HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1961_12_11MINUTES OF THE REUULAR MEETING OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION of the City of Hermosa Beach, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on MondayJ letrember 11, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. Present -Comm. Noble, Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales and,Locken. BudlW.. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. Absent -Chairman Fredricks. In the absence of Chairman Fredricks, Vice Chairman Hales presided. On motion by CoIIDll. Black, seconded by Comm. Noble, minutes of November 6 and 13, 1961, were W1animously approved. HOWARD JACKSON Review of Howard Jackson proposed parking for laundromat at 3217 Manhattan Avenue;on request of City CoW1cil by their motion of November 21, 1961, that this be sent back to the Commission for favorable action. The secretary read a letter from Attorney Thomas Foye on behalf of the applicants. Mrs. Jackson was present and stated that she had no further cononents to make. On motion by CoIIDll. Noble, seconded by Comm.Locken, that the request be granted, the vote was as follows: .AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales .. Comm. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks .. Because a resolution reconunending favorable action to the City Council was not forthcoming, Comm. Viault moved that the matter be tabled, Connn. Johnson seconding the motion, and the vote being as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Johnson and Vice Chairman Hales. Corum. Viault, Black and Locken. Chairman Fredricks. On failure of the foregoing motion to pass, Connn. Noble moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-346, r;ecommending that the applicants' proposed parking be approved, re-affirming the former decision of the Planning Commission dated March 3, 1958, approving four parld.ng stalls, including one substandard space, for a commercial building of the same floor area, on direction of the City Council. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commo Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks. .ARTHUR W.dITMORE Review of Arthur Whitmore request to enlarge restaurant with no parking to be provided at 833 Hermosa Avenue, on request of City Council by motion of November 21, 1961, that this be referred back to the Commission with recormnenda-tion for favorable consideration. A motion by Comm. Viaul.t, seconded by • Comm. Black, that the request be granted failed by a unanimous vote.
Planning Commission 2 December 11, 1961 Prior to the adoption of a resolution, there was a discussion on what might be acceptable, it being suggested that a garage be furnished for the upstairs apartment. Another suggestion was for three parking stalls facing on the alleyway. A further solution might be to dismantle the nonconforming apartment so there would be no need for a garage, and have a loading zone. It was felt that the area is predominantly residential and that the hours the restaurant is open coincide with the heaviest use of the parking facilities in the -vicinity. It was the consensus of opinion that the applicant should be given some idea of what parking facilities might be required. adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-347, Comm. Viault moved/that it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that one garage space shall be provided for the existing apartment and a minimum of two other offstreet parking spaces be provided for the enlarged restaurant, and that permission to extend the restaurant with no parking provisions be denied for the reasons that the area has inadequate parking now; the site has inadequate parkingj it is the desire of the Planning Connnission to upgrade the area and provide adequate parking; there has been no additional information presented since the original hearing, at which time a negative vote was cast; and it would discriminate against other business property owners to ask them to provide parking space when the applicant in this case would not be doing so. Comm. ]Qack seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. WALTER SUKE Review of Walter Slike proposed pat"king for commercial structure at 54-56 Hermosa Avenue., on request of City Council by their motion of November 21, 1961, that this be referred back to the Conunission for favorable consideration. The applicant was represented by his partner,Mr. Wells, who called attention to the plot plan that had been wubmi tteddto the Council on appeal, there being laid out three accessible and three nonaccessible (invnediately to the rear of the head~in spaces) parking spaces for the proposed 1200 square foot commercial structure. Comm. Noble moved that the parking be approved. Cormn. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommQ Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Connn. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-348, recommending, due to additional information supplied, the approval of the three additional parking spaces, making a total of six, as per plot plan d~ted November 17, 1961, acring on the wishes of the City Council. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corran. Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks. (Comm. Viault asked that the record show his dissenting vote on the grounds that the plot plan as proposed shows nonstandard parking spaces as described by the Planning Commission in previous meetings; that the access to the parking spaces is inadequate; and that tandem parking in any case is not desirable.)
Planning Commission ROBERT A. WISE 3 December 11, 1961 Public hearing on request for zone variance of Robert A. Wise to add more than ~0% to existing residence which has 6' of nonconforming sideyard, varying from three to five feet, in lieu of required 5'; addition to conform to required setbacks; and to incl~de a double garage, making a total of four garages in lieu of allowable three stalls for R-1 zone, at 805 Prospect, Lot 33, Tract 8386. Applicant was present to speak on behalf of his petition. Motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Noble, to grant the variance carried unanimously, Comm. Johnson expressing his hope that the extra garage will be used for the parking of cars. Comm. Viault moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-349 granting this zone variance for the reasons that the nonconforming setback is very slight and at a corner which is not objectionable to vision on the street, and that the four-..car garage is not an unreasonable request in a residential zone of this nature o The motion was seconded by Connn. Black and carried unanimously. E])}AR C. MILLER Public hearing on request for/4one variance of Edgar c. Miller to extend garage 6• forward with 4' easterly sideyard in lieu of required 5'; add bedroom and bath on eastside of residence, bathroom wall now existing, bedroom to have 11' long sideyard fine with 4, s.e,tbaelt~.:l:i:.~u :_·c,,f required s,, maintaining nonconforming 4' easterly sideyard of e:x::isting building, at 1136~8th Street, Lots 62 and 63, Block 140, Redondo :Villa Tract.· , Applicant was present to speak on behalf of his petition. Comm. Viault moved that the request be granted. The motion, seconded by Comm. Noble, carried unanimously. A motion by Commo Viault to adopt Resolution P. C. 154-350 granting trus zone variance~for the reasons that the nominal projection to the front of the existing structure is still setback 25' and would not be objectionable to the neighborhood, and the 4' sideyard is adeijuate for ingress and egress of emergency equipment, fighting fires, etc., and would not be detrimental to the general overall planning of Hermosa Beach, was seconded by Comm. Noble and carried unanimously. ROBERT F. MASON-Public hearing on request for zone variance of Robert F. Mason to add more than 30%to existing residence which has a 4' easterly sideyard in lieu of requir·ea 5', addition to conform to all yard requirements, at 632-25th Street, Lot 4, Tract No. 19846. Mr. Mason was present. to speak on behalf of his application. A motion to grant the variance by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, carried unanimously. Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154,..351 granting the zone variance for the reasons that it is felt that it would be a hardship to the family if this request were not ,granted, and the exLsting nonconforming sideyard is of negligible consequence as a reason for not permitting this
Planning Commission 4 December 11, 1961 Robt. F. Mason tcontd variance. Cormn. Johnson seconded the motion, wh.i.ch carried unanimously. CHESTER CLYDE STEWART Public hearing on ireques-t\f or zone variance. of Clyde Stewart to permit construction of storage room on rear of property with no rear setback in lieu of required 11, for use -with commercial building adjoining at 344 Pacific Coast Highway, there being a nonconforming, single-family residence existing on the.property which is zoned C-3, at 820-4th Street, the westerly 12' of Lot 12 and the easterly 30' of Lots 14 and 15, Hurdt s Ocean View Tract. Mr" Stewart was present, speaking on behalf of his-petition. Connn. Noble moved that the request be granted. Seconded by Comm. Locken, the motion carried unanimously. Comm. Johnson then movedaadoption of Resolution P. C. 154-352 granting this zone variance for the reasons that the proposed structure will not be any more detrimental materially than what is aJ.ready there; there will apparently not be any additional parking requiredj the land area in question would involve no add:i. tional parking problems in the area; the proposed building to be fire resistant; and that it does-appear to the Planning commission that it would be a hardship to the owner if this request were not granted. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. NEWCASTLE IMPORTS -Parking Review Letter from the Building Inspector requesting review of parking requirements for 870 square foot addition to service area for Newcastle Imports at 700 Pacific Coast Highway. Relocation of the wash rack, consisting of approximately 400 square feet, was also requested. This item had inadvertently been omitted from the agenda. It was established that there was an 11,000 square foot area in the rear of the property not being used at the present time and that the proposed structure would be used for parking in connection with the b~siness. Comm. Viault moved that parking requirements be waived due to the nature of the business being such that there is already provided ample customer offstreet parking area. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. - - - A 5~minute recess was called at this time. . -' RESOLUTION OF INTENTION P. C. 154-345 Public hearing on Resolution P. C. 154-345, an initiative petition of the Planning Commission proposing certain amendments to the zoning ordinance, N. S. 154, adopted at the November 13, 1961, regular meeting. The proposal was considered item by item, as follows:
Planning Commission 5 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. c. 154-345 Contd Article 2, Section 217 -Change the period to a comma on the last line thereof and add the following: "whose common wall separating the two uni ts is at least fifty (50%) percent of the allowable width of the structure." Mr. Charles Roth, 1533 Manhattan Avenue, asked for an explanation of the meaning of the proposed change. Councilman Anderson, present in the audience, asked if this would prevent construction of two separate dwellings, connected by a breezeway which could be easily removed, resulting in lot splits, and was assured that this was the purpose of the amendment. The ordinance specifies one 2-fa.mily dwelling, and this will clarify the definition. Articles 4 5 6 and 7 Sections 404 504 604 and 704 res • after the last lin thereof, add the allowing: "However, where a rear ya.rd abuts a street or alley, the building may be located three feet on the ground floor level and one foot on upper stories from the rear property line.11 Paragraph (4)2 line 5, delete 11twenty-two (22)" and substitute the following: "twenty-three (23)11• Article 42 Section 400, Paragraph (3), delete and substitute the following: "(3) The renting of not more than two rooms to not more ·than one roomer in the main building, or the providing of table board to not more than one boarder, or both, in the main building, but not to exceed one person in any combination thereof; provided further that the room that is being rented has no access or door to the outside, said access being through the main building." Article 5, Section 5002 Paragraph (1), change the period to a comma and add the folio.wing: "except the renting of rooms as set forth would not be allowed if there exist more than a single-family residence on the premises." Article 6 -Add the following section: "SECTION 608: LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less than nine hundred (900) square feet per dwelling unit." Speaking in opposition to this requirement were Mr. Farnsworth, local realtor; Mr. Claibourne,·1860 Hermosa Avenue; Mr. Basil Adlam, owner of R~3 property; Mr. Davis Karl, contractor; Mr. McGuyer, Second and Monterey; Mrs. Roth, local realtor; Mr. Dietz, 1829 John Street, Manhattan Beach; Mr. Ray Miller, 732 Strand. •
Planning Commission 6 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. C. 154-345 Contd Article 92 Section 904, Paragraph (1), after the last line thereof, add the following: "Exception: The wall of the building may be erected on the property line provided that it is constructed of a mi.nimwn of eight-inch, solid concrete or concrete block, all cells of said concrete block grouted solid." Jack Wise, 520 Hermosa Avenue, expressed his approval due to the intermingling of manufacturing and residential. zones in this conmn.urity., Article 11, Section llO9, delete the first sentence and substitute the following: "SECTION 1109-: REQUIRED OFFS'IREET PARKING. (1) For every building hereafter erected, reconstructed or structurally altered in all zones except the ,c, zone, there shill be pp.G.uded permanently maintained parking space, including the requirement for a twenty-three (23) foot turning radius, as provided in this article. (2) Before any additional units may be added to a lot where there new exists a building or buildings used for human habitation, there shall be provided permanently maintained parking space for each existing unit, including the requirement for a twenty-three (23) foot turning radius, as provided in thi~ticle.11 Mr. Roth opposed the requirement for a standard-size garage for existing units, if there existed a garage serving the purpose. Article 11, Section 1113, delete Paragraph (1) and substitute the following: 0(1) Size of Garage and Offstreet Parking Space and Access: Each garage and offstreet parking space shall have a minimum width of eight feet six inches (8'6") and a minimum depth of twenty feet (20'), clear inside measurements, exclusive of drives or aisles. Each such space shall be provided with adequate ingress and egress. u Article 12, Section 1207, after the last line thereof, add the following: 11Exception: Any portion of a structure commencing eight (8) feet or more above the established curb grade need not comply wi. th the foregoing restriction." Article 12, add the following section: ttSECTION 1224: REQUIREMENTS FOR APPUCATION FOR LOT DIVISIONo When application is made for any lot to be divided or added to, either by review of the Commission as outlined in Section 1223, or by variance, the applicant shall furnish eight (8)~copies of a survey by a licensed surveyor showing any and all improvements existing on the property in relation to the property lines and the
Planning Commission 7 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. c. 154-345 Contd. proposed division. Applicant shall agree to provide any necessary easements for the proposed parcel or parcels. If necessary, the CODlltlission shall establish the front of the lots and front yard setbacks. rt Article 13, delete Section 1309 and substitute the following: "SECTION l309i BUILDINGS MAY BE ALTERED WHEN NONCONFORMING BY REASON OF INADEQUATE YARDS. Where a building or buildings and customary accessory buildings are nonconforming only by reason of substandard yards or open spaces, the provision of this ordinance prohibiting structural alterations or enlargements shall not apply, provided that any structural alteration or enlargements of an existing building may maintain the same nonconforming side yard setback as the existing building, but not less than three (3) feet from the side yard property line, and shall conform to the required front yard setback, and provided further that the enlargement does not increase the size of the structure to an amount greater than forty(~ percent of the gross floor area in the existing structure with nonconforming yards, and that all other requirements of this ordinance are complied with." On inquiry by Mr. Floyd Hawks, it was determined that the nonconforming yard requirements of an existing building would not affect a second, detached structure. Artice 16, Section 1605, Paragraph (1), change the period to a comma on the last line thereof and add the following: "and by mailing a writ;ten notice not less than ten days prior to the date of such hearing to the ownersof property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property to be changed, using for this purpose the last known name and address of such owners as ar~hown upon thelatest available lot books of the County Assessor of the County of Los .Angeles." It was explained that the present ordinance required proposed zone amendment applications to be published in the local newspaper but did not require that notices be sent residents in the area affected, although this has been the policy of the Commission. The public hearing was closed, and the Commissioners spent conside·rable time in discussing the one controversial item, the proposed Section 608, requiring 900 square feet of land area per unit in an R-3 .zone. Connn. Noble moved that the resolution of intention be accepted as outlined and as published in the Hermosa Beach Review with the exception of Article 6, Section 608, which would be held aside for further study. Following a brief discussion on what steps should-be taken for continued study on Section 608, ColDlll. Viault seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Viault, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnsnn. Chai.rm.an Fredricks.
,. Planning Commission 8 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. C. 154-345 Contd Before adopting a resolution for recommendation to the City Council, Comm. Viault suggested that some formula might be worked out whereby the "· --• number of units could be increased proportionately to the increase in total lot area, the land area requirement being less than that required for a unit on a standard 40xl00 lot. It was agreed that there were many angles that should be studied, and since there is no master plan, the study on R-3 property would have to be made by the city staff. Relative to the length of time that might be required to thoroughly study this matter and to reach a decision, the view was expressed that possibly the City Council would agree to an interim zoning ordinance which would prohibit construction on R-3 lots until settled. Comm. Noble moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-353 reconnnending to the City Council amendment of Zoning Ordinarrce P, C. 154, including all items in Resolution of Intention P. c. 154-345,except the proposed Section 608, the reason being,.that it is felt, through the public hearing with interested citizens present, that all of the foregoing proposed amendments have been deemed acceptable and will provide a more refined, updated zoning ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach. Seconded by Cormn. Viault, the motion carried unanimously. Comm, Noble then moved that a letter be prepared by the Building Inspector to the City Manager and his staff requesting a ettlcJy· of all existing R...J properties and confines of the City of Hermosa Beach, giving some analysis and reasons therefor as to the existing usage, and perhaps some history behind some of the deviants to the R-3 usage, and correspondence directed to some of the comparable cities in the outlying beach conmunities that perhaps might be revealing as to their experience wi.th this problem, suggested cities being Laguna Beach, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach, and the Corona del Mar area, together with the city's staff's reconnnendation as to what is felt reasonable for lot area per dwelling unit and lot coverage. Seconded by Comm. flack, the motion carried unanimously. Vice-Chairman Hales suggested that if the staff does not have a recommendation by the next regular meeting date, that they give the Commission a definite date that can be a guiding point for this question, making it unnecessary to request the interim zoning ordinance if the matter can be settled quickly. CITY COUNCIL LETTER ON HIGH-RISE A letter dated December 7, 1961, from Bonnie Bright, City Clerk, concerning the Council's policy on high rise amendment to the zoning ordinance, and instructing the Commission to proceed with the R-4 high rise area study, on the basis that any such amendment to the zoning ordinance would be presented to the people by referendum, was received and filed. McGUIRE'S MARKET, Parking Determination A representative of McGuire's Market. 1052 Pier Avenue, asked to be heard on a review of parking requirements, if any, f~p a shed ~o rotect motors, etc-. on being satisfied that the parking is adequ~""")ITefn m9fi,n by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Viault, it was unaninfousl_y a r ed tha no additional parking liQuld be required for this structure, \ L~ cl ,.-;-I. /J ADJOURNMENT at 11:15 p.m. ~~ ... 0> y..,-r..__f Joe B. Noble, Sec'y. '