HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1961_04_10MI.NUfE,S OF THE. REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEA.CH, held at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California, April 10, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL~ Present -CollDD.. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Vianlt. Absent •Comm.Locken. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, and on motion by • Conun. Black, seconded by Comm. HaJ.es, minutes of the March 13, 196],,meeting w:ere unanimQusly approved. . . ' MR. AND MR.So LELAND MOSER Public hearing on application for zine variance of Mr. and Mrs. Leland Moser to perm.it 3' rear yard in lieu of 5' and encroachment of a planter 5' into the required 5, northerly sideyard, planter to vary in height from 2½' to 5', at 130-lOth Street, Lots 1 and 2, Tract 1564. Applicants were present. Their architect, Mr. L. A. Young, spoke in their behalf. Plans for a proposed apartment house to b·e erected at this address were submitted and studied by the Commissioners. Motion by Comm. Johnson to grant the variance, seconded by CQilllll. Fredricks, carried as follows: ms: NOES.: ABSENT: Comm.Black, Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Hales and Johnson. Co.mm.o Locken. Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-319, granting this petition for the reasons that the encroachment presents no difficulty; any future development in that area will be taken care of by the builder as far as the sidewalk is concerned, and the turning radius will be. of a substantial nature to indicate to the Commission that it will be of negligible importance to deny this request; any problem necessitated by the variance for the planter would be compensated by the development and placement of a sidewalk in that area; the planter itself does n.Qt encro.ach past the 5' and will aid in beautifying the area; the major reason for maintaining a clear 51 sideyard is for accessibility by the fire department around the building, and this is guaranteed by the roadway, so the main reason for accessibility is n9t impaired. COJDn1.Fredricks seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOE.S: ABSENT: Comm. Bla<:k, Fredricks, Noble and Chai.rman. Viau.It. Comm, Ha1es and Johnson. Comm.. Locken. It was unanimously agreed at this point to consider Item 3 on the.agenda after other items had been disposed of.
Planning Commission 2 April 10, 1961 MAURICE BENATOR -Front Setback on Pacific Coast Highway Letter from Mark Wood, Attorney at Law, relative. to request of Mr. Maurice Benator, 2455-2463 Pacific Coast Highway, that Commission review and study front setback on Pacific Coast Highway in that area. Mr. Wood and his client were present. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Benator had complied with the request for a setback on the highway when he had erected the commercial. building there; he understood that·under the present zoning, no front setback would be required, which, in his opinion, would be detrimental to bis property; therefore_, his reqt1est that the Commission study this matter with regard to a possible traffic hazard which might be created if structures· were permitted to the front property line south of Mr. Benator' s building, asking the Commission for advice as to whether or not any action should be taken at this ti.meo He said that the attitude of neighboring property owners was being explored and that Mr. Benator would like to know the feelings of the Planning Commission. Commo Johnson expressed his approval of the setback on Mr~ Benator's property and his wish that adjoining property owners would meet approximately the same setback that is existing. Comm. Noble said in his opinion Mr. Benator had established a very good precedent in that area, and he would go along in maintaining that in case anything came before the Commission in the future. CoDDn. Fredricks stated that he felt there was merit in Mr. Benator' s position but before expressing his opinion, he would want to hear any arguments in opposition. Comm. Black said there would probably be an urgent appeal to move to the property line but that he would like to. see the setback that has been established be carried out in that area. Comm. Hales felt the traffic situation to be hazardous and Mr. Benator's thought to be very reasonable. Chairman Viault moved that Mr. Wood's letter be received and filed. Comm. Fredricks seconded the motion,which carried unanimously. HERBmT E. SWIT.z.ER Application for zone amendment of Herbert E. Switzer to change Lots 13 and 15, Block 108, Shakespeare Tract, 2719 Makattan Avenue, from R-3 to C-1, referred back to Commission from City Council for full hearing, without recommendation. Petition was denied by Commission March 13, 1961, by Resolution No. P. C. 154-316, and heard by the Council on appeal April 4, 1961. Mr. Switzer produced a proposed parking plan eliminating the necessity of going down Palm Drive. Twenty-eighth Place is not heavily traveled, he said, and this plan would eliminate a broken curb at 2.7th and 28th Place; the two garages now there would be demolished and an unbroken curb would run along Manhattan Avenue between 27th and 28th Place. Hi.s contractor, William Buckland, said that he had recently built a duplex for Mr. Switzer on the lot to the west of the subject property and that his trucks parked on 27th Street had to be seldom moved because of traffic conditions there. The prospective tenant for the proposed coll!llercial building, Mr. Hall, stated that his automatic laundry business would require no deliveries or commercial vehicles, and that there would not at any time be a great number of cars parked there. Comm. Fredricks noted at this point that if the area were rezoned to C-1, any use permitted in that classifipation would be acceptable, and that consequently the fact that a laundromat was proposed there would not determine the decision.
Planning Commission Switz.er Contd 3 April 10, 1961 There was further discussion as to possible changes in the plan submitted to accommodate a building and parking, Comm. Black expressing his view that this property probably should be ~ommercial but that a definite plan for offstreet parking that would not increase any traffic on Manhattan Avenue or 28th Place should be worked out. He suggested changing the plan to throw all traffic onto 27th Street. However, Mr. Switzer answ_ered that this would not provide enough building. Chairman-Viault explained the ordinance prohibiting the rezoning of any one lot, adding that there should be the proper study to determine whether a two or three block area should be granted such a privilege. In view of the fact that there is already so much commercial in the area, Mr. Switzer said, he had asked for this zone change. Comm. Noble noted the additional offstreet parking that would b~ provided, including a two,,;.car garage and 5 parking spaces, the laundromat proposed probably not requiring all these spaces, since the clientele will be walking people to a large degree. He also called attention to the collllllercial already in the area. Comm. Fredricks moved that the petition be granted. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black and Noble. • Comm. Hales, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm.. Loe keno Comm. Fredricks then moved adoption of Resolution Po C. 154,..320, recommending to the City Council the. denial of this petition for the reasons that this comes very close, if not within, the understanding of spot zoning, which is pre>-hibited by the ordinance; the area is not constituted by size, location or traffic patterns, in light of the surrounding area, for commercial develop,.-ment, and unless the COJlllnission is prepared to grant C (commercial) to all the property up and down Manhattan Avenue from 27th Street to Longfellow, the change to commercial should not be granted in this instance; and the Commission should be concerned :;with the fact that this is a request for C-1 (commercial), and mu.st be considered in the light of any of the classifications that are allowed in the C-1 development. Comm. Johnson seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NO~S: ABSENT: Comm.. Hales, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm,. Black and Noble. Comm. Locken. c. DIMAS~ Lot Division Review of proposed lot division by Mr. c. Dimas, 720-2lst Street, of the southlffilt 135' of Lot 22 and northwest 21.88' of the southwest 135' of Lot 21, Block 81, Second. Addition to Hermosa Beach, into two parcels, each having more than 40' width and 100' depth, and a review of proposed offstreet parking for a six-unit apartment house to be erected on the westerly parcel,. Andy Dimas, son of petitioner, and con.tractor, Bill Daniel, spoke on behalf of the request. There ensued a discussion on the need for a parking ordinance which would set up standards and eliminate the necessity of each builder coming before the Commission.
Planning Commission 4 April 10 Comm. Fredricks moved that a letter be directed to-the Building Department approving the di vision of the lot into two parcels, each having more than a 40' width and 100' depth, providing that all other requirements of the ordinance be met, and also approving the offstreet parking proposed for the six units to be erected on the west parcel, which is zoned R!e"3, C011DD.. Noble seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ConJJn. Hales, Black, Fredricks and Noble. Comm. Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm.. Locken. (Comm. Johnson, in casting his vote, stated that he would have approved the lot division but could not vote yes for the proposed parking.) CONVENIENCE STATIONS ON BEACH Letter from Bonnie Bright, Clerk of the City Council, advising of Council's action on March 21 and 2_8 relative to beach convenience facilities, requesting Planning Commission to make a study and hold public hearings. Chairman Viault suggested that a committee be appointed to study this matter and report back to the Commission, at which time a date could be set for a public hearing. This committee could meet with Mr. James O. Clements (appointed by the Council to head a committee composed of residents) and his committee. Comm.. Black asked for clarification concerning hi!'! understanding that the Council had turned down the idea of public facilities except at Pier Avenue. The Chairman explained that it was his understanding that in the City Engineer's report there ~re certain condemnation insinuations and that the Council had attempted to clear this up·by it was not their intent to go into this action, this was a study report, and now the Commission has been asked to study and make the necessary reconunendations since this is a planning function. City Manager Harris said there are two separate matters, one,the study plan and program on tonight's agenda, and secondly, construction of a temporary place at the pier. He added that the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the City Council have both come to the determination that some type of facility is necessary for the public at the beach -how mu.ch, where, when are matters to be further studied and determined by the Conunission. He suggested that the Commission set up a committee to meet with Mr. Clements' committee and give him an opportunity to present any ideas they might have~ The Planning Commission recognizes that one of the responsibilities it has, he said, is planning and proposing new facilities for this con:mruni.ty, and in meeting with the public, can determine if there is a need and.,if so, present a plan to meet the needl;-involving parking, showers, drinking fountains and possibly other things the Commission may think necessary. It was suggested that the Connnission act as a whole, discuss the question amongst themselves before meeting with Mr, Clements' committee or the Citizens'Advisory Committee, the view:s of the latter being reflected in the report submitted. Also the suggestion was made that the City Engineer be invited to meet with·tbe Commission to brief them on the reasons for this development, etc., prior to meeting with Qther bodies. Mr. Stevens, City Engineer, was present and said he would be glad to meet with the Commission at their convenience. It was a~reed to hold t~s m~tter op(;n until al~ other items on the agenda. were . disposed of, and if time permitted, :possibly hear Mr. Stevens at this meeting.
Planning Commission 5 April 10, 1961 REPORT ON L. A. COUNTY RIDIONAL PLA.NNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Viault announced that he and City Manager Harris had attended a public hearing of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on March 29. The purpose of the ,Jteeting was to ~onsider proposed amendments to the master plan for shore line improvement. There was no change proposed in the original plan for Hermosa or Manhattan Beach. The Chairman said that Mr. Harris explained at the meeting that Hermosa favored the intent of the general· plan for shore line improvement, which intent, in our interpretation, is that more provisions be provided to take care of the added people, and that we heartily endorse their acquisition of areas along the coast line to absorb· some of these people. Their attendance at this meeting, Mr. Viault said, was to insure their keeping fully informed as to_ any develQpments in the county's plan a£fecting Hermosa Beacho A copy of the countyJYs master plan is available in his office, Mr, Harris said. ••I o, o BERNICE ROBINSON Public hearing on application for zone variance of Bernice Robinson to add a single-,.family dwelling on Lot 13 and N. 1/2 of 12, Block 1, Hermosa Beach Tract, on which exists a single-family house w.i.th 31 southerly sideyard and balcony to property line, and a garage structure having three nonconforming garages and garage apartmnt, lot size being 45x80 in an R-3 zone, proposing that the.new.building be 4~wi.th a solid wall, from the existing dwelling, 31 from the north property line, six feet from the rear structure and roofed, open balcony to front property line. Applicant explained her request was to permit as wide as possible the proposed structure,to avoid a street-car type house, and agreed that it would be more beneficial to her property and to the neighborhood if the addition were made to the existing dwelling, adhering to the required 4½1 northerly sideyard, requiring substantial rehabilitation to the older building, which would have to b.e brought up to the present building co.de. The garage apartm.ent was occupied primarily by petitioner. Comm. Fredricks moved that a variance be granted to add more than 30% to the existing dwelling for an additional dwelling. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, John.son, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Hales. Comm. Locken., Comm. Fredricks then moved adoption of Resolution P. Co 154-321, granting the varian~ for the construction of an addition of over 30% to the existing building with a nonconforming sideyard and front yard and nonconforming garages, with the proviso that the northerly sideyard of the new dwelling will conform to the ordinance:, that the distance between the existing garage and the addition conform to the ordinance, that a roofed, unenclosed balcony encroach to the property line in line with the existing balcony in lieu of 11 setback permitted for balcony projections, and with the further proviso that there be filed wi. th the Building Department a statement tba.t the lili:ng quarter a attached to the garage shall not be used for rental purposes, for the reasons
Planning 1Connn:ission I 6 April 10, 1961 that said property is zoned R-3; that all of the surrounding property.ilil used as R-2 or R-3; that the addition will tend to be the best use of t.he property and upgrade it; that the existing small unit attached to the garage does not lend itself to rental purposes; that the shortage of square footage is overcome to a great extent by the filing of the affidavit not to use the small unit attached to the garages for rental purposes. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Noble. Co~ Hales and Chairman Viaul to (For the record, Chairman Viaul t said he did not believe that an 1.Uµ'estricted balcony should be permitted to the property line at the front.) Comm. Locken. DATE SET FOR WORKSHOP MEETING ON BEACH FACILITIES Chairman Viault set Monday, April 17, 1961, at 7:30, as the time for the commission to meet with the City Engineer to learn of the background leading up to the report to the Council by the City Manager and City Engineer pertaining to beach facilities. Comm. Noble was designated to head a committee of the whole Commission for this purpose. The Chairman announced a meeting of the Southern California Planning Congress to be held April 20 at the Pen & Quill in Manhattan Beach, stating that he had made reservations for four membersG Election of officers for the Planning Commission for the year commencing July 1, 1961, would be held at the June meeting, Chairman Viault announced9 asking that members give some consideration to this. Discussed briefly was the present status of the proposed general plan. The City Manager advised that it would be up to the Council to bring up the subje,ct. ADJOURm@IT AT 10:45 p.m. r