Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1967_05_08MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION held at the City of Hermosa Beach, California, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:30 p,m., on Monday, May 8, 1967. ROLL CALL -Present: Comm. Armer, Reeves, Noble, Boice, Hamilton, Ch~irman Viault; Bud M. Trott, Building & Planning Director Absent: Comm. Hales Comm. Hamilton was seated after Item 2 of the Agenda had been reviewed. Motion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Chairman Viault, to approve the minutes of April 10, 1967 (regular meeting), and the adjourned meeting of April 17, 1967. The motion carried by unanimous vote. REVIEW OF PARKING AREA FOR ST. CROSS CHURCH Review of proposed additional parking area for St. Cross Episcopal Church, on property located at Loma Drive, north of the Educational Building, in an R-3 zone, Church located at 1818 Monterey Boulevard. Present to speak was Rev, Parker, who explained the very acute parking problem being experienced by the church. The Commission questioned Rev. Parker about adjacent property, landscaping of the area in question, and whether the parking area would be in conformity with the Parking Ordinance. The Chairman asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the request. No one was present to do so. After review of the plans for parking, and further discussion, the motion was made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Noble, to grant the request as proposed, and the motion carried by unanimous vote. ZONE VARIANCE -DONALD HAGGERTY Public hearing of application for zone variance by Donald K. Haggerty, on property situated at 2138 Hermosa Avenue, lot 5 and the north 20 ft. of lot 4, block 31, 1st addition to Hermosa Beach tract. Request to erect a ten (10) unit apartment house with basement floor to be seven (7) ft, from the front property line; 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor to be two (2) ft. from the front property line; roofed over decks at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd level to be located on the front property I ine in lieu of the required ten (10) ft. front set back; north side yard -building to be within two (2) ft. of property line in lieu of the required five (5) ft; north garage wall at rear to extend to within one ft, from rear property line in 1 ieu of required three (3) ft. The applicant, Mr. Haggerty, was present and also, his architect, Mr. Earl Mason. Mr. Mason explained to the Commission, that in order to have a high calibre development, the set back changes were necessary. The need to have efficient parking facilities was also a matter of concern. Mr. Mason stated that he had surveyed the properties in the immediate area, and found that the set backs varied considerably from lot to lot, with no great consistency. Planning Commission Page 2 May 8, 1967 HAGGERTY cont: The Commission questioned the applicant about visibility at the corner of the premises, and reviewed the plans which he had presented. Questions were asked of Mr. Mason regarding construction of the building. Speaking against the application, Mr. C. M. Bingham of 1901 Palm Drive, said that he felt the granting of this variance would set a precedent for the future. Mr. Bingham also stated that he owned property in the vicinity of the proposed apartment, and this concerned him as well. Motion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Armer, to grant the variance. Motion carried by the following '-rote: AYES; NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Armer, Noble, Boice, Hamilton, Chairman Viault Comm. Reeves Comm. Hales Comm. Nob I e gave his reason for voting 11 Aye11 , because he did not fee 1 it is necessary for all properties along a major boulevard to be set back exactly the same, as far as good City planning is concerned. Comm. Reeves gave his reason for voting 11 No'1, because he felt we might be setting a precedent for setbacks with the possibility of many similar requests from people who wish to encroach a few feet. Motion was then made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Hamilton, to adopt P.C. Resolution 154-612, granting the zone variance because it is felt by the Planning Commission that granting of this request will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or to the neighbors, and will not establish any unsavory precedents in the area, and also, that in this immediate area it will be no less conforming than other buildings in the vicinity, and it seem$ to be an upgrading of the quality of apartment dwellings in keeping with the kind we are trying to achieve, The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm, Armer, Noble, Boice, Hamilton, Chairman Viault Comm. Reeves Comm. Hales REVIEW OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO N.S. 154 RELATIVE TO DEFINITION OF 11 FAMILYI\ A letter from Thomas Fredericks, Assistant City Attorney, was forwarded to the Planning Commission, and read aloud by the Secretary. Mr. Frederick 1 s letter advised the Commission that the City Council has instructed the administrative staff to pursue the problem which has arisen in our City as a result of fraternities and the so called 11 party houses.11 From a police stand point, it is felt that a proposed amendment to the definition of 11 fami ly 11 in the Zoning Ordinance, would be of benefit. Planning Commission Page 3 May 8, 1967 REVIEW N.S. 154 PROPOSED AMENDMENT cont : Mr. Bud M. Trott, Building & Planning Director, explained the definit i on of 11 family 11 as it now is defined in th e Zoning Ordinance , and how the 11five 11 perso ns indicated, would be res tri cted to 11 t wo11 by the proposed amend me nt. Speaking f rom the audience wi th regard to th e problems whic h occ ur as a result o f bo ist erous or unruly tenants or neighbors, were Mrs. Rai fe of 145 Lyn do n, Perry Arnold of 220 Hermosa Avenu e , Di ck Baggett of 2311 Park Avenue, Mrs. Gobel, and Mr. Rob er ts. I t was fe l t t hat one of the problems was due to the fac t that the compla inan t must identify those who were creat i ng the disturbance, and thi s wa s d ifficul t to do. After further discussion, mot ion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Reeves, that this i te m be be continued to the Adjourned Mee tin g of May 22, 1967, 8:00 p.m. in Council Chambers of City Ha ll, and tha t the presence of the Ch ief of Police, Wil lia m Berl in, and the As s istant City Attorney, Thoma s Frede ricks, be requested in order tha t the matter could be more t horoughly discussed and studied with those actively engaged i n the en for cement prob lems . * * * * I tem five on the agenda, Review of the Sign Ord i nance proposed wa s postponed until la t er in the meeting, and as no o ne wa s pres e nt fro m the Wayup Ga l ler y, item 6 relativ e to this Gallery was als o postponed, and business continued to item 7. REVIEW OF FLORIST SHOP IN R-P ZONE -CHADWICK Review of property sit ua ted between Gould Avenue and 24t h Street, eas t bound ary on Harper, lot s 3 through 7, and lots 25 t hrough 30, Walter Ransom Company's Redondo Home tract. Request for a florist s hop i n t his R-P zone was r e quested by Mr. and Mrs. John Chadwick, and for determination f ro m t he Planning Comm iss ion whether this type of bu siness would be any less desirable th a n those uses normally permitted wit hi n this R-P zone. Blue-prints of the pro posed operation and layout were shown to the Commission, and explana tion of same given by t he architect, Mr. Earl Mason. Mr. Sud Trott showed on the board, tra f f ic flow along th e main streets in th is vicinity, and t old the Commission of the proposed widening of Artesia and how It will affect this proper ty. Mr. Chadwick was pres en t to answer que stions f rom the Comm i ssion, and said th at he would be wil ling to ma ke any ne cessa ry cha ng es in the egress 66r cars le avi ng his premises, as well as changes in the storage area designated o n hi s prints. Planning Commission Page 4 May 8, 1967 CHADWICK cont: Motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Hami I ton, to find this property as desirable, or more so, than those normally permitted within this R-P zone, and that a condition of this desirability be the construction of a six ft. high screen on all sides of the storage area, and that all the Zoning Ordinance requirements be met, as provided in the R-P zone. Motion carried as follows: AYES: PASS: NOES: A~EITT: Comm. Armer, Reeves, Boice, Hamilton Comm. Noble, Chairman Viault (both passed because of business connections) None Comm. Hales FEDERAL SIGN CO., REVIEW OF SIGN FOR ARNOLD 1 S HARDWARE Review of a projecting sign for Federal Sign Company, to erect a sign for Arnold's Hardware at 1220 Hermosa Ave. was requested of the Planning Commission. The sign does not comply with the proposed sign ordinance, and will project five (5) ft. in lieu of the three (3) ft. proposed by the ordinance. Mr. Perry Arnold was present to speak, and explained that the architect has designed the sign to maintain the Spanish theme which the building would present. lf the sign were reduced, the effect would be Jost. Mr. Arnold said that although it would be less expensive for him to erect a roof sign, he felt the proposed sign would be less obtrusive and much more attractive. Comm, Armer read to the Commission the criteria established for southbay cities by the Southwest Area Planning committee, with regard to signs. A motion to approve the sign as proposed, was made by Comm. Reeves, and seconded by Chairman Viault, The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None Comm. Armer, Reeves, Noble, Boice, Hamilton, Chairman Viault Comm. Hales Comm. Armer stated that his reason for voting 11 Nd 1 was based on hls feeling that a precedent might be established for such projection of signs, although he believed the sign proposed was aesthetically pleasing. * * * * The Commission proceeded to Item 10 on the Agenda. ZONING VARIANCE -CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE PROPOSALS -GOBEL Consideration of alternate proposals for Zoning Variance application of Bruce Planning Commission Page 5 May 8, 1967 GOBEL cont: Gobel and Pauline Gobel, originally denied by the Planning Commission Resolution P.C. 154-609, and appealed to the City Council. Property situated at 838, 844 and 846 Bard Street. The City Council had requested the Planning Commission consider alternate proposals. Mr. Gobel was present to speak and drew on the chalk board what he proposed to do, if the Commission felt agreeable to such a plan. He explained that he would tie the three lots together by building stairways between the buildings, and providing the necessary parking requirements in the rear of the property. Motion to grant the alternate proposal was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Reeves, and the motion carried unanimously. Motion to adopt P.C. 154-613, was then made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Reeves, recommending to the City Council that the applicants be granted the Zone Variance, according to the alternate proposal. Specifically, this would allow one unit ~none building having 426 sq. ft. of floor area in lieu of the required 500 sq. ft., and that off street parking be provided according to the Parking Ordinance. It will also be necessary that the properties will be tied together, and a covenant to this effect filed with the County Recorder, to run with the land. An abatement period of no more than one year from the date of granting this variance will be allowed for these provisions to be met, and the present use of these b~~bsxee~nd~plexes may be continued for the duration of this abatement period. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Armer, Reeves, Noble, Boice, Hamilton, Chairman Viault None Comm. Hales Mr. Gobel was then advised that final determination would be made by the City Council. PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE The Secretary read correspondence from the City Clerk regarding the proposed sign ordinance, which was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council, for review by the entire Commission; public hearing to be held before the ordinance is returned to the City Council. Because of suggested changes in the ordinance, and due to the lateness of the hour, motion was made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice to continue this review until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 12, 1967. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Planning Commission Page 6 May 8, 1967 WAYUP GALLERY -REVIEW OF SIGNS Permanent sign plans were to be presented by the applicants for the Wayup Gallery at 111 Pier Avenue. As no one was present to represent this organization, the Planning Commission requested that a letter be directed to the Gallery advising that the banner type signs and poles be removed by June 8th, 1967, STUDY OF ALLEY BETWEBN OCEAN VIEW AVENUE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Mayor deGroot had requested that the Planning Commission study the alley which lies between Ocean View Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, beginning at 5th street and going in a southerly direction, stopping 45 ft. from 4th street, with the possibility of the City obtaining property in order to extend the alley, thus making it more accessible to businesses on Pacific Coast Highway. The Commission reviewed this matter, and studied a drawing of the area and letter from John Stevens, Direc~or of Public Works,which explained in detail traffic needs and drainage problems in the area. Motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Boice, that it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City acquire that p~operty on 1ot 3 to extend the alley onto 4th street, and a further recommendation for upgrading of the all e~ by widening, through easement of eight (8) feet of property on abutting properties on the west side of the existing a 1 l ey. Motion carried by unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT: 10:55 p.m.