HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1967_02_14MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION held at the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, in the Councll Chambers at 7:30 p.rn. on Tuesday, Febraary 14, 1967.
ROLL CALL -Present: Comm. Armer, Reeves, Noble, Boice, Hales, Hamilton, Chairman
Viault; Bud M. Trott, Building & Planning Director
Absent: None
Comm. Reeves was seated after approval of minutes, and after the
first pub I ic hearing was opened (Zone Variance for Busche).
Comm. Hales suggested that the two pub I ic hearings involving property owners who
were present be held first. Accordingly, items 2 and 5 of the agenda were heard
prior to other business.
BUSCHE, KENNETH AND MARY -ZONE VARIANCE
Public hearing of application for Zone Variance by Kenneth and Mary Busche, on
property located at 255 and 257 -28th Street, legally described as lots 17 and
19, Block 114, Shakespeare tract, to separate lot 17, block 114 from lot 19, block
114 Shakespeare tract by removing all encroachments between property 1 ines,
providing required sideyards, except leaving an existing stairway to the second
floor encroaching in the required three foot sideyard on the westerly side of
lot 19, block 114, Shakespeare tract.
Mr. Carl Minton, an attorney, was present to speak for the applicants. Mr. Minton
told the Commission that the plan presented to the Building Department, would give
better use to the property, with the possibility of better tenants. It would also
contribute to the beautification of Hermosa Beach. He explained briefly the history
of the property, and that prior to the Zoning Ordinance being adopted, two units
were built on lot 19, and that shortly thereafter two more units were added as a
second story, creating a total of 4 units plus one garage on lot 19. On lot 17,
there is a more recent structure, a single dwelling plus double garage. All five
units are joined by a roof, and it was the intention of the applicants to remove
the roof and all other encroachments, with the exception of the stairway on lot
19 which encroached into the sideyard. Also speaking in behalf of the application
were Mr. and Mrs. Busche and Carl Minton, Jr.
The Commission questioned the bar sink and bath in the downstairs portion of the
dwelling on lot 17, and the possibility that another unit could be added under these
circumstances. Since problems of this nature occur from time to time throughout
the City, the Commission felt this was something that should be seriously considered.
There were further questions by the Commission regarding the proposed changes
to the structure, and a motion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Armer
to grant the variance. Motion failed to carry by the foll0wing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comm. Reeves
Comm. Armer, Noble, Boice, Hales, Hamilt0n, Chairman Viault
None
Planning Commission Page 2 February 14, 1967
BUSCHE-ZONE VARIANCE cont:
Mr. Carl Minton then spoke again and asked that the Commission reconsider this
application before they adopted a resolution. He felt that new evidence could
be presented, and that the applicants would prefer to bring this to the attention
of the Planning Commission rather than to appeal to the City Council.
Motion was made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Noble, to hold over and continue
the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission,
in order that the applicants can submit additional evidence in beh~lf of their
application. Motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comm. Armer, Reeves, Noble, Boice, Hamilton, Chairman Viault
Comm.Hales
None
AUST, JOHN AND PATRltlA -ZONE VARIANCE
Public hearing to consider application for zone variance by John W. and Patricia
Aust to divide lots 94 and 95 of Tract 733 into two parcels. Parcel being the
south 45 feet of lots 94 and 95, Tract 733. Parcel 2 being the north 45 feet
of lots 94 and 95, Tract 733. Add over 40% to an existing building located on
the squth 45 feet of lots 94 and 95, Tract 733, containing a two car garage, rumpus
rooi and 3/4 bath, having nonconforming sideyards of 3.1 feet and 3.26 feet in
lieu of the required 5 feet. The second story ~ddition to have two bedrooms,
living room, kitchen, and bathroom. Request to maintain the same sideyards on
second story adaition as existing. Property situated at 1207 First Place between
Prospect Avenue and Barney Court,
Mr. Leigh Thomas spoke for the applieants, stating that he was interested in buying
the property, and that he would 1 ike to keep the existing building and build another
dwelling on the other lot, if the lot division was granted. The property would then
have fifty front footage, rather than twenty-five; and he felt the appearsnce of
the dwellings built on them would be better, The parcel of land presently consisted
of two legal building sites 25 feet by 90 feet each, with placement of existing
structure creating one ~~ilding site, Mr. Bud Trott, Building & Planning Director
advised. If this structure was removed, then there would be two legal building
sites, he stated.
The public hearing was closed, and there was further discussion among the Commissioners.
Motion was made by Comm. Boice, seconded by Comm. Armer, to grant the application,
and the motion failed to carry by the folfowing vote:
AYES: Comm. Boice
~OES: Comm. Armer, Reeves, Hales, Hamilton, Chairman Viault
RA5S: Comm. Noble
ABSENT: None
Planni ng Commission Page 3 Feb ruary 14, 1967
AUST -ZONE VARIANCE cont:
Motion was made b y Comm. Hal es , s ec ond ed by Comm. Armer, to adopt P.C, Resoluti on
154-604, denying th e zon e varianc e for the r e asons that the land is p~esently
being us e d as R-1 proper t y with a 4500 s quare foot area , and to div ide the property
in the1,rne thod proposed would creat e two por ti o ns wit h building sites of 2250 square
footage in area, whi c h is subs t andard to our present minimum st an da rd of 4000
sq uar e feet, and a precedent could be established for o th er pie ces of property
in t h is ar e a to do likewi se, where t he front property line and th e back proper t y
line both front on differe nt streets, and woul d be contrary to achievement
of the des i red mi nimum square footag e of 4000 square feet.
Motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
PASS:
ABSENT:
Comm. Armer, Reeves, Hales, Hamilton, Chai rman Viaul t
Comm. Boice
Comm. Noble
No ne
STUDY AND REVIEW -AMENDMENT OF N.S. 154 -BUSINESS OPERATING WITHOUT ATTENDANTS
OPEN AT NIGHT
Mr. Bud Trott spoke brie fl y about t he conclu s ions which t he comm i tt ee c omposed
of Comm . Boice, Arme r and Reev es had arri ved at, and ma t erial was pres e nted
to the Commissi on as to a possible amendment o f N.S. 15 4 as reque st ed by th e
City Counci I, relating to businesses oper ating wit hout at tend a nts, open lat e at night,
and which are conducted partially or entirely In the open.
The Cammi ss ion discussed this matter, a nd t he thought that som e tbn s 1.,der:aHoo,~
be given to recr e atio nal services. Mr. Bud Trott, Building & Planning Direc t or,
read conments made by Mr. Be nnett, Contractor fo r the Ci t y of Hermo sa Be ach .
Mo t ion was made by Comm . Armer and se c onded by Comm . Boic e t o receive and fil e ,
a nd pla c e on t he agend a for the next regu lar meeti ng of the Planning Commiss ion,
for possible action. Motion pass ed by unanimous vote.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING WITH GOODKIN GROUP
Item six on t he ag en da was di s cussed, the mee ting with the Goodkin Group
rela t ive t o a p reci s e pla n for the downtown area. Thi? workshop meeting i s to
be held on Febr uary 20, 1967. A number of questions were a s ked by the Commissi on
co ncerning the contract which the Ci ty has with the Goodkin Group, and how t he
Precise.Plan will be accomplished, as well as what pa r t the Plannin~ C0mmission
will t ake i n such ac complishment. Mr. Bud Tro tt, Building & Planning Director,
ex plained that Mr. Swanson, of t he Goodkin Group, had sugges te d this. work shop
meeting in o rder t o c larify some of the qu e sti ons . In general, the Commissi on
felt that the Precise Plan mus t be fe a sib le and workable, and they wel~omed
the op portunity to di scu ss t h is matt e r wi th th e Goodki n Gr o up. Mr. Tro tt
was requested to secure pertinen t infor mation from th e City, as well as c0pies o f
some in f orma t ive liter a ture summa rizing th e red e velopment of the He r mosa -Beach
downtown busi nes s dis t r ict into a mul t i-lev e l commercial cen t er.
Planning Commission Page 4 February 14, 1967
REVIEW AND STUDY OF ADMINISTRATION OF TIDELANDS TRUST
The subject of the Tidelands Trust, and p roposed legislation by the State
of California in connection with this Trust, had been referr e d to the Planning
Commission by the City Council. The Council reques ted that t he Commission
study and r ev iew th e drilling ordinance (No. N.S. 180) and make suggestions
to the City Council .
Presen t to spea k on the subject, was Mr. Stuard, a petroleum eng in eer of ma ny
years, and a person who was well acquainted wi t h this matter. Mr. Stuard
explained that many ye ars ago the City of Hermo sa Be ach had allowed drilling
within the Clty limits, but that e ventually th e citizens passed an ord inanc e
prohibiting future drillin g . He said that the State of California had given
in trust to the Ci t y of Hermosa Beac h a portion of Tid e lands , with t he und er
st anding tha t as lon g as the City used it in a manner beneficial to the
people of California it belonged to the City of He r mosa, but if it is not
used t o the best interest, it wi 11 rever t back t o the Sta te of Cali f ornia.
The State attempts to coordinate the use of thi s Tideland, so one city
wi 11 not be doing something detrimental to anothe r city. Other cities are
currently beginning to util ize t hei r Tide lands, and among these are Redondo,
Venice, El Segundo, Long Beach and Los Angeles. There is gr eat fin anci al
val ue to this land, an d th e q uestion is what do es Hermosa Beach Intend to
do with its share .
Mr. Stuard said that t he St ate does not want to force any city to us e t heir
Tidelan ds in a manner which would be offensive to that city , or to jeopardize
t he use of tha t land for recreational purposes. However, if the City does
not properly u ti lize the Tru st , th e State wi 11 do it for the City, wi t h a
consequent loss to th e City.
Mr . Stuard explained how off shore islands might be set up for drilling, and
cert ain uplands se t aslkde for this purp os e. The Commission questioned hi m a t
l engt h, and reviewed the draf t s of pro posed bills by the Sta t e of Cal ifo rnia.
Comm . Noble sugges ted t hat a recomm e ndation be made to the Counci l that
preparations be made to develop a proposed master plan for use of the Tidelands.
Motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Reeves, that the City Council
investiga te thoroughly the documents in qu est ion an d the potential thr eat to loss
of our Tid e lands, and that th ey take action based on their studies. Further,
that they consider c~peal of the non-drilling ordinance an d that it be the
recomme ndation of the Pl anning Commission that an othe r election be held
with the hope that the City might us e its Ti del and trust. The motion carried
by unanimous vote.
* *
Comm. Armer mentioned several i tems of importance: Sign ordinance in connecti on
with Southwest Area Planning Committee which might be of interest to the Commission;
Urbanus Associates had been hired by t he Hermosa Beach Imp rovement Committee;
Mee ting on February 15th relati ve to prope t he west s ide of t he City.
Motion t o adjoumwas then made by . No le ded by Comm. Armer.
ADJOURNMENT -10:3 5 pm _;_~~~~~~~~~~~~~=----------