Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09.04.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Shapiro Kim Reardon-Crites, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 1984, with the following corrections: Page 1, paragraph 9, last sentence: They felt the access was adequate," should read "Ms. Reardon-Crites felt the access was adequate." Page 2, paragraph 2, last sentence: "for any specific width" should read "for any specific continuous width." Page 3, paragraph 11: "Mr. Cavanaugh said he had spoken with one person and that she was pretty satisfied that it was going to be a nice project," should read, "Mr. Cavanaugh said he has spoken with one person, and after fielding her questions, she appeared satisfied." Page 5, paragraph 4, first sentence: "Mr. Schulte felt that the Commission should just approve the subdevelopment," should read, "Mr. Schulte felt that the Commission should approve the subdevelopment without restrictions." Page 18, paragraphs 9 through 13. Comm. Schulte felt that these five paragraphs should be deleted. Page 20, paragraph 7: "Comm. Schulte responded that when he suggested this to the Council, he thought that the money had to come out of the City of Hermosa Beach. But if there is another fund available, he felt he could get to the restroom refurbishing more quickly," should read, "Comm. Schulte indicated he thought the money may have been set aside from the City of Hermosa Beach to refurbish the public restrooms. He continued, however, that if other funds were available, they .should be explored." Comm. Schulte stated that he felt the whole point of this discussion was that in his opinion the public restrooms in every park in Hermosa Beach are a shambles. He feels they need to be fixed. And if there are funds available other than funds from Hermosa Beach, he would love to get them. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-20. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES; SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.) page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Shapiro Comms. Newton and Peirce. Comm. Compton noted that on Resolution P.C. 84-23, the first paragraph: " ... in some alternative fashion than as 19 row houses on 25 foot lots," should read, " ... in some alternative fashion than as 19 foot row houses on 25 foot lots." Comm. Schulte stated that he recalled the motion made regarding Resolution P.C. 84-23 asked that the lots be at least 30 feet wide and not less than 3,000 square feet. Comm. Sheldon stated that "19 foot row house" describes what a house would be on a 25 foot lot with a three foot setback. Comm. Newton felt that the problem with the Resolution is that it sounded like a direction by the Planning Commission that the lots should be developed. She felt that the Planning Commission's discussion was that they wished to exclude those properties from the moritorium so as not to jeopardize any negotiations or discussions that were now occurring between the School Board and the City Council, but that if they ever should be developed, the Planning Commission's desire was that they not be developed as single family residences on 25 foot lots. Chmn. Izant agreed with Comm. Newton and stated that the third line should read, "developed in some alternative fashion other than as 19 foot row houses on 25 foot lots. Comm. Newton felt that the title of the Resolution implied that the Planning Commission wanted the school properties to be developed, and in some alternative fashion. She didn't feel the recommendation was to develop the school properties. Comm. Compton recommended the following language for the title of Resolution P.C. 84-23: "A resolution of the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach recommending to the City Council that if the school properties are to be developed, that they be developed in some alternative fashion rather than 19 foot row houses on 25 foot lots." Comm. Newton wished to change the language from line 5 of Resolution P.C. 84-23 to read as follows: "Whereas the Planning Commission would like the school properties to comply with the intent of the proposed lot merger ordinance without endangering negotiations that may be occurring between the City Council and the School Board with respect to the properties." Motion by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Newton, that Resolution P.C. 84-23 be approved as amended by Cornms. Compton and Newton. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Shapiro. Comm. Peirce. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION S (Cont.) page 3 •--------Comm. Newton had a question on Resolution P.C. 84-22, No. 4, "currently developed with residential structure(s) over the lot line." She felt that the Commission may have been neglectful in deleting the situation as outlined in the Government Code where there may be a residential structure on one parcel, but an accessory building on the other. Comm. Sheldon asked if the parentheses around the "s" after structure would cover that situation. Comm. Newton responded that she didn't know. She didn't know if this would be a loophole or not. Comm. Sheldon asked if they added the words "accessory buildings" on to No. 4, would that cover that situation. Comm. Newton felt that if they added the words "accessory buildings," that that would include the intent of the Government Code. Motion by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, that Resolution P.C. 84-22 be approved with the stipulation that the words "accessory buildings" be added to No. 4, as recommended by Comm. Newton. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Shapiro. Comm. Peirce. Comm. Newton felt that Resolution P.C. 84-21 should include items 1 through 5, including the revision they have just agreed to, which appear in Resolution P.C. 84-22. Chmn. Izant asked if it was the sense of the Commission that items 1 through 5 on Resolution 84-22 are what the Commission was referring to at the last regular meeting in terms of using as guidelines to possibly develop an ordinance to recommend to the City Council. Comm. Newton stated she felt that was correct with one exception that they would not use the word "residential" because their intent was to include all property in the combined lot ordinance but to exclude the school property from the moritoriurn. Comm. Compton felt that because this Resolution was designed to be published to tell people that there will be a public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission should not set down guidelines as to what their ultimate decision will be before they have heard the public testimony. Chmn. Izant concurred with Comm. Compton. Motion by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-21 as written. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Shapiro Comm. Peirce. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 4 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Ms. Reardon-Crites gave the staff report. She indicated that Hermosa Beach School District has requested that the City change the zoning and general plan designations for a portion of the Prospect Heights School. The following lots were classified as open space by Ordinance NS 517: Hollowell Tract --lot 10, excepting the northerly 10'; lots 11 through 1~ inclusive. Dillon Tract --lot 30, excepting the northerly 10'; lots 31 through 35, inclusive. The City has purchased lots 13 through 17 of the Hollowell Tract and lots 32 through 35 of the Dillon Tract to be retained as permanent open space. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the School District would like to sell the remainder of Prospect Heights as R-1 developable property. However, lots 12, 11, and the southern 15 feet of lot 10 of the Hollowell Tract and lot 31 and the southern 15 feet of lot 30 of the Dillon Tract are still zoned open space. As such, these lots cannot be residentially developed. The School District has requested the rezoning of the above mentioned lots in an attempt to make the property more marketable. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the City has several alternatives. The alternatives which the staff describes in its repor~ which correspond to four Resolutions, are as followes: I To leave the zoning and general planning designations as they now stand. This would allow the School District to either: II III IIII a. Try to sell the property to the City if the Mello-Roos assessment issue passes in November; or b. Try to sell the remaining property, including the five lots zoned O-S, as a whole and have the developer try to use the space for a private park or private recreation center. To change the zoning and general plan designations for the five lots in question to unzoned. As such, these lots could be developed to R-1 standards with no review by the City. To change the zoning and general plan designations on the five lots which are zoned open space and the remaining lots that are unzoned to R-1, low density. To change the five lots which are now zoned as open space to R-2, medium density, and the 12 lots that are unzoned to R-2, medium density, but condition this upon a planned development and a maximum development of 17 units. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the School District has requested that the open space line be drawn to the same parameters as the boundaries of the property the City has purchased for open space. The staff recommends that the site, excluding the lots the City has already purchased for open space, should be rezoned to R-2 PD, medium density, with a maximum project development of 17 units. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 5 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Comm. Sheldon noted the words "are still zoned open space" on page 1, paragraph 4 of the staff report. He asked what they meant by the word "still." He noted that on page 3, paragraph 4, it states that escrow has already closed on the purchase of these lots. Ms. Reardon-Crites referred the Commission to the attached map and indicated that the lots boarded by the dark line are the lots which the City has already purchased for open space and in which escrow has just closed. The five in question are boarded by the hatch mark. These lots have not been purchased by the City but are zoned as open space. Comm. Sheldon asked what the City expected would happen to those lots. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that she did not know. Comm. Sheldon then asked why the City did not purchase those lots. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that she did not know. Comm. Sheldon asked Ms. Reardon-Crites if this was just an error. Ms. Resrdon-Crites stated that it could have possibly been an error. Comm. Shedlon asked if the City and the School District were working under a map that showed those lots in question as open space or as unzoned. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that the map they used indicated that the property they were buying was open space and that at least four of those five lots in question were unzoned. Comm. Sheldon asked why the City did not purchase those lots as part of the entire deal. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that she was not privy to their negotiations. She did not know why those lots were not purchased. Comm. Newton asked what the price was of the property that the City did acquire. Ms. Reardon-Crites responded that she believed the price was close to $168,000. Comm. Sheldon asked if that was the open space value. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied in the affirmative. The public hearing was opened. Carol Reznichek, 2234 The Strand, stated that she is a trustee of the Hermosa Beach School District, which is the applicant for the zone change. She stated that she saw this as a clear clerical error. She stated that during the negotiations with the City, the maps presented by the City never showed anything other than the portion of the property that the School District just sold to the City for $168,000, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 6 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) which was not based on open space value, but much lower. The City asked for grant monies from the Roberti-Z'berg Park Land Fund to buy this open space, and the City showed the School District maps of the open space that they wished to purchase and for which escrow has just now closed. Ms. Reznichek stated that it was the School Districts understanding that th~ysold the City the property zoned open space and that the School District would be able to have the rest of the property as assets. They seemed fair negotiations at the time, and the School District closed escrow in good faith that this situation was true. Ms. Reznichek stated that the School District is certainly asking to have this error corrected. She has not seen any indication in the negotiations with the City that it was anything other than an error. She stated that when people who were interested in buying the property found the error, everybody was quite amazed. She stated that the School District would like the error corrected and would like the property zoned the way they wish. Comm. Compton asked Ms. Reznichek if she understood the alternatives that were before the Commission. Ms. Reznichek stated that she has seen the alternatives but would not comment upon them because she simply came to ask for a correction of the error which shows the property as unzoned. Comm. Sheldon asked whose error was this, or was it a combination of errors. Ms. Reznichek replied that she did not know. Comm. Sheldon asked if this rezoning is really a correction as opposed to a new zoning question. Ms. Reznichek responded that that is the way she saw it and that is the way the School Board sees it. She stated that during all the negotiations for many years the School District never used a different map. Comm. Peirce asked what the date was on Ordinance NS 517. Ms. Reardon-Crites responded 1975. Edward Loosli, 3435 Hermosa Avenue, stated that he was on the Planning Commission in 1975 when these properties were not only zoned as open space, but general planned open space. He stated that no one as yet has mentioned that this is a general plan change from open space. He stated that the City says there is no error and that the staff report regarding this issue mentions no error. He states that there is only one legal map in Hermosa Beach, and that is the zoning map. And that map indicates that the five lots containing the playground have also been general planned open space and zoned open space. He states that there is no error and that that land was intended to be open space. The City has never changed it or intended to change it. And he felt that it should stay that way. PLANNING COI~~ISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 7 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Comm. Schulte asked Mr. Loosli if he was part of the negotiations. Mr. Loosli replied that he was not. Comm. Schulte stated that as he understood it, that is where the error was made if it was made. Mr. Loosli stated that he didn't know if that was true, but he knew that there was only one zoning map, and that is the one the Planning Commission used. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Loosli if what he was telling the Commission was that there were three different zonings --one that is unzoned, five lots that are zoned open space, and the balance of the land that is school property. Mr. Loosli stated that what the Planning Commission did in 1975 was to leave the area that the school buildings were built upon unzoned. Mr. Loosli then read from Ordinance NS 517 the lots which were zoned open spac~ which corresponded to the lots indicated in the staff report. He stated that the minutes from the Planning Commission stated that the line of Prospect Heights School shall be drawn at the buildings, and that those lots that weren't drawn at the buildings were zoned open space. Karen Gale, 933 6th Street, read a letter dated August 21, 1984, from Pam Sapetto addressed to the Superintendent of the Board of Education, which basically stated that there appears to be an error in the Ordinance NS 517 which zones the play field area of Prospect Heights School to open space. It also stated that in researching the minutes and actions which describe the adoption of the Ordinance, it was the intent of the City to separate the built-up portion from the play field area and to zone only the play field area as open space. Ms. Gale stated that what they sold the City for $168,000 was to the retaining wall. Above the retaining wall, which is a natural divider, is the area that they had agreed with the City that they could sell. And all the maps that the School District has that were used were made up by the City and staff and presented to the School District. Mr. Loosli stated that the letter Ms. Gale read has been withdrawn by the City. John Woodward, 707 Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, stated that he was the attorney for the Anastasi Construction Company, the purchasers of this property. He stated that the purchase price that he has negotiated with the City is based upon R-1 development with three foot side yards. He stated a pu/d or anything else wouldn't bring as much money. Anastasi Construction Company's offer to the School District in the bid form included an addendum which creates a contingency of approval of the 17 R-1 lots. Mr. Woodward stated that the City paid something less than $20,000 for nine lots. Anastasi Construction Company's negotiated price is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 pa ge 8 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN T (Cont.) more than $75,000 a lot. He stated that if the City takes these lots away from the School District, it will cost the School District more than $50,000 a lot, or approximately $275,000. Mr. Woodward stated that they could make the whole thing a beautiful park, but that they had to look at the realism here-~ the money to the School District and the effect on the neighborhood. He stated it could be a quality tier development with good architecture and a good deal of thought to aesthetics and landscaping. Comm. Compton asked if "quality tier development" meant 19 foot houses on 25 foot lots. Mr. Woodward stated that that was correct. Comm. Compton stated that he was not averse to two units on a 25xl00 foot lot. But he would much rather see a 50x50 foot lot with a house on the front and a house on the back than two 25 foot lots where you end up with the long row-house type effect. He stated he would like the developer to respond to these thoughts regarding reconfiguration of lots. Mr. Woodward responded that this type of reconfiguration may mean common walls, and buyers don't like that. Comm. Compton stated that he wasn't suggesting common walls, although he thought he could probably do two units. Mr. Woodward stated that these thoughts involve the School District because the School District wants to move the property quickly. He stated his company is prepared to go ahead with the deal, but a new question of reconfiguration involves time, and he didn't know what their feeling would be on that. Comm. Sheldon stated he would like to hear from the developer. Wayne Anastasi, 1200 Aviation Boulevard, Redondo Beach, stated that he came up with the value of the lots on the basis of 17 single family homes. If this basis was changed, it would involve renegotiations with the School Board to come up with a different price. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Anastasi if it would be worth the same amount of money to him, as a developer, if he bought 13 30-foot lots instead of 17 25-foot lots. Mr. Anastasi stated that he has not worked that out, but that he could tell the Commissioners right now that it would not be worth the same amount of money. Comm. Compton stated that he was concerned about the effect this development would have on the parking situation. He approves of R-2 planned development because it gives the Planning Commission an opportunity to make fewer curb cuts, take less parking off the street, and allows the possibility of having the garages off an inner court.--something of this nature that would allow more PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 9 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) parking on the street and less impact on the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Anastasi if there was any possibility of these ideas working for him. Mr. Anastasi stated that he didn't feel he could come up with a price like he did by doing that. He stated he would have to sit down with the School Board again and redo the numbers. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stated that lots 10, 11, and 12 are primarily occupied by part of the extension of the building that was added on late. She stated that they did a research around the school, and there are 33 units of which only seven are zoned R-2. They do not want more R-2 in above the Prospect area. She felt that if the Commission is going to make 30 foot frontage by 3,000 square feet a criteria for the future, then this area should also be 30 foot frontage by 3,000 square feet. Mrs. Burt stated that the streets of Hollowell and Gentry are very narrow. And she also asked the Commission if they have considered the fact that above the highway there are no decent .playgrounds. Because of the closing of South and Prospect Schools, the School District is closing all of the schools south of Pier Avenue. Anna Belchey, 505 Hollowell, stated that she lives right next to the school. She stated that the 17 lots are, by the Planning Commission's definition, substandard. Therefore, if these lots are zoned R-1, she felt the City should use a planned development so that each of the planned homes or units that has the minimum requirement will not immediately become substandard developments. This would make the owners apply for variences when they want to improve their homes. Under the 3,000 square foot per unit definition, this would give less than 17 R-1 units. But she stated there was still one major problem. Each unit requires two garages. Hollowell and Gentry are very narrow streets. Ther~for~ there would have to be an access exit on opposite sides of opposite streets for easy movement of about 20 to 30 cars. Phillis Brady, 348 Hollowell, stated she lives right across the street from the school. She felt that putting 17 units there would mean unbelievable congestion. She wanted no development on the property. She wanted the school left as it is. Etta Simpson, 651 25th Street, recommended that the Planning Commission deny any zone change and any general plan amendment. She indicated that all the possible recommendations in the staff report designed to achieve the highest dollar for the school District increases the dwelling units per acre so that it exceeds low density. She is very sympathetic with the people who live in that area and in regards to anything that increases the density there. Comm. Schulte stated a deal underway that market value, and in in a certain manner. to Ms. Gale that her letter indicated there was property was sold to the City at less than return the City would zone the lots in question Ms. Gale responded that that was correct. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 10 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Comm. Schulte asked if that letter, to her knowledge, was withdrawn from the City. Ms. Gale stated that it absolutely was not. She stated that if that letter was going to be corrected for the School Board, the School Board would have received another letter from Ms. Sapetto saying that the City had made a mistake. She stated they did not receive another letter from the City stating that a mistake had been made. She stated that they came to this meeting with one goal in mind, and that was to correct an error. Comm. Newton asked Ms. Gale if she or anybody else from the School Board who was present had a map on which the School Board had relied. Ms. Gale stated that she did not have that with her. Comm. Newton asked if it was the the EIR map which she relied upon. Ms. Gale responded in the affirmative. Comm. Compton asked Ms. Gale if the School Board needed the money so badly that they had to sell the school sites. Ms. Gale replied that, yes, they are trying to rebuild and change Hermosa Valley School. They have a declining enrollment. They cannot keep three schools open. She stated they did not want the children traveling east of the highway, so their goal was to have a large school to house all of the children at Hermosa Valley, which is centrally located in Hermosa Beach. In order to meet these goals and change and finish the school, they must sell the property. These schools are excess property and bring in no revenue and cost money in upkeep. Steve LaGree stated he is a real estate agent in Hermosa Beach and has built and sold more than a dozen 25xl00 foot lots in the last year. He stated he has had nothing but compliments on them. He has had no complaints about the size of these houses. Henry Rado, 720 24th Street, wished to emphasize everyone's need for open space. He also addressed the issue of 50 foot and 75 foot lots being broken up where people have built nice homes on these lots and wish them to be maintained that way. Harold Spear, 50 10th Street, did not feel that the Planning Commission could make a proper decision without having the people who are involved --the City Council and the Planning Director --present at this meeting. Comm. Compton stated that from his view of the maps, there is a definite mistake on the planning map which he had which was probably the map used throughout the negotiations. So he stated that he could understand how a mistake could have been made. Mr. Spear replied that the people involved in the mistake should be here to testify. Mrs. Burt stated that she wished to make a couple of clarafications. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 11 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) The school did not sacrafice the school land. The school, by state law, is required to give one-third of its propeity to the City when a school is closed. She stated she has not heard of any being given. She stated the City has given to the School District 98,470 square feet by closing streets to enlarge the school sites. She has not heard that the School District, which did not pay for the land, is giving that land back to the City. Therefore, she does not feel the School District is being cheated. The public hearing was closed at 9:56 P.M. Comm. Peirce wished to point out that Prospect School is boardered only on the east side by R-1 zoning. The others are R-2. He stated that the Planning Commission, in years passed, made an effort to rezone that area to R-2 with little success and with a lot of public reaction. He felt that if they left that piece of property in the middle of the block R-1, they would be accused of having a finger of R-1 zoning in an R-2 area. If they rezoned the five lots in question which are now open space to R-1, the same thing could be said. Comm. Peirce felt that to be consistant with the surrounding area, it has to be zoned R-2. He said that he didn't like that idea, but he felt the only reasonable solution is to zone it R-2 PD, which gives the City power over how the project is going to look. Comm. Peirce felt the financial issue is secondary as far as the City is concerned. If the City allows the addition of more buildings on 25 foot lots, this practice will be continuing, and he didn't feel this was a good thing. Therefore, he recommended zoning this property to R-2 PD. Comm. Sheldon said that there was an error on both sides and that the lots should be zoned to something to allow the School Board to sell it. He stated that the Planning Commission has spent many meetings discussing their anxiety towards 25 foot lots and how to preclude them. And he didn't feel there should be an exception in this case. He felt, unlike the developer, that the land was worth as much in 30 foot lots as it is in 25 foot lots, or very close. He doesn't feel the school sacrafices very much money, if any. He felt the development potential fo(30 foot lots as opposed to 25 foot lots is substantially better. Comm. Sheldon recommended that the property be zoned for development, but that they all be zoned for 30 foot lots. He stated that he would like to fashion a recommendation that would allow the developer to build 13 single family residences on 30 foot lots. Chmn. Izant calculated that, including the five lots in question, it is possible to get approximately 12 30-foot wide lots which are 3,000 square feet apiece. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by ComI11. Schulte, to recommend that the City Council zone this property R-2 PD with a maximum of 12 units. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 12 PRO S P EC T HEIGHT S SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN T (Con t.) Comm. Peirce felt that these property owners should have the same rights as the surrounding property owners, which is the right of R-2 to the density of which their lots can be developed. And he felt that restricting the property to 12 units was depriving them of proper development of that property. Comm. Sheldon, after a recalculation of the area of the property, amended his motion to R-2 PD to a maximum of 13 units. Comm. Schulte, as the seconder, accepted the amendment. Comm. Compton did not concur with the motion because he felt that the 30 foot frontages would still take parking off the street and would not utilize PD to its maximum potential. He felt that if there was an access that ran through the property from Hollowell to Gentry and all the houses actually opened on to that access, there is some potential to get all the curb cuts off both streets. And as a result, you could possibly put more than 17 units on this property. CoinP:l. Compton did not He did not feel 3,000 planned development. reasonable than 12 or like the limitation of units in the motion. square foot parcels were needed with a He felt anywhere from 16 to 18 lots was more 13. Comm. Peirce stated he was in favor of lower density but argued the logic of defending 13 units if there was a call on the finding of the Resolution. Chmn. Izant stated that that was the same logic that was used and sustained by the court to reduce the number of units of 104 stacked flats at the boat yard down to 75, which was also an R-2 planned development. The legal maximum for that area was 104 units, but the City felt that the traffic in the area could not sustain 104 units and reduced it to 75. Chmn. Izant saw a similar parallel here. Comm. Sheldon stated that the reasons for his motion tonight were all the same reasons the Commission used in the combined lot ordinance discussion to preclude 25 foot lots. And that motion stated that although the School District should be allowed to develop, it should also conform to the redefinition of a standard lot, which was a 30 foot frontage and 3,000 square feet. Comm. Compton stated that he took exception to tonight's motion because they are not talking about R-1 property. And if they took it as R-2 property, they would get at least 24 units. Chmn. Izant restated what he called the "boat-yard argument" in that Hollowell and Gentry and 6th Streets are small streets. He stated that he drove to that area tonight and waited at the corner of Hollowell and 6th Streets for at least ten minutes waiting for cars to come up the street. It's a one way street and there is only parking on one side. He felt that it was wrong to zone that entire area R-2 in the first place. And the Commission would be further compounding the problem by developing this property to the maximum, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 13 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Chmn. Izant felt that preventing over-congestion could be legally defended. The traffic finding supports a lessor number of developments based on the size of the streets. Comm. Newton felt that there was also a defendable argument for no development on that site. She felt the property should be held in public trust. She recommended passing Alternative 1 and hope that the property won't be sold before the November election. Comm. Sheldon asked that the motion be restated and called for the question. Chmn. Izant stated that the motion is to rezone lots 5 through 12 and 23 through 31 to R-2 Planned Development with a limit of 13 units. Comm. Compton stated he had more discussion on the motion. Co mm. Sheldon withdrew his call for the question. Comm. Compton stated that maximum development of that property with an R-2 zoning would be 23 units. So he felt 17 units would certainly be much less than the maximum use of that property. He felt 12 or 13 is an underutilization of the property if it is going to be developed. He felt if the property was not going to be utilized to its fullest, he would rather see it unzoned. And in that respect, he would agree with Comm. Newton. Comm. Peirce stated he did not hear the general plan mentioned in the motion and asked whether it would be included in the motion or if it would be a subsequent motion. Comm. Sheldon stated he wished to include that in his motion since they would both have to be changed. Chmn. Izant clarafied that that would mean changing lots 5 through 12 and lots 23 through 31 from open space general plan to medium density general plan. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comrns. Sheldon, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. Comrns. Compton, Newton, and Peirce. Comm. Shapiro. None. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to rezone the property R-2 PD with a maximum of 17 units with a general plan of medium density. Comm. Sheldon asked Comm. Peirce if his motion meant that he would anticipate that a developer would develop with 25 foot lots. Comm. Peirce responded absolutely not. He would strongly suggest that the developer come in with an imaginative plan to utilize the area by grouping the housing so that there would be enough open space and backyard area to support a cluster type of development. Comm. Sheldon asked what approval rights PD gave the Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 14 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Commission. Upon what criteria could the Planning Commission reject a developer's plan. Chmn. Izant stated that if the Planning Commission didn't like it, they could turn it down. They did not have to have a legal finding. Comm. Sheldon asked Comm. Compton if he thought 17 lots on this amount of property could be utilized in such a way as not to violate the spirit which the Planning Commission had set up in their discussion regarding combined lots. Comm. Compton replied that he did not see a discrepancy because they are talking about R-2 property. Combined lots are all R-1 areas. Comm. Sheldon stated that they did not differentiate between R-2 and R-1 in the combined lot ordinance. They only differentiated in R-3 property. They precluded 25 foot lots from R-2 and R-1 property. Comm. Compton felt that what they discussed was that they didn't want 19 foot houses on 25 foot lots. By doing PD development, they would not have to allow row-house type development. He felt that 2,500 square feet is not an unreasonable amount of property to put a house on, but he would rather have it configured as a 50x50 foot lot than a 25xl00 foot lot. Comm. Peirce asked the Planning person to present a map to make sure the Commission knows what the general plan density is of the surrounding area. Chmn. Izant indicated that the entire area around the property is low density. The property in question does not have a density designation. Comm. Peirce indicated he was not aware that the surrounding area was low density. But he stated he still wished to go with his original motion. He felt this property could support higher than low density. Comm. Sheldon stated he would not support the motion because he felt bigger and more architecturally creative homes in this area would be to the benefit of Hermosa Beach. Comm. Compton stated that the dwelling units per acre for this motion would be 17.42. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Compton, Schulte, Peirce. Comms. Sheldon, Newton, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Shapiro. None. Motion by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to rezone the property R-2 with a maximum of 15 units with a general plan of medium density. Comm. Schulte pointed out that the Commission has stated, in past meetings, an opinion of a minimum lot size which was 30 foot frontage PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 15 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) and 3,000 square feet. Considering all the different motions that have been made, Comm. Schulte asked if the Commission had to reach a decision tonight. He stated that the whole issue tonight was based on an assumption that there was an error made, and he felt that perhaps someone on the City Council or Ms. Sapetto should comment on that. Comm. Peirce felt the error had no basis on the Commission's decision at this meeting. Comm. Schulte felt that there was still a question of whether five parcels of land should remain open space. Comm. Sheldon felt that an error had been made. Comm. Schulte felt that if this motion passed, it would not be consistant with the minimum lot width agreed upon by the Commission two weeks ago. Chmn. Izant felt that that was a valid point. Comm. Compton felt that with the PD, a reasonable development could be planned with 2,500 square foot lots as long as they are not developed into long, skinny lots. Comm. Schulte felt that the Commission should either be consistant with the guidelines they set down two weeks ago or approve zoning for the best maximum use --one or the other. Comm. Newton indicated that there was also much time spent over the discrepancy between the zoning map and the general plan and that the motion before the Commission now would only add to the problem of creating discrepancies between zoning and the general plan. This is another reason why she wouldn't support the motion. Comm. Compton called for the question. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Peirce. Comms. Newton, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Shapiro. Chmn. Izant stated that he had trouble with the motion because two weeks ago the Commission had been pretty firm on the limit of not less than 3,000 square feet for lots. Comm. Sheldon stated he would gladly restate his motion which followed the merged lot ordinance exactly. Comm. Peirce stated that when dealing with planned density, the lot size becomes meaningless. And if a developer is creative, he can make an area with 15 units per acre look nicer than planning 4,000 square foot lots. Comm. Sheldon concurred with Comm. Peirce that the development of 17 units might not mimic the 19 foot row-house effect because of the bulk of the land that the architect has to deal with. But that does not persuade him to vote for 17 units. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 16 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Comm. Compton stated that he went along with the 3,000 square feet decision because it seemed reasonable for that particular piece of property. He was not comfortable with 3,000 square feet and 30 foot frontages as being a requirement for further development when dealing with R-2 and R-3. He stated that it depends upon the configuration of the land. He felt 3,000 square feet is a good starting point and that the Commission can guage what they do based upon that figure. He would like to be able to say to a developer, "Plan quality development and we can give you a bonus of a couple of units." Comm. Schulte agreed with Comm. Compton's statement but pointed out that two weeks ago the Commission specifically talked about school sites, and there are only five school sites in Hermosa Beach. He --flet that 14 units would come very close to the guidelines set forth two weeks ago. Motion by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to rezone the property R-2 PD with a maximum of 14 units and a general plan of medium density. Comm. Schulte wished to point out that his motion appears not to damage the School District; two, it is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Commission two weeks ago; and, three, it is a compromise between 13 and 17 units. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Schulte, Sheldon, and Chmn. Izant. Comms. Compton, Newton, and Peirce. Comm. Shapiro. None. Chmn. Izant asked staff if it was the City's intent to buy the entire Prospect Heights School if Mello-Roos passes in November. Ms. Reardon-Crites responded no, not to her knowiedge. She stated that Alternative l was written as an escape clause in case the Planning Commission did not feel comfortable with rezoning. The City did not have any intension of buying the five lots in question or any of the other lots that weren't already purchased. Comm. Newton asked if Mello-Roos authorizes the City to purchase the school property should it desire to do so. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that as far as she knew, it included all of the school property and the railroad right-of-way. It could be a possibility, but the City has not expressed that interest. Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reconsider the motion which called for a maximum of 15 units. AYES, NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Newton. Comm. Shapiro. None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 17 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to rezone the property R-2 PD with a maximum of 15 units with a general plan density of medium. Comm. Sheldon asked Comm. Newton why she has continuously voted no on the motions. Comm. Newton stated that she was opposed to the sale of school properties and to the development of them. She feels it is an irreversible move. She did not feel the community should part with the property. She felt it was better to enter into a long-term lease for revenues needed. Comm. Compton asked how long it has been since the school site has been used as a public school There was a response from the audience of four years. Comm. Schulte felt that because 14 units would not financially hurt the school district and was in keeping with the Commission's decision on a minimum lot size, to increase the number of units above 14 was arbitrarily increasing density. Chmn. Izant asked Ms. Reardon-Crite~ if the Commission continues to have tie votes, would they be recommending to the City Council that they could not come to a decision. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the Commission could, in a sense, delegate its decision, which is not to make a decision, to the City Council. But she indicated that the City Council looks for direction from the Planning Commission. Comm. Newton felt that the failure to pass a motion would be a denial of the request and the applicant would have to appeal. Comm. Schulte asked why 14 lots was not suitable to the Commission. He felt it answered all the problems which the Commission had. It would not financially hurt the School Board, and it was in keeping with the Commission's decision on a minimum lot size. He did not understand why more lots needed to be put on the property. Comm. Peirce stated that they were putting a standard of development on the property which amounts to a certain number of units per acre. He felt that the concept of a lot disappears in that case and makes the argument of 3,000 square feet irrelevant when dealing with R-2 PD. He stated that the reason he was voting for higher density than R-1 was because each ·time they have tried to rezone the area to R-1, they got massive neighborhood resistance. Chmn. Izant called for the question. The current motion on the floor is for 15 units. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comrns. Sheldon, Compton, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comms. Newton and Schulte. Comm. Shapiro. None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 18 PROSPECT HEIGHTS SCHOOL REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Cont.) Motion by Comm. Peirce to approve Resolution P.C. 84-No. IV with the stipulation that section 4, line 26 be amended from "17 units for the overall site," to ''15 units for the overall site," and that an additional "whereas" be added to read as follows: "WHEREAS the Planning Commission has taken into account the surrounding zoning." Chmn. Izant accepted tha additional "whereas." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cornrns. Sheldon, Compton, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comrns. Newton and Schulte. Comm. Shapiro. None. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR REZONING OF SOUTH SCHOOL Chmn. Izant stated that the Planning Commission had a special meeting of August 27 to deal with the zoning of South School. The City Council had a meeting the next evening and took an opposite direction from the Planning Commission's recommendation. The question before the Commission tonight is whether the Commission wishes to reconsider their decision of August 27, 1984. Comm. Sheldon pointed out that during that special meeting Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission would be making a planning decision and not a financial decision. Comm. Sheldon stated that he would still recommend the same zoning that the Commission recommended August 27, whether Mello-Roos passes or fails. Comm. Peirce concurred with Comm. Sheldon. Chmn. Izant asked if there were any other opinions. Seeing none, he stated that the Planning Commission declines to take action in regard to their recommendation to the City Council. That recommendation will go forward. CITY COUNCIL DIRE CTIVE Chmn. Izant stated that the City Business Subcommittee would like to meet with a Planning Commission Subcommittee to discuss amending the Zoning Code as it pertains to C-Potential. He stated that the Commission would need to appoint two members to participate in this joint venture and asked who would like to volunteer. Comm. Compton stated that he would be interested in participating. Comrn. Peirce stated that he would participate. Chrnn. Izant stated that Comms. Peirce and Compton are appointed to participate in this joint venture. Chmn. Izant indicated that there were enough members present at this meeting to hold elections for officers of the Planning Commission to run from the present time until June 30, 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 19 ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to nominate Comm. Newton for the office of Secretary. There were no other nominations. Comm. Newton accepted the office of Secretary. ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE OF VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to nominate Comm. Peirce for the office of Vice-Chairman. There were no other nominations. Comm. Peirce accepted the office of Vice-Chairman. ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN OF THE PLAJ\TNING COMMISSION Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to nominate Chmn. Izant for the office of Chairman. There were no other nominations. Chmn. Izant accepted the office of Chairman. Comm. Sheldon asked why they were having a Planning Commission meeting with only one item on the agenda. Comm. Newton responded that it was a big item. Comm. Sheldon asked that instead of having 17 items on the agenda at one meeting and only one item on the agenda at another meeting, they should try to balance the amount of items on the agenda to better utilize the meeting. Comm. Schulte stated that this meeting would last until 10:30, which is a proper adjourning time. The problem is when meetings last until 3:00 o'clock in the morning, and something should be done differently then. He felt that if there were three more agenda items tonight, they would be here until 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Comm. Newton stated that if the downtown plan had also been on the agenda, the people who wished to speak at the public hearing would have had to have been here until 10:30 before they would have gotten an opportunity to speak. Chmn. Izant felt that Comm. Sheldon does raise a good point. The original agenda for tonight had the Land Use Element and the Downtown Plan included in it. And at the last moment these two had to be cancelled. So there originally were three items on the agenda. Comm. Sheldon asked if the staff would provide an anticipated agenda for a period of time so that the issues do not stack up. Chmn. Izant stated that he flet the anticipated agenda plan was a good idea. But he stated it was hard to add items to the agenda when other items are cancelled because of the public noticing procedure. Motion to adjourn at 10:18 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 page 20 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meeting of September 4, 1984.