HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1962_08_13MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION held at the City Hall
in Hermosa Beach, California, on Monday, August 13, 1962, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present -Co1Illil. Hamilton, Johnson, Miller, Noble and Viault.
Absent -connn. Black and Chairman Hales.
In the absence of the Chairman, Vice Chairman Noble presided, requesting
Comm. Johnson to be reading secretary in the absence of Connn. Black.
Bud M. Trott,
Bldg. Insp;
Salute to the flag was led by Mrs. Mary Mahony on request of the Vice Chairman.
Minutes of the regular meeting of July 9 and adjourned meeting of July 1G, 1962,
were unanimously approved.
R-3 LAND AREA REQUIREMENT
Public hearing on Resolution of Intention P. C. 154-382 of the Planning Commission
to consider amendment of Ordinance N. S. 154 by adding Section 608 to Article 6,
requiring 900 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit in an R-3, Multiple-
Family Residential Zone.
Letters in opposition from Thora E. and Frank w. Cook, Mary M. and Robert W. Boice,
and Sylvia M. and Robert Boice were read by Comm. Johnson.
Vice Chairman Noble explained there is no nuninrum square footage of land area
required in the R~3 zone, the number of apartments being predicated upon the
number of garages, and that a corner lot having three street entrances could have
an excessive number of apartments. Most of those built have been one bedroom
units or minimum square footage residences. The minimum land area requirement
per unit will help establish some basic common denominator of control over an
increased density. Many lots in the R-3 zone are not available for R-3 usage
because of their size. He asked Mr. Trott to give a brief synopsis.
Most cities do have some land area requirement per unit, Hermosa Beach being one of
the few that does·not have some control over this, the only control now being the
75% land coverage, the required setbacks usually amounting to the 25% of land that
cannot be covered. The overbuilding is on corner lots. An example is a ten unit
structure now being built on a 40xl00' lot on Lorna Drive just north of Pier Avenue.
A list of neighboring cities and their land area requirements per unit was read
by Mr. Trott.
Cormn. Viault expressed his view that the letters that were read in opposition
might be referring to the apartment size rather than the land area per unit.
At this point, Vice Chairman Noble opened the public hearing, asking if anyone
wished to speak favorably on the proposal. There was no response.
Those either opposing or questioning zoning restrictions, etc., affecting their
property were as follows:
C. M. Bingham, 1901 Palm Drive -Have a corner lot; taxes are high. Cutting it
down to 2-family building will be hard to make it pay. Would like to protest
against this proposal. Think the reasons given in the letters are very good.
Lot is pie-shaped, 571 on Hermosa Avenue, 70' on rear, 2900 square feet. The
Vice Chairman explained that this lot did not fall into this classification,
since it lacked the required 4,000 square feet.
Planning Commission 2 August 13, 1962
R-3 Amendment Hearing Contd
Roy Stinnett, Palos Verdes Estates -Own business property and have two houses
on R-3 property. Would like to see where this has any advantage for me or tax
wise either. Nothing that would bring taxes down. Have two lots together,
60x87½', R-3, at 710-704-lst Street. At the present time, what can I build?
The Vice Chairman advised that the number of units would be predicated on how
many garages he could get. Mr. Stinnett continued and said he was in favor of
Redondo Beach's 500 square foot land area requirement -anything to get more
activity in Hermosa Beach he would favor.
Dave Kennedy, 300 Hermosa Avenue -Was hoping I would be able to tear my place down
and make major improvements. To tear it down for four units does not seem to be
economically feasible. Larger apartments make for more cars and children. Next
door are some of the worst properties in Hermosa Beach. Unless they are allowed
to build twelve units on the 80' front, this property down there will stand there.
Abuut half of this property in my block has been improved -mostly six units on
each lot. Seems to me it will impose a hardship on the lots left and do think
it will decrease the value of the property, since they cannot go up as long as
these old buildings remain.
William Manns, 430 N. Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hills, California -Own three lots
between 8th and-9th Streets on the Strand, taxes over $2,000 a year. The lots
are only 30x80', and we have been thinking of tearing down our building. You
have some valuable property on the Strand.
Ruth Schwartz, 1737 Manhattan Avenue -Would like to state that this is like
closing the stable door after the horse is gone. This is going to hurt the
people who haven't built yet. Vice Chairman Noble said they realized the
timing is not right for everyone, but the Commission feels that the past zoning
has not been the best and the Connnission is trying to remedy this.
Howard Hodge, 2526 Hermosa Avenue -Are these three written protests protesting
because they want a minimum or because the ordinance limits the size that are
pretty big lots to two residences? A 45x80' lot will qualify for only two
residences under the ordinance. Are these letters in protest to the ordinance
as proposed, or do they want the lot size less? Most of the arguments you hear
are wanting less square footage.
Mr. Dahm, 18008 Falda, Torrance -Recently purchased two R-3 lots with the full
expectation of building 10 units. This would cut me down to six. The money per
lot is about 60% of what I anticipated spending for my lot area per unit.. I am
definitely opposed to the change. The property is on Monterey across the street
from the South School. In the next block there is a 10 unit only recently
completed on the same size lot as mine. I think this would be an injustice to
me to have this ordinance put into effect. Asked what type, one or two bedroom
units, he;answered not necessarily all one bedrooms, since he could go three
stories on both streets.
Mr. Walton, Torrance -Own property at 125-16th Street and am acquiring some
additional property. Have been looking at this area with the idea of investment
and I think the lot area that is now proposed is excessively restrictive with
respect to the number of units that can be put on a lot over 4000 square feet.
I feel for the general level of the area and the market opportunity of the area,
it would almost stifle construction to such an extent you would have no
Planning Conunission 3 August 13, 1962
R-3 Amendment Hearing Contd
opportunity of increasing your tax income favorably for us who are interested
in this area. Go down somewhere to 600 -650 square feet in the event you
want to place a limiting factor that would be controllable. If we could build
units that would rent for $225, but we can't. Ask one question -what happens
to a lot that is below the 4000 square feet but would meet the 900 square foot
requirement with respect to building good construction -is the requirement
for 4000 square feet still in effect or not? If I own one of these lots less
than 4,000 and tm s ruling is passed, I still can only build two uni ts,
You're not helping anybody at all. You're not helping the city.
Mrs. Holly Lenz, 1618 Palm Drive -Have a house that approximately takes up
one-third of the lot. My property on Manhattan is one of the few unimproved
lots. Most of the lots are 30' wide. Mine is 30xlOO. I cannot do anything
with the front. Have had several opportunities to sell, but they go down to
the City Hall and find they can do nothing with the front of the lot. I bought
it with the intention of building on Manhattan. I believe the requirement
should be decreased instead of increased.
Vice Chainnan Noble said there are many lots zoned R-3 that do not have R-3
usage, since there must be a 40' width and 4000 square feet to qualify for
multiple usage.
Mrs. Schwartz - I dontt know of any zoned R-3 that are 401 wide. Comm. Johnson
explained if she desired to buy the lots next to hers, she could have multiple
units and that it had been the Commission's feeling there should be a certain
minim.um size lot for multiple units.
Darrell Knight, 620-9th Street -Bought an R-3 lot with a house on it. If my
lot is dropped to R-2, my taxes arentt going to drop. This is one for urban
renewal. Comm. Johnson answered this has nothing to do with urban renewal.
Mr. Knight continued that his lot is SOxlOO, and the Vice Chairman said the
Cormnission could not be concerned individually whether there is a large house
on a large lot, dropping down to two units, but that the problem being faced
is the overall problem concerning the R-3 multiple zoned areas and that at
least five units could be built on a 5000 square foot lot.
As.ked if the Commission were interested in density, Vice ChairmanNoble answered
in the affirmative. He was then asked if that was the main one -the methods of
building are changing, utilization of land for apartments is changing quite a
bit. The 900' minimum would almost eliminate the feasibility of making more
modern apartments in the area -it hits a point -where you cannot get any return.
The speaker continued that his property is between Ardmore and Pacific Coast
Highway on Third Street 80.xlOO+ and that he has been putting off building. The
900' per unit is more than he anticipated, and he opposed this proposed 900'.
John Inscho, Manhattan Beach -Own three properties at 53-15th Street, zoned R-3,
30' wide lots and two oocupied by a building many years old. Have some questions -
am not sure about the motives. Look at Redondo Beach and at Manhattan and at
the other beach cities. And Hermosa Beach is very rapidly overtaking Venice in
being the crunnniest area on the beach. Something is wrong. Our fire rates are
going up. We have old junky buildings. You have explained you want better
control, but by discouraging new building it will not reduce fire rates or taxes.
Planning Commission 4 August 13, 1962
R-i Amendment He aring Contd.
Are you trying to discourage new building coming into the area by making a
requirement for larger living areal If that will reduce the taxes and reduce the
fire rates, I am for it. I am fully prepared to sit on this property until you
fellows are long out of office. It may take ten or fifteen years. Venice may
improve and we may overtake Venice. Is this due to our weather, our location
or traffic? If this will not encourage new building, it has no imagination.
To compare Hermosa with Newport Beach, Santa Monica and say this is what
everybody else has is not the answer. Do something better than what everybody
else in the neighborhood is doing. I think! this is a half-way measure. Asked
what he would recommend, he answered that he was not sure but was for
encouraging as many units on a piece of property as possible, to increase the
tax base and lower the fire rates and for tearing down the old buildings and
forcing people to build on these vacant lots. The vacant lots should be
overtaxed to force people to build and bear their share of the taxes.
Vice Chairman Noble said the Commission's aim is-not to discourage building;
they want to encourage building, but in the past, there has been almost a
free rein in the R-3 multiple zone; there has been a predominance of one bedroom
units, attracting the single person; vacancies run high; police problems r1U1
high in the areas; excessive amount of on street parking in these areas where
there is a high density; with this control, it is hoped more spacious, more
attractive and more deluxe units will be built instead of building the maxi.mum
number of units on a piece of property; a builder or contractor may not make the
amount of.money he had hoped to by putting eight when they would be restricted
to 5, but it is felt it will help the city if the Commission establishes some
control to eliminate the building: of the one bedroom uni ts.
Mr, Insko -YouTre discouraging the increase in population, the reduction in
taxes ~d fire rates. You're promoting keeping the buildings like the one I
have -built 40 years ago. These things are not helping the fire rates in the
beach area. You're discouraging new buildings, modern buildings.
Charles Rick, 1454 Manhattan Avenue -Have a piece of R-3 property and am just
as concerned about density in population as you are. The lot would take six
units at the present time. Feel with six units the building would probably
house about 12 people. If restricted to four units, the building would probably
have 16 people -the only way I could rent it. Would increase the density of
the population. Would hate to see any condition developed here as in the San
Diego and Mission Beach area. Comm. Johnson asked what he would suggest as
a compromise. Mr. Rick said something like 4 ~r 500'-have no compromise to
offer at the moment. Feel you people have some experience, being on the
Planning Commission.
Mr-. Hodge -How was it before with. the mistaken R-3 30' lots? If yout,i'e
requiring 900' and hanging on to the 4000, you're limiting two residences on
that piece of property. I built a 4-car garage and 2 small uni ts with the inten-
tion of another. Now, I am limited. Actually, with 900 square feet, mine
would qualify for at least three or four, which was the original plan. Seems
to be kind of a muddle if you tre going to require 900' and hang on to everything
else in the old ordinance. I don't think you have a point.
Planning Connnission 5 August 13, 1962
R-3 Amendment Hearing Contd
B. G. Adlam, Los Angeles -Think yot,thave a tough proposition to try and please
all of us. Does seem an excessive change. If you have a lot that by preseny
figures should take six units, one-third of his value is gone. The property
I have is 5000; could take eight apartments. Cut that down to five -37½%.
None of us can afford to sit still and let it go by default. Hermosa does look
a little drab alongside its neighbors. If you make it any more difficult or
more unprofitable for a man to build, these old houses are going to remain
with us. The Vice Chairman asked what he would recormnendo Mr. Adlam said
there is a very beautiful building with eight units near his building -very
workable. He was told his building could be exactly the same size -the number
of units would be less, but the gross income would increase in direct proportion
to the size of the living units.
Tony Barrato, 1314 Loma Drive - I am opposed to this. Seems you have a lot of
information -you have asked several people in the audience. I recommend that
the City Council be asked to set aside some funds and get somebody in this town
to survey property, professional people, and let's get something done in
Hermosa worth pointing to. This very building wetre in is testimonial to
something. Find out what can be done in a town of this size near t~e beach
with the number of people we have here. By 1975 we will have 25 million
people in California. You're concerned about density. You should be concerned
about people as well. This is a small detail. You'll never solve the major
problem without some general goal to shoot for. A plan is your function.
Mrs. Melena Nigoian, 1318 Strand -Question the quality of construction. The
concrete on the Strand is as good as new. New concrete is falling apart. Our
taxpayers' money is being wasted. The business people one by one can't make
a living. These shopping centers have taken our business away. Am really
very worried about everything coming in here - a lot of little, tiny buildings
not worth anything. People living in this town want to live somewhere else.
People would rather live in Manhattan. Not safe for children to walk down the
street. Every single day we're spending money to clean the beach, and the next
morning it's as dirty as ever. Can't even rent my apartments because of the
dirty beach.
Jake Dukes -Redondo Beach -Bought property at 947, 951 and 958-lst Street on a
speculative basis. Had great potential when I bought it. Seems to me youtr,.,-
relatively arbitrary figure is going to reduce the potential value. Don't know
whether this figure will improve the quality of people or construction. Am
opposed to your proposed amendment~ and I am interested in the idea of compromise.
The fact that other cities adjacent have certain figures has a relatively small
amount of validity. We should survey our own situation. Don't believe this
proposed amendment will have any bearing on the quality of construction or
quality of people. Might have an adverse effect on the entire overall picture
for the city. Corron. Johnson asked what figure he would suggest. He answered
he did not know what is best but felt this to be excessive and the Cononission
should weighi:it and reconsider their motive and try to come up with something
that is more acceptable. Connn. Viault asked if he felt a square footage control
should be imposed. The quality of construction is not related-to square footage,
and the quality of people is not related to the square footage, he answered. The
Connnission will have to come up with some other means, Mr. Dukes said. Commo
Viault asked if he felt a control of density is important. He answered that he
did not; control of quality i§'.more importantj don't feel you will control
Planning Connni ssion 6 August 13, 1962
R-3 Amendment Hearing Contd
density or have any impressive control of density with this proposed amendment.
My lots are zoned R-P and meet the R-3 zoning requirement.
Vice Chairman Noble asked Mr. Dukes if the zoning ordinance would allow him to
put in the number of units he felt would be necessary for speculative buildia_;,
would he favor it. He added that many of' the Connnission1s meeti ngs are attended
by a mass of people who are against any new construction; they want it to remain
exactly as it is. The Commission is not against you, he told Hr. Dukes, but has
a concern for Hennosa Beach too and is trying to do what is best for a multitude
of people.
Lloyd Knutson, 3504 Strand -In my mind, I think 600 square f ~et of land area
would be adequate in the City of Hermosa Beach. Would be nruch fai rer to maintain
the minimum of 600 square feet for these R-3 lots that have been sold, but
remove, if the lot can qualify for R-3, the excessive restrictions. You have
so many lots i n tlus area· 30x.1.00. Where they can build three good units and
provide offstreet parki ng, make that available. Am again depending on your
inspector and your Planning Commission to determine that these three units are
good. In the City of Los Angeles you can take a part of the alley as part
of your square footage on an R-3. Works on 400 for R-4 and 600 for R-3. They
watch what goes in there . If you can use subterranean garages·~ do it. If you
can put three good units and get good •Jn-~ s, I say it should bia -fon.,1. This cl. ty
really need~ cl:.rn.ning u.:.,, ge.,1tlemoJ~1.
Gus Barks, 1217-2nd St:r,eet -Own R-3 property and am again3t t :-i-e 900 squa.re
f,J,t r"q11i.r ,~1u,")uc. L:1 the l,,cality we have, yo11 can 1mt mor~ snwll uni.ts, more
income, than if you put less unit.3 for higher cl ass people., which we don't think
wetll get i n t hat l ocality. Get di.fferent kind of people and higher !'ents at
the other and. My two lots are 8Qxll5 and can get about 12 units, income $100
apiece, single uni.ts. If you get· this 900 square f,.-,ot .l.n tbat locality, you
have to get more rent. Less units, your propertyis worth less. You'ra i n·the
real ~state busine.:1s; yo·'J. should know. Have two lots that were zoned R-2, and.
they changed it to R-1. The real estate men say it is~'t worth as much. rhe
man wi. th the in,--,;.1.-~y isn't going to come in Hermosa Beach. They go some _pl ace
they can make a bette-r in-vestment. Your proposed change will make i-t w::irse
instead of better. It's worse for jYa:opl :? with 30 or 25' lots. 900 square feet
will make a hardship; bette.-clla..,c,3 betireen 500 and 500.
Frank Sh.ann~ 51)0 Ard.non.i .. Seer,1s t ,, n~ ti.us arbitrary f i gm"e of 900 square .feet
is an attemp·t to rais-~ the price of somethl.ng \ihen the market's bad. Tightening
up the rest:dctions will make it to;1gher f0r the lru.td t o be danlo:ped. If you
have a run-down area, the 011ly w-ay that it can be devel oped is little by l ittle,
putting i nexpensi -Ve) u.ni ts first, and as the p:r<1perty tends t,-, impr.ov~ J the n~xt
one gets a little bett-3r -the histo!"y of r edevalopment, u::,t :irban !'~:.1.e1'fa1.
Something now, then soJneth.i.ng a littl•~ bette,.-, wd you t i g:1.t~11 U.iJ with moJ~e
restrictions as you go. You can bring a c ommuni ty back up. Imposing this 9001
on a lot that is slum will cause stagnation. It's the ec:mo-rnics ol' the situa.t:Lon
to go ahead a.~d build and come out. The tax assessment dictates that when you
develop the property you get so much a unit. The more you pay fo~ the land,
the more you have to get .i.n rent, The l ess you pay, the less you have to get.
To be competitive in a slum area, you ha:ve to put mo::'e un.it8 per land. In this
particular area where you can consolidate lots and get large lot size areas,
you. can s -:,l ve t he _parking r~qui :--e~11e~1t:s and ':'edey(!l•JJ:1 ti1~ area and put so.-:netb:i.ng
Planning Connnission 7 August 13, 1952
up with rents., say fol" $100, that Hollywood Riviera would have to rent for $125.
I would not invest any of my money in this devcl,Jp:nent aale3s I knew I C')uld
get so many ,mi ts.
Mary Mahony, realto:, of Henno3a Beach -Dislike th.a idea of a slu.'Tl area.
The fact is that our lots were laid out long before th•i!se boys cami:! t,J Hert,10:=:a
Beach. We caJ1?t change the size of t~1.c lots. Take the JO;clOO's -we must
compromi.se somewh~re. I know what the one bednvmts du im· c-Iermosa Jeacll.
In order t•:i b~ pro~d cif a i.10:ne to .. m, :Lt has to be a home tow:,.1. Comprom.is0 011
the square footage, aud on the 30.x:100 foot lots, if we were to have 800 squai'.'e
feet, which we have had in Redondo Beach and Manhattan, you would ha-ve 2400
square feet af usable home a1•~a and also have a yard. Would like t-J recqri1:nerd.
that we try to work out an ao:, :md 84::J foot _plan.
!-fr. Barrato -Came to listen, b~lt I am stimulat•~d. The pm~pose of the public
hearing is to assist you gei1tlemen in making a decisi•.)n. The reason for this
resolution, getting back to the density, is someth.1.ag we need to d~l v•~ i.nto a
little more. Are the current pr:)blems in Hermosa Beach, the social ai'.d, ecoium.i,~
pr oblem_c,, d•.ie t,J the cur"~,rt :j,~nsi ':;l J:.· lack of it~ :)T' du3 t;(.) la1'."g•~ areas that
are bllgnt:i 1? People who doa't feel there are sections blighted, I suggest .re
get a sociologLst. I am sure th~y woald-qualify 'llllch of !;lli.s c:i ty as blig'.1teJ.
Look at t:1e i.ncr.~ase in the poli~!! f-:irce, etc. I think we need to :..'e-cvaluate.
Whether we are in here fot' selfish reasons or not is besid~ the point. I think
we want a good tm-vn.
Mr, Kennedy -aow did yn'J. arriYi~ at 900 when the basic fig1.u~e you.t:re talking
about is 4000 -yout~e starting at 3600?
Mr. Stin...--iett -Mr. Trott could condemn this p:roperty from 6th Street 0n south -
I told the Council about a year ago, ai.1d they laughed at me. I can live in
Palos Verdes cheaper.
Mr. Block., Hermosa Avenue ;;;; Am agai11st your p.ropose-:1 change in square footage.
A builder or anyone else will find out what they ca..'1. get aud how much inv~stmcnt
the1r ca.n put into it. The builder will cut the cost ,Jf construction until it's
lousy. The way you'::::--~ going is encouraging and inviting poor constru:::tion. You
are not improving ·the quality of construction in Herm,,sa Beach. If you have an
architect ~ome in and plan rather than some drafting 3ervice, I bet we could put
units up with 500 square feet that would win awards. It is a matter of planning.
900 square fe-3t j<Jesn't ma..1-ce a gooi u..-.,_j_: wd 5ryJ dc,esn1'; mi:1.1{~ a bad uni-:::. rhis
works di:r>-.!ctly into the numb-9r of :.mi_ts. Hermosa .ls stagnating, and I ag~ee '.vit'..1
othet's who say it is a blighted city. If it gets much wo1•3e, so'ne sma·~t
deve1oper will get in here~ th urban renewal.
Wilma Bradshaw, Manhattan Beach -Think all of us here are interest~d b•.rtn as
property 0wner1s and as home mme:rs. • Home owners and people w-ho 1i ve here ar-~
interested as well as the investors. ·rhe people wer-~ .notified. The people
who are here have mad-c it pretty well understo:id -no one sp-1:ce in fav,1.r-; ev-eryone
has spoken against it. Mrs. Mahony suggested an 800 square foot possibility.
On these R-3 lots, people e~'Pected to tear down these homes that arentt a credit
to our c-Lty, and the pric~s th,~y ::iaye paid have b~~n bas~-J on tl1<~ fa~t that they
expected t<J buLld more. There is a lot of adjustment tl1.at should h~ made. This
gentleman with a 45x80 lot ha~ a problem -he has R-2 usage. I don't believe
you gentlemen should pass on this 900 square foot at this time. Think it needs
further cons.ide1~ation, a.."ld I would hope you would not pass on this t,:)111.ght.
Plan..lling Commission 8 August 13, 1962
R-3 Amendment Hea·cLng Contd
Mrs. Schwartz -Are you go;_ng to 1)ay a,.--iy attent.i.on to this public h.~al'ing?
You'-ve been liste:aing and yo11rre doing a. go-:,:i .~ob, ~ut is i t g1:i..ig to ;ns'Ja.11
anything t '.) yo·1? Help us poo:r characte rs out who have 30xl00' l ots.
Gentleman from audience -The house :m .:ny R-3 l ot i s 'Jlose t o 60 year.s old.
If your proposed ordinance goes through, the kouse would probably stay another
ten years. The property would boc:)rn.~ :b:""1:1a.ut.
Comm. Yia'.11 t -Think at ·the rate we' r e goi ng with. nine i tem:3 on the agenda,
suggest we hold t lus particular. public :hearing i n abeyance until we have our
other two Conuni.,sioners here and give our two new Comnris sioners, Mr. Mil ler
and Mr . Hamilton;a better opportunity to review it and possibly take i nto
considaration some 1)f the things we have heard tonight.
Comm. Viault thereu.po,'l. 1n-:w:id -;:;:1at the public h\3u.ri:ng· be cont:Ltned t0 the second
Monday in Oct ober. Connn. Mill~, seconded t ne motion, which carriad as fol.lows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
Comm. Hamil ton, Mille:r , fi>aul t and Vice Cba.i.·ma.n ~'loble.
Gomm. JoJmsou.
Comm. Black and Chairman Hales.
After t he vote, Comm, }tiller mentioned one th_i.ng, he said, t hat ha.d not beeu
brought up -the fact that all present live in a resort CO!lUllun:1.-c<;y. He said
he traveled all over tile worl d, and the population densi t y increaaes directly
to t he proximi ty to the ocr.au and thi~ 3hould defini tely be taken into conside'!'a--
tion. The f arther away from tJ:1e ocean, s ome s m~t of slidi ng control. People wh o
want gr3.ss and large amount of lan:l Li.ve back aways . All over the world this
exist,-s . You hav?. a wonderful resort commun:Lt:r here.
LONE PINE INVESTMENTS
Reconsideration of requirement for 25' turning radius f or proposed 26-unit
apartment house at 1731 Pacific Coast Highway for Lone Pine Investments, on
request of City Council after hearing on appeal that applicant might undertake
a clear span type .construction without any verti cal obstructing posts.
Mr. Walter Hiekel represented the company. After considerable discussion,
Comm. Johnson moved that the request be granted subject to the r equirement that
it be a clear span space with no obstruction. Comm. Hamilton seconded the
motion, which carried as fol lows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comm. Hamilton, Mil ler, Viault and Vice Chairman Noble.
Conan. Johnson.
Comm. Black and Chairman Hales .
Comm. Johnson -Quite possible f or him to provide adequate parking merely by
reducing the number of units.
Comm. Viault Will vote yea. as long as they are going to higher type
construction and bringing more and better people i nto
Hennosa Beacho
Planning Commission 9 August 13, 1962
Lone Pine Investment Contd
Comm. 'Jolrmson moved adoption of P.C.154-390 recommending the granting of the
request of the Lone Pine Investments for a 23' turning radius with 20' stalls, giving
an overall 63', subject to the requirement that it be a clear span construction with
no obstructions in the parking space. Comm. Hamilton seconded the motion, whl.ch
carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comm. Hamilton, Milldr, Viault and Vice Chairman Noble.
Comm. Johnson.
Comm. Black and Chairman Hales
LORENE C. TURNER
Public hearing on application for zone variance of Mrs. Lorene C. Turner to
permit addition of second unit, to extend to front property line with uncovered
entry stairs, in lieu of lt setback for s~id·stairs, and to use existing garages
measuring 19xl 7 '611 inside in lieu of 20.x8l6tt, at 27-Sth Street, Lot 19, Block 9,
Hermosa Beach Tract, zoned R-3.
Mr. Savo Stoshitch represented the applicant.
Connn. Viau:!,.t moved that the petition be granted. ColIIIIl. Johnson seconded the
motion, wmch carried unanimously.
Comm. Viault moved adoption of P. c. 154-391 granting .the application for the reason
that the garages are presently being used and -and are adequate for the property,
and that the entry stair of one foot is no significant detriment to the city and
would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously ..
RICHARD H. GERALD
Public hearing on application for zone variance of Richard H. Gerald to permit
addition of second unit, over 40% of existing floor area, and bedroom-addition
to existing unit that has a 3'811 front setback in lieu of required 5', additions
to be conformjng to required setbacks, at 508-30th Street, Lot 4, Block 138,
Shakespeare Tract, zoned R-2.
Mr. Gerald was present speaking on behalf of his petition.
On motion by Conona ViaU:lt, seconded by Comm. Hamilton, the request was unanimously
granted. Comm. Viault moved adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-392 granting the
application for the reason that the existing structure is 3'8" from the front
property line, but the new construction would not materially change what is
already existing and what would probably remain for years to· come, and is not
detrimental to the general plan. On second by Comm. Hamilton, the motion carried
unanimously.
,. Planning Commission 10 August 13, 1962
A. L. GREEN
Public hearing on application for zone variance of Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Green to
permit a wire and wood fence running 39' on east property line, from front
yard setback, varying in height from 61 to 6'811 in lieu of required maxi.mum
height of 6', at 1127-6th Street, Lot 5> Tract 5209.
Mr. Green explained his request. Mrs. 'J)jn:srnmie of 1135-6th Street complained that
drainage from her property had been affected by the structure.
On motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Hamilton, the request was unanimously
granted. Comm. Viault moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-393 granted the
petition for the reason that the addition of 811 on the fence is due to a slight
variance in the topography, and the fence has been maintained as a lawful fence
at its uppermost portion and is not of any significant damage or danger to
anybody at the 6'8" height.
DONALD M. SAUTTER
Public hearing on application for zone amendment from R-1 (M potential) to
manufacturing and adoption of Precise. Plan for construction of a manufacturing
building for Donald M. Sautter at 325 Ardmore Avenue.
Petitioner was present, as was Morry Denn tiho spoke to the Commission on behalf
of the request. Helen Weingard, owner of property in that area, asked what type
of manufacturing was being considered and was told the building would be )eased~
and there is a potential boat builder considering leasing the structure which
would have a 4-hour wall.
The Commission deliberated at some length on·the feasibility of changing the
zoning fromR-1 to Min tlus particular area, opinions being expressed that
perm.its can be issued for single-family dwellings which, intermingled with the
existing manufacturing, is not considered good for the city.
Collilil. Viaul t moved that the amendment be granted and the precise plan adopted
with the provision that the curb and gutter and sidewalk on the southern side
of Fourth Street be extended from its termination point ~o Ardmore on to a point
approximately at the property line between Lots 51 and 52, still providing three
parking stalls off of 4th ~treet in the general location of Lot 51 and with
the additional proviso that the south side of 4th Street adjacent Lots 51 and 52
be paved according to the City's specifications. The motion carried unanimously
on second by Comm. Johnson.
Comm. Viault then moved adoption of·Resolution P. C. 154-394 granting the zone
change and adoption of precise plan; provided the applicant pave the south side
of 4th Street facing Lots 51 and 52, provide curbs, gutter and sidewalk complex
in front of Lot 52, such·improvements to be in accordance with the City Engineerts
plans and specifications, and the area immediately to the north of the three
parking staJ.ls on Lot 51 also be improved according to the City Engineer's plans
and specification for normal street construction in Hermosa Beach, for the reasons
that it is a benefit and an asset to the City of Hermosa Beach to have such a
development in this area, which is primarily manufacturing now and which has been
determined to be developed in the direction of manufacturing. Comm. Johnson
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Planning Commission 11 August 13, 1962
ROBERT VARGAS -Parking Determination
Letter from Building Inspector asking review of offstreet parking for proposed
13 units at 639--4th Street·for Mr. Robert Vargas. On motion by Connn. Johnson,
seconded by Comm. Hamilton, it was unanimously agreed to direct a letter to the
Building Inspector approving the 25' turning radius as shown in the plan submitted.
\/U ·« yL ADJOURNMENT AT LL:O0 p.m.
Joe B. Noble , Vice Chairman
r