Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 1977_12_12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON. MONDAY, DECEt~BER 12, 1977, AT 7:30 P.M . . Meeting called to order at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: • Absent: Also present: Comm .. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz Comm. Loosli, Schubert Rod Merl, Planning Director; Ed Putz, City Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by . Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes ,of the November 28, 1977, meeting as corrected: Page 5: Condo Study, Item 3. 11 consistency of a condominium conversion'' Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz None Corrm. Loosli, Schubert APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded b,y Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 77-64, as submitted.· Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Bishop, Peirce, Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz None Comm. Loosli, Schubert TRAFFIC CIRCULATION DISCUSSION . Mr. Merl had available aerial photographs of major intersections c. 1973. and Auto Club pamphlets an traffic engineering. He showed slides of Pier and Manhattan Avenues, Five Corners, Second Street and Pacific Coast Highway, and Eights Street and Pacific ,coast Highway intersectio·ns. Mr. Putz, City Engineer, discussed the intersection of Pier and Manhattan with its existing problem being the distance across the intersection because of the angle of the two streets; and the proposed remegi~s, e.g.,_planters or p~inted areas at both Manhattan approaches to create 90 1ntersect1ons, and a painted median on Pier. He said there will be two lanes each way on Pier after the alterations. He said this intersection has not been an accident site. Chmn. Fritz suggested no-left-turn signs from Pier to Manhattan Avenue both ways. Comm. Peirce said he is not in favor of changing the intersection since it has not bee a problem, and the changes will create more places where the driver must make decisions. Comm. Bishop said she favors the change for pedestrian safety. Comm. Rosenberger said he is in favor because it channels the traffic, is safer for pedestrians, and planters will beautify the street. Chmn. Fritz suggested experimenting with the painted areas first; raised planters and/or left-hand turn signals can be added later. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -December 12, 1977 page ·2 Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Bishop, to encourage staff to proceed based on the drawings presented; to try painted areas first with the possibility of planters later; to have visual monitoring both before and after the changes are effected to see what kind of problems are created; and to present to City Council for concurrence. Ayes: Noes: .Absent: Comm. Bishop, Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz Comm,. Pei rc ·e Comm. Loosli, Schubert Mr. Putz discussed former suggestions for signalization at such intersections as Second and Hermosa, Tenth and Hermosa, Pier-Valley-Ardmore, etc., and said that money 'has bee ·n budgeted for some traffic signals. Mr. Merl suggested a pedestrian activa.ted light at .2nd and 8th Street on Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Bishop proposed that the subject go to the Development Subcommittee for stu y of a complete, interrelated plan. So ordered by Chmn. Fritz. Comm. Peirce raised the subject of lack -of signs telling people where they may or may not park near parks and recreational facilities. Motion by Chmn. Fritz, seconded by Comm. Rosenberger, to ask Parks and Recreation Department and the City Engineer to look into parking problems near the parks an.d near Clark Stadium, reporting back to the Planning Commission; and to defer work on the Circulation Element until the study is returned from the Development Subcommittee. So ordered. Comm. Bishop asked that staff research the handlin.g of skateboard problems by other -beach cities, and Chmn. Fritz asked for information on any state laws regarding skaetboards on dedicated streets. FOURTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS Mr. Merl ·said there have been a considerable numbe .r of changes in the program; staff recommended taking testimony in public hearing but deferring decisions until finalized guidelines are available from the County. Public hearing opened 8:33 p.m. Larraine Roberts, 1656 Bayview Drive, asked if the City has received Community Development Funds in the past. Mr. Merl said first year funds were for planning grants, but the City did not participate; second-and third-year funds were designated for acquisition of Pier Avenue School, and no commitments have been made for fourth-year funds. Mrs. Roberts said she was opposed to using the funds for any type of housing. Public hearing continued to the next regular meeting on January 9, 1978 (8:39 p.m.) . 1510 STRAND Modification of landscaping request from Homeowners• Association of a 7-unit condominium. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -December 12, 1977 page 3 Mr. Merl showed slides and the Homeowners' Association presented snapshots of the changed areas. Mr. Merl said the original landscaping plan was approved by the Planning Commission about 1973 or 1974; any desired modifications should be presented to both the Planning Commission and the Coastal Commission for consider- ation and approval. He said the Coastal Commission has a superior jurisdiction and they looked at this project very carefully in the beginning; they have very stiff penalties for violation of .the conditions. Comm. Peirce said the block wall looks higher than the 12 11 approved. Chmn. Fritz said an alteration has been made in the common area; in the eyes of state law, the owners have agreed to the CC&R's and the responsibility is that of the Homeowners' Association. He said the city is obligated by state law to e,nforce the CC&R I s as agreed upon. He said he feels the wa 11 may be on city property, and the staircase is not shown on the plans. John □angora, 1510 Strand, said the wall was not built on the Strand; it has a foundation. He said the stain,/ay is portable, and is bolted down; it was done by two of the homeowners. He said the landscaped area was in iceplant and was turning into a refuse area; the Homeowners' Association met and decided to make it more attractive; one of the owners is in ·the real estate business, who said a permit is not required because there is no structure involved. Mrs. Dangora said the Homeowners' Association held meetings over a period of six months discussing the change, with the purpose of improving the front of the building for the neighborhood and for the use of the owners. She said that there had been a meeting with the first four owners, with a lawyer present; they were given papers at that ti me which were very hard to read; and that there was no follow-up meeting. She said almost •everyone comes to the Homeowners' Association meetings, and that nobody knows what the original plans were. Comm. Rosenberger said the Planning Commission is put in the position of being asked to approve a change after it has been made, which may be considered a precedent by other Homeowners I Associations; he does not consi ,der this change 11 landscaping'' and does not find it tota 1 ly attractive; it has destroyed the initial concept of the need for landscaping; the pictures are not totally accurate in scope, with a minimal amount of planting and tile, and a lot of concrete, w-ith the 11 before 11 picture taken off in a sideyard. He said he believes th ·e Coastal Zone Commiss.io.n will look at this, too,, and should have input. Chmn. Fritz said the testimony states that the change was made in good faith. He suggested that the Homeowners• Association meet with Mr. Merl to jointly present this to ·the Coastal Commission. He requested that it be rescheduled for the first meeting after receiving a response from the Coastal Commission, and in the interim, that the ·Planning Commission schedule a walk-around with a member of the Building ·Oepartment to compare plans with existing conditions; and also that the City Attorney be consulted as to the· respon,sibility of the developer, including his responsibility for informing the owners. REZONING REVIEW Comm. Pei r ,ce reported for the Zoning Subcorrmi ttee on the review of zoning in the vicinity of Second Street and Hermosa Avenue. He said two members reconmended that the area remain R-3, and one member recommended rezoning to R-2; all conc urred that the first four lots (from 2nd Street) remain C-1. :PLANNING C0~1~1ISS ION ~1INUTES -December 12, 1977 page 4 Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Bishop, to return to the City Council the Commission's concurrence of change to R-3 maintaining the northern four lots of the area under consideration as C-1; however, the Commission feels that it would be misleading to approve this w~1tt1out taking action on the proposed changes in the R-3 zoning ordinance previously sent to the City Council by this body. The change to R-3 brings this property into consistency with the General Plan, and will encourage development to high density residential standards through combination of existing lots. Ayes: Comm. Bishop, Peirce (although he felt this concurrence should not have been coupled with the proposed R-3 zone changes), Rosenberger, Chmn. Fritz Noes: None Absent: Comn. Loosli, Schubert CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Merl presented a slide re -view of existing condominiums built within the last two years, and responses received to the questionnaires and letters. Comm. Rosenberger reviewed the list of concerns comp1 iled by the Condominium subcommittee. Mr. r~erl will write a letter to the City Attorney asking him to review techniques for insuring that responsibilities are carried put, and particularly asking for a definition of the responsibilities of the developer. A subcommittee meeting was scheduled for ~Jednesday, December 21, at 7:30 a.m. Mr. Merl proposed research into the problem of enforcing CC&R 1 s, a legal document, and suggested the possibility .of a meeting with Mr. Ro,ss or Mr. Rawls. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Merl advised the Commissioners of the course for Planning Commissioners on January 26-27 in Anaheim. He said the meeting with the District Attorney has not yet been scheduled. COMMISSIONERS I ITEf~S Comm. Peirce asked staff to research the number of structures by natural causes within the past five years. destroyed over 50% . Comm. Peirce requested that a second communication be sent to the City Council in regard to fences built on city property on walk streets, pointing out that they create a liability for the city, and that public right-of-way is being denied to the public. " Chmn. Fritz suggested that the Planning · Conmission write an article for the quarterly newsletter informing people of the responsibilities of condominium ownership and the proper modification procedures, using information published by the state law and the State Department of Real Estate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -December 12, 1977 page 5 A Development Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for December 27, 1977, at 7:30 a.m. Meeting adjourned 10:45 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved by the Planning Commission on January 9, 1977. r:/M PEIRCE,SECRETARY DATE