Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1962_07_09( MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING; COMMISSION OF· THE CITY OF HErufOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, held at the City Hall on Monday, July 9, 1962, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL -Present: Comm. Johnson, Viault, Black, Locken, Hamilton, and Vice-Chairman Hales. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. Absent: Comm. Noble. (Comm. Noble took his place after Approval of Minutes.) The new member, Dr. Robert w. Hamilton, was introduced to the assembly by Vice-Chairman Hales, presiding. }finutes ,of the regular meeting of June 11, 1962, were unanimously approved. ELECTION OF ·OFFICERS Conm. Viault moved that Vi ce-Chai.rm.an Hales be elected President. The motion was seconded by Comm. Black, and on a unanimous vote that the nominations be closed, Comm. Hales was unanimously elected as Chairman to serve to July 1, 1963. Connn. Loc~en moved that Collllll. Noble be made Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year, and on second by Comm. Jolmson, and a unanimous vote to close the nominations, Comm. Noble was unanimously elected Vice-.Chairman. LAND-AREA REQUIREMENT -R-, ZONE Considering a land-area requirement per unit in the R-3 zone, Mr. Ed Foster~ local realtor, suggested 800 square feet as a maximum requirement, stating that he did not feel restricting the number of units would affect traffic conditi ons. Mrs. Dorothy Austin, realtor, questioned the 40x90'-R-3 lots, asking whether they would be considered for R-3 purposes under the land-area requirement, and suggested a maximum lot area per unit of from 750 to 800 square feet. Mr. George Newman, 157 Monterey Boule·vard, asked if the 30xl00' J...-..3 lots would be considered for R-3 use. The view was expressed by some of the Commissioners that the basig 40.xlOO' lot size for R...J use would not be altered. Mr. John Schmolle, local contractor, asked that consideration be given the i dea of increasing apartment sizes. After discussion amongst the Commissioners, it was moved by Comm. Noble and seconded by Comm. Johnson that the lot area per dwelling unit requiremant be established at 900 square feet in an R-3 zone. This motion was unanimously approved, and Resolution·of Intention P4 C. 154-382 was unanimously adopted on motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, setting the next regular meeting, August 13, 1962, as the date for a public hearing to consider amending Article 6, Ord. N. s. 154, by adding Section 608, establishing the minimum lot area requirement per dwelling unit i n an R-3 zone at 900 -square feet. Planning Commission 2 7/9/62 AL JAMES, STAN COLE .AND ROBERT MORONEY -Parking Determination Reconsideration of proposed parking for office building at 1050 Pier Avenue, Lot 2, .Tract 5826, for Al James, Stan Cole and Rober t Moroney, on request of City Council, in view of the fact that t he land is difficult to build on and the ap-plicants have reserved So% of the land f or parking. Applicants had submitted a·parking plan for six stalls, including three tandem spaces, at the June 11, 1962, meeting, which plan had been disapproved by the Commission., and applicants appealed to the City Council. Applicants were present, Mr. James stating that it was his understanding that the ordinance r~quired one stall for every 500 square feet of floor areae~d that ~h~tH.enstairways deducted, there is less tl!Ean 1500 square feet,neking three spaces iufficient. Comm. Viau.lt suggested that the design of the building be changed, providing five spaces across on Owosso. Chairman Hales advised that this point was brought out at the previous meeting, and to put five spaces would run into complications because 0f the grading of the lot. Conun. Viault felt he would be more receptive to l~ss parking requirements on a minimum lot than·to try to force a man to put exactly the number he has to in double parking, stating that he did not believe the three tandem stalls would be used ~or parking. Comm. Noble felt too many units were being proposed on a 40x78' lot and that six office spaces and six parking spaces make the density too great. Mr. James said the~P. is no minimum requirement for offices and that one parking space was shown for each 500 square feet of floor area, plus three additional stalls, and that he understood this was the requirement. Comm. Viault moved that the plan b~ appro-v~d as submitted. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: Comm. Johnson ,and Blacl~. Comm. Noble, Viault, -! 4 Locken, Hamilton and Chairman Hales. ABSENT: None. Comm. Viault then moyed adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-383, denying the parking request for the reason that a motion t-o approve this plan failed to carry. This motion was seconded by Comm. Johnson, carrying as follows~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Connn. Noble, Viault, Black, Locken, Hamilton and Chair:nan Hales. Comm. Johnson. None. Comm. Noble - I feel the unit density is too great for the size of land in question. Colllm. Viault -It i..s not impossible to pro-ride additional parking with a better and more comprehensive plan thai~ is pr~sently prssent~d. Comn. Locken - I concur with Mr. Viault Planning Conunission 3 7/9/62 James, Cole and Moroney Contd Following the vote, Mr. Cole asked if he understood the ordinance c0PJl'ectly, requiring three _parking spaces for 1500 square feet of floor area. He asked if another letter were written to the Iluilding Inspector asking approval of three spaces for this identical plan, would it be approved. They had first been informed that one parking stall was required for eve1·y 300 square feet, and later learning requirements for offices were one stall for each 500 square feet. Chairman Hales answered that these are minimum requirements and that there might be other factors which would determine the action., and that if the original proposal had bee11 for three spaces and six offic units, it might have been another :natt~r to consider. Mr. Cole then asked if the square footage had no b~aring and parking depended on ahe number of office units. They asked if the ordinance spelt it out units or square footage, gross floor area? Without the stairs, their proposed lr,1i.lding would ~1ave 1497 square feet. The Building Inspector was requ9 sted by Mr. James to read the se-~tj_on of the zoning ordinance r~l~·,ant to connn.ercial· parking, the last sentence in Section 1109, 11For eveTy building hereafter erected, or reconstructed itmreasing floor space, in a C zone, a parking plan shall be brought befo.-e the Planning Co:mnission.11 lie add,)d t:nat ~very conmercial building has to be submitted t.:) ti1e Commission for parking which must be approved by the Commission. Chairman Hales suggested if appl.icants felt they had further rights, they should go back before the Council. Mr. Jam.es express~d his feeling that the ordinance was not being adhered t~, and Connn. Noble said that it is the opinion of the Commission that tha pr.)pos~d parking is not adequate for the city or structure proposed. GEORGE Fo RICKERT Public hearing on application for amendment of Precise Plan #1, adopted by Ordinance N. S. 160, of George F. Rickert, to permit lOBOlsquare foot addition to cabinet shop at 136 Hill Street, Lot 18 and the southerly 151 of Lot 16, Tract No. 256. Mr. Rickert was present speaking on behalf of his petition. Mr. John Schmolle also spoke in favor of the petition, stating there is adequate parking on Hill Street. The City Engineer, on being questioned, stated there are no plans to enlarge or widen Hill Street. Mr. Rickert, when asked if he expected to put machinery in the front area, advised there would be nailing of the cabinets but no s~wing or cutting~ Comm. Noble moved that the petition be granted. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Thereupon Resolution P. C. 154-J84 was unanimously adopted on motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, fgranting the petition to amend the Precise Plan approved by Ordinance .N. SQ 160 by permitting an addition·of 1080 square feet to the existing structure and providing par.ki~g for six cars~ as pe~ amendment to Precise Plan submitted, for the reason that i.t is felt by the Commission that the plan submitted would not be detrimental to the surround- ing neighborhood and that the parking will be sufficient; the amended precise plan as submitted indicating two tandem parking spaces which were not considered by the Commission in_ their determination, there being sufficient parking without the tandem parking. ..,---,. Planning Commission 4 7/9/62 WILLIAM D. SAC~U JOHN A. AND MARIE E. PIERCE Continued public hearing on petition of William D. Sachau to rezone from R-1 (C potential) to C-3 and approve precis~ plan for commercial development for property located at 950 Artesia B9ulevard, Lot 6, except the westerly one acre, and except the northerly 80', Block 83, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach. Public hearing on petition for 0zone change from R-1 to C.-.3 of Jolm A. and Marie E. Pierce of the property located at 23Jl Prospect Avenue, the northerly 112.s1 of Lot 5, Block 83, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach. It was agreed to consider these two petitions simultaneously, as the developer included the two parcels for the commercial development, and in addition, joint usage on Artesia Boulevard of Lucky Market parking area. The City Engineer was requested by the Chairman toS<:etch a diagram of the property involved on the blackboard for the benefit of those preseut. Mr. Greg Simmons and Mr. Charles Franklin represented the prospective owners. Applicants were also present. l'here was no representative of the Lucky Market present. However, Mr. Simmons said there are negotiations presently underway with the Lucky Market people and that their parcel might also be acquired~ An aJ.ley on the southerly boundary of the Pierce property, shown on the plan, would be used as a service entrance and would go through·to Prospect as soon as all the land could be acquired, he stated. Mro Vitale, 1212-24th Street, asked if this alley would be an extension of 24th Street and also was interested in knowlng whether the parking as laid out· would be used by the Beach Bowl patrons. He referred to an earlier petition, denied by the Commi,ssion, for a portion of the Pierce property to be used as parking for the bowling alley on Pacific Coast Highway. The Chairman explained that the current petition involved other property and was a different proposition. Mr. Joel H. Edwards registered his approval for a commercial development in this areaQ Mr. Sachau asked, since his rezoning required a precise plan because of the C potential classification, that his case be decided on its own merits. Comm. Viault moved that the precise plan submitted be approved and the Sachau land be rezoned from R-1, C potential, to C-3. Conan. Black seconded the motion. However, prior to a vote, the point was made that the Lucky Market property, recently rezoned for parking purposes, was involved in the precise plan and that some of the parking shown on the plan would not b<! accessible without the Lucky Market parcel. There was more discltssion relative to the ramifications and complexities of developing according to the precise plan, and Comm. Viault asked to withdraw his original motion (Comm. Black withdrawing his second) and rephrased it as foll ows : That the Sachau property be rezoned to C-3 and the precise plan be adopted, sub j ect to the conditions t hat in developing t he property as submitted on the preci se plan, there shall be r ecorded with the County Recorder a joint agreement among the owners of the Sachau property, the Lucky Market property, and the Pierce property, their heirs and assignees, that the property is to be used as _per the precise plan approved, as long as the precise plan remains in force, said agreement being first approved by the City Attorney of the City of Hermosa Beach; and further, that if this agreement cannot be obtained, C-3 zoning -will still be granted this subject property when an adequate precise plan~ showing a minimwn of one stall for every 300 square feet f l oor area, is presentect to the Planning Commission for review. Planning Commission 5 7/9/62 Wm. D. Sachau -~ John A. and Marie E. Pierce Contd The vote was unanimous for approval of the f oregoing moti on, and thereupon Comm. Vi ault moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-385 granting the Sachau petition as per the motion,for the reason that the C potential zoning as f ar back as 1956 indicated the Couunission' s des:i.re to have this commercial use for-the proper ty, and the precise plan, as shown, aprears adequate for ingress, egress and total required parking spaces, as long as there is j oint usage of the parking area. Comm. Viault then moved that the petition for zone change fromR-1 to C...J be approved, subject to an agreement among the three property owners as ·set forth in t he moti on approving the Sachau petition, for the Pierce property, and on second by Comm. Black, the moti on was unanimously approved. Comm. Viault then moved adoption of Resolution P~ Ca 154-386 granting the zone change subject to the joi nt agreement; and further, that if this agreement cannot be obtained, c--.J zoning will still be granted this subject property when an adequate precise plan, showing a minimum of one stall for every 300 square feet floor area, i s presented to the Planning Commission for revie'W, for the reason that the change of zone 'Would not be detrimental t., the general plan; it would not be degrading to the area, and is a proper development adjacent to the existing and proposed commercial properties to the north. Comm. Jolmson seconded the motion, wluch carried unanimously. JOHN T. AND JEAN MUSSO Public hearing on application f or zone variance of John T. and Jean Musso to permit an addition of 385 square feet·on the upper unit of a duplex at 2441 .... 2443 Silverstrand Avenue, Lot 32, Tract 820, zoned R"."2, there existing two 18' deep in lieu of required 201 garages. Applicants were present speaking on behalf of their petition. Mr. George Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, spoke favorably, and aft er questioning by the Commissioners, Comm. ~foble moved that the request be granted. On secon l by :omm • .L-:,~lcen, the moti on was unanimously approvedo Co:.wn. J~lmson moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-387 granting the zone variance for the reason that the existing garages are only 2' short of the r equired, with the provision that the first floor portion supporting the second story addition not be enclosed. Comm. Noble seconded t he motion, which carried unanimously. HUGH DOHERTY -Motel Sign Letter from Building Inspector requesting review of proposed sign for Mr. Hugh Doherty at 901 Pier Avenue, advertising motel located at that address and measuring approximately 275 square fe~t. Mr. Doherty explained it was neces sary to attract f rom the PacifJ.c Coast Highway and to overcome the lights from Bacon Sales. Mr. John Schmolle1 who resides directly behind the motel, expressed his concern as to the possibility of flashing l ights t hat would di sturb the residents in the area, and was assured that this would not be the case. Comm. Viault moved that the sign be approved. Comm. Noble seconded the motion, which carried as foll ows: AYES: Comm. Noble, Viault, Black., Locken, Hamilton and Chairman Hales. NOES: Con:on. Johnsonc ABSENT: None . Planning Commission 6 7/9/62 VERN MAYNARD -Sigp Letter from Building Inspector requesting review of proposed sign for Mr. Vern Maynard at 1107 Pacific Coast Highway, measuring over 16 sq~are feet. Mr. Maynard was present to answer questions and explained that the lighting would be solid, red, white and blue, neon lighting. Comm. Viault moved that the sign be approved. Seconded by Comm. Jolmson, the motion carried as follows-: AYES-: NOES: ABSENT: CoI111ll. Noble, Viaul t, Black, Locken, Hamil ton and Chairman !{ale ;3 . Connn. Johnson. None. ROBERT E. _VIAULT -Parking_ Determination Letter from Robert E. Viault, architect, asking parking determinatj.on for office-store building, cotlsisting of 3200 square feet, at 506 Pier Avenue, the westerly 50' of Lot 13, Tract 780, providing six parking spaces. After some discussion, Chairman Hales moved that Scheme A, showing six stalls on Cypress Avenue, be approved. Comm. Black seconded the motion, Prior to a vote, Mr. Greg Stuart, local realtor, asked, as an uninterested person and property owner, what was the differencl:l :.,etw-~en this petition and the one requested by Messrso James, Cole and Moroney asking approval of three spaces for 1500 square feet of floor area, the present plan showing six spaces for J200 square feet. The Chai.rman explained that the contour of the land makes a considerable difference in how the property can be developed and the cars moved in and out witho-at congesti.on that would occur with tandem parking. Conan. Noble said there is a tremendous grade level on the Jamest property, and their proposal was for three inside tandem parking spaces. }fr ·. St u.art asked if Mr. James had proposed originally three spaces, would the plandhave been approved. Comm. Hales answered that the ordinance spells out minimwn requirements, and the Commission must consider each individual piece of propertyo The motion to approve Scheme A carried as follows: .AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Co.~ Noble, .Johnson, Black_, Locken, Hamilton and Chairman. Hales • None . Comm. Viault. None . I.ONE PINE INVESTMENTS -Parking Determination Letter from Building Inspector requesting determination of parring and turning r adi us for proposed 26-unit apartment house at 1731 Pacific Coast Highway, southerly 64t of Lot 16, Block 81, Second Addition to Her.mosa Beach, for the Lone Pine Investments. Mr. Walter Heikel was present to represent the developers. The Commissioners questioned him at some length concerning the·sketch submitted, and a motion was made by CollDll. Viault, seconded by Comm. Black, and carried unanimously that a letter be di rected to the Building Inspector advising that the turning radius be established at 25 ' for a standard 20' depth garage for subterranean parking with a 90° turn. Planning Commission 7 7/9/62 The Building Inspector announced that the request for review of advertising structure for Mr. Tex Marsh,at 1200 Artesia Boulevard, had been withdrawn. R-4 (filGH-RISE) and MAMIE, INC., PROPERTY Letter from City Clerk dated June 20, 1962, advising of Council action of June 19, 1962, concurring in recommendations and interpretations of Planning Commission relative to high-rise standards, made at the May 28, 1962, Colllllission meeting; Council recommending that Commission consider incorporating these changes into the text of the ordinance (amending Resolution P. C. 154-- 366>, and further, referring for study a subsection "E" under Section 753 that would provide that variations in standards not allow any reduction of the street widths; and letter from City Clerk dated July 5, 1962, relative to City Council action of July 3, 1962, on Mamie, Inc., appeal from P. C~ 154-367, requesting reconsideration of reclassification from M to R-4, in light of advic~ of legal cou11sel of the city. Due to the lateness of the evening, the Chai.rm.an suggested that these matters be considered at an adjour,ned meeting Monday, July 16, 1962, at 7!30 p.m. The City Manager advised that these matters have been continued until tha 17th of July by the City Council, and that there is a time ele~ent involved in order to have these matters on the November ballot. ➔~ ~-. * The City Manager announced a hearing in Hermosa Beach on August 1, at 10 :OO a.m., by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board on an appeal for beer license by the operators of Mr. Magoo's, 133 Hermosa Avenue. ADJOURNMENT at 11:55 p.m., r ...