HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1968_01_22MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION held at the City
of Hermosa Beach, California, In the Cou ncil Chambers a t 7:30 p.m. on Monday,
January 22, 1968 .
ROLL CALL -Present: Comm. Hamilton, Stab l er, Reeves, Noble, Boice, Arm e r,
Chairman Viault; Bud M. Trott, Bui !ding & Pl anning Director
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED -ZONE VARIANCE -HAGGERTY. PALMER, MCMILLEN
Continued public hearing of application for zone var i ance by Th e lma and Karl
McMillen, Jr . (owners), and D. K. Haggerty and K. E. Palmer (prospective buyers},
to erect a 30 uni t , 3 story apartment house; all one bedroom apar tme nts with
37 gara ges in lieu required 45; land area per dwelling unit 447 sq. ft. in
1 ieu re qui red 600 sq. ft ; land coverage 87% in lieu required 75%; allow stairways
to encroach into ea st and west sideyards 2011 into req u ired five f t. setback; rear
setback first floor to be 1 ft. f rom property line in lieu required 3 ft, on
property situated at 33 15th Street, lots 19, 20, 33, 34, 35, block 16, Hermosa
Beach tract.
Messrs Haggerty and Palmer wer e presen t. Mr. Hag gerty advised the Commission
that he wished to present an alternate pr~posa\ which would conform more to
City reg u lations, and which would provide 41 parking spaces wit h some access off
of 16th Court, and a two ft. se tba c k in the rear . The o riginal reque st was for
37 garages, an d a o ne ft. set back in th e rear. He said that they also were
subm it tin g a third plan which would provide the required 45 s pac es t hrou gh t he
use of tandem pa rkin g, and in accord anc e with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bud Trott, Building & Planning Director, ex plained the three different
pr opo sal s which ha d bee n laid out on the ch alk board for the Commi s sion to examine,
and said that he felt the tandem parking layout, although con fo rming to the
zoning requirem e nts, could crea t e more traffi c problems t han t he o t her t wo
p lans submitted.
The Ch ai rman requested a nyone who wished to do so, co uld s peak in f a vor o f th e
appli cat ion,. The following individuals spoke in fav or o f t he a pp l ication:
Mr. James Parker, loc al busi ne ssman and re si de nt, suggest e d that public parking
space, not utilized a ft er 9 pm at night nor during the winter mo~ths,was not
too dis t ant from the proposed ap ar tmen t and th is mi g h t be given some consideration
by the Commission. Mr . Fred Snedeker and his wife Elizabe t h, who owns a dr ess shop
i n Her mosa Beach, felt t hat people ar e nec es sary for a bu s iness comm unity which
pr e sently is deteriora t ing, and the proposed developme nt•would bring In the calibre
of peo ple neces sary t o upgrade fhe:1downtd~~-b~si~ess district. Mr. Ed Bedros i an
of 33-38 16th Str ee t spoke in fav or o f t he application, al t hough he did no t wish
to s ee co ncessio ns made i n rela tion to the parking. Mr. John In sc ho , 53 15th
Street, also in favor of the application believed that individual resi denc es
con t ribu t e more parking pr oblems becaus e of growing children with car s, and
because often t he gar ages are used to store boats etc., wh e reas ap artme n t dwellers
as a general rule own fewer cars, and do not use garages for storage purposes.
The Chairman then a s ked t hat t hose who wished to speak in oppos i tio~, mi ght do so
at this t lme. Speaking against the app l ica t ion were th e following people:
Planning Commission Page 2 January 22, 1968
CONTINUED HEARING FOR HAGGERTY, PALMER, MCMILLEN
Mr. a nd Mrs. Brubaker of 41 16th S t reet, believ e d that the rules and regulations
o f the Zoning Ordinance were originated for good reasons and should be c ompli e d
wi t h, and th at the granting of t he ap p lication co uld lead to par k ing p roblems.
Mrs. Brubaker wishe d to kn ow whe t her the City and the utility companies co uld
ef f ectiv e ly ha ndle s uch a development. Mr s. Ast one of 40 17th S t reet , said
that al tho ugh s he and her husband ha d also applie d f or and received a va r ianc e
at one time , s he did not feel the parking situation was good in th e gen era l area
of the proposed apar t ment.
Mr . John Stev ens, Director of Public Works, repor ted to the Commis sio n with d ata
pertaining to sewer lines, stre e ts, traffic flows, and lighting, a nd sta te d that
f a c iliti es app e ared t o be adequa t e to handl e the p roposed thi r t y u n its. The
Commission que sti oned h im about t he po s sibl e loads which future dev e lopment s of
this nature might impos e, an d how the c osts incurr e d to enlarge fac i lities
might be handled. Mr Steve n s re p lied t hat as p r esent s ewer l i nes are rep l aced,
larger l i nes ar e be i ng installed. He explained some of th e procedures which
might be ta ken for financing additional facilities. Aft er a .q uestion about acc e ss
off of 16th Court, Mr. Stevens s a id tha t t his s t reet was twen t y foo t wide , and
p referable access would be off 15 t h S t ree t.
Fire Chie f Black spoke and e xplaine d that the construc t i o n o f t he proposed apartment
was t ype 5, l hour constru c tion, which presen t s a minimal fir e hazard in c ontra st
to olde r frame structures in the vicinity. He said that wet s tand p i pes on each
floor of t he buildi n g wo u ld give very good p r otect i on He did not f e el th e
develo pme n t pres ented any problems other than possible cong es tion on 16th Court,
and co mmented that he had r e qu est e d sev e ral additional fi re hydrants t o b e i n-
cluded in his bud get for t hi s year. The se hydrants would be placed on Hermosa
Avenue, pro viding fur t her protection.
Mr. Bud Tr o t t , Buil d i ng and Pl anning Director, said th at he had co n ta c ted the
utili t y com pani e s and t hey did no t feel th e thir ty units would c reate any burde n .
Comments were made at t his time, t hat utility compan i es are continually en la rging
t he i r capa c it ies as po pu lat io n density i ncreases. Mr. Trott also exp la ined data
conc er ning ap ar tment s in th e Southbay which had be en surveyed by the Planning
Staff, and per tin e nt to densi t y facto rs , n umb e r of c ars per un i t, numbe r o f
occupants p e r uni t , re nt a l c os t s, and so f orth.
Mr. Hagg er ty was requested to roughly summariz e costs for bui ]d i ng the apartment ,
a nd he i n f o r med the Camm i ss i on that he had con t acted f i fteen ,'d.i fferent 1 oan
institutions, an d the proposed plan was the most economically feasibl e . I n
si mpl e financial t erms, to reduce t he numb er o f apar t ments would mean t hat the
b u ild i ng could no t be erected. Mr. Haggerty wa s que s ti on ed abou t recr e ational
o r patio s pace available, and he r ep lied th at the apartmen t s would have balcon ie s
which provided an additional 35 to 40 square feet of s pace for ea c h uni t , and
tha t t here would al s o b e some partially open in t e rior spac e which could be
con sidere d patio area.
A motio n was made by Comm. Hamilton, seconded by Comm. Boi c e , to grant the
application f or variance as originally pr e sented. Motion failed to car r y by
the following vote:
Planning Commission Pa ge 3 Jan. 22, 1968
CONT I NUEO:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
Comm. No b l e , Hamil to n, Bo i ce
Comm. Reev es , Arm e r, Stabl e r, Chairman Vi au lt
(Chai rman Viault gave his reason f or voting 11 no11 based on t he
c01TVTie nts which had been made by various individ ua ls with respect
to parking conditions)
None
The re was f urt her disc uss io n by the Commission, and e ach of the thre e pl ans
whi c h the a pp licants had s ubmitted and whi ch pertained mainly to t he garage
fa ci lities , was giv en thorough revi ew. Motion was made by Chairman Viault,
se c onded by Comm. Boice, to gr ant the appli cat ion based on the second proposal
o f the applicants, with garage layo ut providing no t less t han 41 garages with
ac ces s to some of these garages of f of 16th Court, and all o t her provisions
to be basi cal ly the same as originally pre sente d. Motion carried as fo llow s:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSE NT:
Comm. Nob le, Hamilton, Boice, Chairman Viau l t
Comm. Reev es , Arme r, Stab l e r
None
Comm. Reeves gave h is reason for voting 1 1 no11 as based on the remarks previously
made ,with respect to 16th Court.
Mo tion wa s made by Comm. Boice, seconded by Comm. Hami lton, t o adopt resolution
P .C . 154-637 g ranting the appiication for zone variance to erect a thifty unit ,
three story apartment hous e, all on e bedroom apart ments ; with 41 garages i n l ieu
of the required 45; land area per dwe lling unit 44 7 sq . ft. ln lieu of the
required 600 sq. f t.; land co verage 87% in lieu of r eq uired 75%; allow stairw ay s
to encroach int o east and west s ide yards 201 1 into required five ft. setback;
rear se t back f i rst floor to be two feet fro m proper ty line in l ieu of required
three feet, and for the following reasons:
1. Over the p as t number of years a number of the Planning Commissioners have
been advocatin g a reli ef to a deve lop er who in tu rn combines lot s together,
2. The 41 ga rages in lieu of 45 r equ ired, appe ars, according to a s urvey made by
the Planning Staff, to be equal to or greater than the norm for one bedroom
un it s.
3. The land coverage of 87% as sta t ed in lieu of the 75% r e quired, is at th e
ground level wh e re the garages are locat~d, and the land coverage f or th e
actual living area that is a vai l ab le is less t ha n the cove rage requi remen t
of 75%.
4. The stairways do encroach 2011 into the r e quired 5 ft. setback, but the
bui !di ng itself is set bac k 7 ft. i n l ieu of 5 ft.,and th e stair e ncroac hme nt,
as pre se nted on the flo o r plan at the ground l e vel only, is not a major
detrim e nt to the restri ct ion of t his 5 ft. setba ck.
Plann i n g Commissi on Page 4 January 22, 1968
CO NTINUED :
5. The rear s e tback reduce d from 3 ft. to 2 ft. fs somew hat allev ia ted by the
fac t th at the width of the garages have b een e xpanded in that ar ea, makin g
the turni ng r ad i i adequate to meet the cr iter ia of the ex i sti ng parking
requirements f or t urning rad ii now in effect i n Hermosa Beach .
Mo tio n carried by t he foll owing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comm. Nob le, Boice, Hamilton, Cha i rman Viaul t
Comm. Armer, Stabler, Reeves
None
Comm . Armer gave the foll owi ng reasons fo r voti ng 11 no11 ;
1. I t exceeds the s ugge ste d dw e lling unit per acfe recommenda ti on of t he
Ge neral Plan.
2. It is aga i nst my b et ter judg eme nt a nd th e recommendations of the Fi re Ch ie f
and City Engin eer regard ing th e utili zat i on of 16 t h Co u rt f or parking ac ces s.
3. Land coverage is greater than 1 feel desirable or aes theti c ally prope r.
4. Th e parking rati o is below our prese n t c ri ter ia.
S. The p recedent bei ng se t here wi 11 tend to defeat the pu rpose o f good
planning and mor e specifically, ou r General Pl a n.
* * *
At this poi nt in the meeting Comm. Boice excu sed him self after req ue st to do so,
in order that he mi g h t at te nd t o a busi nes s c ommitmeri,t~.
Th e other items on th e agenda, cont i nued r ev i ew of con ti guo us l ots an d st a ndards
for service s t a tions, due t o t he late hour co uld not be gi ven a s much att en tion
as t hey req ui red . Thought was given to a possible second meet ing each mont h
at whi ch time matte rs no t req uiring forma l action, but s t udy an d revi e~ might
be d i sc us sed. Motion was mad e by Chairman Viau lt, se cond e d by Comm. Nobl e, to
hold a work shop session t o dis c uss the abo ve mentioned items, as we ll as
underground utilities an d the Sout hbay pa rkway, on Feb ruary 5, 1968 at 7:3 0 p.rn.
in Counci 1 Chamber s of City Hall. Motion carrie d unan imou s ly.
Comm. Noble advised the Chairman t hat the re was a conflict in his attendanc e at
th e Commissi on me eting s on the second ~ond a y of each mo nth , and the fact tha t
he also 1 ... a s req u ired to at t end ,ij .meeting on the same night for th~ $i;:n,1t h i~y
<Boa rd o-'f Realtors .
/Moltio,n was mad e by Comm. Nobie~ seconde d by Cl'Ja 'i rrnari V~ault , to c;h.e l'l9e th~
es tab1ished 1teetin9 4ate by ijldo_ption of p,E .. Ji eso lut i9n i?4-6?8! from the
sec o nd Honday o f each month to th e first ,11~nd9 y 9f ~9ct) n,qnt !i as the legally
schedul ed mee tin.9 ni ~ht be.ginnin.g in the Mon t h 9f !')9 r ch_, 1_968 .
Planning Commission Page 5 January 22, 1968
CONTINUED:
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Reeves, to adjourn
meeting, and motion carried unanimously.
~ r c&cu:/4/ ADJOURNMENT -10:40 p.m. ~ Armer, Secretary /
the