Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1969_05_05MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AT 8:00 p.m., ON MONDAY, MAY 5, 1969. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 8 :02 P.M. ROLL CALL -Present: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Collis, Armer, Chairman Boice; Robert Crawford, Planning Director Absent Comm. Hamilton Motion was made by Co1TVTJ. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Noble, to waive approval of the minutes from the regular meeti ng of April 21, 1969 until the Commission has more time to study them. Motion carried as follows: AYES: COIMl. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Chairman Boice NOES: None Comm. Armer arrived at 8:05 p.m, L-69-1 & L-69-2 APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SPLITS BY HERBERT ROSENKRANTZ for permission to divide two non-adjacent lots into two lots each (total of 4 lots), with variances from Sections 602, 605, 1220, 1223, 1224 of Zoning Ordinance, as amended , as applied to lots 5 & 7 of block A of tract 1677, known as 815 and 835 Loma Drive, in order to create two addi­ tional lots without street frontage and reduce lot areas of all four new lots to 1395 square feet instead of the 4000 square feet required by Ordinance (existing lot areas 2790 square feet). The Planning Director explained to the Commission that with the adop­ tion of the lot split ordinance (N.S. 300), the City precluded divi­ sion of lots into parcels smaller than 4,000 square feet. The City also then indicated that alleys less than 21 feet wide could no longer be considered streets, whether named or not. The applicant wishes to divide two 30 1 x 93 1 lots in half with two of the resultant lots having frontage only on Sunset, and no access to Loma Drive. He stated the staff and a committee of the Planning Commission had given this matter extensive study and that in his opinion the disadvantages of this proposal outweigh the advantages. Public hearing opened at 8:07 p.m. Herbert Rosenkrantz, 3629 Navaho Place, Palos Verdes Estates, appeared to speak in favor of his proposal. He stated that his reasons behind this type of lot split were: I. It will result in the removal of substandard shacks in the area. 2. It will eliminate undesirable homes in the area, 3. It will bring in high-quality homes with owner­ occupancy. He further stated that the property , as is, could be rented now, but it would not be as attractive as new homes on the lots. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 5, 1969 As no one else appeared to speak in favor of the request, Mr. Peter Paton, 865 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, appeared to speak against the request. He presented the Commission with a petition signed by 12 separate names stating their disapproval of the proposed lot splits. Mr. Paton expressed his own concern for congestion in the area due to adding more people. He also expressed concern for sanitation, health, and fire problems which might occur if more people were intro­ duced into this area. Mr. Paton also explained that no landscaping had been shown on the plot plan. The Planning Director read to the Commission the names on the petition. Mr. Hagerty, 1917 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, a developer, wished to know what hardship was being imposed on Mr. Rosenkrantz 1 s lots which make it necessary to grant a variance. Mr. Rosenkrantz stated he had no comment to the question, Mr. Hagerty read a letter he had written to the Commission stating that this lot split and variance would be: 1. Contrary to policy of the City Council and Planning Commission, 2, If it is desirable to have change in zone in this area, it should occur as a zone change effecting all property and not as a variance/lot split giving the benefit to this applicant only, 3, This proposal is against the basic idea of the Zoning Ordin­ ance. It would be better to change the Zoning Ordinance tha n to grant this variance. Mr. Hagerty went on to say that if there is a hardship on this property, it is the same hardship that exists on all other properties in this area. A zone change would be a much better idea. Comm. Collis arrived at 8:16 p.m. Public hearing closed at 8: 17 p,m. as no one else appeared to speak. Comm, Stabler opened Commission discussion by stating he did not feel that this request would qualify in ~ny way according to the Zoning Regulations, and agreed with Mr. Paton that if anything were to be granted in this area, it would have to be a zone amendment not just a variance/lot split. Motion made by Comm, Stabler to grant the reques t of Herbert Rosen• krantz for two lot splits, Comm. Noble stated that zoning should control density in a certain sense and perhaps at this time something of this type would be pre­ mature. Comm. Armer explained to the Commisslo11 and audience that during the present lot split studies, a committee of the Planning Commission has been striving to create an ordinance which would improve the environ- ment and attract higher-qua! ity homes. They are doing this by putting emphasis on new, single-family homes which would be owner-occupied, Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 5, 1969 This will stop the increase in transient residents. He explained briefly his meeting with Mr. Gehry, who felt that townhouses could be used effectively in Hermosa Beach, Comm, Stabler's motion was seconded by Comm. Reeves. Motion failed as follows: AVES: None NOES: Comm, Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Armer, Chairman Boice PASS: Comm. Col I is Comm. Coll is stated he did not have enough information to vote, as he had just entered the meeting. Comm. Boice stated that he was in accord with lot splits providing the Commission can get development standards to protect the surround­ ing property. Motion was made by Comm. Stabler, seconded by Comm, Reeves, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-714, denying the request of Herbert Rosenkrantz for two lot splits with variances from-Sections 602, 605, 1220, 1223, and 1224 of Zoning Ordinance on lots 5 & 7 of block A of tract 1677, known as 815 and 835 Loma Drive. Motion carried as follows: NOES: A¥ES: PASS: c-69-7 None Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Armer, Chairman Boice Comm. Coll is APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WAYNE TEZAK, AGENT FOR FOUR WINDS RESTAURANT, as required in Section 801 (4) of City Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, as amended, in order to conduct a restaurant and cocktail lounge on ~ots 28 and 29 of block 15, Hermosa Beach tract, knO#n as 1401 Hermosa Avenue. The Planning Director explained that this request has been continued so that plot plans could be submitted by the applicant, and a pol ice report could be obtained from the Pol ice Chief, He then read the Pol ice Chief 1 s report to the Commission. He stated that this report '"as non-committal; but stated that if approval was granted, the Pol ice Chief suggests that adjacent stores be incorporated into the dining area and the door from cock ta i 1 lounge be used for ex i t on I y. The Planning Director stated that the only other correspondence on this request is from the staff. He stated that the closest example of this type of request was a previously granted request by Veronica and Ricardo Real. In the case of their restaurant, the cocktail lounge, which is actually a customer waiting area, not a cocktail lounge avail­ able to all, amounts to only 1/5 of the total dining area. They were required by the Commission to close at midnight, He stated that with a few minor changes, Mr, Tezak could have the same type of request. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 5 , 1969 REQU IRED CONSIDERATIONS : 1. Distance from residences: SO feet. 2, Exi s ting and proposed off-street parking: None 3. Distance of nearest church or school: 400 feet. 4. Hours of operation: 10 :00 a,m. to 2:00 a,m. 5. Combination of uses: Restaurant & cocktail lounge . 6. Number of on-sale 1 iquor establishments in area: a. b. c. d. Restaurants with beer and wine: Restaurants with hard liquor "Bonaf i de Res taurant11 -Bars Bars TOTAL ADD ITIO NAL CONS IDERA TIONS : 4 {including applicant). 1 3 3 1 I I. All other establishments in this area either have off-street parking or are in the Parking District. 2. Only Little Pietro's (beer & wine) and Callahan 1 s (11 8ona­ fide eating plac&' bar) are within 50 feet of r esidential zone. 3. Hours of operation reflect use to be primarily Cocktail lounge at late night (l 1 :00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.). Public hearing opened at 8:37 p.m. and Mr. Tezak appeared before the Commission. He stated he had nothing new to add concerning his re­ quest, but would be happy to answer any questions posed. Speaking against the request was Mrs. Dorothy Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach. She stated she 1 ike the glass front on the Surf and Sirloin Restaurant, but was opposed to the boarded-up ap­ pearance of his new Four Winds Restaurant. Public hearing closed at 8:38 p.m. Comm. Noble asked the applicant if there was a possibility of obtain­ ing the adjacent property. Mr. Tezak stated that he has an option on both adjoining stores, which he intends to exercise as soon as approval is made, Comm. Boice wished to know if the option was his choice, and Mr. Tez ak stated it was. Comm, Armer stated that at the last publ le hearing Mr. Tezak had stated that if his request was not granted he wou ld be forced to relocate . He wished to kna.,.., why Mr. Tezak had changed his mind and continued with his restaurant. Mr. Tezak stated that he had acquired a new chief, which had made it possible to continue his restaurant until an alcoholic beverage 1 i cens e could be obtained. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 5, l 969 Comm. Noble wished to know when Mr. Tezak proposed to close his kit­ chen. He stated he would close his kitchen at 11:00 p.m. He would also close his restaurant at midnight on weekends and make the cock­ tail lounge door exit only. Comm. Stabler wished to know if the Commission would have the final say on hours or would the State, since it would be granting the alcoholic beverage license. The Planning Director stated that the State normally places the same conditions on an ABC 1 icense that the City imposes on the conditional use permit. Comm. Reeves told the Commission that it has been the opinion of the City Attorney that the conditions placed on conditional use permits would not hold water if taken to court. He further stated that he was not in favor of continuing this item any more, There are no protests from residents or the Church. The option to obtain the ad­ jacent stores should not be a condition for granting. The hours of operation should be as the State requests for cocktail lounges and should coincide with cocktail lounges in the City. The Planning Director suggested that the Commission make sure just what it is they are granting. Is the request a bonifide restaurant with cocktail lounge or a cocktail lounge with food as a sideline? He stated that the Commission should be consistant in their decisions. They have already established a pattern in the granting of Ricardo's request. Ricardo's cocktail lounge is 1/5 of the total dining area and they close the establishment at or before midnight. Comm. Armer wanted to knD'r<I the density figures of other establishments in the City. Comm. Boice read to him from the Planning Director's analysis the number of bars, restaurants, etc. in this area of the City. Comm. Armer stated that he believed the Commission was being unduly pressured because the applicant has already started a restaurant. We will not be serving any good by allowing a bar in this location. This restaurant, as proposed, no,,.r consists of 50 percent bar. Comm. Boice stated that the applicant has agreed to close at midnight and to exercise his option in purchasing the adjacent stores. He should not be forced to purchase the needed parking spaces now. He stated the follc,.,.iing steps should be taken: l. First we must get a closing time. 2, Decide whether it is necessary to obtain ad­ jacent stores. 3, Decide ratio of bar area to dining area. 4. Decide if it is necessary for him to immediately obtain parking spaces. In regard to the parking, Comm. Boice stated he did not feel it was of any great importance to obtain parking immediately at this time as many people could walk to the restaurant and there was City parking close at hand. He believes that cocktails are oriented to Mr. Tezak's type of restaurant. Comm. Noble stated that the Commission is going to have to decide just what their policy concerning this type of request is to be. He s uggested establishing a ratio of 11waiting area 11 to dining area. This ratio should not exceed 1/3 11waiting area 11 to 2/3 dining area, Also , most of this type of business do not have parking adjacent to Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 5, I 969 the restaurant. The midnight closing hour should be reviewed at the end of one yeaj, Motion was made by Comm. Noble, s econded by Comm. Coll is, to grant the request for a conditional use permit by Wayne Tezak for the Four Winds Restaurant. Motion passed as follows: AYES: NOES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Coll is, Chairman Boice Comm. Stabler, Armer Comm. Armer stated that his reason for voting no was based on the belief that the use of this property would eventually graduate to cocktail lounge use only in this area, and at this time it would serve no planning purpose to grant the request, Motion to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-715, granting the request of Wayne Tezak, agent for Four Winds Restaurant, for a conditional use permit to conduct a restaurant and cocktail lounge on lots 28 & 29 of block 15, Hermosa Beach tract, known as 1401 Hermosa Avenue, was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Coll is. Resolution to be sub­ ject to the following conditions: l. Increase the size of the establ i-shment by enlarging the dining area with the two adjacent stores the appl leant has option on. 2, Ratio between dining area and 11 cocktail waiting area 11 to be 2/3 to 1/3, respectively. Cocktail area to be no more than 1/3 of gross floor area, 3, Hours of operation limited to 12:00 midnight for dispensing of alcoholic beverages. 4. Make door in cocktail waiting area emergency exit only. S. Conditional use permit granted, subject to review In one year. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: z-69-2 Comm. Reeves, Noble, Coll is, Boice Convn, Stabler, Armer APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE BOUNDARIES OR CLASSIFICATION BY LLOYD & BETTY LEONARD -AGENT RIDOLE & ROSS -pursuant to the pro­ visions of Article 16 of City Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, as amended, in order to change land-use zone classification from R-1, single­ family residential to R-3, multiple-family residential on lots 6 & 7 of block 81 of 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, know n as 1728 to 1826 Ardmore Avenue, The Planning Director explained to the Commission that the request is to change the zoning on a trailer park in order to make it Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 5, J 969 multiple-family residential. He stated that the property to the south has already been rezoned. He stated that this request is in harmony with the General Plan, will speed development of the area, and will be of general benefit to the City. Public hearing opened at 9:25 p.m. William Ross, 700 17th Street, Manhattan Beach, appeared to speak as the representative in escrow of the applicant. He stated that trailer parks are generally considered to be an undesirable use. Uses of this type generally continue until a higher and better use can be made. He stated that the proposed use for this land will be J4o units with 210 garages, 58 percent of the land will be improved, King Morison, architect, 158 No. Detroit Street, Los Angeles, stated there would be 12 studio apartments, 16 one bedroom, 42 one bedroom and den, 54 two bedroom with an additional 16 two bedroom apartments. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the request. Public hear­ ing closed at 9:31 p.m. Comm. Reeves wished to know the proposed rent structure. He was told it would be 22 cents per square foot. This is in keeping with surrounding apartments. Motion was made by Comm. Coll is, seconded by Comm. Reeves, to grant the request of Lloyd & Betty Leonard for a change of zone boundaries and classification. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Collis, Armer, Chairman Boice None Motion was made by Comm, Coll ls, seconded by Comm. Reeves, to adopt Resolution 154-716, recommending to the City Council that this zone be changed from R-1, single-family residential to R-3, multiple­ family residential on lots 6 & 7 of block 81, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, known as 1728 to 1826 Ardmore Avenue. Motion based on the recommendations by the Planning Director that the property is in keeping with the harmony of the Ge neral Plan, it will speed develop­ ment of the area, and that it will be of general benefit to the City. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Collis, Armer, Chairman Boice NOES: None Comm. Coll is stated that in his opinion, the proposed development will be of a nature that is well within the 1 imits of the present Zoning requirements, that the land use coverage is approximately 58 percent, that the proposed structures consisting of 1 and 2 bed­ room apartments are within the recommended standards that are under review by this Commission, and assured that development would be in accordance with General Plan, Comm. Armer stated that the tentative proposal presented with archi­ tectural rendering is aesthetical!y in keeping with General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes Pag e 8 May 5, 1969 v-69-9 APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE BY JUCKES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY from pr o­ visions of Sections 500 (2) and 503 (I) of City Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, as amended, as applied to lots 19, 20 , 21, 22 , & 23 of tract 103I, known as 2435, 2439, 2443, 2447, and 2451 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, in order t o construct two (2) single -family dwellings on an R-2 lot having a 5-foot si de yard on one side and zero (0) s ide ya r d on the other, In stead of the duplex with 3-foot side yards re­ quired by Ordinance. The Planning Director stated that the on l y communication received was in the form of two anonymous cards. Chairman Boice stated that it s hould be the policy of the Commission to disregard any anonymous correspondence. The Planning Director explained the request was to construct t\•JO single-family dwellings on ea ch of five adjoining lots; and to eliminate side ya rd s on one side of each of four of the lots in order to de velop a townhouse atmosphere. He continued that the properties in question ar e vacant, steeply-sloping lots and are zoned R-2. The Zoning Ordinance a 11 ows a 11 s i ngl e t wo-family dwe 11 i ng 11 on R-2 I ots, This restriction was established prior to the adoption of lot split regulat i ons, as an attempt to preven t illegal division of lo ts . Since the adoption of the lot split, and more recen tly, subdivision ordin­ ances , the necess i ty of th i s restr i c tion is substantially reduced . The side yard requirement i s primari l y to provide light and air. The applicant proposes to b utt two adjo ining buildings at the property li ne on one s i de, and increase the s ideyard on the other side to f ive feet, giving 10 feet between build ings. The visual effect would be of a duplex on a 60-foot wide lot, rather than the permitted duplex on a 30-foot wide lot. These variances will, according to the ap­ plicant, make possible the provision of I ight and air between the unit s on each lot. A 17 1 x 30 1 (510 square foot) patio is shown on each I ot. Public hearing opened at 9:50 p.m. Alan Juckes, 32 Pony Lane, Rolling Hills, appea red to speak for his reque s t. He stated that the 11 townhouse11 concep t is what he is proposing. Comm. Armer wished to know how much square footage i n each dwe ll ing . He was told there would be 1600 square feet in the 3 bedroom, family room, 2 bath houses on Ozone and 1200 square feet In th e 2 bedroom, l½ bath houses on Myrtle. George Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, wished to kn01¥ how much space there would be between buildings on Ozone and building on Myrtle, Comm. Boice stated there would be 17 feet. Comm. Noble stated that the requirements for se tba c ks are 3 feet to 5 feet, and the applicant wishes to have a JO foot patio between buildings. The Planning Director st ated that it is worth giving up one or two feet to combine side yards as a patio. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 5, 1969 Mrs. Dorothy Becker, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, wished to know how the units would be sold. Comm. Collis explained to her that the buyer would purchase one unit on Ozone and one unit on Myrtle. Public hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. Comm. Collis stated that he saw this request as very good and accept­ able planning. This is better than having S 1 ittle cracker box duplexes that could be built, By increasing the parking 25 percent, it will keep the cars off the streets. This development will create a pride of ownership that the City is trying to obtain. We are now looking for net usable area. Chairman Boice asked the Building Director if he foresaw any problems with the proposed development. Mr. Trott stated that he foresaw no problems. One building could be removed without removing the other. He stated that the sound proofing was better than it would be with a 3-foot setback if the windows were open. Comm. Coll is asked the applicant if all buildings would have a separate foundation and he was told they would. Only the facades would be connected. Mr. Trott stated that the Building Code requires a I-inch space between buildings in case of earthquakes. Mr. Trott also recormiended a low wall on Ozone instead of a curb and gutter because of the narrow alley. The Planning Director stated that in order for the Commission to grant this type of request they would first have to adopt the following ·Resolution P.C. 154-717~ WHEREAS, it is desirable to encourage variety and flexibility in the development of residential property in the City of Hermosa Beach, the following yard reduction may be allowed where two or more adjoining lots are being developed concurrently: The required side yard on one side may be reduced to zero, pro­ vided the remaining side yard is at least 5 feet in width. Houses may be visually joined to present an appearance of one building across the lot line, abutting zero side yard, but shall in fact, be separate structurally. Plans and elevations shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Motion to adopt the foregoing Resolution P.C. 154-717 was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Coll is. Motion passed as follows: AYES: NOES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Coll is, Armer, Chairman Boice None Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 5, 1969 Motion made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Noble, to grant the request of Alan Juckes for a variance in order to erect 2 single­ family dwellings instead of a duplex on one lot. Motion carried as fol lows: AYES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Coll is, Armer, Chairman Boice. NOES: None Motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Stabler, to adopt Resolution P,C. 154-718, granting the request of Juckes Construction Company for a variance from provisions of Sections 500 (2) and 503 (I) of City Zoning Ordinance N,S. 154, as applied to lots 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23 of tract 1031, known as 2435, 2439, 2447 & 2451 Myrtle Avenue, Resolution to be subject to the following conditions: 1. Resolution P.C. 154-717 is granted. 2 . Construction to be as shown on the corrected plot plan sub­ mitted to the Planning Department. 3. Concrete curb or I ow (6" to 1211 ) wa 11 or fencing be con­ structed on alley between driveways, 4. Enclosed trash areas approved by Public Works be required. S. Patios should be retained as shown for mutual use of two units, and pedestrian access from rear unit to Myrtle should not be obstructed. 6. The patio area shall be at least 14-feet wide at its small­ est dimension. Motion passed as follows: AVES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Coll is, Armer, Chairman Boice NOES: None Justification for this request is as follows: 1. There are five adjoining lots to be developed as a unit. 2, The steep slope makes development of a single duplex per lot difficult without losing normal amenities, 3. The property rights enjoyed by others in this vicinity and zone would have to be that a number of R-2 lots are developed with detached units, although not recently. No one has the right to eliminate side yards. The Planning Commission is empowered, in Section 1205, to establish formula for practical modification of required yards in all residential zones. 4 . The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or property in this zone and vicinity, because the building bulk will be no greater than normally permitted, views from above will not be excessively restricted, off-street ·parking provided wil I be more than required for a dup1 ex. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 5, 1969 5 . The proposed use and density are within the parameters of the General Plan recommendations. v-69-10 APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE BY WESTERN FRANCHISE, INC., AGENT FOR VERNON MAYNARD, from provisions of Section 808-C of City Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, as amended, as applied to lots 102 through 108 and 60 and 61 of tract 5650, known as 818 Real (l000 Pacific Coast Highway) Hermosa Beach, in order to erect a sign having more than the three colors allowed by Ordinance. The Planning Director explained that the request would be to have a multi-color sign (portrait) for a restaurant at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway (Minnie Pearl). The request, as submitted, would be a special privilege. As in the case of the Sea Sprite request, and the City's sign revision, to be consistent, the Planning Commission would have to deny the request, A larger question is involved: The sign ordinance's blanket prohibi­ tion of signs of more than three colors was made in order to prevent 11 psychedal ic11 or flamboyant signs which would be detrimental to the entire business community. A better technique would seem to be to require a conditional use permit or even a review by the Planning Commission of all signs of more than three colors of less than three colors if colors are flourescent. The Commission could have the authority thereby to reject signs which are out of character with the business community in which they are to be located. Comm. Boice stated that he felt the intent of the sign ordinance was to prevent bl inking, flashing, rotating, or psychedal ic signs. Comm. Coll is stated that the Commission should develop some consistent course of action in determining which signs they could approve. Public hearing opened at 10:50 p.m. R.E. Poe, QRS Sign Company, Los Angeles, appeared to speak for the request. He stated that M_innie Pearl is not psychedal ic in any way. He stated that they have installed this sign all over Southern Califor­ nia. To his knowledge, only Beverly Hills had a Commission to review signs. The only problem they had run into so far with their sign had been in its size, He stated that this is a chain restaurant and the sign was its symbol. No one appeared to protest the application. Public hearing closed at 10: 53 p.m. Comm. Stabler stated that he viewed the sign ordinance as an attempt to create some aesthetic value. He objects to such signs as Jack-in­ the-Box. Kentucky Chicken, and Minnie Pearl. Comm. Armer stated that he agreed with Comm, Stabler that this por­ trait portion of the sign is not needed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 5, 1969 Comm, Boice stated that this is a company that uses this identify­ ing sign all over the country. Why should this community be the only one to refuse it its standard symbols? Comm. Noble and the Building Director both agreed that when the sign ordinance was first adopted it was decided that the 3-color require­ ment would not hamper signs which were otherwise acceptable to the Commission. The 3-color restriction is only to stop psychedalic signs. Mr. Trott stated he felt the sign ordinance Ordinance should be amended to state that a a variance is needed in a case such as this allowed to have a sign of 1500 square feet. a 400 square foot sign. should be changed. The normal review instead of one. The applicant is He proposes to have only Comm. Reeves stated that this decision may be used for future requests. He stated that the Commission should take into consideration that Minnie Pearl is an attractive establishment, is nation-wide, does good business, and would be an asset to the community. One percent of the sales tax would go to the City and this is far better than having a vacant lot on this corner, Also he would rather see Minnie Pearl 1 s Restaurant than a used car and truck rental lot. Motion was made by Comm. Coll is, seconded by Comm. Armer, to approve the request for a variance by Western Franchise. Motion carried as fol I ows: AVES: NOES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Coll is, Chairman Boice Comm. Armer Motion was made by Comm. Coll is, seconded by Comm. Reeves, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-719, granting the request of Western Franchise for a variance from provisions of Section 8o8-C of City Zoning Ordin­ ance N.S. 154, as applied to lots 102 through 108 and 60 and 61 of tract 5650, known as 818 Real (1000 Pacific Coast Highway). It was decided by the Commission, after listening to testimony, that the sign was a national symbol for Minnie Pearl 1 s Restaurants and is needed for the identification of the business. Also the sign only totals 400 square feet instead of the allowed 1500 square feet, Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: V-69-I l Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Coll is, Chairman Boice Comm. Armer APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE BY JOHN & JANET HASEMEIER from provisions of Section 602 of the City Zoning Ordinance N,S. 154, as amended, as applied to lot 3, block 31, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach tract, known as 2124 Hermosa Avenue, in order to construct apartment house with second and third stories projecting five (5) feet into the required ten (10) foot front yard, ground floor to comply with the ten (10) foot setback required by Ordinance in this block. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 May 5, 1969 The Planning Director explained to the Commission that this request was to encroach in to required front yard with second and third stories of an apartment building. The applicant proposes to construct a new apartment building on the site. The ground level will be garages. A ten-foot setback will be provided for the garage. An ang ular encroachment is proposed from 2 1 911 to 5 1 into the fro nt yard area with the second and third stories. Th e adjoining building has a setback of 5 feet. The corner apartment has a lesser setback. The front yard requirement on the block north of the property in question is 8 feet ; the block south is O feet; the facing b lock is O feet. The appl i can t proposes automat ic door openers on the garages . The property i s stee ply sloping, requiring consider­ able terracing of the structure. The dens ity of development is one unit per 666 square feet. The apartme nt building adjacent to south ha s 6 units on the same s ize lot (with 5-foot setback). Public hearing opened at 11:14 p.m. John Hasemeier, 1316 Manha ttan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, appeared to speak in favor of his request. He stated that he would be removing the older building and replacing it with 6 new units and 9 garages. Ray Scoval, 2130 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, sta ted that he was in favor of this variance because it would enable the appl i can t 1 s units to conform to the next door units. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the request. Public hearing closed at 11:18 p.m. Comm. Reeves wished to know what the s quare footage o f the units wou ld be . He was told that the 2-bedroom apartments would be 850 square feet to 1000+ square feet. The Building Director stated that the property had been written up for corrections by the Building Department and that he felt the ap­ plicant as we ll as the City would be better off if the old building was torn do..tn and these 6 new units constructed, Motion made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Coll is, to grant the request of John and Janet Hasemeier for a vari an ce, Comm. Noble stated that he did not believe this request would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Motion passed as follows: AYES: NOE S: Comm. Ree ves, Noble, Stabler, Collis, Armer, Chairman Boice None Motion made by Comm. Noble, se conded by Co1m1. Armer, to adopt Resolution P.C. 1S4-720, granting the req uest of John & Janet Hasemeier for a variance from provisions of Section 602 of the City Zoning Ordinance N,S . 154, as ap plied to lot 3, block 31, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach tract, known as 2124 Hermosa Avenue. It was found by t he Commission that the request met the requirements for granting of a variance, that the granting of the request would not be detrimental to surrounding neighborhood, and would be in conformity with other existing st ruc tures on adjacent lots. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 Hay 5, 1969 Motion carried as follows: AVES: NOES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Coll is, Armer, Chairman Boice None REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY TONY REGAN as provided under Building Ordinance N.S. 352. The Building Director explained to the Commission that this request was being brought before them because the proposed building was of an unusual shape and design for this area -it is a modified A-frame building (chalet). Frank Segram, Haida Hide represent the applicant. room, 2 bath. He stated from ground level to top Corp., appeared before the Commission to He stated that this home would be 3 bed- it would consist of 1100 square feet, and of building would be approximately 25 feet, Comm. Boice stated that he could see nothing detrimental about the structure; and Comm. Noble stated that he had seen this type of structure before and, 1 iked it very much, Hr. Segram showed the Commission pictures of the structure and stated it would look identical to the pictures, except it would also have a two-car garage. Motion made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm, Armer, to approve the review of the structure. Motion carried as fpllows: AVES: NOES: PASS: Comm. Noble, Stabler, Collis, Armer, Chairman Boice None Comm, Reeves Comm. Reeves stated that he felt he had not had time for sufficient study of the structure. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE GRANTED TO ROBERT BOICE on June 3, 1968. Comm. Boice, the applicant, stated that he would like to have an ex­ tension on his variance to add onto his house. He stated he must tear down the unit and garage within 5 years, but would like another year to make his addition to the house. Motion made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Noble, to extend the variance to Robert Boice until May 5, 1970. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Collis, Armer None Comm. Boice PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE WIDEN­ ING OF SECOND STREET between Pacific Coast Highway and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right of way from its existing 40-foot width to a 50-foot width; Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 May 5; 1969 and to reduce the required front yard from 10 feet to 5 feet on said widened street (P.C. 154-701). Public hearing opened at 11:30 p.m., and closed again as no one in the audience wished to speak for or against the request. Motion made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm, Noble, to continue this hearing until the meeting of May 19, 1969. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION P.C. 154-713, repealing Section 1305 of City Zoning Ordinance, as amended, regarding abatement periods for non-conforming uses. Public hearing opened at 11:35 p.m., and closed again as no one wished to speak for or against the request. Motion made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Noble to continue this hearing until the May 19th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Noble, to adjourn the regular meeting of May 5, 1969 to Hay 19, 1969. Motion carried unanimously. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 p.m. JOE B. NOBLE, SECRETARY