State Allows Lawndale to OK New Buildings Under Old Zoning Law

State officials have given development in Lawndale a green light by allowing the city to issue building permits for one year under a 1976 General Plan that was invalidated by voters in November.

The decision by the state Office of Planning and Research alleviates a serious development problem that arose when voters rejected the city’s 1976 General Plan, which governs all zoning and development in the city. The issue was put on the ballot to resolve a controversy over the validity of the 1976 plan.

The vote left Lawndale without a valid General Plan and, as a result, city officials temporarily stopped issuing o building permits. State law requires cities to have an up-to-date General Plan before they can issue building permits. Lawndale officials have been developing a new General Plan, but it is not finished.

Jack Ferguson, a principal planner with the state office, said the director of planning and research decided last Friday to temporarily allow the city to issue building permits under the 1976 General Plan to give city officials time to prepare an up-to-date plan for voter consideration.

He said the state usually gives such temporary relief to cities that have just been incorporated and have yet to approve a General Plan. He said the dilemma surrounding Lawndale’s General Plan is unusual.

“We don’t run across that every day,” he said.

Ferguson said a letter was sent last week to City Atty. David Aleshire, notifying the city that the state had approved its application to continue issuing building permits under the 1976 General Plan. But, because Aleshire is on vacation until Jan. 2, most city officials learned about the decision in calls this week from reporters.

City officials expressed surprise at the swiftness of the state’s decision and relief that city development can continue.

“I’m just glad we don’t have to wait any longer, and we can go ahead and do business,” said Councilman Larry Rudolph.

City Manager Jim Arnold said he was happy to hear about the state’s decision but said he has yet to receive official notice. “It’s good news, but it’s difficult to comment because I don’t know what kind of conditions” the state has imposed, he said.

According to Ferguson, the city must adhere to one condition: In order to approve discretionary measures--such as rezoning applications, special-use permits and zoning variances--the city must make a written finding that the measures will be consistent with the General Plan and current zoning.

“I think we can live with that,” Rudolph said of the conditions. The state’s decision apparently also gave the go-ahead to a new set of condominium building standards, whose approval had prompted some protest earlier this month from Mayor Sarann Kruse and Councilwoman Carol Norman.

On Dec. 7 the City Council approved the application, asking the state to temporarily continue issuing building permits based on the zoning standards of the 1976 General Plan.

Included in that application was the condominium standards, which were designed to encourage the building of condominiums as a replacement for the city’s aging apartment stock. The standards would eliminate the required minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for condominiums. Instead, the minimum lot size for apartments would apply, giving builders the option of putting condominiums on lots where the only alternative had been apartments or single-family dwellings.

Kruse and Norman objected to including the revised condominium standards in the application, saying the city had advertised the wrong date for the hearing on them.

Kruse insisted the standards would “significantly impact the city” and said an accurately publicized hearing is needed on the issue. Kruse was out of town this week and could not be reached for comment.

In an interview Thursday, Norman said she is “very disappointed” that the condominium standards were not rejected by the state.

“It may end up in litigation again,” she warned.

Some residents objected to the revised standards, saying they are inconsistent with the 1976 General Plan, which set the minimum condominium lot size at 10,000 square feet.

Ferguson said the state included the condominium standards in its approval but did not specifically address the debate about whether an accurately publicized hearing was required before the council approved the standards.

He said the state also is permitting the City Council to decide whether the revised standards are consistent with the General Plan.

“We are going to leave it up to the city to make those decisions,” he said.

In an interview earlier this month, Assistant Atty. Gen. Allan Ashby had agreed the condominium standards may be challenged in court because they were approved without an accurately publicized hearing. He said a judge could find the standards invalid because a publicized hearing was not held.

Steve Mino, a vocal opponent of the condominium standards, said he objects because the standards will allow developers to overbuild small lots and “take the lawn out of Lawndale.” He would not rule out filing a lawsuit against the city.

Rudolph--who submitted the condominium standards covering all multifamily residential zones-- has supported the standards, saying they will spur renewal of the city’s dilapidated apartments.