HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1962_05_28MINUTES OF AN-ADJOURNED MEETING-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION eF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH,held at the City Hall on Monday, May 28, 1962, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL -Present -Comm. Nobl e, Johnson, Viault, Black_,~ocken., and
Vice...chai rman Hales. Bud M. Trott, Chief Bldg. Inspe ctor.
Absent -None.
GEORGE BLAIR & ASSOCI ATES -Parking Determinat ion
Letter from Building Inspector asking parking determination for proposed
office building at 200 Pier Avenue, southeast corner of Pier Avenue and
Manhattan Avenue, north 10' of Lot 14 and all of Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18,
Block 48, First Addition to Hermosa Beach, for George Blair & Associates.
Mr. Blair addressed the Commission, informing them of similar buildings
r ecently const ructed by him in Manhattan Beach and Hollywood RMera, and
pri marily catering to manufacturers' r epresentatives.
Com. Viault moved that a l etter be written to the Building Inspector approving
the development as shown on the drawings presented to the Commission, and that
a mininrum of 41 aut o spaces be provided as per the preliminary drawings.
Comm. Johnson seconded the motion,which carried unanimously.
RECESS~ At 8:00 o'clock p.m., t he meeting was r ecessed for t he Council
Chambers to be occupied by the Civil Service Connnission, reconvening at
8:4g p.m. on adjournment of t hat group.
Vice..Chairman Hales presented aerial photographs of the southwest area of
Hermosa Beach which he had taken and which could be used in the study of
that area.
HIGH-R1SE -Comments from City Council Hearings
Consideration of comments and suggest ions re.highl"lrise ordi nance per City
Council instructions of May 1.
At the outset, Vice-.Chai rman Hales stat ed that t he Council had requested the
Commissi on to form an opinion on these various items and report back to the
Council, and that this would not be open t o the public, the discussion being
limited to the Commissioners; No obje ction to this policy was made.
SECTION 750-A (R~3 use) -The Planning Conunission i s in the process of
amending the • present zoning. ordinance_ to require i n the R-3 zone
a minimmn land area per dwel ling unit. (Approved unanimouslyo)
SECTION 151~ (Area)---.. The Commission had previously agreed that 25,000
• square feet was comparable to other orai nances of t his type.
In or der to provide proper front, rear and sideyard setbacks and distance between buil dings and to pr ovide proper light and
venti lation, it is f elt 25,000 square feet should be a minimttmo
To work out a plan for a six-story or more building, anythi11g
much less than 25,000 square feet would start to crowd the
buildings on the property. It is felt that 25,000 square feet
i s the minimum acceptable in Hermosa Beach, and anything smaller,
15,000 or 12,000 as in other citi es, would give the opportunity
for beach front properties to fall within this square foot limit,
and i t is the Commission's intention to make the restriction strong
enough so that this would not be the case. (Unanimously approved0 )
Planning Commission 2 May 28, 1962
SEC TI ON 7 51 ... D (Lot Area per Dwelling Unit)~ This is the shortest method of
determining the crowding upon the property and establishing control
of density. It establishes the maximum crowding that can take
place upon the property·with reference to height or dimension.
With 25,000 square feet, you can tell the maximum number of
dwelling units. The next thing to consider are the yard areas
and how they pare down to the building area. It was determined
that 140 to 145 uni ts per acre would be the maximum density and
in keeping with the standards for high-rise. For example 300
square feet into 1:11 a.ere of land amounts to 145 dwelling uni ts
per acre, which was reconunended by the Eisner report. (Approved
unanimously.)
SECTION 751....E (Apartment Size) -The suggestion on balconies, stairwells, etc.,
is well taken. The Commission recommends that the following
sentence be added to the statement on apartment sizes~
"The minimwn apartment size shall exclude all public
or private balconies, public stairways, utility rooms,
halls, and foyers." (Unanimously approved.)
SECTION 7Sl~F (Parking) ---The statement made in Item (11 that the number of
offstreet parking spaces required shall not be less than as
indicated below, is a sufficiently strong statement to clarify
what is a}m.ed for by the Commission in presenting a parking solution
for the development. It is additionally felt that should a circmn-
stance peculiar to a development e.:xist that would not be to the best
interest of the city, it could be remedied as outlined in Section 753.
(Unanimously approved.)
(SECTION 753) In connection with the above item and with relation to Section 753,
the Cononission feels that it is capable of determining parking require~
ments based on past experience in dealing with other parking problems.
(Unanimously approved.)
751-F ~elative to Itemn(4), visitor parking, Connn. Viault feels the
statement would be better made to clarify a minimum parking require-
ment for visitors to dwelling unitso Therefore, it is recommended ·
that the statement be rewworded as follows:
"(4) Visitor parking shall be required at a ratio of
one (1) space per ten (10) dwelling units, and may be
open parking space, subject to Ordinance N. s. 154,
Section 1113." (Unanimously approved.)
Planning Commission 3 May 28, 1962
SECTION 751....0-(rront Yard)-::---It is recommended that the last sentence of
Add:
Item (1) be deleted ("Front of lot must face on a street sixty (60)
feet or more in width.") The front yard control i n relati on to
the width of the street will b1~ taken care of in another i tern. to
be added to this section. This has led to misunderstanding of
the purposes of the street width at the front of the lot, and it
would be more clearly understood if it were removed fro:n ta.is
front yard provision, and frontage street widths provision cove.~~a.
elsewhere. The basic intent of this front yard definition is to
establish distance between the proposed building and the buildings
that may be·developed across the street to assure adequate space,
ventilation, etc., sirnilal:' to that provided for in side and rear
yards, and not necessarily related to traffic flow or circulation.
(Approved by all members except Comm. Johnson, who passed, stating
because of the lateness of the eveiµing, he did not feel that he
could understand the technicalities of the questions and vote
intelligently.) •
"SECTION 751-L. Abutting Streets.
The property should abut at least one dedicated street sixty (60)
feet in width, paved to a width of not less than forty (40) feet;
and front upon a dedicated street of not less than forty (40) feet
with thirty (30) feet paved."
(x Reference 751--0) -To further clarify 751-G-, the interpretation of this right-
of-way applies to·that right-of-way over which the developer has
control. ·However, in determining whether to grant the conditional
use permit, the Commission would have to consider from the point of
origin to a major street or major.artery capable of handling the
volume of traffic which the development may generate. (Approved by
all members except Comma Johnson, who passed.)
SECTION 751-K (Usable Outdoor Space)...,.... The intent of the 100 square feet is to
provide adequate recreational area in the development, such as
swimming pools, play areas. (Approved by all members except Comm.
Johnson, who pas~ed.)
SECTION 7 52-F It is suggested that the wording in the .first line be changed to
read:
''The Planning Commission may require of the applicant
in the granting of a conditional ...• o •••• "
This change of wording may more specifically clarify this section
as to whose responsibili ty it would be for the cost of dedications
and improvements. (Approved by all members except Comm. Jolmson, who passed.)
SECTION 753 (Variation in Standards) ........ The Commission recommends that the
wording dealing with the required vote, in the last sentence of
the opening paragraph, be changed from four-fifths (4/5) vote to
two,.,ithirds (2/3) or more affirmative votes of the entire Commission
to vary the requirements, the reason being that t his would make i t
consistent with the voting requirements of N. s. 154, and it i s felt
that if a unanimous vote were reqtJired, it is excessive of what is asked i n the intent of N.Sj 154. tApproved by all members except Comm. Johnson, who passed.
Planning Commission 4 May 28, 1962
It is the recommendation of the Commission if this portion of N. S. 154
is added by a vote of the citizens of the city, that a clause be written
into this section of the ordinance to permit changes to be made i n it i n
a mannel' pr~s\1ribed already i n Secti.on 1500 of N. s. 154. (Appro·ved by all.
members except Comm. Johnson, who passed.)
MEET WITH REDONDO BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -
City Manager Harris advised that the Redondo Beach Planning Commission had
asked for a meeting date with the Hermosa Beach Commission to study Herondo Street.
Suggested dates were June 18, 25 or-27.
ADJOURNMENT AT ll :30 P.M., IteJUS 3 and 4 on the agenda being postponed.
-~ Noble, Secretary _____ _
r