Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1962_09_11MINUTES OF A REGUIAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the·City Hall in Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, September 11, 1962, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present -Comm. Black, Hamilton, Johnson, Miller, Noble, Viault and Chairman Hales. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. Absent -None. The Chairman called the meeting to order, arid Minutes of the regular meeting of August 13, 1962, were unanimously approved. ROYAL D. GLICK r Public hearing on application of Royal D. Glick to permit zone change from R-1 to C-3 of Lot 10, Block 2, Montmarie Tract, subject lot abutting C-3 property owned by applicant at 754-24th Place. • Applicant was present to speak on behalf of his petition. Motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Miller to grant the petition carried unanimously. On motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Hamilton:, Resolution P. C. 154-395 was unanimously adopted, granting the petition to give con£ormity to the existing area, as it is felt it would be a hardship to subject owner of the property if it were not rezoned due to the contour of the property and the undesirability of developing this property as R-1; the lot in question being under the same ownership as the adjoining property to the east which is zoned C-3; and this re.zoning will place a homogeneous grouping of the property together. CARL E. AND MARY E. JOHNSON Public hearing on application for zone variance of Carl E. and Mary -E. Johnson, i~ an R-1 zone, to improve, enlarge and maintain a rental unit on the ground level below an existing residence, by adding two bedrooms and bath. The property presently exists as a nonconforming building and nonconforming use, being improved with a family residence, a rental unit on the rear of the lot, and the unit for which the variance is sought, at 2666 Strand, Lot 11, Block 27, Hermosa Beach Tract. Secretary Black read letters from Kr~ and Mrs. Arthur H. Morgenstern, 2654 Strand, and Richard G. Thompson, 2806 Strijnd, favoring the petition. Mr. William Hollingsworth, Manhattan Beach, attorney for applicants, spoke in their behalf, as did Mr~ Joel Edwards, owner of property at 3030 Manhattan Avenue, Donna Morgenstern Axton, neighbor of applicants, and a Mr. Hartwell, 1039 w. 35th St., Los Angeles 7, a visitor in applicants' home. A petition, signed by eight nearby property owners, was submitted by the attorney, favoring the petition. Speaking in opposttion were Mr. Hugo Lizza, 2702 Strand, Mr. John R. MacFaden, 3301 Strand, Mr. Wilkinson, 2140 Strand. Those favoring the petition complimented the Jobnsons on the improvement in the appearance of the premises and argued that the unit in question had been in existence as a rental at all times. In opposition, it was stated that these quarters had been used as guest or change quarters and had not been a separate unit, and that the work done by Mr. Jolmson had been performed with no building permits. They emphasized the value of their R-1 property and the depreciation of values that would occur if this applicant and others were allowed to increase the number of units, Planning Commission Johnson Contd 2 9/11/62 The public hearing was closed by the Chairman, and Mr. Hollingsworth asked for a rebuttal. The hearing was re-opened, and it was stated by the attorney that he was taking the premise that it was a three-unit, thinking he already had that right. Mr. MacFaden asked to be heard in opposition, stating that the archives in the city would show whether this had been a three-unit, that to his knowledge the subject unit had never been a rental. On closing the hearing again, the Commissioners discussed the matter at length. Chairman Hales asked the Building Inspector to give a history of the construction. Mr. Trott stated that he had had a call that there was an additional unit added on to the premises approximately eight months ago. There was one room and some kitchen facilities and a bathroom. In his opinion, he said, where this kitchen was located, apparently there had been a laundry room, which had been turned into a kitchen. There had been added two rooms and a bath which had been done recently. The applicant had admitted to him, in front of a witness, that he had added the two bedrooms and bath without any building, plwnbing or electrical perm_tt~ave no way of knowing how long this original room and kitchen facilities and bath had been there, but we definitely know these other rooms were added recently, Mr. Trott said. On another complaint, in one of the garages, he has a sleeping room, adding a semi-unit off of one of the garages with a shower and sleeping room and taking up part of the garagv. Again, according tu Mr. Trott, it appears that this has not been there too long -maybe three~ four or five months. Mr.Johnson made the statement to Mr. Trott and a witness that this had always been there. He was asked by Comm. Noble if he felt there could be any further increase in the density of the property, and Mr. Trott answered that he did not think two units could be made from the' downstairs unit. On further questioning, Mr. Johnson was asked to draw a diagram of the unit on the blackboard, pointing out what had originally been there and what construction he had done. Comm. Black said that he was familiar with the property and that the space in question could have been used only as a temporary measure for sleeping quarters during the war. In answer to questions by the Cormnissioners Mr. Johnson said he had purchased the property on March 28, 1956, and had rented this unit the first week, around Easter Sunday of 1956; the property had been vacant for at least two years prior to his purchase. He had kept the unit rented, occupying it himself at times, continuously, he said, the remodeling being done by his son and himself at a cost of not more than $700 or $800, possibly $1,000 at the most. Comm. Miller commented that if the Commission sets a precedent here san:tifyi.ng and allowing someone to remodel without a permit and gives its approval, who then prevents every person from doing the same thing, having rentals until they get caught? Cormn. Viault moved that the variance be granted. Connn. Hamilton seconded the motion, which failed to carry by a unanimous vote, Comm. Viault then moved adoption of Resolution P. C, 154-396 denying the variance for the reasons that there has been no hardship shown to indicate the necessity of granting the variance; the remodeling of an existing nonconforming structure is against the ordinance now standing; there has been no showing of any exceptional or extraordinary circu_mstance to warrant the granting of a variance, and to grant this application would simulate multiple zoning which WQ\i¼d be spot zoning in this ~l area. Connn, Hamilton seconded the motion, wb,J_~h carried unanimous1y. Planning Commission 3 9/11/62 JOSEPH H. FLAHERTY Public hearing on application for zone variance of Joseph H. Flaherty to permit bedroom addition extending to rear property line in lieu of required three foot rear setback at 425 Gould Avenue, Lot 13, Block 128, Shakespeare Ttact. Applicant was present to speak on behalf of his petition. Comm. Viault expressed lus disapproval of granting these variances permitting structures to be built out to the property line, suggesting that possibly the city should vacate the alley if it is not going to be used and an easement be given for the existing city sewer line. Chairman Hales suggested that the Commission ask for a report on the feasibility of deeding the alley back to the property owners or whether the land is useful as an alley. Comm. Noble moved that the variance be granted. Comm. Miller seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Comm. Black, Hamilton, Johnson, Miller, Noble. Comm. Viault and Chairman Hales. None. Prior to the vote, Chairman Htles stated the question of housing a family could still be done in an additional bedroom without going to the property line. According to tbe sketch, it would give an 11'811 x 13'1011 bedroom. This is not a question of whether the applicant can build a bedroom; it is a question of where to stop the north wall in the bedroom. Comm. Noble moved adoption of P. C. 154-397 granting the variance, the reasons being there has been a prior precedent established by a similar variance granted to Mr. Adolph Ehlers in the same locality; it appears very unlikely that this alley will be developed for traffic, and this land is of use as space for traffic; a hardship would be shown to this family if subject request were not granted. Corran. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Hamilton, Johnson, Miller, Nobleo Comm. Viault and Chairman Hales. None. WIISHIRE OIL COMPANY -Metal Exterior and Parking Determination Letter from Building Inspector requesting review for parking and approval of exterior metal for Wilshire Oil Company service station at 1131 Pacific Coast Highway. The Budlding Inspector informed the Commission that the Knott Motel now existing on the site was to be demolished. On motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Connn. Black, the vote was unanimous to approve the metal exterior and waive the parking requirements per dr awings submitted. Planning Commission 4 9/11/62 ROBERT VARGAS-Turning Radius f or Apartment House Request f or redetermination of turning radius from approved 25' to 24'8" for Robert Vargas' 13-unit apartment house at 639-4th Street. Mr. Vargas was pres'ent, stati ng that the reques t was necessary because of the final drawings. Comm. Viault moved approval of the 24'8" figure; the motion was seconded by Conm. Black and carried unanimously. COUNCIL LETTER RE LONE PINE INVESTMENTS City Clerk letter of August 22 approving Lone Pine Investment Company, per P. c. 154-390, with stipulation that the i'ive spaces for guest parking shown on plans be i ncluded. It was unanimously agreed to receive and file the letter. R-3 LAND AREA REQUIREMENT Conmt. Viault asked that the Commission have a workshop meeting to discuss this topic, which will be considered at a continued public hearing on October 8. He mentioned several approaches the Commissi on might take. He s uggested that the 900 square foot figure be held, but also give them an opportunity if they bring in a properly designed plan with one and a half car parking spaces per apartment, the Commi ssion would c onsider reducing the square foot requirement down to perhaps 750 -give them two or three directions they could go. If they don't want to do it any other way, then i t would be one unit per 900 square feet . If they want to provide more off street parking spaces, then the Connnission in turn would grant them the privilege of building additional units . He felt if the 900 square foot or something reasonable to it were accepted, the y should probably permit the nonstandard R-3 l ots"oenefit, and let the 900 square foot requirement be the governing factor i f the Connnission believes 900 is the correct figure: Eliminate the 40.xlOO requirement. Perhaps 900 per one bedroom or 750 for a 2--bedroom unit, and a 3-bedroom unit would be in direct proport ion to it, which would allow more spacious building. The land area requirement would be less i f they put on l arger units. Explaining the reason for the Corronission' s consideri ng amending the ordinance,· Comm. Viaul t said the prime reason is that in the R-4 zone, if it's appr oved, it is wide open to grant anything possible in the R-3 zone, and the R-3 requirements should be tied down to contr ol this . Chairman Hales announced a workshop meeting f or Monday, September 17, at 7:30 p.m., to discuss the R-3 l and area requirement and the proposed parking ordinance. On llotion by Conm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Black, it was unanimously agreed that a letter be addressed t o the City Manager requesting him to keep the Commission informed by lett·er and in person at the Commissiun meetings of all matters r elated to master planning and general city improvement which would~f i nformation to the Planning Commission, such as the pier, parking,•tree planting, parking assessment districts other than the down-town district, etc. It was unanimously agreed, on Chairman Hales' suggestion, that a letter be written to the City Manager asking about the alley between 28th Street and Gould Avenue, between Morningside Drive and Ingleside Drive, explaining that the Commission has recently granted two variances to extend improved property from the present 3' ) Plamting Commission 5 9/11/62 minimum to the rear property line, and it is felt that this land could be better used by the city or by the property owners; the Commission desiring recommendati ons they can discuss. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:10 p.m,. ; Black, Secretary r