening at cll:ark Stadium, the Chairman explained that this public hearing was called for the purpose of considering the creation of an R-4 zone in the city and the advisability of including in such a zone the Marnie, Inc., property at Second Street, and that at the outset, the Commission would consider item by item the proposed amendment, inviting comments pertinent thereto from the people present. The proposal was· read in its entirety by the Commissioners and then re-read, section by section, as the study continued. Statements by the Commissioners and the audience relative to various sections were recorded, but no action was taken by theCommission on these portions of 'the proposed amendment. Section 1 A .... R..,.J use. Some of the Commissioners felt this should be stricken from the proposal. The City Manager said he did not believe a zone classification could legally be established that would prec:Lude _a property owner from some permitted development of his property. Connn. Viault suggested that all properties remain with theif_ present zoning, owners having the privilege of applying for the R-4 with a conditional use. It was also suggested that if the R-3 use remained, a conditional use permit should be required for a certain lot area. Mrs. Dd±cll Burt, 11S.2,..7th Street, questioned the 11on-sale liquor" clause. Whether a commercial establishment or restaurant separate from the main building should be three stories or 451 high was discussed. The City Manager said it was felt the height should be kept to three storie·s in the front and that the main buildings could not extend into the front yard. Second~story dining rooms and sun decks for luncheons are increasing, according to Comm. Locknn. Further discussion revealed that it was the intent of the proposal that a9.cessory buildings could be optional, but if the cormnercial or restaurant uses)were in separate struct~es, certain restrictions would apply. Planning Commission 2 March 19, 1962 Section 2 -The size of Hermosa lots was pointed out by Comm. Viault, and the City Manager said that t he dimensions required by the proposal were arbitrary in reference to existing lots. Since the depth of the Strand lots is 801 J i t was felt the 150' depth requirement would be a limiting f actor on any possible high-rise development along the Strand, because vacating public streets would be necessary to accomplish t he r equired dimension. Conun.·Johnson suggested the overall square footage be i ncreased from 25,000 to 50,000. Mr. Richard Smart, 1934 Bay View, asked how the lot coverage cor responded to the r equirements in Los Angeles. The City Manager answered that Los Angeles had no provision for lot coverage but governed this by setbacks, outdoor area, etc. The proposal requires that in spite of anything else, the structures cannot cover more than a certain percentage of the land. Mro Smart asked if acti on on this phase could be postponed, his thought bei ng to compare the r equirement with Los Angeles' standards, that city having spent nmch time and money i n deciding on Imiltiple buildingso Chester Witt, 437-28th Street , asked why Hermosa Beach should exceed the requirements of the City of Los Angeles and suggested that-the Connnissioners look at the numerous high-rise structures i n Beverly HillsJ having 161 side yards. Con~erning the minimun1 height requirement, the City Manager said the si.x,.story factor would establish Class Type I construction and would tend to guarantee that the dollar investment that would go into the type of facility would be significant to di ctate there would be a standard of design and construction. The city would enforce the St-ate Housing Act., the State Fire Marshal would participate and t here would be other assistants as needed. Mr. Bill Brown, 1904 Rhodes, questioned whether there would be anything to stop building underground and was advised that offstreet parking would be required for any living quarters or connnercial use whether under- ground or not. Mr. Brown also questioned the source for selecting 850 square feet for an average apartment. This figure was taken from the Pasadena requirements, that city having done a substantial .architectural study on the high,..rise type of architecture. Mr. Br own was asked what figure he would feel to be suitable. He replied that he just wanted to get what is best for the city, if this goes through. Discussing the parking requirements.,. Comm. Viault stated that the Commission has nowurider consideration additional requirements that will bring parking throughout the city up to a better standard, requiring more parking th~:qJJ now required by the zoning ordinanceo A Mro Karnes asked if present onstreet parking would be eliminated. He was told that the Commission would control ingress and egress and that onstreet parking would not be substituted for offstreet. Mr. David Burt asked that the paragraph pertaining to visitor parking in t he proposal be changed to read 11shall be11 instead of "may be," suggesting that one space be r equired for each two units. Under front yard standards, t he Commissioners questioned the 40' street, Comm. Viault voicing his opinion that this width would not be adequate to serve a high-rise facility. He suggested the figure be set at 60'. Planning Commission 3 March 19, 1962 Mrs. Sterrett of 97 Hermosa Avenue said that ingress and egress will be very important to residents using Second Street and asked what is being planned for the streets. The Chairman informed her that the Commission did not know what the city staff is planning in regard to the actual arterial system in that particular area. The City Manager called attention to the county maps of streets, proposing the extension of 190th Street through Herondo down to Hermosa Avenue, widening Herondo to lOO'. -He was asked if the houses on Herondo would be condenmed for this purpose, and he said this project is a11C01mty: plan and is not definite at this time. Section 3 -Mr. Tom Stevens suggested that the phrase be added that a conditional. use permit will not be granted until a referendum vote has been taken by the people, and if a special election is required, the applicants shall pay the cost of the election. Mr. Smart asked about sewers, the cost, and who is to pay, suggesting that the proposal read that the applicant will be required to pay. Mr. Richard Madsen, 1841 Monterey, asked if anyone on the Commission is an expert on sanitation, capable of evaluating the information put forth. The City Manager said that the pumping station that handles all the sewage of Hermosa Beach is at Herondo Street, and that the Los Angeles County Sanitation-District has advised that an area from Redondo will go into another line, leaving considerable additional capacity for Hermosao Questioned as to drainage problems, the City Manager said the City has the responsibility for the drainage of propertyJ and if the Mamie, Inc., property were developed for manufacturing, the city would be faced with the same drainage problem to contend with. He said that in 1958, in the county wide, storm-<drain bond issue program, the city had submitted plans to come up Second Street, and that that line will be constructed within the next year or 18 months; whether the water would drain from the Mamie, Inc., land into that line or become a problem for Redondo Beach, he did not know. Mrc Madsen asked where the responsibility would lie if other areas were developed in this manner, the City Manager answering that the decision would be made by the County Sanitation District. Should other areas be considered for R-4 zoning, in the event this zone is established, public hearings before the Commission and City Council for reclassifying of the zone would be required, as well as public hearings regarding the specific development on the property to obtain a conditional use permit. • Chairman Fredricks announced a 5....minute recess, after which Comm. Noble again read the City Council letter; and the Chairman directed the hearing to the consideration of rezoning the Mamie, Inc., property from manufacturing to R""'4. Mr. Lou J. Kaufman called attention to the petition filed by the voters asking that the issue of whether or not high-rise should be permitted in Hermosa be placed on the ballot. He felt t hat the adoption of an R-4 zone, reclassifying the Mamie, Inc., property, would throw the entire city open to higl:►..rise development. He called attention t o statistics establishing Hermosa's population already four times more dense than the predicted population for Los .Angeles County in 1980. He submitted a photograph taken from ground level of the proposed site. Planning Commission 4 March 19, 1962 Mr. Tom Stevens asked if Mamie, Inc., has an application in for this classification and questioned the hearing as there is no formal application. The City Manager advised him that a conditional use per mit would first have to be obtained from Mamie, Inc., before any development could take place. Mr. Stevens suggested that a vote on the proposed R-4 amendment be held in abeyance until t he question of whether high-rise is desired has been determined by the voters, that it be shelved and the original ordinance proposed by the citizens and re~written by the Ci ty Attorney be put on the ball ot. The Chairman asked · if he meant the Commission sho,Ild determine what should be put on the ballot, and Mr. Stevens explained that the Cownission could recommend that the R-4 be held in abeyance until the Collamer Bridge proposed ordinance could be placed on the ballot. Mrs. Macy, of 2460 Park Avenue, connn~t1!;,?:l that if permitted anywhere within t_he city, any l1ome owner might: find high-rise next door. Mr . Blumenkamp asked if areas cou.ld be established, that would allow R-4 in refining the ordi nance. Chairman Fredricks said pot ential zoning, without actually changing the present zoning, might be accomplished. Would·these potential areas then be the only ones that could be changed t o n ... 4, Mr. Blwnenkamp asked, and was told that these things can always be changedo Mr. Blumenkamp suggested that the ordinance be so written that only by public hearings and a vote of . the people could ·:,the changes be madeo Another opinion eA'J)ressed by a memb~r of the audience ·was that a master plan should· come first to ~e the Corrun.ission i n determining what areas should be so zone~o Mr. Beckwith expressed his opinion that if high-rise wer·e permi..tted, the small home owner would find his taxes much highero Mr. Madsen said the entire complex of the city would change , and the small home owner would be forced out. Growth would not lower but i ncrease taxes, and that the pr oposed amend.1t1ent is a change but not necessarily progresso Mr. Lee Peterson thought the issue was whether we wanted anot her Mi ami Beach or not. Mr . David Burt felt the people would not know what they . are voting for with the present proposal, which would permit the Mamie, Inc., to be developed R-3 without coming back to the Commission.· He said 2000 people would not use Herondo but would use Second Street, asking if one side of the street were to be condemned, who would pay for it? Mr. Joel Ho Edwards spoke at length opposing the proposition, feeling that the petition by the peoplB to have ~he_ question placed on the ballot should have been adhered to by t he Councii. At ll:15 p .m., the meeting recessed to reconvene back at the City Hall. Mrs. David Burt asked if the R-4 zone fs for the benefit of one specific person or company, and if not, then -other areas could be zoned R-4. She menti oned two other sites, one behind the California Handprints and one at Prospect and Gould, asking if the Council could override the . Coilllltission on zone changes and regardless of what the people say. ih~ City Manager .said a further control would be the referendum. She said the Council should not have the right to change the·whole atmosphere of the .city , and if the silent majority want to vote for high ... rise, then there is no reason to complain. Mr. Harry Smith, 409-30th Street, expressed his opposition to high--rise. Mr. Robert Ne al, 828-2nd Street, voiced approval of the proposal, feeling 2000 new home owners would bring a considerable amount of business revemeto the city. .. Planning Commission 5 Mat'ch 19, 1962 Mr. Stevens felt the burden of proof should be with the applicants, subject to a vote by the people$ and Mr. Burt told of his experience in obtaining the necessary number of signatures for a referen~um vote and that this should be submitted to the people without referendum. Mro Lee Peterson mentioned the argument that the Mamie, Inc., property had been considered a blighted area but that the proposed amendment could affect the entire town. He thought Mro Moran's applying for a usage of lower level attested to the fact that the property is valuable for lower levels than high,.,,rise. The Chairman announced no other persons would be recognized from the audience. Connn. Viault moved that the meeting be adjourned until April 2, Comma Black secQnding the motion. Prior to voting, the Chairman said it was the expression of the City Council, although not stated in the actual resolution, that the Commission colL1d conclude whatever hearings they felt might be necessary so this matfer could be placed on the June 5 ballot for a vote of the people, but that the Council did not wish the Commission to rush the· matter but to take whatever time it felt necessary to properly digest the material presented from the public hearing. In order to place the proposition on the June ballot, the City Manager said a decision would have to be reached by the following day, March 20. Some of the Connnissioners felt more time should be spent on the proposed ordinance., Chairman Fredricks said, adding that a matter of this magnitude should entitle them to tilnis. Comm. Hales asked if the meeting could be adjourned to the following night. The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion adj01ll'nilllg the meeting to Monday, April 2, which was as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Johnson, Viault, Black, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Noble and Hales. None. ADJOURNMENT AT 11 :40 ~ 7/"Y, Apr/)2; 1962, { r~ .. 1dl~ Noble~ Secretary .,. .. r