Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1977_11_28' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH,, ON MDNDAY, NOVEMBE,R 28, 1977, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:34 p .m. by ·Chairman Fritz. ROLL CALL Present: Comm . Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn . Fritz Absent: Comm . Loosli Also Present: Rod Merl, Director of Planning & Environmental Services APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~1otion by Comm . Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve the minutes of November 14, 1977, as submitted . Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Comm . Pei, rce ,, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli Con1m . Bi shop With the ·concurrence of the Commissioners, Chmn. Fritz moved the public hearing to Item 3 since the people in the audience were not aware of the change of time to 8:30 p.m . for public hearings. PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE Proposed zone change from R-2 to R-1 for area bounded by Prospect Avenue, Seventh Street, and the eastern city boundary. (continued) f4r. Merl reviewe,d previous action of November 14, 1977, when the statistical summary of uses in the area were considered and public testimony received; a member of the audience then requested continuance to this meeting. Mr . Merl said there is no new information to be introduced at this time . Public hearing opened 7:41 p.m. Lois Sterret, 442-444 Hollowell Avenue, said she has an ex-sting duplex which is non-conformin ,g in parking; she .bought the duplex to supplement her income in order to pay the mortgage; and opposed the zone change. Frank Secan, 1204 -6th Street, said his contention was, and is, that downzoning takes money out of the pockets of homeowners; he consulted a profes~ional appraiser who confirmed th ,at ;·t v1as worth more as R-2 than R-1 .. He pointed out that no one has spoken in favor of the zone change, and asked if copies were available to the public of statistics being quoted. Mr. Merl said they a.re ava ·ilable in the Planning Department. Marsha Andry, 521 Gentry, asked information concerni _ng her single family dwelling on a split lot and was advised to contact Planning or Building Departments . She said she, opposes the zone change. Karen Daily, 1622 Bayview Drive, said she is a professional realtor and the value of a non-conforming building is not that of a legal building; and that a single family home is not neces ,sarily more desirable than units . PLANNING COM .MISSION MINUTES -November 28, 1977 page 2 Jim Johnson, 1203 and 1218 -6th Street, said no one has spoken in favor of the zone change, and he feels the Commission should be representing the people who live there. Comm. Peirce said the Commission represents the city as a whole. Mr. Johnson said they bought for a ~pecific purpose and that will be taken away from th.em; he opposed the zone change. Charles Positer, 608 Hollowell, said he bought a legal duplex in April; the money is important as he could't have bought his first 'home otherwise; he feels the people there are trying to protect their interests and the area wi 11 not be hurt by remaining R-2; and he opposes the zone change. Don Sellers, 320 Prospect, said he has two lots totalling about 60' x 120 1 with a home across the lot line; may want to add another unit as a safeguard against inflation and increasing taxes; many people will have to build another unit to afford to live in the city; he is a real estate broker, and he said he necessarily opposes the zone change. He said it is an important factor that people in R-1 zones, although they too have tax increases, bought R-1 property intentionally, while those in the R-2 zones planned on having· R-2 potential. Chmn. Fritz asked if anyone in the audience had just come in, due to the public hearing being scheduled at 8:30. No one responded. Public hearing closed 8:34 p.m. Comm. Rosenberger said he has heard the public testimony, but the question in this area, as in others, is whether it will be done now or five years from now; if it remains R-2, it will be sold as R-2, making further development necessary to pay the mortgage. He said the area hasn 1 t changed much in the past 10-15 years; is over 80% developed as R-1; and to leav~ it as R-2 will ·necessarily change it. He said it is necessary to effect consistency between the General Plan and zoning; he feels zoning is the one that should be changed; and he will vote for the proposed zone change. Comm. Bishop said she does not see the benefit of R-2 in terms of taxes; and whi ·l ·e it may be a benefit at time of sale, it is a disadvantage to the city in terms of density, noise, and traffic; the ci·ty would lose in the long run. Comm. Peirce said public testimony brought out three main points of concern: (1) monetary, (2) loss of faith in the c.ity, (3) increased value of property or stemming inflation; but he felt people could not conceive of an area increasing in ,density by 46%. He said he did not feel it a valid argument that condominium owners would replace renters; and he noted that only one speaker ·said that he liked living in the area. He said he would vote for the zone change. Comm. Schubert said peop,le seem to feel that we should guarantee their invest- ment and we cann.ot be concerned wi ·th that, othen-1ise nothing at all could be done. He said this, is the first time the city has had an opportunity to do long-term planning with an area that is really developed as R-1; but he is very concerned that no one came to speak in favor,; and he noted the necessity which still exists of bringing the General Plan and zoning into consistency. He said he would vote against the change, not because it is bad, but due to the fact that no one spoke in favor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 28, 1977 page 3 Chmn. Fritz said the City Council was elected on a platform of reduced dens ·ity, which reflects the feelings of 4 to 6,000 voters; but every time an attempt is made in a specific area, the people who have a vested interest there oppose it, justifiably because they feel that it will have an adverse financial impact. He asked whether the Commission was to represent the electorate or the few who come to oppose. He proposed continuing the item for two reasons: to have a full Commission, and to explore the possibility of having a referendum. Comm. Rosenberger opposed the idea of waiting for a referemdum and said he felt is is the Commissions responsibility to act in light of the studies made and testimony taken, although he ·had no objection to waiting for attendance of a full Commission. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schubert,to vote on the issue at the meeting. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert Chmn. Fritz Comm. Loosli Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve the proposed zone change from R-2 to R-1 in the area bounded by 7th Place on the north, Prospect Avenue on the west and south, and the-city boundary on the east. Comm. Schubert said this area in terms of being R-2 is not so bad as the lots are not so small as most lots in town. Comm. Rosenberger commented on a remark from the audience that the city is not so bad and has been getting better construction here within the last five or six years, finding this a reflection of the developing codes and standards effected within that time period. He said based on that, the Planning Commission should view their actions as progress and not as drawbacks. Vote on motion above: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz Comm. Schubert Comm. Loosli Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Peirce, to adop 1t Resolution P.C.77-64 approving the change from R-2 to R-1 in the area for the following reasons: That the change establishes consistincy between general plan a.nd zoning; That this is consistent with current area development patterns; That it maintains the area's present stability as a single-family neighborhood (77-84% of the lots are developed as single family, and only 15% as R-2); That it reduces potential for future dev~lopment in the area; That it maintains the present ·environmental conditions regarding light, air, air circulation as well as usable open space, all of which would be detrimentally affected under R-2 standards; and That it lessens potential future impact of noise, traffic, utility and public service demands, and on-street parking congestion. Public testimony was received in two public hearings totalling 1hr 50111in. Ayes: Noes: Absent: I ' ' . Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz Comm. Schubert Comm. Loosli PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 28,1977 page 4 The audience was advised of the right of appeal, and that the City Council would be holdintj public hearings on this item. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Conm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 77-53, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Schubert, to approve Resolution P.C. 77-56, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. S,chubert, to approve Resolutions P.C. 77-58.77-59,77-62,77-63, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Comm. Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None • Comm. Loosli Comm. Bishop Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 77-57 as amended: 5th Whereas 11 ••• or by the city by allowing this project to be developed condominium s.ince lot, unit size, and recreation areas are minimal; and Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loos 1 i as a 11 Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 77-60 as amended: 4th Whereas 11 ••• community social trends;and 11 Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Comm. Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli Comm. Bishop Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 77-61, as corrected: 3 d Wh II • l • f. II r • ereas ... s1mp , 1es ... Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Comm. Peirce, Rosenberger, Schu :bert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli Comm. Bishop • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-November 28,1977 page 5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT Mr. Merl said at the time the Circulation Element was prepared, it failed to deal with problems such as Five Corners, 2nd and Pacific Coast Highway, and several other areas. He said staff will have the changes in the Element to propose and asked for consideration of necessary changes to the Planning Commission. • Chmn. Fritz requested that the following areas, among others, be considered: Page 1. Page 2. Page 3. Page 4. Lines 27,28,29 Definitions of 11 arterial, collector, and local'·1 streets Lines 15and 27 -report on what has been done Lines 2-6 -Reports on what has been done. Mr. Merl described the proposed realignment of Manhattan and Pier Avenues i,ntersection with an overlay illustrati-on of the present alignment and proposed changes. Chmn. Fritz concurred W'ith the pro ·posal except that he recommended no left turns be allowed from Pier onto Manhattan in either direction. Comm. Schubert proposed that it be tried as illustrated, and no-left-turn restriction added later if deemed necessary. Mr. M,erl S'ugges ted i nvi ting the City Engineer to attend the next meeting at 7:30 p.m. to address these and other questions. Comm. Peirce requested that the City Engineer bring a coun,t of the frequency of left turns from Pi er onto Manhattan. Comm. Schubert requested that the subject of a .walk light at Pier and Valley be added to that agenda. CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE STUDY Mr. Merl supplied copies of the condominium ordinances from Costa Mesa, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach and said he would obtain for the Commissioners copies of the survey letters being sent out to condominium owners, residents and developers. Ideas submitted by the Subcommittee are: 1. send out questionnaires to condominium dwellers, owners and builders 2. Areas of particular concerA: a. ground level open space with common area b. no fences dividing the common area c. need for relating buildings to lot in terms of placement d. relation of width to height e. minimum unit sizes f. condominium owners rather than renters g. ground level storage areas h. letter to the State Department of Real Estate with questions concerning zone changes, maintenance, CC&R's, two-and th,ree-unit condominiums Comm. Peirce said he feels the most improtant of these issues are (2) d and g., Chmn. Fritz added to the list: 1. consistency in demand for smoke detectors 2. the effect of a zone change on an :~existing condominium --spell out exactly 3. concern about new state legislation which says consistency of a condo - minium with the General Plan is not required PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 28, 1977 page 6 4. enforcement of CC&R's 5. relate condominium permit issuance to vacancy rate 6. regulation of antennas 1124-26 -17TH STREET Lot split review. Mr. Merl said the City Attorney has requested that the Plan- ning ,commission review the ,enclosed materials regarding a lot split that was made by the city in 1963, but without recordi.ng the split. Motion by Chmn. Fritz, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to concur with the evidence that a lot split was legally done in the past at 1124-26 -17th Street, and it is now as described by that act. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Schubert, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli SCREENING OF ROOF VENTS Comm. Rosenberger requested that an ordinance be wr .itten consistently requiring of roof vents. So ordered. REZONING REFERRAL Rezoning of the block bounded by 2nd Street, Palm Drive, Hermosa Avenue, and 1st Street, referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council for recommendati o,n. Chmn. Fritz requested that staff look into the whole area and consider appro- priate zoning as related to the surrounding areas; and that the zoning sub- committee consider recommendations and report out at the next reg .ular meeting. The Zoning Subcommittee agreed to meet Wednesday, December 7, at 7:30 a.m. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Chmn. Fritz asked for comments in reference to referendums on zone changes. Comm. Rosenberger said it is easy for one person to defeat a zone change by campaigning on decreased property values; and that the Commission is able to look into statistics, overall planning and receive testimony, while the indi- vidual voter often does not attempt to get facts. Comm. Schubert said he would like to get a feel of how the community feels about these issues. Comm. Bishop said voters would receive less information on a ballot that the Commissioners receive, and that the majority would be voting about an area they do not live in. Comm. Peirce suggested giving the ava-lable statistics in the present noticing system by adding to the mailer that is now used. Comm. Schubert suggested that the Biltmore site be used for a park until a decision for its permanent use is made. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 28, 1977 page 7 STAFF REVIEWS Mr. Merl suggested that at least one Planning Commission attend City Council meetings at which Planning Commission items are on the agenda. Mr. Merl said in response to questions from the Commission, that Shenanigans and Media Arts would be advised of the communication from the City Attorney. Coastal Exclusion --Mr. Merl said he will have copies for Planning Commission members, and that it will become effective when the City Council resolution is acknowledged by the Coastal Zone Commission and the necessary forms signed. Meeting adjourned 11:05 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that :.the foregoing minutes were approved by the Pl,anning Commission at their regular meeting of December 12, 1977. MIKE FRITZ, CHAIRMAN JIM PEIRCE, SECRETARY DATE